Test of President Bush's Knesset Speech

Perhaps one of the most important speeches of Bush's administration and well worth reading.

President Peres and Mr. Prime Minister, Madam Speaker, thanks very much for hosting this special session. President Beinish, Leader of the Opposition Netanyahu, Ministers, members of the Knesset, distinguished guests: Shalom.

Laura and I are thrilled to be back in Israel. We have been deeply moved by the celebrations of the past two days. And this afternoon, I am honored to stand before one of the world's great democratic assemblies and convey the wishes of the American people with these words: Yom Ha'atzmaut Sameach.

It is a rare privilege for the American president to speak to the Knesset, although the prime minister told me there is something even rarer — to have just one person in this chamber speaking at a time. My only regret is that one of Israel's greatest leaders is not here to share this moment. He is a warrior for the ages, a man of peace, a friend. The prayers of the American people are with Ariel Sharon.

We gather to mark a momentous occasion. Sixty years ago in Tel Aviv, David Ben-Gurion proclaimed Israel's independence, founded on the "natural right of the Jewish people to be masters of their own fate." What followed was more than the establishment of a new country. It was the redemption of an ancient promise given to Abraham and Moses and David — a homeland for the chosen people Eretz Yisrael.

Eleven minutes later, on the orders of President Harry Truman, the United States was proud to be the first nation to recognize Israel's independence. And on this landmark anniversary, America is proud to be Israel's closest ally and best friend in the world.

The alliance between our governments is unbreakable, yet the source of our friendship runs deeper than any treaty. It is grounded in the shared spirit of our people, the bonds of the Book, the ties of the soul. When William Bradford stepped off the Mayflower in 1620, he quoted the words of Jeremiah: "Come let us declare in Zion the word of God." The founders of my country saw a new promised land and bestowed upon their towns names like Bethlehem and New Canaan. And in time, many Americans became passionate advocates for a Jewish state.

Centuries of suffering and sacrifice would pass before the dream was fulfilled. The Jewish people endured the agony of the pogroms, the tragedy of the Great War, and the horror of the Holocaust — what Elie Wiesel called "the kingdom of the night." Soulless men took away lives and broke apart families. Yet they could not take away the spirit of the Jewish people, and they could not break the promise of God.

When news of Israel's freedom finally arrived, Golda Meir, a fearless woman raised in Wisconsin, could summon only tears. She later said: "For two thousand years we have waited for our deliverance. Now that it is here it is so great and wonderful that it surpasses human words."

The joy of independence was tempered by the outbreak of battle, a struggle that has continued for six decades. Yet in spite of the violence, in defiance of the threats, Israel has built a thriving democracy in the heart of the Holy Land. You have welcomed immigrants from the four corners of the Earth. You have forged a free and modern society based on the love of liberty, a passion for justice, and a respect for human dignity. You have worked tirelessly for peace. You have fought valiantly for freedom.

My country's admiration for Israel does not end there. When Americans look at Israel, we see a pioneer spirit that worked an agricultural miracle and now leads a high-tech revolution. We see world-class universities and a global leader in business and innovation and the arts. We see a resource more valuable than oil or gold: the talent and determination of a free people who refuse to let any obstacle stand in the way of their destiny.

I have been fortunate to see the character of Israel up close. I have touched the Western Wall, seen the sun reflected in the Sea of Galilee, I have prayed at Yad Vashem. And earlier today, I visited Masada, an inspiring monument to courage and sacrifice. At this historic site, Israeli soldiers swear an oath: "Masada shall never fall again."

Citizens of Israel: Masada shall never fall again, and America will be at your side.

This anniversary is a time to reflect on the past. It's also an opportunity to look to the future. As we go forward, our alliance will be guided by clear principles — shared convictions rooted in moral clarity and unswayed by popularity polls or the shifting opinions of international elites.
We believe in the matchless value of every man, woman and child. So we insist that the people of Israel have the right to a decent, normal and peaceful life, just like the citizens of every other nation.

We believe that democracy is the only way to ensure human rights. So we consider it a source of shame that the United Nations routinely passes more human rights resolutions against the freest democracy in the Middle East than any other nation in the world.

We believe that religious liberty is fundamental to a civilized society. So we condemn anti-Semitism in all forms, whether by those who openly question Israel's right to exist or by others who quietly excuse them.

We believe that free people should strive and sacrifice for peace. So we applaud the courageous choices Israeli's leaders have made. We also believe that nations have a right to defend themselves and that no nation should ever be forced to negotiate with killers pledged to its destruction.

We believe that targeting innocent lives to achieve political objectives is always and everywhere wrong. So we stand together against terror and extremism, and we will never let down our guard or lose our resolve.

The fight against terror and extremism is the defining challenge of our time. It is more than a clash of arms. It is a clash of visions, a great ideological struggle. On the one side are those who defend the ideals of justice and dignity with the power of reason and truth. On the other side are those who pursue a narrow vision of cruelty and control by committing murder, inciting fear, and spreading lies.

This struggle is waged with the technology of the 21st century, but at its core it is an ancient battle between good and evil. The killers claim the mantle of Islam, but they are not religious men. No one who prays to the God of Abraham could strap a suicide vest to an innocent child, or blow up guiltless guests at a Passover Seder, or fly planes into office buildings filled with unsuspecting workers. In truth, the men who carry out these savage acts serve no higher goal than their own desire for power. They accept no God before themselves. And they reserve a special hatred for the most ardent defenders of liberty, including Americans and Israelis.
And that is why the founding charter of Hamas calls for the "elimination" of Israel. And that is why the followers of Hezbollah chant "Death to Israel, Death to America!" That is why Osama bin Laden teaches that "the killing of Jews and Americans is one of the biggest duties." And that is why the president of Iran dreams of returning the Middle East to the Middle Ages and calls for Israel to be wiped off the map.

There are good and decent people who cannot fathom the darkness in these men and try to explain away their words. It's natural, but it is deadly wrong. As witnesses to evil in the past, we carry a solemn responsibility to take these words seriously. Jews and Americans have seen the consequences of disregarding the words of leaders who espouse hatred. And that is a mistake the world must not repeat in the 21st century.

Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: "Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all this might have been avoided." We have an obligation to call this what it is: the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history.

Some people suggest if the United States would just break ties with Israel, all our problems in the Middle East would go away. This is a tired argument that buys into the propaganda of the enemies of peace, and America utterly rejects it. Israel's population may be just over 7 million. But when you confront terror and evil, you are 307 million strong, because the United States of America stands with you.

America stands with you in breaking up terrorist networks and denying the extremists sanctuary. America stands with you in firmly opposing Iran's nuclear weapons ambitions. Permitting the world's leading sponsor of terror to possess the world's deadliest weapons would be an unforgivable betrayal for future generations. For the sake of peace, the world must not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon.

Ultimately, to prevail in this struggle, we must offer an alternative to the ideology of the extremists by extending our vision of justice and tolerance and freedom and hope. These values are the self-evident right of all people, of all religions, in all the world because they are a gift from the Almighty God. Securing these rights is also the surest way to secure peace. Leaders who are accountable to their people will not pursue endless confrontation and bloodshed. Young people with a place in their society and a voice in their future are less likely to search for meaning in radicalism. Societies where citizens can express their conscience and worship their God will not export violence, they will be partners in peace.

The fundamental insight, that freedom yields peace, is the great lesson of the 20th century. Now our task is to apply it to the 21st. Nowhere is this work more urgent than here in the Middle East. We must stand with the reformers working to break the old patterns of tyranny and despair. We must give voice to millions of ordinary people who dream of a better life in a free society. We must confront the moral relativism that views all forms of government as equally acceptable and thereby consigns whole societies to slavery. Above all, we must have faith in our values and ourselves and confidently pursue the expansion of liberty as the path to a peaceful future.

That future will be a dramatic departure from the Middle East of today. So as we mark 60 years from Israel's founding, let us try to envision the region 60 years from now. This vision is not going to arrive easily or overnight; it will encounter violent resistance. But if we and future presidents and future Knessets maintain our resolve and have faith in our ideals, here is the Middle East that we can see:
Israel will be celebrating the 120th anniversary as one of the world's great democracies, a secure and flourishing homeland for the Jewish people. The Palestinian people will have the homeland they have long dreamed of and deserved — a democratic state that is governed by law, and respects human rights, and rejects terror. From Cairo to Riyadh to Baghdad and Beirut, people will live in free and independent societies, where a desire for peace is reinforced by ties of diplomacy and tourism and trade. Iran and Syria will be peaceful nations, with today's oppression a distant memory and where people are free to speak their minds and develop their God-given talents. Al-Qaida and Hezbollah and Hamas will be defeated, as Muslims across the region recognize the emptiness of the terrorists' vision and the injustice of their cause.

Overall, the Middle East will be characterized by a new period of tolerance and integration. And this doesn't mean that Israel and its neighbors will be best of friends. But when leaders across the region answer to their people, they will focus their energies on schools and jobs, not on rocket attacks and suicide bombings. With this change, Israel will open a new hopeful chapter in which its people can live a normal life, and the dream of Herzl and the founders of 1948 can be fully and finally realized.

This is a bold vision, and some will say it can never be achieved. But think about what we have witnessed in our own time. When Europe was destroying itself through total war and genocide, it was difficult to envision a continent that six decades later would be free and at peace. When Japanese pilots were flying suicide missions into American battleships, it seemed impossible that six decades later Japan would be a democracy, a lynchpin of security in Asia, and one of America's closest friends. And when waves of refugees arrived here in the desert with nothing, surrounded by hostile armies, it was almost unimaginable that Israel would grow into one of the freest and most successful nations on the earth.

Yet each one of these transformations took place. And a future of transformation is possible in the Middle East, so long as a new generation of leaders has the courage to defeat the enemies of freedom, to make the hard choices necessary for peace, and stand firm on the solid rock of universal values.

Sixty years ago, on the eve of Israel's independence, the last British soldiers departing Jerusalem stopped at a building in the Jewish quarter of the Old City. An officer knocked on the door and met a senior rabbi. The officer presented him with a short iron bar, the key to the Zion Gate, and said it was the first time in 18 centuries that a key to the gates of Jerusalem had belonged to a Jew. His hands trembling, the rabbi offered a prayer of thanksgiving to God, "Who had granted us life and permitted us to reach this day." Then he turned to the officer, and uttered the words Jews had awaited for so long: "I accept this key in the name of my people."
Over the past six decades, the Jewish people have established a state that would make that humble rabbi proud. You have raised a modern society in the Promised Land, a light unto the nations that preserves the legacy of Abraham and Isaac and Jacob. And you have built a mighty democracy that will endure forever and can always count on the United States of America to be at your side.

God bless.

Soldier of the Future

One step away from super soldiers:

Bush Hits The Dems Where it Hurts: Appeasement

The Democrats are up in arms over Bush's speech to the Israeli Knesset today because his criticism hit them square in the face. His accusation that Obama and his counterparts would appease Iran and other enemies is right on. This is why Biden, Pelosi, Obama, and others are so upset.

The venue was appropriate because appeasement of Hitler led to the Holocaust and ultimately to the creation of Israel after 6 million Jews were annihilated because of the inability of free nations to confront evil directly. Iran has promised another Holocaust and is seeking nuclear weapons to accomplish it.

Secondly, Obama can be labeled as an "appeaser" because he has stated that he will negotiate with Iran directly "without preconditions". What is there to negotiate with Iran? Can we say, "please stop sending Iraqi and Taliban insurgents"? Can we say "please stop funding terrorists in Lebanon, Gaza, the West Bank, Iran, Afghanistan, and elsewhere"?

There is nothing to negotiate with. The Bush administration has flat out refused to negotiate with Iran and they are right for doing so. What the Bush administration has offered is an appropriate carrot for non-governmental contacts with Iran as an olive branch. This has proven fruitless, so why would presidential communication change anything? It is stupid for Obama and the Democrats to even suggest this. The Democrats have a long history of appeasement since Jimmy Carter, Joseph Kennedy, George McGovern, and others who have been consistently on the wrong side of history. Obama is no different, just watch the video below to see how he would disarm the United States:


Sickened? Disgusted? Me too...

He wants to get rid of nuclear weapons without a missile defense system. What an amateur, this man is not fit for the Oval Office. A victory by Obama would endanger America and the entire free world. Obama never talks of freedom because he doesn't seem to value it too much and obviously has no clue on how to defend it. This is demonstrated by his willingness and eagerness to force America's defeat in Iraq. The fact is Al Qaida is in Iraq and we're beating them back more and more each day. Their last real stronghold is in Mosul, so why not win? Why choose defeat?

"We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: 'Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all this might have been avoided.' We have an obligation to call this what it is - the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history," Bush stated. That is Obama to a "t".

The Democrats have got away with pushing for appeasement long enough, and it's about time they get called on it. They repeatedly say that they support the troops while voting against funding them while they fight a war against terrorists. They say they want to win the war on terror while voting against vital intelligence programs that protect us at home. Please. They want retreat plain and simple.

Hillary called Bush's comments "offensive and outrageous". It is outrageous that Obama wants to negotiate with the world's leading sponsor of terror. It is outrageous that this man could become the next president after an endorsement from Hamas. Biden can swear up a storm, but he does so because Bush hit the bull's eye today.

It's long overdue.

Human Rights Regression

This article is also available at The American Thinker.

Since the end of the Second World War, much of Western Civilization took it for granted that the progress and triumph of human rights, freedom, and liberal democracy would continue in perpetuity. Of course, there were setbacks as communist insurgencies and revolution snuffed out the lights of liberty in various places round the globe, but the hope of freedom always reappeared in places like Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Tiananmen Square, Poland, and most recently in Afghanistan and Iraq.

And despite the success that liberal democracy has experienced since the collapse of the Soviet Union, the possibility of Western concepts of freedoms no longer progressing, but in fact, regressing, is now more of a possibility than perhaps since Hitler’s rise to power in the 1930’s. What we may be witnessing today is not progress but regress in terms of our rights and freedoms.

In Britain, councils have ruled that images of Piglet from “Winnie the Pooh” must not be displayed because it causes offence to Muslims. Most newspapers and magazines refused to publish the infamous “Danish Cartoons” of Mohammed despite them being a legitimate news story because of the riots they resulted in around the world. The editors that did were castigated and in the case of Canadian editor, Ezra Levant, hauled before a “Human Rights Tribunal” after a complaint was filed against him by an imam in Calgary, Alberta.

Indeed, the West has changed and is changing more and quickly. The West, as part of its openness and inclusiveness, has received millions of Muslim immigrants from all over the globe and it is now affecting our culture in ways we never dreamt. Mohammed is now the second most popular name for boys in London, England and will soon be number one.

Canadian author Mark Steyn has warned in his book, American Alone, that the West faces major civilizational threats from a combination of it’s declining birth rate and an influx of Muslim immigrants, many of whom do not share Western values, and some of whom are violently opposed to Western values. Like Mr. Levant, Steyn too has been summoned to appear before the British Columbia Human Rights Commission (HRC) to answer before the thought police for portions of his book that were published in Maclean’s magazine (Canada’s largest weekly news magazine).

Mr. Steyn is being sued by three Islamic individuals who happen to be graduates from Canada’s most prestigious law school, Osgoode Hall at York University in Toronto.

“Complaints were submitted to Human Rights Commissions in B.C. and Ontario on the grounds that "the article subjects Canadian Muslims to hatred and contempt," according to a Canadian Islamic Congress (CIC) press release. In the release, the CIC labels Steyn's article as "flagrantly Islamophobic."(link)

The students contend that Steyn’s article, and Maclean’s decision to publish it, will lead to hatred and contempt towards Muslims and the religion of Islam. More broadly, they are saying that Islam is not in conflict with democracy or western values, and to prove their point, they are suing to prevent Mark Steyn from exercising his right of free speech.

While I am just a blogger, a peon, while aspiring and dreaming of being a columnist like Steyn, I am by trade an attorney at law, and am thus genuinely appalled by the actions of these law students. Their actions show either a complete absence of knowledge of Canadian and British common law history, or a flagrant opposition and antagonism to this history by their method of attack.

It is obvious that they realize that their case would be viewed as frivolous by any court worth it’s weight in salt, and as a result, their choice of venue is a quasi-judicial body for tattle-tales whose cases don’t meet muster according to real legal standards. Quasi-courts, like Human Rights Commissions, have only quasi-legitimacy at best. Their creation may have been well intentioned: to prevent injustice in housing and employment in the 1960’s and 1970’s as non-white immigrants first began to immigrant to Canada in noticeable numbers outside urban areas. However, good intentions can often lead to disastrous results.

These HRCs are dangerous (and illegitimate) because they defy hundreds of years of British legal tradition and history. The British legacy of the rule of law is one of the greatest legacies of British culture in all of history. Around the world in former colonies and protectorates, the traditions that stem from British courts often continue today even if those nations no longer consider themselves as part of the Commonwealth. The defiance of history observed by the HRCs and plaintiffs against Steyn are exemplified by a brief review of the time tested legal principles of standing, evidence, and damages.

The legal concept of standing requires an individual to show they have a personal interest in the case in question. American, Canadian, and British courts prevent third party standing in most incidents because such a plaintiff cannot prove a wrong has been committed against them. This prevents and individual from bringing a generalized complaint before the court. The HRC’s have no requirement for standing. So anyone, can sue for any reason, whether or not they have been offended, discriminated against, humiliated, or if nothing happened to them at all.

There are also no rules of evidence. There is no “proof” required, and hearsay abounds within a HRC trial. The lack of evidentiary rules makes most lawyers cringe. Everything, including the kitchen sink, can be included in a complaint for the HRC to examine without any fact finding, witnesses, or proof. The HRC members will then determine what is admissible, important, and “true”, which commonly means everything alleged.

Finally, damages are not required to be proven or quantified. Any civil suit in a “real” court requires damages to be proven so that a settlement or judgment can be reached after the evidence is weighed. The plaintiff must prove to the court and/or jury that the wrong has resulted in an injury or damages to their person, reputation, etc. HRCs don’t require such finicky items like “real” damages. A complaint is proof in itself for damages.

If it was not so frightening and dangerous to our foundation of laws and values, the suit against Steyn would be comical. The students have essentially proven Steyn’s thesis correct simply by filing their suit. Steyn’s book claims that the Western world will look radically different because of the dramatic increase in the Islamic population which will change our civilization’s values. Why? Because Islamic law does not recognize freedom of speech, freedom of the press, the equality of women, or freedom of the press. As it happens, Steyn is now being sued by Muslims for exercising his right of freedom of speech and freedom of the press.

It appears that these law students have not even considered the chilling effect their case will have on free speech or the freedom of the press. There is no right to be free from offence in the Canadian Charter of Rights, in the American Constitution and Bill of Rights, or in all of British legal tradition.

Even if Steyn’s words are everything that these students say they are (which I disagree with strongly), that is even more reason that they are deserving of protection. Offensive speech and political speech require the most vigilant protection of all. Stifling offensive speech is perhaps the greatest danger. Consider that professing liberal democratic views and pro-Jewish words in Nazi Germany would have been deemed very offensive by, perhaps, a majority of the population at the time. In the West, you have the right to be an idiot just as you have the right to be a genius. There is no obligation or right for the state to intervene to prevent you from saying idiotic things, so long as they are not endanger public safety (i.e., yelling “fire” in a theatre) libellous, slanderous, defamatory, or advocate violence.

Steyn does not advocate violence or hatred, he writes to warn the west of the danger that looms because of an ideology that opposes to the values the West has held dear for hundreds of years: freedom of speech, equality of opportunity, the rule of law, freedom of assembly, and freedom of religion. Steyn’s book has warned us of the threats to our Western values, the law suit against him exemplifies that the threat is real and immediate.

By: Jonathan D. Strong ©

Bush's First Online Interview

While there are more than a few conservatives upset with George W. these days, myself included, I will say in his defense that George is a good man. He's made some terrible decisions and listened to some brutal advice, but Dubya is a man I trust, far more than McCain, Obama, or Hillary.

Bush gave his first online interview (a first for any President as a matter of fact) with Yahoo and the Politico this week. The video is available here: http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/player/popup/index.php?cl=7804997

Bush has made some bad decisions on Iraq, Social Security, immigration, prescription drugs for seniors, education, and other issues, but I honestly believe that Bush did what he felt was best for the country without regard for popularity or polls. I want a President like that because it shows leadership rather than trend following. Trends and popularity are fleeting, conviction and leadership stand the test of time.

Global Warming and McCain

I don't think any politician is as exasperating as John McCain, and I include Obama and Hillary in that equation. From being so right on Iraq and the War on Terror, it's incredible that McCain can be so terribly wrong on campaign finance, immigration, and most importantly, global warming.

McCain, despite his maverick status, is anything but these days. In fact, he's just another sheep in the global warming herd. The fact that global warming has been re-labeled "climate change" should be enough to give any reasonable person pause as to the motives behind those pushing the global warming/climate change religion. And it takes faith to believe in global warming. Any idiot knows that the climate changes, of course it does, that's why I own shorts and a winter jacket.

But what I refuse to buy into is the idea that human activity is raising the temperature of the Earth. I'm supposed to be worried about carbon emissions. Do Al Gore, McCain, David Suzuki, Stephane Dion, and George W. Bush know what percentage carbon makes up in our atmosphere? Get ready for a shock, it makes up 0.03% of the air in the Earth's atmosphere. Not only that, life depends on carbon dioxide to continue, it is a naturally occurring substance without which there would be no human activity.

McCain is calling for cap and trade on global warming, but that would be disastrous because it would involve a massive intervention into the economy by the government. Why? Because who do you think will be initially selling the carbon credits to trade? You guessed it, the government! It ain't working so well in Europe, the Wall Street Journal destroys McCain's "market driven" plan in an editorial today.

So we're going to change our whole economy for 0.03% of the atmosphere's make-up with no promise of changing a thing, and no way to curb India, China, and Russia's emission's for the hope of stopping global warming, even though it stopped on its own in 1998? Please.

Green products are a gimmick, a fad, a crock, they're the modern day snake oil in my opinion. If I'm wrong, why doesn't Al Gore sell his mansion, and John Edwards sell his, and the Clinton's can start riding bikes on their campaign? Because, they want your money for the government to spend instead!

When you look at who is pushing global warming/climate change, it is quite clear that wealth redistribution (i.e., socialism/communism) is the main goal of the eco-cultists. “A climate change response must have at its heart a redistribution of wealth and resources,” said Emma Brindal, a climate justice campaigner coordinator for Friends of the Earth.(link)

Thanks Emma, you can preach your "Climate Justice" all you want, but I'm not buying it. I'm happy to reduce the amount of money we send to the fundraisers of jihadists and bloated Wahabi monarchies, but I'd rather just drill for more oil in North America.

Read about why we're preventing oil companies from reducing our dependence on foreign oil HERE.

According to the Department of Energy, U.S. oil production has fallen approximately 40 percent since 1985, while the consumption of oil has grown by more than 30 percent.

According to government estimates, there is enough oil in areas accessible to America - 112 billion barrels - to power more than 60 million cars for 60 years. The Outer Continental Shelf alone contains an estimated 86 billion barrels of oil and 420 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. Had President Clinton not vetoed exploration in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) in 1995, when oil was $19 a barrel, America would currently be receiving more than 1 million barrels a day domestically, all of it taken by better technology than existed more than 30 years ago.

Hillary Up Huge in West Virginia

It ain't over til it's over. Hillary isn't giving up yet, and I can't blame her considering there is no solution on Michigan and Florida delegates yet. She's also demolishing Barack Obama in West Virginia.

West Virginia may be scoffed at by "elites" and die-hard Obama fans, but WV is full of blue-collar, "bitter" workers that Obama needs to win if he has any hope of beating John McCain, and the same goes for Hillary. Polls show Clinton up 60-24 over Obama. Some commentators have suggested that Hillary may even be up by 80 points over Obama.

Clinton also has a substantial lead over Obama in Kentucky, although she trails Obama in Oregon, one of the most liberal states in the union.

Don't think this is wrapped up quite yet... It's awful close, but Hillary may have one last gasp.

US Government Expands to Biggest Size in History

President George Bush may be remembered more for the expansion of the US government than for the Iraq War. The surge has been extremely successful and will likely lead to a stable government in Iraq allied to the West, despite that violence continues in the country between militias and US and Iraqi Forces.

Economic success domestically speaking is quite another story:

The US government posted a $US159.3 billion ($A169.52 billion) surplus in April, helped by the mid-month deadline for individuals meeting 2007 tax obligations, but it was down from the prior year's surplus, the Treasury Department reported on Monday.

In the first seven months of fiscal 2008, which ends on September 30, the government's budget deficit swelled by 88.4 per cent to $US152.2 billion ($A161.97 billion), from $US80.8 billion ($A85.98 billion) in the first seven months of fiscal 2007.

...And not one candidate running for President is talking about shrinking the size of government. Expected from the Dems, sad for the GOP.

Harper Lays Out Military Strategy

Prime Minister Harper has set out the first long term strategy for the Canadian military in decades. Conservative, Liberal, NDP, or Green, every voter should concede that our men and women in uniform deserve nothing less from their civilian masters. Harper has established goals, targets, and strategies for missions, equipment, and personnel. It is long overdue.

Harper outlined a $30 billion dollar plan that will encompass the next 20 years and is called "Canada First". "Mr. Harper said the key element of the plan -- major elements of which had been previously announced -- was the long-term commitment to ensure predictable funding so the military can plan recruitment, equipment purchases and facility upgrades with certainty the money will be available."(National Post)

The goal is to expand the number of military personnel to 100,000, levels it was at for most of the Cold War. The idealist concept of "soft power" is finally over. Any country with real power understands that "soft power" is an excuse for weak nations. Harper rightfully stated that if Canada wants to be a player, it needs a military with teeth. "Otherwise, you forfeit your right to be a player," he said. "You are the one chattering on the sidelines that everyone smiles at but nobody listens to."

John Manley once observed that Canada liked to sit at the table for international affairs but always got up to go to the bathroom when the bill came. New equipment will be purchased, existing equipment will be upgraded, and out-dated equipment retired (finally - see Iltis).

The one flaw in the strategy is that no plans have been put forward for the purchase or construction of nuclear submarines. If Canada truly wants to protect and control the Arctic, it will be unable to do so without a fleet of nuclear subs. Mulroney was right back in the 1980's about Canada's need for them, unfortunately the Liberals were short sighted.

Nevertheless, Canada is moving in the right direction and will be more highly regarded on the international stage because it will have the capability to make a difference.

McCain on O'Reilly

Friday Joke (Warning Politically Incorrect)

Last chance, you may be offended. In Canada, the Charter of Rights does not contain a freedom from offense. The following joke may be dirty, sexist, bigoted, gender biased, homophobic, Islamophobic, Anglophobic, Amerophobic, Canaphobic, etc. If anything it's a little sexist, but it's JUST A JOKE! Enjoy.

BBQ RULES

We are about to enter the summer and BBQ season. Therefore it is important to refresh your memory on the etiquette of this sublime outdoor cooking activity, as it's the only type of cooking a 'real' man will do, probably because there is an element of danger involved.

When a man volunteers to do the BBQ the following chain of events are put into motion:

Routine...(1) The woman buys the food.
(2) The woman makes the salad, prepares the vegetables, and makes dessert.
(3) The woman prepares the meat for cooking, places it on a tray along with the necessary cooking utensils and sauces, and takes it to the man who is lounging beside the grill - beer in hand.Here comes the important part:
(4) THE MAN PLACES THE MEAT ON THE GRILL.

More routine....(5) The woman goes inside to organize the plates and cutlery.
(6) The woman comes out to tell the man that the meat is burning. Hethanks her and asks if she will bring another beer while he deals with the situation.

Important again:(7) THE MAN TAKES THE MEAT OFF THE GRILL AND HANDS IT TO THE WOMAN.

More routine....(8) The woman prepares the plates, salad, bread, utensils, napkins,sauces, and brings them to the table.
(9) After eating, the woman clears the table and does the dishes.

And most important of all:(10) Everyone PRAISES and THANKS HIM for his cooking efforts.
(11) The man asks the woman how she enjoyed 'her night off.'

And, upon seeing her annoyed reaction, concludes that there's just no pleasing some women....

OPEC's Greed and America's Generosity

Arab countries, South American tyrants, and leftists around the globe like to point to America as a greedy "empire" with imperial ambitions. Anyone with a solid knowledge of history knows that America is the most benevolent hegemon in the history of civilization. But that said, Fox News has an incredible story that displays how generous America really is and how disgustingly parsimonious OPEC nations are when it comes to feeding the world's poor:

Donor listings on WFP’s website show that this year, as in every year since 1999, the U.S. is far and away the biggest aid provider to WFP. Since 2001, U.S. donations to the food agency have averaged more than $1.16 billion annually — or more than five times as much as the next biggest donor, the European Commission.

This year, the U.S. had contributed $362.7 million to WFP just through May 4, according to the website. That figure does not include another $250 million above the planned yearly contribution that was promised by President George W. Bush in the wake of WFP’s April warning that a “silent tsunami” of rising food costs would add dramatically to the world population living in hunger. Nor does it include another $770 million in food aid that President Bush has asked Congress to provide as soon as possible.

On the other hand, Saudi Arabia, with oil revenues last year of $164 billion, does not even appear on the website donor list for 2008.

And while Canada, Australia, Western Europe and Japan have hastened to pony up an additional $260 million in aid since WFP’s latest appeal, the world organization told FOX News, the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), the international oil cartel, tossed in a grand total of $1.5 million in addition to the $50,000 it had previously donated.
The OPEC total amounts to roughly one minute and 10 seconds worth of the organization’s estimated $674 billion in annual oil revenues in 2007 — revenues that will be vastly exceeded in 2008 with the continuing spiral in world oil prices.[Emphasis added]

The only other major oil exporter who made the WFP list of 2008 donors was the United Arab Emirates, which kicked in $50,000. UAE oil revenues in 2007 were $63 billion.
By contrast, the poverty-stricken African republic of Burkina Faso is listed as donating more than $600,000, and Bangladesh, perennial home of many of the world’s hungriest people, is listed as donating nearly $5.8 million.(link)

Let me emphasize the facts here: the United States of America gives $362.7 million plus another $770 million in food aid requested by President Bush in emergency funds for a total of $1.133 BILLION. OPEC donated $1.5 million.

So Iran can continue to call America the Great Satan, hippies and socialists can call the US imperialists, anti-Americans around the globe can continue to hate Bush and American capitalism, but the world's poor and starving will continue living and eating thanks to America.

God bless the USA.

To see the donor list, go HERE.

I'm proud to say that Canada is #3 on the list despite only having a population of 32 million.