Friday, June 23, 2006
Ali Is Safe and Blogging!
I don't know that many of you have come across the blog "A Free Iraqi," but its author, "Ali" has not posted anything for a while, and we feared the worst. You see, Ali is a resident of Baghdad, and his brother, a doctor, was killed by terrorists a few months ago. His blog posts give us an idea of what life is like in Iraq since April 9, 2003. I am relieved that he is alive and well, and I am glad he is back.
Thursday, June 22, 2006
Winning in Iraq
To those who disagree with my point of view: I know I can not change your mind on the subject of the war in Iraq any more than you can change mine. However, I hope you take the time to read this post, because it is in response to questions you have raised, in my mind, in your own blogs. Yes, it's true, I read your blogs with an open mind. Even if you feel that you have heard all this before, please try to return the courtesy I have afforded you. Maybe I can stimulate some thought from this presentation, and we can have a meaniingful dialogue. Comments are more than welcome, either here or at my forum. Please try to refrain from name calling or personal attacks.
It is, perhaps, my military training and experience that makes me think this way, but I have a deep conviction that, once a mission is begun, it should be continued to full accomplishment. No matter what the initial reason for being on the mission was, the need for victory, in the situation as it exists today, is vital.
Don't talk to me about Saddam's genocide, wmd's, threats against the US, Saudi Arabia, Israel, or Jordon. Don't make an issue, now, about Saddam paying the families of Palestinian suicide bombers who killed Israelis, or his dealings with al Qaeda. That war ended three years ago, with the end of Saddam's reign.
Those reasons mean nothing now, that mission was accomplished.
The conflict we are engaged in now is against a different enemy. When Saddam's government fell, the very same Islamist extremists who engineered the September 11, 2001 attack against the United States, took the opportunity to try to extablish their own government in Iraq, one which would give them the power of having their own country with its resources and people. It is against those people we are fighting and the defeat of al Qaeda is our mission.
Al Queda's stated mission--and this is from the mouth and pen of Usama Bin Ladin himself--is to create a Jihadi Caliphate in what he calls "Mesopotania." Once established, the goal of the Caliphate would be to spread the Jihad world-wide, and to destroy the Infidels of Western Civilization.
Bin Ladin deployed part of his military forces in Iraq with full confidence that he would be able to easily take Iraq--precedence set in Somalia told him that the Americans would leave as soon as the situation got difficult, as he told his generals, or "Emirs" in Iraq.
Admittedly, there were mistakes made. If the coalition forces had gone on to remove Saddam from power in 1991, the Iraqis would have been ready to take over the government, and we would not have had the problems we are experiencing now. There would still have been a Baathi insurgency, but the majority of Iraqis were united against Saddam. Our failure to follow through at the time created anti-American sentiments among some Iraqis, who felt we had let them down, especially since they had to suffer under Saddam for the next twelve years.
Furthermore, when Saddam was removed from power in 2003, we made the mistake of disbanding the Iraqi Army. This created resentment among the former army members, and gave Bin Ladin recruits and resources, as well as giving measure to the Sunni insurgency.
Should we have provided enough troops to secure the oil fields and oil production facilities? Assuredly, if we had done so, it would have been percieved by the rest of the world that America was there to steal the Iraqi oil resources. In that case, we would have been looked upon even less favorably by the rest of the world than we are now.
There have been atrocities. Those in the American military who abused their positions as prison guards and interrogators have been arrested and convicted, and are now in prison themselves. It has been made clear that their methods are not the methods of the United States Military Services. There are soldiers in detention now, facing charges of murder. It must be made clear that we are not there to murder innocent Iraqi citizens.
War is never desirable. Any politician, statesman, or military person will tell you that.There will be innocent civilian casulties, especially when the enemy is using them as human shields. We are fighting an enemy which does not wear uniforms. Not that this would, by any means, justify civilian deaths during the course of battle, but the wholesale murder of innocent civilians is the order of battle for Al Qaeda.. This is why they are called "terrorists," and their method "terrorism."
We want the Iraqis to be on our side. Al Qaeda wants to pit Iraqi against Iraqi, to create a civil war, and to make a failure of the new government. We know this not only from the notes of the late Abu Musab al Zarqawi, but from his actions, framing the Sunnis in the bombing of the Golden Mosque, using Iraqi Army uniforms to put blame on the Iraqi government when kidnapping and murdering Sunni Muslims.
As I write this, US and Iraqi security forces are rooting out insurgents in Ramadi, where two American soldiers were kidnapped, tortured, mutilated and murdered. Abu al Masri, the Egyptian al Queda general who replaced al Zarqawi in Iraq, publicly took full credit for that atrocity. The Iraqi Army has established a base in that city. Al Qaeda is in danger of losing another base of operations. What needs to be done now is for the Iraqi government to establish Martial Law in Ramadi, to step up the fight against the enemy.
Al Qaeda is losing. Bin Ladin has shifted many of his troops back to Afghanistan, to fight alongside the deposed Taliban forces to try to gain some kind of base. The absence of attacks in the US and Europe by Al Qaeda is proof that the enemy is using all their resources in Afghanistan and Iraq. The enemy has been forced to change its tactics, because they are running out of resources. From the view of military history, the tactics now being used in Iraq,
by Al Qaeda, are indicative of desperation on the part of the enemy.
Iraq is a winnable conflict. To win, we only need to make sure that Iraqi security forces are able to protect the people of Iraq and their government. We don't have to stay until there is no longer an insurgency. Once Iraq has a strong and stable army, we will be able to withdraw our combat forces. Granted, there will still be a long term need for logistical and intellegence support, but, hopefully, soon, we can pull our combat troops and bring them home.
This war should not be about politics. It has been made a political issue by people wanting only to "prove" that they are not like the President, to try to grab votes for their congressional faction. They are playing a game of popularity. What they should be doing is reminding people of the Iraqi Liberation Act of 1998, enacted by President Clinton, and proudly proclaiming, "This war was our idea."
Monday, June 19, 2006
Losing Our Vote
This is a true story:
The Framers of our Constitution in the United States of America did not believe that the majority should be given totalitarian rule over the minority. To protect the weak from the strong, they wrote several provisions into the Constitution. Some of these include the sovereignity of the individual states, the representation in the Federal Government of districts within these states, the representation in Federal Government of each state, the separation of powers between the Executive, Judicial, and Legislative branches of government, and, in national elections, the establishment of the Electoral College These provisions essentially even the odds between highly populated states and states with have smaller populations, and ensures that every citizen has a voice in government. This is what distinguishes a Republic from a Democracy.
Today, there are some in both factions of the Demopublican Party who wish to silence the voice of the weak. Each faction feels that they had an election "stolen" from them; one, in 1992, when William Jefferson Clinton won the Electoral vote, giving him victory over George H.W. Bush, who had garnered the larger popular vote, the other in 2000, when the Electoral College gave the Presidency to George W. Bush over the popularly elected Al Gore.
Six states, including my own state of Colorado, have legislation pending that would award the states' electoral votes to the presidential candidate who has the most popular votes nation wide. If enough states adopted such measures, the voice of the individual states would be silenced in national elections. If the majority of Colorado voters were to vote for Candidate A, for example, and the national totals favored Candidate B, then the votes of the Coloradans would be stripped from them and given to Candidate B. The Colorado voters would have no voice in the selection of the President. Not that it would matter, for the candidates would ignore Colorado and other states in their campaigns, catering only to the states with the larger populations. The city of Houston, TX, alone, has a population more than twice that of the entire state of Colorado, and four times that of the entire state of New Mexico. There would be little reason for any candidate to campaign in more than the twelve states with the largest population centers. The rest of us don't even need bother to vote, for our votes wouldn't matter anyway.
The sovereignity of the individual states would be greatly compromised, the voice of the citizens, as a state, silenced, and the entire Nation would, for the purposes of the Presidency, become a Majority ruled Democracy.
Not that any of that would matter. Every state, district, and precinct would become the venue of endless ballot recounts, delaying the results of the popular vote, until the Senate is Constitutionally obligated to choose the President and Vice-President, rendering the presidental election moot.
The Framers of the Constitution knew what they were doing. Even if it was 225 years ago that the Constitution was ratified, it was meant to endure through countless changes in demography, both anticipated and unforseen. To prevent tyranny of the many over the few, the strong over weak, the electoral process must be preserved.
In a Democratic country, where each citizen gets one vote, and the majority rules, a teacher is put on trial for speaking of concepts which are detrimental to the well-being of the country. The entire citizenry is entitled to vote on the teachers guilt or innocence, and to set the penalty. The majority rules that the man is guilty, and the penalty is death. Thus Socrates, one of the greatest teachers in history, is forced to drink poison to carry out the penalty by majority rule.
The Framers of our Constitution in the United States of America did not believe that the majority should be given totalitarian rule over the minority. To protect the weak from the strong, they wrote several provisions into the Constitution. Some of these include the sovereignity of the individual states, the representation in the Federal Government of districts within these states, the representation in Federal Government of each state, the separation of powers between the Executive, Judicial, and Legislative branches of government, and, in national elections, the establishment of the Electoral College These provisions essentially even the odds between highly populated states and states with have smaller populations, and ensures that every citizen has a voice in government. This is what distinguishes a Republic from a Democracy.
Today, there are some in both factions of the Demopublican Party who wish to silence the voice of the weak. Each faction feels that they had an election "stolen" from them; one, in 1992, when William Jefferson Clinton won the Electoral vote, giving him victory over George H.W. Bush, who had garnered the larger popular vote, the other in 2000, when the Electoral College gave the Presidency to George W. Bush over the popularly elected Al Gore.
Six states, including my own state of Colorado, have legislation pending that would award the states' electoral votes to the presidential candidate who has the most popular votes nation wide. If enough states adopted such measures, the voice of the individual states would be silenced in national elections. If the majority of Colorado voters were to vote for Candidate A, for example, and the national totals favored Candidate B, then the votes of the Coloradans would be stripped from them and given to Candidate B. The Colorado voters would have no voice in the selection of the President. Not that it would matter, for the candidates would ignore Colorado and other states in their campaigns, catering only to the states with the larger populations. The city of Houston, TX, alone, has a population more than twice that of the entire state of Colorado, and four times that of the entire state of New Mexico. There would be little reason for any candidate to campaign in more than the twelve states with the largest population centers. The rest of us don't even need bother to vote, for our votes wouldn't matter anyway.
The sovereignity of the individual states would be greatly compromised, the voice of the citizens, as a state, silenced, and the entire Nation would, for the purposes of the Presidency, become a Majority ruled Democracy.
Not that any of that would matter. Every state, district, and precinct would become the venue of endless ballot recounts, delaying the results of the popular vote, until the Senate is Constitutionally obligated to choose the President and Vice-President, rendering the presidental election moot.
The Framers of the Constitution knew what they were doing. Even if it was 225 years ago that the Constitution was ratified, it was meant to endure through countless changes in demography, both anticipated and unforseen. To prevent tyranny of the many over the few, the strong over weak, the electoral process must be preserved.
Thursday, June 15, 2006
Ammendment a bad idea
The American Flag is a very important and very dear symbol to me, but I wonder if a constitutional ammendment banning flag burning is wise or necessary. The flag stands for freedom, and such an ammendment would restrict the freedom it stands for.
I find the act of flag burning despicable--an extreme form of hate speech--and those who have been reading this blog know that I detest both hate speech and extremism. I have as much a right to express myself as does the protester who would be stupid enough to desecrate the flag. I would want the freedom to express my opinion of that idiot who saw fit to burn the flag.
An anti-desecration ammendment could open up a very large can of worms. For example, during the 2004 Super Bowl half time show--yes, that one--Kid Rock displayed his profound, and sincere, patriotism by wearing an American Flag. I am sure that by cutting a hole in the flag, so as to wear it poncho-style, he had no intention of showing disrespect for the flag, and that he was unaware that he was desecrating the flag.. The proposed ammendment would have allowed law that would have put him in jail for a spontaneous demonstration of patriotism and support for the troops. Even President George H.W. Bush's literal wrapping of the American Flag around his body in 1992, while he rendered a speech supporting a constitutional anti-desecration ammendment, was a violation of the rule that the American Flag "shall not be worn as an article of clothing."
Most communities have statutes against burning anything in public as a form of expression. These laws are usually enforced. Any official in America who would issue a permit allowing a demonstration which included desecration of the flag would not stay in office very long. There are also laws against inciting a riot, and against self inflicted harm, which is what a person burning the flag in my community would be guilty of, as the demonstrator would quickly have the burning flag stuffed into one of that person's orifaces. My community is known for its militantly patriotic Harley riding veterans, by the way. It should be noted that any public demonstration desecrating the flag usually has the affect of causing resentment toward the demonstrator, and increasing feelings of patriotism and love for the Flag and what it stands for.
At 165,000 dollars a year per congressperson, the debate over the ammendment is an unwarrented waste of time and taxpayers' money. It is nothing more than a demonstration of members of a political party attempting to justify that salary. At the time of this writing, there are not enough votes in the Senate for the measure to pass. The ammendment, if it does pass the Senate and the House, would more than likely fail to be ratified by the required two-thirds of the states. In case you haven't noticed, at least fifty percent of the states are following a trend toward protecting what little sovereignity they have left.
Freedom of expression is sacrosanct in this country. It is perhaps the greatest freedom in differentiating between our constitutional Republic and the old Soviet Union. I am as strongly against any restriction of that freedom as I am against those who would abuse that freedom.
I find the act of flag burning despicable--an extreme form of hate speech--and those who have been reading this blog know that I detest both hate speech and extremism. I have as much a right to express myself as does the protester who would be stupid enough to desecrate the flag. I would want the freedom to express my opinion of that idiot who saw fit to burn the flag.
An anti-desecration ammendment could open up a very large can of worms. For example, during the 2004 Super Bowl half time show--yes, that one--Kid Rock displayed his profound, and sincere, patriotism by wearing an American Flag. I am sure that by cutting a hole in the flag, so as to wear it poncho-style, he had no intention of showing disrespect for the flag, and that he was unaware that he was desecrating the flag.. The proposed ammendment would have allowed law that would have put him in jail for a spontaneous demonstration of patriotism and support for the troops. Even President George H.W. Bush's literal wrapping of the American Flag around his body in 1992, while he rendered a speech supporting a constitutional anti-desecration ammendment, was a violation of the rule that the American Flag "shall not be worn as an article of clothing."
Most communities have statutes against burning anything in public as a form of expression. These laws are usually enforced. Any official in America who would issue a permit allowing a demonstration which included desecration of the flag would not stay in office very long. There are also laws against inciting a riot, and against self inflicted harm, which is what a person burning the flag in my community would be guilty of, as the demonstrator would quickly have the burning flag stuffed into one of that person's orifaces. My community is known for its militantly patriotic Harley riding veterans, by the way. It should be noted that any public demonstration desecrating the flag usually has the affect of causing resentment toward the demonstrator, and increasing feelings of patriotism and love for the Flag and what it stands for.
At 165,000 dollars a year per congressperson, the debate over the ammendment is an unwarrented waste of time and taxpayers' money. It is nothing more than a demonstration of members of a political party attempting to justify that salary. At the time of this writing, there are not enough votes in the Senate for the measure to pass. The ammendment, if it does pass the Senate and the House, would more than likely fail to be ratified by the required two-thirds of the states. In case you haven't noticed, at least fifty percent of the states are following a trend toward protecting what little sovereignity they have left.
Freedom of expression is sacrosanct in this country. It is perhaps the greatest freedom in differentiating between our constitutional Republic and the old Soviet Union. I am as strongly against any restriction of that freedom as I am against those who would abuse that freedom.
Tuesday, June 13, 2006
Alternative "News" On The Rise
Unbelievably, none of this "news" is from The Onion, or any other satiracal "news" source. This is from actual quotes, as seen on several different television news programs.
HURRICANE ALFREDO DROPS THIRTY INCHES OF RAIN ON FLORIDA
According to Senate Minority Leader, Harry Reid, speaking at a liberal conference in Las Vegas, Nevada, "Global Warming has a name. Hurricane Alfredo threatens to drop thirty inches of rain on Florida."
Meanwhile, Tropical Storm Alberto hit Florida's Gulf coast. with winds of less than 50 mph and rainfall of less than three inches.
LAW SHOULD BE BROKEN TO PROVE THAT LAW HAS BEEN BROKEN
NY senior Senator Charles Schumer, commentating on Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald's decision to not bring charges against Karl Rove in the alleged CIA "leak" case, said, "It is obvious that something bad, probably illegal, has happened, and someone has done something wrong. The Special Counsel is obligated to write a report on what evidence has been found in this case."
It is illegal to reveal evidence or witness testimony used in a Grand Jury investigation.
300,000 KURDISH AND IRAQI DEATHS BY CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS WERE NOT CAUSED BY WMD
Senator John Kerry, speaking at the "Take Back America" conference in Washington, DC, denounced his own belief in "misleading information" that there were WMDs in Saddam's arsenal.
Meanwhile, Democratic Party apologist Nancy (not Jane) Skinner, in a debate on Fox's Your World with Neil Cavuto, declared that the over 300,000 bodies in mass graves found in Iraq were not caused by WMDs.
Most of us know that Saddam did have a WMD program, and there have been accounts by such eyewitnesses as former Iraqi Air Force Vice-Marshall Gen Georges Sada, and by others in Saddam's government, as well as witnesses and victims to the attacks by Saddam on his own people, to show that there were, indeed, biological and chemical weapons in the Iraqi arsenal even up to the time of the US invasion. Just because such weapons have not been found since the US has been there, doesn't mean they never existed.
However, there are some, including Kerry who expect us to believe that it was all a lie.
THE 2006 ELECTIONS WILL GIVE THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY CONTROL OF CONGRESS
Not as long as their reality is so far away from the reality of general consensus.
HURRICANE ALFREDO DROPS THIRTY INCHES OF RAIN ON FLORIDA
According to Senate Minority Leader, Harry Reid, speaking at a liberal conference in Las Vegas, Nevada, "Global Warming has a name. Hurricane Alfredo threatens to drop thirty inches of rain on Florida."
Meanwhile, Tropical Storm Alberto hit Florida's Gulf coast. with winds of less than 50 mph and rainfall of less than three inches.
LAW SHOULD BE BROKEN TO PROVE THAT LAW HAS BEEN BROKEN
NY senior Senator Charles Schumer, commentating on Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald's decision to not bring charges against Karl Rove in the alleged CIA "leak" case, said, "It is obvious that something bad, probably illegal, has happened, and someone has done something wrong. The Special Counsel is obligated to write a report on what evidence has been found in this case."
It is illegal to reveal evidence or witness testimony used in a Grand Jury investigation.
300,000 KURDISH AND IRAQI DEATHS BY CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS WERE NOT CAUSED BY WMD
Senator John Kerry, speaking at the "Take Back America" conference in Washington, DC, denounced his own belief in "misleading information" that there were WMDs in Saddam's arsenal.
Meanwhile, Democratic Party apologist Nancy (not Jane) Skinner, in a debate on Fox's Your World with Neil Cavuto, declared that the over 300,000 bodies in mass graves found in Iraq were not caused by WMDs.
Most of us know that Saddam did have a WMD program, and there have been accounts by such eyewitnesses as former Iraqi Air Force Vice-Marshall Gen Georges Sada, and by others in Saddam's government, as well as witnesses and victims to the attacks by Saddam on his own people, to show that there were, indeed, biological and chemical weapons in the Iraqi arsenal even up to the time of the US invasion. Just because such weapons have not been found since the US has been there, doesn't mean they never existed.
However, there are some, including Kerry who expect us to believe that it was all a lie.
THE 2006 ELECTIONS WILL GIVE THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY CONTROL OF CONGRESS
Not as long as their reality is so far away from the reality of general consensus.
Friday, June 09, 2006
The real effect of the Al-Zarqawi news
Abu Musab al-Zarqawi--the leader of al Qaeda in Iraq, the architect of the "Golden Mosque" bombing, the man who personally beheaded innocent civilians in front of web-cams and video cameras--is dead. We can't yet know if it is a "major" victory--only history will be able to tell that--but it is a significant victory.
There will be someone in al Qaeda to take over the leadership of the terrorist group, but, whoever that is will likely not have the experience, charisma, and leadership qualities of al-Zarqawi, and that group, at least momentarily, will not be as effective as it has been in the past.
A significant aspect of the operation which killed al-Zarqawi is the participation of Iraqi citizens who have grown weary of al Qaeda in Iraq and al-Zarqawi's practice of pitting Iraqi citizens against each other, as well as the operations by the terrorist gang to undermine the economy of Iraq by sabotaging oil production facilities and pipelines. This signifies the growing trend of Iraqis to support their new, democratic government, rather than to join the insurgency. If, as expected Abu al-Masri, an Egyptian, takes over leadership of the organization, this will not bring any love by Iraqis toward al Qaeda.
The mission of al Qaeda in Iraq is to seize control of the country, which is why it fomented violence between Sunni and Shia, sabotaged the oil production, and attacked Iraqi policemen and police stations. All these actions were to maintain instability in Iraq, with the goal of al Qaeda being able to have its own country.
It now seems that al Qaeda's mission in Iraq is greatly diminished. Overshadowed by the event is another event of great significance. Newly elected Prime Minister, Nouri al-Maliki has filled out his cabinet, appointing ministers to the politically sensitive Ministries of Defense and the Interior. This was done with the approval of all three of the major factions in the Iraqi government. Pro democracy sentiments in Iraq are on the rise.
With all this good news, we cannot be too optimistic about our mission in Iraq. There is still the Saddamist/Baathi insurgency, and the Shia separatist movement that will continue, perhaps even step up their operations against the fledgling government. As much as we hope and pray that our forces be brought home soon, our support in Iraq will continue to be necessary until Iraqi democracy is secure and stable. If we pull support prematurely, we are in danger of being complacent in establishing another Pinochet-like, or Iran Mullah-like regime in Iraq, elements of our history for which we have been severely criticized. If democracy and freedom do not succeed in Iraq, everything up to this point will have been in vain. Now is not the time for defeat to be snatched from the jaws of victory.
Undoubtedly, there will be those conspiracy theorists that will say that this was all staged to detract attention from the alleged Haditha incident, involving US Marines. However, it is very likely that there will be courts martials concerning the cover-up, and possibly, if the crime was committed, of those soldiers responsible. This is nothing to be celebrated, but it is nothing to be detracted from either. Such courts martials will still be heralded by the opposition as proof that "America is Evil." It is sad that this tragedy will be so exploited, in the wake of good news, but it is inevitable.
There will be someone in al Qaeda to take over the leadership of the terrorist group, but, whoever that is will likely not have the experience, charisma, and leadership qualities of al-Zarqawi, and that group, at least momentarily, will not be as effective as it has been in the past.
A significant aspect of the operation which killed al-Zarqawi is the participation of Iraqi citizens who have grown weary of al Qaeda in Iraq and al-Zarqawi's practice of pitting Iraqi citizens against each other, as well as the operations by the terrorist gang to undermine the economy of Iraq by sabotaging oil production facilities and pipelines. This signifies the growing trend of Iraqis to support their new, democratic government, rather than to join the insurgency. If, as expected Abu al-Masri, an Egyptian, takes over leadership of the organization, this will not bring any love by Iraqis toward al Qaeda.
The mission of al Qaeda in Iraq is to seize control of the country, which is why it fomented violence between Sunni and Shia, sabotaged the oil production, and attacked Iraqi policemen and police stations. All these actions were to maintain instability in Iraq, with the goal of al Qaeda being able to have its own country.
It now seems that al Qaeda's mission in Iraq is greatly diminished. Overshadowed by the event is another event of great significance. Newly elected Prime Minister, Nouri al-Maliki has filled out his cabinet, appointing ministers to the politically sensitive Ministries of Defense and the Interior. This was done with the approval of all three of the major factions in the Iraqi government. Pro democracy sentiments in Iraq are on the rise.
With all this good news, we cannot be too optimistic about our mission in Iraq. There is still the Saddamist/Baathi insurgency, and the Shia separatist movement that will continue, perhaps even step up their operations against the fledgling government. As much as we hope and pray that our forces be brought home soon, our support in Iraq will continue to be necessary until Iraqi democracy is secure and stable. If we pull support prematurely, we are in danger of being complacent in establishing another Pinochet-like, or Iran Mullah-like regime in Iraq, elements of our history for which we have been severely criticized. If democracy and freedom do not succeed in Iraq, everything up to this point will have been in vain. Now is not the time for defeat to be snatched from the jaws of victory.
Undoubtedly, there will be those conspiracy theorists that will say that this was all staged to detract attention from the alleged Haditha incident, involving US Marines. However, it is very likely that there will be courts martials concerning the cover-up, and possibly, if the crime was committed, of those soldiers responsible. This is nothing to be celebrated, but it is nothing to be detracted from either. Such courts martials will still be heralded by the opposition as proof that "America is Evil." It is sad that this tragedy will be so exploited, in the wake of good news, but it is inevitable.
Tuesday, June 06, 2006
Senate Debating Inheritance Tax
I really do not think the government needs to tax inheritance. It has already taxed the same money as it was earned and invested. What for? More bureaucracy and useless spending bills. On the other hand, there were a 100% tax on inheritance all along, think how much better off the world would be: No Kennedys, Paris Hilton, George Soros, Move On.org, and John Kerry would have had to think of a different reason to get married twice.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
