Archive for January, 2007
by Jim Kouri, CPP
A well-known actor and filmmaker is speaking out on abortion, illegal immigration, radical Islam, and the New World Order. He says Progressives are destroying America.
Golden Globe, Emmy, and Tony Award winning actor, writer, and musician — as well as conservative patriot — Michael Moriarty recently announced his interest in running for President of the United States in 2008. He's doing it to take on Hollywood's liberal-left establishment and the Globalists.
"If a Hollywood star denigrates the war on terrorism or promotes gay marriage, he or she is welcomed with open arms by the Oprah Winfreys of the world. But if he or she holds views that are considered conservative or libertarian, doors begin to close," said Moriarty.
by Thomas E. Brewton
If voters are well enough informed to make the complex decision about pulling out of Iraq, why do we need liberal-socialist-progressive government to tell them how to live their daily lives?
Liberal Republicans and liberal Democrats say that the American people voted in the latest Congressional elections to pull our troops out of Iraq, sooner rather than later. Is that the whole story, and is it a valid basis for forming life-or-death foreign policy?
On the one hand, liberals are, in effect, adopting Ross Perot's idea that all voters should have computers and internet connections that would permit continuous referenda on every policy matter before Congress.
On the other hand, liberals' stock-in-trade is the firm conviction that voters need to be protected from their follies and must be coddled and comforted by government, from cradle to grave. Why does government have to keep such purportedly well informed voters from eating the wrong things, driving the wrong automobiles, and borrowing money on terms they can't meet?
by Erik Rush
You wouldn't attempt to go for an hour without breathing, a week without taking fluid, or a year without eating, would you? Of course not. You would languish and die. Highly undesirable, unless you were a zealot, fanatic or hunger striker. It's also highly unlikely you'd decide a straight lifetime diet of peppermint patties, malt balls and beer was a good idea.
A person or society that completely eschewed mental development wouldn't do very well either. Most people wouldn't advocate a system in which children weren't required to attend school, where education and learning were actively discouraged. Every day we see the results of such practice in the form of individuals and subcultures who have essentially lived on that basis, knowingly or not.
So we know that in order to flourish as entities and as societies (nations), we must nurture ourselves physically and mentally. Thousands of years of history and the medical breakthroughs of the last hundred years have shed light on the former in particular.
by Jim Kouri, CPP
As the United States reviews its plans to secure, stabilize, and rebuild Iraq, the Government Accountability Office submitted several reports forCongressional consideration in developing its oversight agenda for the 110th Congress and analyzing the President's revised strategy for Iraq. On Wednesday night, President George W. Bush is expected to reveal his new strategy in a televised speech to the American people.
These reports and papers are based on the continuing work of the GAO and the 67 Iraq-related reports and testimonies they've provided to the US Congress since May 2003.
Iraq has had three successful elections, adopted a constitution, and installed its first elected government. At the same time, since the initial ground offensive ended in 2003, the costs to secure and stabilize Iraq have grown substantially, as has the level of violence that afflicts Iraqi society.
By Alan Caruba
On December 4, then Speaker-Elect Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) issued a statement protesting the lifting of a presidential moratorium protecting Alaska’s Bristol Bay from oil and gas exploration. Rep. Pelosi had to reach back to the Exxon Valdez oil spill of 1989 to find a reason why this energy-rich area should not be opened to exploration.
“Allowing oil drilling to go forward in Bristol Bay,” said Rep. Pelosi, “puts our precious environmental at risk.” We are all in for heavy doses of global warming propaganda and hearing a lot more about “our precious environment.” In recent months, the volume of global warming hysteria has markedly risen and with it came demands from two U.S. Senators that any dissent from this Big Lie be silenced.
Coincidently with Rep. Pelosi’s announcement, The Wall Street Journal published an opinion titled “Global Warming Gag Order” in which it noted that “Washington has no shortage of bullies, but even we can’t quite believe an October 27 letter that Senators Jay Rockefeller and Olympia Snowe sent to Exxon Mobil CEO Rex Tillerson. Its message: Start toeing the Senator’s line on climate change, or else.”
by Jeff Lukens
Imagine a Super Bowl football team quitting the game in the third quarter simply because they were behind. The premise is so absurd it is inconceivable. So too would be our quitting a war to protect our way of life simply because battlefield conditions are not going perfectly.
Football teams continually adjust their tactics and strategy during a game based on playing conditions on the field. And so does a nation at war. Seldom does any country enter a war with a perfect strategy in which to win it. Almost always, shortcomings are found that require a new approach. A victorious nation modifies what needs to be modified, and they go on.
That's what we've done in almost every war since the American Revolution. It did not happen in the first Iraq war in 1991 because it was over so quickly, but it's what we must do now in the second Iraq war. No one ever said things would go perfectly this time. Unlike football, no one knows for sure when a war will end. But we do know that if we don't play to win, we are sure we lose.
By Alan Caruba
There’s a reason why political power was taken from the Republicans and given to the Democrat Party. Voters in the political center had concluded that the Iraq invasion has been a failure. They may be wrong, but the Middle East has a long history of befuddling the best efforts to reform it.
At the heart of the election was the conclusion that, given America’s famed managerial and military skills, what had occurred in Iraq was a failure of competency at the highest levels of government. The blame cannot be placed on our soldiers, airmen, and Marines. It was not a failure of the valor of our fighting forces.
It is now widely understood that the White House and Pentagon failed to provide either sufficient manpower or planning for the postwar period.
by Christopher Adamo
Mainstream Americans are not overwhelmingly outraged over the lack of any "cut and run" policy in Iraq, thus dispelling the dubious notion that the November elections resulted from widespread disaffection over the war. Furthermore, the newly ascendant Democrat majority has clearly been pulling its punches in regards to the liberal agenda it longs to implement.
Initial analyses of the elections are proving correct, the Country was not embracing Democrat liberalism. Rather it was rejecting the "light beer" version that had been offered during the last several years by the Republicans.
Unfortunately, on what is perhaps the key defining issue of the times, neither the Republican "moderates" in Congress, nor the President, seem to have gotten the message. Ominous rumblings of a resurrected immigration "reform" measure (read: blanket amnesty for illegal immigrants) reflect as much.
For such an abominable measure to succeed, it would still require "bipartisan" cooperation from a significant number of fence-sitting Republicans. President Bush believes that he can assemble such a coalition. Perhaps he is correct in his belief, even if by doing so he will most assuredly railroad their chances for a Republican comeback in ‘08.
by Jim Kouri, CPP
Now that the Democrats are in control of both houses of congress, Americans can look forward to their leadership putting their own interests ahead of the safety and security of citizens during the war on terrorism. In her recent column, Ann Coulter, in her usual hyperbolic style, called the Democrat Party a "sleeper cell." A good example of that is the recent actions of Senator Levin.
In August, 2006, Senator Carl Levin (D-MI) arrogantly refused to stop blocking the Senate's confirmation of the head of the Justice Department's new antiterrorism division, a position that's important in a time of war with terrorist groups who wish to attack the United States.
However, it wasn't because of any complaint about the nominee, rather it's an effort to try to force the Justice Department to turn over information Levin can use to bash his own country and the US military.
Levin has been demanding that the Bush administration supply more information from FBI agents who reported witnessing aggressive interrogations of detainees at the Guantanamo Bay, Cuba military detention center.
by Jim Kouri, CPP
Terrorism is the most significant threat to our national security. In the international terrorism arena, over the next five years, it's believed that the number of state-sponsored terrorist organizations will continue to decline, but privately sponsored terrorist groups will increase in number.
However, the terrorist groups will increasingly cooperate with one another to achieve desired ends against common enemies. These alliances will be of limited duration, but such "loose associations" will challenge our ability to identify specific threats. Al-Qaeda, and Hezbollah, and their affiliates will remain the most significant threat over the next five years.
The Federal Bureau of Investigation forecasts that sub-national and non-governmental entities will play an increasing role in world affairs for years to come, presenting new "asymmetric" threats to the United States, according to a report submitted to the National Association of Chiefs of Police and other law enforcement and security organizations.