Monday, August 30, 2010
Beck's Rally Rocks!
Two Comments on the Day
1. Crowd size estimates are politicized for the simple reason that they may foretell the political fate of the radicals in office. Since it has been speculated that for every citizen that shows up at a rally about 100 are wishing they could, Rally Size x 100 = Disaster for the Incumbents. A big cheer for that, even though the ostensible goal of the Beck rally was not political! I would put the size of the DC rally at about 300,000, which I hope represents 30 million voters against Obama!
2. For many years we had a proper, more livable balance of religion and secularism in the nation, but since more atheists and agnostics have found their voice and their organizations, such as the ACLU and The Humanist Society, the secularists have been on the rise. (It just may be that a few of them are posting here now!) Their main result so far seems to be to have created great disharmony where there had been little or none, to attack Christians wherever found, to advocate legislation that is counter to or subversive of the Constitution, to invent a community organizer and wishwashy, socialistic politico as worthy of the Presidency, to elect to Congress the likes of Pelosi and Reid, to pass unread legislation that will break the bank, and to run the deficit to the sky! Good job SH’ers! Go look back at #1 above.
Tea Party Movement Rocks!
The People's Revolt for Sanity in Government
It should be obvious by now to the most dense partisan that the current government is in dire straits. The turnouts at various Tea Party Events, including Beck's "Restoring Honor" demonstration last Saturday, show clearly that we the people are on the march for real change far away from what this Obama crowd is delivering.
That the media have been downplaying the size of the crowds is laughable! Anybody could see with their own eyes that hundreds of thousands of men and women of all races, creeds, and colors were participating lustily in these rallies and filling up the Mall. For each one of thes participants, I would conjecture that another 100 wanted to attend, and cheered their closest march event on from afar. The message is that upwards of 100 million voters are totally discontent with the way things are, and are itching to vote in November against Obama and all that he stands for. Many Independents are saying that even Republicans couldn't this bad!
Meanwhile our president is known more for his vacations than for his steering of the ship of state into reefs and sandbars, both situations being to our deficit. Speaking of which, the monitary deficit is increasing under Obama, if only because he allows the idiots in charge of the Congress to manufacture bills no one reads until after they have become law--and he signs them, unread as well.
Friday, August 27, 2010
Gound Zero Mosque--No!
Let's get on with stopping this!
Since I have done quite a bit of research and questioning of both real and pseudo experts on Islam in the past weeks, I have come to a simple opinion: 1) Muslims have the right to build a community center/mosque near ground zero; 2) they should not do so as it shows gross disrespect for the sensitivities of many if not most Americans for them to flag the area near the GZ with permanent Muslim/Islamic trappings and gatherings. That other longer-standing Mosques are also in the neighborhood is not of concern. That some Islamic sects are indifferent to the actions of their radical cousins and hence do not feel any sort of guilt over the 9/11 disaster is their problem, not ours, they will feel the heat anyway.
We will most likely not even try to educate our entire population about the divisions within Islam and the differences between the sects in America. The label is Muslim; The label is Islam; let them clean their own nest of radicals, or help our authorities do it, if they are truly Americans, and not Muslims that merely live in America.
You may believe otherwise, but in my opinion, Islam will now get way far more Anti-American points with this coup worldwide than we will get positive Islamic points within America, whether the building is completed as a CC/Mosque or not. So the net is greatly in favor of Anti-American sentiment worldwide, regardless! We have been maneuvered into a no-win situation by the Muslims, thus we should look out for our own majority desires and show our displeasure that this issue has even arisen at all. Where in all of this argumentation have the Muslims shown the slightest concern for American sensibilities regarding the GZ? Most distasteful and arrogant to say the least!
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
Are We Too Negative About Islam?
Watch Your Words?
The US has been actively killing some kinds of Muslims (and others) in Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia, and Yemen, and has just stopped the combat in Iraq after killing many Muslims there for years.
Just how much more justification does a potential Muslim recruit need to join the Jihad against us? Would a few words from the bleachers do? This "watch your words plea" I am reading about in some blogs seems to be something of a reach to me, and might be one more attempt to put some kind of moral or PC constraint on free speech about Islam in the US, lest we give the Jihadists a club! Don't they have all the clubs they need from their point of view? Do they need some kind of proof that the US is becoming a deadly enemy to all Muslims within the nation, which is silly? If they were truly assimilated into US society there would not be a problem, and for most of that the onus in on them, not us.
All of these complaints come in the face of well-documented, Muslim-based terrorist attacks and conflicts worldwide, and potentially a Muslim-based Stealth Jihad in the US, all of which are ascribed to tiny minorities of Muslims of some sect or another. Tiny minorities that we cannot readily identify and separate from the Islamic majority, either; and, so far, I have not seen or heard of enough majority action against their wayward brethren to damp the bad ones out, or to identify them to us so that we can take care of them. No one from the majority has given up OBL to authorities, for example, but I will bet that his whereabouts are known to many, even back in SA.
The image that James Joyner used is very appropriate: Islam: The Large Majority/The Medium Sympathizers/The Small Supporters/The Tiny Terrorists. The factoring out of many sects as being basically passive, as John B. has pointed out, and the lack of global organization that Lang pointed out, lead to a lessening of the perceived threat. No one, however, has claimed that the threat to the US has gone away.
So let us demand of the Muslims that wish to live here in peace and harmony inside of a Christian nation that they do not push for further Islamic favors, further accommodations or building sites that grind so very hard against their neighbor's sensitivities as does the 9/11 site, and that they show their citizenship by massive and visible support, not just words, to the elimination of terrorists wherever found, especially in the US. Someone mentioned that over 15,000 Muslims are in the armed forces. That is an example of the kind of visible support I am asking for.
Ridding themselves openly of the whole idea of a fighting Jihad would be appropriate. Showing that the constant drumming against us by way of some Muslims has ceased would be appropriate also. That is, they should become convincingly Americanized, instead of remaining a ME Muslim that happens to reside here, or a second-generation Muslim American that has not yet fully assimilated here in his heart and mind.
Then the American rhetoric will change for the better.
Monday, August 23, 2010
Brief Comments on the Day
The Mosque at Ground Zero
I agree that the Muslims have a right to build a mosque or a gathering center. I believe it is grossly insensitive for them to select a site so near the 9/11 attack by Muslims. I also believe that any so-called religion has as its basic tenet that they should rule over everyone must not be coddled in the US. We didn't sign up for an underhanded manner of subverting the nation in the name of Allah.
Attitudes Being Expressed
Too many Americans seem to have sympathy for Muslims and the religion of Islam. The problem is that Islam has two faces to its members, and a frightening face to unbelievers: that of a religion; and, that of a governing body with its own lawbook--Shariah. They want Shariah in the US. We do not want to have Shariah introduced in the US. Major conflict here!
Iran versus Israel
A number of well-informed watchers have stated that it is a 50-50 bet that Israel will attack Iran before the end of this year. The problem with this is Iran's possible reaction involving the US, thus taking us to war.
At the end of the day, if Iran does obtain nuclear weapons we will face a far larger threat to our nation and way of life, I believe. Watch for it!
Friday, August 20, 2010
The Coming Choice for Israel
The Israel-Iran situation heats up---as of August 20, 2010
Here is an outline of my somewhat revised thinking about the current situation between Iran and Israel, and the rest of the West. It is a collection of posts on the blog "Outside the Beltway".
Assumption: Iran will not cave in to Western pressure to end their nuclear program.
1. Israel faces a hell of a decision: to attack Iran or not. That decision has at least two subsets: to attack essentially the nuclear facilities and any defensive systems in the way; or to attack a full package of Iranian military and nuclear facilities and all of the aircraft, weapons sites, barracks, tank and transport parks and naval ships they can find.
2. To hit only the minimum facilities that will impair Iran’s development of nuclear weapons, plus the defenses that must be reduced for that to happen has been the favorite scenario of many people. I believe that is flawed thinking. In executing such an attack, the IAF must destroy quite a few defensive capabilities, many of which are located near population centers. The list of targets must include every military airfield and military aircraft that can be found, every anti-aircraft emplacement, whether it is missile or gun based, every site that has both long and short range radar, every site that may contain long range missiles that could be used in retaliation, and the list goes on, even before starting the list of nuclear facilities that must be reduced. This is quite obviously an act of war: many civilians near the targets will be killed in the attacks, so retaliation must be expected, and blunted where possible. For Iran to rebuild its nuclear capability most likely would take 3 to 5 years. What then? We are back to square one, minus the losses on both sides.
3. To hit many of the nuclear facilities that are underground, there must be accurate targeting, and I suspect that a lot of low level reconnaissance will have to be flown to identify some of the sites by various “tells”, such as entrances and exits, air inlets, transport, tracks and so on. Further, these bunker sites will require large bombs to dig them out or to damage them adequately by overpressure effects. Such large bombs are not going to be carried by F-16C or F-15I aircraft, because they weigh over 20,000 pounds and up! The IAF will probably use C-130 aircraft for this purpose, once full air superiority has been gained. A similar method was used by the USAF to deliver MOAB’s, or Mother Of All Bombs in Vietnam, so the technique is very well known.
4.Thus there is the need for the IAF to gain complete air superiority in order to let recce proceed everywhere and to allow the slower transports, the C-130’s, to chug eventually over the nuclear sites and drop their MOAB’s. For low-flying aircraft, however, Iran has quite a number of ZSU-23-4 (23mm quad mobile gun radar-directed systems) antiaircraft weapons that are extremely deadly against low flying planes. Additional
ZSU-23-2 dual-gun systems have been reported. They still have SAM capabilities, although not the latest Russian systems they have tried to obtain. These are quite capable at altitudes where most of the IAF will be flying, or up to 40,000 feet, so they must be suppressed immediately. It is terribly expensive in aircraft and pilots to attack AA systems.
5. This leads me to a first hypothesis. The weapon of choice to suppress AA weapons, radar, AA missiles, command and control and communications systems, and aircraft, and just about anything using electronics, including vehicles, over a very wide area is a number of powerful and well-placed EMP or Electromagnetic Pulse bombs. A good part of Iran would go dark from such weapons, and during that time, the air would be mainly free from defenses of all kinds. Even ground forces would be stymied by the EMP effects on their engines and other electronics until repaired. Further, civilian areas within the effective range of the EMP blast would likewise have all of their electronics and electrical equipment disabled. There would undoubtedly be civilian casualties as a result, if only on highways and at intersections.
To obtain the necessary power in such a bomb, it would have to be a nuclear device, and it must be detonated at, as a guess, 5-to-10 thousand feet over Iran. As another guess, the radius of its effectiveness would be on the order of 30,000 ft or about 5 miles…perhaps more, I do not know. I have no idea whether Israel has such a weapon, but if they do, this attack is the time to roll it out.
6. Given this weapon’s use, a second hypothesis can be stated. With just about all of Iran, military and civil, virtually helpless and unable for some time to move in vehicles at all, it would be quite logical for Israel to take full advantage of this to destroy Iran’s military capabilities and military industrial base as fully as possible. Special Forces troops could be landed to search out additional hidden sites for destruction, for example.
7. Has the US government been made aware by Israel of such a weapon and their plan to use it? It is possible. The reaction in DC of the planned use of nuclear EMP weapons by Israel would be fierce and negative! Something like the unaccountably negative reaction of Obama during a recent visit by the Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu.
8. Without a weapon such as the EMP bomb I have speculated upon, the IAF has a daunting task, starting with the same needs: to suppress the Iranian air defenses thoroughly before their recce and transport/MOAB aircraft fly onto the scene. They must deliver a knockout blow to the Iranian air fleet or risk far too many IAF planes shot down. Airfields would be hit by multiple Israeli cruise missiles, as would known AA missile sites, such as for the SA-2, SA-5, Tor-M1 and SA-7, and would be followed up by F-16I attacks on specific airfield revetments still standing. Those Iranian aircraft, such as the F-14’s, that made it into the air must be handled by Israeli F-15I’s.
9. The low-level air defenses would have to be taken out as well, possibly by Israeli versions of US Wild Weasel fitted on F-16I’s, together with Harm anti-radar missiles for the kills. Losses to short range (up to 6 or 7 KM), hand-operated and optically sighted AA missiles of the will be moderate for fast jets such as the F-16I flown by combat-experienced pilots.
10. Once complete air superiority has been achieved, I envision waves of follow-on attacks on nuclear and other sites interspersed by recce flights to ascertain the damage done. This continued air assault would be maintained for days, until the Israeli commanders believe they have accomplished their mission.
11. The second Hypothesis holds here also, because Iran is now completely vulnerable to further air assault. The target set would be expanded to include most of the vital military targets in Iran.
12. At some point in this scenario Iran would begin their counterattacks, most likely using long range missiles, and by activating their Hezbollah and Hamas partners, if not Syria also, all targeting Israel. Whether there would be an all out attempt by Syria to invade Israel a second time is a big question; one that Israel would be prepared for this time. Lobbing missiles seems most likely.
13.The most fateful decision by Iran is whether to target US facilities and personnel worldwide, using sleeper cells or other terrorist resources to exact revenge. Such attacks would result in the US joining the attacks on Iran itself. The air war would be over in hours, if this occurs, with Iran made even more vulnerable to air assault by the USN and USAF resources in the theater. Thus enters the second hypothesis again, this time with far greater resources available.
14. Within days or weeks of the beginning of this war a ground assault on Iran can begin, and it can take several paths. First, to ensure that Iranian anti-ship missiles are destroyed in Southern Iran, US forces would effect landings to take possession of the sites threatening the Strait of Hormuz.
The third Hypothesis is that in due time US forces would also move to occupy the Western Iranian oilfield sites, thus cutting off a majority of oil revenues of Iran. This might bring a response from the Revolutionary Guard to face the US forces in ground warfare, totally without air cover. The outcome here would not be in doubt, I believe.
15. Scenarios of concern:
1. Try very hard to follow this:
1. We, the US, do not start a preemptive war against Iran.
2. Israel does attack Iran, and does a very good job of it using EMP weapons up front..
3. Iran responds by activating its surrogates, because that is all they can do (EMP damage).
4. Iran plus surrogates attack Israel AND US personnel and facilities.
5. We join the action to stop the carnage wherever it occurs.
1. We, the US, do not start a preemptive war against Iran.
2. Israel does attack Iran, but does not have EMP weapons, which allows Iran to use its resources to fend off the attack or blunt its effectiveness. Iran declare war.
3. Iran activates its surrogates and pits Israel against Hezbollah, Hamas, and Syria, together with missiles from Iran.
4. Iran plus surrogates attack Israel but not US.
5. Question: what does the US do? Support Israel passively or actively, or not at all. I say we support actively by punishing Iran.
1. We the US do not start a preemptive war against Iran.
2. Israel does, etc
4.Iran plus surrogates attack Israel AND US Facilities and personnel
5 We join the action.
1. we do not start a preemptive war
2. Israel does not start a preemptive war.
3. Iran uses its nuclear weapons and blasts Israel off the map.
4. Do we retaliate for this or not? I say we do.
16. My whole point has been that we do not control Israel, that Israel will attack Iran sooner or later, and that whether we join the action depends upon whether Iran and its surrogates attack US personnel and facilities. If Israel does not succeed, or is in serious trouble from the surrogates, then the question becomes what do we, the US, do about it? Do we allow Israel to go down or not? If we allow Israel to go down, do we retaliate against Iran for it, or do we simply ignore the event?
17. There have been lots of analyses as to the preferred route of attack by Israel. Most conclude that they will use many routes, but dominantly the “middle route” over Jordan and Iraq. The US has recently stated that they will not prevent the IAF from overflying Iraq. Jordan may well stand down from this also, If not, they will not provide a serious obstruction to the attack, and would lose what they put up. Over flight of Syria is a great obstacle, and it is too near Israel to use EMP fully without disabling Israeli assets. My own opinion is that Israel must try to neutralize Syria in the process regardless, since they will join the fray almost immediately anyway. How the Israelis handle Hezbollah and Hamas is a good question that I can’t answer.
18. Another question I can’t answer is will the Israelis use nukes, other than the EMP type, either strategic or tactical, if they are pressed hard? My only thought is–yes, what have they to lose?
19. I daresay that we could not cripple their war efforts in a heartbeat. Israel has been preparing for such a conflict for years, and has been carefully divorcing themselves from essential, baseline military supplies from the US, such that supplies on hand should be sufficient for a war of certain duration. The longer they have to prepare the more independent they become, such as to develop and produce their own equipment, stockpile and have refineries to produce their own fuel. It has been a standing policy for years not to become totally dependent upon the US, because they are quite aware of the twisting tides of anti-Semitism in the US, and especially within certain groups. Israel accepts much aid from the US gratefully, but their ultimate goal is to stand on their own, and they are prepared to do so now.
20. They have used the Swiss model for years, where the Swiss have prepared for a war of 6 months, planning on support coming within that time…from NATO, the US…etc. Israel, however, must rely only on themselves in the final analysis; hence, their development of nuclear weapons for the last resort, when it becomes clear that they will run out of conventional supplies to defend themselves, or are being overrun well before that happens.
Therefore, to say that the US possesses the ability to stop Israel from defending themselves in a truly dire moment is simply hogwash. They will do what they think is necessary.
21. I have expressed my opinion at key steps in the scenarios I gave above. Fundamentally, I see our role as entering the conflict to stop the counter-aggressions by Israel’s neighbors and Iran, and further nuclear or conflict-widening responses by Israel. We cannot stop the first attacks by Israel, in my opinion. Whether this could be done rapidly under the UN flag or not is probably a no, if only because of time. We may well see this UN blessing as an absolute necessity, and hence delay our operational start while the UN Security Council debates the issues. Russia and China would be vitally important to either neutralize or bring into this operation of ours, but lacking that, we must proceed anyway. Time is of essence, but there may be days involved.
22. Otherwise, we will have a ME conflagration that may not stay limited, with a hard-pressed Israel possibly electing to use its nukes wherever they are threatened, which would be a disaster for many innocent ME people, and ultimately ourselves, if this triggers a more general war—a more general nuclear war.
23. In this process of attempting to cut off the conflict, we would undoubtedly be tagged by the Islamic nations and the Socialist/Communist nations with aggression ourselves. Fine, those are words, and the people we save will live to hear them, and to compare their options that we provided them–namely life. Some days you cannot win everything.
24. Any delay, such as the UN debate might cause, or our inability to bring an adequate force to bear in a timely fashion, would work against Iran, as the Israeli attacks would keep going until they know that we can enforce a truce, which they would realize by the rapid buildup of our naval air power in the area in a matter of days. I would hope that the combination of real power in the area and very strong diplomatic efforts through all channels results in a stand down on both sides very rapidly.
25. If I see through my crystal ball clearly enough, the Israelis would take advantage of the relatively few days they have, because of the diplomatic and logistical delays inherent in the situation, to knock out as much of Iran’s nuclear and military capabilities as they could before standing down at our forceful insistence, and under our protection. So much for the air and long-range missile war, I say. Looking back at this, one sees that Iran did get its punishment, by Israel.
26. The ground and missile war that would be raging is quite another matter. Hezbollah and Hamas would not be brought to a stand-down by air power, although Syria might well.
Some form of international force would have to interpose itself between Israel and these nations that have the necessary teeth to compel conformance to the stand-down, and to stop the missiles from flying. The usual UN force is a farce.
27. This is yet another critical problem to be solved, and it would be in the best interests of all parties to solve it quickly. There are some interesting ideas on how to accomplish this task, such as to sprinkle some number of third-nation soldiers throughout Israel, Lebanon and Palestine, with the clear understanding that if harmed by opposing missiles, they will be revenged rapidly and fully, Israel included. Better ideas may be out there somewhere.
Thursday, August 19, 2010
Many people are trying to stop the deportation of illegal immigrants by claiming that the US cannot deport 12 million people. Hogwash! As I have posted in the past, all that is needed is the will. Reflect on how we handled mobilization and maintenance of well over 12 million men and women during WWII for the armed forces. We provided clothing, shelter, medical help, food, and transportation to the lot for over 4.5 years.
So, it is obviously possible to do if we really want to do it. Such a program would have to be spaced out over a period of time, like 5 years, which would mean only 2.4 million people per year would be affected. It is also true that once such an effort was underway, many of the illegals would voluntarily go home to avoid the hassle.
At one point, I speculated that some 20 cruise ships could be hired to transport the illegals back home to their Central and Latin American nations from key ports around the US, plus the road and rail transport to the ports, and perhaps housing and feeding them awaiting a ship. If you do the math, each ship could turn around in about 2 weeks, and could carry about 5,000 per trip very comfortably. So that would be 26 trips per year X 5,000 people X 20 ships = 2.6 million people per year. In 5 years, the lot would be back home rather easily. The biggest glitch would be whether their home nation would accept them, and accept them at this rate of 2.6 million per year, divided, of course, between the various nations of origin.
So, please don't try to say that it is impossible to do, because it obviously isn't! It merely takes the will to do it.
Tuesday, August 17, 2010
Islam in America: A Possible Alternative
Let us prevent Sharia from ever being practiced in America
A first problem is the definition of religion and the acceptability of religious beliefs in America. Religions in general appear to me to have several parts: spiritual, acceptable individual secular behavior, and secular control of society.
Most religions find ready acceptability within their spiritual and secular behavioral parts. One can easily name 15 or 20 such acceptable religions now in America that have a significant membership, and many others that have little recognition and few members. We rightfully pride ourselves on acceptance of the existence these religions in our nation, and have codified this into the law of the land. This much is fully agreed by almost all Americans.
When a religion contains a major emphasis on secular control of society, and has the thrust to force all citizens of that society to adhere to its tenets on pain of death, there arises in most other Americans, immediately upon recognition of this aspect of a religion, a fear, a loathing, and a distrust of such a religion, because it is rejecting fundamental laws of the land-- the personal and religious freedom--that are guaranteed by our Constitution and civil laws.
When one examines Islam in this light, this religion emphasizes the secular control aspect by Islam, the forced acceptance of its tenets on pain of death, and even the penalty of death for apostates as an integral part of the practice of Islam. We have seen these tenets in operation time and time again in Islamic states, and even in the EU and America. The basic tenets of Islam are an anathema to most Americans that have some knowledge of Islam.
While we accept Islam for its spiritual and individual secular behavioral sides, we Americans are truly horrified at the secular control side of Islam, and thus perceive a real dilemma for our nation, both internally and externally. We want to accept the Muslim for his humanity and his religious, spiritual, and secular, moral sides, but we cannot accept his thrust for control of society, such as dhimmitude or death, the role of women in Islamic societies, and numerous other tenets, such as is embedded in Sharia, and its violation of human freedoms that we value so much.
The dilemma is in what we should do about this form of total religion in America. There seem to be several groups of thought on the subject: 1) Leave them alone; 2) Leave them alone, but punish their violations of our laws; 3) Leave them alone, but prohibit the promotion or practice of their form of secular laws and codes of behavior that are inimical to our way of life, and punish their transgressions; and 4) Rid the nation of them altogether.
My own preference is for the third idea, which may amount to simply prohibiting Sharia to be promoted or practiced in the United States instead of or in addition to our own laws. This would allow Muslims to practice their religion, both spiritually and in most secular behaviors, so long as it doesn't violate our laws and our freedoms. To do any less is to jeopardize, however ultimately, our entire way of life, our Constitution, and our freedoms.
Sunday, August 08, 2010
Islam in America Today
A view from the citizen's angle
Most Americans have not read the Koran, the Haddith, or Sharia law, which lays them open to both ignorance and suggestibility when it comes to Muslim practices.
When they do read the Koran, and a few commentaries on it, they are really shocked at the attitudes expressed about infidels (i.e. Christians and other unbelievers of Islam).
Examining the record further, the naive American discovers that the hideous prescriptions for good Muslims about infidels have not been revoked at all, but rather reaffirmed as the true teachings of Muhammad as recently as 2000. Some of these prescriptions include: you may lie, cheat, steal, and even murder an infidel without sanctions from Islam.
The American looks at his newspaper and reads of beheadings, honor killings, bombs blowing up both Americans and other Muslims in Islamic nations, and draws the obvious conclusion that Muslims are unstable to be around. He reads of how many American soldiers have died and been wounded by Muslim insurgents and terrorists, and forms a resentment that we must deal with such a seemingly bloodthirsty crowd at all. The he reads that there are an enormous number of Muslims right here in America. Some say from 2 to 12 million have found their way here; a bunch by way of our open borders, and others by legal immigration.
Now he asks the simple questions: Are these Muslims real Muslims as they are overseas? Are they as likely to try to promote Sharia here? Are some of them possibly sleeper cells awaiting orders to begin terrorist activities here? Do we really know much about them here?
Geller and Spencer tell it like it is from their perspective: we are being subjected to a silent takeover plan, and all of these Muslims can, given the right commands, become Jihadists, because it is their Islamic duty. They cite the progress in the UK, and on the EU continent that has seen early introduction of Sharia in the UK and parts of Islamacized Sweden.
Now the opposite propaganda begins. These are peaceful people and they are not here to take over at all.
Who does one believe about Islam, the local apologists for Islam or the revered "gospel" of Muhammad?
Tuesday, August 03, 2010
Our Poor Old Tattered Constitution
The Constitution is good for centuries!
There is an idea current that the Constitution is outdated. That is pure malarky. Properly interpreted and maintained the Constitution is good for a few more centuries. Certainly it needs some clarification, for instance, such as in the recent Supreme Court decisions regarding the 2nd Amendment, which have clarified some major aspects of the Amendment. All to the good. But more needs to be done, such as to strengthen the takings clause in favor of the owner rather than the government and developers. There should be a resurgence of States Rights as well, to place problems nearer to their source and immediate governance: think abortion, which has no basis in the Constitution (it may also not have a basis in State Constitutions either, but so be it). And it goes on and on…
Sunday, August 01, 2010
Conservatives, Whither Goest Thou?
Let us take a timeout for real planning!
It is rather difficult to separate clearly the strategic thinking of the conservative right from the tactical engagement of rightists with the loony leftists on daily issues. There has always been a struggle to rise up to the strategic level when mired in the mundane, and conversely, to descend to the tactical level once again with a valid rightist strategy in mind.
In my view, what is needed is a reset time where conservatives are forced to articulate their strategic views of whither goest thou once more for all to see, and then to show in some detail where those views lead us in solving our national tactical problems—of which there are many and varied! Once formulated, these views must be promoted in concert by our conservative leaders in great detail down all of the information channels open to us. As it stands, we appear to have too many voices with their own views of what is good for the nation, and no clear message to the voting pubilc.
So, to me the question is, where is our conservative roadmap for the future of the nation, say ten or 15 years out, and then where is our conservative and tactical action plan for the next few years that clearly leads to that future? We have seemed to be performing a Whack-a-Mole tactical battle against successive major issues without an overriding conservative philosophy and plan of action that counters the spendthrift left and their rush to buy voters.