Talking Points

August 30, 2006

The Suspension of Reality.

Filed under: Talking Points memo — talkingpoints @ 3:16 am

We put reality on hold when we watch movies, that way we can buy into superheroes with super-human powers; at least until the credits roll – that’s the subject of today’s Talking Points memo.

Lately it seems we are being asked to suspend belief when looking at real events.  We are supposed to put the truth aside.  We are to ignore reality and just hope for the best. 

For example, Iran says that it will respond to U.N demands that to cease its nuclear ambitions.  No matter what Iran says or does, there will be activity at the U.N., urging calls for more resolutions; possible scansions, packages of goodies. 

Yes, the U.N. will inevitably work to appease Iran – a country that has sponsored terrorism for three decades and dared the world to stop them.

Now, if you believe the U.N. will solve the Iran problem, then you are ignoring reality.  If you believe talking to Iran would bear fruit as Chuck Hegel from Nebraska suggested, you are ignoring reality.

The Iranians will do what ever it takes to build their Nuclear power.  Period. 

U.N. resolutions will not stop them.  Threats of sanctions will not stop them.  Even the implementation of actual sanctions will not stop them.  Ask Saddam about U.N. resolutions; the Oil for Food Program – does that ring any bells?

This is not a movie where a superhero saves the day in two hours.  There is only one thing to stop the Iranians, and that is military force.  They need to know that arming up with nuclear arms will lead to their own certain destruction by those who have the political will to pull the trigger.

If you believe in anything, believe in that.

And that’s the memo

August 27, 2006

The Iraq Solution

Filed under: Talking Points memo — talkingpoints @ 2:35 pm

War is a performance business.  That is, if you get in it—you better win it  that’s the subject of today’s Talking Points memo. 

Stalemates are not acceptable, especially in America where we worship victory and do not suffer defeat easily. Despite what revisionist historians say, the USA did not lose militarily in Vietnam; we simply did not defeat the Communist enemy. And shortly after we withdrew, they violated the signed treaty and took over South Vietnam.

Today, we are facing a similar situation in Iraq. The latest Opinion Research poll says 61% of Americans now oppose the Iraq war; just 35% support the action. But this is misleading. The opposition is not against the campaign to bring democracy to Iraq—the dissent is about our performance there. In other words, if the Coalition was winning in Iraq, the folks would be behind the effort.

The far-left is trying to make this a moral issue; it is spinning that somehow America is bad for deposing a murderous dictator and making free elections possible. If that’s bad, then George Washington is Satan. That’s how dopey the moral objection to Iraq is.

But the folks are correct when they say that unlimited sacrifice in Iraq is not good for the nation. So far, the USA has spent hundreds of billions and lost thousands of good people to death and grievous injury in that chaotic place. If victory is not assured, then we need to change direction.

There is no question that Iran, the world’s most dangerous country, is behind much of the instability in Iraq. If the USA follows John Murtha’s advice and pulls out quickly, Iran will partner up with the killer Shiite cleric al-Sadr and dominate Iraq. That will heighten Iran’s power in the Gulf region and give Hezbollah and other terrorist outfits, including al-Qaeda, far more opportunities to develop their homicidal plots.

So cutting and running is irresponsible and dangerous to America, and anyone who promotes that strategy should be aggressively challenged.

But the Bush administration does owe a new battle plan to the fallen American soldiers. If the sectarian violence cannot be brought under control by, say, the end of this year, then a partitioning of Iraq should occur.

Already, the Kurds in the north have a state that pretty much does what it wants without Baghdad’s approval. Similar states could be established in the Shia south and the Sunni triangle, with Baghdad becoming an open city. There would be a centralized government in the capital, but all three states would largely be autonomous, sharing oil revenue based upon population.

Iran would influence the Shia, no question, but it would not be able to dominate the entire country if the US kept a strong presence to make sure coups did not take place.

This might be the best solution to a bad situation. President Bush should realize his current Iraqi policy is not acceptable to most of the folks. If Mr. Bush continues to stay the course based simply upon hope, his party and his legacy will suffer dramatically.

So, once again, no good deed goes unpunished. The United States and Britain held a mass murderer, Saddam Hussein, accountable for his misdeeds and his repeated violations of the Gulf War ceasefire. They removed him and gave millions of Iraqis a chance at freedom. That was noble. But the action has gone unappreciated, because the world is not a noble place.

Time to recognize that and impose a new, workable solution.

 And that’s the meno

August 26, 2006

A Historical Moment in the Judiciary

Filed under: Talking Points memo — talkingpoints @ 2:32 am

One judge in Michigan has done what 535 members of congress have so abysmally failed to achieve – that’s the subject of today’s Talking Points memo.

‘A judge has reasserted the rule of law over a lawless administration’ – that is a New York Times editorial fawning over U.S. District Judge Anna Digs Taylor.  She is the activist hack judge who sided with the ACLU declaring that wire tapping of suspected terrorists on international calls were unconstitutional.

She is also a life-long liberal activist.  Rewarded with a judgeship by Jimmy Carter after she campaigned for him.  And as Chief Justice in Michigan she tried to hijack a high profile Affirmative Action case because she “suspected that the assigned judge was on the wrong side.”

And in her mind, President Bush is on the wrong side of wire taps.  Why?  Because he actually wants to surveillance the bad guys (that’s terrorist, to you liberals).

Face Facts!

Liberals in this country fueled by hatred of Bush, care more about granting terrorists rights than protecting American lives. 

And face another fact:

This judge, the New York Times, the ACLU, partisan Democrats and other fringe anti-war liberals, are committed to undermining our National Security. 

Within hours of the ACLU  ruling, Senator J. Rockefeller, who sits on the Intelligence Committee, offered his support.  Remember the ‘Rockefeller Memo”? The Democrats laid out in black and white, an election year strategy to politicize the War on Terror.  And Taylor’s ruling is just as political as that memo.

And despite claims by the Times, who leaked the original wire tap story, this was not a ruling for the law; this was a ruling for al Qaida and their ‘bill of rights’ and their sympathizers. 

And that’s the memo

August 24, 2006

The Left has a New Celebrity

Filed under: Talking Points memo — talkingpoints @ 2:29 am

Elvira Alerono –a 31y single mom who is standing up to the federal Government – that’s the subject of today’s Talking Points memo.

Chicago mayor, Richard Daily voiced his support for Elvira, with vigils being planned for Elvira in Phoenix and Detroit to help stop deporting Ms Alerono.

Now, to avoid being deported, this heroic single mom, how happens to be president of a lobbying group the United Latino Family, has taken refuge in the Albereto Methodist Church in Chicago, invoking the ancient principal of sanctuary.

Pastor Robert Coleman offered Elvira refuge because he says “she shouldn’t have to choose from leaving her seven year old son behind in the U.S., or forcing him to relocate to Mexico,” said the Pastor: “She represents the voice of the undocumented.  We think its our obligation, our responsibility to make a stage for that voice to be heard.”

Elvira, single mom Alerono, illegally entered the United States in 1997, and she was deported, and then return within days.  Two years later she was arrested at O’Hare Airport working as a cleaning person.  She was convicted of using a false  social security number, and was ordered to appear at the immigration office in Chicago.

She instead chose the church.

She says if the authorities want her, they will have to come get her. 

Now, unfortunately for Elvira, nothing in the law prevents the feds from arresting her in the church.  The left claims that doing so would look jack-booted.  A public relations nightmare. 

For those of you who share those concerns, I have this reminder:

Janet Renio, Elean Gonzales – remember that sanctuary?

And that’s the memo

August 19, 2006

The Times We Live In

Filed under: Talking Points memo — talkingpoints @ 10:40 pm

The terrorists  understand the world in which we live in – and we better catch up – that’s the subject of today’s Talking Points memo.

We are living in treacherous times and terrorists well understand that; even when one of their murderous plots is uncovered, the fallout from the aborted action is a big win for them. After British authorities prevented a couple dozen Muslim fanatics from blowing up a number of American jetliners, the ensuing airport chaos caused pain and inconvenience for thousands of people. Unfortunately, that will continue for years to come.

Osama and his pals must take great joy at watching 80-year old grandmothers being patted down and their face creams confiscated by jumpy security people. This is the ultimate al Qaeda reality program: “Survivor: Airport.”  Add to that the foolish political bickering over who is protecting Americans better, and you have great joy in Mudhutville; the hiding Qaeda leadership wins again.

Of course, the sane way to protect Americans in the sky is to stop looking for nail files and begin profiling people who might actually cause terror damage. That is not “racial” profiling; that is “terror” profiling. Most of the recent terror activities have been perpetuated by young Muslim men. So it is these people that need greater scrutiny when they check in for a flight.

I know that’s mean, but believe me when I tell you that if White American men who belonged to a “White Radical Army” was attempting to blow up American planes, I’d  have no problem being patted down before I stepped on a plane. I would understand and  appreciate the common sense behind the close look. I would not consider myself a victim, but would be furious that my ethnic cousins were causing so much trouble.

I believe some Muslim-Americans feel the way I do. They understand that some of their co-religionists are remorseless killers.

But not all Muslims think that way, and certainly the ACLU and other far-left groups oppose profiling. They fight hard against most strategies designed to make terror attacks more difficult. Except, of course, when it involves them.

You may remember the New York Civil Liberties Union sued when the NYPD instituted random bag searches on the subway. Yet a sign at the NYCLU building warned that the organization had the right to search the bags of all people entering there. Hypocritical?  You make the call.

The biggest problem we have in America when it comes to defeating terrorism is that some of us live in the real world, and some of us live in a theoretical zone where all problems could be solved if only we just talked things over with those who want to kill us. For those people, actions like profiling, unilateral military campaigns, and tough interrogation methods are simply too drastic. These Americans believe aggressive terror countermeasures actually encourage violence against us and create more willing terror killers.

Look back to the actions (or the lack there of) of President Clinton, who pretty much ignored the growing terror threat from the Muslim world. Little aggressive action was taken against al Qaeda when it blew up our Embassies in Africa and attacked our warship off the coast of Yemen.

There was no airline profiling going on when 19 Muslim killers boarded three airliners on 9/11, all with one way tickets to hell. Had we been wiser then, three thousand Americans could be alive today.

But we were not wise then, and we are not wise now, either. Call it what you will, but lay off Granny at the airport and zero in on higher risk subjects.

And that’s the memo.

August 6, 2006

The Bias of the Liberal media will continue to harm America in the War on Terror.

Filed under: Talking Points memo — talkingpoints @ 5:43 pm

Perhaps the biggest reason why so many Americans are confused about the chilling dangers posed by Islamic fascism is the reportage of the terror war by the liberal print press. – that’s the subject of today’s Talking Points memo.

 Day after day, committed left-wing newspapers frame their coverage with an emphasis on the inadequacies of the Bush administration or Israel, not the aggressive worldwide jihad that seeks nuclear weapons. Routinely, those who act confrontationally against the fascists are marginalized and sometimes personally attacked. Rarely does the left wing media dailies give a fair hearing to both sides of the terror war controversy.

But, of course, the journalists toiling at the committed liberal papers don’t see it that way. In a recent appearance on National Public Radio, Los Angeles Times reporter Tom Hamburger presented a point of view that is anything but rare in liberal circles: “Targeting the mainstream, even establishment media … as having a liberal bias, has been one of the most successful campaigns that’s been organized by the conservative right. And it’s made editors and reporters cautious about what they say.”

According to Hamburger, his paper and others like The New York Times, are not liberal at all; their images have been distorted by the right. Well, let’s examine the facts.

The New York Times has four liberal op-ed columnists and the L.A. Times has five whom, within the last 18 months, have written more than 150 columns about the Bush administration. None of the columns were positive—not one. Both the L.A. Times and the N.Y. Time have no pro-Bush columnists.

In addition, the TV columnists for the Times, its business media writer, and the lead film critic, A.O. Scott, are also committed liberals, as is sports columnist William Rhoden.

And it’s the same thing at most of the other left-wing papers—the deck is stacked with liberal writers, not only on the editorial pages, but also in every other section of the paper. The result is a constant barrage of negativity towards those who believe we are fighting World War III, and we’d better get serious.

The Fox News Channel generally takes a strong anti-terrorist position, and it is not well received by the print press. Every day from newspapers around the country, and the coverage of FNC, along with programs like “The O’Reilly Factor,” and “Hannity & Colmes” are relentlessly negative. Yet every day Americans somehow overwhelmingly choose Fox News over their competition, so at least there is some balance in the media.

Truthfully, this nonsense about “conservatives” falsely describing the newspaper industry as predominately liberal is flat-out dishonest. Even a recent media study done by UCLA professor Tim Groseclose and University of Missouri professor Jeffrey Milyo came to the conclusion that “almost all major media outlets tilt to the left.” And the tilt becomes a freefall when President Bush’s name comes up. The liberal newspapers generally consider him an inarticulate bumbler, too unsophisticated to deal with complicated issues like stem cell research and global warming, (as if there is anything any human can do about nature). The committed left editors remain furious that Bush defeated Al Gore in the Supreme Court and are crazed that many of them bought into the WMD threat in Iraq.

Thus, no matter what the President does now, and no matter how much danger nations like Iran present to the world, the liberal media are not going to play it strong. Their mantra and focal point is Bush is evil; Bush is Hitler, Bush is Pol Pot.

That kind of narrow media groupthink is dangerous. Granting Hezbollah moral equivalency with Israel, putting forth that America is a nation of human rights violators, and labeling Iraq a failure before the all the dust has settled—all these things absolutely makes life easier for the jihadists..

 Liberals have constantly tried to re-write history, and have failed each and every step of the way, thanks to independent news sources.  Liberals have constantly tried to say that it was Bush’s fault we had 9/11 – ignoring all the attacks Al Qaeda made upon the United States in the eight years of the Clinton Administration. (i.e. the attack on the USS Cole, the first attack of the Trade Center, the bombings of our Embassies, notification to President Clinton directly that Al Qaeda members were learning to fly planes, but didn’t want to learn how tow land them, plus turning down the capture of Bin laden three times) 

Some may never admit that this is the intention of the left-wing press, but that is exactly what they are doing. 

And that’s the memo

Blog at WordPress.com.