Another Reason Mr. Bush is Right

Another Reason Mr. Bush is Right About the Wiretaps
By Daniel G. Jennings
Critics of President Bush’s decision not to seek congressional approval for the National Security Agency’s program of electronic surveillance of communication without warrants could actually open the door to far greater federal intrusions into individual privacy.
Bush’s wiretap program is a simple ad hoc measure designed for an extreme situation the war on terror. This program is a wartime measure to counter the terrorists’ tactic of having sleeper agents hiding among our population. Sleeper agents being terrorist operatives living and working as peaceful civilians until they attack us. These sleeper agents have to take their orders from terrorist masterminds overseas. The NSA is trying to monitor these communications which in light of Sept. 11 is a legitimate policy.
The problem is that this program is technically illegal, current law requires that intelligence agents get a search warrant when monitoring private conversations. A reasonable measure back when the spooks were listening for KGB agents talking about swiping weapons plans. Today when they’re listening for Al Qaeda talking about plans to kill hundreds and thousands of people there isn’t the time to get a warrant. There is also security to maintain, going to court might expose intelligence gathering methods and help the bad guys get away.
Many people have wondered why Bush doesn’t go to Congress? For several reasons first because going to Congress spreads knowledge of the intelligence gathering methods, the more people who know the more potential security leaks there are. But there maybe a better reason.
Do we want a permanent law authorizing federal agents to conduct electronic surveillance of private communications without warrants on the books for years or decades to come. Such a law could remain in effect after the war on terror ends giving a future administration legal means to monitor private communications. Worse it could lead to a formal federal wiretapping agency dedicated to monitoring Americans’ communications.
Bush’s simple ad hoc program is a wartime measure that can be shut down when the war ends. Since it is illegal and has no Congressional approval this program will have to end when the war ends. A program with a congressional mandate will continue as long as Congress wants it to.
Getting congress into the act could lead to further infractions. Some Representatives and Senators will undoubtedly try to get the NSA to monitor political groups they don’t like. Feminists may ask the NSA to monitor anti abortion activists, Congressmen from farm states may ask NSA to monitor animal rights activists, pro business Congressmen may want to monitor environmentalists or labor unionists, liberals may want to monitor conservative groups, conservatives to monitor liberals, liberals may want to monitor business groups and so on. Do we want Congressman Slime telling the NSA I can get your budget increased by 25 percent if you could just listen to my opponent in the next election and tell me what he’s planning?
Such is the danger we face if we allow Congress the power to monitor the communications of private citizens. There is most definitely a reason for allowing the NSA to monitor terrorists’ communications. There is no reason to give Congress the power to listen to private conversations.
Yet that is exactly the nightmare we’ll face if we listen to the self proclaimed champions of liberty who decry President Bush’s security measures and demand Congressional action.

Of Wiretaps and National Security

Of Wiretaps and National Security
By Daniel G. Jennings
The political debate over President Bush’s decision to use the National Security Agency’s electronic warfare capabilities to eavesdrop upon telephone calls, e-mails, faxes and other communications between American citizens and certain regions overseas maybe obscuring a far greater scandal that could expose terrible corruption at our nation’s highest levels.
Personally, I think the president is right American citizens have no expectation of privacy when communicating with individuals in enemy territory during a time of war. That’s basically what the critics of this policy are arguing and it makes little sense.
In this War on Terror we are fighting an enemy that attacks using operatives hidden among our population. These operatives must communicate with their leaders who are based in certain areas overseas: Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq etc. The most likely way for the terrorists to do this is through electronic communications such as faxes, e-mails and phone calls. Therefore it makes sense to monitor such traffic to see if we can detect messages between terrorists and their bosses overseas.
Current law written during the Cold War states that Uncle Sam must get a warrant from a special court based in Washington to conduct such eavesdropping. This law made sense when it was passed back in 1978, after all the threat back then was Russian spies swiping weapons plans. Obviously, a threat to national security but hardly an immediate threat. We could afford to wait a couple of days to listen to a KGB agent’s phone calls.
Al Qaeda is a different kettle of fish they’re plotting to blow up our cities and possibly deploy weapons of mass destruction against us. Our authorities must be able to instantly begin listening the minute they detect a terrorist. More importantly authorities must be in a position to conduct broad monitoring of communications lines. We don’t know where every terrorist is and what they’re planning.
Our spies can’t wait around to get a judge’s signature when the lives of hundreds or thousands of our people are at risk. They must be free to act ASAP not wait two or three days, days in which a terrorist cell might strike.
Perhaps President Bush should have went to Congress to get the law changed. The problem with that is Congressional hearings and discussions might have revealed details of this program to the world and to the terrorists.
It must be noted that Congress is a considerable security risk, the Abrahamoff scandal demonstrates how easy it is to buy members of Congress and their staff. Some members of Congress also hold radical political opinions opposed to the nation’s security policies, while others have close ties to foreign governments. Bush might not have went to Congress because he was aware of security leaks in Congress. If such Congressional security leaks exist that could be a far worse scandal than either Abrahamoff or eavesdropping.
This scandal also exposes what is wrong with the Democratic Party, the vast majority of Americans aren’t making phone calls to the Middle East. Mainly, a few wealthy business men, lawyers and journalists are. So why are the Democrats concerned about the NSA doing routine monitoring of such conversations? Notice they weren’t concerned when the program was secret only after it was exposed to the public by The New York Times and became the worry of the bi-coastal elite.
Why are the wealthy elitists in New York, Washington and LA so worried about Uncle Sam listening to their calls to the Middle East? Perhaps they’re afraid that the NSA spooks will hear some of their secrets such as sleazy deals with hostile governments and terrorists? Maybe they’re scared that the details of some of these conversations might get leaked to the press and they’ll have to explain their dealings to Congress, reporters and their fellow citizens? Or worse to the Federal Grand Jury and the US Attorney.
Once again the Democrats are putting the cause of the elitists who sign their paychecks ahead of the good of the country and its people. That’s sad and disgusting, and it explains why the Democrats will not regain control of Congress in the Fall.
Still, it also shows how both parties and the media are missing the real story. The response to this eavesdropping story may hint at a far worse scandal and deep corruption among our nation’s leaders. I wonder did NSA workers leak this story because they didn’t like the eavesdropping or because they wanted the country to know the contents of some of the conversations they’re listening to? It’s a question we deserve to have an answer to.

European Weakness

European Weakness Danger to the World?
By Daniel G. Jennings
For centuries, Europe was a danger to the rest of the world because it was militarily, technologically, industrially and economically stronger than all other continents. Today, however; Europe is a danger to the rest of the world because it is weak especially in military terms.
Recently, French President Jacques Chirac made the outrageous statement that France would respond to a terrorist attack with nuclear weapons. Naturally, the France worshipping American media ignored this incredible assertion. Imagine if President Bush made such a statement, the world’s opinion makers would be calling him a barbarian and a warmonger. Chirac, on the other hand, can and does get away with it.
Now we have to ask ourselves two questions here, is Chirac serious in this threat and if so why? I have no way of knowing if Chirac is serious or not, but if he is I think I know why. Chirac made this statement because nuclear weapons maybe the only option France has for retaliating against terrorism.
If America is attacked President Bush has a wide variety of options available to respond. For example the US has a fleet of long range bombers, carrier based aircraft, unmanned Predator drones, cruise missiles, several large forces of crack commandos, the best army in the world and the best infantry force on Earth the United States Marine Corps. What does France have? An army about the same size as Chile’s army. An air force of about the same size and scope as say Mexico’s, and a navy that consists basically of one aircraft carrier.
In other words, the only way Chirac might be able to respond to an Al Qaeda outrage in Paris such as a bomb on the Metro would be to lob a nuclear missile at the Afghan Pakistan border. This probably wouldn’t get Bin Laden or his followers but it would kill a lot of innocent people and make the Pakistanis and the rest of the Moslem world real mad. Imagine the response to that Pakistan also has nuclear weapons and long range missiles and I imagine it’s air force could probably rig up something that could hit Paris in pretty quick time.
Or barring nuclear weaponry the Pakistanis might decide to invade France, after all their army is much larger than France’s. The discontented Moslem population in France would serve as a fifth column for their attack. The only thing blocking their way to France would be the US Navy, a nightmare scenario for the US.
Such weakness could be dangerous in other ways, despite it’s weakness France continues flexing it’s military muscle in Africa. What happens if the French tick off one of the larger African countries such as South Africa or Nigeria (which has a large highly professional British style army). What then? Would Mousier Chirac call the White House in the middle of the night screaming for the Marines to come in and save his army from its own arrogance? Would Americans tolerate seeing their soldiers die on CNN and Fox to protect Frenchmen? Think of the reaction of African American voters, American soldiers shooting black Africans to protect white colonialists.
Military weakness is dangerous in Europe itself too. In October it was on display for the world to see. Islamic youth rioted in France destroying neighborhoods and burning cars. The violence continued for weeks on end and the authorities seemingly did nothing. The police were helpless and no troops appeared in the streets to stop the violence. Quite a contrast to New Orleans where troops moved in within days of the crisis’s beginning to restore order. In China recently, troops moved in on rioting villages after a couple of days and restored order.
No reason has been given for the French Army’s lack of response to the chaos in the streets. Although French soldiers did deploy to protect tourist sites and wealthy neighborhoods in Paris. Could the real reason French troops didn’t move in to stop the riots was that the troops simply don’t exist.
Gangs of Islamic youth some of them linked to terrorists were able to gain control of French cities and the French government was helpless. The violence has seemingly abated but it could break out again at any time. A truly nightmare situation would be that Islamic volunteer fighters of the kind who have reeked so much havoc in Iraq, Chechnya, Bosnia and Afghanistan could set up shop in France. These foreign fighters could organize the French rioters into militia forces, train them and equip them with serious military style weapons for major attacks. Then lead them in raids, some of which would undoubtedly be attempts to capture France’s nuclear missiles and turn them against the US and other nations.
How the US would react to this situation? I don’t know but I have to wonder would Germans, Englishmen and Swedes be willing to get drafted into the Greater European Army to patrol the streets of France? Will the Germans, Brits and Spaniards tolerate a bastion of Islamic terror in their midst? Will the Islamic Turks (Turkey is part of NATO and is joining the EU) go to France to kill their fellow Muslims in order to keep the Dutch free to smoke dope and organize gay marriages? And what would the European governments do? Their weakness dictates they may have to run to Washington, Beijing and New Delhi for help. Will the world come or will it allow Europe to return to the dark ages?
Will the help come? That’s hard to say a lot of people beyond Europe suffered badly at the hands of arrogant Europeans in the past days of colonialism and imperialism. Few of their descendants will cry any tears for Europe or its people.
European weakness also underpins European policy, Europe tacitly backs the United States because America has protected it. Part of the reason Europeans don’t support the US military adventure in Iraq is that they are afraid that will mean US forces vital to Europe’s security will be moved to the Middle East. Another reason is that Europe maybe called upon to mobilize military resources it doesn’t have to support US military adventures. Italy’s contribution to the war in Iraq is 3,000 men, Britain can occupy one Iraqi city, Basara.
This is also the reason the Europeans are moving heaven and Earth to get Turkey into the European Union. Turkey has a large highly professional army, the second largest in NATO, that could come to Europe’s aid. It is also a reason why the EU is expanding east trying to augment its meager military forces with those of Eastern Europe.
Where European weakness will lead I don’t know, but one thing is certain. European weakness like past European strength is likely to have destabilizing effects that reach far beyond Europe.

Martin Luther King Day

Okay today is Martin Luther King Day, what should we say about it? Well, first we should remember the Real Civil Rights Movement that defeated American Racism in the 1950s and 60s. Not the Leftist Fantasy. The Real Civil Rights Movement was basically a revolt on the part of Middle Class blacks who had confirmed and worked hard to be part of society and were being denied their piece of the American Dream. The Civil Rights Movement worked because it was a revolt of well dressed, well mannered Middle Class Church Going blacks. The public watching at home compared these people to their opponents, the ignorant poorly dressed racist thugs and supported them. The Civil Rights Movement succeeded because it adopted mainstream American Middle Class Values and Championed them. Since MLK's day, those blacks who have succeeded have been those who adopted Middle Class American values, those who refused to have failed and still find themselves in the ghetto. African American progress in the United States largely stopped when a large segment of blacks deliberately turned their backs upon the American Mainstream. Unfortunately too many Americans particularly African Americans haven't learned this lesson. Instead too many people buy into the myth that it was Black Radicals who were a tiny and largely despised minority who won the Civil Rights battles. It's time we remembered the Real Civil Rights movement before it's memory is lost suppressed by the Politically Correct Elite that despises everything the Real Civil Rights movement stood for and fought for.

What the New US Foreign Policy Should Look Like

What the New U.S. Foreign Policy Should Look Like
By Daniel G. Jennings
Lately, I’ve added my voice to the chorus calling for a new US foreign policy that reflects the realities of today’s very dangerous world. Therefore I suppose I must offer my ideas on US foreign policy and the global situation.
Such a policy must take into account two obvious facts that will become clearer as the years progress. Fact one: US military power is limited and is likely to shrink in the years ahead meaning that we won’t be able to keep all of our commitments let alone take on new ones that will be forced upon us by circumstance. Fact Two: for the first time since World War I there are at least three other powers out there whose military and economic resources rival and could one day surpass America’s: China, India and Russia. No, I don’t count Europe as a major power, the European is a bad joke, it’s military resources are limited and in terminal decline.
The situation is ripe for disaster if the US pursues a unilateral go it alone policy of being the world’s policeman it’ll either find itself in conflict with one or more of these powers. Or worse we we’ll find ourselves in a situation where we’ll have to go begging to Beijing, New Delhi and Moscow for help.
Sadly enough such a situation is quite likely because the Indians, the Russians and especially the Chinese haven’t been pulling their weight as major powers. Instead of serious involvement in international crises all they’ve done is dispatch a few units on UN peacekeeping duty, a cruel farce that does nothing to promote peace or protect innocent people from thugs and terrorists.
My proposal is this, the US should start a new great power club: the Big Four or Four policemen as FDR proposed during World War II. The Big Four Powers, US, China, India and Russia (okay maybe Big Five or Big Six we should probably let Britain and Japan join if just for old times sake) would work together to police the world. That is their military forces would work together to respond to things like terrorism, natural disasters, rogue states and containing conflicts. The Big Four could pool their resources for things like international development, foreign, aid, exploitation of resources, scientific research, education, space exploration, etc. For example they could build a joint international space station and a joint moon base and launch a joint manned Mars Mission. Their militaries could conduct joint training maneuvers and their military personnel could attend schools in each others’ nations. An example of such cooperation might be that in some future conflict India and China which have lots of manpower could provide the ground troops while America provides the Naval forces and logistical support and Russia air units, tanks and intelligence.
Such an arrangement is certainly doable, there is little or no hostility between these four major powers. Three of them, America, India and Russia are democratic. Yes China is still a dictatorship governed by a group that calls itself the Communist Party, yet the Chinese Communist Party no longer believes in Communism. The Chinese leadership wants economic growth and development, it has more in common with nationalist dictators like Francisco Franco, Augusto Pinochet and Chiang Kai Sek (all of whom proved to be reliable US allies and all of whose regimes were succeeded by successful democracies) than Mao or Castro. I might add that the US won the Cold War by successfully partnering with such authoritarian dictators to the disgust of human rights advocates and the left.
A Big Four (or Big Five or Six Alliance, Britain will undoubtedly be leaving the European Union soon and looking for new friends, especially if France melts down) Alliance would certainly be in the mutual interest of all four nations. All these Countries want to keep the international economy ticking, they want to keep the trade lanes open, the oil flowing and the stock market going up. They have mutual interests like securing oilfields, policing the seas, suppressing terrorism, controlling the excesses of rogue states, containing disease and maintaining stability around the globe.
The United States should take the lead in forming the Big Four by inviting the Prime Minister of India, President Putin of Russia and the President of China perhaps Tony Blair should also be invited to Washington for a summit conference to lay down the ground work of such an alliance. This summit should become a yearly or bi yearly event and there should be a regular discussion say a weekly teleconference between all four leaders. This should be followed by formal meetings between the cabinet ministers and military commands of all four nations and joint maneuvers.
There could be other symbolic gestures, the Chinese astronauts (takonauts) should be invited to visit the International Space Station, train with NASA and ride on the space shuttle. NASA should ask if an astronaut could take a ride in the Chinese space capsule perhaps to visit the international space station.
One early move the Big Four could announce that all four nations are not going to participate in the European farce known as the International Court of Justice in the Hague. Perhaps they should establish their own International Court to try war criminals, terrorists and the like in Beijing or Washington. This new International Court unlike the fraud in Europe would be able to met out the death penalty (Russia, China and India, like America, have and regularly administer the death penalty in other words the USA has more in common with these nations than Europe), the only punishment monsters like Saddam Hussein are really afraid of.
Such a move would pull the rug out from under the tired old powers of Europe and let them know where they really stand in the world. It would also establish the Big Four as the dominant alliance in the world and let the world’s bad guys know that we’re serious about shutting them down.
Obviously, such a stratagem will involve a sea change in American thinking on both the right and the left. We’ll have to accept two nonwhite, non Christian powers (India and China) as equals, we’ll have to dump our Eurocentric view of the world and turn our backs upon our traditional allies in Europe and possibly Japan. Liberals will have to abandon their fantasies about international law and the United Nations for a more realistic view of the world. Traditional conservatives will have to consign isolationism to the dustbin of history where it belongs. Neoconservatives will have to give up their grandiose vision of remaking the world in our image and put the Blueprint for the New American Century in the shredder.
Most importantly Americans will have to realize that we are not the center of the world anymore. Our position is or soon will be more akin to first among equals than dominant super power.
Establishing a Big Four type alliance would promote real international cooperation and peace in a realistic way that would avoid conflict. It would also do far more to secure America’s and the world’s future than any plan to “fix” the United Nations or waste our tax dollars on Strategic Missile Defense.

Needed: A New American Foreign Policy for A New Century

Needed: A New American Foreign Policy for A New Century
By Daniel G. Jennings
If there is one discussion that is needed in American politics today on both sides of the aisle it is a serious debate on foreign policy.
America needs a realistic and sensible foreign policy that protects our interests, ensures our security and upholds our values. Yet we have nothing of the kind, the truth is we haven’t had an intelligent foreign policy since Ronald Reagan was in the White House.
Under Bill Clinton we had no foreign policy, Clinton merely signed whatever treaty would impress the editorial writers at The New York Times while pretending the rest of the world didn’t exist. To make matters worse Clinton engaged in shameful acts of appeasement to preserve his policy of avoid conflict at all costs. The most reprehensible of these being the return of Elian Gonzalez to Fidel Castro’s loving arms. The threat of terrorism was ignored even as America’s obligations around the world were greatly increased in the name of peacekeeping and humanitarianism.
President Bush, like his father, has tried to be the world’s policeman, sending US forces to Afghanistan to get Bin Laden, overthrowing Saddam and trying to spread democracy at gunpoint. Such a Wilsonian policy is undeniably moral but it is hardly realistic, the United States lacks the resources to police the world. Nor is the New American Century, a United States with a massive trade deficit will never have the kind of military and economic resources 1940s America had.
A great many Americans dislike President Bush’s foreign policy yet almost none of them can effectively counter it because they don’t offer any realistic alternatives. The left and the Democrats ask us to turn the UN, a corrupt, undemocratic organization that is a hollow joke or worse to the tired old nations of Europe which have a desire to impose their will upon the world but minimal military capabilities. Right Wing war critics offer a diet of warmed over isolationism a policy that failed sixty five years ago and little else.
So what sort of foreign policy should America have? A good starting point would be to examine the foreign policy of one of our greatest presidents Ronald Reagan. Reagan succeeded in being both a realist and an idealist in terms of foreign policy. RR never compromised his ideals, he was a fearless champion of democracy but at the same time he practiced a realistic policy that avoided unnecessary conflict and preserved the peace.
Reagan’s foreign policy worked because it was honest, Reagan freely called Communism evil but he was willing to sit down with Communist leaders and work with them for the common good. Reagan realized that he couldn’t change the world and America had to accept regimes he didn’t like. Reagan, the fierce anticommunist, had a good working relationship with Mikhail Gorbachev and China’s Deng Xiaoping. Reagan, the champion of democracy, hosted state dinners for vicious dictators because he needed their help in the Cold War.
Reagan realized that America had to be involved in the world but it’s involvement had to be limited. America couldn’t directly take on the Soviet Union and it’s allies but it could arm the Afghan rebels and the contras. America had to maintain military forces and nuclear missiles in Europe but it couldn’t try to match the massive Soviet military buildup.
Such pragmatism is what is needed today. America needs to keep up it’s war against terrorism but America can’t remake the world in its image. We can’t overthrow every dictator or shut down every dungeon and secret police force. Nor can we withdraw from the world and hope that things will go well. A sensible compromise will be needed.
One like Reagan’s foreign policy that relies heavily on allies, Reagan worked closely with diverse allies, Chinese Communists, Israel, South American dictators, European socialists. Reagan welcomed Communists when they tried to change and become Democratic. Such a policy takes courage and common sense.
What should such a policy involve, my guess will be that we need to develop a system of alliances with powerful nations to police the world. Some of these allies will be our traditional allies like Britain and Japan, but most of them will countries exotic to us, China, India, Pakistan, Vietnam, Nigeria, Brazil, countries that have real military power. Such a policy will require us to turn our backs on traditional allies and work closely with countries we hardly know. It’ll take courage to implement such a policy, the kind of courage Ronald Reagan had. Of course Ronald Reagan was one of a kind. That may be our worst crisis, implementing a new American foreign policy will require a leader the stature of Ronald Reagan. Unfortunately there was only one Ronald Reagan and he’s dead.

Idea

A Way For Conservative Politicians to Influence the Culture Wars
By Daniel G. Jennings
As Paul Weyrich and other observes have pointed out the challenge facing conservatives is primarily cultural: that is to influence the culture in such a way as to promote and restore traditional values. Conservative politicians who have won the political wars don’t like to face this hard truth because it makes their victories in the political battles largely hollow ones.
Thankfully in a free society such as ours there is little politicians can do to change the culture. Still there maybe a way in which conservative politicians can influence the culture wars or at least help their side in it.
Conservative politicians can expose the stupidity and chicanery of the New Left and Neo Marxism by calling prominent leftist thinkers to Washington to testify about these things before Congress. I’m not talking about an inquisition or McCarthyism here, I’m simply suggesting that we give leftist thinkers an opportunity to use Congress as a forum to explain their views and promote their ideas. We should make it clear that nobody will go to jail or loose their job if they don’t show up we just want to hear what they think. Nobody will call them Communists and there will be no possibility of a blacklist.
Surely such pompous windbags as Cornel West, Ward Churchill, Noam Chomsky, Peter Singer and company won’t want to miss a chance to rant and rave before a national audience. Once on camera these fools can expose themselves and the stupidity and venality of their thinking to the American public.
Imagine all the fodder the late night TV comics, The Simpsons, South Park and Saturday Night Live will get out of the foolish performance of these intellectuals. They’ll be too irresistible a target to pass up and much of their influence will disappear when they become laughingstocks.
If these idiots don’t show up to defend themselves, Congress can ask what do these fools have to hide? Why are they afraid of the spotlight and the free exchange of ideas they claim to believe in. They want a national debate let’s give them one and see who wins.
Such fools have been able to get away with their extremist dogma and Anti American bigotry because they’ve had no real publicity. Average people don’t realize what’s being taught in the big universities and increasingly pushed through the media. The media has deliberately ignored them and covered up for them time and time again. It’s time we exposed such thinking and called for a national debate upon it. If the leftists really believe in their ideas they should welcome such a chance.
Average Americans deserve to know what the self proclaimed intellectuals are saying about them, their country and the things they believe in. They also deserve to know about the bigotry that is increasingly being passed off as higher learning in many of our great universities.
Such hearings would also put Democrats in the hot seat, imagine how Average Americans would react if someone like John Kerry or Nancy Pelosi came out and defended such a loathsome individual as Noam Chomsky. The damage to Democrats could be immense they would have to choose between the support of the far left or the American People. I imagine some prominent Democrats such as Hillary Clinton and Senator Byrd of West Virginia would end up being harder on the Far Leftists than many Republicans.
Now obviously such hearings wouldn’t be an easy undertaking the Republicans would face vast amounts of criticism from the media. Not to mention lots of TV stories featuring newsreel footage of Joe McCarthy. Still, exposing the hypocrisy and stupidity of the Far Left would be a good starting point in a counteroffensive to win the Culture Wars.

The Rehabilitation of Joseph Stalin

I've noticed a frightening trend lately, one of history's worst tyrants, Joseph Stalin, is being rehabilitated and revived. A few years ago Stalin was regarded as pure evil even comic books and Saturday morning cartoons were portraying him as a super villain. Now suddenly Uncle Joe is back and is being portrayed as something good. Over in Russia a number of towns have errected statues to Stalin and some politicians are talking of how he got things done. Down in Mexico demonstrators at rallies for Zapatista rebel leader Subcommadante Marcos are waving posters of Stalin. My guess is the wave of Stalin nostalgia will soon reach our shows. I have to wonder is this just the ignorance of leftists on parade or is it a harbinger of a revivial of interest in Communism and all the evil that implies.

Ariel Sharon

Israel's prime minister Ariel Sharon is now lying in a coma from a stroke he won't recover from. Sharon the tough old soldier/cattle rancher/politician surprised a lot of people by deciding to pull the Israel settlements from the West Bank. People wonder why Sharon did this, my guess is Sharon viewed this action as a strategic retreat. As a pragmatic old soldier Sharon had weighed his options and decided that the Israeli position on the West Bank was untenable so he pulled back to a more defensible position. Sharon probably did this he believed a major Arab assault on Israel was inevtiable in the near future and the Israelis need to conserve their forces to fight it off. Perhaps Sharon feared that religious fundamentalists will soon seize power in a number of major Arab countries and launch a Holy War on Israel. Sharon may also have hoped that the Palestinians would destroy each other in civil war something that seems to be happening. Sharon may also have concluded that pulling the settlers would make it easier for Israel's Defense Forces to target and kill Palestinian trouble makers in the West Bank. Something that also seems to be happening. Whether these scenarios will play out or not I don't but they seem a likely explanation of Sharon's behavior than a desire for "peace" as defined by the media.

Notes

A Couple of Notes On the War On Terror
By Daniel G. Jennings
Those who criticize President Bush’s War on Terror had better remember one thing: the United States has not suffered a terrorist attack since 2001 over four years ago. I seriously doubt that this is a coincidence, whatever Bush is doing to stop or deter Al Qaeda and company is working and working quite well.
The Lefties in the media and their allies in Congress think they can hurt Mr. Bush by exposing the details of the Administration’s secret and illegal program of having the National Security Agency monitor certain phone calls. The media elite is crazy if they think that this concocted scandal will hurt Bush.
All Bush’s political mastermind Karl Rove has to do to defuse this scandal is to leak an NSA surveillance tape of Abdul and Akmed talking about blowing up Disneyworld and killing large numbers of American children to the media. Once this tape is repeated a few thousand times in the media, Bush will sound like a patriotic hero doing whatever it takes to defend the country. The self appointed champions of civil rights will sound like modern day Quislings working to help the enemy kill us.
Reports from Iraq such as those of Shawn Macomber* indicate that the Iraqi soldiers and police fighting alongside the US military are brave and dedicated but solely lacking in equipment and weaponry. American soldiers ride around Iraq in heavily armed and armored Humves, tanks, Stryker armored cars and Armored Personnel carriers. Their Iraqi counterparts ride around in the backs of pickup trucks. US military personnel have battle armor and helmets, Iraqi soldiers have nothing but their uniforms and surplus Russian and American army helmets to protect them. Americans have lots of high tech firepower and air support, Iraqis have none of the kind.
If we want the Iraqi Army and Police to be able to fight and defeat the insurgents we’re going have to upgrade their equipment and fast. Obviously, the Iraqi military’s weapons, vehicles and equipments don’t have to be as good as those used by our troops but they must be capable of surviving a modern war.
There are a number of sources of equipment available, first what happened to all the weapons and vehicles Saddam bought. Most of them were probably obsolete junk of Russian origin but at least some must still be serviceable. It should be possible to get quite a few of the tanks, artillery pieces, armored personnel carriers, helicopters and planes Saddam bought from Russia and France up and running again. I’m sure the Russians and French would gladly sell or even give the Iraqis the parts they need to do this.
If enough vehicles aren’t available in Iraq what about all the surplus military vehicles all over the world including the United States? The Sheridan Armored Personnel Carriers used by the US in Vietnam for example. I imagine it shouldn’t be hard to buy surplus vehicles and ship them to Iraq, there should be many Iraqi men experienced in maintaining and operating such vehicles thanks to Saddam’s army. Perhaps these vehicles can be upgraded with modern armor, electronics and armaments to make them more effective fighting machines.
Or if we want to give the Iraqis new equipment, another solution presents itself: America has lots of factories and machine shops especially in the Midwest many of them are sitting idle right now. Many skilled American factory workers need jobs. Perhaps contracts can be given to American companies to design and build a new generation of fighting vehicles for use by the Iraqi military. Modern light weight materials like Kevlar could make light and cheap SUVs invulnerable to many weapons and cheaper to produce and maintain than tanks or APCs. These vehicles wouldn’t have to be as advanced or as powerful as those used by the US military which would make them cheaper. The production of such vehicles could also be a profitable new export industry for American companies for many other countries might like to buy them.
If we want to see fewer American deaths in Iraq we’ll have to reequip the Iraqi military so let’s get started. If we do it right it could be a win-win situation for American industry and workers and Iraqi soldiers.

* http://www.returnoftheprimitive.com/

Predictions for 2006

Predictions for 2006
By Daniel G. Jennings
I wouldn’t be much of a pundit if I didn’t make some predictions for the coming year so here goes….
First, the Republicans will not loose control of Congress in the 2006 presidential elections and may even make some gains. This will happen for the very simple reason that the voting public thinks the Democrats are a bunch of prissy intellectuals who don’t have the balls to do what it takes to keep America safe from terrorism. Since Sept. 11, terrorism has been the political issue in this country. The soccer mom goes to bed scared that Bin Laden will blow up her kids next week, she knows that President Bush has the strength of will to do anything to stop Bin Laden. She also has a strong suspicion that the Democrats are a bunch of wimpy ex hippies who are too squeamish to wage war on this country’s enemies.
The Democrats have done nothing to allay those concerns and everything to verify them. For example, Democrats and their allies in the media and Europe have demanded that President Bush respect the human and legal rights of captured terrorists. That sounds good to the crowd sipping their lattes in the college lounge but on Main Street it comes across as this: the Democrats care more about the monsters who would blow up average Americans than average Americans. Or the surveillance at the NSA, to average people it sounds like President Bush is doing what it takes to defend us, to the elite it sounds like violation of civil rights.
The Democrats will loose because they don’t get the terrorist threat. Average people do every time they see a TV report about a bomb in Europe or the Middle East. Or some file footage of Sept. 11. Until Democrats are willing to come out and say they are 100 percent committed to the war on terror they will loose and loose big.
Other predictions I really don’t know but the war on terror and the terrorists’ war on us will continue. There is a fifty/fifty chance of a terrorist attack on the US, there will be major new terrorist attacks in Europe, Russia and Asia. There will also be large scale terror attacks on our allies in the Middle East including Egypt, Jordan, Israel and Turkey. The war in Iraq will sputter on insurgents will keep carrying out suicide attacks and America will make slow process in its efforts to rebuild that country.
Closer to home, I predict the movie industry and theater owners in an attempt to make up for slow ticket sales will offer all sorts of contests, specials and giveaways. Many theaters will cut ticket prices, others will offer things like free popcorn, soda pop, etc. and contests get a chance to win a car or a trip to Hawaii when you buy a movie ticket. Some theaters will also do things like eliminate matinees or close on slow nights like Monday and Tuesday. We’ll also see more direct to DVD movies and some movies released in theaters and DVD at the same time.
In the Academy Awards, I predict Brokeback Mountain won’t win the Best Picture or Best Director Oscars. My guess for the winner George Lucas, he’s done a lot for the movie industry and he isn’t controversial. He’s also been snubbed by Hollywood. My guess, Lucas will win Best Picture and Best Director Oscars for Star Wars III: Revenge of the Sith. It will be an easy way to avoid the gay controversy, gay cowboys will hurt Hollywood sales all over the world, and still honor a movie visionary. It’ll also reconcile with all the fans who are pissed at Hollywood for snubbing Mr. Lucas.
One more prediction: Denver Broncos in the Super Bowl, they’ll probably loose but they’re a better team than the Indianapolis Colts and Jake Plumber is the best quarterback in football these days.
Okay those are predictions, don’t bet any money on them, but remember them. At least a few of them will come true.

Resolutions

What Conservatives Should Do in 2006
By Daniel G. Jennings
Every year we all make New Year’s Resolutions, lists of what we should and shouldn’t do in the coming year. What New Year’s Resolutions should Conservatives make in 2006 and why?
The first resolution America’s conservatives need to make in 2006 is to deal with out of control federal funding and the deficits it creates. This spending is now so high that there are only two solutions possible: steep tax increases or big cuts in spending. If Republicans can’t control the spending through budget cuts then the public will turn to the Democrats whose answer will be more taxes. If nothing is done the deficit will hurt the economy and threaten our future. Out of control spending makes Republicans sound like frauds and hypocrites they talk about fiscal discipline but spend like drunken teenagers with daddy’s credit cards.
The second resolution Conservatives need to make is to do something about healthcare costs. The high cost of healthcare has sparked nasty labor disputes around the nation including the New York Transit strike. Vast numbers of average Americans can no longer afford something as simple as a visit to the doctor. Many working people rely on emergency rooms for their medical care. Obviously a solution is needed and fast. One solution is National Health Insurance, if conservatives don’t like National Health Insurance they’d better come up with a practical and effective alternative and fast.
The third resolution Conservatives need to make is to deal with runaway consumer debt. Americans have rung up untold billions in consumer debt: credit cards, mortgages of all kinds, car loans, etc. A large percentage of the population will never pay off these debts yet corporate America keeps pushing more credit on them like a drug dealer pushing smack on a junkie. Something has to be done to stop this cycle of indebtedness or we could face an economic crash on the magnitude of the Great Depression, which was caused largely by out of control consumer spending in the 1920s. Perhaps it’s time to hold the corporate executives issuing all that credit, in many cases to pump up the price of the stock options in order to line their own pockets, accountable for their actions.
The fourth resolution Conservatives need to make is deal with illegal immigration. The public is sick and tired of illegal immigration which it rightly sees as benefitting the corporate elite at the expense of the working class. Fences on the border won’t cut it. Something has to be done to penalize those who employ illegal immigrants. The big corporations who employ illegal immigrants must be made to pay. The politician who has the guts to go after big corporations who employ illegal immigrants will be a national hero on the order of Theodore Roosevelt.
The fifth resolution Conservatives must make is to do something about foreign trade. Our trade deficit is out of control, other countries such as China are building up their economies at our expense.
Our industry has been exported and large corporations are making huge profits at the expense of the America worker. Instead of turning to cutting edge technologies American companies turn to cheap foreign labor which means they will be at a titanic disadvantage when Chinese labor costs rise and Japanese robotics provide a cheap alternative.
The sixth resolution conservatives must make is to come up with a real energy policy. Let’s face it there isn’t enough oil in Alaska or anywhere else in the USA to supply America’s needs. New technologies whether they be solar, wind or hydrogen won’t supply our needs. We need to shift to nuclear reactors to supply our energy and to a proven transportation technology that doesn’t require oil electric powered rail. That’ll be expensive and unpopular, Americans love their cars, but it has to be done. The politician who buckles down and does it will be a national icon on the order of FDR or Ronald Reagan.
The seventh resolution of conservatives has to be coming up with a new foreign policy that takes account of global realities. The go it alone strategy of the Bush Administration may get our patriotic juices flowing but America lacks the economic and military resources to do this forever. The Democratic solution turn to the tired old nations of Europe and the UN is even worse. The so called powers of Europe have fewer military resources available than developing nations like Pakistan and Nigeria and keep in mind that Pakistan and Nigeria are second rate powers. Britain Europe’s number one military power has only enough soldiers available to police one city in Iraq. The French can’t even protect the streets of their own cities. Germany’s contribution in Afghanistan is one MASH unit. The UN is a cesspool of corruption and a bad joke. Yet the world has to be policed, Fortress America didn’t work in 1941 (ask the men who were at Pearl Harbor) when the world was a much bigger place than it is today. It won’t work in today’s world. So America needs to develop new alliances that will secure the peace. America secured world peace for fifty years in the early 1950s by reaching out to the nations of Europe and Asia and forming alliances against Communism. America must reach out to the new powers of the world, China and India, and an old enemy, Russia and regional powers like Brazil, Pakistan and maybe even Iran. This will meaning dumping traditional allies and treating people with different religions, values and beliefs as equals. It might mean having American troops fight side by side with Chinese or Indians. That’ll take a see change in attitudes and an abandoning of the moronic notion of European superiority.
Like all New Year’s Resolutions these resolutions will require lots of hard work and sacrifice. And like most New Year’s Resolutions I imagine these resolutions will be quickly forgotten because they require too much discipline and sacrifice.