Watch, listen, and hang your head…
Posted by Jerry Pomeroy as Ethics, Obama Presidency, Race Relations, Video at 12:35 PM UTC
July 20th, 2010
Hope and Change Baby
July 14th, 2010
Call To Arms
Looking for a reason to revolt against our government? Your opportunity draweth nigh. Despite President Obama’s pledge to the contrary, it appears likely that federal tax dollars will be used to fund abortions. I’m beginning to understand what the average German must have felt in 1933. Read the story and weep for our nation:
Obama Administration Approves First Direct Taxpayer Funding of Abortion Through New High-Risk Insurance Pools
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
By Susan Jones, Senior Editor
(CNSNews.com) – If you want proof that President Obama’s Executive Order on taxpayer-funded abortion was a sham, look no further than Pennsylvania, says House Republican Leader John Boehner (Ohio).
Boehner and other Republicans point to reports that the Health and Human Services Department is giving Pennsylvania $160 million to set up a new high-risk insurance pool that will cover any abortion that is legal in the state.
“The fact that the high-risk pool insurance program in Pennsylvania will use federal taxpayer dollars to fund abortions is unconscionable,” Boehner said in a statement on Tuesday.
“Just last month at the White House, I asked President Obama to provide the American people with a progress report on the implementation of his Executive Order, which purports to ban taxpayer-funding of abortions. Unfortunately, the President provided no information, and the American people are still waiting for answers.”
President Obama pledged that under his health care plan “no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions, and federal conscience laws will remain in place.”
In a May 13 letter to Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, Boehner asked if her department has provided guidance to the states on how to implement the president’s Executive Order on abortion funding. Boehner also asked Sebelius if the new federal high-risk pools would exclude abortion coverage.
He says his questions remain unanswered.
“Millions of Americans care deeply about this aspect of the new law and its implementation, and no progress report is complete without detailed information about it,” Boehner wrote to Sebelius.
The conservative Family Research Council says the $160 million in taxpayer funds for Pennsylvania is the first known instance of direct federal funding of abortions through the new high-risk insurance pools.
The abortion funding for pool participants validates the arguments pro-life groups made throughout the health care debate – that taxpayer dollars will fund abortions, said Tom McClusky, senior vice president of the Family Research Council’s political action arm.
“For our efforts to remove the bill’s abortion funding, we were called ‘deceivers’ by President Obama and ‘liars’ by his allies. Now we know who the true deceivers and liars really are,’ McClusky said.
“This action by the Obama Administration also exposes the worthlessness of President Obama’s Executive Order that supposedly would prevent federal funding of abortion, but which both sides, including Planned Parenthood, agreed was unenforceable.
“While the American people deserve an apology from President Obama for his deception, we should only be satisfied when this Pennsylvania abortion funding is rescinded and the health care law repealed.
McClusky noted that the new health care law also includes $12.5 billion for community health centers, and $6 billion for co-ops, both of which can fund abortions. And some people will use tax credits to help them pay for plans that cover abortion.
Even before it’s fully implemented, the Democrats’ health care plan “is already being exposed as a high-taxing, poorly thought-out, and taxpayer-funding-of-abortion monstrosity,” McClusky said.
Republican leader Boehner says House Republicans would codify the Hyde amendment, thus prohibiting all authorized and appropriated federal funds from being used to pay for abortion. Under the Republican plan, any health plan that includes abortion coverage would not receive federal funds.
Posted by Jerry Pomeroy as Abortion, Ethics, Fraud Watch, Obama Presidency at 1:49 PM UTC
July 10th, 2010
A Debate Worth Having
Should the Republican Party support the war in Afghanistan no matter who is running it and how well it is conducted? Ann Coulter says “No,” and has sparked a debate that will reach the soul of the GOP. As usual with a Coulter column, those willing to slide past her sarcasm will discover good logic and provocative thinking. Good reading:
BILL KRISTOL MUST RESIGN
by Ann Coulter
July 7, 2010
Republican National Committee chairman Michael Steele was absolutely right. Afghanistan is Obama’s war and, judging by other recent Democratic ventures in military affairs, isn’t likely to turn out well.
It has been idiotically claimed that Steele’s statement about Afghanistan being Obama’s war is “inaccurate” — as if Steele is unaware Bush invaded Afghanistan soon after 9/11. (No one can forget that — even liberals pretended to support that war for three whole weeks.)
Yes, Bush invaded Afghanistan soon after 9/11. Within the first few months we had toppled the Taliban, killed or captured hundreds of al-Qaida fighters and arranged for democratic elections, resulting in an American-friendly government.
Then Bush declared success and turned his attention to Iraq, leaving minimal troops behind in Afghanistan to prevent Osama bin Laden from regrouping, swat down al-Qaida fighters and gather intelligence.
Having some vague concept of America’s national interest — unlike liberals — the Bush administration could see that a country of illiterate peasants living in caves ruled by “warlords” was not a primo target for “nation-building.”
By contrast, Iraq had a young, educated, pro-Western populace that was ideal for regime change.
If Saddam Hussein had been a peach, it would still be a major victory in the war on terrorism to have a Muslim Israel in that part of the globe, and it sure wasn’t going to be Afghanistan (literacy rate, 19 percent; life expectancy, 44 years; working toilets, 7).
But Iraq also was a state sponsor of terrorism; was attempting to build nuclear weapons (according to endless bipartisan investigations in this country and in Britain — thanks, liberals!); nurtured and gave refuge to Islamic terrorists — including the 1993 World Trade Center bombers; was led by a mass murderer who had used weapons of mass destruction; paid bonuses to the families of suicide bombers; had vast oil reserves; and is situated at the heart of a critical region.
Having absolutely no interest in America’s national security, the entire Democratic Party (save Joe Lieberman) wailed about the war in Iraq for five years, pretending they really wanted to go great-guns in Afghanistan. What the heck: They had already voted for the war in Afghanistan in the wake of 9/11 when they would have been hanged as traitors had they objected.
The obsession with Afghanistan was pure rhetoric. Democrats have no interest in fighting any war that would serve America’s interests. (They’re too jammed with their wars against Evangelicals, Wal-Mart, the Pledge of Allegiance, SUVs and the middle class.) Absent Iraq, they’d have been bad-mouthing Afghanistan, too.
So for the entire course of the magnificently successful war in Iraq, all we heard from these useless Democrats was that Iraq was a “war of choice,” while Afghanistan — the good war! — was a “war of necessity.” “Bush took his eye off the ball in Afghanistan!” “He got distracted by war in Iraq!” “WHERE’S OSAMA?” and — my favorite — “Iraq didn’t attack us on 9/11!”
Of course, neither did Afghanistan. But Democrats were in a lather and couldn’t be bothered with the facts.
The above complaints about Iraq come — nearly verbatim — from speeches and press conferences by Obama, Joe Biden, and Obama’s national security advisers Susan Rice and Richard Clarke. Also, the entire gutless Democratic Party. Some liberals began including them in their wedding vows.
(By the way, Democrats: WHERE’S OSAMA?)
Obama hasn’t ramped up the war in Afghanistan based on a careful calculation of America’s strategic objectives. He did it because he was trapped by his own rhetorical game of bashing the Iraq war while pretending to be a hawk on Afghanistan.
At this point, Afghanistan is every bit as much Obama’s war as Vietnam was Lyndon Johnson’s war. True, President Kennedy was the first to send troops to Vietnam. We had 16,000 troops in Vietnam when JFK was assassinated. Within four years, LBJ had sent 400,000 troops there.
In the entire seven-year course of the Afghanistan war under Bush, from October 2001 to January 2009, 625 American soldiers were killed. In 18 short months, Obama has nearly doubled that number to 1,124 Americans killed.
Republicans used to think seriously about deploying the military. President Eisenhower sent aid to South Vietnam, but said he could not “conceive of a greater tragedy” for America than getting heavily involved there.
As Michael Steele correctly noted, every great power that’s tried to stage an all-out war in Afghanistan has gotten its ass handed to it. Everyone knows it’s not worth the trouble and resources to take a nation of rocks and brigands.
Based on Obama’s rules of engagement for our troops in Afghanistan, we’re apparently not even fighting a war. The greatest fighting force in the world is building vocational schools and distributing cheese crackers to children.
There’s even talk of giving soldiers medals for NOT shooting people, which I gather will be awarded posthumously. Naomi Campbell is rougher with her assistants than our troops are allowed to be with Taliban fighters.
But now I hear it is the official policy of the Republican Party to be for all wars, irrespective of our national interest.
What if Obama decides to invade England because he’s still ticked off about that Churchill bust? Can Michael Steele and I object to that? Or would that demoralize the troops?
Our troops are the most magnificent in the world, but they’re not the ones setting military policy. The president is — and he’s basing his war strategy on the chants of Moveon.org cretins.
Nonetheless, Bill Kristol and Liz Cheney have demanded that Steele resign as head of the RNC for saying Afghanistan is now Obama’s war — and a badly thought-out one at that. (Didn’t liberals warn us that neoconservatives want permanent war?)
I thought the irreducible requirements of Republicanism were being for life, small government and a strong national defense, but I guess permanent war is on the platter now, too.
Of course, if Kristol is writing the rules for being a Republican, we’re all going to have to get on board for amnesty and a “National Greatness Project,” too – other Kristol ideas for the Republican Party. Also, John McCain. Kristol was an early backer of McCain for president — and look how great that turned out!
Inasmuch as demanding resignations is another new Republican position, here’s mine: Bill Kristol and Liz Cheney must resign immediately.
Posted by Jerry Pomeroy as Best Of the Web, Obama Presidency, War on Terror at 7:55 PM UTC
July 3rd, 2010
No Budget? Spend Anyway!
Reluctant to vote on a bloated budget and be accountable, most House Democrats have decided on the process described in the following article. If it isn’t against the law, it should be. As profligate spending continues (and it will) and huge deficits continue to pile up (and they will), the next big push will be for additional taxes. President Obama has already started getting religion on deficits, so you can bet your hope and change bumper sticker that a push to pass a Value Added Tax can’t be far off. The *&%^%##@*^$#! will keep spending and stealing from American companies and citizens as long as we let them…Enjoy the article:
___________________________________________________________
House Democrats ‘Deem’ Faux $1.1 Trillion Budget ‘as Passed’
by Connie Hair
07/02/2010
Last night, as part of a procedural vote on the emergency war supplemental bill, House Democrats attached a document that “deemed as passed” a non-existent $1.12 trillion budget. The execution of the “deeming” document allows Democrats to start spending money for Fiscal Year 2011 without the pesky constraints of a budget.
The procedural vote passed 215-210 with no Republicans voting in favor and 38 Democrats crossing the aisle to vote against deeming the faux budget resolution passed.
Never before — since the creation of the Congressional budget process — has the House failed to pass a budget, failed to propose a budget then deemed the non-existent budget as passed as a means to avoid a direct, recorded vote on a budget, but still allow Congress to spend taxpayer money.
House Budget Committee Ranking Member Paul Ryan (R-Wisc.) warned this was the green light for Democrats to continue their out-of-control spending virtually unchecked.
“Facing a record deficit and a tidal wave of debt, House Democrats decided it was politically inconvenient to put forward a budget and account for their fiscal recklessness. With no priorities and no restraints, the spending, taxing, and borrowing will continue unchecked for the coming fiscal year,” Ryan said. “The so-called ‘budget enforcement resolution’ enforces no budget, but instead provides a green light for the Appropriators to continue spending, exacerbating our looming fiscal crisis.”
As we reported on HUMAN EVENTS, CBO issued a dire warning about the long term outlook for the budget.
“Yesterday, the Congressional Budget Office rang the latest fiscal alarm with the release of The Long-Term Budget Outlook,” Ryan said. “Today, Congress again hit snooze. To avert a fiscal and economic calamity, Washington needs to wake up.”
Key points from the House Republican Budget staff on the House Democrats’ deeming resolution:
- This is not a budget. The measure fails to meet the most basic, commonly understood objectives of any budget. It does not set congressional priorities; it does not align overall spending, tax, deficit, and debt levels; and it does nothing to address the runaway spending of Federal entitlement programs.
- It is not a ‘congressional budget resolution.’ The measure does not satisfy even the most basic criteria of a budget resolution as set forth in the Congressional Budget Act.
- It creates a deception of spending ‘restraint.’ While claiming restraint in discretionary spending, the resolution increases non-emergency spending by $30 billion over 2010, and includes a number of gimmicks that give a green light to higher spending.
- It continues relying on the flawed and over-sold pay-as-you-go [pay-go] procedure. Pay-go – which Democrats have used mainly to raise taxes, and have ignored when it was inconvenient – does nothing to reduce deficits or restrain spending growth in existing law.
- Outsourcing fiscal responsibilities. The measure is another hand-off by the Democratic Majority of Congress’s power of the purse – this time relying on the Fiscal Commission created by the President to do Congress’s job.
A full Republican Budget Committee staff analysis of the Majority’s Budget Deemer: “An Admission of Fiscal Failure”
A full Republican Budget Committee staff analysis of the Majority’s Budget Deemer: “An Admission of Fiscal Failure”
Connie Hair writes daily as HUMAN EVENTS’ Congressional correspondent. She is a former speechwriter for Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ) and a former media and coalitions advisor to the Senate Republican Conference.
Posted by Jerry Pomeroy as Best Of the Web, Budgets, Fraud Watch, Taxation at 11:18 AM UTC
July 1st, 2010
Remember the Alamo
Here it comes. While our President claims the border is too big to enforce, bullets from south of the border penetrate El Paso’s City Hall. As July 4th approaches, leadership like Obama’s makes one wonder about America’s future. Read it and weep:
“Gunfire hitting City Hall prompts Texas AG to ask for more troops on border”
El Paso Times staff reports
Posted: 06/30/2010 01:59:31 PM MDT
A bullet fired from a gun battle in Juarez struck and penetrated the wall of El Paso Assistant City Manager Pat Adauto’s office, left between two shelves on her wall. Juarez and the area where the gun fight took place can be seen out the window of Adauto’s office.
EL PASO – Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott today demanded that President Obama send more troops to the Texas-Mexico border and used the shots that hit El Paso City Hall as an example of increased violence on the border.
Abbott said in a letter that the seven shots that hit City Hall in El Paso were an example of the violence that is plaguing the border area and that sending 1,200 National Guard soldiers to the entire U.S.-Mexico border is not enough.
He also cited the violence in Juarez and said that Americans lives are at risk.
“More than 1,300 people have been murdered in Juárez this year as a war continues relentlessly between the Juárez and Sinaloa drug cartels,” he told Obama.
He also said the “time for talk has passed.”
Here is the letter by Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott:
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500
Dear Mr. President,
Deadly violence from drug cartels and transnational gangs in Mexico is knocking on the United States’ door with ever increasing frequency.
Yesterday, gunfire from the cartels pierced that threshold and struck City Hall in El Paso. Fortunately no one was injured or killed. But that good fortune was not the result of effective border control – it was mere luck that the bullets struck buildings rather than bodies.
Luck and good fortune are not effective border enforcement policies. The shocking reality of cross border gunfire proves the cold reality: American lives are at risk. As the attached news article notes: “More than 1,300 people have been murdered in Juárez this year as a war continues relentlessly between the Juárez and Sinaloa drug cartels.” Americans must be protected as this deadly war bulges at our border.
Law enforcement officials with the Texas Department of Public Safety and your own U.S. Customs and Border Protection will reveal the hard truth. Our state is under constant assault from illegal activity threatening a porous border.
The time for talk has passed. The time for action is now. The need is urgent. Each day that passes increases the likelihood that an American life will be lost because of the federal government’s failure to secure the border.
This threat demands immediate and effective action by your Administration to secure our border. As the Attorney General of Texas, I urge you to make border security your top priority so that no more innocent lives are lost to border violence.
Posted by Jerry Pomeroy as Best Of the Web, Border Security, Obama Presidency at 3:12 PM UTC
June 29th, 2010
Religious Freedom Ain’t What It Used To Be
Following is a chilling account of a recent Supreme Court decision. If this is part of a slippery slope, get the Coliseum ready; a renewed round of Christians vs. lions can’t be far off:
Supreme Court sides with school over Christian group ban
By Michael Doyle | McClatchy Newspapers
WASHINGTON — A divided Supreme Court on Monday upheld a California law school’s refusal to recognize a Christian student group that effectively banned gay members.
In a closely watched case that pit First Amendment rights against anti-discrimination policies, the court concluded 5-4 that the University of California’s Hastings College of the Law acted reasonably in refusing to recognize and subsidize the Christian Legal Society.
The court’s majority reasoned that Hastings was simply applying a standard, nondiscriminatory requirement that all student organizations accept all would-be members. In doing so, the court rejected the Christian Legal Society’s claim that the policy infringed on religious and freedom-of-association rights.
“CLS’s conduct, not its Christian perspective, is, from Hastings’ viewpoint, what stands between the group” and recognition, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote for the majority.
Ginsburg, whose husband, Martin, died Sunday, was in the courtroom Monday to read her majority opinion. Conservative dissenters called the decision “deeply disappointing” and possibly dangerous for those who espouse politically incorrect views.
“The court arms public educational institutions with a handy weapon for suppressing the speech of unpopular groups; groups to which, as Hastings candidly puts it, these institutions do not wish to lend their names,” Justice Samuel Alito wrote in dissent.
Based in San Francisco, Hastings formally recognizes about 60 student organizations, from the Hastings Association of Muslim Law Students to the Hastings Democratic Caucus.
The local chapter of the Christian Legal Society proposed an explicit criterion for membership. Students must sign a “statement of faith” to join. The statement recognizes “the Bible as the inspired word of God” and requires officers to “abstain from acts of the sinful nature.”
“Unrepentant participation in or advocacy of a sexually immoral lifestyle is inconsistent with an affirmation of the statement of faith,” a Christian Legal Society resolution says, specifically condemning “all acts of sexual conduct outside of God’s design for marriage between one man and one woman, including fornication, adultery and homosexual conduct.”
Hastings officials deemed the Christian Legal Society’s bylaws a violation of the school’s prohibition against discrimination on the basis of religion or sexual orientation. Consequently, the school denied formal recognition to the organization.
Justices Stephen Breyer, John Paul Stevens, Sonia Sotomayor and Anthony Kennedy joined Ginsburg’s conclusion that the school’s policy was “viewpoint neutral,” since it applied equally to every organization.
“It is, after all, hard to imagine a more viewpoint-neutral policy than requiring all groups to accept all comers,” Ginsburg wrote, adding that the Christian group is free to exclude potential members so long as it forgoes state support.
Leo Martinez, the law school’s acting chancellor and dean, pronounced himself “very pleased” with the decision.
“The college’s intent has always been to ensure the leadership, educational and social opportunities afforded by officially recognized student organizations are available to all students attending public institutions. The court’s ruling validates our policy, which is rooted in equity and fairness.”
Jay Sekulow, the chief counsel of the conservative American Center for Law and Justice, said he was “extremely disappointed” in a decision that “significantly damages the constitutional rights of religious organizations.”
The Supreme Court decision on Christian Legal Society Chapter of the University of California, Hastings College of the Law, AKA Hastings Christian Fellowship v. Martinez MORE FROM MCCLATCHY
Read more: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/06/28/96664/supreme-court-rejects-christian.html#ixzz0sH8wz2w4
Posted by Jerry Pomeroy as Best Of the Web, Cultural Insanity, Supreme Court at 1:32 PM UTC
June 28th, 2010
If Byrd Had Been A Republican…
Here’s a classic example of the old double-standard from not too many years ago. Listen and learn what a liberal can get away with:
Posted by Jerry Pomeroy as People of Note, Politics, Race Relations, Video at 12:58 PM UTC
June 24th, 2010
What’ll It Take?
Today Arizona police officers are threatened by members of a Mexican drug cartel. Who knows what tomorrow will bring. It’s high time we brought our troops home from Iraq and Afghanistan and deploy many of them along America’s southern border. Don’t hold your breath; our President has condemned Arizona’s attempt to crack down on illegal immigration and our Secretary of State has declared the Obama Administration will sue Arizona over SB 1070. How stupid are we? How many cops will die before we get serious about border security? It seems that our national insanity continues.
Following is the article from ABC News (so you know it’s true). Be warned:
Arizona Cops Threatened by Mexican Drug Cartel
Ominous Threat From Mexican Dealers Is the First Directed at U.S. Law Enforcement
By RAY SANCHEZ
June 24, 2010
A Mexican drug cartel has threatened police officers in Arizona who confiscated a marijuana shipment, prompting the small town department to warn its officers to remain armed and have radios with them at all times, and keep their body armor handy.
Police and experts believe the warning against the Nogales, Ariz., cops marks the first time that powerful Mexican drug cartels, used to bribing and bullying police south of the border, have targeted U.S. officers.
Jeffrey Kirkham, chief of the Nogales police department, told ABCNews.com that informants had delivered the threats after two off-duty police officers seized 400 pounds of marijuana while horseback riding outside the city earlier this month. The pot was worth about $250,000, he said.
Kirkham said informants have told his police department that off-duty officers should ignore cross-border drug shipments or face retaliation.
“They’re getting upset that their product so to speak is not getting to where it needs to be,” Kirkham said of the cartels.
The chief said he gave a stern warning of his own to his 63 officers for what to do while they are off duty.
“We met with all the employees and supervisors to make them aware of what was said, and to make sure that they have their body armor and are armed and that their communications equipment is working properly,” Kirkham said. Kirkham attributed the surprising threat to Mexico’s war on the cartels.
“The pressure is on them from the president in Mexico and that desperation is starting to spill over the border,” Kirkham told ABCNews.com.
Attacks by Mexican cartels on American law enforcement officers would be an alarming escalation of the Mexican drug wars. Cartel turf wars have killed more than 23,000 people across Mexico since President Felipe Calderon launched a military crackdown on drug gangs in late 2006.
In the neighboring Mexican city of Nogales, attacks on police officers have become commonplace. A deputy police chief in Nogales, Mexico, and his bodyguard were shot dead in March when gunmen in a pickup truck opened fire on them with assault rifles.
In November 2008, the police chief for Sonora state, which includes Nogales, was ambushed and killed just a few miles south of the Arizona border.
The Nogales police department has been hit hard by budget cuts recently, but Kirkham said the U.S. Border Patrol has sent additional agents to the area.
“I take these recent threats seriously,” said George Grayson, a professor at the College of William & Mary and an expert on Mexican politics. “These cartels have such firepower and have so many cadres that if you’re on the wrong side, you’re life is certainly in danger.”
Grayson said the threat likely came from the Sinaloa Cartel, which is headed by Joaquin “El Chapo” Guzman, who is being sought by American and Mexican authorities. The U.S. State Department is offering a $5 million reward for information leading to his arrest.
“The cartels are more likely to go after local police,” Grayson said. “You threaten an FBI agent and it does sound alarm bells across Washington. The same with Drug Enforcement Administration.”
Phil Jordan, former DEA intelligence chief along the U.S.-Mexico border, believes Guzman may have been behind the threats in order to divert law enforcement attention away from the heavily-travelled drug corridor between El Paso, Texas, and Juarez, Mexico. But he doesn’t think Mexican cartels will actually target American law enforcement.
“Let me tell you something about the cartels – whether they’re from Colombia or Mexico or Russia – they do not under any circumstances want to spend time in American jails,” Jordan told ABCNews.com. “The cartels are not going to take us on on American soil. They have cells all over the U.S. but they don’t want that type of attention.”
Jordan added, “Chapo Guzman is no dummy. If he can put out stuff like that so we can send reinforcements to the Nogales sector, he knows we’ll have to send people from the Texas border to help and you’ll see an increase in drug loads moving through Texas.”
The Los Zetas criminal organization, the Sinaloa Cartel’s chief rival, had previously operated in the Nogales area, but Grayson said Guzman has probably taken over control of operations there in recent months.
“El Chapo has really enjoyed a comeback in the last several months,” Grayson said. “These threats are just a general flexing of the muscles by the cartels. El Chapo has to be emboldened by the fact that Los Zetas find themselves on the defensive.” The Sinaloa Cartel is one of the biggest suppliers of cocaine to the United States. Its members are well-trained and well-armed, according to experts. About 90 percent of all the cocaine consumed in the United States passes across the Mexican border.
The booming drug trade has fueled powerful drug armies willing to take on Mexican police and even the army, and have no qualms about terrorizing civilians as well.
In the northern Mexican state of Sonora, across the border from Arizona, 126 drug-related homicides have been reported so far this year.
This week, with more than 40 deaths attributed to drug violence, including 12 federal police officers ambushed on Monday.
Last week, gunmen killed 16 people in Ciudad Madero, and 19 men were shot dead at a drug rehab center in Chihuahua.
Across the border from El Paso, Texas, in Ciudad Juarez, the body count has soared to nearly 1,200 this year. An estimated 2,700 were killed in 2009, a number that neared that year’s death count for civilians and U.S. and coalition soldiers in Afghanistan, according to the United Nations.
“The cartels are feeling their oats now,” Grayson said.
Posted by Jerry Pomeroy as Best Of the Web, Border Security, Cultural Insanity, Illegal Immigration at 11:29 AM UTC
June 22nd, 2010
As Dumb As It Gets
The following article highlights the senseless restrictions placed on our military. The maddening truth is that our fighting men and women are dying needlessly. Moreover, our muffled effort in Afghanistan cannot possibly change the course of that culture by July 2011, the time set by President Obama to begin troop withdrawals. All in all, this is the dumbest war effort America has ever engaged in. Considering Vietnam, that’s saying something.
McChrystal’s real offense
By: Byron York
Chief Political Correspondent for The Washington Examiner
06/22/10 8:40 AM EDT
There is a lot of uproar about Gen. Stanley’s McChrystal’s disrespectful comments about his civilian bosses in the Obama administration, and President Obama would be entirely justified in firing McChrystal for statements McChrystal and his subordinates made to Rolling Stone. Obama is a deeply flawed commander-in-chief who doesn’t want to be fighting a war on terror, but he is the commander-in-chief. He should have a general who will carry out his policies without public complaint until the voters can decide to change those policies.
But the bigger problem with McChrystal’s leadership has always been the general’s devotion to unreasonably restrictive rules of engagement that are resulting in the unnecessary deaths of American and coalition forces. We have had many, many accounts of the rules endangering Americans, and the Rolling Stone article provides more evidence. In the story, a soldier at Combat Outpost JFM who had earlier met with McChrystal was killed in a house that American officers had asked permission to destroy. From the article:
The night before the general is scheduled to visit Sgt. Arroyo’s platoon for the memorial, I arrive at Combat Outpost JFM to speak with the soldiers he had gone on patrol with. JFM is a small encampment, ringed by high blast walls and guard towers. Almost all of the soldiers here have been on repeated combat tours in both Iraq and Afghanistan, and have seen some of the worst fighting of both wars. But they are especially angered by Ingram’s death. His commanders had repeatedly requested permission to tear down the house where Ingram was killed, noting that it was often used as a combat position by the Taliban. But due to McChrystal’s new restrictions to avoid upsetting civilians, the request had been denied. “These were abandoned houses,” fumes Staff Sgt. Kennith Hicks. “Nobody was coming back to live in them.”
One soldier shows me the list of new regulations the platoon was given. “Patrol only in areas that you are reasonably certain that you will not have to defend yourselves with lethal force,” the laminated card reads. For a soldier who has traveled halfway around the world to fight, that’s like telling a cop he should only patrol in areas where he knows he won’t have to make arrests. “Does that make any f–king sense?” Pfc. Jared Pautsch. “We should just drop a f–king bomb on this place. You sit and ask yourself: What are we doing here?”
Posted by Jerry Pomeroy as Best Of the Web, Military, Obama Presidency, War on Terror at 11:00 AM UTC
June 20th, 2010
Students At Risk
School administrators in San Diego (the Poway Unified School District to be exact) are working overtime to protect students from, well…you’ll have to watch the video and decide for yourself what’s so offensive. We’ve come a long way, baby:
Posted by Jerry Pomeroy as Core Values, Cultural Insanity, Education, Video at 8:19 PM UTC