Well, a new peace index has come out. It's been endorsed by The Economist, as well as Sir Richard Branson, Tutu, and 20th century's best - Jimmy Carter. The index is meant to rank in order the most peaceful countries in the world, from 1 to 119. Is anyone surprised that the US came in at 96 (one better than Iran - woo hoo!)?
What's funny is looking at the top 20. 19 of the top 20 countries are either directly or indirectly protected by the US (Bhutan stands alone). The list includes 7 of the top 20 which were directly liberated by US forces during the past 65 years. Don't get me wrong - I love the fact that Norway, New Zealand, Denmark, Ireland, Japan, and Canada are so peaceful and I love all of these countries. But just pointing out the obvious (to some) - that these countries might, just might not be so peaceful if a certain country had not helped out. No?
I love international surveys! Especially those based upon UN principles!
When asked why a man with the deadly form of TB returned to the U.S. from Europe, he responded that he was afraid he would diewithout treatment in the U.S.
I don't understand - I thought the U.S. healthcare system was the worst in the world, behind the socialized systems in Europe (and Michael Moore's new favorite, Cuba). When it comes to a life and death situation, everyone knows that the U.S. is by far the best health care system in the world, despite what Democrats might tell you.
Surfers have a reputation for being an environmentally friendly bunch. Until their personal lifestyles are affected that is. British surfers are complaining about the new wave energy project, which, while it's nice clean energy, might also impact their lovely waves.
If it stops a complete industry -- jobs, peoples' lives -- then it's livelihoods versus going green,'' says Mick Warren, a surfer and manager of the Watering Hole, a bar on Perran Beach. ``I'm probably a bit selfish. I want my waves.''
I empathize completely. If it impacts peoples' jobs and lives, yeah - then it's gonna be a problem for some people.
Listen to Jim Funk, a pilot in the Iowa National Guard. He says, "Hello media, do you know you indirectly kill American soldiers every day? You inspire and report the enemy's objective every day. You are the enemy's greatest weapon. The enemy cannot beat us on the battlefield so all he does is try to wreak enough havoc and have you report it every day. With you and the enemy using each other, you continually break the will of the American public and American government.
"We go out daily and bust and kill the enemy, uncover and destroy huge weapons caches and continue to establish infrastructure. So daily we put a whoopin on the enemy, but all the enemy has to do is turn on the TV and get re-inspired. He gets to see his daily roadside bomb, truck bomb, suicide bomber or mortar attack. He doesn't see any accomplishments of the U.S. military (FOX, you're not exempt, you suck also).
"Let's give you an example. A couple of days ago we conducted an air assault. We lifted troops into an area for an operation. The operation went well and our ground troops killed (insurgents) and took several prisoners, freed a few hostages and uncovered a weapons cache containing munitions and chemicals that were going to be used in improvised bombs.
"The next morning I woke up and turned on AFN (Armed Forces Network) and watched the nightly news (NBC). Nothing, none of that reported. But the daily car bomb report was reported, and the file footage was not even from the event. There was a car bomb in the Sadr City area and your news report showed old car bomb footage from another part of town from some other time.
"So we really set the enemy back that night but all the enemy had to do was turn on the news and be reassured that the enemy's agenda (objective) was still going to be fed to the American public."We, the soldiers, keep breaking the back of the enemy. You, the media, keep rejuvenating the enemy.
Oh the irony. The worst President in American history tries to put that tag on President Bush. Even President Clinton has enough class not to denigrate the office with complete vitriol. Jimmy Carter is desperately trying to finish his career the same disgrace by which we have come to know him.
A quick history snapshot of Ted Kennedy's experience with illegal immigration laws:
1965: "The bill will not flood our cities with immigrants. It will not upset the ethnic mix of our society, it will not relax the standards of admission, it will not cause American workers to lose their jobs."
1986: "This amnesty will give citizenship to only 1.1 to 1.3 million illegal aliens, will secure the borders henceforth. We will never again bring forward another amnesty bill like this."
2007: "Now is the time for action: 2007 is the year we must fix our broken system...Politics is the art of the possible, and the agreement we just reached is the best possible chance we will have in years to secure our borders, bring millions of people out of the shadow and into the sunshine of America."
And every time we have an amnesty bill, the pattern repeats itself in greater numbers. One thing is certain: any hopes John McCain once had for the Presidency are now completely gone.
If the amnesty bill that passed the Senate today gets signed by the President, I think Bush's poll numbers will dip to the low 20s. Granted, he probably doesn't care at this point, but Bush can basically say goodbye to most conservative support for good. When Sens. Kennedy and Feinstein praise a bill, you know there is something wrong with it.
It would be fun to see how the media would react if Obama werw a Republican. After his bashing of Wal-Mart, it was learned that Obama's wife Michelle is a board member for a food company whose largest customer is...Wal-Mart. Further, Michelle makes a decent income from her relationship with the firm whose profitability is dependent, no doubt, on Wal-Mart. And this is how Obama defends his hypocrisy:
"Michelle and I have to live in the world and pay taxes and pay for our kids and save for retirement".
I guess the Obamas think they are an exception in that regard. More at American Thinker.
It's been a long while since I last posted, so I figured I would offer a quick thought on the first two Republican debates. The first one, moderated by MSNBC a few weeks ago, was by far the most pathetic, laughable debate I had ever seen (in terms of idiotic questions).
The debate tonight hosted by Fox was perhaps the best coordinated and moderated debate I had ever seen. It offered insightful, tailored questions and an opportunity for everyone to differentiate themselves (at least to some extent).
The best line of the night: "Congress spends money like John Edwards in a beauty shop." - Mike Huckabee
Ron Paul? Join the Democratic party - your attitude on the war makes you sound like one.
But I think Mitt Romney is the horse to beat in 2008. Great stuff overall.
PS - The debate poll offered by Fox by calling in and "voting for who you thought won" was clearly bastardized by Democrats, who must have pre-determined that they would skew the results; hence Ron Paul's significant showing. I think these polls are silly anyway, so they should be ignored.