The War on Terrorism

Many, including our own president, will tell you that the war on terrorism cannot be won militarily on the battlefield. Nothing could be further from the truth and we only need look to Sri Lanka for proof. The Sri Lankans have been fighting the Tamil Tigers for a couple of decades. Every time victory was near the Sri Lankans would cave to international meddling and attempt to solve the issue "diplomatically." Terrorists love this because it is their time to regroup and rearm. If you don't know who the Tamil Tigers are that's not surprising. They are not about taking credit for what they did on the global stage but I assure you they wanted the masses in Sri Lanka to know exactly who they are or now were. I am sure you would recognize the latest in terrorists tactics such as suicide bombers and filmed beheadings. While these have been made mainstream by groups such as al Qaeda, these were developed and perfected by the Tamil Tigers. With that understanding you should know that recently the Sri Lankan army defeated the last of the Tamil on the battlefield. This time they did not at the last minute abandon their plan to conquer them and attempt a diplomatic solution. This time they ignored the international pressure and pressed on militarily killing or capturing the Tamil right down to the last terrorist. Sri Lanka won their war on terrorism by making a full commitment to defeating their enemy and not buckling to international pressure. America, we can do the same but we are going to need to stay strong. Many of our own may die, be maimed, or wounded but we must remain steadfast as a nation in our commitment to defeat an enemy whose publicly declared goal is to kill us all. Our president does not believe this. He even said that this war won't be won like WWII where Hirohito surrendered to McArthur - his history is a little lacking here since Hirohito did not surrender to McArthur and in fact did not even meet him until about a year after the surrender. But our president is wrong on this one. We can win the war on terrorism if we remain steadfast in our commitment to defeating our enemy on the battlefield.

Judges and Mortgage Modification

Rep. Barney Frank has threatened the banking industry with legislation that would allow judges to write down loan payments if the banking industry doesn't modify more loans. This guy is a real tool and those who elected him should be ashamed of themselves. The fact of the matter is, the banks wouldn't be in a position to have to modify loans if Rep. Frank and his cronies had not forced the banking industry to loosen their lending rules in an effort to increase the number of home owners, particularly minorities. It was Rep. Frank's own rules that created this mess and now he's threatening the banks. You can bet when they do meet his modification goals many of them will no longer be solvent. When that happens look for one Rep. Barney Frank to then step up to the microphone and accuse the banks of gross mismanagement. Does it surprise anybody that this guy comes from Massachussetts which has provided us with the likes of ultra-liberals Edward Kennedy and John Kerry?

The President's Citizenship

Let me weigh in on this very succinctly. To those of you who still question the President's citizenship I say, "Shut up and move on. You're making us look like sore losers." Senator McCain's legal staff looked into it. It's all rumor and innuendo.

The President Weighs In

Recently Cambridge Massachusetts police confronted a man entering the home of Louis Gates, a prominent scholar in African American studies at Harvard University. The man was entering through the back door. The police were responding to a call by neighbors that someone was attempting to break in to the Gates' home. According to the Cambridge police the man became beligerent and was arrested. To be fair, the police did at that time know that the man was actually Louis Gates, the owner of the home. Mr. Gates charged that the arrest was racially motivated. The President weighed in saying the police "acted stupidly" and then pointed out that Hispanics and African Americans are stopped more often than white people. It would be easy for me to say the president "acted stupidly" because weighing in on a situation where the race card is being played sounds stupid to me; however, that's not what really gets my gander up in this case. My real problem with the whole affair is after all the facts come out, it's looking like the Cambridge Police acted appropriately for the situation and the only possible racist is one Mr. Gates and the only thing the president has to say while backpeddling is, "I unfortunately gave an impression that I was maligning the Cambridge Police Department or Sgt. Crowley specifically." It's not that you gave "an impression" Mr. President, it's that you did malign them. There can be no other impression or interpretation of the phrase "acted stupidly" particularly when you follow it up with support for Mr. Gates accusation that the arrest was racially motivated by weighing in with your own belief that Hispanics and blacks are stopped more often than whites. Interestingly enough there was also a black officer who was present for the confrontation between Sgt. Crowley and Mr. Gates and that officer fully supports the actions of Sgt. Crowley and the arrest of Mr. Gates. I think it's time for the President to stop backpeddling and just apologize. My real advice is to just not get involved in things like this until all the facts are known.

Just a Bit Outside

Watched the MLB All-Star game last night. President Barack Obama threw out the first pitch. Little short of the plate but right down the middle. I really thought it would be wide left like everything else he does. Game was pretty good for a change and not too long. Sheryl Crow did a great job with the National Anthem.

The Media: Rant 1

Why does the media have to twist and sensationalize everything. I just read an article from the Los Angeles Times. The first line read, "A 15-year-old Los Angeles girl -- who navigated a single-engine Cessna through thunderstorms in Texas and took in breathtaking aerial views of Arizona's sunsets -- landed her plane to cheering crowds at Compton Woodley Airport Saturday and is believed to be the youngest black female pilot to fly solo across country." Now if that was true it would be two things, amazing and illegal. Amazing because any 15-year-old who could pull that off would be a step ahead of their peers. Illegal because the FAA does not allow you fly solo until you reach the age of 16. If you read the story you will find that the only thing factual in that first line is that there was a 15-year-old girl in the plane, the plane did fly cross country, and the girl was black. Beyond that not a sliver of truth. You see what actually happened is the young girl was actually accompanied by a 'safety pilot' and a man who was part of the Tuskegee Airman. The story doesn't mention it but the safety pilot in this case would also have to have been a certified flight instructor because the girl was not old enough to fly an airplane alone and even if she was she could not have had the Tuskegee Airman passenger as a student pilot with a solo endorsement. I don't know about you but to me 'solo' means 1 or alone not one plus the required instructor and an additional passenger. Was this young girl really the sole manipulator of the controls throughout the flight? Did she make the weather decisions necessary on a trip of this magnitude. Did she do the flight planning? We will never know because the article only wanted us to think that a 15-year-old black girl piloted an airplane across country. If she did, she should be proud of her accomplishment and she should be mad as hell at the LA Times for exploiting her - I think they wanted the race angle myself. Why couldn't the LA Times just tells us that 15-year-old pilot planned and executed a cross country flight under the expert tutilage of her flight instructor? Because even though it is a fabulous achievement, the media has to twist and sensationalize everything even if it means not telling the truth. Sad but true.

Oil Payments for Alaska Citizens

I just got back from fishing trip in Alaska. I had an interesting conversation with a couple who are residents of Alaska. They get a check every year from the government. Think of the check as a royalty payment for the oil that comes from Alaska. Every resident of Alaska gets one - even their 18 month old daughter got one last year. According to them the checks have ranged from about $800 to $2,000. That's a sweet deal. It got me to thinking though. I live in Arizona so how come I don't get a check based on the copper that gets mined here in my great state? I think I am going to write my local legislators. You see, if my kids each got a $1,000 check each year from birth to age 18 and I put their check into an account making a measly 6%, they would have $30,905 for college and I wouldn't have to have contributed a dime. If I could get 10%, which is less than the long term average of the stock market, that little college fund would be worth $45,599. That pays for four years at any state college in Arizona - sweet!

Oil in Alaska

I used to be for drilling for oil in Alaska. The truth is the actual footprint of the operations would be very small and the effects on the environment/wildlife would be minuscule. I admit the vehicle I drive is not the very best for gas mileage; however, it does average about 22 mpg for all the driving I do which is not bad. Today I saw a Hummer H2 with a bumper sticker that read "... drill now, pay less". I am no longer in favor of drilling for oil in Alaska. I just can't support people driving vehicles like the H2. Did you know that the H2 is so heavy that it puts it in a class of vehicles that the makers don't even have to put that sticker that tells you about its gas mileage on the vehicle. Truth is, the H2 gets less than 10 miles per gallon and that my friends is something we should not tolerate.

Arizona Government

Can we get any more ridiculous. The GOP in Arizona should be ashamed of themselves. We recently made a national list of the 5 worst governments in the US. We were placed in the same category as New York, California, and New Jersey - not very good company. Why can't the legislature figure out what we need is a conservative state government that meets the needs of the people. We need to put our money into solid infrastructure and education. Those two things will bring businesses to the valley that will provide the jobs needed to drive an invigorated economy. We need to stop giving away 100's of millions of dollars to companies that don't need the assistance. If their business plan is solid, why would they need you and I to offer them an incentive? We need a legislature that respects the property rights of individuals. Why can't we get the legislature we need to run this state? I surmise that's the fault of the citizens. Would you take on the job for $24K per year? Me either. I keep hearing people say when the legislature starts to perform they will vote for the pay raise. That's backwards folks. You get what you pay for and if you don't think that holds true in government, take a stroll down to the capital and speak with some of those willing to do the job for $24K a year or just sit back and observe. One more thing. We need to get rid of "Sheriff Joe." The fact that somebody wants to make a reality show out what we call a sheriff should tell you something about the reality of the situation.