I have listened to the left repeat the same old arguments against the War on Terror for too long now. The two that drive me the most crazy are: "There were no weapons of mass destruction, so we have no right to be there," and "Why are we in Iraq? What about Saudi Arabia? That's where most of the 9/11 terrorists came from, why don't we bomb them?"
Instead of replying with the obvious answers, I want to try a new perspective, and explain why those arguments are irrelevant with an analogy....Car Stops.
Let's say that there are three cars that I want to stop because I think that there may be drugs in the car. Car 1, I actually saw the drugs as they went into the car. Car 2, I did not see the drugs go in, but I know that the registered owner has a suspended driver's license, and I have no reason to believe that the driver is not the registered owner. And Car 3 I just have a hunch about, but no reason to stop the vehicle yet.
Now, with Car 1, since I saw the drugs go in, I can stop it, get the drugs, arrest the driver, etc. With Car 3, I have to wait for an infraction before I can stop the car. Hopefully, after the stop I will have some reason to confirm my hunch about the drugs, and proceed that way. It is harder to do, and takes more police work, but it can be done, and is done quite a bit.
Now let's consider Car 2. Since I know the registered owner has a suspended license, and since ther is no reason for me to believe that the registered owner is not the driver, (for example, the driver is male and the owner is female) I can stop the car to check to see who is driving. Going further, let's say that the driver is not the owner, and has a valid license, but during the course of the stop I form the opinion that the driver is drunk. Let's go one step further and say that, since my original hunch was about drugs in the vehicle, I am able to obtain a legal consent search from the driver, but I find no drugs. None of this invalidates the original reason for stopping the car, and the driver will still be arrested for Driving While Intoxicated.
Let's tie the analogy to the War on Terror. Afganistan is Car 1. Everyone agrees that we were most justified in going to Afganistan after 9/11, since the Taliban was harboring Osama Bin Laden. Saudi Arabia is Car 3. We may have our own beliefs based on hunches about the Saudi government and their support for terror organizations, but we still cannot justify taking action.
Iraq is Car 2. For the sake of this argument, I will concede that there are no WMD's. ( I happen to believe that there were, and that they were sent somewhere else just prior to the invasion.) I will also concede that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. (Again, there are links, but I am not making that argument.) We were still justified in going in because of the cease fire agreement from the Gulf War. Saddam Hussain was not abiding by that agreement. We were very justified in going in. Even though what we found after invading was different from what we expected, we still have every right to be there. The original justification for the invasion was not made invalid.
Wednesday, November 30, 2005
Saturday, November 26, 2005
A Disturbing Trend
I heard a story on the news today that bothered me. I have not heard all of the details yet, so perhaps I am a little premature in my comments. However, what I heard is believable, and the comments that I have so far are applicable elsewhere.
I was listening to the Rusty Humphries Show tonight. At one of the news breaks, there was a story about Federal legislation currently in the works regarding the regulation of over-the-counter medication and placing more restrictions on the sale of it. Now, the story did not give much detail, but did mention Methamphedamines. This led me to believe that the medication in question is Sudafed, and all of the genertic brands with the same ingrediant. If you did not know, Sudafed is used, along with other wonderful things that are great for your body such as lye and gasoline, to manufacture "Meth".
Now for my gut reaction......
How in the world will restricting the sale of Sudafed to law abiding people stop the manufacture of meth? People who make meth don't give a rat's behind about laws and will get the ingredients somewhere.
Does this argument sound familiar? It should. It is the same argument that I have against blanket gun control laws. Folks, it's not the decent people that we need to worry about, therefore we should not be putting restrictions on them. Let's spend more time and energy going after the crime, not trying broad based restrictions on otherwise legal activity, whether it be gun ownership or the need for cold relief.
I was listening to the Rusty Humphries Show tonight. At one of the news breaks, there was a story about Federal legislation currently in the works regarding the regulation of over-the-counter medication and placing more restrictions on the sale of it. Now, the story did not give much detail, but did mention Methamphedamines. This led me to believe that the medication in question is Sudafed, and all of the genertic brands with the same ingrediant. If you did not know, Sudafed is used, along with other wonderful things that are great for your body such as lye and gasoline, to manufacture "Meth".
Now for my gut reaction......
How in the world will restricting the sale of Sudafed to law abiding people stop the manufacture of meth? People who make meth don't give a rat's behind about laws and will get the ingredients somewhere.
Does this argument sound familiar? It should. It is the same argument that I have against blanket gun control laws. Folks, it's not the decent people that we need to worry about, therefore we should not be putting restrictions on them. Let's spend more time and energy going after the crime, not trying broad based restrictions on otherwise legal activity, whether it be gun ownership or the need for cold relief.
Tuesday, November 15, 2005
The Second Amendment Strikes Again
If you have not heard the story of Susan Buxton, go here to listen to the 911 tape. Susan Buxton is a grandmother in Texas who successfully defended herself with a handgun. She is the official "Pistol Packin' Grandma" of the Sean Hannity Show. Here is the gist of her story:
1. Susan Buxton got up at 1 a.m. to let her dog out. She noticed a broken window, and some other thing amiss in her house.
2. Susan, who has a concealed carry permit for her 38 revolver, and is train to use it, started to search her house along with her grand daughter.
3. During the search, a bad guy running from the cops jumped out of her closet. Susan pointed her gun at the bad guy, and ordered him to the ground while the grand daughter called 911.
4. The bad guy made the mistake of trying to grab Susan's gun. She shot him in the leg (which happens to be where she aimed for).
5. The bad guy exited the house to the front lawn, where Susan tried to keep him from running while the cops were on their way.
6. When the bad guy started to run, Susan shot the ground next to him, knowing she did not have the right to actually shoot him again. It didn't work, and the coward was found two doors down cowering on a balcony.
Folks, the cheapest and most effective way to reduce crime is the increase of responsible gun ownership by law abiding citizens. Susan Buxton had her gun for 12 years, and never had to use it. She could have become complacent after a few years and not stayed proficient in the use of her weapon, but instead she practiced regularly. It paid off, and she lived to tell about it. Kudos to her.
1. Susan Buxton got up at 1 a.m. to let her dog out. She noticed a broken window, and some other thing amiss in her house.
2. Susan, who has a concealed carry permit for her 38 revolver, and is train to use it, started to search her house along with her grand daughter.
3. During the search, a bad guy running from the cops jumped out of her closet. Susan pointed her gun at the bad guy, and ordered him to the ground while the grand daughter called 911.
4. The bad guy made the mistake of trying to grab Susan's gun. She shot him in the leg (which happens to be where she aimed for).
5. The bad guy exited the house to the front lawn, where Susan tried to keep him from running while the cops were on their way.
6. When the bad guy started to run, Susan shot the ground next to him, knowing she did not have the right to actually shoot him again. It didn't work, and the coward was found two doors down cowering on a balcony.
Folks, the cheapest and most effective way to reduce crime is the increase of responsible gun ownership by law abiding citizens. Susan Buxton had her gun for 12 years, and never had to use it. She could have become complacent after a few years and not stayed proficient in the use of her weapon, but instead she practiced regularly. It paid off, and she lived to tell about it. Kudos to her.
Sunday, September 04, 2005
Katrina
I have been waiting to comment on the disaster that has struck the Gulf Coast, and in particular, New Orleans. There is a lot to be said, and it seems that everyone has an opinion. It seems to me, though, that there are two separate disasters that can be looked at.
The first is the damage that occurred from Katrina itself. If you look at the areas that were hit by the storm, while it is devestating and tragic, the reaction has been pretty much the same as the rest of the hurricanes that have struck in recent history: The storm goes away, and the people come back and rebuild. Yes, it is going to take quite awhile to rebuild, and in fact some areas are still rebuilding from last year.
The second is occurring only in New Orleans. The storm went away, and everyone was thanking their lucky stars that "we dodged the bullet." The news reporters that day were standing in the streets talking about how dry it was. That was Monday night. By Tuesday morning, however, it was clear that there was a problem: The levy broke, and most of the city flooded.
Now, my heart goes out to the people in New Orleans who are now in a situation of not even having a city to rebuild their home in. These people are stuck in a place that is goverened by people who, in my opinion, are inept. I have heard both the Police Chief and the Mayor of the City of New Orleans on the T.V. Folks, I am a cop. I don't like to bad mouth other cops when I am not fully informed. I know that in almost all situations, we don't know the full picture and the full story. But what I do know about is leadership. And I have yet to see any coming from the City of New Orleans. All that I have seen are the so called "leaders" on the T.V. complaining that the help is not coming fast enough. I have also heard some on the left say that FEMA didn't react fast enough. And why? Because the people in New Orleans are Black, they say.
Let me just say this. President Bush declared the area a disaster area before the storm even hit, starting the ball rolling for FEMA and the federal money while those inNew Orleans were still hoping for the storm to maybe turn. It seems to me that the Mayor and the Governor down there were the ones without a plan.
Think about it. The city is built below sea level. Are you telling me that their evacuation plan in case of immenent flooding was to fill the Superdome? Meanwhile, all of the city buses are now useless, sitting in a parking lot surrounded by water. Are you telling me that the state has no stockpile of food and water in case of a disaster? Four years after 9/11?
Now, maybe FEMA should have realized quicker that there was a distinct lack of leadership in that city sooner. But those rescue helicopters on day one, the ones that were being shot at, were owned by the federal government, not the state of Louisiana. In my opinion, if blame is going to be tossed around, it ought to land squarly on the shoulders of the state and local leadership, not FEMA.
Read Jack Army
The first is the damage that occurred from Katrina itself. If you look at the areas that were hit by the storm, while it is devestating and tragic, the reaction has been pretty much the same as the rest of the hurricanes that have struck in recent history: The storm goes away, and the people come back and rebuild. Yes, it is going to take quite awhile to rebuild, and in fact some areas are still rebuilding from last year.
The second is occurring only in New Orleans. The storm went away, and everyone was thanking their lucky stars that "we dodged the bullet." The news reporters that day were standing in the streets talking about how dry it was. That was Monday night. By Tuesday morning, however, it was clear that there was a problem: The levy broke, and most of the city flooded.
Now, my heart goes out to the people in New Orleans who are now in a situation of not even having a city to rebuild their home in. These people are stuck in a place that is goverened by people who, in my opinion, are inept. I have heard both the Police Chief and the Mayor of the City of New Orleans on the T.V. Folks, I am a cop. I don't like to bad mouth other cops when I am not fully informed. I know that in almost all situations, we don't know the full picture and the full story. But what I do know about is leadership. And I have yet to see any coming from the City of New Orleans. All that I have seen are the so called "leaders" on the T.V. complaining that the help is not coming fast enough. I have also heard some on the left say that FEMA didn't react fast enough. And why? Because the people in New Orleans are Black, they say.
Let me just say this. President Bush declared the area a disaster area before the storm even hit, starting the ball rolling for FEMA and the federal money while those inNew Orleans were still hoping for the storm to maybe turn. It seems to me that the Mayor and the Governor down there were the ones without a plan.
Think about it. The city is built below sea level. Are you telling me that their evacuation plan in case of immenent flooding was to fill the Superdome? Meanwhile, all of the city buses are now useless, sitting in a parking lot surrounded by water. Are you telling me that the state has no stockpile of food and water in case of a disaster? Four years after 9/11?
Now, maybe FEMA should have realized quicker that there was a distinct lack of leadership in that city sooner. But those rescue helicopters on day one, the ones that were being shot at, were owned by the federal government, not the state of Louisiana. In my opinion, if blame is going to be tossed around, it ought to land squarly on the shoulders of the state and local leadership, not FEMA.
Read Jack Army
Monday, August 29, 2005
Inspiration
I was listening to one of my favorite radio shows, Laura Ingraham, today while driving around in my cruiser looking for bad guys, when I was struck by a guest that Laura had on her show. It was Major Tammy Duckworth of the Illinois National Guard. If you have not heard her story, read it. It's long, but very inspirational.
In a nutshell, Major Duckworth was piloting an Army Blackhawk in Iraq last year when the helicopter was struck by a rockey propelled grenade, which detonated between her legs. She lost her right leg, and most of her left, half of the blood in her body as well as a host of other injuries.
What struck me while listening to her was this:
1. Her main goal is to get back in the pilot seat. "There is no way I am done flying," is what I heard her say during her interview.
2. When asked about Cindy Sheehan, her reply was that Ms. Sheehan has every right to express her point of view, and the Major would no criticize her in any way.
3. Major Duckworth is in the National Guard, folks, not the regular Army. At the time of her commission, she chose 5 preferences for assignments, and first on the list was the only field where she would go to a combat unit, Aviation.
Ladies and Gentelmen, if the story of Major Duckworth does not inspire you, nothing will. What upsets me is that I have heard about Cindy Sheehan on the news every night for weeks now, and this is the first that I have heard about Major Duckworth, who was shot down almost a year ago.
Once Again, God bless the troops, and God Bless the United States of America.
In a nutshell, Major Duckworth was piloting an Army Blackhawk in Iraq last year when the helicopter was struck by a rockey propelled grenade, which detonated between her legs. She lost her right leg, and most of her left, half of the blood in her body as well as a host of other injuries.
What struck me while listening to her was this:
1. Her main goal is to get back in the pilot seat. "There is no way I am done flying," is what I heard her say during her interview.
2. When asked about Cindy Sheehan, her reply was that Ms. Sheehan has every right to express her point of view, and the Major would no criticize her in any way.
3. Major Duckworth is in the National Guard, folks, not the regular Army. At the time of her commission, she chose 5 preferences for assignments, and first on the list was the only field where she would go to a combat unit, Aviation.
Ladies and Gentelmen, if the story of Major Duckworth does not inspire you, nothing will. What upsets me is that I have heard about Cindy Sheehan on the news every night for weeks now, and this is the first that I have heard about Major Duckworth, who was shot down almost a year ago.
Once Again, God bless the troops, and God Bless the United States of America.
Sunday, August 28, 2005
Support Our Troops
I have had this post building inside of me for a long, long time, since before the existence of this Blog. It is basically summed up by one statement: Anything but one hundred percent support for the troops and their mission makes their job harder to accomplish.
I am sick and tired of the lily-livered comment “I support the troops, but not the war.” Folks, the troops are at war for our freedom. They are making huge sacrifices so that our way of life is not wiped from the face of the earth.
Make no bones about it. Extreme Islam has had the United States in its sights for a very long time. Remember the Iran Hostages? September 11, 2001, was the culmination of a very long effort to strike at us here. Thankfully, we have a President that, as Commander in Chief of our Armed Forces, who recognized the significance of that attack. He also knows that the best defense includes a strong offence.
President Bush made it clear a long time ago that this war was different. He told us that it would be fought on many fronts, and this was not a war on specific countries. Right now, we are embroiled in Afghanistan and Iraq. Some will try to make you believe that we are losing. I don’t think so. I just know that this war will take much longer than most people have patience for, and that there will be setbacks along the way.
I have noticed that people generally tend to accept the mission in Afghanistan. We are still there fighting terrorists, even though the country has a new government that is working well. Yet, when it comes to Iraq, people have a problem. Yet when you think about it, the mission is the same, basically. We are there fighting terrorists while the new government is forming a new constitution. The only difference is the number of terrorists there, and the fact that the enemy was better prepared before we arrived.
I want to take this opportunity to make one point very clear. Saddam Hussein was a terrorist. He just happened to also be the “leader” of a nation as well, and had all of the resources of the country at his disposal. He needed to go. In my first rant on terrorism, I provided links to some interesting information about Saddam’s links to terrorism. If you haven’t seen them, you should check it out.
So when a group of people go to Crawford, Texas, to protest the war in Iraq, they need to be reminded just who it is that makes it possible for them to be there. The next time you see a soldier in uniform out in public, make sure to shake his or her hand and thank them for what they do. God Bless the United States and its Armed Forces.
Best place I've found for info on the troops: Jack Army
I am sick and tired of the lily-livered comment “I support the troops, but not the war.” Folks, the troops are at war for our freedom. They are making huge sacrifices so that our way of life is not wiped from the face of the earth.
Make no bones about it. Extreme Islam has had the United States in its sights for a very long time. Remember the Iran Hostages? September 11, 2001, was the culmination of a very long effort to strike at us here. Thankfully, we have a President that, as Commander in Chief of our Armed Forces, who recognized the significance of that attack. He also knows that the best defense includes a strong offence.
President Bush made it clear a long time ago that this war was different. He told us that it would be fought on many fronts, and this was not a war on specific countries. Right now, we are embroiled in Afghanistan and Iraq. Some will try to make you believe that we are losing. I don’t think so. I just know that this war will take much longer than most people have patience for, and that there will be setbacks along the way.
I have noticed that people generally tend to accept the mission in Afghanistan. We are still there fighting terrorists, even though the country has a new government that is working well. Yet, when it comes to Iraq, people have a problem. Yet when you think about it, the mission is the same, basically. We are there fighting terrorists while the new government is forming a new constitution. The only difference is the number of terrorists there, and the fact that the enemy was better prepared before we arrived.
I want to take this opportunity to make one point very clear. Saddam Hussein was a terrorist. He just happened to also be the “leader” of a nation as well, and had all of the resources of the country at his disposal. He needed to go. In my first rant on terrorism, I provided links to some interesting information about Saddam’s links to terrorism. If you haven’t seen them, you should check it out.
So when a group of people go to Crawford, Texas, to protest the war in Iraq, they need to be reminded just who it is that makes it possible for them to be there. The next time you see a soldier in uniform out in public, make sure to shake his or her hand and thank them for what they do. God Bless the United States and its Armed Forces.
Best place I've found for info on the troops: Jack Army
A sad state of affairs in the Education System
I am using the Microsoft Word Blog tool that I downloaded recently for this post to see how it works.
I don’t have much to say; though I had something happen today that I think will be fodder for future posts. I was at an amusement park with the family today. My wife went to one of the snack shops there, and made a purchase of $4.05. Not wanting to get a handful of change back, she handed the cashier $5.25. Now, having been hired as a cashier, one would think that the person behind the counter would know how to at least do math, if not properly count back change. No. He didn’t. After he called over a co-worker, who was just as confused as he was, my wife then told him that the change was $1.20. That was enough to satisfy the cashier, and my wife was on her way.
Folks, these were two high-school aged people working behind the counter. How can they not know the math involved with that simple transaction? Home schooling seems a lot better every day.
I don’t have much to say; though I had something happen today that I think will be fodder for future posts. I was at an amusement park with the family today. My wife went to one of the snack shops there, and made a purchase of $4.05. Not wanting to get a handful of change back, she handed the cashier $5.25. Now, having been hired as a cashier, one would think that the person behind the counter would know how to at least do math, if not properly count back change. No. He didn’t. After he called over a co-worker, who was just as confused as he was, my wife then told him that the change was $1.20. That was enough to satisfy the cashier, and my wife was on her way.
Folks, these were two high-school aged people working behind the counter. How can they not know the math involved with that simple transaction? Home schooling seems a lot better every day.
Monday, August 22, 2005
Property Rights
Not a lot of time today for a long post, so there will be more details to follow. I just want to ask everyone to start paying attention to what is happening in this country with regard to property rights. Everyone by now has heard of the Kelo Decision in New London, CT, where private property is to be taken for "economic development." I have not met anyone yet who thinks that this was a good decision.
I have also heard of other instances where government is trying to take property from one private owner to give to another for the "public benifit." One such instace is in Topsham, ME. The city government is planning to take the property that a very successful Cumberland Farms has been operating on for 20 years to build a new town hall. The property is right on Main St, and is very valuable.
I plan to do more research into this, in the mean time, check out this website for info or your property rights. And pay close attention anytime your local or state government wants to take someones property. It's not just for roads anymore.
I have also heard of other instances where government is trying to take property from one private owner to give to another for the "public benifit." One such instace is in Topsham, ME. The city government is planning to take the property that a very successful Cumberland Farms has been operating on for 20 years to build a new town hall. The property is right on Main St, and is very valuable.
I plan to do more research into this, in the mean time, check out this website for info or your property rights. And pay close attention anytime your local or state government wants to take someones property. It's not just for roads anymore.
Sunday, August 07, 2005
RINOs
RINO.....for those of us on the right side of the spectrum, RINO is a derogatory term. Republican In Name Only. It refers to those elected officials who are members of the Republican Party, for whom voting with the democrats happens more often than not.
I have heard some people decry the "labeling" of people as democrats or republicans. "I'm am Independant." "I don't need a party to tell me how to vote." Hogwash. Being a member of a certain party does not dictate how you vote, unless you are an unengaged person, brain-dead clod, in which case, you ought not be voting in the first place.
That having been said, I am a member of the Republican Party. Does "Republican" best describe my points of view? No. I suppose that a more accurate description of my political leanings would be "On the Libratarian side of Conservative." Unfortunately, there is no "On the Libratarian side of Conservative Party" candidate running. This is because we have a two party system. Therefore, I have to choose the party that I agree with the most. For as long as I can remember, that has been the Republicans.
Lately, however, I am becoming upset with the Republicans in office. They do not seem to have the core beliefs that I thought. For instance, just before adjourning, congress passed a transportation bill at the end of July. According to an ABC news story, there is about $24 billion worth of pork in it. This from a republican controlled congress. As an aside, in the story, ABC news calls John McCain a "spoil-sport" for being one of a few to speak out against the bill.
Over at Taxpayers for Common Sense, there is a breakdown of what all that money has been earmarked for. It's worth a read.
There is more, however it is too much for one post. But I have to say, until the party that I am a member of comes to it's senses, I guess that you could call me a RINO.
I have heard some people decry the "labeling" of people as democrats or republicans. "I'm am Independant." "I don't need a party to tell me how to vote." Hogwash. Being a member of a certain party does not dictate how you vote, unless you are an unengaged person, brain-dead clod, in which case, you ought not be voting in the first place.
That having been said, I am a member of the Republican Party. Does "Republican" best describe my points of view? No. I suppose that a more accurate description of my political leanings would be "On the Libratarian side of Conservative." Unfortunately, there is no "On the Libratarian side of Conservative Party" candidate running. This is because we have a two party system. Therefore, I have to choose the party that I agree with the most. For as long as I can remember, that has been the Republicans.
Lately, however, I am becoming upset with the Republicans in office. They do not seem to have the core beliefs that I thought. For instance, just before adjourning, congress passed a transportation bill at the end of July. According to an ABC news story, there is about $24 billion worth of pork in it. This from a republican controlled congress. As an aside, in the story, ABC news calls John McCain a "spoil-sport" for being one of a few to speak out against the bill.
Over at Taxpayers for Common Sense, there is a breakdown of what all that money has been earmarked for. It's worth a read.
There is more, however it is too much for one post. But I have to say, until the party that I am a member of comes to it's senses, I guess that you could call me a RINO.
Saturday, August 06, 2005
60th Anniversary
August 6, 2005, marks the 60th Anniversary of what could be considered the biggest favor any president has ever done for this country. On August 6, 1945, under orders from President Truman, the Enola Gay dropped the first atomic bomb on Hiroshima, Japan, thereby setting into motion a quick end to World War II.
Today, there is some controversy about that decision. Without getting into a long protracted essay about the subject, suffice it to say that Truman saved lives with that decision. Yes, there was a great loss of life in Hiroshima, and Nagasaki. However, the loss of life, based on our experiences in Okinawa and Iwo Jima, would have been enormous.
For details regarding the estimates, I would suggest reading "What If? 2", a book of historical essays that look at what might have happened in a number of situations in history. One is what would have happened if Truman had not dropped the bomb. It is fascinating reading.
The lesson learned there is this: Sometimes, when you are dealing with fanatics, it becomes necessary to use an absolutely overwhelming amount of force to convince the enemy to cease their operations. Is this applicable to our current situation? Maybe. Only time will tell.
Today, there is some controversy about that decision. Without getting into a long protracted essay about the subject, suffice it to say that Truman saved lives with that decision. Yes, there was a great loss of life in Hiroshima, and Nagasaki. However, the loss of life, based on our experiences in Okinawa and Iwo Jima, would have been enormous.
For details regarding the estimates, I would suggest reading "What If? 2", a book of historical essays that look at what might have happened in a number of situations in history. One is what would have happened if Truman had not dropped the bomb. It is fascinating reading.
The lesson learned there is this: Sometimes, when you are dealing with fanatics, it becomes necessary to use an absolutely overwhelming amount of force to convince the enemy to cease their operations. Is this applicable to our current situation? Maybe. Only time will tell.
Friday, July 29, 2005
Terrorism...Again
It is my opinion that there is no more important topic these days than terrorism. In light of the events in England the past few days, all Americans ought to be concerned for the safety of people here at home.
Charles Krauthammer, at townhall.com, has some shocking statistcs from our friends across the pond. It seems that a surprisingly high number of muslims over there either agree with the terrorists, or at least sympathize with them. It seems to me, that if the truly moderate muslims in the world want to distance themselves from the cowards that blow up innocent civilians, then they need to start saying so, and in very clear terms. The longer they stay silent on the issue, the more I think that they actually agree with the thugs. As for the Fatwa recently issued in the United States, I am sceptical. Read this post at the Counterterrorizm Blog on the subject. It seems that the so called "moderate" muslims in the States want to create the illusion that they are against the attacks. I'm not so sure. They have some pretty shady connections to some of the extreme terrorist groups.
And lastly, if you have not seen the video of the soldier that was shot in the chest by the terrorist sniper, only to immediatly recover and search for a target, go here. It is truly inspirational, and thanks to Jack Army for the link, and some other updates about the story.
Charles Krauthammer, at townhall.com, has some shocking statistcs from our friends across the pond. It seems that a surprisingly high number of muslims over there either agree with the terrorists, or at least sympathize with them. It seems to me, that if the truly moderate muslims in the world want to distance themselves from the cowards that blow up innocent civilians, then they need to start saying so, and in very clear terms. The longer they stay silent on the issue, the more I think that they actually agree with the thugs. As for the Fatwa recently issued in the United States, I am sceptical. Read this post at the Counterterrorizm Blog on the subject. It seems that the so called "moderate" muslims in the States want to create the illusion that they are against the attacks. I'm not so sure. They have some pretty shady connections to some of the extreme terrorist groups.
And lastly, if you have not seen the video of the soldier that was shot in the chest by the terrorist sniper, only to immediatly recover and search for a target, go here. It is truly inspirational, and thanks to Jack Army for the link, and some other updates about the story.
Sunday, July 24, 2005
Terrorism
I don't know if you ever listen to Rusty Humphries on the radio, or not, but on his last Saturday Night America broadcast on July 23, he was making fun of terrorists. I enjoyed it very much. After all, you have to wonder about people who can be convinced to strap a bomb on themselves and then go blow themselves up. Obviously, it is a tragedy when they kill innocent people. That, I hope, goes without saying. But, it shows that when you are dealing with those kinds of people, the only way to stop them is to kill them. That is why we have a Global War on Terror that we are engaged in.
Now, the left will try to tell you that the War in Iraq has nothing to do with Terrorism. "Everybody knows that Sadam Hussein has nothing to do with Osama bin Laden. There is no link." I beg to differ. That is a lie that has been repeated by the left because they don't like to admit that George Bush is succeeding. However, prior to 2001, is was common knowledge that there was a link. ABC news even did a story about it. The folks over at Powerlineblog have the video. Additionally, Deroy Murdoch over at National Review Online has written extensively making the connection.
The left will also tell you that the War in Iraq has made us less safe. The problem with that is, in order to believe that, you must believe that if we were to be attacked again, it would be in response to the War in Iraq. There are a few problems there. First, According to the left, the War in Iraq and the War on Terrorism are not connected. Second, how many times were we attacked before the War in Iraq, and how many times since? Well, The two Trade Center bombings (1992 and 2001), the Cole, and the two embassy bombings in Africa, just to name a few before we went into Iraq. Since then, aside from those terrorists in Iraq, .........NONE.
The bottom line is this: The War on Terrorism will be fought in one of two places. Either over her, or over there. Better for us that it is over there. And, thankully, we have a military filled with the best people in the world who are willing to take the fight over there and keep us safe here.
Now, the left will try to tell you that the War in Iraq has nothing to do with Terrorism. "Everybody knows that Sadam Hussein has nothing to do with Osama bin Laden. There is no link." I beg to differ. That is a lie that has been repeated by the left because they don't like to admit that George Bush is succeeding. However, prior to 2001, is was common knowledge that there was a link. ABC news even did a story about it. The folks over at Powerlineblog have the video. Additionally, Deroy Murdoch over at National Review Online has written extensively making the connection.
The left will also tell you that the War in Iraq has made us less safe. The problem with that is, in order to believe that, you must believe that if we were to be attacked again, it would be in response to the War in Iraq. There are a few problems there. First, According to the left, the War in Iraq and the War on Terrorism are not connected. Second, how many times were we attacked before the War in Iraq, and how many times since? Well, The two Trade Center bombings (1992 and 2001), the Cole, and the two embassy bombings in Africa, just to name a few before we went into Iraq. Since then, aside from those terrorists in Iraq, .........NONE.
The bottom line is this: The War on Terrorism will be fought in one of two places. Either over her, or over there. Better for us that it is over there. And, thankully, we have a military filled with the best people in the world who are willing to take the fight over there and keep us safe here.
Thursday, July 21, 2005
Supreme Court Nominations
So it begins. President Bush did his Constitutional Duty the other day and made his pick for the Supreme Court known to the world. Then the Left began it's predictable rant about what had better happen during the confirmation process, and what John Roberts "needs" to do to get the job.
It started with Harry Reid. He actually accused the White House of making their announcement when they to so as to take Carl Rove off the front page. (As an aside. If Carl Rove were "The Leak", why is Judith Miller still in jail?) Reid is just mad that there is a story that people actully care about, and it makes the President look good, because he is doing his job, not whining and complaining about everyone else.
Then came Chuck Schumer. Apparently, the Senator from New York thinks that the Senate is the end all be all of power in Washington. He said that it is up to the nominee to prove to us that he is worthy, not up to the Senate to prove that he is not. Is he for real? So I guess that the Senate is supposed to assume that the President of the United States has nominated a Schlub, unless it is proven otherwise. He is also warning the Roberts better answer all the questions posed to him during the confirmation process Never mind that Ruth Bader Ginsburg declined to answer some questions. That, of course, was proper.
Folks, remember this, Article Two Section Two of the U.S . Constitution states that the President shall nominate Justices to the Supreme Court with the Advise and Consent of the Senate. It does not say the the Senate gets to decide who the next Justice will be. Evidently, some Senators on the left just can not get past that fact.
It started with Harry Reid. He actually accused the White House of making their announcement when they to so as to take Carl Rove off the front page. (As an aside. If Carl Rove were "The Leak", why is Judith Miller still in jail?) Reid is just mad that there is a story that people actully care about, and it makes the President look good, because he is doing his job, not whining and complaining about everyone else.
Then came Chuck Schumer. Apparently, the Senator from New York thinks that the Senate is the end all be all of power in Washington. He said that it is up to the nominee to prove to us that he is worthy, not up to the Senate to prove that he is not. Is he for real? So I guess that the Senate is supposed to assume that the President of the United States has nominated a Schlub, unless it is proven otherwise. He is also warning the Roberts better answer all the questions posed to him during the confirmation process Never mind that Ruth Bader Ginsburg declined to answer some questions. That, of course, was proper.
Folks, remember this, Article Two Section Two of the U.S . Constitution states that the President shall nominate Justices to the Supreme Court with the Advise and Consent of the Senate. It does not say the the Senate gets to decide who the next Justice will be. Evidently, some Senators on the left just can not get past that fact.
Thursday, July 14, 2005
Taxes!
If you didn't know, I currently live in the great State of New Hampshire, the "Live Free or Die" state. New hampshire has one of the lowest tax burdens of any state in the country. Right next door, is Maine. Maine has one of the highest tax burdens in the country. I also work with several people from Maine, and I can not for the life of me figure out why they would pay so much to live there. I spend a lot of time listening to WLOB, talk radio in Maine, and it just reinforces my belief that it's better to live here.
New Hampshire has no income tax, and no sales tax, except for "Hotel and Food" tax. This means that there is sales tax at hotels and restaurants. We do have state and local property tax, but as for income tax, we pay only the Federal tax. This brings me to the reason for this post. As I have said in the past, I am a cop. And though I am not complaining about my salary, we all know that cops are not paid as well as some other professions. However, in my town there is a lot of state road construction, which means construction details, which do pay very well. Keep in mind that I work those in addition to my 40 hours per week on duty
I was having a conversation with a fellow cop, who is single (I am married with two kids). He told me that he does not like to work details all that much, because he ends up working for free. It seems that making extra money causes him to be bumped into a higher tax bracket, and more gets witheld. Meanwhile, I have more deductions, so as a percentage of my pay, my taxes don't go up even if I work 70-80 hrs a week.
This just does not sit well with me. In my view, it is time to get rid of the IRS, and replace the federal income tax with either a flat tax, or, even better, the Fair Tax. This would be a national sales tax, where you would get to take home every penny that you earn, and only pay tax on what you choose to spend. The details are too numerous to write about here, but visit their site. Then, write to your congressmen, and tell them to support it. We will all be better off for it.
New Hampshire has no income tax, and no sales tax, except for "Hotel and Food" tax. This means that there is sales tax at hotels and restaurants. We do have state and local property tax, but as for income tax, we pay only the Federal tax. This brings me to the reason for this post. As I have said in the past, I am a cop. And though I am not complaining about my salary, we all know that cops are not paid as well as some other professions. However, in my town there is a lot of state road construction, which means construction details, which do pay very well. Keep in mind that I work those in addition to my 40 hours per week on duty
I was having a conversation with a fellow cop, who is single (I am married with two kids). He told me that he does not like to work details all that much, because he ends up working for free. It seems that making extra money causes him to be bumped into a higher tax bracket, and more gets witheld. Meanwhile, I have more deductions, so as a percentage of my pay, my taxes don't go up even if I work 70-80 hrs a week.
This just does not sit well with me. In my view, it is time to get rid of the IRS, and replace the federal income tax with either a flat tax, or, even better, the Fair Tax. This would be a national sales tax, where you would get to take home every penny that you earn, and only pay tax on what you choose to spend. The details are too numerous to write about here, but visit their site. Then, write to your congressmen, and tell them to support it. We will all be better off for it.
Wednesday, July 13, 2005
Borders
Borders, Ladies and Gentlemen. That is the theme today. We must get serious about securing our borders. Now, I know that I will be called a racist for this view, but I am not. I want to be clear about that. After all, the vast majority of the population today are at least decendants of immigrants. However, there is a legal way, and an illegal way, to enter this country.
As an aside, in relation to the fact that this is the greatest country on the planet, tell me this. What other country has such a problem keeping people out.
Back to my rant. I can not for the life of me figure out why there is such opposition to the enforcement of our immigration laws. It seems to me, that if you are here illegally, then when you are found, you should be sent back. Now, I know that the INS is swamped with deporatation hearings, and that we do not have the room to house illegals when they are picked up to await their hearing. There is a pilot program, however, that will put an electronic bracelet on these people while they await their hearing, so that we can find them later, if they do not show up for their hearing.
This seems like common sense to me. But there is opposition to it. Pro-illegal groups say that it puts a stigma on these people. Well, Duh! There should be, they're illegal! After all, we put bracelets on some citizens when they are out on bail, before they are even convicted of anything.
And then there is the opposition to the Minute Men. These are the volunteers that watch the border where border patrol is strectched too thin. When they see illegals come accross, they notify Border Patrol, and follow until they are apprehended. Again, sounds like common sense. Kind of like a Neighborhood Watch for the border. Again, Pro-illegals think that this is a terrible idea, and I cannot for the life of me figure out why.
It seems to me, that especially in a post 9/11 era, we all ought to be supporting efforts to secure the border. After all, this being the greatest country in the world, we want to keep it that way for all the legal people to enjoy.
As an aside, in relation to the fact that this is the greatest country on the planet, tell me this. What other country has such a problem keeping people out.
Back to my rant. I can not for the life of me figure out why there is such opposition to the enforcement of our immigration laws. It seems to me, that if you are here illegally, then when you are found, you should be sent back. Now, I know that the INS is swamped with deporatation hearings, and that we do not have the room to house illegals when they are picked up to await their hearing. There is a pilot program, however, that will put an electronic bracelet on these people while they await their hearing, so that we can find them later, if they do not show up for their hearing.
This seems like common sense to me. But there is opposition to it. Pro-illegal groups say that it puts a stigma on these people. Well, Duh! There should be, they're illegal! After all, we put bracelets on some citizens when they are out on bail, before they are even convicted of anything.
And then there is the opposition to the Minute Men. These are the volunteers that watch the border where border patrol is strectched too thin. When they see illegals come accross, they notify Border Patrol, and follow until they are apprehended. Again, sounds like common sense. Kind of like a Neighborhood Watch for the border. Again, Pro-illegals think that this is a terrible idea, and I cannot for the life of me figure out why.
It seems to me, that especially in a post 9/11 era, we all ought to be supporting efforts to secure the border. After all, this being the greatest country in the world, we want to keep it that way for all the legal people to enjoy.
Sunday, July 10, 2005
No Better Country
As the title of this blog suggests, it is my belief that there is no better country in the world than the United States. Now, that's not to say that we're perfect. That is because we are made of individuals, and indiviuals are not perfect. However, here in the U. S., we have the framework set in place to allow each individual a shot at their dream.
Here at No Better Country, I plan to offer my views on the direction that this country is headed, and what can be done to keep this the Greatest Country on the Planet. I will admit upfront that my political leanings are to the right. But that should not stop others from submitting their thoughts to me in the comments section. I would appreciate input from anyone, because even if I don't agree with you, I like to exercise my brain in debate. I forces me to really think about why I believe the things that I do.
I would also like to take the time right now to personally thank the men and women in the Armed Forces who put thier lives on the line to ensure that we all get to keep our freedom. One of them is my brother, who's blog you should check out at Liberty Unlimited. Words alone cannot express the gratitude thatI feel toward these people.
And lastly, being a cop who works 60-80 hours a week, and having a family that I love to be with, I don't know how often I'll be here. However, you can bet that the next time I am screaming at the news about, say, an idiotic Supreme Court decision, I'll be expounding about it here. Until then, just remember that your Freedom is not Free.
Here at No Better Country, I plan to offer my views on the direction that this country is headed, and what can be done to keep this the Greatest Country on the Planet. I will admit upfront that my political leanings are to the right. But that should not stop others from submitting their thoughts to me in the comments section. I would appreciate input from anyone, because even if I don't agree with you, I like to exercise my brain in debate. I forces me to really think about why I believe the things that I do.
I would also like to take the time right now to personally thank the men and women in the Armed Forces who put thier lives on the line to ensure that we all get to keep our freedom. One of them is my brother, who's blog you should check out at Liberty Unlimited. Words alone cannot express the gratitude thatI feel toward these people.
And lastly, being a cop who works 60-80 hours a week, and having a family that I love to be with, I don't know how often I'll be here. However, you can bet that the next time I am screaming at the news about, say, an idiotic Supreme Court decision, I'll be expounding about it here. Until then, just remember that your Freedom is not Free.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
