Another Update

This morning's paper reports an outbreak of fighting in Iraq. There's shelling of the Green Zone in Baghdad and in Basra, elements of the Mahdi army are engaged with government troops for control of the area they once held. They are giving the government troops trouble and their ability to cope is a concern.

Now here's the point(s): To some, this is evidence that the whole thing is a lost cause. To others, it is a mere manifestation of the ebb and flow of war, a sign the enemy isn't ready to cash it in. This is like the Japanese toward the end of WWII when they fought on when victory for them no longer existed. It's easy for some to see defeat since they can't stand the thought of a Bush victory, which is the only way they look at the whole war on terror. Yet, the immediate victory they think is the only acceptable victory would bolster their opinion of America, or Bush, or both, as international bullies.

But I digress. The real notable piece of info in this report is the fact that the British were in charge of the south where Basra is located and have recently drawn down troops, with those remaining held in reserve ready to join the fight upon request of the Iraqi military leaders. But the article notes that the British are bystanders in this, that despite the struggle of the Iraqi forces against these upstarts believed to be supported by Iran, they have yet to request assistance! Are you getting that? The left insists that there is no definition of victory given by the administration, but in fact, we're seeing here the beginnings of the definition they refuse to hear manifesting itself for all to see. They are beginnng to take care business themselves! Yes, another sign of progress since the start of the war 5 years ago.

So c'mon! Here's another piece of good news just waiting to be downplayed.

UPDATE:

I felt I would be remiss if I didn't mention that as of this morning's Daily Herald, according to an AP report, "Anti-American Shiite militia leader Muqtada al-Sadr ordered his followers to defy government orders to surrender their weapons, as U.S. jets struck Shiite extremists near Basra to bolster a faltering Iraqi offensive against gunmen in the city."

Security is being tightened all over in the face of this outbreak, including U.S. embassy, and the British in Basra have joined the fight in support of the Iraqi army. PM Nouri al-Maliki, himself a Shiite, is standing firm while allowing that he miscalculated the backlash from his offensive against militias. All this of course is bad news following the piece I offered earlier, but again, it would be silly to believe that the baddies would just roll over, and to expect immediate anything regarding this or any war is foolishness.

Apparently, al-Sadr, "Mucky", who gave the order through a subordinate, so I don't know if he's back in the country, feels he can protect the country if the Iraqi governement would kick out the occupiers, meaning us. I guess he backs the government on his terms only. He should get with the program. He's a thug. A fat, cowardly thug.

Ya Just Never Know

I had heard of this story on the radio and was glad to see it on Yahoo. Now I present it here for those who might not have seen it. For all those who whined about those who chose to interfere in the Terry Shiavo case, you know, those who thought preserving a woman's life over starving her to death was a good thing, they might want to keep in mind the fact that when the end comes isn't up to us. How wonderful for this family that it wasn't this young man's time. Just think if they had rushed their decision to harvest his organs! One less day of waiting and hoping, one less hour, and this happy ending would never have occurred. God Bless them.

The Story So Far...

Haven't done anything regarding the five year anniversary of the Iraq invasion. I might have felt more compelled had any of the poorly attended anti-war protests not failed to generate any press. Think of how bad the turnout must truly have been if the MSM doesn't pay much heed.

Of course the few times I've seen anything, there was of course attached to it some smarmy and illegitimate version of events and/or intent, and that always calls for a response. Those who serve deserve no less. To that end, I have had an ear out on those things said or presented that referred to progress as a result of the last five years in Iraq. Here is one example. The first several paragraphs lead up to a few examples of the progress in Ramadi since the invasion began. Sandy Rios gave a list of accomplishments at the end of a segment of her radio show, and when I find it I'll present her list. In light of these and other examples, it's truly a wonder to hear anyone pronounce that we are losing.


UPDATE:

Vinny feels the evidence doesn't support that the people in charge know what they're doing. As it happens, on Medved's show today (about a half hour ago from this update) he reported that the Pentagon has released a report discussing 600,000 pieces of evidence and intel regarding just what Sadam had in mind. This includes papers, computer discs and files, Iraqi news service reports, both video and print, as well as other items. Within this massive pile of stuff is evidence of Sadam's intentions regarding his plans for Americans, including conspiring with a number of terrorist organizations, including bin Laden and Al Queda, to snuff Americans found anywhere in the Arab world, including Somalia. This should, but perhaps won't, put to rest any debate over whether or not a secular Hussein would spend time with religious Islamists. If it involved killing Americans (or Jews I'm sure), differences between he and they were easily overlooked. Hussein no threat? Right. With a chucklehead like AlGore in office, those threats would more likely be realized. How fortunate we are that that Gore became the loser he was destined to be.

News That Ain't News

What a great read. It supports what I've been saying regarding the Israeli/Palestinian conflict all along. There is no way for peace between the two until the Palesinians prove they really want it. Never has there been any indication that they ever really wanted it. They might go through certain motions, but it's just for show and Hamas won't even pretend.

There is only one right position on this issue for American foreign policy. That is that we withdraw all support and aid from the Palestinians and stand firmly with Israel, our ally and the only democracy in the region, and to speak plainly as to what we know to be the truth about who's causing all the trouble. We should no longer implore Israel to show restraint in the face of daily attacks on their sovereignty and lives, but encourage them to defend themselves as they see fit. Seems to me that if a poll shows a majority supports the terrorism, then they are unworthy of support and must be then forced to care for their citizens without our aid.

It Ain't Racism

In light of the flap surrounding the not-so-right Rev. Wright, I thought it necessary to re-iterate a very impotant point: Race has very little, if anything, to do with opposition to an Obama presidency. Well, OK, there are those Klan members and aryan(sp) brotherhood types who wouldn't ever vote for a black man. But those are hardly rank and file examples of the Republican Party or conservatism in general.

But it's true. That race means nothing to us in a president is as true as what actually provokes our opposition: He's a crappy choice for president. Equally true is that gender is also superfluous to the average right-winger. Hillary is also a crappy choice. It's as simple as that. In this dog race, McCain is the least crappy choice, and by quite a bit. He's around, I'd say, a 50%-45% crappy choice, while the Bobsey Twins hover at 97.7%-100.3% crappy. So logic would dictate that McCain has the edge.

But race? Geez, who cares about that stuff? We all just want the best president we can possibly get. Those of us on the right actually study what candidates want to do, have done, wish they could do, and can then easily see that the Dems are the most crappy choice. The lefties just follow along like their candidates are Pied Pipers, which they are, spewing nice sounding, but totally meaningless platitudes and pronouncements.

But race or gender? Neither enhances, nor do they detract from the true character of a good servant of the people. Why would we waste our time on it?

You want racism? Go to Obama's church.

A Sad State of Affairs

An AP article in today's Daily Herald points out that one in four teenaged girls (14-19) have an STD. According to the article, the rate is one out of two amongst black teens, and twenty percent for white girls. Doesn't matter, neither deserves any credit. Two "experts" were cited who both looked to abstinence only policies as being a big part of the reason for the sorry numbers. This is a patently lazy analysis of the situation. They immediately take the abdication route, stating that "they're going to do it anyway, so..." and they increase the handout of rubbers. If they really cared about these kids, they'd take their heads from their own posteriors and face the obvious facts. The following are the standouts:

1. The removal of God from schools has had a negative impact on childhood development. I don't much care to discuss freedom of religion here, that's a topic for another time. My point in mentioning this is that in lieu of God in schools we have, what exactly? We have no replacement for God with as compelling an influence. Kids develop the respect for the fact that there is always someone watching and taking notes. Without God in schools, there's only ambiguous subjectivity regarding behaviors and their consequences.

And having God in schools was an extention of most families. There was the natural continuity of God throughout one's daily life, and the knowledge that He is always to be considered. The closest replacements we have without God in schools is man-made and usually man himself, and a more sorry replacement for God one can't find. So there is a void in the public life of kids that allows for self-directed morality, rather than God directed, which has no equivalent. The results are in the lax restraints that would normally be felt by the kid, at a time when firm guidance is a must.

2. The removal of God from the public arena. This further serves to harm the kid's moral development as the wrong kind of continuity seeks to establish itself by adding to the time a child can experience, and be influenced by, a God-less society. The public arena includes media, both print and broadcast, movies, music and political or social discussions or events. God restricted to religious buildings or events only allows for all sorts of subjective notions of what it means to live a righteous and holy life, adding more confusion into the developing logic centers of the kids' brains. All this blurs the decision making processes as kids struggle to absorb the varied and goofy data that assumes that human harmony is enhanced by moral relativism and its infinite possibilities.

I note here that points 1 & 2 affect kids of other faiths as well, since they exist in the same culture.

3. Parental abdication. The aforementioned, "they gonna do it anyway..." drivel. Kids thrive under expectations. When parents are involved with their kids, laying down ABSOLUTES, kids form positive habits and opinions. Face the fact: kids will form habits and opinions no matter what. It is a result of their adapting minds as they journey toward adulthood. Might as well spend time influencing the best into them and they will respond by being the best they can be. Kids love to impress the authority figures in their lives, particularly the ultimate such figure, their parents. And this is something for which parents don't need a lot of experience because everybody knows right from wrong, or knows someone who does.

4. Adult abdication. This is the influence that every adult has upon the kids that might somehow be paying attention to them. Parents were mentioned, but all adults are responsible for setting good examples of how to live life. When kids begin to notice the stories in the news, like Spitzer of New York, for example, it alters how they look at life and ultimately it affects their perception of just how much effort needed to live a righteous life, and why they oughta try.

All of the above points work together to impact the moral development of our youth. The more modest and puritan influences of 50-75 years ago did indeed have an impact on the behavior of youth, as well as on society in general. Something is having an impact now, just not a good one with 1 in 4 teen girls infected with an STD.

What I'm Reading

Actually, one of the books I wanted to share with you all I've just finished reading. It's called, "The Official Handbook of the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy---The Arguments You Need to Defeat the Loony Left This Election Year" by Mark W. Smith. A good read. A quick read. Even a lefty should get through it quickly with just a minimum of help through parts that confuse them. I have to say in all seriousness that it's amazing just how much in this book should be obvious to all, but isn't. Makes one wonder just what game everyone else is watching.

The other book that I'm a bit over half-way through is Alexandre Dumas' "The Vicomte de Bragelonne", which is the first third of the last book of the Musketeer saga. "The Count of Monte Cristo" was my first Dumas book and after that I just had to check out "The Three Musketeers". I didn't know at the time it spanned three books. Apparently, the third is broken up into three because it was so long. "The Vicomte..." is the title of the third book and in English is the title of the first third of it, followed by "Louise de la Valliere", and finishing with "The Man in the Iron Mask". A quick scan of the table of contents confirms that there is no chapter entitled, "Louise de la Valliere", yet I never see this on the shelves of my local Barnes and Noble. Curious. I'll need to check Amazon or perhaps scan the contents of the many copies of "The Man in the Iron Mask", to see if some enterprising publisher has stuffed it into that book. Oh well. I've got some time.

Both of the books mentioned are well worth the time. I'm really enjoying d'Artagnan & Co. and will be sad when the books come to an end. He is based on a real dude, a book of which should be available somehow and has been mentioned in each intro of each book I've read thus far. I'll be seeking that out as well.

So. What are y'all readin'?

Blind Faith?

I saw two bumper stickers today (yesterday, actually-it's after midnight now) on the same car. They each said the same thing, "Blind faith in a bad leader is not patriotism", though the other said "bad leadership". Two obvious things here. First, that the dude couldn't decide which sounded more clever, so he pasted both on his trunk, and secondly, that it was in response to conservatives who question the patriotism of libs.

My first thought was, what do you call the blind faith of Obama supporters? But my next was that it was such a lame comment with some poor assumptions. What makes anyone think that those in support of Bush's response to terrorism is "blind faith"? What makes anyone think that we consider supporting our president is automatically patriotic?

Faith, in another person, carries expectations. I have hope that any president would have responded as strongly as George did, but I don't have faith than all of them would have. There was enough to suggest that Bill Clinton wouldn't have. There was nothing to suggest the manner of response Bush would take, only hope that he would respond strongly. Now, I have faith that he will continue, for the duration of his term, to do what he feels is appropriate to continue defending the nation. But it's hardly "blind" faith. It's based on his record regarding the war. I don't necessarily believe he will always do the best thing, but I have faith that he will try.

Now respecting whoever is president, or rather the office of president, is a form of patriotism, but that's not what those who question the existence of liberal patriotism mean when they do their questioning. They refer simply to national defense. Bush's actions were and are for national defense. The threat's existed for quite a while and it's patriotic to want to see the threat abated.

So despite that the bumper sticker is true insofar as the words are, I don't think it's appropriate if it indeed was intended as a shot at Bush and inaccurate since that's not how patriotic people think anyway.

This Is Just What I Was Sayin'

Not too long ago, I expressed at Casting Pearls Before Swine my belief that there are people who shouldn't vote. This year it seems like there are lots of 'em. They're known as "Obama supporters".

Anyway, Dan took this to mean I support restricting or prohibiting people from voting. This is not the case. Of course every American citizen (legal citizen, that is) has the right to cast a ballot. But this doesn't mean that everyone should vote. The unfortunate fact is that there are so many people that vote without really educating themselves on the candidates and what they represent.

Take those Obama supporters (please). Pick one out of the crowd and ask them why they're voting for Barry and they'll say, "Who?" And when you say, "Barak Obama", they'll give you an answer as vague and meaningless as an Obama speech. They'll recite the "Change" and "Unity" mantras. This leads to the question of which is worse, an Obama supporter who doesn't know what Obama's positions are or one who does?

But I digress. Selwyn Duke, over at AmericanThinker.com, has a great piece on this subject here. Give it a read. He nails it.