Month: March 2003

Sent to me by Michael and noted by Jon, the UK’s Sunday Mirror is reporting that Iraqi soldiers have already begun to surrender:

Terrified Iraqi soldiers have crossed the Kuwait border and tried to surrender to British forces–because they thought the war had already started.
[…]
The stunned Paras from 16 Air Assault Brigade were forced to tell the Iraqis they were not firing at them, and ordered them back to their home country telling them it was too early to surrender.

It’s both funny and sad. I hope these guys do the sensible thing when the shooting really does start; Saddam’s not worth dying for.

Twenty thousand people go to a baseball game, but the game was rained out. A refund was then due. The team was about to mail refunds when the Congressional Democrats stopped them and suggested that they send out refund amounts based on the Democrat National Committee’s interpretation of fairness. After all, if the refunds were made based on the price each person paid for the tickets, most of the money would go to the wealthiest ticket holders. That would be unconscionable. The DNC Plan says:
1. People in the $10 seats will get back $15, because they have less money to spend. Call it an “Earned Income Ticket Credit.” Persons “earn” it by demonstrating little ambition, few skills and poor work habits, thus keeping them at entry-level wages.
2. People in the $25 seats will get back $25, because that’s only fair.
3. People in the $50 seats will get back $1, because they already make a lot of money and don’t need a refund. If they afford a $50 ticket, then they must not be paying enough taxes.
4. People in the $75 luxury seats will have to pay another $50, because they have way to much to spend.
5. The people driving by the stadium who couldn’t afford to watch the game will get $10 each, even though they didn’t pay anything in, because they need the most help.
Now do you understand? If not, contact Representative Nancy Pelosi or Senator Tom Daschle for assistance.

I thought President Bush raised two very important points during the press conference regarding Saddam and the United Nations.
One, the Security Council unanimously passed Resolution 1441 calling for Saddam’s immediate and total disarmament. Has Saddam committed to this? The answer is no, end of story.
Two, the Security Council unanimously passed Resolution 1441. Why now are four members of the Security Council refusing to enforce disarmament of the Hussein regime? Can they honestly say that Saddam Hussein has abided by Resolution 1441? Can anyone?
Don’t think of starting with “look at the missiles he’s destroyed so far.” Nineteen missiles. Nineteen, out of of one hundred. Destruction which is nothing more than a delaying tactic. Destruction that would not be happening without the quarter of a million troops stationed around the borders of Iraq. Can you honestly tell me that the destruction of nineteen missiles is the result solely because of the presence of weapons inspectors? Puh-leeze.

You do not have a constitutional right to a job or free/cheap health care, and it is not the job of the federal, state, or local government to provide you with either.
So students protesting against the war may continue to do so, but please don’t make the above cases. The first and foremost duty of the federal government is the protection of our nation from enemies foreign and domestic. Taking out Saddam falls into this category.
Government doesn’t “create jobs,” a phrase I’m sick of hearing from the mouths of politicians, including our President (whom I support, in case you haven’t guessed). The only thing government can do is affect the economy in such a way that it is stimulated to the point that the private sector grows, leading to higher employment. One good way to do this is by lowering and eliminating taxes.
Lower tax revenue inevitably means government will have to look at the things it funds and make hard choices. Defense of our nation is not a hard choice; it is a vital responsibility and should be funded accordingly (Dan’s comment re: un-needed weapons systems notwithstanding). Things like Social Security, Medicare — including the President’s proposed prescription drug aid, the Dept. of Education, funding to the United Nations, the IMF, et al, should and could be eliminated.
None of the above programs has benefited the American citizenry in the long term. They have made us more dependent, individually, upon the federal government, and restricted our sovereignty as a nation. Our country will be better after we cast off these oppressive, and unconstitutional, items.
And for crying out loud, tax cuts do not cause deficits! Spending causes deficits!