Is it any wonder...

...that the public dislikes politicians, especially those in Congress?

Here's the best recent example of this:

I'm traveling this week, and the car I have has satelite radio. All the talk shows have segments highlighting the Senate Majority Leader's letter to Clear Channel Radio flaming Rush Limbaugh's use of the words "phony soldier." It doesn't matter that Rush's use is in reference to a debunked video of a person misrepresenting his service (he flunked out of basic training and didn't serve in Iraq as he claimed), it's still good for a Senate sponsored spanking.

What is so infuriating about this is that the politicians (mostly Democratic) are accusing Limbaugh of being less than Patriotic, and not supporting the troops. Excuse me?!?!? Exactly what have these various Democratic politicians been doing but calling the troops far worse names than what Limbaugh has falsely been accused of? Just look at Jack Murtha's comments for starters, and you get the idea.

While Rush can get on your nerves with some of his shameless self-promotion and ego boosts, he does bring out many points that would otherwise escape the media's attention. And this brings the ire of the Liberal politicos in this attempt to smear him and otherwise discredit his show and others like his.

Here's the point: The hypocrisy that the Liberal politicians have demonstrated is absolutely disgusting. It is no wonder that the approval rates for Congress are the lowest that have been in years, lower than the President.

Personally, I would vote each and every one of them out and start with a clean slate, and that includes a clean slate of all the Presidential candidates too. We need people, not politicians, running this country. People with common sense(!), integrity, and a selflessness that is not evident in today's government. People who are driven by a sense of public service, not power. I'm tired of the career politicians taking our tax dollars and lining their pockets or the pockets of their cronies with it. It is time to get the money and power out of politics and put the service back in. But then, I can be an idealistic you-know-what at times...

Yeah, I know, when pigs fly under their own power...

I’m Pro-Choice…

…but not on the issue that you think.

On Tuesday, Rudy Giuliani proposed a unique health care plan that radically differs from the government managed system that the Democrats have touted. The Giuliani Plan, in essence, gives each family up to a $15,000 tax credit to buy health insurance, and anything left over from that credit would be rolled over for year to year medical expenses.

From an MSNBC Article:

Democratic candidates John Edwards and Barack Obama have proposed more detailed steps to deal with the 47 million Americans lacking health insurance. Edwards' plan has an individual mandate requiring all Americans to have coverage. Employers would have to share the cost of insuring workers or pay into a public program.

Edwards estimates that his plan would cost $90 billion to $120 billion per year and would be financed by repealing President Bush's tax cuts on those making more than $200,000 per year.

Obama's plan calls for the creation of a public program similar to the health plan offered to federal employees, and a National Health Insurance Exchange for consumers to shop among private plans. Employers would have to share the cost of insuring workers.

Obama estimates his plan would cost $50 billion to $65 billion per year, paid for by letting Bush's tax cuts expire on those making more than $250,000 per year.

OK, let’s think about this for a second or two. The Democrat’s plan is funded by taxes and managed by the government. So that’s more money out of your pocket (higher taxes), and when have you last heard of anything managed by the government being a success? And if the Democrats plan becomes reality, do you really think that it will hold costs down, i.e., your tax bill?  Government is famous for spending your money.

Let’s also think of this too – at the present time, if a HMO screws up, denies or delays coverage for a medical procedure, and the person dies, their survivors can sue for damages & compensation. Do you think that you can sue the government for the same thing? I highly doubt that anyone would be successful in that endeavor.

So Giuliani’s plan is pretty attractive for more than a few reasons.  Here are a few more:

First of all, it puts the consumer (you) in the driver’s seat for selecting the health plan that best suits you. A government plan would have only a few choices, the private sector has hundreds.

Second, it gets the employer out of the health-care business. Take a look at the automotive sector for instance. Several thousand dollars from each American-built car go into paying for the health insurance for its employees and retirees. The financial burden is huge, and does not help the Ford, GM, and Chrysler products compete against those brands that do not have this burden. Removing those costs would help businesses become more competitive not only domestically, but internationally as well.

Third, it keeps the government out of your personal health-care decisions. Yes, there will be those that make poor decisions (there always are), but we need our citizens to stand up and take personal responsibility for themselves instead of relying upon government to do it for them. A quote from Giuliani from the same article states:

"Government cannot take care of you. You've got to take care of yourself."

Next, this plan has the potential to keep the size of government down. Less government, less taxes (or at least that’s the theory). All one has to do is look at the bloated Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid agencies, and you know what I mean.

Last, this would not be funded by tax increases, but on money that you have already earned in your job. Wouldn’t it be nice to not have a bigger tax bill, and take home more of what you earn?  (Note:  This last is my interpretation of the plan.  It will be interesting to see how this does pan out.)

Whoever wins the next election seriously needs to look at this plan.  At first blush, this is a unique approach to the health care costs facing this country's employed and employers.  I believe it's better than the government becoming more of a "nanny-state" that the Democrats are promoting with their proposal.  I already know that the argument will be made that there will be those that make poor choices, and that will be true.  However, those people should be the exception, not the rule, and should not be the reason for dragging the rest of us down.

Yes, I'm pro-choice - for my health care options.  How about you?

Approval of Congress?

By now, everyone has heard or read that the approval rating for Congress is below that of the President. While it is not surprising to me that this is the case, there are those that do not understand how this Democrat-controlled body has fallen so far from the promises that they touted during the last election cycle.

One of the first things that come to mind (and the biggest) is the immigration reform fubar. I don’t think that anyone was happy with the obvious closed-door backroom deals that were made to even bring this miserable piece of legislation to the floor of the Senate. This displeasure was made known to the Senators by the numerous phone calls and emails made by the concerned citizens of this country. If the Senators thought that they were doing the will of the people, this was certainly the loudest wake-up call that they have received in a long, long time that they were way off the reservation.

Next on my list is that the Democrats ran on the platform of reforming the Republican’s “Culture of Corruption” in which they were to clean Congress of misdeeds, earmarks, and wasteful spending. Never mind that William Jefferson (D-La) was caught with over $90,000 of FBI marked money in his freezer and was later indicted. Ignore the dust-up made by John Murtha over a challenge by Mike Rogers on Murtha’s blatant attempt at earmarking funds for a pet project. And let’s not mention all the deals that were made just to bring the aforementioned Immigration Reform Bill to the Senate floor. These are just a few of the many dealings along this line that this Congress has shown that it’s “business as usual” in the Capitol instead of the reforms that the Democratic leadership promised.

Then there are the incessant investigations into this, that, and the other. The political prosecution of Scooter Libby, investigation into the Attorney General’s office, NSA wiretap investigation, the detention of terrorists in Guantanamo Bay, the calls to investigate and impeach the President are but a few of the antics that this Congress is busying themselves with instead of the more important issues facing this country. I’m now waiting for a Congressional investigation into steroid use in professional wrestling a la baseball. Need I say that the country is sick and tired of investigation upon investigation over nothing and non-issues?

Then there is the Iraq War and the War on Terrorism. This Congress called for the President to change strategies, and he eventually did - and then they still complained even with the new strategy appearing to be working. Congress has called for a withdrawal of troops but lack the intestinal fortitude to withdraw funding for this conflict. And the Congress is trying their best to micro-manage the President and the military, even though it is not within their Constitutional authority to do so. Along with this is a shortsighted view of the big picture – i.e., the security of this country, and it is no wonder I feel more insecure knowing that these bozos are running the show.

Last are the obvious power politics. How many non-binding resolutions on the same subject can be voted on? Who cares that it involves a sleepover along with pizza and beverages? The results are the same – nothing significant gets done, no problems are solved, and more problems are the result. The only thing that these clowns are doing is playing power politics to have the next President be elected from the Democratic Party.

Quite frankly, with the antics of the Democrats in charge and the past actions of the Republicans, I’m not really sure if I want either party in the White House. It is a shame that there is not a credible third party out there that enjoys nationwide support. A change is needed in Washington, and I just don’t see it happening with the current political parties that we have to choose from.

Illegals Cost You Money, and So Do Politicians!!

Gayle has this post over at Dragon Ladies Den which really tells how much our elected Senators were going to hose us for if the Immigration Reform Bill became law.  I stand by my assessment that these jerks need to be replaced by someone with, well, a little more common sense than a rock. 

It still amazes me that most of these Senators have law degrees, which means that they are supposed to have some smarts upstairs.  But how can they be so stupid as to not see the reality of the situation?  But then again...

Quoting from an earlier post:

In case any of you didn't know, a typical politician's primary job is not to serve the people who elected him. His primary job is to get himself (or herself) elected or re-elected. Second job is to reward all those contributors that gave $$ to help him get elected. Third is to get as many perks & benefits as he can while he is in office. Last on the list is the common person like you & I.

While there are some exceptions, they are the minority (or they're up for re-election), but I am just amazed at the arrogance of the politicians.  After all, it's not their money, but yours.  Earmarks, pork, and backroon deals all come together for power to the politician, not to the people that elected them.  Why am I reminded of the Jimmy Stewart movie Mr. Smith Goes to Washington?

Then there is the open microphone incident that exposed HRC (a.k.a Hildebeast) and JE (a.k.a. Breck Boy) plotting to exclude their competition.  If this doesn't demonstrate the elitism that these politicians believe in, then nothing will.

Term limits, financial responsibility of Congress, flat tax or a national sales tax instead of an income tax are all things I would like to see, but then again, I'd like to have a winning Powerball ticket too.

Pardon Me!?!

Let's get one thing straight – Lewis “Scooter” Libby has not been pardoned by President Bush. His sentence has been commuted. He still pays a $250,000 fine, and will not be able to practice law. If he was pardoned, then he wouldn't have to pay the fine and he would be allowed to practice law.

So he didn't pull a Bill Clinton, who seemed to pardon almost everyone around him for similar and worse crimes. So why are the Democratic candidates (especially HRC) making so much of this? In a word – politics.

The problem that the Democratic candidates have is that they are not running against President Bush in the next election. They really don't have anything else to showcase what they stand for. National or universal healthcare is an issue that might fly at first blush, but if anyone with half a brain thinks about it for any length of time, this is one elephant that no one wants in the same room. All the candidates have stated is that they will raise taxes on the wealthy, but they differ on who exactly fits in that category. They also want to repeal the tax cuts that helped boost the economy (and exactly what do they think this will do?) They can try to hang their hats on Iraq, and they might get some traction there, but again, they are not running against Bush. And let's not even talk about the “culture of corruption” - both parties have major problems with this one.

So they are left with trying to make political hay over a commuted sentence. Big deal. But since they decided to bring up the rhetoric a notch or two, why don't we chew on this one for a couple of minutes...

Why don't we start with the Democrats favorite son, the former President Bill Clinton. Looking at his pardon record at the US Department of Justice, there are so many pardons that he issued it is unbelievable. Some of the most notorious are Marc Rich, who was pardoned while he was still evading authorities and after his family made a $1,000,000 “donation” to the DNC. Then there were the FALN pardons timed to help his wife gain the New York Puerto Rican vote in her successful bid for the Senate. Or how about his brother's drug sentence? All in all, Bill Clinton pardoned and commuted the sentences of over 180 people for various crimes.

Compare Bill Clinton to his predecessor, George H. W. Bush, who only pardoned and commuted the sentences of 78 people. The current President, George Bush, currently has a paltry 117 pardons and commutations.

In all fairness, many of the pardons issued by all the Presidents were for run of the mill items. But some really stand out, and others are for the same types of offenses. But the political rhetoric is incredible!!

So now the Democratic Presidential hopefuls are screaming at the top of their lungs, “Unfair! Unfair!” to which could I say “Can it!!” Or maybe we should keep quiet and let these buffoons continue to shoot themselves in the foot. After all, the more noise they make, the more scrutiny they bring upon themselves (especially HRC), and the more attention they will garner on their many faults.

Immigration Reform Defeat Backlash

If anyone thought there wouldn't be any repercussions from last week's defeat of the Immigration Reform Bill in the Senate, they are dead wrong. In fact, the seeds of discontent sown by the citizens of the United States are bearing horrible fruit in the Senate and House.

Because so many people bombarded the Senators with their objections over the proposed Immigration Reform, the Senators are royally honked off. It isn't often that their constituents object to what this glorified elitist country club does – they are often left to “legislate” in peace without much scrutiny by the public at large. Not this time as talk radio informed millions of people what the Senators were trying to do behind closed doors. The result was thousands of phone calls and emails that clogged the switchboards and email servers.

So now our “esteemed” Senators are trying to bring the defunct FCC “Fairness Doctrine” back to life in the form of a law. The Fairness Doctrine requires that communications media either refrain from publishing controversial opinions or to present all sides of an issue. On the surface, this doesn't sound like a bad idea, but it is just as bad if not worse than the Immigration Reform Bill.

First of all, who decides what issue is controversial? Who defines what sides there are? The government? This definitely sounds like the beginnings of censorship, which is prohibited by the First Amendment.

Next, the proposal that has been floating around only targets radio, specifically talk radio (at least that's what I understand). Why not other media such as television and newspapers as well as commercial media websites?

And then there is free choice. You and I have the choice to listen to or read opinions as we wish. Air America died because no one wanted to listen to the Liberal opinions expressed on that station. In many respects, the market (you and I) determined that Conservative Talk Radio was what we wanted to listen to, probably because we were tired of the daily Liberal newspaper and TV mindwashing.

Last, where would this stop? Private blogs such as this one be forced to present all sides? That would mean that the fabled “thought police” would now roam the Internet, seeking out all the malcontents and free-speakers like you and I.

George Will had this quote from Supreme Court Justice William Douglas in his excellent article Fraudulent 'Fairness':

"The Fairness Doctrine has no place in our First Amendment regime. It puts the head of the camel inside the tent and enables administration after administration to toy with TV and radio."

I look at our elected official's actions during the Immigration Reform Bill debacle, and now with this latest assault on the populous at large, I cannot shake the thought of our elected officials being completely out of touch with the people who elected them in the first place and the laws of the United States that they are sworn to uphold. I'm reminded of two things – One, the Jimmy Stewart movie “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington,” and two, of a child being caught with his hand in the cookie jar just before supper. In the first case, Senators trying to weasel back-room deals with each other to get votes for their bills. In the second case, the Senators got caught trying to pull a fast one.

The bottom line to all of this is that the Senate (and probably all politicians) would much rather that we disappear until election time, because that is the only time that they really need us. As for me, I'll try and vote out any politician that voted for or supports the Immigration Reform Bill and the Fairness Doctrine, regardless of their party affiliation (providing that they meet a couple of my personal criteria).

National Health Care

National Health Care. Just the words make me think of HRB's foray into the health care industry when her husband was President. Now with the 2008 elections around the corner, this issue is being raised again as a campaign platform.

It doesn't matter what side of this issue you are on. Everyone has valid points for their side of the argument. My two questions about the matter are: Who is going to pay for it, and who is going to manage it?

The short answer for the first question is: You are. You will pay for it in higher taxes, direct and indirect. Your income tax will increase. The goods you buy will most likely have their increased cost of materials rolled into the price (companies pay taxes on the raw materials used to manufacture their product). And if possible, the sales tax on those goods could increase too.

The answer to the second question, if the politicians have their way, is the government. Again, nations that have a national health care system manage it with a governmental department.

A quick look into nations that have nationalized health care show that they do indeed pay higher taxes. Great Britain, Canada, Germany, Sweden, France, and others have horrendously high percentages of their taxes going to their health care systems, but services and the health of the system itself is failing. An example is that France has 9.8% of its Gross National Product going to its health care system, and the system itself will be 70 Billion Euros in debt by the year 2020 (link here).

Does anyone else find this frightening? Look at the examples of current government-managed programs and you will understand my concern. Wasteful, redundant, mind-numbing bureaucracy will be the norm. Anyone who has dealt with a government agency and an insurance agency know that there is little difference between the two, but I would much rather deal with the insurance agency – I will get things accomplished much quicker.

What is also disconcerting is that the politicians supporting a national health care don't really have a good plan on how it will be funded, much less run efficiently. Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security are all in financial trouble. To add another government controlled bureaucracy is financially suicidal, and raising taxes will not be the solution. These bozos either don’t have a clue or don’t care how this policy will affect the country.

Last, is this really what we need to have? Hospitals, by law, are required to treat anyone without regard to their capability to pay. Yes, there are sad stories of people not being treated in time and dying. But look at the waiting lines for surgery in Canada and Great Britain, and one wonders if this would be an improvement over the current system. For some, yes, for others, it will not.

Quite frankly, if there is to be a nationalized health care system, I would not have it run by a government department. Rather, it should be run by a contracted non-profit private agency with an oversight from the Government Accounting Agency (GAO). Waste would be held to a minimum, and the contracted agency would need to show fiscal responsibility and high standards for patient care in order for the contract to be renewed. But then, that's me...

Cindy Sheehan Resigns

As many of you probably already know, Cindy Sheehan has “resigned” from the protest over the Iraq war. The event as described in a MSNBC article has several snippets that I would like to comment on.

In what she described as a “resignation letter,” Sheehan wrote in her online diary on the “Daily Kos” blog: “Good-bye America ... you are not the country that I love and I finally realized no matter how much I sacrifice, I can’t make you be that country unless you want it.

I’m sorry that America is not the country you want it to be. I’m not exactly happy about all of the things that happen here, but I am not naïve enough to believe that if I parade around the world protesting that everyone is going to follow my lead and do the same.

“I have endured a lot of smear and hatred since Casey was killed and especially since I became the so-called “Face” of the American anti-war movement.”

And that’s exactly what will happen if you go out and protest. There will be repercussions of some nature from the opposition, especially from parents in a similar situation. Whether you will be strong enough to weather the criticism is something that is not for the faint-hearted.

When she had first taken on Bush, Sheehan was a darling of the liberal left. “However, when I started to hold the Democratic Party to the same standards that I held the Republican Party, support for my cause started to erode and the 'left' started labeling me with the same slurs that the right used.”

“…would rather live under Hugo Chavez than George W. Bush.” (Hardball, July 5, 2006, with guest host Norah O'Donnell)

Sheehan said she had sacrificed a 29-year marriage and endured threats to put all her energy into stopping the war. What she found, she wrote, was a movement “that often puts personal egos above peace and human life.”

Congratulations, Cindy, you just found out you was used by the liberals to further their agenda. Once you outlived your usefulness, you were discarded like yesterday’s garbage. Making statements of wanting to live in a Socialist country with an anti-America dictator running it did nothing but make you appear like a wacko and make you a liability. Politics (and politicians) do not respect personal sacrifice, nor do they care about anything but the advancement of their personal agendas.

“Casey died for a country which cares more about who will be the next American Idol than how many people will be killed in the next few months while Democrats and Republicans play politics with human lives.”

I can do nothing but agree with her statement (surprise!!). We are a fickle nation with misplaced priorities and limited attention spans.

Kristinn Taylor, spokesman for FreeRepublic.com, which has held pro-troop rallies and counter-protests of anti-war demonstrations, said dwindling crowds at Sheehan's Crawford protests since her initial vigil may have led to her decision. But he also said he hopes she will now be able to heal.

"Her politics have hurt a lot of people, including the troops and their families, but most of us who support the war on terror understand she is hurt very deeply," Taylor said Tuesday. "Those she got involved with in the anti-war movement realize it was to their benefit to keep her in that stage of anger."

I agree with Miss Taylor. Cindy Sheehan has always struck me as a person with a deep amount of pain over her son’s loss. I think she started asking why her son died, and couldn’t come to terms with it. I do hope that she finds peace, and hopefully, heal the wounds that the loss of her son created.

Just An Old-Fashioned Rant...

Sometimes all you really want to do is just vent about what honks you off at the moment.  So this is mine for the day.

The Senate will vote on the Immigration Bill to see if they will bring it to the Senate floor for debate.  I've heard that this Bill is 1000 pages long, so our esteemed Senators will be voting on this document without having even read it.  So a couple of questions beg to be asked:

How in the world can a document be 1000 pages long?  It boggles the mind, but that is what happens when a bunch of beaurocrats with law degrees get together.  How could anyone read it much less understand it is beyond my meager comprehension.

I've also heard, that despite the rhetoric, this bill adds nothing to the current laws regarding illegal immigration.  The only thing that it adds is an out for the current illegals to get a card to make them "legal" workers, pay a fine, avoid prosecution, and get fast-tracked on the path to citizenship.  As I've stated in a previous post, this is still a recipe for disaster.  The 1986 Amnesty debacle is about to be repeated.  Why do our Senators not see the problem with this "solution?"

I understand that the majority of illegal aliens residing and working in this country are only trying to make things better for themselves and their families.  They have also broken the laws of this country be crossing the border illegally.  What gets me going is that the media trys to portray them as victims instead of lawbreakers.  Why do our elected officials not understand this?

An example of the above are various mayors in cities who have declared "safe zones" within their cities that are designated safe havens for the illegals.  They defend their decisions by stating that they are under no compulsion to enforce Federal immigration laws.  What???  Excuse me, but isn't one of the duties of an elected official to uphold the laws of this country, whether they are Local, State, or Federal?  Where did I miss that in Civics Class?

Our elected officials should be ashamed of themselves.  There are existing laws on the books that deal with the issue of illegal immigration.  But all they have done is handicapped our Border Patrol and INS agencies with increased regulations and decreased funding.  Border Patrol agents have been prosecuted for doing their jobs, and INS is swamped.  The border is wide open for almost anyone to cross at will, and that includes terrorists mixed in with the illegals.

What should be done is close the border first - manpower and budgets need to have priority.  Second is to find and prosecute all employers of illegal immigrants.  Last would be to find and humanly deport those who do not leave voluntarily - let those people who want to leave first leave without any trouble.

Sure, this is a simplified plan.  But simple works much better than a 1000-page doorstop...

Senate Immigration Bill

Listening to the radio last week about the Senate's "agreement" just riled me to no end.  The fact that a committee made this agreement in secret harks back to the age of backroom deals that smacks of illicit activities.  Some of the details that have come out about the compromised (!) bill are somewhat expected.  From msnb.com:

The key breakthrough came when negotiators struck a bargain on a so-called "point system" that prioritizes immigrants' education and skill level over family connections in deciding how to award green cards.

The immigration issue also divides both parties in the House, which isn't expected to act unless the Senate passes a bill first.

The proposed agreement would allow illegal immigrants to come forward and obtain a "Z visa" and — after paying fees and a $5,000 fine — ultimately get on track for permanent residency, which could take between eight and 13 years. Heads of household would have to return to their home countries first.

They could come forward right away to claim a probationary card that would let them live and work legally in the U.S., but could not begin the path to permanent residency or citizenship until border security improvements and the high-tech worker identification program were completed.

A new temporary guest worker program would also have to wait until those so-called "triggers" had been activated.

Those workers would have to return home after work stints of two years, with little opportunity to gain permanent legal status or ever become U.S. citizens. They could renew their guest worker visas twice, but would be required to leave for a year in between each time.

Democrats had pressed instead for guest workers to be permitted to stay and work indefinitely in the U.S.

In perhaps the most hotly debated change, the proposed plan would shift from an immigration system primarily weighted toward family ties toward one with preferences for people with advanced degrees and sophisticated skills. Republicans have long sought such revisions, which they say are needed to end "chain migration" that harms the economy, while some Democrats and liberal groups say it's an unfair system that rips families apart.

Family connections alone would no longer be enough to qualify for a green card — except for spouses and minor children of U.S. citizens.

New limits would apply to U.S. citizens seeking to bring foreign-born parents into the country.

But what is really interesting are the comments that various politicians have made.  Let's view & comment on a few:

"It is not amnesty. This will restore the rule of law." - Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa.

Excuse me, Senator Specter, but we are a nation of laws the last time I checked.  What needs restoring is the enforcement of the current laws, not a compromise that circumvents those same laws.

"I have serious concerns about some aspects of this proposal, including the structure of the temporary worker program and undue limitations on family immigration." - Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.

I too have serious concerns about this proposal, Senator Reid, but not the ones that you have.  I do not like giving felony-level offenders (of which I understand illegal immigration is) a pass with a slap on the wrist, a fine, and permission to do it again. To whit -

"What part of illegal does the Senate not understand? Any plan that rewards illegal behavior is amnesty," said Rep. Brian Bilbray, R-Calif., chairman of the Immigration Reform Caucus.

Representative Bilbray hit the nail on the head.  Unfortunately, there just isn't enough common sense or thought given to the long-term actions that this Bill would inflict upon the country.

Proponents of the Bill point to Ronald Reagan's amnesty program from 1986 as precedent for this updated and improved Bill.  This is one of the few times that I would say that Reagan was wrong.  In excerpts from a New York Times Op-Ed piece published on May 24, 2006, Ed Meese had this to say:

In the mid-80's, many members of Congress — pushed by the Democratic majority in the House and the Select Commission on Immigration and Refugee Policy — advocated amnesty for long-settled illegal immigrants. President Reagan considered it reasonable to adjust the status of what was then a relatively small population, and I supported his decision.

In exchange for allowing aliens to stay, he decided, border security and enforcement of immigration laws would be greatly strengthened — in particular, through sanctions against employers who hired illegal immigrants. If jobs were the attraction for illegal immigrants, then cutting off that option was crucial.

...

The difference is that President Reagan called this what it was: amnesty. Indeed, look up the term "amnesty" in Black's Law Dictionary, and you'll find it says, "the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act provided amnesty for undocumented aliens already in the country."

...

There is a practical problem as well: the 1986 act did not solve our illegal immigration problem. From the start, there was widespread document fraud by applicants. Unsurprisingly, the number of people applying for amnesty far exceeded projections. And there proved to be a failure of political will in enforcing new laws against employers.

After a six-month slowdown that followed passage of the legislation, illegal immigration returned to normal levels and continued unabated. Ultimately, some 2.7 million people were granted amnesty, and many who were not stayed anyway, forming the nucleus of today's unauthorized population.

...

America welcomes more immigrants than any other country. But in keeping open that door of opportunity, we also must uphold the rule of law and enhance a fair immigration process, as Ronald Reagan said, to "humanely regain control of our borders and thereby preserve the value of one of the most sacred possessions of our people: American citizenship."

And here is the crux of the matter!!  Unless the border is secured and the employers hiring illegal immigrants are prosecuted, we will find ourselves in the same mess in another 20 years. 

We have already seen the political will-power of our Congressional Representatives and Senators on the issue of Terrorism.  What sane person thinks that they will have the will-power to follow through on all of the funding and enforcement that comes along with with passing this Bill?  No more than the 1986 law, I guarantee you that.

President Bush said:

“I appreciate the effort of senators who came together to craft this important legislation.  This bill brings us closer to an immigration system that enforces our laws and upholds the great American tradition of welcoming those who share our values and our love of freedom.”

President Bush, I respectfully disagree with you.  If these people respect our country and "share our values," they would not have crossed the border illegally.

The Bill that I would like drafted, passed, and signed is funding to enforce the immigration laws already on the books.  After all, if those cannot be enforced, then how in the world is new legislation going to work any better?

Politicians - Bah!! Humbug!!

After watching the politicians over the past several weeks, I begin to wonder if I need to go to the doctor and have my blood pressure checked.  Let's just run down the list:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid stating for the record that the war in Iraq is lost.  Thanks loads for supporting stabbing the troops in Iraq in the back just because you want to make political power plays.

Speaker of the House Nancy Peloci running off to Syria & donning a headscarf while making like an Ambassador.  Shameful actions from a shameless politician.

Congress passing and the President vetoing a funding bill for the troops.  Never mind that there were approximately $20 Billion in pork attached to the bill.  Now that the point(?) has been made, Congressional leaders now state that they want to play nice and support the troops...

Immigration is becoming a hot topic again.  Several candidates have stated their support for illegal immigrants.  Excuse me, but do they know what the word "illegal" actually means, or have they taken one too many payoffs selling their souls to the highest bidder?

Both the Democrat and Republican candidates for President have had their first debates.  While I did not see them, I've heard lot of comments from both sides of the political spectrum.  The general consensus is that there was no new information revealed, and that the debates were boring.  We need another Ronald Reagan, not anemic know-nothing wanna-be's.

Finally, the assertion that the Democrats were voted into power just to bring the troops home from Iraq.  No, the Democrats were voted into power because the Republicans didn't seem to be effective in winning the war in Iraq.  Considering that the Republicans do not fight back or refute the majority of charges the Democrats make against them or President Bush only emboldens their behavior.

What is the bottom line on all of this?  The enemies of the country sees this BS as weakness.  All they have to do is wait us out, and we'll run away.  The rest of the world also sees weakness, and perceives this country as someone that cannot be trusted to keep promises or support them.  After all, if this country cannot stand up to a terrorist organization that has killed people on our soil and cannot finish the job in Iraq, then what respect will this country be left with?  We might as well as hand the keys to the country off to the terrorists...

I have grave concerns over the future of this country, especially with the current crop of politicians in Congress and the ones running for President.  Both Parties are out of touch with mainstream America, and listen only to the screaming extremists (both left and right).  Power politics result, and nothing gets done except compromising this country's future.

And we only thought that we had to worry about the Goracle's ranting about global warming... 

Politics and (Junk) Science

Mention Global Warming and a rather heated debate usually erupts about whether or not humans are causing it. Of course, various studies would be cited to support or not support this opinion (and yes, I’m calling it an opinion, not a scientific fact). But before you start flaming me to a toasty golden brown, kindly consider the rest of this post.

Many of us have been raised with the notion that scientists, by & large, are benevolent people, working for the betterment of mankind. Mention the word “scientist” and what is the mental image that you get? More often than not, you will conjure up a person in a spotless white lab coat mixing chemicals in a test tube or peering through a microscope. The exception to this rule is usually the wide-eyed “mad scientist” that is portrayed in the late-night horror shows, but even then, these misguided scientists generally have a goal in mind – the betterment of mankind according to their warped vision.

More recent movies and portrayals still show scientists in this light, but with an increased sense of reality. I can recall a couple of movie scenes of where the scientists are concerned with the continuation of their work because of the lack of available funding.

We should all realize that scientific studies take money, sometimes lots of it. This funding comes from both private and public sources, the last being your tax dollars being routed through research grants. Continued funding from either source is dependant on results or the promises of the desired results. Note the last statement – “desired results.” After all, who wants to fund any research if it doesn’t produce what you want?

Here’s where the politics begins to enter into the scientific field. What researcher wants to have his pet project run out of money & get canceled? None, I would wager. And the desperation runs higher if the researcher has spent years working on the project. So the research scientist now resorts to politics to keep the funding flowing. And this will sometimes put the scientist in a rather compromised position – how to present the data to insure continued funding? There’s an old saying that states –

Figures don’t lie, but Liars figure.

And that’s exactly what happens. The data is manipulated in such a way that supports the sponsor’s opinions and views. This is when science becomes junk science, and the scientist is nothing more than a parasitic shill.

We have been conditioned that scientists and researchers are ethical people, concerned only with the Joe Friday version (just the facts, ma’am) of what the research can prove. Unfortunately, where large sums of money are concerned along with a life’s worth of work that just will not be the case. This is where I have a problem with the arguments for humans causing Global Warming.

I stated in an earlier post:

…computer models vary widely as to the cause and effect of global warming, and thus, any conclusions that can be made from such models (and scientists’ opinions) must be considered suspect. I recall that these same scientific communities raised the alarm back in the late ‘60s and early ‘70s that the Earth was cooling, and they were warning of a new Ice Age coming hell-bent around the corner, and they had essentially the same data (minus a couple of decades) as they do now…

If Global Warming were truly caused by human activity, then every scientific community around the world would be in total agreement with the data and raising the alarm. The fact is, they’re not, and they are having pretty ugly arguments over it too.

Global Warming is an unproven theory based on computer modeling. Computer modeling is only as good as the data used in the model and the sophistication of the program to manipulate that data in as realistic manner through algorithms (mathematical formulas). And there isn’t a person or persons alive that can write such a sophisticated program to allow for each and every variation of the Earth’s climate. If that were the case, then why can’t your weatherman tell you what the weather is going to be in exactly one month from now?

Just for grins & giggles, what variations could affect this model? Well, let’s see….

• Solar flare activity
• Volcanic eruptions
• Large meteor impacts with the atmosphere and/or ground (can you say “extinction”? I knew you could…)
• Any other “acts of God” you could imagine

Now the program could take into account the above, but the varying degrees of random activity of each of the above in combinations with each other will introduce wide variations in the results. We could predict anything from no effect to the end of the world as we know it. Having programmed a fair amount in my career and performed simulations with multiple variables in specific applications, I know the above to be true.

So here’s where I have a problem with blindly accepting the results of these models that humans are the cause of or are contributing to Global Warming. On one hand, these computer models cannot possibly take into account every single variable and predict with any certainty the climate of the earth over the next couple of weeks much less in ten years time. On the other hand, we have research scientists who have made a career in predicting the climate trends and have already reversed themselves once in my lifetime. This all adds up to one big steaming pile of manure.

I’m not alone in this assessment. One of the websites that I have listed to the right is the Global Warming Hysteria Blog. Then there’s the sixth-grade class that debated this subject after performing some research and concluded that (hat tip to jimmyb). And finally, there are the numerous news reports of scientists and climatologists disputing the findings of the Global Warming researchers (and getting death threats besides). Don’t believe me? Then do your own research and educate yourself.

So why is such a fuss being raised over a theory? The short answer is politics and power. Environmentalists are a powerful lobby in Washington, and will seize upon anything possible to promote their agenda.

Don’t get me wrong – we need to be environmentally responsible. It is our planet, and we shouldn’t trash it up. But some of the agendas this group promotes would cost extreme amounts of money for very little (if any) return. Global Warming is one of those.

However, between a couple of Hollywood movies dealing with global weather catastrophes and a powerful politician supporting these views, the old adage of “saying something long enough and often enough to become fact” is becoming true. This is nothing more than propaganda at its very best. And just like all the other successful propaganda and marketing schemes used in the past, this one is sucking in people (and entire countries). After all, scare tactics work very, very well.

The upshot is that you and I will be pressured, forced, or otherwise mandated to bow to the Goracle’s version of environmentally friendly. And some of these choices are not, in the long run, environmentally friendly nor energy-efficient. But more on that in a later post…

Sorry, folks, but I think our scientists and researchers need to stay out of the politics and stay in the lab. They should also stick to reporting facts as facts, and not spin it around to suit whatever is the buzzword for the day.

Washington Politics

I don’t know about the rest of you, but the politicians in Washington are really p*****g me off. And I’m talking about both Democrats and Republicans.

With today's House passage of the military spending bill with the caveat of removing the troops from Iraq, the Democrat’s strategy is very, very clear. Their goal is to remove any power base and/or credibility that the President has. By implementing their “slow bleed” strategy, they are undermining the President’s authority to direct military operations to get our troops out of Iraq and leave a functioning government in place. They are also attacking his Attorney General for the firings of eight US Attorneys, calling it a political move (even though President Clinton fired 93 when he took office, which was sheer politics). The Democrats are taking every opportunity, big and small, to snipe, criticize, and undermine the President and the Republican Party.

This wouldn’t be so bad if the Democrats weren’t so hypocritical. Screamer of the House Pelosi stated that under her leadership that ethical behavior will be of the highest priority. Really, Nancy? Then why do you claim to support Unions but vehemently oppose workers unionizing in your vineyards? Or how about censuring William Jefferson (D – Louisiana) for having $90,000 of FBI marked money in his freezer? Or Harry Reid’s shady land deal in Nevada?  Or including 20 million dollars of non-related pork in the aforementioned bill?  Come on, give me a break!!

The Republicans aren’t much better. President Bush has not responded very forcefully to accusations and attacks from the Democrats. This is perceived as weakness by the Democrats and our enemies abroad. And the Republican members of Congress have not rallied to the President’s side like the Democrats did with Clinton’s impeachment. Rather, they have been like a bunch of pathetic sheep trying to run away from the Democratic wolf. That does not speak well of their commitment to their party or to their principles.

Principles – now there’s a question! Do politicians have any? From an earlier post –

In case any of you didn't know, a typical politician's primary job is not to serve the people who elected him. His primary job is to get himself (or herself) elected or re-elected. Second job is to reward all those contributors that gave $$ to help him get elected. Third is to get as many perks & benefits as he can while he is in office.  Last on the list is the common person like you & I.

Lost in the political power plays is the security of this country. Politicians on both sides of the aisle are too busy maneuvering to effectively address the critical issues of this country – terrorism, illegal immigration, health care, & economic trade balance. They have forgotten that they serve the people of this country, and their personal welfare is supposed to take a back seat.

These power plays portray an apparent chaos within our government, and that emboldens the enemies of this country. After all, if the government can’t keep its s*** together, then they are weak and can be safely attacked without too much fear of reprisal.

Then there is the consistency factor, of which the lack of adds to the chaos. Our government does not pick an issue, comes to a consensus, and sticks with it. While this may be good in some respects to re-evaluate strategies to see if they are working, to give up at the first sign of difficulty is a recipe for disaster. Here are a couple of examples that I can think of off the top of my head:

Terrorism – After 9/11, our President, with the blessings of Congress, vowed to go after terrorists where ever they may hide. In other words, this country was declaring war on all terrorists and the countries where they were given shelter. Fast forward several years, various members of Congress are reneging on that promise, instead stating that we should negotiate with terrorists, and give these animals the same rights as a prisoner of war under the Geneva Convention.

Immigration – Securing our borders is paramount to retaining our sovereignty as a nation. Both parties have dragged their feet on this issue for various political reasons. Yes, there’s funding for “the wall,” but that funding could disappear as quick as a fart in the wind. However, Border Patrol authorities are still overwhelmed and under-funded, so there is little additional enforcement. Finally, instead of talking a hard line to Mexico and other Central American countries in his recent tour of Central American countries, President Bush referred to the illegal immigration problem as a “migration” problem, softening the stance and seriousness of this problem. WHAT!?! Migration is the legal immigration from one country to another, not crossing without permission.

Yes folks, I’m upset with our elected officials in Washington with the power politics and maneuvering. And you should be to.

Michigan's Economy

Many of you are aware that Michigan’s economy is sinking and sinking fast. Just a couple of weeks ago, Comerica, a bank that was headquartered in Michigan for over 100 years announced that it was moving to Texas. Pfizer, a pharmaceutical company, pulled up their Ann Arbor research facility earlier this year.  Rumors around Detroit is that Chrysler is the next candidate to go on EBay.  All the while, the Governor seems to be oblivious to the condition of her state and is running all over the world looking for new business. What’s going on?

Jay had a pretty good take on this subject in his post Tax Hikes Are Not "Investment". In it, he said:

I live in Michigan, a state in great economic trouble. Our state government is in a budget shortfall and instead of trimming the fat, our governor wants to raise taxes. But, she maintains, these taxes are really “investments.”

How will raising taxes help our ailing state? It won’t.

First, taxation is never investment. Period. Ever. “But aren’t taxes to build libraries and schools investments?” No. “What about roads… we need to pay to maintain our roads.” No. Taxes are taken from people by force, not consent. 

 Most of us pay taxes because we don’t want to face consequences of disobedience. I obey and pay rather than throw my life away.

Investments, however, are something I make voluntarily. I choose to invest. I can choose to avoid investments. I control, at least to some degree, my investments and how they work for me.

Taxes are not investments.

Michigan, economically, looks like Rocky Balboa in one of those “Rocky” fight scenes where he gets beat up savagely by Apollo Creed, Clubber Lang or Ivan Drago. It isn’t a pretty picture. Raising taxes will only make the pounding worse.

Already businesses are experiencing trouble collecting from their customers. Raising taxes, and adding new taxes to our service industries, puts many financially-struggling companies in a terrible position. Now they will owe the state while still fighting to collect from customers. This is a terrible time to exacerbate cashflow problems.

When states add taxes, they must build their infrastructure to oversee the collection of these taxes. Now, in addition to a government that won’t cut, we see more layers will be required to collect these taxes.

Michigan businesses will need to pass the burden on to the consumer. Consumers are already hurting with taxation.

Tax hikes are not the answer.

Why would any company want to relocate to or stay in Michigan? The main industry, automotive, isn’t healthy either – many GM & Ford workers are accepting buyouts and relocating to other states that have better economies and job opportunities.

I believe that the tax structure is out of line for both businesses and the residents of this state. The small business tax was revoked to promote small business expansion, but the Governor is proposing and pushing for a 2% tax on services, which would inhibit small businesses. Property taxes are pretty high too – there are a number of people that cannot afford the taxes, especially considering that jobs are fading into the sunset for many people.

In addition, state spending of services provided is out of line. The Governor and the legislature are at odds on which state funded services to cut or reduce. Where this is going to end up is anyone’s guess.

The magnitude of Michigan’s financial difficulties was not disclosed until after the election, then everything hit the fan. To not have this information prior to the election did not help the voters make an informed decision about tax-related issues, nor about holding various politicians accountable for their poor decisions. This is one of the reasons that I am unsympathetic to the Governor’s plan to use either raising or creating new taxes to get the State out of this financial mess (see Michigan’s 2% Service Tax).  And the recent polls support this position.

The fact is that State finances are politically controlled. That does not mean that the revenues generated by taxes will be spent wisely, but will be spent on whatever high profile topic that will generate as much positive publicity that will benefit the politicians in power. The bottom line is that the politicians will generally not take the hard line and do what is necessary to cut extraneous spending and help the taxpayer (you & me along with businesses) make a good go of it.

Some of you out there know about a game called SimCity (there are several versions). This is a game that challenges the player to run a city. In it, the player assumes the role of mayor, controlling the tax rate and expenditures for services like roads, water, trash collection, police & fire protection, and so on. I guarantee you that raising taxes will cause businesses to leave right along with people and factories, no matter how big or strong the city. And, as people leave, debts rise, and the city implodes, the mayor (you) would be voted out of office

What I would like to see is that each and every politician play this game with the conditions and policies that they would like to implement. That way, maybe, just maybe, they would understand what their irresponsible fiscal policies would do to Michigan’s economy, and that the taxpayer should vote them out if they don’t do the right thing (providing the voters quit blindly voting the same people in...)

Improvise, Adapt, and Overcome

For those of you who watched Heartbreak Ridge, you would recognize the title of this post.  For those of you who don't, this is the mantra of the Marine Corps Recon Unit as stated by the character Gunnery Sergeant Thomas Highway (played by Clint Eastwood).  And in some respects, it is the unofficial mantra used by all of our military forces.

If any of you remember the earlier days of the current Iraq conflict, it was reported by our media that the Marine and Army forces were welding sheet metal on the Humvees because they were unarmored and offered no protection from small arms fire and shrapnel from roadside mines.  And that's a perfect example of our soldiers improvising with local materials to adapt to a situation, and overcome potential casualties.  Now, thank God, there is better protection for our troops as armor and vests became available.

But if Screamer of the House Pelosi and Moron Murtha have their way, those days could return.  Their "Slow-Bleed" political strategy of slowly withdrawing funding & support of our troops by limiting the President's options in conducting the war would have just that effect.  Who would actually suffer would be our troops, who would do the bleeding, and not necessarily in a slow, controlled fashion.

Those of you that have read my various comments on other blogs as well as on this one know that I'm not particularly thrilled that our troops are in Iraq, but we are there.  Our troops need the support & backing of everyone to accomplish the mission.  But this back-stabbing method of forcing withdrawal through a cowardly political sham thinly veiled as a public service is a disgrace.

If the Democrats are really serious about forcing the President to withdraw the troops, then put a Bill forward cutting the funding for the War through the process and vote on it.  They don't want to do this because they do not want to take responsibility of the aftermath of the withdrawal - complete civil breakdown in Iraq.  Yes, they'll take the credit for bringing the troops home, but not the mass casualties that a civil war in Iraq would bring.  But that's not their way to directly approach their goal.

It's all a political game, a strategy designed to to embarrass the President, and to keep & solidify their power.  It's not about the troops, it's a political opportunity to advance their agenda.  But the price is going to be the blood of our troops and potentially the long-range security of our country.  After all, what enemy is going to respect a country that cannot finish what it started, and commits political & ideological suicide? 

And quite frankly, it is these political-power maneuverings that disgust me.  It is no wonder that I have low opinions of our elected politicians and concerns for the long-term well being of our country.

Alternative Candidates?

Readers of this blog know how highly I regard our elected officials. For those of you who need a refresher, click here.

At this point in time, no one on the political scene really thrills me. So maybe we should have someone else in the highest elected office. So let's try...

Any other ideas?

Non-Binding Resolution?

Earlier today, in a rare Saturday session, the Senate narrowly defeated a non-binding resolution opposing President Bush's troop surge to Iraq.  Does anyone think that this is anything other than political posturing?

This whole episode is most unsettling.  We all want our troops to come home.  What we differ on is the method and timing.  Do we want our troops to come home with heads held high and the mission accomplished, or heads and tails between their legs in defeat?

What I would like to ask our "representatives" is this:  If our troops come home early, then what happens to the Iraqi people?

Consider the words of a famous Democrat:

Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty. - John F. Kennedy

Should the troops leave early, I believe that Iraq will descend into chaos, and opportunistic countries like Iran and Syria would either take over Iraq in whole or in part (most likely as a puppet government).  And what happens to the freedom so recently achieved to the Iraqi people?  Gone like the wind after a sandstorm.

Perhaps one of my personal favorite Presidents had something to say about this:

Above all, we must realize that no arsenal, or no weapon in the arsenals of the world, is so formidable as the will and moral courage of free men and women. It is a weapon our adversaries in today's world do not have. - Ronald Reagan

But where is the moral courage of our politicians? 

A nation which has forgotten the quality of courage which in the past has been brought to public life is not as likely to insist upon or regard that quality in its chosen leaders today - and in fact we have forgotten. - John F. Kennedy

How prophetic!  Indeed, our chosen leaders, by and large, do not have the "quality of courage" to do the right and moral thing - see this war through to the end that needs to be done.  But then again,

Politics I supposed to be the second-oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first. - Ronald Reagan

I don't make it any secret that I have low opinions of our politicians.  Power politics at the expense of what is right, moral, and beneficial to this country's well-being is despicable.  There's more than one post on this particular subject.  And that is exactly what today's vote was.

Of a larger concern is where the Democrats (and some of their Republican sympathizers) along with the Liberal Moonbat media will treat the radical Islamic death-seeking terrorists (including al Qaeda).  Talking will not solve this problem - action will.  The choice of action or inaction will decide the future of this country and its citizens.

I'll leave you with two more quotes:

It is an unfortunate fact that we can secure peace only by preparing for war. - John F. Kennedy

 

You and I have a rendezvous with destiny. We will preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on earth, or we will sentence them to take the first step into a thousand years of darkness. - Ronald Reagan

She's Running!!

And was there any doubt that she wouldn't?

In case you missed the big announcement. Hillary Rodham Clinton (HRC) announced her intentions to seek the Democratic Party's nomination for the 2008 Presidential race. 

At the moment, the pundits are picking HRC to win the nomination.  Obama doesn't have the fundraising potential that the HRC machine does, and not enough experience in government.  HRC has Bill, but all the baggage to go along with it.  So who's it going to be?

To be honest with you, I do think the United States is ready for the first woman or first black president.  Just not either of these two.

I've already mentioned my opposition to HRC in previous posts (here, here, and here) for various reasons.  Her history in politics and her actions as First Lady leave much to be desired (don't break the china - it's going to New York with me...)

Obama rose from law professor to state senator to United States senator in less than a decade. He is the only African-American now serving in the Senate and only the third since Reconstruction.  Is he attractive to voters?  Yes, but two years in the US Senate may not be enough experience for some of the hard-core Democrats who feel that Obama may not be the right person to toe the party line.  But then again, this just might be what the Democrats need to get their act together.

Only time will tell...

Clinton's to Blame for Iraq!!

Amy Proctor has an article posted on her site which is extremely interesting, and highlights the hypocrisy that is the Democratic Party (or at least an extremely short attention-span & memory problems).

Iraq, Iran, al-Qaeda, and the United States

Behind the curve again, but I really wanted to see how the reactions of the media, Congress, and the public would be to President Bush's speech in which he laid out plans for Iraq before I threw in my 2 1/2 cents worth in a long post...

Last week, President Bush announced that there would some 22,000 troops sent to Iraq to stabilize the region and to assist the Iraqis in securing their country. Is this too little, too late? Many people out there think that this could be the case, and that opinion includes all the political spectrum - left, right, conservative, liberal, and everyone in between. One poll stated 60% opposed, and another stated 70%.

In many respects, it depends on how the troops are deployed, and what "Rules of Engagement" (ROE) they would have to follow. Considering that the previous ROE handicapped our troops in protecting themselves and restricted what they could do, the new ROE is a welcome relief. But our troops will still need to watch their backs as the media & arm-chair generals second guess every move that they make & every round they fire while ducking sniper fire & IED explosions.

I've stated in previous posts that I am not thrilled that we are in Iraq, but in some respects, it was inevitable that the United States would be drawn into the Middle East in some sort of prolonged military action. What!?! No, I'm not kidding, but very serious. Lest you forget, the United States is extremely concerned about the stability of the Middle East. Besides the new terrorist concerns, there is still the energy sources of the Middle East that the economy of the United States (and the majority of the world) depend upon. Of course, this is only one person's opinion, but bear with me.

Those of you may remember that in 1979, the Shah of Iran fled the country as Islamic revolutionists established the Islamic Republic of Iran. The Shah ended up in the United States for treatment of cancer, and the newly established Iranian government demanded that the Shah be extradited to Iran for trial and execution. This led to the takeover of the United States Embassy in Tehran as the United States refused to hand over the dying Shah. A rescue operation was mounted By President Carter, but it failed miserably. On January 20, 1981, twenty minutes after the newly elected President Reagan's inaugural address, the hostages were released after having spent 444 days in captivity.

Iran was having other problems besides worrying about what President Reagan would do about the hostages. Iraq's Saddam Hussein, seeing the political turmoil in Iran and sensing weakness, attacked Iran in September 1980. The land war was extremely brutal, with massive casualties being incurred on both sides due to chemical weaponry and human wave attacks. Also, Iran and Iraq both attacked shipping in the Persian Gulf, and the United States conducted military operations in order to protect the shipping of neutral nations as well as that of United States concerns. The war between Iran & Iraq lasted 8 years, and set up the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq 2 years later.

The Iran/Iraq war devastated the economies of both countries. According to Wikipedia, Kuwait heavily financed Iraq in the war with Iran in the amount of a $14 Billion loan. Iraq was not in a position to repay the loan, and Kuwait was not going to forgive the debt. Wikipedia further states:

Iraq's civil and military debt was higher than its state budget. On the other hand, with its vast oil reserves, Kuwait was regarded as one of the world's wealthiest and most economically stable countries. The Iraqi government clearly realized that by occupying Kuwait, it will be able to solve its financial problems. Due to its relatively small size, Kuwait was seen by Baghdad as an easy target.

Thus, Iraq invaded Kuwait as a move calculated to erase its debts, and secure the revenue generated by the Kuwaiti oil fields. Of another concern would be an expanded access to the Persian Gulf through port facilities.

Saudi Arabia was understandably nervous with potentially hostile Iraqi troops on its border. Armed with a United Nations resolution and the Saudi government's blessing, a United States led coalition began deploying to Saudi Arabia to defend Saudi Arabia from invasion and to drive Iraqi forces from Kuwait.

It was during this time that Osama bin Laden, a seasoned leader of Mujahideen from Afghanistan, offered the services of his organization to the Saudi government to repel any invasion by the Iraqi forces. He was turned down as the Saudi government went with the United States led coalition. Wikipedia goes on to say:

Bin Laden considered this a treacherous deed. He believed that the presence of foreign troops in the "land of the two mosques" (Mecca and Medina) profaned sacred soil. After speaking publicly against the Saudi government for harboring American troops he was quickly forced into exile to Sudan and on April 9, 1994 his Saudi citizenship was revoked....Shortly afterwards, the movement that came to be known as al-Qaeda was formed.

So now at the end of the first Gulf War, we have three known enemies in the Middle East: Iraq (for driving them from Kuwait), Iran (for military activities during the Iran/Iraq War), and al-Qaeda (for defiling the Islamic homeland). A dangerous mix, indeed...

During the time leading up to September 11, 2001, Iraq's Saddam Hussein thumbed his nose at the world by violating numerous United Nation resolutions, genocide via chemical weapons, etc... In 1993, the first World Trade Center bombing occurred, which was financed by al-Qaeda. Iran, I believe, was quietly funding terrorist organizations like Hamas to provide distraction from it's own agenda of developing nuclear weapons and this missiles to deliver them. Various terrorist attacks such as those on the USS Cole in 2000, nightclubs frequented by US servicemen, and bombings of US embassies around the world were largely ignored even though there were casualties. That was about to change...

September 11, 2001 changed everything about how the Middle East was viewed, especially when linked to terrorism. No longer could these violent acts be swept under the rug as before - the attacks had come to our neighborhood. The War on Terrorism had begun.

Fast forward to today's events: The United States is in Iraq, having replaced Saddam Hussein's dictatorship with a fledgling democracy. Iran is saber-rattling with the threat of developing nuclear weapons and has it's eye on Iraq. And al-Qaeda is in the background, quietly planning the next attack.

So here's the bottom line:

The United States must succeed in Iraq, i.e., to leave Iraq with a fully functioning government able to defend itself from enemies within and outside of its borders. There are several reasons why the above must be achieved:

1) National and international pride and credibility. There, I've said it. For a superpower to enter into an engagement such as this and not complete the job destroys our credibility with the international community. Being defeated in an effort that we claim to be at the core of our country, i.e., the pursuit of freedom and self-determination, will render the US as a 2nd rate country with a cap pistol.

2) If the US does not succeed, this country will be perceived by our enemies as being weak. That will embolden terrorist groups such as al-Qaeda to redouble their efforts to disrupt the activities of this country (private and governmental) through increasing attacks on US assets in both international and domestic locations.

3) Iran chomping at the bit to take over Iraq (or at least make it a puppet government) is a frightening prospect. If they succeed, this action would further destabilize the Middle East. It's bad enough that Iran has nuclear ambitions and an apocalyptic leader stating that another country/people should be wiped off the face of the earth. But could you image the territory and natural resources that Iran would then control? If you thought gas prices were bad last summer, get ready for some severe pricing increases both here and abroad. And the rest of the Middle Eastern countries would be forced to cater to Iran's will.

4) We've already seen Sunni and Shiite violence under these conditions, but could you imagine if there were absolutely no authority, no law, no government for keeping the peace? Civilian casualty counts would skyrocket as religious fighting would increase by leaps and bounds. The killing fields of Cambodia come to mind...

5) Terrorist groups such as al-Qaeda could find homes in which to establish training camps. This would allow them to plan, plot, and train in relative peace & security to inflict casualties upon the rest of the world.

Yes, it is in all of our interests that the United States succeed in Iraq. This will mean keeping our troops there for some time, and whether or not an extra 20,000 or so will make a difference will depend on how they are deployed and the ROE that they can operate under. The United States cannot fail, not only for our sake, but for the sake of millions of people in the Middle East and the rest of the world. The real question in much of this is:

Will our politicians, our duly elected leaders, grow backbones, have the intestinal fortitude, and suck it up, i.e., put aside political agendas, to do the right thing for the United States and the rest of the world?