Political Pete

Philippine Trip pics...

2009-06-17T00:46:00.001-07:00

(TOP)Philippine politics at it's best. The government spent billions of pesos to build a bridge that will save five minutes. The sad thing is that only about 1% of the population of Leyte will actually drive over the bridge. (ABOVE)This pictures was taken on the island of Mindanao. The motorcycle is called a "skycab". I'd like to take our fearless leader Mr Obama for a ride on one of these "skycab's".

(TOP)Part of my parents land in Dagami. (ABOVE)My brother's relative in Caragara. He raises roosters. The unofficial past time of the Philippines is "cock fighting" or "sabong".

(TOP)My mother in law is building a very BIG house in Cabadbaran. (ABOVE)My son PJ and Auntie Ansing.

(TOP)The fiesta at my parents house in Dagami. (ABOVE)We visited the MacArthur statue in Tacloban.

Back from vacation!!!

2009-06-16T19:33:00.000-07:00

I got back from a vacation from the Philippines. It was my parents turn to host a fiesta in their baranguay(barrio). I had a blast and was entirely happy, because I didn't see the Supreme Leaders face everyday, the Obama. He sure has grabbed a lot more power for the federal government in the 3 weeks I was gone. Now gas is up to $3 a gallon in California and for some reason the MSM is silent. I wonder why??? They've just drank the Obama kool-aid and like to pretend that everything is honkidori. I'll be sharing some photos pretty soon and next I'm going to vent like crazy. Small kids and older persons should leave the room if they don't like cussing.

Isn't she lovely???

2009-05-11T18:51:00.000-07:00

« Gays to Obama: Pick one of us for Supreme Court | Main | Coleman vs. Franken: the never-ending Senate race just keeps going »

Wanda Sykes sees the humor of 9/11; White House not

Everybody's a comedian until they have to actually be funny. And that is an awful lot harder.

As The Ticket noted here with a full transcript, President Barack Obama pulled off his written jokes Saturday night at the White House Correspondents dinner with near-perfect timing. Some with real barbs.

Wanda Sykes was the hired jokester for the evening of topical humor and as often happens when such personalities venture out of nightclubs and into hotel ballrooms, many watching in tuxedos or on TV thought she might have gone too far with a couple of her lines.

(UPDATE: Sykes in an interview with Extra says she was warned not to use any F-bombs or the N-word and she was insulted by the suggestion she might.)

But she did take on a favorite Democratic target, the conservative Rush Limbaugh, and his previous substance abuse as the most listened-to and talked-about radio talk show host. Fair enough perhaps. He's taken on the president.

But to top it off, Sykes then tied Limbaugh to the tragedy and mass murders of 9/11.

"I think maybe Rush Limbaugh was the 20th hijacker. But he was so strung out on Oxycontin that he missed his flight ... I hope his kidneys fail. How about that?"

Limbaugh said he had no comment.

But today, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, as he knew he would, was asked about the reaction of the president, who also spoke at the annual banquet, but as another invited guest of the correspondents association.

To protect the president, no doubt no fan of Limbaugh, Gibbs said he had not talked to Obama specifically about the "joke." And the White House had nothing to do with booking such celebrities, risky or not.

But Gibbs put the White House down firmly on the side of Sykes' critics, saying some things should be subjects of serious reflection and not comedy and he felt the president would list 9/11 as one of them. See exactly how Gibbs puts it in this brief C-SPAN video from the daily White House press briefing.

Watch the president in this video; see if you think he disagrees with Sykes at that moment. So, hoping Obama fails is outrageous, but hoping someone dies from kidney failure is funny.

Why are liberals so angry? You'd think they were out of power. They own the legislative, executive branches and are in position to tip the judicial branch in their favor for a LONG TIME. The Republicans are basically speed bumps in Mr Obama's mission to change this republic to a SOCIALIST DEMOCRACY. Wanda Sykes is an idiot. I saw her stand up routine many years ago. She portrayed herself as some important mucky-muck in the CIA. It turns out she was a "procurement specialist" at the NSA, WTF is that? A glorified secretary??? No disrespect to secretaries. I can't believe we good taxpayer money in supporting her ass. Thank God she's out or my respect for our intelligence agencies would have fallen a notch.

This is why McCain lost...

2009-04-27T11:01:00.000-07:00

McCain: Cheney Wrong, Don't Declassify Memos

Sunday, April 26, 2009 10:40 PM

Article Font Size

WASHINGTON – Releasing classified memos showing whether harsh Bush-era interrogation methods yielded useful information from terrorism suspects is not necessary, Republican Senator John McCain said on Sunday in a public disagreement with former Vice President Dick Cheney.

After President Barack Obama released four memos this month revealing the Bush administration's legal justification for methods such as waterboarding -- a form of simulated drowning -- Cheney called for declassifying any memos showing that these techniques succeeded in producing valuable information.

"No, I don't think it's necessary, to be honest with you," McCain told the CBS program "Face the Nation."

Many experts say harsh interrogations lead to unreliable information because a person will say anything to stop them.

But the New York Times reported last week that Dennis Blair, Obama's national intelligence director, told colleagues in a private memo that the harsh Bush-era techniques yielded "high-value information" that "provided a deeper understanding" of the al Qaeda organization.

McCain, the 2008 Republican presidential candidate, also opposed prosecuting officials who worked on interrogation policy in former President George W. Bush's administration.

"We need a united nation, not a divided one," McCain said.

"Are you going to prosecute people for giving bad legal advice? ... Maybe there's an element of settling old political scores here," added McCain, who was tortured during more than five years as a prisoner during the Vietnam War.

'A NATION OF LAWS'

White House senior adviser Valerie Jarrett reiterated that Obama is letting Attorney General Eric Holder decide on moving ahead with any prosecutions.

"I think the president has been very clear, and what he said is, 'We need to be a nation of laws, we need to be consistent,' and he leaves it to the attorney general to figure out who should be prosecuted for what," Jarrett told CNN.

Senator Patrick Leahy, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said a special commission is needed to get to the bottom of the Bush-era interrogation policies.

"It is not from some idea of vengeance in doing this. But we know that there were a number of people that made the decision to violate the law, a number of people who said that we don't have to follow our Constitution, others who wrote memos basically saying the president and the vice president are above the law," Leahy said on the CBS show.

Speaking on NBC's "Meet the Press" program, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said Obama opposes such a commission, saying the Senate intelligence committee's ongoing inquiry is the proper place for such fact finding.

Senator Dianne Feinstein, who heads the intelligence panel, told CNN on Sunday the investigation "will take six to eight months."

McCain cited President Gerald Ford's decision in 1974 to give his predecessor Richard Nixon a full pardon to any crimes to move the nation past the Watergate corruption scandal that prompted Nixon to resign. "Most people in retrospect believe that Ford's pardon was right, because we moved on. We have got to move on," McCain said.

McCain also said the Bush administration officials responsible for authorizing harsh interrogation methods in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 attacks have been "held accountable in the court of public opinion."

© 2009 Reuters. All rights reserved. Republication or redistribution of Reuters content, including by caching, framing or similar means, is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Reuters.

I respect Senator McCain's service to our country, but his moderate tendencies are what lost him the election. From illegal immigration, global warming and so-called torture, Senator McCain was wrong on many issues. If Mr Obama is going to go public with the our past interogation techniques, he should also release the information we gained from those techniques. Mr Obama has made our country's defenses weaker by stopping waterboarding and releasing what was authorized. Our intelligence operative were able to stop an attack in Los Angeles. Now what are they supposed to do with the "non-enemy combatants combatants" talk sternly to them. This is crazy. When our country is hit again, I know exactly who to blame.

Hey, bro!!!!

2009-04-19T13:48:00.000-07:00

It is great the Messi-uh is making friends around the world. I'm so touched that Mr Obama had a "bro" moment with his new friend Hugo Chavez. I think we should rename the White House, Circus Maximus.

Really??? This is sad...

2009-04-09T18:21:00.000-07:00

This picture makes me want to barf. It pretty much sums up Mr Obama's trip to the G20, where he apologized to the world for America being the country it is. We knew that the majority of the American public was being fooled by this Manchurian candidate. I'm sure if the his empty suit wasn't so starchy he might have kissed the Kings feet. I have to say that I'm impressed that he could bend down that far, since he doesn't have a spine. What's the difference anyway, Mr Obama's roll back of all the new oil leases President Bush authorized is tantamount to kissing Saudi Arabia's butt.

This man has no clue...

2009-03-22T22:13:00.000-07:00

Iran's response to US sign of theocracy's mind-set

By BRIAN MURPHY – 1 day ago

DUBAI, United Arab Emirates (AP) — The Iranian leader's rebuff on Saturday to President Barack Obama's offer for dialogue was swift and sweeping: Words from Washington ring hollow without deep policy changes.

But Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei's response was more than just a dismissive slap at the outreach. It was a broad lesson in the mind-set of Iran's all-powerful theocracy and how it will dictate the pace and tone of any new steps by Obama to chip away at their nearly 30-year diplomatic freeze.

"It's the first stage of the bargaining in classic Iranian style: Be tough and play up your toughness," said Abdulkhaleq Abdulla, a professor of regional politics at United Arab Emirates University. "The Iranian leaders are not about concessions at this stage. It's still all about ideology from the Iranian side."

For Khamenei and his inner circle, that means appearing to stay true to the 1979 Islamic Revolution and the political narrative of rejecting the United States. Any quick gestures by the ruling clerics to mend ties with Washington could be perceived by hard-liners as a betrayal of the revolution.

Iran's non-elected leaders also are carefully weighing how any openings — even small ones — could affect the June 12 presidential race between their apparent choice, hard-line President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and reformists led by a former prime minister, Mir Hossein Mousavi.

"This is why this will be a very slow, very complicated process between Iran and the United States," said Abdulla. "Even the theocracy can be pragmatic. When they feel it's in the national interest to reach out to America, they will find a way."

There are no signs of a spring thaw.

Khamenei set the bar impossibly high — demanding an overhaul of U.S. foreign policy, including giving up "unconditional support" for Israel and halting claims that Iran is seeking nuclear arms. Iran insists its nuclear program is only for peaceful energy purposes.

"Have you released Iranian assets? Have you lifted oppressive sanctions? Have you given up mudslinging and making accusations against the great Iranian nation and its officials?" Khamenei said in a speech in the northeastern city of Mashhad. The crowd chanted "Death to America."

Despite Obama's offer, the State Department still lists Iran as a sponsor of terrorism for its backing of militant groups such as Lebanon's Hezbollah. In Iraq, U.S. officials accuse Iran of aiding Shiite militias whose targets have included American soldiers.

"He (Obama) insulted the Islamic Republic of Iran from the first day. If you are right that change has come, where is that change? What is the sign of that change? Make it clear for us what has changed."

Still, Khamenei left the door open to better ties with America, saying "should you change, our behavior will change, too."

Khamenei's response carried a particular bite following Obama's important shift in U.S. tactics in his video released Friday, offering to speak directly to Iran's theocrats rather than encouraging only pro-democracy reformists inside the country.

The move appears to recognize two key realities for U.S. policy makers: Iran's establishment is firmly entrenched and it holds all the cards in all important decisions.

"There's a thinking that they will do what the U.S. did with Libya: engagement and incentives in return for moderated policies," said Patrick Clawson, deputy director of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. "Iran, however, is a vastly more complicated place that has influence in Iraq, Afghanistan and across the region."

The Obama administration hasn't outlined details of its next steps, but White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs told reporters Friday that "many more" initiatives are expected.

Last week, U.S. officials raised the possibility of regular diplomatic contacts between U.S. and Iranian diplomats around the world. On Tuesday, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Iranian envoys will have an opportunity for informal talks on the sidelines of a U.N.-led conference on Afghanistan at The Hague, Netherlands.

In Iran, any contacts or messages will undoubtedly be viewed through the prism of the country's presidential elections.

Some experts believe that Ahmadinejad could benefit from Obama's overtures by claiming that his tough stance toward the West brought Washington to the table. Reformers, meanwhile, could struggle with an identity crisis.

"These are people who considered the U.S. an honest broker and committed to regime change," said Ilan Berman, an Iranian affairs specialist at the American Foreign Policy Council. "Now the reformers are going to feel left out in the cold."

Saeed Leylaz, a prominent Tehran-based political analyst, saw Khamenei's tough language as just an opening flurry in what could be a gradual easing of tensions — similar to the decades of slow rapprochement with Britain despite a history of troubles dating back to disputes over oil fields more than a century ago.

"The U.S. is the sole country in the world capable of destabilizing Iran. Khamenei is concerned about this," he said. "If Iran's concerns are eased, it will be willing to have relations with the U.S. in the same way it has relations with the U.K."

America's enemies are certainly emboldened right now. I don't give a crap what people say, barring a huge natural disaster the economy will come back. Now it can be argued how strong it will come back and judging by the ineptitude of Obama's administration it won't be as strong because of the Porkulous package. It makes the foreign side all that more important. Mr Obama's message was the wrong one to send at this time. In the Muslim belief system you send out a peace offering only when you know you're about to win. The mullahs now think America is weak, with a weak leader. I'm surprised they didn't add that we all had to convert to Islam just start negotiations.

I wonder what else he does behind closed doors?

2009-03-12T22:04:00.000-07:00

Obama Signs 'Imperfect' Spending Bill, Announces Earmark Reforms

The president did not make any pledge to eliminate earmarks or reduce them. Rather, he and House Democrats announced new reforms to subject them to greater scrutiny and transparency.

FOXNews.com

Wednesday, March 11, 2009

President Obama on Wednesday signed a $410 billion spending bill to keep the government running through the end of the fiscal year, despite complaints that the package was filled with thousands of earmarks.

The president earlier defended the bill, which he called "imperfect" but necessary. But at the same time he announced new reforms he said would prevent wasteful earmarks in the future.

The president did not make any pledge to eliminate earmarks or reduce them. Rather, he and House Democrats announced new reforms to subject them to greater scrutiny and transparency.

"Done right, earmarks have given legislators the opportunity to direct federal money to worthy projects that benefit people in their district, and that's why I have opposed their outright elimination," Obama said. "But the fact is that on occasion, earmarks have been used as a vehicle for waste, and fraud and abuse. Projects have been inserted at the 11th hour, without review, and sometimes without merit, in order to satisfy the political or personal agendas of a given legislator, rather than the public interest."

Obama said the reforms would require lawmakers seeking earmarks to post them on their Web sites in advance, so the public and press can review them. He said each earmark should be "open to scrutiny" at public hearings.

"If my administration evaluates an earmark and determines that it has no legitimate public purpose, we will seek to eliminate it," Obama said.

He also said all earmarks for for-profit companies should be subject to competitive bidding requirements.

"The awarding of earmarks to private companies is the single most corrupting element of this practice," Obama said.

The announcement came after Congress passed the $410 billion spending package Tuesday night. Taxpayers for Common Sense estimated the package contained 8,570 disclosed earmarks worth $7.7 billion.

"I am signing an imperfect omnibus bill because it's necessary for the ongoing functions of government," Obama said, adding that he would use it as a "departure point" for enacting new reforms.

He did not respond to a question asking why was not signing the spending bill in public.

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., who opposed the earmarks in the bill, criticized his former election opponent Wednesday for not pledging to "use his veto pen" to stop pork-barrel projects.

"The president's rhetoric is impressive, but his statement affirms we will continue to do business as usual in Washington regarding earmarks in appropriations legislation," he said in a written statement. "This is an opportunity missed."

The 1,132-page bill has an extraordinary reach, wrapping together nine spending bills to fund the annual operating budgets of every Cabinet department except Defense, Homeland Security and Veterans Affairs. Among the many earmarks are $485,000 for a boarding school for at-risk native students in western Alaska and $1.2 million for Helen Keller International so the nonprofit can provide eyeglasses to students with poor vision.

Most of the government has been running on a stopgap funding bill set to expire at midnight Wednesday. Refusing to sign the newly completed spending bill would force Congress to pass another bill to keep the lights on come Thursday or else shut down the massive federal government.

The $410 billion bill includes significant increases in food aid for the poor, energy research and other programs. It was supposed to have been completed last fall, but Democrats opted against election-year battles with Republicans and former President George W. Bush.

The measure was a top priority for Democratic leaders, who praised it for numerous increases denied by Bush. It once enjoyed support from Republicans.

But the bill ran into an unexpected political hailstorm in Congress after Obama's spending-heavy economic stimulus bill and his 2010 budget plan, which forecast a $1.8 trillion deficit for the current budget year.

The bill's big increases -- among them a 14 percent boost for a popular program that feeds infants and poor women and a 10 percent increase for housing vouchers for the poor -- represent a clear win for Democrats who spent most of the past decade battling with Bush over money for domestic programs. Republicans, though, had called on Obama to veto the measure.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Mr Obama promised to reduce earmarks and have transparency. His first bill budget bill he signed had 9,000 earmarks. So much for his campaign promise. I wonder why he didn't use his line "I won" on his fellow democrats to fix this bill. Guess it wasn't that important to him...

We need to pray for this brave soldier...

2009-02-24T19:07:00.000-08:00

OBAMA WATCH CENTRAL
Soldier questions eligibility, doubts president's authority
'As an officer, my sworn oath to support and defend our Constitution requires this'

Posted: February 23, 2009
9:35 pm Eastern

By Bob Unruh
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

Soldier Scott Easterling

A U.S. soldier on active duty in Iraq has called President Obama an "impostor" in a statement in which he affirmed plans to join as plaintiff in a challenge to Obama's eligibility to be commander in chief.

The statement was publicized by California attorney Orly Taitz who, along with her DefendOurFreedom.us Foundation, is working on a series of legal cases seeking to uncover Obama's birth records and other documents that would reveal whether he meets the requirements of the U.S. Constitution.

"As an active-duty officer in the United States Army, I have grave concerns about the constitutional eligibility of Barack Hussein Obama to hold the office of president of the United States," wrote Scott Easterling in a "to-whom-it-may-concern" letter.

Obama "has absolutely refused to provide to the American public his original birth certificate, as well as other documents which may prove or disprove his eligibility," Easterling wrote. "In fact, he has fought every attempt made by concerned citizens in their effort to force him to do so."

Taitz told WND she had advised Easterling to obtain legal counsel before making any statements regarding the commander-in-chief, but he insisted on moving forward. His contention is that as an active member of the U.S. military, he is required to follow orders from a sitting president, and he needs – on pain of court-martial – to know that Obama is eligible.

Where's the proof Barack Obama was born in the U.S. or that he fulfills the "natural-born American" clause in the Constitution? If you still want to see it, join more than 250,000 others and sign up now!

Taitz said other legal cases questioning Obama's eligibility filed by members of the military mostly have included retired officers, and courts several times have ruled they don't have standing to issue their challenge.

Easterling, however, is subject to enemy fire and certainly would have a reason to need to know the legitimacy of his orders, she argued.

"Until Mr. Obama releases a 'vault copy' of his original birth certificate for public review, I will consider him neither my Commander in Chief nor my President, but rather, a usurper to the Office – an impostor," his statement said.

Easterling said he joined the Army at age 40 after working in Iraq as a contractor.

"I chose to work … to support my troops and then left that lucrative position when the Army raised its maximum enlistment age to 40. Upon completion of basic training, I entered Officer Candidate School and commissioned as a 2LT in August 2007. After completing the subsequent basic officer leadership courses, I was assigned to Ft. Knox and shortly thereafter deployed to Balad, Iraq," he wrote.

"I implore all service-members and citizens to contact their senators and representatives and demand that they require Mr. Obama prove his eligibility. Our Constitution and our great nation must not be allowed to be disgraced," he wrote.

Taitz said Easterling is among the plaintiffs she is assembling for a new legal action over Obama's eligibility. Others include a list of state lawmakers who also would be required in their official position to follow orders of the president.

"My conviction is such that I am compelled to join Dr. Orly Taitz's lawsuit, as a plaintiff, against Mr. Obama. As a citizen, it pains me to do this, but as an officer, my sworn oath to support and defend our Constitution requires this action," he said.

Easterling was "saluted" in a forum on Taitz' website.

"Lt. Easterling, As a retired US Army SFC, I salute you sir as a true American patriot and hero! Thank you for your unselfish service to our country. It is rare to find someone today with such moral courage to do the right thing regardless of repercussions," said one contributor.

Said another, "For your voluntary service to our country, we owe you a debt we can never pay."

As WND reported yesterday, U.S. Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Ala., said during a meeting with constituents in Cullman County he has never seen proof the new president was born in Hawaii.

"Well, his father was Kenyan and they said he was born in Hawaii, but I haven't seen any birth certificate," Shelby said. "You have to be born in America to be president."

Shelby's office later stated the senator is confident of Obama's vetting process, although it did not elaborate.

WND has reported on multiple legal challenges to Obama's status as a "natural born citizen." The Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, states, "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President."

Some of the lawsuits question whether he was actually born in Hawaii, as he insists. If he was born out of the country, Obama's American mother, the suits contend, was too young at the time of his birth to confer American citizenship to her son under the law at the time.

Other challenges have focused on Obama's citizenship through his father, a Kenyan subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time of his birth, thus making him a dual citizen. The cases contend the framers of the Constitution excluded dual citizens from qualifying as natural born.

Here is a partial listing and status update for some of the cases over Obama's eligibility:

New Jersey attorney Mario Apuzzo has filed a case on behalf of Charles Kerchner and others alleging Congress didn't properly ascertain that Obama is qualified to hold the office of president.

Philip J. Berg, a Pennsylvania Democrat, demanded that the courts verify Obama's original birth certificate and other documents proving his American citizenship. Berg's latest appeal, requesting an injunction to stop the Electoral College from selecting the 44th president, was denied.
Leo Donofrio of New Jersey filed a lawsuit claiming Obama's dual citizenship disqualified him from serving as president. His case was considered in conference by the U.S. Supreme Court but denied a full hearing.

Cort Wrotnowski filed suit against Connecticut's secretary of state, making a similar argument to Donofrio. His case was considered in conference by the U.S. Supreme Court, but was denied a full hearing.

Former presidential candidate Alan Keyes headlines a list of people filing a suit in California, in a case handled by the United States Justice Foundation, that asks the secretary of state to refuse to allow the state's 55 Electoral College votes to be cast in the 2008 presidential election until Obama verifies his eligibility to hold the office. The case is pending, and lawyers are seeking the public's support.

Chicago attorney Andy Martin sought legal action requiring Hawaii Gov. Linda Lingle to release Obama's vital statistics record. The case was dismissed by Hawaii Circuit Court Judge Bert Ayabe.
Lt. Col. Donald Sullivan sought a temporary restraining order to stop the Electoral College vote in North Carolina until Barack Obama's eligibility could be confirmed, alleging doubt about Obama's citizenship. His case was denied.
In Ohio, David M. Neal sued to force the secretary of state to request documents from the Federal Elections Commission, the Democratic National Committee, the Ohio Democratic Party and Obama to show the presidential candidate was born in Hawaii. The case was denied.
In Washington state, Steven Marquis sued the secretary of state seeking a determination on Obama's citizenship. The case was denied.
In Georgia, Rev. Tom Terry asked the state Supreme Court to authenticate Obama's birth certificate. His request for an injunction against Georgia's secretary of state was denied by Georgia Superior Court Judge Jerry W. Baxter.

California attorney Orly Taitz has brought a case, Lightfoot vs. Bowen, on behalf of Gail Lightfoot, the vice presidential candidate on the ballot with Ron Paul, four electors and two registered voters.

In addition, other cases cited on the RightSideofLife blog as raising questions about Obama's eligibility include:

In Texas, Darrel Hunter vs. Obama later was dismissed.
In Ohio, Gordon Stamper vs. U.S. later was dismissed.
In Texas, Brockhausen vs. Andrade.
In Washington, L. Charles Cohen vs. Obama.
In Hawaii, Keyes vs. Lingle, dismissed.

WND senior reporter Jerome Corsi had gone to both Kenya and Hawaii prior to the election to investigate issues surrounding Obama's birth. But his research and discoveries only raised more questions.

I hope this guy knows what's in store for him. The liberal world is about to crash in on his head. All these doubts would go away if Mr Obama would produce a legitimate birth certificate, not a ceritficate of live birth. There is a difference. We need to pray for this brave soldier.

This from the Huffington Post...

2009-02-20T11:19:00.000-08:00

S.D. Liddick

Freelance journalist currently in Iraq

Posted February 15, 2009 | 10:50 AM (EST)

BIO Become a Fan

Get Email Alerts Bloggers' Index

Open Letter to a Craven Reporter in Iraq

stumble digg reddit del.ico.us mixx.com ShareThis

Read More: Fallujah, Haditha, Iraq, Mohammed Shaffir, Sadun, Home News

Dahr Jamail,

I'm an independent reporter in Iraq, on assignment for a U.S. magazine (as well as a Huffingtonpost.com blogger). I've just come off a three-week civilian tour of Anbar Province, living with sheiks and Iraqi civilians, trying to get a feel for the people that will be taking power as the U.S. pulls out (see article). I just read your piece about Sheik Aifan Sadun, the "Teflon Don" of Fallujah. I've researched similar figures, in Haditha, Bagdadi, Hit and Al Qaim, and I saw many of the same things you did. But I've come to very different conclusions. That, I believe, is because you had a pre-existing agenda you were determined to conform evidence to (i.e., war is bad, the U.S. is waging a war, so whatever it's doing in Anbar is bad); and because you're a coward.

The U.S. is an empire and the Iraq debacle is evidence of 21st century imperialism, no doubt. I still don't think we should be here. But that debate became passé six years ago. Now it's a question of how soon the U.S. gets out and what happens before and after it does. I've met too many good and decent people here to write this place off, smart and hard working Iraqis that want and deserve a first-world existence.

As with Sheik Sadun, the man I studied in Haditha--Sheik Mohammed Hussein Shaffir--has foibles and flaws; he's involved in at least one sideline of organized crime, probably several. But I actually took the time to talk to the Marine Corps about their support of him (as well as the citizens of Haditha, its business leaders, the U.S. State Department, Iraqi politicians, the Iraqi police, et al.). What I realized, after some unbiased investigation, is that the players being prepped to take power in Anbar are in the positions they are for some very pragmatic reasons--namely they're still alive and they can kill terrorists (thousands of their counterparts have been assassinated).

You overlook an essential point: this place is still a fucking war zone, you ignorant cur. Fallujah and Anbar are just out of an internecine civil war/insurgency (if it's indeed finished), that's followed a destructive invasion, which came on the heels of 12 years of debilitating international sanctions and 30 years of repressive authoritarian rule. It's not a bastion of fucking Rotary Club nominees. When you pick from an attenuated (and flawed) lot, you take what you get--that's a simple law of nature.

When war comes (and to repeat, we're well beyond the point of talking about whether that war was just or not) anybody with a pot to piss in picks up--with their pot and all their belongings--and moves away; in this case to Syria, Jordan or Saudi Arabia. Those left behind are generally not the richest or the best educated of the lot. They are the fighters and the scrappers--the survivors. When it comes time to put the pieces back together, it's going to be those who stayed--and who are still standing--that lay down the first blocks in the new foundation.

The people with money will eventually come back, with their pots to piss in and all their wealth and education--and will eventually be incorporated back into the social structure (I'm a Marxist, so I figure they'll probably end up running it, as they always do). But they're not going to come back till the violence is gone (and even a couple of years after that). So ironically, it's the plebes--those survivors lacking celebrated family names, abbreviated titles or BMWs--who fought so hard for the security that will afford the patricians their return (men like Mohammed Shaffir and probably Aifan Sadun).

Those scrappers are often brave, but they're survivors first; and in a conflict as dirty as a religion-on-religion civil war, they're often tarnished. It's these characters--and the tribe (I don't care how much the military likes or dislikes a particular front runner, if his tribe is the strongest and he's its sheik, he's going to be the area's leader)--that will control the government until normalcy resumes. How long will that take? Who's to say? I couldn't see it taking less than ten years.

Fallujah was obliterated in 2004 (the way the process was explained to me--from both sides--the U.S. and Iraqi armies evacuated the city before demolishing it, telling anybody that stayed they would be considered combatants), meaning it's five years beyond its cataclysm. The city has come a long way in that time (a contingent of executives from one of its radio stations swore to me it's now one of the safest cities in Iraq). I'm willing to bet that in another five years--progressing at the current rate--it will be considered something close to normal again. In the meantime, things are going to look strange and probably seem hopeless from some points of view (look at the example of Spain's tumultuous transition from totalitarianism to democracy, in the early 1980s).

What is it you expect of the Marine Corps, anyway? Should it be assassinating the existing power figures and replacing them with U.S. minions? Because that's about the only option I see. (I've also studied a case in which the Marines had a bad apple removed in Hit--and they employed a smart, democratic process, involving local leaders). You indicate the Marines are supporting Sheik Sadun, but did they pick him? In the cases I've studied, there have been a limited number of aspirants, players that could actually hold power in their region, and the Corps carefully decided which one to back (based a priori on the player's ability to stay alive and having a lot to do with the strength of his tribe).

Sheik Mohammed Shaffir is also a Colonel, in charge of the Provisional Security Force (PSF) in Haditha, and he's been shot seven times on three different occasions. I've walked through the rubble of the five houses he used to own, which Al Quaeda bombed to bits. I didn't get to meet his dead brother; nor the dozens of fathers, sons, uncles and cousins of his PSF soldiers that have been killed by Al Quaeda. These people, as I'm sure is the case with the sheik you've excoriated so bravely in print, have sacrificed in ways you and I will probably never understand (did you talk so disparagingly to the sheik's face, or when he was feeding you or providing for the security that kept your head attached to your shoulders?).

If you talked to the military you'd find they have a very simple plan: security before all else. And talking to a Corporal or Sergeant as you indicated you did (to get your clever Teflon Don lede) was something like talking to the plumber at City Hall for an understanding of the mayor's new financial policy. As a journalist, criticizing military policy without talking to the military is completely incompetent. But with you, it goes deeper. You hide behind political artifice to lob your mines of pre-conclusion, like a craven wretch. And really, I think that goes to the solid core of the dregs of the problem. You're not a coward merely because you're afraid to seek the truth when it might not conform to your views ... rather your chickenshit views are shaped by the fact you're a coward.

I bet you were one of those kids in high school who got the shit kicked out of him by bullies. You probably developed some deeply seated complex for power and aggression by the time you were a sophomore, and now you rail out blindly against all exhibitions of it. The irony here is that you and I probably agree on some overarching premises. This war has ultimately been waged for the same reasons all wars are waged--natural resources and geopolitical advantage; we probably see eye-to-eye there. But grow some balls, Dahr; be more honest--and brave--in the future.

Nearly every American soldier on the ground--no matter how misguided vis-à-vis the underlying motivations that brought the U.S. to Iraq--is here because of a sincere and genuine desire to help; none of them, I wager, have come to further an empire. Whether it be to fight against terrorism so people back home feel a little safer in skyscrapers, or to relieve a weary Iraqi population of a dictator, they're here for honorable reasons; just as is the case with the majority of those Iraqi soldiers (who still have targets on their foreheads). Which makes your fink agenda a slap in the face to about a million people who have fought and died and lost legs, brothers, and lots of blood in the hope of making something as simple as a secure place to live.

The military has been surprisingly forthcoming with me and all I had to do was ask. Marine Corps Colonel Patrick Malay sat with me on three different occasions, for long discussions about security in his area of operation in Anbar. One thing I learned quickly is that the military's officer corps is filled with the best of America's minds--kids that aced their college entrance exams, were the captains of their ball teams, and had to be nominated by senators to go to the schools they did. These are the guys (along with their much more experienced superiors) that are deciding strategy--and they're fucking smart. I was allowed to sit in on a couple of their high level briefings--again, all I had to do was show some kind of aptitude for objectivity--and I can tell you their comprehension of the situation on the ground is apt, their thinking clever, and their intentions centrally wrapped up with the Iraqi people.

At the heart of it all, they're smart enough to be pragmatic. The first thing Malay told me is that we need to drop bullshit Eurocentric pretenses. Iraq is not America, nor even Europe, and it never will be. It will have a democracy, he said, but it will be an Arab one, likely Muslim, and the tribe will be a central component. Realpolitik is at the crux of the Marines' policy. The Corps knows that to win a modern guerrilla conflict, it has to win the hearts and minds of the people. To do that, it needs to clear an area of combatants, hold it (keeping the area clean) and build (i.e. give the people viable options for work and self support).

As part of that thinking, the Corps considers GDP--its term for an area's traditional sources of revenue--a crucial piece of the puzzle. As Malay pointed out, in northern, eastern, and southern Iraq, the GDP has traditionally been oil. In western Iraq there is no oil. For eons, the GDP there has had something to do with smuggling (largely the oil that's been pulled out of the ground in other parts of the country). Malay doesn't strike me as a fan of smuggling or smugglers (in fact, given his stern bearing and Colonel-like thinking, he probably abhors it more than most). But he knows that a war torn country isn't going to be reconfigured on the rosy, utopian fantasia of liberals and "independent" journalists still trying to work through the ass-whoopings they suffered in high school.

A people has to be able to sustain itself, that's crucial to military strategy. And like it or not--and the Marines I talked with (especially the junior Marines) don't like it at all--Anbar is going to have smuggling in its future; just as it did in its past (and if a homegrown repressive dictator couldn't staunch it, why should we think a foreign superpower can ... or that it would even want to re-write the region's ethical code). The Marine brass has incorporated that bit of realpolitik into its policy in Western Iraq--it knows there will be less than palatable characters in Anbar who will necessarily be a part of the re-emerging political scene. And part of the relationship with them will involve money--as have the millions (perhaps billions) of dollars in micro-grants and micro-loans I've seen distributed to woman's groups, trade groups, small business owners, schools, libraries, mechanics, shepherds and on and on.

The military's policy is designed from the bottom-up on security. The plan is simple--so simple (in theory), it can't fail. Security will bring outside investment, which will thereby enhance existing security, which will bring more investment, further enhancing security, and so on. It's uncomplicated and it's already working. The lynchpin is security. The people of Anbar want it desperately (I lived with these people for most of the past month, and I can't tell you how desperately they want it) and they need it to be able to rebuild. Men like Shaffir (and probably sheik Sadun) can bring that security. They are part of a small cast of men that can take on the military's grand contract (i.e. "I will bring peace") and guarantee delivery.

I'm not saying Shaffir should be Prime Minister. And the Marine brass I talked to didn't think he would be a leader in Anbar, forever. The progression is, in fact, very natural. Security is achieved by men like Shaffir and then, through the democratic process (and ironically, he's the only shot they have at a democratic process in the first place), society can decide to keep him around with his foibles, tell him to clean them up, or just find another leader. First comes the security--and if you want security in a world where the good people are all scarred or dead--you don't hire Alex fucking Keaton.

You hire somebody who can stand up against an enemy that's become the enemy of the people, as Al Quaeda has (the debate over who is and isn't a terrorist is for another time and place). The fact is, men like Shaffir and the sheik you lampooned stood up at a parlous time (for whatever motivations, honorable or venal) and went toe to toe with a baleful brood of characters (foreigners, fanatics, decapitators and the virulently uneducated)--and the people haven't forgotten all that they've given.

Are they criminals? Yes, they are. Should they be scrutinized? Of course. But they're also heroes to many, and widely viewed as the saviors of their small towns and neighborhoods. And, perhaps more importantly, they continue to kill terrorists--men Iraq has listed as Al Quaeda operatives. The fact you, a sniveling coward and ankle-biter hiding preconceived intentions behind putative journalism, are taking pot shots at them appalls me.

Due in part to them, mothers are no longer worried their daughters will be unwillingly pimped out to the unsightly foreign reprobates that came here with criminal networks, in the name of Islam, toting guns and all the vagaries of death. People are building houses (tons of them), sharing chai in neighbor's diwans, and getting down to the brass tacks of figuring out how the hell to rebuild infrastructure that was already neglected and miserably dilapidated before it was bombed to pieces. In a way, Anbar is exactly where it should be upon waking from the nightmare of civil war--fucked up.

The crucial fact is the state of fucked-up is moving in a positive direction and doing it rapidly. Just two years ago, the country's top politicians were worried about making it to work alive. Today, they're setting up anti-corruption networks and guilty politicos are nervously looking over their shoulders, realizing that as the violence drops off, so too does their cover. The people of Anbar are leaving their houses again and the markets are full. I've shopped in them.

The heart of the problem in all of this isn't only with the people of Iraq, it's also with Americans in this age of rapid and uncensored hydra-headed media--and the fact anybody can print anything. The threat there lies in the fact that 80-percent of people in society are grazers (and you can check Chomsky on this, Colonel Malay, or anybody who's served time); non-thinkers that only want to be herded and told what to do. It's those people who read your half-truths online and don't realize you're "independent" for a reason.

I'm phobically allergic to the conservative Republican types the military is rife with, but I've only been in country four months and already I hate liberals. There's plenty of ugliness to report in Iraq (as there are thousands of stories of hope and headway)--and the U.S. military certainly isn't beyond reproach. Nobody's telling you to report on one side or the other. But manipulating the truth because of your own personal biases is wretched and works in the face of progress. The other end of the political spectrum disregards you, Dahr, and now I know why. I thought it was because you're a liar--but you aren't. You don't have enough backbone to be a liar. You're a craven obfuscationist, intent on promoting your agenda at the cost of a menagerie of much braver men and women.

... s.d. liddick

For more observations from Iraq, go to sdliddick1.shutterfly.com/

At the very least someone over there at the Huffington Post have some common sense, there is hope yet. Too bad, this guy wasn't around in 2006

I think he's right...

2009-02-19T22:33:00.000-08:00

Friday, February 20, 2009

The Biden Prophecy

by Charles Krauthammer

Charles Krauthammer's Email | Author Archive | Author Biography

WASHINGTON -- The Biden prophecy has come to pass. Our wacky veep, momentarily inspired, had predicted last October that "it will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama." Biden probably had in mind an eve-of-the-apocalypse drama like the Cuban Missile Crisis. Instead, Obama's challenges have come in smaller bites. Some are deliberate threats to U.S. interests, others mere probes to ascertain whether the new president has any spine.

Preliminary X-rays are not very encouraging.

Consider the long list of brazen Russian provocations:

(a) Pressuring Kyrgyzstan to shut down the U.S. air base in Manas, an absolutely crucial NATO conduit into Afghanistan.

(b) Announcing the formation of a "rapid reaction force" with six former Soviet republics, a regional Russian-led strike force meant to reassert Russian hegemony in the Muslim belt north of Afghanistan.

(c) Planning to establish a Black Sea naval base in Georgia's breakaway province of Abkhazia, conquered by Moscow last summer.

(d) Declaring Russia's intention to deploy offensive Iskander missiles in Kaliningrad if Poland and the Czech Republic go ahead with plans to station an American (anti-Iranian) missile defense system.

President Bush's response to the Kaliningrad deployment -- the threat was issued the day after Obama's election -- was firm. He refused to back down because giving in to Russian threats would leave Poles and Czechs exposed and show the world that, contrary to post-Cold War assumptions, the U.S. could not be trusted to protect Eastern Europe from Russian bullying.

The Obama response? "Biden Signals U.S. Is Open to Russia Missile Deal," as The New York Times headlined Biden's Feb. 7 Munich speech to a major international gathering. This followed strong messages from the Obama transition team even before the inauguration that Obama was not committed to the missile shield. And just to make sure everyone understood that the Bush policy no longer held, Biden in Munich said the U.S. wanted to "press the reset button" on NATO-Russian relations

Not surprisingly, the Obama wobble elicited a favorable reaction from Russia. (There are conflicting reports that Russia might suspend the Kaliningrad blackmail deployment.) The Kremlin must have been equally impressed that the other provocations -- Abkhazia, Kyrgyzstan, the rapid reaction force -- elicited barely a peep from Washington.

Iran has been similarly charmed by Obama's overtures. A week after the new president went about sending sweet peace signals via al-Arabiya, Iran launched its first homemade Earth satellite. The message is clear. If you can put a satellite into orbit, you can hit any continent with a missile, North America included.

And for emphasis, after the roundhouse hook, came the poke in the eye. A U.S. women's badminton team had been invited to Iran. Here was a chance for "ping-pong diplomacy" with the accommodating new president, a sporting venture meant to suggest the possibility of warmer relations.

On Feb. 4, Tehran denied the team entry into Iran.

Then, just in case Obama failed to get the message, Iran's parliament speaker rose in Munich to offer his response to Obama's olive branch. Executive summary: Thank you very much. After you acknowledge 60 years of crimes against us, change not just your tone but your policies, and abandon the Zionist criminal entity, we might deign to talk to you.

With a grinning Goliath staggering about sporting a "kick me" sign on his back, even reputed allies joined the fun. Pakistan freed from house arrest A.Q. Khan, the notorious proliferator who sold nuclear technology to North Korea, Libya and Iran. Ten days later, Islamabad capitulated to the Taliban, turning over to its tender mercies the Swat Valley, 100 miles from the capital. Not only will sharia law now reign there, but the democratically elected secular party will be hunted down as the Pakistani army stands down.

These Pakistani capitulations may account for Obama's hastily announced 17,000 troop increase in Afghanistan even before his various heralded reviews of the mission have been completed. Hasty, unexplained, but at least something. Other than that, a month of pummeling has been met with utter passivity.

I would like to think the supine posture is attributable to a rookie leader otherwise preoccupied (i.e. domestically), leading a foreign policy team as yet unorganized if not disoriented. But when the State Department says that Hugo Chavez's president-for-life referendum, which was preceded by a sham government-controlled campaign featuring the tear-gassing of the opposition, was "for the most part ... a process that was fully consistent with democratic process," you have to wonder if Month One is not a harbinger of things to come.

I think Mr Krauthammer will be proven right in the end. This is "transformational" administration is selling down the road. I think we have to add the Russians to list of nations that are happy we have such a weak leader.

The Obama is about to break another promise...

2008-12-05T20:55:00.000-08:00

News Analysis
Campaign Promises on Ending the War in Iraq Now Muted by Reality

By THOM SHANKER
Published: December 3, 2008

WASHINGTON — On the campaign trail, Senator Barack Obama offered a pledge that electrified and motivated his liberal base, vowing to “end the war” in Iraq.
But as he moves closer to the White House, President-elect Obama is making clearer than ever that tens of thousands of American troops will be left behind in Iraq, even if he can make good on his campaign promise to pull all combat forces out within 16 months.

“I said that I would remove our combat troops from Iraq in 16 months, with the understanding that it might be necessary — likely to be necessary — to maintain a residual force to provide potential training, logistical support, to protect our civilians in Iraq,” Mr. Obama said this week as he introduced his national security team.

Publicly at least, Mr. Obama has not set a firm number for that “residual force,” a phrase certain to become central to the debate on the way ahead in Iraq, though one of his national security advisers, Richard Danzig, said during the campaign that it could amount to 30,000 to 55,000 troops. Nor has Mr. Obama laid out any timetable beyond 16 months for troop drawdowns, or suggested when he believes a time might come for a declaration that the war is over.
In the meantime, military planners are drawing up tentative schedules aimed at meeting both Mr. Obama’s goal for withdrawing combat troops, with a target of May 2010, and the Dec. 31, 2011, date for sending the rest of American troops home that is spelled out in the new agreement between the United States and the Iraqi government.

That status-of-forces agreement remains subject to change, by mutual agreement, and Army planners acknowledge privately that they are examining projections that could see the number of Americans hovering between 30,000 and 50,000 — and some say as high as 70,000 — for a substantial time even beyond 2011.
As American combat forces decline in numbers and more provinces are turned over to Iraqi control, these military planners say, Iraqi security forces will remain reliant on significant numbers of Americans for training, supplies, logistics, intelligence and transportation for a long time to come.

There always was a tension, if not a bit of a contradiction, in the two parts of Mr. Obama’s campaign platform to “end the war” by withdrawing all combat troops by May 2010. To be sure, Mr. Obama was careful to say that the drawdowns he was promising included only combat troops. But supporters who keyed on the language of ending the war might be forgiven if they thought that would mean bringing home all of the troops.

Pentagon planners say that it is possible that Mr. Obama’s goal could be accomplished at least in part by relabeling some units, so that those currently counted as combat troops could be “re-missioned,” their efforts redefined as training and support for the Iraqis.

In Iraq today, there are 15 brigades defined as combat forces in this debate, with one on its way home. But the overall number of troops on the ground is more than 50 brigade equivalents, for a total of 146,000 troops, including service and support personnel. Even now, after the departure of the five “surge” brigades that President Bush sent to Iraq in January 2006, the overall number of troops in Iraq remains higher than when Mr. Bush ordered the troop increase, owing to the number of support and service personnel remaining.

At his news conference in Chicago on Monday, Mr. Obama emphasized his willingness to listen to the advice from senior officers and that of his new national security team, which includes Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, the first Pentagon chief in history to continue serving under a newly elected president; Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; and, as national security adviser, Gen. James L. Jones, the retired four-star Marine officer who served as NATO’s supreme commander.

Since the election, Mr. Obama has held unannounced consultations with both Mr. Gates and Admiral Mullen, described by Obama aides and Pentagon officials as having focused less on tactics and operations and more on broad, strategic views for American national security. On Wednesday, he made a telephone call to Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, Iraq’s prime minister, according to the Obama transition office.

To date, there has been no significant criticism from the antiwar left of the Democratic Party of the prospect that Mr. Obama will keep tens of thousands of troops in Iraq for at least several years to come.

At the Pentagon and the military headquarters in Iraq, the response to the statements this week from Mr. Obama and his national security team has been akin to the senior officer corps’ letting out its collective breath; the words sounded to them like the new president would take a measured approach on the question of troop levels.

“I believe that 16 months is the right time frame, but, as I’ve said consistently, I will listen to the recommendations of my commanders,” Mr. Obama said at that news conference on Monday. “And my No. 1 priority is making sure that our troops remain safe in this transition phase, and that the Iraqi people are well served by a government that is taking on increased responsibility for its own security.”

An apparent evolution of Mr. Obama’s thinking can be heard in contrast to comments he made in July, when he called a news conference to lay out his Iraq policy in unambiguous terms.
“I intend to end this war,” he said then. “My first day in office I will bring the Joint Chiefs of Staff in, and I will give them a new mission, and that is to end this war — responsibly, deliberately, but decisively.” And in a news conference that month in Amman, Jordan, Mr. Obama acknowledged that the American troop increase had bolstered Iraqi security but declared that he would not hesitate to overrule American commanders and redirect troops in Afghanistan.
Mr. Gates, speaking at the Pentagon on Tuesday, a day after he appeared with Mr. Obama to announce the new national security team, made clear that the direction of troop levels now had been decided, with the only decisions remaining on how fast and how low.

“And so the question is, How do we do this in a responsible way?” Mr. Gates said. “And nobody wants to put at risk the gains that have been achieved, with so much sacrifice, on the part of our soldiers and the Iraqis, at this point.”

He knew before the election that he wasn't going to pull all the troops out of Iraq. President Bush was giving him briefings on the military situation in Iraq since 2007. I have a feeling before his first term is over he'll have beat President Clinton in broken promises.

The Black Robes

2008-11-19T23:52:00.000-08:00

Calif. Supreme Court to take up gay marriage ban

Email this StoryNov 19, 5:07 PM (ET)

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - California's highest court has agreed to hear legal challenges to a new ban on gay marriage, but is refusing to allow gay couples to resume marrying until it rules.
The California Supreme Court on Wednesday accepted three lawsuits seeking to overturn Proposition 8. The amendment passed this month with 52 percent of the vote. The court did not elaborate on its decision.
All three cases claim the ban abridges the civil rights of a vulnerable minority group. They argue that voters alone did not have the authority to enact such a significant constitutional change.

Not only do I have to compete with all the illegal votes cast in this state, but the Black Robes are getting ready to disenfranchise my vote again. Why have a democracy? The Democrats should just get it over with and call California a Socialist Republic.

Is this what we can expect from our federal government?

2008-11-15T03:27:00.000-08:00

Joe the Plumber case still dripping

Half-dozen agencies access records of Ohio man

By Dennis J. Willard
Beacon Journal staff writer

Published on Friday, Nov 14, 2008

The election is over, but the Joe the Plumber case is not.

Ohio Inspector General Tom Charles said his office is now looking at a half-dozen agencies that accessed state records on Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher.

The Beacon Journal has learned that, in addition to the Department of Job and Family Services, two other state offices — the Ohio Department of Taxation and Ohio Attorney General Nancy Rogers — conducted database searches of Joe the Plumber.

Wurzelbacher became an instant celebrity after he asked Barack Obama a series of questions in his Toledo driveway about the Democrat's tax policies.

In the third debate between Obama and Republican John McCain on Oct. 15, the candidates referred to Joe the Plumber more than 20 times.

The next day, the taxation department conducted two separate searches of a database of liens for unpaid taxes that were certified to the Ohio Attorney General's Office for collection.

John Kohlstrand, a taxation department spokesman, said he is prohibited from talking about individual taxpayers, but he confirmed that the databases were checked.

The searches were done to determine whether a lien placed against the individual was appropriate and whether it remained unpaid or not, Kohlstrand said.

The department's first search of the day was unsuccessful because of incorrect information about the individual, Kohlstrand said. Ohio Attorney General Nancy Rogers' office then contacted taxation because it was having difficulty accessing the database, Kohlstrand said. After the two agencies talked, taxation completed a successful search.

Kohlstrand said that the AG's office wanted access to the records so they could turn over to the national media lien information that was a public record in Lucas County. He said the national media did not have reporters in Toledo, so the attorney general's office was helping them out with public records.

On the day following the two searches, the taxation department conducted a search of another in-house database that tracks cases and correspondence between taxpayers and the department before the liens being certified and turned over to the attorney general for collection.

Rick Anthony, deputy tax commissioner, said there are times when a payment can be in the pipeline so a lien appears unpaid when in fact the taxpayer or business has repaid the state.

Anthony said the database searches on both days were conducted to ensure that the information in Lucas County was being properly reported by the media.

''Wouldn't that have been a disaster if the lien had been paid,'' Kohlstrand said. ''The responsible thing for us to do would be to take prompt steps to make it right.''

''We are not aware of any inappropriate browsing of information by anyone in our department pertaining to Mr. Wurzelbacher,'' Kohlstrand said.

Jim Gravelle, a spokesman for Attorney General Rogers, said he could not comment on individual records because of privacy issues. He said he would not confirm or deny that the AG's office went to taxation or whether his office had been queried by the inspector general.

The day after the debate, media outlets began reporting that Joe the Plumber's real name was Samuel, he was not a licensed plumber and he owed close to $1,200 in back taxes and additional money to a hospital.

His home was besieged by media outlets, including television crews that camped on his lawn.

Wurzelbacher had questioned Obama's plan to raise taxes for anyone with an income exceeding $250,000 because he planned to purchase his own plumbing business.

His current income made him eligible for a tax break under Obama's plan.

Wurzelbacher later endorsed McCain at a campaign stop in Ohio and hired the Pathfinder Management group in Nashville to manage his career.

Kohlstrand would not comment on an investigation by the inspector general, but Charles confirmed Thursday that he is looking into the taxation department to determine whether their searches were appropriate.

Charles said he does not know at this point if anyone in any of the agencies did anything wrong.

The inspector general began investigating after news reports surfaced that Helen Jones-Kelley, director of the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services, ordered her agency to conduct background checks on Joe the Plumber.

Jones-Kelley maintains that her agency routinely checks on people who are thrust into the spotlight to determine whether they have unpaid child support bills, are receiving public support from her department or owe unemployment taxes.

After the election, Gov. Ted Strickland placed Jones-Kelley on paid leave. The governor said the suspension was for a matter unrelated to the background checks on Joe the Plumber.

Where's the ACLU offering to help this private citizen? This man was minding his business when the Obama came up to him and his neighbors to "press the flesh". How dare he question the Messi-uh's motives on tax policy? I fear what's going to happen to our country with the Obama in charge for the next four years.

Why am I not surprised?

2008-11-13T23:55:00.000-08:00

Teen told to 'burn' for McCain T-shirtPeers call 8th grader 'stupid,' say she should be 'killed' for supporting Republican

Posted: November 13, 200810:30 pm Eastern© 2008 WorldNetDaily

When a 14-year-old girl wore a "McCain girl" T-shirt to school, students told her she should be "crucified" or "burned" for supporting the Republican – but when she wore an Obama T-shirt, everyone complimented her.

Illinois 8th grader Catherine Vogt's mother supported Obama, while her father supported McCain. The teen conducted an experiment to test tolerance among her peers and teachers, the Chicago Tribune reported. But she was surprised by their strong reactions.
Vogt began the experiment by wearing a white T-shirt with "McCain girl" painted in red across the front to Gwendolyn Brooks Middle School in Oak Park. She wrote her observations in a journal.

"I was just really curious how they'd react to something that different, because a lot of people at my school wore Obama shirts and they are big Obama supporters," Catherine told the Chicago Tribune. "I just really wanted to see what their reaction would be."

The students were openly hostile, criticizing her support for McCain.

"People were upset," Vogt said. "But they started saying things, calling me very stupid, telling me my shirt was stupid and I shouldn't be wearing it."

The harsh words didn't stop there.

"One person told me to go die," she said. "It was a lot of dying. A lot of comments about how I should be killed."

Even Vogt's teachers chimed in.

"In one class, I had one teacher say she will not judge me for my choice, but that she was surprised that I supported McCain," the teen said. "Later, that teacher found out about the experiment and said she was embarrassed because she knew I was writing down what she said."
cont'd--->

All those students and teachers that harrassed this girl should be ashamed of themselves. Is this the new liberal tolerance? Living in the SF bay area I see a lot of liberals that drive around with that bumper sticker that says "Mean people suck." I guess they were talking about themselves.

Liberal facism, isn't it great???

2008-11-13T18:07:00.000-08:00

Theater Director Resigns Amid Gay-Rights Ire

By JESSE McKINLEY

Published: November 12, 2008

SACRAMENTO — The artistic director of the California Musical Theater, a major nonprofit producing company here in the state’s capital, resigned on Wednesday in the face of growing outrage over his support for a ballot measure this month that outlawed same-sex marriage in California.

The artistic director, Scott Eckern, came under fire recently after it became known that he contributed $1,000 to support Proposition 8, which amended the state Constitution to recognize only male-female marriages. The measure was approved by 52 percent of California voters on Election Day. (Same-sex marriages had been performed in California since June.)

In a statement issued on Wednesday morning, Mr. Eckern said that his donation stemmed from his religious beliefs — he is a Mormon — and that he was “deeply saddened that my personal beliefs and convictions have offended others.”
cont'd--->

This poor guy isn't the first and certainly won't be the last. I thought liberals are supposed to be the enlightened tolerant ones. Oh yeah, I forgot they're only tolerant if you aren't a conservative or don't have conservative beliefs. Hypocrits!

I knew this would happen...

2008-11-12T23:51:00.000-08:00

Iraqi Insurgents Issue Open Letter to President-Elect Obama

By Evan Kohlmann

The NEFA Foundation has obtained an Arabic-language communiqué issued by the Political Council of the Iraqi Resistance (PCIR), an umbrella organization which oversees the political interests of several major Sunni insurgent groups in Iraq—including the Islamic Army in Iraq (IAI), the Salahudeen al-Ayyubi Brigades (JAAMI), Hamas al-Iraq, and the breakaway “Shariah Committee” from the former Ansar al-Sunnah Army. The statement from the PCIR, addressed to U.S. President-elect Barack Obama, offered blunt advice “for the new American administration to benefit from and to use to avoid the mistakes that the old administration fell into. The reason why you won the presidency is not because the Americans suddenly found out that they should not be racist, it is because of the many mistakes that the Bush administration fell under which didn’t leave for the American citizen any room, not even for a second to think about keeping that administration and the least proof for this is the large numbers of votes against them. Your campaign promises were built on change and the time for it has come, and we say with that the time has come… therefore we ask for change and do not listen to those who tell you that a withdrawal from Iraq is a defeat. We say to you that a withdrawal will mean a triumph of reason and logic… You must correct your mistakes and work with courage to pay compensation to all those who you have destroyed, their families or their house or their psychology. And you must release all those you have as prisoners until the last Iraqi of them, and you must order the sectarian government to release all its prisoners and to return the balance of security to Iraq. Without this we will not think that you will be coming with the change that you have promised, and if you do this you will be written down in history as the courageous one.”

Well the Obama should be content. Not only did the American people ok his plan for defeat in Iraq, the terrorists have put their stamp of approval. In fact they are asking for reparations. Heck, they should have asked for a formal apology. Isn't this great? I wonder when he's going to set up an unconditional meeting for that to happen.

Who's going to stand up for innocent???

2008-11-12T09:58:00.000-08:00

Catholic bishops will fight Obama on abortion

Email this StoryNov 12, 1:14 AM (ET)By RACHEL ZOLL

BALTIMORE (AP) - The nation's Roman Catholic bishops vowed Tuesday to forcefully confront the Obama administration over its support for abortion rights, saying the church and religious freedom could be under attack in the new presidential administration.
In an impassioned discussion on Catholics in public life, several bishops said they would accept no compromise on abortion policy. Many condemned Catholics who had argued it was morally acceptable to back President-elect Obama because he pledged to reduce abortion rates.
And several prelates promised to call out Catholic policy makers on their failures to follow church teaching. Bishop Joseph Martino of Scranton, Pa., singled out Vice President-elect Biden, a Catholic, Scranton native who supports abortion rights.
"I cannot have a vice president-elect coming to Scranton to say he's learned his values there when those values are utterly against the teachings of the Catholic Church," Martino said. The Obama-Biden press office did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
cont'd--->

Listening to Catholic democrat politicians get it wrong about church doctrine, I was wondering when the Bishops were going to correct them. It seems that the Catholic Church has finally got it sea legs back, because judging by how the Obama voted in the past on abortion those future little fetuses incubating in their mothers better watch out. The Obama says you don't have a right to be born.

Did you forget to thank a veteran?

2008-11-11T16:03:00.000-08:00

Nation Praises Veterans Who've Defended U.S. Liberty

Tuesday, November 11, 2008 12:46 PM

NEW YORK — President Bush thanked veterans Tuesday for serving their country, noting wistfully that he'll "miss being commander in chief of such a fabulous group."
Bush marked his last Veterans Day as president with a visit to a New York pier that is home to the World War II aircraft carrier Intrepid, appearing before a crowd of thousands bundled on a pier against the windy November chill for the rededication ceremony of the USS Intrepid Sea, Air and Space Museum.
The president praised veterans in the crowd, including those who served aboard the Intrepid in its long history of military action.
"Thank you for your courage, thank you for your sacrifice, and thank you for standing up when your nation needed you must," Bush said.
The president spoke in the shadow of the Intrepid and near the amphibious assault ship USS Bataan, where sailors and marines peered down on the ceremony from the ship's deck. After his speech, astronauts Scott Carpenter and Buzz Aldrin helped the president toss a wreath into the Hudson River as a bugler played "Taps."
cont'd--->

To all that have served, Thank you. Please know that our family is eternally grateful for your service and sacrifice.

Can you spare a dime brother???

2008-11-11T11:24:00.000-08:00

Time Inc. Calls for Buyouts

Nov 11, 2008

-By Lucia Moses, Mediaweek

NEW YORK With a handful of higher-ups already out the door, Time Inc. is moving to the rank-and-file as it, like other publishers, seeks to reduce its workforce in the face of dropping ad revenue.

Some of Time Inc.’s biggest magazines have put out the call for at least 83 volunteers to take buyouts, according to memos and staffers at the company. The news comes as part of the company’s previously announced restructuring and plan to cut its headcount by about 600, or roughly 6 percent of the Time Inc.’s worldwide workforce of 10,200.

Sports Illustrated said it is looking for about 40 Newspaper Guild and non-guild volunteers from the editorial side. People is seeking 23 volunteers and Time magazine about 20. Fortune and Money are also looking for volunteers from guild members, but did not specify a number.

Volunteers are asked to come forth by Dec. 1 to avoid involuntary layoffs.

Other, non-Guild cuts are expected to be made throughout the company’s 24 U.S. titles today.

“No one’s immune,” said one staffer, who called the mood “extremely grim."
cont'd ---->

There is something in my Catholic upbringing that won't let me take pleasure in someone elses misery (shodenfreuda), but there is something righteous reading a MSM rag going down the tubes. I remember going to the grocery store and seeing the Messi-uhs face on the cover almost every week. Hey, Time perhaps you could get the Obama to bailout your Leftist promoting magazine?

Nothing like have democracy stolen...

2008-11-10T17:08:00.000-08:00

ACORN Registrations May Tilt Minnesota Tally

Monday, November 10, 2008 5:07 PMBy: Phil Brennan

ACORN’s scandal-ridden voter registration campaign filed more than 43,000 new registration forms in Minnesota this year, raising concerns about the ultimate outcome of the Sen. Norm Coleman-Al Franken battle beyond the wire.

That registration tally of the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now accounted for 75 percent of all new registrations in the Gopher State, where Republican Coleman’s lead over his Democratic challenger has slipped from 725 votes out of about 2.9 million cast Nov. 4 to 204 Monday. That original slim margin triggered an automatic recount that is to start Nov. 19.

cont'd-->

I'm sure the 43,000 new registrants are all actual voters. There is no way that ACORN registration workers would register dead people, illegal aliens, pets, pro-football players or Mickey Mouse. No way, no how!!! Who said cheating doesn't pay??? Ask the Obama and his buddies in ACORN.

2008-11-10T09:35:00.000-08:00

An Obama Tilt in Campaign Coverage

By Deborah HowellSunday, November 9, 2008; Page B06
The Post provided a lot of good campaign coverage, but readers have been consistently critical of the lack of probing issues coverage and what they saw as a tilt toward Democrat Barack Obama. My surveys, which ended on Election Day, show that they are right on both counts.

My assistant, Jean Hwang, and I have been examining Post coverage since Nov. 11 of last year on issues, voters, fundraising, the candidates' backgrounds and horse-race stories on tactics, strategy and consultants. We also have looked at photos and Page 1 stories since Obama captured the nomination June 4.
The count was lopsided, with 1,295 horse-race stories and 594 issues stories. The Post was deficient in stories that reported more than the two candidates trading jabs; readers needed articles, going back to the primaries, comparing their positions with outside experts' views. There were no broad stories on energy or science policy, and there were few on religion issues.

Bill Hamilton, assistant managing editor for politics, said, "There are a lot of things I wish we'd been able to do in covering this campaign, but we had to make choices about what we felt we were uniquely able to provide our audiences both in Washington and on the Web. I don't at all discount the importance of issues, but we had a larger purpose, to convey and explain a campaign that our own David Broder described as the most exciting he has ever covered, a narrative that unfolded until the very end. I think our staff rose to the occasion."
The op-ed page ran far more laudatory opinion pieces on Obama, 32, than on Sen. John McCain, 13. There were far more negative pieces about McCain, 58, than there were about Obama, 32, and Obama got the editorial board's endorsement. The Post has several conservative columnists, but not all were gung-ho about McCain.
Stories and photos about Obama in the news pages outnumbered those devoted to McCain. Reporters, photographers and editors found the candidacy of Obama, the first African American major-party nominee, more newsworthy and historic. Journalists love the new; McCain, 25 years older than Obama, was already well known and had more scars from his longer career in politics.
The number of Obama stories since Nov. 11 was 946, compared with McCain's 786. Both had hard-fought primary campaigns, but Obama's battle with Hillary Rodham Clinton was longer, and the numbers reflect that.
McCain clinched the GOP nomination on March 4, three months before Obama won his. From June 4 to Election Day, the tally was Obama, 626 stories, and McCain, 584. Obama was on the front page 176 times, McCain, 144 times; 41 stories featured both.
Our survey results are comparable to figures for the national news media from a study by the Project for Excellence in Journalism. It found that from June 9, when Clinton dropped out of the race, until Nov. 2, 66 percent of the campaign stories were about Obama compared with 53 percent for McCain; some stories featured both. The project also calculated that in that time, 57 percent of the stories were about the horse race and 13 percent were about issues.
Counting from June 4, Obama was in 311 Post photos and McCain in 282. Obama led in most categories. Obama led 133 to 121 in pictures more than three columns wide, 178 to 161 in smaller pictures, and 164 to 133 in color photos. In black and white photos, the nominees were about even, with McCain at 149 and Obama at 147. On Page 1, they were even at 26 each. Post photo and news editors were surprised by my first count on Aug. 3, which showed a much wider disparity, and made a more conscious effort at balance afterward.
Some readers complain that coverage is too poll-driven. They're right, but it's not going to change. The Post's polling was on the mark, and in some cases ahead of the curve, in focusing on independent voters, racial attitudes, low-wage voters, the shift of African Americans' support from Clinton to Obama and the rising importance of economic issues. The Post and its polling partner ABC News include 50 to 60 issues questions in every survey instead of just horse-race questions, so public attitudes were plumbed as well.
The Post had a hard-working team on the campaign. Special praise goes to Dan Balz, the best, most level-headed, incisive political reporter and analyst in newspapers. His stories and "Dan Balz's Take" on washingtonpost.com were fair, penetrating and on the mark. His mentor, David S. Broder, was as sharp as ever.
Michael Dobbs, the Fact Checker, also deserves praise for parsing campaign rhetoric for the overblown or just flat wrong. Howard Kurtz's Ad Watch was a sharp reality check.
The Post's biographical pieces, especially the first ones -- McCain by Michael Leahy and Obama by David Maraniss -- were compelling. Maraniss demystified Obama's growing-up years; the piece on his mother and grandparents was a great read. Leahy's first piece on McCain's father and grandfather, both admirals, told me where McCain got his maverick ways as a kid -- right from the two old men.
But Obama deserved tougher scrutiny than he got, especially of his undergraduate years, his start in Chicago and his relationship with Antoin "Tony" Rezko, who was convicted this year of influence-peddling in Chicago. The Post did nothing on Obama's acknowledged drug use as a teenager.
The Post had good coverage of voters, mainly by Krissah Williams Thompson and Kevin Merida. Anne Hull's stories from Florida, Michigan and Liberty University, and Wil Haygood's story from central Montana brought readers into voters' lives. Jose Antonio Vargas's pieces about campaigns and the Internet were standouts.
One gaping hole in coverage involved Joe Biden, Obama's running mate. When Gov. Sarah Palin was nominated for vice president, reporters were booking the next flight to Alaska. Some readers thought The Post went over Palin with a fine-tooth comb and neglected Biden. They are right; it was a serious omission. However, I do not agree with those readers who thought The Post did only hatchet jobs on her. There were several good stories on her, the best on page 1 by Sally Jenkins on how Palin grew up in Alaska.
In early coverage, I wasn't a big fan of the long-running series called "The Gurus" on consultants and important people in the campaigns. The Post has always prided itself on its political coverage, and profiles of the top dogs were probably well read by political junkies. But I thought the series was of no practical use to readers. While there were some interesting pieces in The Frontrunners series, none of them told me anything about where the candidates stood on any issue.
Deborah Howell can be reached at 202-334-7582 or ombudsman@washpost.com.

America have you taken notice yet? The MSM was in the tank for the Obama this election cycle, what are they willing to do for him in the years to come. An independent MSM was the last safeguard against an abusive government, now that's gone. Liberals control the Federal government from the Congress, Courts and soon to be the Executive Branch. Hold on to your butts!!!

Is Al Qaeda going to make a big show in Iraq, again?

2008-11-10T00:35:00.000-08:00

2 bombs kill 22, wound 42 in northern Baghdad

By HAMID AHMED, Associated Press Writer Hamid Ahmed, Associated Press Writer – 33 mins ago
Play Video Reuters – Obama's Iraq
Slideshow: Iraq
Play Video Video: War Veterans Appear on 'All My Children' ABC News

AP – An Iraqi policeman examines a car bomb that was detonated by US military bomb technicians before it reached …
BAGHDAD – A suicide bomber struck Monday in a crowd gathered at the site of an explosion that had gone off moments earlier, killing 22 people and wounded 42 others, police said.
The twin blasts occurred during the morning rush hour in the Kasrah section of Azamiyah neighborhood in the northern part of Baghdad.
Police said the first explosion was in a car. The second happened when a suicide bomber detonated an explosive belt in the middle of a crowd that had gathered around the vehicle.
cont'd-->

Hmmm, what will the Great Obama do about this??? This is what I was afraid would happen if the Obama won the election. The terrorists know that Obama was committed to losing in Iraq. All they need to do is show a "symbolic" fight when we withdraw from Iraq and poof!!! Instance victory against the great Satan. The poor Iraqis they won't know what hit them.

Its been a while...

2006-07-14T22:36:00.000-07:00

I want to keep this one short. Just want to thank all the dimwitted environuts for putting our country's economy and security under threat of that mad man in Iran. If we would of just listened to Senator Stevens those years back oil from ANWAR would be online now. Now basically folks oil is going to hit $100 per barrel by the end of the summer. Thank you again environuts. We'll end up being like the Chicoms during the 70's and 80's.

I'm blessed...

2005-12-01T20:58:00.000-08:00

Now I know why Chris always liked taking the care packages we send out to our soldiers; talking to people in line is pretty cool. We now have a total of 25 soldiers. The freight charges are starting to add up, but it's still managable. The last two times people from my work have helped chip in for the shipping. The the thing that really surprised me were total strangers throwing in whatever money they had in their pockets. They usually peak over and try to see where all the packages are going. I then explain to them that I went on this website www.SoldiersAngels.com and adopted a soldier which grew to 25. It revitalizes me by the reaction I get. Americans are still pretty patriotic and think about the soldiers fighting for our freedom. It's something I hope won't evaporate with all the negativism coming from the media and democrats.

Watch out for this damn movie, "Jarhead".

2005-10-31T20:52:00.000-08:00

Please be aware if you go see this movie, Jarhead. In fact instead of wasting $30 on seeing this movie, maybe save it for a soldiers care package. This movie is nothing, but one man's guilt over killing another human being in a time of war. Along with the moral debate over killing, they also follow the liberal playbook and portray the Marines as mentally disturbed. I have to tell you that I was at the airport the other day and read the last 20 pages of this book. I believe in free speech, but it seems Swofford and his Hollywood buddies don't feel the same way. Just like this idiot Riekoff with Operation Truth your opinion really doesn't count unless you've been in combat. Because I didn't make the life choices that they did I some sort of "chickenhawk". It just shows how shallow their arguments are when it comes to war. Throughout history really crappy things have happened, but if we followed their line of logic (illogic) Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt were big "chickenhawks". Between the both of them a million Americans died in combat. Another 2 million were injured. Families were dislocated and changed forever. But one could not argue with the result. When men made of lesser stuff would've settled for less, who knows how much darker this world would have been if they've faltered? That is why it was so important that we kicked Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait. If Clinton was President at the time Kuwait was invaded nothing would've happened. Saddam would've been a nuclear power and had the free world under his thumb. The movie basically comes down to Swofford's opinion that nobody is worth killing in war. It's because of this flawed opinion that I believe that killing is necessary when it comes to protecting this country. They don't want to debate. Only just to silence and shame. Spend your hard earned money on something else.

Reaching out to an Iraqi!!

2005-10-28T23:26:00.000-07:00

This is a letter I sent to "Sooni" an Iraqi that has a blog.Dear Sooni,

Hello from Vallejo, Ca. It's about 30miles northeast of San Francisco. I found your blog through American Soldier. I have my own blog also at http://politicalpete.blogspot.com/.
Take a look when you get a chance. I think you'll get an understanding of my political point of view. The reason I write you today because I need to know, "Is there light at the end of the tunnel?" I live in the Land of the loonies. Every other week it seems I debate some other liberal who has this blind "hatred" of President Bush. Any good news from Iraq is discounted and they feign phony concern when an American soldier dies. When the 2000th American soldier was killed in Iraq I thought the liberals were going to stand up and cheer. Hoping that the American public is going to agree with them and have our soldiers run with their tales between their legs. Personally I think the Liberals today are the knew racists similar to the Ku Klux Klan.
It frightens me to think what would have happened if they were prevalent in World War II. Michael Moore would've probably made a movie blaming Roosevelt for the attack on Pearl Harbor. In fact he would of said that Roosevelt knew about the sneak attack and let it happen. You see Sooni my father was kid growing up in the Philippines. He saw first hand the brutality the Imperial Japanese inflicted on the Filipinos. My wife's Grandfather was a Filipino American soldier. He was Bataan Death March survivor. American and Filipino soldiers were forced to march 100km in the searing sun. They weren't given any food or water. To make matters worse he had malaria. The Japanese guards were ordered to get the prisoners to Camp O'donnell the quickest way possible. The POW's weren't allowed to break out of formation. If the sick fell behind they were beheaded. If they tried to get water from a stream they were beheaded. The prisoners when allowed to rest were forced to piss and shit wherever they were squatting. The civilian Filipinos along the way were not immune the Japanese evil and brutality. If they tried to give food or water they were bayoneted. Roosevelt and General Marshall wrote the Philippines off. They didn't even think it was worth liberating. You see militarily it would've been smarter just to blockade and bomb Japan into submission. If it wasn't for General MacArthur keeping his promise to return who knows what other horrors the Filipinos would've had to endure.
The Americans came and liberated the Philippines. The GI's showed great kindness and helped the Filipinos rebuild. It was because of this kindness that my father wanted to join the US Army. He wanted to repay America for liberating his country. For 24 years he was in the Army and retired a Master sergeant. He fought in Korea and did two extended tours in Vietnam from '64 to '68. While he was in Vietnam he served as an interpreter and advisor to several South Vietnamese Ranger Battalions. The Vietnamese were drawn to him and he believed that they deserved a chance to live in freedom. It was why he stayed so long. There were several things that irritated him though. The South Vietnamese had good fighters, but shitty leaders. It seems the French taught the women to look sexy, but didn't bother to grow any strong leaders. Problem 1. Next the Johnson and Nixon administrations didn't fight it in a manner to defeat the Communist. Problem 2. Finally the peaceniks and liberals didn't believe one American life was worth saving the Vietnamese. Oh they say they cared for the Vietnamese, but it was because of them undermining the war effort that it went on so long. Problem 3. After the fall of Saigon the slaughter truly began in southeast Asia. Cambodia had a killing field of 2million. Laos lost 1million. Vietnam lost a 1million plus another 2million displaced refugees. Not a peep from the freakin liberals. They didn't give a shit. Not one protest against the Communist for the slaughter they unleashed. It's the same people that want us out of Iraq. They could give a rats ass if Iraq turns into another killing field. They don't want to lift a finger to help your country.
As for me I support the mission and especially the troops. It is amazing to me that until Iraq voted for this new constitution that Israel was the only democracy in the Middle East. I think your country is worth the effort. The cradle of civilization shouldn't be a third world country. It should be a full fledge democracy and allowed to flourish and thrive. My father told me never to forget the blood the Americans had to shed to liberate the Philippines. 27,000 Americans died keeping us free, another 100,000 were wounded, many of them seriously. Some were volunteers, most were draftees I doubt they wanted to be away from there families and die in a foreign land. I'm truly grateful for their service and sacrifice. It is why today that I've adopted 25 soldiers in Iraq. I send them letters of support and care packages. A lot of them are on their second tour. The majority want to see your country stand on it's own. It's because of my shame that I didn't join the Army when I had the chance to, that I'm going to learn Arabic. I'm too old for the Army now, but they are in desperate need of translators. I'm trying my darndest to get over to Iraq so I can help and make a difference. It wouldn't be easy for me. I'm married and have four kids. But what kind of father would I be to my sons if I didn't try to make the world a better place. I think the world would be a better place if Iraq was a democracy.
Sooni, what do I tell the liberals that say we should leave? Do the majority of Iraqis hate the Americans and want them out? Are they even aware or grateful of the sacrifices that the soldiers and their families have to endure. You are the first Iraqi that I've written and tried to reach out to. Please tell me what you think and feel. It would be good to hear from you. May God bless and protect you.

A proud American,
Peter M
Vallejo, California

It's business as usual with the Bush "Haters".

2005-10-24T21:12:00.000-07:00

It's been a while since I've posted on my blog. The last month has been crazy. I had an inventory at my work and after that Christel and I went on vacation. It was a long time coming, but Christel and I had Soldier Angels withdrawals. Don't get me wrong we had fun on our vacation, but those brave soldiers were not far from our minds and hearts. Well we've been back for about a week and took an inventory on how many "heroes" we've adopted. It turns out we have 24 fine people. They range from different parts of the US, plus different ages to marital status. They just want to feel supported. Let me say that it truly demoralizes them when they hear the bullshit line "We support the troops, but we don't support he mission.". As if the troops would do the "devils" bidding.
I'd like to congratulate the Soldiers on doing another great job in Afghanistan and Iraq. Since I've last written they had two successful elections in both countries. For the majority of these people it's the first time that they were able to vote in a fair and free election. Something that many people in this country take for granted. To them I salute and congratulate them on taking charge of their future. I pray that they also remember the sacrifices that our brave soldiers endure. Without these great soldiers the worlds would truly be a dark place.

The Bush Bashing is truly turning sick.

2005-09-04T23:09:00.000-07:00

I don't know what these poor souls will do once President Bush is no longer in office. While I truly disagreed with many of President Clinton's policies my opposition was not motivated with "hate". My morning didn't start out with "How can I hurt Clinton today?" Hell, I wanted us to win Kosovo. I didn't give a crap that it would be a political triumph for Clinton. Oh by the way you liberals, Clinton promised the troops to be home by Christmas. Which still hasn't happened, with no foreseeable pull out in sight. Sydney Blumenthal (Clinton sycophant) doesn't mention the money we've used occupying Kosovo, could've been used to upgrade the levees. But the fact is that the Federal government has ballooned into a unwieldy monster. From the bureaucrat, to the labor unions all entrenching themselves at the trough of federal spending. Expecting only the Military to endure true cuts in spending. The disaster that Katrina has left behind has only reinforced the fact that YOU AND YOUR FAMILY are on your own till the government can get back on its feet. But just like typical Democrats they expect the Federal government to immediately ride on its "white horse" (Sorry Kanye, Rev Jesse and all Bush haters) and save the day. Bullsh!t !!!!! For decades state politicians and mayors have handed over this 800lbs gorilla to the next. Here is dirty little secret that few people know, New Orleans was always in danger of flooding with just a slight "heavy rain". The pumps that kept New Orleans dry could barely keep up with the demand. Yet for all these years it was ok with them. Louisiana and New Orleans have made billions on the oil industry and Mardi Grais, but it wasn't their "fault" when this Category 5 storm hit. It all of sudden falls on the feet of George W. Bush. One thing that could've easily alleviated the suffering and death these poor people had to endure was that the 2200 buses "strategically" parked next to the Superdome are now underwater and useless. From the moment that they knew that New Orleans was going to be hit they could've evacuated a great many people. But for whatever stupid reason the liberal media doesn't seem to want to ask this "brave" mayor or governor this question?

How come the ACLU and anarachists aren't in New Orleans?

2005-09-02T00:00:00.000-07:00

Watching New Orleans crumble into lawlessness is truly sad. It makes me glad to know that I purchased my shotgun. In a disaster on biblical proportions it's obvious the government can't protect you or your property. The San Francisco Bay area is going to have a catastrophic earthquake, not "if" but when. My wife Christel and I decided to upgrade all our provisions in case an earthquake does hit. I'd suggest you do the same. Ya never know. Here's some suggestions to my looney neighbors. To you "anarchists" why not rush into New Orleans. It's gotta be your dream situation. No law, no government and no rules. But I doubt these phony, misguided, idiots wouldn't even want to be near New Orleans. It would be all bad "no Starbucks and can't watch Jackass" on MTV forget that sh^t. Next, forget the National Guard. Send in an army of ACLU lawyers. Maybe they can go around and ask the victims if they thought they were victimized by President Bush's Global Warming policies? They could also go around and put signs in front of good liberals houses that are still standing. Signs like "This house protected by love and good intentions." or "A gun has never fed a hungry child." I wonder if these misunderstood looters would pass them over because of their big hearts?

God works in wierd ways.

2005-08-29T22:58:00.000-07:00

My wife and I have the great honor of adopting a couple of soldiers, thru http://www.soldiersangels.org/heroes/index.php. We've been sending out mail, email and care packages to them. Last week we heard from one of them and I can't tell you how much our lives have changed. James is a great guy and we found out that his wife is in the Army, too. She's serving in Iraq while he's in Afghanistan (the forgotten war). These people are heroes in my eyes. They have nothing, but my utmost respect. I challenge you whoever reads this just visit the site. What do you have to lose? I guarantee it's good for the soul. These people want nothing, but to feel supported by the American people. Bad mouthing the mission or their Commander In Chief is not a constructive way to do that... here's another site that is worth looking at http://www.moveamericaforward.com/

The people you meet...

2005-08-25T18:24:00.000-07:00

Peter wanted me to post about my experience when I went to the post office to send a package to our Soldier. I was standing in a very long line, trying to juggle my purse, the custom forms and the box which weighed about 27 lbs. There was an older gentleman standing behind me wearing a Vietnam Vet hat who offered to hold the box for me. He noticed that the address was an APO and inquired if I was sending stuff to my brother. I told him that the person was not my blood brother but brother by heart. I told him about Soldier's Angels and the work they do. I also thanked him for his service. He patted me on my head like I was a lil girl and said that was the nicest thing anyone has said to him in a long time. We kept talking as we stood in the slowest moving line ever!! I commented that I wondered how much it would cost to send the box because it was so heavy. My turn came up next and i jokingly said "48 dollars? do you know how much stuff i can buy with $48?". The gentleman ended up being at the cashier right next to me and turned to my cashier and said "i'l like to pay $20 toward the shipping please". I told him I was kidding and that I couldn't allow him to pay. He then said "lil lady, please let me do this and tell your soldier i said "Quartermasters Lead The Way". Hell, I couldn't say no then. As we were leaving he said "thank you for supporting our soldiers". I almost cried right there in the lobby of the post office!!! Least to say, this put a smile on my face, hope it put one on yours too

The liberals don't know what the hell they want.

2005-08-15T22:33:00.000-07:00

I'm surprised the liberals don't spin themselves into the ground with all the different positions they take. Let me get this straight the liberals claim it's the average American Joe that is fighting and dying in Iraq. The average American just doesn't have a chance. The economy is so crappy the poor schlub has to join. There's no way that patriotism falls into the equation. Yet on the other hand they don't want recruiters on college campuses. I don't get it. They say the rich and powerful are not helping with the war effort, but they don't want "rich" college kids to be influenced by "pied piper" recruiters. Something doesn't add up here. Oh, but wait this the looney liberal way of thinking just like 2+2=5.

The hazards of the chat room.

2005-08-13T11:06:00.000-07:00

I decided to go into a political chat room the other night. It was a room called "rebuilding Iraq". It must have been a full moon because the freaks were out that night. The topics were bouncing around from Cindy Sheehan to "Bush is a chimp." I truly feel sorry for that lady. First her son is killed by the terrorists and now she's basically being used by anti-war to try hurt President Bush politically. Are these people so blinded with "hate for Bush" that they can't realize that they are giving "aid and comfort" to the terrorist. It's just like in Vietnam. The North Vietnamese and Viet Cong were getting decimated and they still kept coming. The best they could come up with was the Tet offensive. They were eventually beat back and sustained heavy losses. A NVA general years later were surprised that after their failure the Americans and South Vietnamese didn't mop up and finish them off. He admitted that a small push by the Americans would have finished them. But because of Conkrite's stupid observation that the NVA was winning we went back to the Paris talks instead of counter-attacking. It's just like in Iraq the "terrorists" don't have unlimited resources, they are even losing support around the Muslim world. The terrorist are losing even though the liberal media doesn't want to portray it that way. They aren't making friends by blowing up innocent Iraqis especially children. The recruitment statistic the media doesn't site is the Iraqis. Men are signing up even after a police or army post is attacked. They are willing to fight for their country. The liberals will only be right to use the Vietnam analogy if we pull out. The death and destruction will pale in comparison to what the communist did to the Vietnamese. Now isn't the time back out of Iraq.

2005-08-10T19:51:00.000-07:00

God has blessed me with many things and there is one that is a watershed for all the rest. Thank God we didn't have the same liberal media and "anti-war" protestors during World War II. Sacrifice is something that is woven into the history of this great country. If they used troop casualties as a basis for fighting on against the Axis powers I wouldn't be here blogging. America suffered 400,000 deaths during that conflict. Did the people of that era waver and lose faith? We are living proof of their resolve. Unfortunately their are some today that don't have that backbone. If they used their logic for getting out of Iraq it would be Roosevelt's fault for getting all those soldiers killed. Hell, Roosevelt was provoking the Germans and Japanese with his meddling. The Germans and Japanese were poor countries after all. They were just trying to provide for their people. Who really cared about those Poles and Chinese that were brutalized by their occupation. It' s none of our business. Pearl Harbor, just an overeaction by the Japanese. They didn't invade the mainland after all. Roosevelt cutoff oil and steel shipments to the Japanese. The emperor obviously didn't have a choice. Roosevelt pushed the Japanese into war. If we would just try to understand the Germans and Japanese. Maybe we could just come to an accommodation and just let them have all the land they want? As long as they don't attack us again. Well, the overwhelming majority agreed to defeat these countries no matter the cost. And cost it did. There wasn't an American who wasn't touched by the affects of this war. Over 1.2 million Americans were either killed or wounded. If there ever was a reason to sue for peace I'd say that would be a good reason to do it. As for me and my family, we thank those brave people for not backing down in the face of true adversity. For because my father and my wife's grandfather joined the US Army because of the kindness the American GI's showed the Filipinos. That is how my family came to this great country. Otherwise I'd be in the Philippines probably in a rice patty speaking Japanese. If somebody asked me today if all that misery and death was worth it? I'd say yes.

2005-08-07T03:08:00.000-07:00

Thank god my daughter has her mother's good looks.!!

2005-08-06T23:57:00.000-07:00

I checked out an episode of "overthere" and had to change it. The show is nothing but the liberals in Hollywood attempt at hurting the war effort in Iraq. The sad thing is that the troops over there do hear all this negativity from anti- america left. The facts are that we have already won militarily it's the war of wills that is being waged now. If we don't succeed in Iraq the 1,800 deaths that have occurred will truly be meaningless. Osama incorrectly learned in Somalia that if America lost some soldiers we would cut and run. The whole middle east will truly be thrown into darkness if we cut and run. A new "dark age" will befall the people on that side of the world. We will also be in greater danger from the Muslim extremists. A couple weeks back Time magazine wasted a front cover and lead story on a stupid suicide bomber. Who gives a shit about what these 7th century backward ass piece of human debris really thinks? Would the media in WorldWarII want to understand the Nazis or Imperial Japanese? Why doesn't the liberal media ask these idiots "Is it right to blow up innocent Muslim children?" How come the incredulous righteous left isn't up and arms for all these poor innocent Iraqis being blown up? Where the hell are all the "human shields" that helped protect Saddam in the beginning of the war? There doesn't seem to be any in Iraq right now that are trying to stop the terrorists. I guess it's only ok to be a "human shield" for a murderous dictator like Saddam.

2005-08-02T22:07:00.000-07:00

More pictures from the Support America Rally. My beautiful family in front of the art displays. Me and a guy from ProtestWarrior. He brought a funny ass sign. (above). More patriotic americans at the rally (left).

2005-08-02T19:54:00.000-07:00

I know that I'm not the only that shouts at the t.v. It was funny, last night my wife got pissed at me. She wanted me to scratch her head and I bent over and started scratching. Right at that moment a crazy liberal came on tv. Well, my instincts kicked in and I yelled (accidentally) in her ear. It just drives me nuts when I hear these America hating people speak. I've tried to tone it down, but can't seem to control it. ill I just saw Rosie O'dumbell on tv. She's just damn f-ugly inside and out.

2005-08-01T22:52:00.000-07:00

I live in the land of loonies. I usually don't go to political rallies, but the bile coming from the Left is just, too much. Our wonderful Attorney General Lockyer, commissioned this twisted person to put up so-called art in the lobby of the Atty Gen office. The mural was a picture of the Stars and Stripes being flushed down the toilet. On the side of the painting it states "thanks to Mr Bush". Censorship is something I don't take lightly, but using taxpayer money for this trash is just wrong. While I would support taking this display down, my family and I weren't there for that. We wanted to support America and the troops overseas protecting our freedom. The event started at 3:30 pm, we didn't get there until 6:45 pm. There were still people around the "support America" displays. It was a very positive event. A couple of kids sang the Star Spangled Banner. The damn counter-protesters wouldn't even shut up to sing the National Anthem. All they could do was shout insults. My boys even noticed the hate on their faces. They asked me "Dad, why are they so angry?" To tell you the truth I truly don't understand these misguided fools.

2005-08-01T22:28:00.000-07:00

We went to a Move America Forward rally in Sacramento on 07/28/05.