Insurgents Target Recruiting Station

In a scene all too familiar, insurgents against the United States being involved in Iraq targeted a recruiting station. Fortunately, no one was injured by the explosive blast.

Sounds familiar, doesn't it?

We've read these headlines so often coming out of Iraq that we don't really read them anymore.

But this time, it's different.

The dateline for this isn't a dusty city corner in Iraq... It was Times Square, New York City. And the target was a United States military recruiting station.

Presumably, we are to still believe that those who oppose the war "Support the Troops" (while targeting their workplace with explosive devices) and we should never "question their patriotism" (because blowing up your homeland is a protected form of free speech?)...

It's time for people who lead the genuine anti-war movement to repudiate (and for Senator Clinton's benefit, also reject) the vitriolic attitude and actions that lead to the thought processes where motivated people think setting bombs is a justifiable way to protest.

There are ways.

Ways that express your disagreement, while not lending one to question your patriotism (or sanity, or criminal intent).

And for future reference, when you want to say, "We support the troops", item number one on the checklist is "Don't blow them up."



The insurgents are here, and they are amongst us. Take note, America.

Which War Are They Protesting?

(h/t to Michelle Malkin)

Which war are people protesting? Is it the Global War on Terrorism - Iraqi Theater or... perhaps this is an opportunity to relive their past "glories" and recall protesting the war in Viet Nam?

From the Raleigh News and Observer:

CHAPEL HILL -- For John Heuer, burning a fake draft card on the UNC-Chapel Hill campus was a sort of deja vu.

Heuer said he burned draft cards in 1971 while refusing to be part of President Nixon's army. He put his cigarette lighter to a symbolic card Thursday to support a student group's anti-war rally.

"It's important to get the word out in a creative way," said Heuer, a retired UNC facilities designer.

Burning draft cards. Ok. Was there a draft that I didn't know about? America's army (not the President's, Soldiers follow the President's orders, but they serve America) is an all-volunteer force, and has been since the 1970s.

So, why burn a draft card? The only mention of having a draft lately has come from President Bush, er... no... it was Democrat Representative Charles Rangel.

Anyone who's protesting... if your argument is strong and convincing, then you don't need "creativity" (note: it's not creative if it was used forty years ago)... your argument will speak for itself.

American Alienation

I've seen this on a few other blogs, and it is SPOT on. Frighteningly enough, it sounds like a few things I've been known to say.

Warning, strong, strong language. And some images that should bother you to no end.

Please, watch.

One of My Favorite Senators

Senator Jim DeMint, R-SC, is one of my favorite Senators. He's always been a positive force in the United States Senate, an excellent representative for South Carolina, AND has been supportive of my family.

So, it pleases me to no end to see him leading the call for Berkeley, California to shape up.

Read here:

DeMint to Berkeley: Support Our Marines or Lose Federal Funds

January 31st, 2008 - Washington, D.C. - Today, U.S. Senator Jim DeMint (R-South Carolina) released the following statement in response to the decision by the City Council of Berkeley, California to evict the U.S. Marine Corps Recruiting Station from the city.

“This is a slap in the face to all brave service men and women and their families. The First Amendment gives the City of Berkeley the right to be idiotic, but from now on they should do it with their own money. If the city can’t show respect for the Marines that have fought, bled and died for their freedom, Berkeley should not be receiving special taxpayer funded handouts. I am currently drafting legislation to ensure that American taxpayers aren’t forced to pay for this insult by rescinding all of the earmarks for Berkeley in the Omnibus Appropriations bill, and to transfer the funds to the Marine Corps.”

According to news reports:

The [Berkeley] City Council has voted to tell the Marines their downtown recruiting station is not welcome and "if recruiters choose to stay, they do so as uninvited and unwelcome guests." The measure passed this week by a vote of 8-1. The council also voted to explore enforcing a city anti-discrimination law, focusing on the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy. In a separate item, the council voted, also 8-1, to give protest group Code Pink a parking space in front of the recruiting office once a week for six months and a free sound permit for protesting once a week.

Kudos, Senator!

Ron Paul

Ron Paul. IF someone recognizes the name, they tend to fall into one of two camps - those who see him as the Second Coming or those who see him as the Republican answer to Dennis Kucinich.

For the most part... I agree with Ron Paul. He sums up many of my Libertarian leanings. I also notice how easy it is to demagogue him, primarily (no pun intended) due to his views on the Iraq Theater - of which I disagree with him.

In order to expose him a bit to my loyal (and rare) readership, I thought I'd include some of the interviews Mr. Paul recently had with John Stossel (another Libertarian of whom I'm fond).

Ron Paul Interview with John Stossel

And then there's this:

My Interview with Ron Paul

By John Stossel

Over the last few months, I've received hundreds of e-mails from people asking me to interview Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul, so I did.

It's refreshing to interview a politician who doesn't mince words. It's even more refreshing to interview one who understands the benefits of limited government.

Here, then, is the first in a series of columns on my talk with Ron Paul. Some of Paul's answers are shortened.

What should government do?

Ron Paul: Protect our freedoms. Have a strong national defense. Look at and take care of our borders. Have a sound currency. That was the responsibility of the federal government, not to run our lives and run everything in the economy and extend the interstate-commerce clause and the general-welfare clause to do anything they want to do.

So defense, the military, police forces enforce contracts, and that's about it?

That's it. We would have a court system to enforce contracts, and when people do harm to others, when they take property or injure property, or pollute a neighbor's air, I think there's a role for government to protect our environment through private-property rights.

So keep us safe, enforce contracts, run the courts, pollution rules and otherwise butt out? Leave us alone?

Basically that, which would mean if I'm elected, I should immediately take a pay cut. You know, because I wouldn't have so much to do.

The Department of Education. You'd get rid of it?

Yes. We don't need it.

How will people get educated?

We might get better education. The evidence shows, since the 1950s, since the federal government's gotten involved, the quality of education has gone down, and the cost has gone up.

The federal government should have no role?

There's no authority for it, and . they've proved themselves inefficient. The one city they're totally in charge of is Washington, D.C. Thirteen thousand dollars a year per student. They have more guns, more drugs, more violence. So there's no evidence that the government can do a very good job.

The Department of Energy.

We don't need a Department of Energy. It serves the interests of big business.

Other cabinet departments? Department of Agriculture, Commerce, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development. You'd get rid of all of them?

Yeah. Of course, that's not on the immediate agenda, but they're unnecessary, and we should think about what kind of a country we would have without these departments, and I think we would have a better country, and all those problems that they're supposed to solve, I think, would be lessened.

The Commerce Department? We don't need the Commerce Department to have commerce?

No, absolutely not.

Homeland Security. Isn't that a role for the federal government?

Not really, not the way that's designed. That's the biggest bureaucracy of them all. There are some parts that are OK. You know, they put the Coast Guard in there, and they put FEMA in there, and everybody's bunched together. And I think it was failure of government on 9/11, not the fact that we didn't have the Department of Homeland Security and . a national ID card, and this constant surveillance and loss of our privacy.

Failure of government how?

We spent $40 billion on intelligence gathering, and it didn't prevent (the 9/11 attacks) from happening. But the government was in charge of the airlines. FAA, they were supposed to inspect the people as they went on, and you weren't supposed to resist any takeovers, and (passengers and pilots) weren't allowed to have a gun. Maybe if you and I had the airlines, we might have said, "Hey, you know, we want to protect our passengers. Maybe we should have a stronger door on there, maybe we ought to give our pilots a gun." So 9/11 wouldn't have happened.

So government creates too many rules, and the wrong ones?

That basically it. Most of the time well-intentioned -- but good intentions will not solve our problems.

And...

Ron Paul is the only Republican presidential candidate saying we should get our troops out of Iraq -- now. Here's more of my edited interview with the congressman.

Some people say that if we don't attack the enemy there, they'll attack us here.

Ron Paul: I think the opposite is true. The radicals were able to use our bases in Saudi Arabia and the bombing of Iraq (from 1991 to 2001) as a reason to come over here. If China were to do the same thing to us, and they had troops in our land, We would resent it. We'd probably do some shooting.

s this case not different? Religious fanatics hate us and want to kill us because of our culture.

I don't think that's true. It is not Muslim fanaticism that is the culprit. The litmus test is whether we are actually occupying a territory. In the case of Saudi Arabia, that was holy land.

Many say the surge in Iraq is succeeding, that we're at a turning point now, and we are creating a model of democracy in a part of the world that hasn't seen that.

That's the propaganda. I don't happen to believe that.

And if in most of Iraq, some religious fanatic comes to power and has money to buy nuclear weapons, we should just leave him alone?

The Soviets had the technology. They were 90 miles off our shore, and they had nuclear weapons there. But we were able to talk to them. We took our missiles out of Turkey. They took the missiles out of Cuba. We should be talking to people like this. It's the lack of diplomacy that is the greatest threat, not the weapons themselves.

You say we shouldn't be the world's policemen. Isn't it our responsibility to help others?

It's OK for us to personally help other people. But to go around the world and spread democracy -- goodness, no -- too many unintended consequences. It usually requires force. I think we should only do those things under the prescribed conditions of the Constitution.

Is war ever justifiable?

Sure. If you're attacked, you have a right and an obligation to defend (your) country. I do not believe there is ever a moral justification to start the war.

So in World War II, we were justified?

Sure.

How about going into Afghanistan after Sept. 11?

I voted for that authority to go after those responsible for 9/11.

The Korean War?

Totally unjustified.

Kosovo?

Absolutely unjustified.

Vietnam?

A horror.

The first Iraq war? Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait. He might have invaded the next country, and the next.

I bet Israel would have done something about it, and I bet Saudi Arabia maybe would have talked to Israel. I think if it would have been left to the region, they might have taken care of Saddam Hussein in 1990 and we wouldn't have the problems we have today.

What if there's genocide and terrible suffering in a country?

It's a tragedy, and we can have a moral statement, but you can't use force of arms to invade other countries to make them better people. Our job is to make us a better people.

You'd pull American troops out of Korea, Germany, the Middle East, everywhere?

I would. Under the Constitution, we don't have the authority to just put troops in foreign countries willy-nilly when we're not at war.

If North Korea invades South Korea, we should just leave it alone?

Sure, but it's not going to happen. South Korea's about 10 times more powerful than North Korea.

If China invaded Taiwan?

That's a border war, and they should deal with it.

If Canada invades Montana?

I think that might be a little bit different. Montana probably could take care of it, but we'd probably help them out from Washington if that happened.

That's a role for the federal government?

Oh, sure.

Moving along...

U.S. congressional representative and Republican presidential contender Ron Paul has been called "Dr. No" because he repeatedly votes against legislation he believes gives government too much power. If it's not in the Constitution, he says, the federal government has no business doing it. He even votes against appropriations to his constituents. Here's Part 3 of my edited interview with Rep. Paul.

Your district is subject to floods, but you vote against FEMA. Why?

Ron Paul: Because I think FEMA helps create the flood problems. (Without subsidies,) if it's risky on the Gulf Coast to build there, the insurance prices will go up. If (they're) too high, nobody will build there, or they'll build there with full risk. Flood comes, wind blows your house away, you don't get reimbursed. So there might be (only) modest building in those areas. But if the government subsidizes the insurance, saying, "If you build there, don't sweat it, we're going to bail you out," more people move into the flood-prone areas. Then who are the people that have to bail you out? Somebody that lives out in the desert. It's unfair, it's not good economics. You create more problems, more houses get flooded, and it becomes a general problem rather than an individual problem. We have undermined is the principle of measuring risk. Then people do things that they wouldn't have otherwise done.

You also say, "no farm subsidies."

No, I can't quite find (the farm-subsidy program) in the Constitution.

Don't we need farm subsidies to make sure we have food?

It is totally unnecessary. I think (subsidies) push the prices of food up, and maybe (that) makes it more difficult for poor people to buy food. If there's a subsidy, it means the taxpayer was taxed to pay a huge corporate farmer. So it hasn't helped the people. And why should we assume that the farmers wouldn't be productive? They're hard working people. I never voted for farm subsidies, and I represent a farm district.

They forgive you for that?

The farmers will support me, but not the (farm lobby) organizations.

Most crops don't have subsidies. Yet we have plenty of (unsubsidized) peaches and plums.

When I go to the grocery store, I always marvel: Isn't it wonderful how we can see so much fresh produce there, and the prices aren't regulated? It was a fallacious argument back in the '30s that the Depression came from free markets and therefore we had to have a safety net. We gave up on believing in freedom and understanding how the market works.

You talk about freedom and tyranny. I seldom hear politicians use those words.

Those are our only two choices. We've had a grand experiment in this country, where we emphasize freedom. The Constitution was designed to protect individual liberty, to restrain the government. But we have forgotten that. Now we have an interpretation that means that we spy on the American people, encroach on their privacy, take care of them, run the "nanny state" -- and then we have secrecy in government. So we have it reversed. People say, "Ron, you want to go back to the dark ages of this strict interpretation of the Constitution." Well, I want to go back to the Constitution, but I don't consider it the dark ages. I think the dark ages the days were when all you had was tyranny. Freedom is new. Tyranny is old.

The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are enough? We don't need 55,000 pages of tax code?

Isn't that fantastic? Truth is simple. The more complex (government) is, the more leery we ought to be of what they're doing. When they say we have to solve the problems of 9/11 (by passing) the Patriot Act, that's complex. Four hundred pages, and they dump it on us an hour before we vote. You can read the Constitution and understand it, but you cannot read and understand hardly any of the legislation being passed.

And lastly...

You want a 700-mile fence between our border and Mexico?

Ron Paul: Not really. There was an immigration bill that had a fence (requirement) in it, but it was to attack amnesty. I don't like amnesty. So I voted for that bill, but I didn't like the fence. I don't think the fence can solve a problem. I find it rather offensive.

What should we do?

Get rid of the subsidies. (If) you subsidize illegal immigration, you get more of it.

Get rid of welfare?

All the welfare benefits.

Including government-paid health care?

Absolutely.

So what should a hospital do if an illegal immigrant shows up for treatment?

Be charitable, but have no mandates by the federal government. Catholics want to help a lot of these people. I'm not for (punishing anyone who wants to help voluntarily). But we wouldn't have so many (illegals) if they didn't know they were going to get amnesty. If you promise them amnesty -- medical care, free education, automatic citizenship, food stamps, and Social Security -- you're going to get more (illegal immigration). I think we could be much more generous with our immigration. (But) we don't need to reward people who get in front of the line.

We should be more generous in our legal immigration policy?

(Without the welfare state) it would be a non-issue. Today it's a big issue because people are hurting; they can't keep up with paying their bills. They see (illegals) using food stamps, in the emergency rooms, demanding bilingual education in the schools. The costs are going up.

So get rid of all those programs? Every one?

I would. Get rid of the incentives and work toward a real solution.

You oppose "birthright citizenship," which says that the child of an illegal immigrant who gives birth in America is a U.S. citizen. But that right to citizenship is in the Constitution, isn't it?

There's confusion on interpreting the 14th Amendment. It says that if you're under the jurisdiction of the United States, you have a right to citizenship if you're born here. But it's a little bit confusing. If you step over the border and you're illegal, are you really under the jurisdiction? There's a question on that, and I want to clarify it. I don't like to reward people who sneak in for that purpose and get on the welfare rolls.

What about the millions who are here illegally already? Should we deport them?

I don't think anybody could find them. Nobody even knows how many there are. But if they come for welfare benefits and you know they're illegal, (you should) deny them the benefits. If they commit a crime, send them home. Today in many cities, you're not even allowed to ask them their immigrant status. Policemen tell me they can't ask that question to find out if they're illegal. It's politically incorrect to ask a person his immigrant status because that would (be like saying), "If you've broken the law, maybe you ought to go home."

How do you see immigration in the future?

If we have a healthy economy, we would probably have a lot of people coming back and forth working in this country. There was a time when (immigrants did that). That was when they didn't expect to get easy amnesty.

So, these are some of his views. Something to think about. For more, please go to his Website. Remember, when it's your turn to vote, educate yourself... and vote for whom you believe in. It's the only way to make your beliefs truly known.

(Many thanks to the transcripts from Real Clear Politics.)

Protection From Highly Offensive Material

We, as a nation, are blessed. We know this. And now, we've been happily saved from having to endure some extremely offensive material on our public airwaves.

Yes, NBC has refused to sell ad space to a despicable organization known for obscene and vile hate-filled material.

However, in the interest of free speech, I will be happy to enlighten you to those materials right here.

Click below to watch the rejected ads, foolishly submitted to NBC for airing to the nation. Be warned, this is SICK stuff.

See? Disgusting.

Oh wait, maybe it's just disgusting that NBC wouldn't want this material to air on their networks. Just so you know who you're watching...

Support Our Troops

We continually here about how everyone "supports the troops". Right.

The "troops" need money. The Democrats are again playing with the funding bills trying to forestall them getting the money in hopes of convincing President Bush to pull them out.

He's said he has no intention of doing so.

They've made over one hundred attempts, all of which have failed.

And the troops still don't have their money.

But, they support the troops.

So, Senator Reid, while you're doing your political maneuvering to keep the Senate in session over Thanksgiving break (so the President doesn't sneak a recess appointment by you), how about PASSING THE APPROPRIATION BILLS?

Before the troops start running out of money.

Idle threat? Yeah, there are bottomless funds. Read here.

Support the troops. Put the money where your mouths are.

From Another Time, Another Era

Sent by a good friend and angel:

I'd like to say I have something to add, but... it really speaks for itself.

Please, go take a peek over here.

She Raises a Good Question

I've wondered this myself, but Michelle Malkin says it a bit better.

Forget for a second whether you adore or loathe her...

We hear, repeatedly, how you can be against the war and support the troops. So, here is a perfect opportunity - non-partisan, pure support the troops effort. No statements about the war being made.

And even better, you can host it on your blog without even having to donate yourself (though, I would recommend doing so.)

Sure, you are asked to join a "team" that represents a military service, and so if you don't have a fondness for the military, that can be a bit hard to swallow... but still, it's an opportunity to support the troops. And if you're ardently against the war, this is a bonus, as it's for the troops who've been savagely used by the em Bush Administration in their vicious, private war to secure outrageous oil profits for their friends in Texas (did I get that right?).

So, where are the blogs from the liberal side of the field?

The silence, as they say, is not only deafening, but it's speaking volumes.

Why Our Enemy LOVES Fighting US

Courtesy of Military Motivator.

Take a look.

Darfur

Today, in church, the pastor took a moment to include in his litany of areas of the world crying out for our help... Darfur.

It's a tragedy. It absolutely is. Over 400,000 are suspected of having died already.

The reason for this is, essentially, a conflict between the Janjaweed and various rebel groups. Most of those killed are caught in the cross-fire.

And there are quite a few calling for our involvement. They want us to fly in with our military strength and put a stop to the violence.

To end the civil war.

To place our troops in between two sides shooting each other.

In an area of the world with no national security significance to the United States.


But... wait. Aren't these the same concerns that are raised on why we should withdraw from Iraq? It's a civil war. Our troops are caught in a crossfire. Iraq has nothing to do with the United States.


(Freebie for radical leftists... Darfur doesn't even have oil.)

So, in all seriousness... why Darfur? It doesn't meet the requirements that the anti-war folks are stating for getting us out of Iraq.

What's the Brainstorming Session Like?

This is beyond the pale, but not completely surprising given some organizations' tendencies to protest through inappropirate means.

Many are familiar with the White House Easter Egg Roll. It's history goes back to the 1870's.

This is usually a joyous, happy time... children are invited onto the normally restrictive White House grounds and they have a great time.

Luckily, we have people in the country who can help us see those festivities through a more balanced view.

Take a look here.

Classy.

Nice touch.

I don't mind the message they're trying to get across - unexploded ordnance IS a problem. But, isn't there a better way?

I would love to sit in on the brainstorming sessions that eventually evolve into events like these. How do you get to the point where you take a festive children's activity and thrust the brutality of war into it? There's such a thing as time and place - the message can still be spread without ruining a wonderful childhood activity.

Shame.

$20 Billion Isn't Just Peanuts

Pointless Maneuvering

I would be negligent if I didn't comment (again) on the Iraq Supplemental vote.

Both the House and the Senate have now passed, albeit just barely, their own versions of the bill. Two notable qualities of the bills - they both set a deadline for our surrender and they fund more than the military needs, although Popeye does love his spinach.

What stood out today was the Honorable Rep. Pelosi's comments to the President (side-note: some of you may notice that one of the features of my posts is that I will ALWAYS use respect to those in their various positions, personal feelings aside. I feel it's lacking in today's discourse, and that lack is hindering debate. Compare with other blogs - you know where...).

"On this very important matter, I would extend a hand of friendship to the president, just say to him, 'Calm down with the threats, there's a new Congress in town. We respect your constitutional role. We want you to respect ours.' This war must end. The American people have lost faith in the president's conduct of the war. Let's see how we can work together."

"I just wish the president would take a deep breath, recognize again that we each have our constitutional role and we should respect that in terms of each other."

Oh really. She wants respect. And, she wants the Commander-in-Chief to respect Congress' Constitutional role (please, show me where, Madame Speaker) in restricting the military conduct of our military.

Respect.

Wow.

The Democrats are insisting on pursuing a piece of legislation that is doomed to a veto, and is not veto-proof. For what purpose?

Why is the Democrat leadership going to the mat for this?

The naive view would be that the House would do two bills, one to fund the military, and then one bill, perhaps a very short one, saying that the Congress is curtailing the Commander-in-Chief's authority to deploy troops to Iraq. That way, the troops get their funding (see: "We Support the Troops") AND they get a very clean, no manipulation, vote.

But, that's not happening here. There's all kinds of bait, bribes, pork laden into this bill. If the principle were so clear, and from what I read in the MSM, and hear from the Democrats, there is a loud hue and cry from the American people demanding the Democrats take action (and to think, it's almost April... I'm glad it's something important.)

So, with 18 days remaining before the military starts running out of funds, according to a projection by the Defense chiefs... the money is tied up in political game-playing.

And Rep. Pelosi wants respect.

Madame Speaker, will that respect come when the military must begin curtailing training flying hours for its pilots? Or, will it be when deploying units can't practice live fire ranges because there's an ammunition shortage, and the troops downrange need the bullets? Maybe we'll respect you more when the fitness centers, family centers, Yellow Ribbon Rooms, and other MWR facilities are forced to reduce their hours due to lack of funds?

Speaker Pelosi does have a response to the concern about the military running out of money:

"The fact is the president of United States as the Commander-In-Chief has weakened our military. Why would he be saying to us we're running out of money when it's only a few weeks. Leadership would have required for him to have anticipated these needs."

'It's only a few weeks.' (For a Congress that historically has never been known for it's speed.) My favorite: 'Leadership would have required for him to have anticipated these needs.' Madame Speaker, earlier you were quoted referring to your Constitutional roles. In the quote, you mistakenly alluded to a role governing the military. Here, you again make a Constitutional mistake. You say the President had the Leadership responsibility to authorize the funding. How? In the Constitution, Article 1, Section 7, paragraph 1, "All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives...".

Madame Speaker, the President has no Constitutional role to introduce a spending bill in the US House. Exactly how would you have preferred he demonstrate the leadership you felt he lacked?



In short, today Congress failed the troops. They announced our willingness to surrender, or run away within a set period of time, to our enemy. They announced that the Congress no longer supports the mission. And, I'm sure that message was not lost upon the enemy - either our known enemy now, or future enemies we haven't met yet.

Finally, I'd like to share where some other folks have posted their views.

Tanker Brothers

The Iraq Vote

Today, as the Democrat leadership has long promised, the US House of Representatives held a vote on the continued funding of the Armed Forces during this war against Islamo-fascism.

No doubt, you've heard by now the result. You can see how your representative voted here.

Perhaps, you'd like to exercise a passing familiarity with the representing that your Representatives have been doing. You can read the entire bill.

I want to let you know that what happened today hurts the troops. It's surprising, but the military needs money. Lots of it. Soon. The bill today had a lot of that money in it (not all of it, mind you, but a good start.)

Let's take a step here, and remove ourselves from whether or not the House should have voted to give a deadline for withdrawal. There are plenty of columnists, talking heads, and bloggers like myself who will discuss that into the ground. Fact is, whichever way your opinion goes on that, no one is likely to budge it even a smidgen.

However, everyone - Republicans, Democrats, Liberals, Conservatives, and excepting a few folks who've gotten carried away - says they "Support the Troops".

This bill, amongst other things (including the Minimum Wage, surprisingly enough), provided funding to Support the Troops. There are no other bills in the House that have that goal.

This bill is also loaded with enough items, whether it's non-related funding directives (aka "pork"), or the aforementioned mandated timetable for withdrawal, that it faces a guaranteed VETO from the President.

In other words, no money for the troops at all.

The Army has already indicated that it will need to extend tours, reduce training, and other cost-cutting measures will be implemented, to weather the funding shortfall.


The Democrat leadership tried to do it all. Tried to cover the wide base of their party, and ultimately, failed. Even members of their own party voted against the bill because they didn't like what was in it (or rather, what was missing - they wanted it to end the war now). Thus, they guaranteed not having enough votes to survive a VETO threat.


What should they have done? If they truly take America first, and Support the Troops? Politics aside? Propose, and quickly pass, a bill that is strictly military funding - what the troops asked for - and nothing else.

Separately, have the vote for the early withdrawal. You campaigned on it, so vote on it. But, don't tie plans for a withdrawal next year to money the troops need right now.


And, as long as we're talking about doing it right, lets not tie other things into a military appropriations bill that have nothing to do with the military. It's called Pork, and while it IS a time-honored tradition in Congress, we can always hope.

A friend sent this along to me:

What Democrats Could Have Funded:

Listed below are programs and equipment that could be purchased and delivered sooner than planned if they were funded in the Democratic War Supplemental for Fiscal year 2007.

• $4.75 billion: Mine-Resistant Ambush Protected Vehicles (USMC & Army)
• $2.6 billion: Aircraft Recapitalization and Modernization (Air Force)
• $1.84 billion: Medium Tactical Vehicles, such as 5-Ton Trucks (Army)
• $775.1 million: STRYKER Combat Vehicles and Armor Upgrades (Army)
• $452.2 million: Upgrade 3 Patriot Anti-Missile Battalions (Army)
• $324.2 million: Heavy Tactical Trucks, such as 10-Ton Tractor-Trailers (Army)
• $250 million: Force Protection Equipment (Air Force)
• $207.4 million: Aircraft/Helicopter Survivability Equipment (Army)
• $187.2 million: Javelin Portable Anti-Tank Missile (Army)
• $152.9 million: Counter-IED Systems (Army)
• $33 million: Night Vision Equipment (Army)
• $24 million: Combat Search and Rescue Capability Enhancement (Air Force)
• $10 million: Electronic Attack Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (USMC)
• $9 million: Joint IED Defeat Sustainment (Navy)

Additional Cuts:

• Combating Violent Militias. House Democrats strip $155.5 million from the military effort to disarm and demobilize violent militias. Since no alternative exists to combat violent militias, armed groups will be left to roam the streets of Baghdad and civil unrest will continue. This senseless funding cut would undermine the U.S. military effort in Iraq and endanger U.S. troops.

• Combatant Commander Initiative Fund. House Democrats cut $25 million from the Combatant Commander Initiative Fund, which will deny military commanders a valuable regional engagement tool for “building partner nation capacity” in the Global War on Terrorism.

Defense Security Cooperation Agency. House Democrats cut $350 million from the Defense Security Cooperation Agency, which would harm America’s ability to build foreign capacity to counter instability and security problems.

• Special Operations Command. House Democrats cut $14 million from the Special Operations Command, limiting one of the most engaged forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as one of the most effective forces outside of Iraq and Afghanistan in support of the Global War on Terrorism and regional stability.

• IED Counter-Measures. House Democrats cut $13.25 million for Warlock electronic jammers and $27.63 million for the Army’s Soldier Support and Survivability System.

• Helicopters. House Democrats cut $90 million for three additional CH-47 helicopter airframes, denying the Army three Chinook helicopters. House Democrats also cut $75 million for UH-60’s, denying the Army five Blackhawk helicopters.

• Unmanned Aerial Vehicles. House Democrats cut $31.5 million for unmanned aerial vehicles, which are vital force protection equipment and effective counter-insurgency and counter-terrorism tools.




What Democrats Chose to Fund Instead:

• Peanut Storage Subsidies: Provides $74 million to extend peanut storage payments through 2007. The Peanut Subsidy Storage program, which is set to expire this year, pays farmers for the storage, handling, and other costs for peanuts voluntarily placed in the marketing loan program.
• Spinach: Provides $25 million for payments to spinach producers that were unable to market spinach crops as a result of the FDA Public Health Advisory issued on September 14, 2006.
• Shrimp: Provides $120 million to the shrimp industry for expenses related to the consequences of Hurricane Katrina.
• Frozen Farmland: Provides $20 million for the cleanup and restoration of farmland damaged by freezing temperatures during a time period beginning on January 1, 2007 through the date of enactment.
• Hurricane Citrus Program: Provides $100 million to provide assistance to citrus producers (such as orange producers) in the area declared a disaster related to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.
• HUD Indian Housing: Provides $80 million in tenant-based rental assistance for public and Indian housing under HUD.
• Crop Disaster Assistance: Provides roughly $3 billion in agriculture assistance to crop producers and livestock owners experiencing losses in 2005, 2006, or 2007 due to bad weather.
• Payment to Widow of Rep. Norwood: Provides $165,200 to Gloria W. Norwood, the widow of former Rep. Charlie Norwood (R-GA), an RSC Member, who passed away last month. In the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2005 (H.R. 1268), Congress provided $162,100 to Doris Matsui, the widow of former Rep. Robert Matsui.
• Capitol Power Plant: Provides $50 million to the Capitol Power Plant for asbestos abatement and safety improvements.
• Liberia: Provides that money appropriated for FY 2007 for the Bilateral Economic Assistance program at the Department of Treasury may be used to assist Liberia in retiring its debt arrearages to the International Monetary Fund, the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, and the African Development Bank.
• Milk Income Loss Contract (MILC) Program: Provides $283 million for payments under the MILC program, to extend the life of the program for one year, through September 30, 2008. MILC provides payments to dairy farmers when milk prices fall below a certain rate.
• Aquaculture Operations: Provides $5 million for payments to “aquaculture operations and other persons in the U.S. engaged in the business of breeding, rearing, or transporting live fish” (such as shellfish, oysters and clams) to cover economic losses incurred as a result of an emergency order issued by the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service on October 24, 2006.
• FDA Office of Women’s Health: Provides $4 million for the Office of Women’s Health at the Food and Drug Administration.
• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA): Provides $60.4 million for fishing communities, Indian tribes, individuals, small businesses, including fishermen, fish processors, and related businesses for assistance related to “the commercial fishery failure.” According to the Committee Report, this funding is to be used to provide disaster relief for those along the California and Oregon coast affected by the “2006 salmon fishery disaster in the Klamath River.”
• Avian Flu: Provides $969 million for the Department of HHS to continue to prepare and respond to an avian flu pandemic. Of this funding, $870 million is to be used for the development of vaccines.
• Secure Rural Schools Act (Forest County Payments): Provides $400 million to be used for one-time payments to be allocated to states under the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000. This program provides a funding stream (known as forest county payments) to counties with large amounts of Bureau of Land Management land, in order to compensate for the loss of receipt-sharing payments on this land caused by decreased revenue from timber sales due to environmental protections for endangered species. The authorization for these forest county payments expired at the end of FY 2006, and counties received their last payment under the Act in December 2006.
• NASA: Provides $35 million to NASA, under the “exploration capabilities” account, for “expenses related to the consequences of Hurricane Katrina.”
• Corps of Engineers: Provides $1.3 billion to Corps of Engineers for continued repairs on the levee system in New Orleans.
• FEMA: Provides $4.3 billion for disaster relief at the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). The bill would eliminate the state and local matching requirements for certain FEMA assistance (in connection with Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, Wilma, and Dennis) in the states of Louisiana, Mississippi, Texas, and Florida, and provides that the federal portion of these costs will be 100%.
• LIHEAP: Provides $400 million for the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP).
• Vaccine Compensation: Provides $50 million to compensate individuals for injuries caused by the H5N1 vaccine, which is a flu vaccine.
• SCHIP: Provides $750 million to the Secretary of HHS to provide assistance to the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) “shortfall states,”, in the form of an amount “as the Secretary determines will eliminate the estimated shortfall.” This provision is direct spending that is essentially capped at $750 million and designated as an emergency to avoid PAYGO constraints.
• Minimum Wage Increase: Increases the federal minimum wage from $5.15-per-hour to $7.25-per-hour over two-plus years—a 41% increase. Yields $16.5 billion in private-sector costs over five years.
• Tax Increases and Shifts: Implements several tax increases and shifts, including: denying the lowest maximum capital gains tax rate for certain minors and adults, extending the suspension of interest payments due to the IRS, and adjusting the deadlines for corporate estimated tax payments. Costs taxpayers $1.380 billion over the FY2007-FY2017 period.

Civil Discourse?

What has happened to civil discourse? Recently, on the annual MLK holiday, it was remembered that part of Mr. King's greatness was his passive protests. When the authorities responded with water cannons and dogs on protesters peacefully and calmly walking... the world quickly voted with their opinion and sympathy and their movement made progress.

This weekend, a protest was held in Washington to protest the War (apparently, just the Iraqi theater). Several sad occurences, or lack thereof...

• The lack of counter-protesters. Come on, folks. Take it to the next level. Once you have the yellow ribbon on your bumper, come on out for a weekend. Especially when Code Pink and others have their national media covered/touted protest. Show your support with your actions and your time.
  
  
• Anti-war protesters spray painted the Capitol. Yep, that's right. Vandalism. Great way to make your point. I know I'm always convinced in a discussion by the best grafitti design. Respect. No longer there.
  
  
• And the worse part? Spitting on SPC Josua Sparling! You MUST be kidding me. I don't care if you support the war, or think that it's all a huge conspiracy by President Bush to make his buddies rich... to spit on a war veteran (who just had his leg amputated last month) is reprehensible. THESE are the representatives of the anti-war movement? So, please, please... tell me that when this group got back to their hotel or wherever, and one person said, "Yeah, man... I saw one of those army guys... spit on him! Showed him what we really think of what he does," were there cheers? Smiles? High-fives? This is the same Soldier who received the card with a death wish while he was recuperating at Walter Reed. I hope those who follow Code Pink, et al, feel shame... but sadly, I doubt they will.

You can read more about this in your local newspaper... um, no, probably not.

:(