About Me

Name: PoliCzar
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Archives

Search

Blog Roll

Iran: The world's newest nuclear power!?

Posted by PoliCzar on Thursday, August 31, 2006 4:08:40 PM
It could happen before you know it.

Iran has defied the UN yet again. What does the UN plan to do? Talk about it, endlessly. Somehow the world has learned nothing from WW II and how Hitler manipulated the world into thinking he wasn’t dangerous. Back then world leaders waited too long, much like they are about to do now, so it seems. Believe it or not we were all lucky that he was stopped, eventually. He never had a chance to get a nuclear weapon. Now we are dealing with a religious nut who doesn’t care if he or his people die in effort to bring forth Armageddon on the world.

Similarities with Hitler’s Nazi regime are uncanny. Besides Ahmadinejad’s speeches in front of fanatic followers (so we are led to believe) here are some things that Iran may decide to do in the future:

1) Iran wishes to control the Middle East by being the main nuclear power in the region after it gets rid of Israel.
2) It has allied itself with Syria (which clearly will be under Iranian control), controls most of Lebanon with Hezbollah and has terrorists cells all over the Mid-East
3) It will attempt to take over smaller countries (Kuwait) and/or fledgling democracies (Iraq, Turkey etc) in an effort to put back it’s Islamic fascist ideals.
4) Will have allies elsewhere in the world (Venezuela, Malaysia) to broaden its terror network overseas.
5) Above all else it will try to exterminate the Jews.

Sanctions

If threatened with sanctions, Iran will threaten the world market by ceasing it’s oil distribution, thus tripling oil prices.
It claims it will launch terrorist attacks around the world.

And after all of these remarks by Iran, the UN still wants to talk. We have waited far too long all ready. Iran has had a secret nuclear program for 18 years. Within the last few they have been discovered. They already violated the nuclear proliferation treaty which is grounds alone for sanctions on their country years ago.

Will sanctions work?

Depends on who you ask, some say yes, some say no. I think the consensus is that even the harshest of sanctions may take years to affect Iran’s economy. During this time it will still be possible for them to continue their nuclear work.
Even China and Russia will cave at some point but they will not agree to the harshest of sanctions. Instead they will impose travel restrictions and a few minor trade restrictions that will not hurt Iran at all. But before they go that route they will spend another year talking about it.

The time clock is ticking.

It is clear, Iran is an imminent threat to the world. If they were to develop nukes, they could give them to any terrorist organization and reek havoc on the world. Why? Because they truly believe that by killing the infidels they will either become martyrs or receive the return of the 12th Imam which will convert all of the world to Islam. The strange thing is, these people are stone-cold sober.

Sanctions outside the UN

One way to move forward is by imposing major sanctions with an allied force of European countries as well as the United States. This can be done without the UN. There have been too many deadlines. We continue to draw the line in the sand and Iran crosses it time and time again, then we draw a new line. We NEED to stop drawing lines and act now. If we wait too long sanctions will be of no use and Iran will become a world nuclear power. We NEED to drill more of our own oil while we develop alternative fuels as quickly as possible. We NEED to strengthen ties with the other oil rich nations that have snubbed us in recent years. For all on the left who claimed we went into Iraq for oil, they now see they are grossly mistaken as we are not receiving any Iraqi oil for free or a lower cost. This is a complex issue that demands action over dialogue. Without action on our part, the world will fall victim to the worst nuclear crisis since the 1960’s. The difference is that Russia did not wish to lose it’s cities. Iran has no problem losing Tehran in order to honor its maniacal religious ideology. They have nothing to lose.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Its time for Annan to resign

Posted by PoliCzar on Tuesday, August 29, 2006 1:17:21 PM
I have said this before. Kofi Annan should resign. My main reason for this is because I’m tired of writing about how much of an imbecile he is. But there are other major reasons for my suggestion.

He is not only making a fool of himself, but he is opening the door to terrorists, who after Annan’s trip to Beruit yesterday, will be celebrating their new alliance with the U.N.

Annan went so far as to compare Israel with the Taliban,
"You have to talk with those with the guns to stop shooting, whether they are Israelis or whether they are Taliban or anybody else,"

Has this guy lost his mind? Who in their right mind would compare Israel with the Taliban? He is sounding more and more like a terrorist himself, even though most pro-Hezbollah supporters boo’d him in the street. Perhaps they should have listened to what he had to say, because now it looks like the U.N. is the strongest ally of Hezbollah. It also appears Annan is siding with Syria, "We have no plans" to deploy troops under U.N. command along the Syria-Lebanon border, Mr. Annan said yesterday. "I said not long ago it is not their mandate." Nevertheless, he demanded that Israel lift what he called its "siege."
Great idea! Let's make it even easier for Syria and Iran to transport weapons and terrorists into Lebanon to join Hezbollah!!

Not only is Annan not allowing U.N. troops to disarm Hezbollah, he is no longer backing the release of the 2 Israeli soldiers which the resolution the Security Council passed included. Instead he wants Israel to release known terrorists in a prisoner swap. This is exactly what Hezbollah wants, not what Israel wants. He is leaving the disarming of Hezbollah up to the Lebanese army. Good luck. By not disarming them he basically gives the ok for a known terrorist organization to continue to arm themselves and threaten the region.

In a speech back at the end of July, Kofi Annan stated that it would be best for the Lebanese army to be the only authority with weapons in the country. So why isn’t he forcing Hezbollah to disarm? If they do not, then the there will be 2 authorities. As we all know, it’s really only one authority, Hezbollah. The Lebanese army has been nowhere around during this conflict because they aren’t much of an army. Annan is clearly biased against Israel, and this is not how a leader in the U.N. should act. He should have no bias at all. And within recent months his true self has come out. Hence, it is clearly time for Kofi Annan to step aside and let someone else take over. He does not have the authority to change resolutions which the Security Council has passed. This is another example of how their resolutions mean nothing. This, once again, gives the terrorists, and terror sponsoring countries, such as Iran, more of a reason to ignore them. Next, Annan will say it’s a great idea for Iran to have a nuclear program!

So to recap, Israel must do everything and Lebanon/Hezbollah will do nothing except maybe hand over 2 soldiers who are prisoners. This is not only biased it is not at all what the resolution called for.

The U.N. used to be the peacekeeper, now it looks like they are a terrorist appeaser. There are 2 answers to this problem, 1) Remove Kofi Annan, or 2) Eliminate the U.N., I’m not sure we really need either.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Who Blames Ray Nagin?

Posted by PoliCzar on Tuesday, August 29, 2006 1:05:58 AM
I do -

There is a problem in New Orleans. His name is Ray Nagin. The problem is that he believes that New York seems to be slow on their rebuilding process. He is so on top of things in New Orleans apparently.

RAY NAGIN, MAYOR OF NEW ORLEANS: It's all right. You guys in New York City can't get a hole in the ground fixed, and it's five years later, so let's be fair.

Well let's be fair. You were warned days in advance of this hurricane and the people who were in the World Trade Center that day had NO WARNING.

The problem with people like this is that they blame everyone else.
Nagin blames the government, looters, pretty much everybody but himself. Maybe he blames God too.

You'd think the mayor of a city would have some responsibility when it comes to his residents. People did not leave timely. There were problems with the weather reports. There were problems with aid.
If people left quicker, earlier like they were told to alot of this would not be an issue. People felt they could ride out the storm. His city had no plan because their Mayor didn't even have one! They threw it together at the last minute. Did he think that a hurricane would never hit his city? Now they have a so-called evacuation plan. If people do not listen, what is he to do? He blames Fema. Sound familliar? Yes the homes are gone, the land swallowed with water. This is nature. You cannot compare your natural disaster to an act of terrorism, Mr. Nagin. Yes the loss of life was tragic, no one wants it to happen, but it does. So lets BE FAIR. Here we come upon a year after the hurricane. The amount of support from the American people this year has been nothing short of spectacular. College students taking their vacations coming to help build homes. You have money coming in from 100s of charities to help these people. Rome was not built or rebuilt in a day. Nagin does not understand that New York's problems with the WTC site is totally different than his city. If I were him, I'd be out there repairing the houses myself not talking about how something isn't getting done. His leadership is horrible. His policy is horrible. And he has no plan for his city but to blame everyone else. I sure hope the President sets him straight at their breakfast meeting. And I wonder if Mr. Nagin is going to tell the President about his chocolate city plan. Or maybe Ray Nagin is just clueless.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Iran Could Care Less

Posted by PoliCzar on Friday, August 25, 2006 11:22:49 AM
Nobody knows what’s in the 25 page response from Iran to the U.N. We do know that they decided that they will not end enrichment, which was one of the key points in the U.N. resolution. We were happy that they didn’t nuke Israel on the 22nd. Many people including the Wall Street Journal seemed to think that day was an interesting one because this year, the 22nd of August is the day in the Islamic calendar on which Muhammad ascended to heaven on a winged horse before returning to earth. This day, many Muslims, including Ahmadinejad believe the world will end. But savor that day, because if I recall there is another one similar in November. Very happy religion isn’t it.

Iran is clearly toying with the U.N. They have watched how Saddam defied resolution after resolution. They know the U.N. will not impose sanctions because Russia won’t allow it. How much money is Iran paying Russia? We all know Russia’s economy is pretty much in the toilet. Without certain trade partners, IE Iran, Russia would be hurting worse. So they claim. I don’t think so. Russia still has about 100 other countries it could trade with, what’s so special about Iran? Could they be selling weapons to them? Or do they just need the oil? Personally Russia needs to be removed from this debate because their ties with Iran are too close. You’d figure that Russia and Iran are so close, why doesn’t Russia tell it’s little buddy to cool it with the Uranium enrichment. Oh wait, I think they tried that, but Iran didn’t listen.

There is yet another part to this saga which should be addressed. There was a report issued the other day for the House of Representatives intelligence committee, This report stated the horrible performance of US intelligence agencies, including the CIA, when it comes to Iran. The report ‘backs the Administration’s position that Iran is determined to develop nuclear weapons and represents a threat to the US’ BUT! Says there is no solid intelligence to back up these claims.

Here we go again. Ever since the WMD intelligence flop from just before the Iraq war, every single intelligence agent is going to downplay any ideas they may have either solid or semi-solid regarding Iran. They are scared that if they report the wrong thing or even the half-right thing to the committee or the President, the whole thing could backfire, as in Iraq.

Iran is clearly delaying pretty much everything. Why? Because they are building a nuclear bomb. The more they delay, the more they get done. They have been delaying for a year, and there has been still no action by the U.N. Security Council. Perhaps this should be reviewed privately by the leaders of the nations on the council and without the U.N. overseeing it. (Because it is clear the UN is more concerned with saving Hezbollah than dealing with Iran.) This way, if Russia gets out of line, Bush and Blair can team up and beat Putin down or at least send him to his room without supper or his oil contracts with Iran.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Mission Accomplished? - John McCain

Posted by PoliCzar on Wednesday, August 23, 2006 7:56:09 PM
John McCain today has decided to turn on the President and offer some chilly words toward his handling of Iraq. 
To spare the entire message he gave, I will break it down. McCain believes that we were all misled by Bush’s Mission Accomplished speech on the USS Abraham Lincoln 3 years ago. He also believes that Bush never said how tough this war was supposed to be. 
 
‘This war’. Which war? The war on the terror, or the war in Iraq/terror, or the Iraq war with terrorists? 
 
I’m confused. So is McCain. 
 
I will support this: The mission accomplished speech in May of 2003 was a simple one. It was the ousting of Saddam and the end to ‘MAJOR Combat’ in Iraq. Now as most military analysts will tell you that ‘major’ is a very subjective word. What exactly constitutes MAJOR combat? Full scale battles? Full battalions of soldiers destroying the enemy? Do you put a # on how many soldiers it takes for MAJOR combat? 
 
I’m confused again. So is McCain. 
 
McCain also says that Bush never warned on how difficult the task may be. – WRONG. I can’t even count the # of times Bush has said it has been tough. 50? 500? All of these speeches were given shortly there-after the mission speech. I understand that it seems like we were misled, but as I mentioned above, it’s very subjective. 
I think what had happened is that the media along with the media office of the white house went a little over board on that banner on the aircraft carrier. They all made it out to say the war was over, which it was far from. Again, I ask, is that what mission accomplished means? 
 
Now based on my experience with studying wars and armed conflicts there anywhere from a few to 500,000 missions in any given war. So which exactly was accomplished: The destruction of Saddam’s army, his capture, the end of the regime as we know it? Okay, there’s 2-3 missions there. Now the rest of the missions – destroy the insurgency, rebuild the country and support the new government. All of those are being worked on now. Was the US military counting on Iran supplying the insurgency to disrupt the US plans? NO! They were not. Oops! Perhaps McCain should have said something about that. 
 
Was Bush’s speech on that aircraft carrier a mistake? The answer is yes unless you believe that the media hyped it way too much, which they did, obviously.  The banner was the main mistake in my opinion.  The banner should have read 'A Mission Accomplished, many more to go!'  But I think that was too long for them to fit on the canvas.
 
So I must regrettably disagree with Mr. McCain on this issue. Yes we have accomplished “A” mission. Yes it is a tough road (Bush has mentioned this numerous times). So why did McCain do this? Good question. Some may say he is trying to appeal to voters who dislike the President’s war policy. I say he is trying to win the White House in 2008 and he see’s the stance that many democratic challengers are taking and he is trying to slide in the middle of the right and left. Granted he has been in the middle on many issues, however, not this one, not until now. 
 
I assume McCain is talking about Iraq and not the broader war on terror. Does he realize there is a bigger picture? That Iraq is simply one theater in the war on terror? There are several others: Afghanistan, the skies above, the borders, and all over the rest of the world. 
 
Again, ‘A’ Mission accomplished. There are many more to accomplish. This did not mislead me and McCain is supposed to be smarter than I. This worries me. I am now looking into what else McCain may do in the next 2 years. For a Senior Senator to disapprove of his President’s actions is one thing, but to come out in public and make a statement that like this one, which is not 100% accurate, not only hurts his rep among conservatives who may have liked McCain prior to this stunt. 
 
If the 2008 election is going to boil down to Iraq then all candidates have problems. There is more to an election than 1 topic. Although it is a major one, we must examine the problems at hand and point out solutions as opposed to blaming others without even one suggestion on how to fix the problem. This is obvious the democrats viewpoint. And if McCain is not careful, he will get saddled with this same view point which is certainly not good for the Republican Party. An important message to all GOP delegates: Make sure if you are writing McCain down for the ballot you write it in pencil, it may need to be erased. 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

IRS hires debt collectors to collect your back taxes!

Posted by PoliCzar on Tuesday, August 22, 2006 9:03:11 PM
There was an article in the NY Times last Saturday which no one really spoke about. It reports that the IRS has decided to hire outside Debt Collection companies to collect debts of those who owe the IRS $25,000 or less in back taxes. "Smaller debts" as the IRS describes them, will be collected by these companies for 24-26% of the total collection. So basically what this means is that the IRS is lazy. What are the agents doing? Concentrating on the big tax debts? So I suppose if you owe $25,001 an IRS agent will be contacting you? I realize this was a move by the Bush Administration, so they say, but I'm not so sure whomever thought of this thought this through very well. Perhaps it was a plan that was on the shelf for awhile.

Here's the problem with this program:
'The private debt collection program is expected to bring in $1.4 billion over 10 years, with the collection agencies keeping about $330 million of that, or 22 to 24 cents on the dollar.
By hiring more revenue officers, the I.R.S. could collect more than $9 billion each year and spend only $296 million — or about three cents on the dollar — to do so, Charles O. Rossotti, the computer systems entrepreneur who was commissioner from 1997 to 2002, told Congress four years ago. '

See the irony? People are breaking the law by not paying their taxes. Why do they think people will respond better to debt collectors than the IRS themselves? I'm not so certain the the hiring of more officers is there problem, but it could be. By putting this work towards outsourcing we are sending the wrong message. Yes, we are giving money to businesses here in the USA, but what are they in the business for? This is a government issue not a private business issue. Your tax problems are between you and the IRS not you and the John Smith Law Firm and collection agency.

Imagine the amount of harassment that will come from this? If Mr. Rossotti was correct, and I am not saying he is, the IRS should hire more agents. This is THEIR JOB, right?! What is the point of having the IRS if they are not to enforce the laws they put on all Americans? Do they plan on hiring more tax experts to help normal Americans figure out how to fill out their complex forms? Or do they plan on hiring better computer experts to program an online form that is easy to read and understand where the computer does the work for you for free? As opposed to using software that costs $25-$100 a return? Oh wait then the IRS may mislead you and charge you more than what you really owe -- we don't trust them remember?

"Critics of the privatization plan point not only to the higher cost but also to what they say is a greater potential for abuse. With private companies in the mix, they say, debtors could more easily be tricked into paying money to scam artists using spoof Web sites or other schemes, a problem the I.R.S. alerted taxpayers to in April. Brady R. Bennett, collections director for the I.R.S., said that by 2008, about 350,000 past-due tax records will be distributed among about 10 private debt-collection agencies. To guard against fraud, he said, the agencies will contact taxpayers only by telephone or mail — not the Internet — and will instruct them to send all payments directly to the United States Treasury, not the private collection agency."

Ever heard of mail fraud? I'm thinking that the brainiac behind this concept may have had the right idea initially, but I'm not so sure. Critics of this program are on both sides of the aisle so you be the judge.
My take is that they should be leaving this in the hands of the IRS, you are not increasing the government size by giving qualified workers jobs. They will be spending alot more on the outside company and will not be receiving any benefit for years to come. In the meantime, Americans who fraud the government by not paying their taxes are getting away with breaking the law.

I'm curious to hear your thoughts on the issue.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Kerry's rants are far too common and illogical

Posted by PoliCzar on Monday, August 21, 2006 8:00:19 PM
Writing about John Kerry is getting very old, but I must assess his latest blunder on national TV.

Why the Sunday morning talk shows insist on having John Kerry on as a guest is beyond me. Every time he is on one of these shows its always the same ignorant rhetoric.

Yesterday he said that Joe Lieberman is ‘out of step’ with the Connecticut voters. How does John Kerry know the people of Connecticut? I suppose because he lives a few hours north in a totally different state he knows how the people of Connecticut think. Well obviously he is wrong because the latest poll in Connecticut favors Joe Lieberman by 11 points ahead of Lamont. I don’t always agree with Joe Lieberman, but at least he’s standing by his convictions as I mentioned in a previous blog. John Kerry (the ultimate flip flopper) has the audacity to go on the talk shows and denounce a man whom he had worked with for over a decade in the Senate because he is worried that his colleague is too close to the President or Vice President’s views on the Iraq war. What a complete waste of time on that show. Kerry has no basis for his conclusions. As is typical with most liberal politicians they decide to talk before researching what it is they are going to talking about. John Kerry believes Iraq is in a civil war and that the US should leave. I ask John Kerry what does he think will happen if we do? The country will fall to terrorists, more innocent life (by the 1000s) will be lost, and all of the work and sacrifice our soldiers put forth in restoring that country will be in vain. Somehow John Kerry found it appropriate to take a heavy anti-war stance even though he voted for the war to begin with! As always, he says, woops! I didn’t mean to vote that way. When Joe Lieberman voted for it, he has stood by it. He may not agree with how the Bush administration is handling the conflict, but he stands by our position to finish the job.

Now the democrats have elected a big 'anti-war' message as the basis for their campaigns for this fall's election. John Kerry seems to tbe the ring-leader. If this is they main talking point, and it seems to be their only talking point, they are going to lose miserably. They have yet to set forth their 'plan' for a better America. They've talked about it probably 10 times in the past 8 months, but have yet to deliver this elusive plan. Seems to me their only plan is to try to destroy members of their own party in order to bring in a puppet to do their bidding. (Ted Lamont) Unfortunately I think the people of CT are too smart for this, hence why Lieberman is leading in the polls.

If I were Joe Lieberman, I'd ask Ted Lamont or even John Kerry where the big 'PLAN' is they've been talking about so much. I dont think it exists.

John Kerry is still living in a time warp. He thinks this is 1970 all over again, and it isn’t. There are real threats in that region and if we have to knock them out one at a time then so be it. We cannot cut and run as he suggests, it not only makes us look scared, but it also gives the edge to the terrorists. I honestly think that John Kerry is more interested in saving his own career (which is failing miserably), than the state of our country in a time of war. If he would just shut up and listen to what many of his own fellow democrats are saying as well as republicans he would see that most people want peace, but to achieve peace and freedom we must eliminate those who are trying to prevent us from achieving our goal. Kerry seems to be siding with the terrorists – God forbid what could have happened to this nation if he actually won the presidency. (Which now he stands no chance at ever obtaining)

I’m not sure what sort of drugs Kerry smoked while in Vietnam, but perhaps he needs to grab his tie-dyed shirts and head out in his VW bus for a long road trip and get out of politics for good. He is truly ‘out of step’ with the entire nation.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Major problems for the UN in Lebanon

Posted by PoliCzar on Friday, August 18, 2006 6:37:02 PM
The UN is having problems getting an international force together to protect Lebanon’s southern border.  France was supposed to give upwards of 4000 troops and be the leader, now it looks like they are going to do maybe half of that. The other countries seem to want no part in any troop deployment. There’s a reason, of course.

The UN Resolution will not disarm Hezbollah.

First, the UN stated that the Lebanese army will do the disarming. The only weapons on that border would be from the Lebanese army and the UN peacekeeping force. How wrong they were! Hezbollah, by starting to rebuild southern cities, has obtained the trust of the Lebanese people. This is a major problem. The prime minister of Lebanon seems to be moving back and forth on whether or not he plans on doing anything at all with Hezbollah. Another report said that Hezbollah will be joining forces with Lebanon because ‘they are welcomed by the people’ I’m still shocked that Tony Snow said that ‘Disarming Hezbollah will take some time, it wont happen right away’ I think he is blind. There will be no disarmament, there will be a quasi-Lebanese force deployed with Hezbollah waiting in the wings to attack Israel yet again. This time, when Israel strikes back, the UN forces will get in the way causing an even great international incident. This, obviously, is the reason why no countries wish to support this deployment. They are not blind.

"Hezbollah has pledged to collaborate fully with the Lebanese army, which is going as a totally friendly and national force," said Michel Pharaon, minister of parliamentary affairs. But Pharaon acknowledged that the presence of thousands of Hezbollah weapons could invite another Israeli military campaign on southern Lebanon. "We are of course a little worried for the future," Pharaon said. "But practically ... we couldn't see it any other way at this time."
--Shashank Bengali, McClatchy Newspapers

Second, another boring resolution.

Yes, as I stated time and time again, this resolution has no merit. This is yet another reason why the UN peacekeeping force will not gain any troops. I think many of these nations are starting to realize that the UN is just a figure of diplomacy. The UN gives rhetoric, but will not be able to enforce it’s own statements and resolutions.

Kofi Annan is looking very weak to the international community sounding like a 3rd grader who got picked last in gym class. (Unfortunately there is no way to do a soundbite in this article)

'UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan made a last-ditch call to French President Jacques Chirac yesterday in the hope of convincing a key architect of the resolution to stay the course and commit as many as 4,000 soldiers, as had been expected.
Mr. Chirac did commit his country to commanding the UN mission in Lebanon but he would only double the 200 troops currently operating in Lebanon under the UN banner. France is concerned at what it has called the "fuzzy" nature of the mandate.’
- Alan Woods, National Post

Fuzzy? You’d better believe it! I don’t care so much for President Chirac, but he has a point. Probably should have thought about this prior to being the lead in a drafting of the resolution that no one wishes to back anymore.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Sept 11th 911 calls released – Wiretapping illegal?

Posted by PoliCzar on Friday, August 18, 2006 11:09:01 AM
After listening to any one of these one can understand the real terror our fellow citizens were forced to handle that dreadful day. It’s a grim reminder that this event actually took place almost 5 years ago. It’s easy to get used to the longer time passes, for most people. Movies are coming out and you can get involved in their stories, but in the back of your mind what you witnessed that day will always be with you. If you are old enough you can chalk that day up to other days where you remember exactly where you were, for example, the day Kennedy was assassinated, or when John Lennon was killed. September 11th is a reminder that the fight against terror continues in this country and abroad. This war is unlike any other and we must fight it like no other. So this is why we wiretapped suspected terrorists regularly. No warrant, yes I know, was issued. Lets remember that we are at war. I don’t need to remind you of all of the ‘so-called’ unconstitutional moves that Lincoln made during the Civil War, do I?  
 
Now a federal judge decided in favor of the ACLU making it illegal to perform these actions. Never mind that this individual is over 70 years old, appointed by Jimmy Carter, and probably without a doubt a major left wing judge who needs to be replaced due to retirement. This, of course, is the first step towards appeals by the Bush administration . 
 
I’d like to remind the ACLU that they are defending the rights of terrorists, not Americans. Most of these monitored calls are calls to countries that support terrorism, or originate from them.  
 
But I ask this judge and the ACLU, where were the rights of the 3000+ people who died on 9/11? I don’t see the ACLU knocking on the doors of all of their relatives letting them know they help bring a class action suit against Bin Laden. Just what we need is another major terrorist attack that could have been prevented by these wiretaps and we will see where the ACLU is on that one. Besides, since the NY Times blew the story wide open, I’m pretty sure the terrorists have found other methods in which to communicate; like I said in a previous blog, probably via smoke signals. 
 
The ACLU should be ashamed of itself. Then again, this is what they live for : To get their name in the papers, not to help those less fortunate. 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Are Arab males racially profiled by airport security agents?

Posted by PoliCzar on Wednesday, August 16, 2006 2:48:03 PM
An interesting debate is developing in the TSA and elsewhere regarding security check points at airports. This debate centers around the profiling of young Arab men going through security. Should they have their own line? Should they be singled out? Or should we just let it go? We know where the ACLU stands on this. They believe that by singling out these men would be a violation of their civil rights. I have some news for the ACLU, it is not just Arab men that they single out. I’m sure they do catch the eye of many of the security agents and screeners, maybe even more so than another race. However, after my last trip, I am not so sure about this. Before the latest terrorism scare, I flew out to the east coast from the west. No problems going through security at LAX, no one asked me to do anything strange at all. It was quick and easy. Probably because the lines were so short, it was rather early in the morning, people breezed through. Most people were prepared, which was nice to see. I think as Americans we are used to this by now. We arrived in Indiana and had a stop over, we left the airport and came back and had to go through security once again. This time something happened. My fiance’ was ahead of me and I was behind her, they let her walk right on through, shoes on, no problem. They stopped me dead. They moved me aside wanted me to go through the new machine and everything. They even swabbed my shoes. I also noticed they did this with the following 5 men in the line; all of the women went straight through no issue.

So I ask this, is it Arab men they are looking at or just Men? I can point out that I had a small beard also, but I have a pale complexion. I do not look Arabic at all.

Unfortunately when you are dealing with a civil rights issue, as the ACLU would like you do believe, you need to make everyone happy. There is no doubt that the Islamic fascists could come from another region of the world and are not necessarily going to look Arab or carry a Koran with them. They could be from Africa, Indonesia, India, anywhere! They could be of any race. However, what we know for a fact is that most come from the Middle East. This is why they are targeted. Israel singles out all Arabs regardless of sex before they get into their airports or on their planes. Nobody seems to have a problem with that.

The question before us: are homeland security and the TSA doing everything in their power to protect Americans? We are not 100% sure, are we? We trust they are working hard to protect us. Will singling out Arab looking men work? Nobody really knows. I don’t see why it’s an issue when they seem to be singling out everyone not just Arab men. Looks to me like anyone that looks like a man may be singled out. If you are chosen you go through the extra screening process and it may take you a little longer. So what? I had absolutely no problem going through the extra steps. I really don’t think that having a separate line is required. They should go through the line with everyone else and be singled out if need be. They should not feel discriminated against, or harassed, I certainly didn’t. Its unfortunate that the majority of the people who want to kill us are from that region. As long as the screeners and security officers treat them with respect and dignity they should have nothing to complain about. This is the world we live in.

All in all I had a pleasant trip. Upon my return, I even elected to go into the new machine (the one that sprays you with air).They didn’t ask me, I volunteered. Now, if only everyone would do that, we wouldn’t have these problems. If you have nothing to hide then you should have no problems.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (1) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

CBS News dinosaur interviews Ahmadinejad, kind-of

Posted by PoliCzar on Tuesday, August 15, 2006 2:56:00 PM
 I used to watch 60 minutes every week, many years ago that is. I also used to think CBS news was the most accurate and honest of the news organizations at that time. This was before their decision not to air the story on big tobacco (yes – they made a movie out of this with Russell Crow and Al Pacino if you recall called ‘The Insider’). It continued with their horrible coverage of the 2000 Presidential election. Finally the last straw was Dan Rather. You know what I’m talking about. 
 
It’s hard to believe that this once great news organization has turned into the worst network in America in only 10-15 short years. Maybe they were failing all along, and most people simply didn't notice. 
Their failure was proven once again on Sunday night when Mike Wallace interviewed Iranian president Ahmadinejad. Wallace asked the real hard news questions, such as, ‘What do you do for fun?’ and ‘What do you think of President Bush?’  
Wow! I was impressed. Hard news at its best! Way to go Mike! 
 
Then, Ahmadinejad decided to comment on how the United States treats its own people by jailing 1% of them in prisons. As well as how the US oppresses it’s own people. ‘We don’t like oppression or oppressors’ he said. What? I nearly fell off my chair! Who really are the oppressors here? Let’s examine the Iranian economy for a second. Hmm People are poor, living in tents or mud huts, like it was the middle ages. The rich are richest and the poor are very poor. Take a look at how Iran likes to throw people into jail without trial and never let them out? And of course Mike Wallace did not debate him on this issue or stand up to him. Maybe Wallace is too old, at 88 years old, he should be in Florida relaxing. 
 
Big Mike was missing a few questions, perhaps because he thought he might get shot. Or maybe he just forgot – Time to hang it up Mike. 
 
Why didn’t Mike ask Ahmadinejad, ‘Why do you want to blow Israel off the map?’, or how about ‘What do you hope to gain by having a nuclear weapon?’ ‘Does terrorism against the US make you happy?’ 
 
Mike even complimented him on how good he looked, ‘You’re a good looking man’ Mike said. Were they going to dinner later?? He even said he had ‘almost a good time with Ahmadinejad’  Good grief! Maybe it was that jacket Ahmadinejad was wearing, made him look like your golf buddy. 
 
All jokes aside, Wallace’s interview was obviously a waste of time. He didn't ask one question that meant anything to anyone. Ahmadinejad didn't answer all of them, even the easy ones. He wouldn’t specifically say what he thought about President Bush. He danced around a foreign policy question. Even the translator sounded like he was confused. 
 
What is the point of doing an interview with a ruthless dictator if you can’t ask him a serious question and get a straight answer? This interview, unfortunately, has proven my point on how weak CBS news has become. Here they potentially had the top story of the year, and yet, Mike Wallace sounded like he was interviewing Tom Cruise. Perhaps a younger reporter would have had more guts to ask the tough questions. 
 
If you didn't watch, then you didn’t miss much. Most of you were probably tuned into the riveting football game on NBC. 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Wasted time at the UN?

Posted by PoliCzar on Monday, August 14, 2006 3:50:13 PM
The UN security council sent a message to all terrorists of the world this weekend when it approved unanimously 15-0 the resolution for a cease-fire between Israel and Hezbollah.

Is it possible that there can be a ceasefire between a nation and a terrorist organization?
Apparently so!

This cease-fire was not with Israel and Lebanon, but with Hezbollah. The UN just recognized Hezbollah as a sovereign entity in the region. This sends a great message to the other terrorists! They see how Hezbollah was recognized by the world by playing their little PR game with Israel. Now Hezbollah has a chance to re-supply, re-group and even attack again if necessary.

What surprises me the most is that Israel went along with it. This makes no sense at all. They did not accomplish their objective. What makes them think that they are actually finished with this conflict? Are UN security forces are going to be deployed and stay there forever? Someone posed a question on a news site asking if Israel had won its conflict. The answer of course was a solid NO. If anybody won it was Hezbollah and it was well played.

Another surprise is how our administration here at home went ahead and approved this resolution.
Secretary Rice actually removed John Bolton from his seat and took the vote herself (yes she has every right to do so) last Friday. Was it not our president a few weeks ago standing firm and saying that there will be no ceasefire without the disarmament of Hezbollah? 4 hours into the cease-fire we have a skirmish between a fully ARMED Hezbollah group and a small Israeli platoon. This does not look like any sort of disarmament is reached. Lebanon claims the only weapons in the country will be those of the central government. How do they plan on enforcing this? Perhaps like they did prior to this conflict, not very well, or not at all!.

According to many reports:
Many questions remained about whether the arrangements outlined in the UN resolution would in fact leave southern Lebanon free of Hezbollah guerrillas.

Lebanon claims its army will take over the borders and the rest of the country and enforce this resolution. Where were they during the month of fighting that was going on? Or maybe their army is now Hezbollah?

Something tells me that the ultimate goal was not reached. This is not only another wasted resolution by the UN, it is a waste of time. No one pays attention to UN resolutions these days anyway right? In fact even Iran (Hezbollah’s big brother), does not even recognize them as we know. So why
would Hezbollah recognize something they are not apart of?

The message this sends to terrorists everywhere is simple: Use the media to your advantage and your war will be won.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Democratic Ignorance and MSM Poll Manipulation

Posted by PoliCzar on Friday, August 11, 2006 1:45:14 PM

Democrats wasted no time after the new terror plot was foiled in criticizing the Bush administration for Iraq.

Harry Reid (Nevada) and Sen. John Kerry (Massachusetts) who described Iraq as "a dangerous distraction, and a profound drain on our financial and military resources.”

Do these guys take stupid pills? Or is that just some other sort of drug they smoke?
I guess they never got the memo. WE ARE FIGHTING TERRORISTS WHEREVER THEY MAY BE! This includes IRAQ! Kerry really needs to resign. He’s embarrassing his entire party.

I loved Ken Mehlman’s response,
"On a day when American authorities are working with our allies to stop a global terror plot, instead of focusing on political attacks, we should focus on the fact that we are at war and need every tool to win the war on terror,"

That was nicer than I would have been.

Some interesting poll numbers, for those who love polls, IE the democrats, and all media outlets,
--62 percent of Americans disapprove of how Bush is handling the Iraq war. –

Yes, handling of the war, not OPPOSE the war. Democrats seem to be flooding the media outlets (as they always do) with their speeches mentioning how most American’s oppose the war, this is not true. In fact what is true is that most American’s support the Iraq war as a part of the war on terror, yet the media refuses to show those polls regularly. I’m starting to think the Democrats cannot read, or they need to take an English lesson to find out the difference between what the word ‘oppose’ means with what the words ‘disapprove‘ and ‘handling’ mean.

ALSO-
--A Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll released this month shows that 50 percent of Americans Approve of how Bush is handling the war on terrorism.—
Didn’t say anything about if they thought anyone else would do better.

Again, you see here, it is how Bush is HANDLING the war on terrorism. I think you and I and every American would agree that we are FOR the war on terror no doubt because we have to be for our safety. I don’t hear of too many people opposing it and if they do they need to get their head examined - IE. dingbats like Cindy Sheehan and Cynthia McKinney.

In fact a majority of Americans also agree that Democrats would not handle our national security correctly. They, in fact, prefer Republicans to handle security interests.

My point here is simple. The way words are used are important. We see Kerry, Reid, Clinton and the left like to use their words incorrectly. The media goes ahead and showcases the poll the way the democrats want it to be read, not the way the poll was intended to be displayed. This manipulation will only continue if we neglect to keep Republicans in control of congress.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Democracy for All!

Posted by PoliCzar on Wednesday, August 09, 2006 6:18:21 PM
Bush said recently that he believes that the US should attempt to give democracy / freedom to any country who wants it. We hope he doesn’t mean forcefully. Iraq excluded, as there were obviously other circumstances to that scenario, we must see that democracy has been taking hits as of late - not only Israel, but the supposed democracy in Lebanon. I’m worried that we are falling back into a 1950’s attitude that the US must install democracy at all cost and remove the communists from power. That really got us nowhere.

As we can see communism has barely lasted. China being the exception has more of a socialist government that communist and their economy is booming. Cuba is in limbo and we all know N. Korea has no economy and enjoys spending all of their time and money on developing weapons in order to get money. Vietnam is what it is, just ask John Kerry.

Russia is another supposed democracy that seems to be leaning heavily towards the socialist way of life.

My point here is that we should be teaching what democracy is to the nations who wish to learn. You will not find too many Muslim nations interested in democracy because it goes against everything they believe. How can you install democracy in a nation like theirs when their entire social structure is based on hierarchy not all men are created equal. I still think they are living in medieval times.

I will have to disagree with our president on this issue. If his main goal for the next couple of years is to worry about democracy in the world instead of solving our own democratic problems then he really hasn’t thought anything through at all. How can we be the leader of democracy when our own is threatened daily by court decisions and radically left legislation in our state legislatures as well as the US Congress? Let’s keep our eye on the ball, Mr. President.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Joe’s Independence Day

Posted by PoliCzar on Wednesday, August 09, 2006 12:27:36 PM
As suspected the close race in the Democratic primary for US Senate in Connecticut resulted in Joe Lieberman losing to the anti-war millionaire Ned Lamont 52%-48%.  Yes, millionaire 100 times over. Lieberman even lost in his home town and my former place of residence, New Haven.  Wow.

Well that goes to show you that Connecticut’s liberals can’t seem to decide who they want, Mr. Anti-War, or someone who doesn’t flip flop on his decisions. Not that I like Lieberman all that much, but he has earned my respect with the way he conducts himself not only in the Senate but in front of the public.

The real question now is with the democrats split with Lieberman running as an independent, can the republicans obtain a candidate solid enough to win over all.  Need I remind you what happened in 1992 when Ross Perot divided the republican party making it easy for Clinton to roll into the white house.

There is a serious possibility that the republicans can pick up a much needed senate seat this fall.

One thing that bothers me is the press calling Lieberman’s stance on the war his ‘downfall’.  Here is a guy who voted for it, didn’t back peddle, and stood by his vote.  You don’t see that much on the left these days.  Please watch certain democrats now that Lieberman lost to see how they respond in fear that they themselves may lose votes for backing the war.  It would be to the Republicans best interest to supply voters with the knowledge that these certain democratic candidates have back-peddled and flip-flopped on an issue that they voted for in the first place.  This should prove to all Americans that when voting someone into office make sure they stand by their decisions, just as you did when you voted for them.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous12Next »