A Marine reports from Iraq

This article was in the Washington Post today. There's really no need to elaborate on it. I really don't like to repost entire articles; I prefer to post a link and write up my own commentary on them, but I want to ensure everyone reads this piece. Our Marines are on the ground, kicking ass and taking names, and they don't understand why the press keeps saying we're losing the war. Supporting our troops does not mean bringing them home so they can live in fear of terrorists, it means giving them what they need to win. This article talks about what they really need:

A Marine reports from Iraq

TODAY'S COLUMNIST
By An anonymous Marine
November 22, 2005

Editor's note: There's nothing like word from the field to know what works, what doesn't and how the enemy's tactics are affecting our soldiers in battle. Below is one U.S. Marine's take on those questions, verified and relayed to us through his father, a retired Marine. We've withheld the Marine's name and his father's to spare them the inevitable political or institutional flap. Among the most interesting tidbits: Our Marine reports that servicemen are shocked at negative press coverage of the war, and they believe the United States is winning decisively -- but that the number of troops in the field should be bolstered. On equipment, our Marine thinks the older, battle-tested parts of the U.S. arsenal are the most useful equipment in the fight against insurgents. M-16s aren't much good, but "Ma Deuce" is, and the .45 pistol is highly coveted. Body armor has plusses and minuses.

Hello to all my fellow gunners, military buffs, veterans and interested guys. A couple of weekends ago I got to spend time with my son... [He] spent seven months at "Camp Blue Diamond" in Ramadi, a.k.a. "Fort Apache." He saw and did a lot. The following is what he told me about weapons, equipment, tactics and other miscellaneous information which may be of interest to you. Nothing is by any means classified. No politics here, just a Marine with a bird's eye view's opinions.
• The M-16 rifle: Thumbs down. Chronic jamming problems with the sand over there, which is like talcum powder. The sand is everywhere. You feel filthy two minutes after a shower. The M-4 carbine version is more popular because it's lighter and shorter, but it also has jamming problems. Marines like the ability to mount the various optical gunsights and weapons lights on the picatinny rails, but the weapon itself is not great in a desert environment. They all hate the 5.56mm (.223) round. Poor penetration on the cinderblock structure common over there and even torso hits cannot be reliably counted on to put the enemy down. Fun fact: Random autopsies on dead insurgents shows a high level of opiate use.
• The M243 SAW (squad assault weapon) .223 cal: Big thumbs down. Drum-fed light machine gun. Universally considered a piece of s***. Chronic jamming problems, most of which require partial disassembly. That's fun in the middle of a firefight.
• The M9 Beretta 9mm: mixed bag. Good gun, performs well in a desert environment, but everyone hates the 9mm cartridge. The use of handguns for self-defense is actually fairly common. Same old story on the 9mm: Bad guys get hit multiple times but are still in the fight.
• Mossberg 12ga. Military shotgun: Works well and is used frequently for clearing houses, to good effect.
• The M240 Machine Gun: 7.62 Nato (.308) cal belt-fed machine gun: Thumbs up. Developed to replace the old M-60 -- what a beautiful weapon that was -- it is accurate, reliable and the 7.62 round puts 'em down. Originally developed as a vehicle-mounted weapon, more and more are being dismounted and taken into the field by infantry. The 7.62 round chews up the structure over there.
• The M2 .50 cal heavy machine gun: Thumbs way, way up. "Ma deuce" is still worth her considerable weight in gold. The ultimate fight-stopper, puts their d**** in the dirt every time. The most coveted weapon in-theater.
• The .45 pistol: Thumbs up. Still the best pistol round out there. Everybody authorized to carry a sidearm is trying to get their hands on one. With few exceptions, it can reliably be expected to put 'em down with a torso hit. The special-ops guys -- who are doing most of the pistol work -- use the HK military model and supposedly love it. The old government model .45s are being re-issued en masse.
• The M-14: Thumbs up. It is being re-issued in bulk, mostly in a modified version to special-ops guys. Modifications include lightweight Kevlar stocks and low-power red dot or ACOG sights. Very reliable in the sandy environment, and people love the 7.62 round.
• The Barrett .50 cal sniper rifle: Thumbs way up. Spectacular range and accuracy and hits like a freight train. Used frequently to take out vehicle suicide bombers -- we actually stop a lot of them -- and barricaded enemies. Definitely here to stay.
• The M24 sniper rifle: Thumbs up. Mostly in 308 but some in 300 win mag. Heavily modified Remington 700s. Great performance. Snipers have been using them heavily to great effect. Rumor has it that a Marine sniper on his third tour in Anbar province has actually exceeded Carlos Hathcock's record for confirmed kills with over 100.
• The new body armor: Thumbs up. Relatively light at approximately six pounds and can reliably be expected to soak up small shrapnel and even stop an AK-47 round. The bad news: Hot as s*** to wear, almost unbearable in the summer heat, which averages over 120 degrees. Also, the enemy now goes for head shots whenever possible. All the bull**** about the "old" body armor making our guys vulnerable to improvised-explosive devices was a non-starter. The IED explosions are enormous and body armor doesn't make any difference at all in most cases.
• Night Vision and Infrared Equipment: Thumbs way up. Spectacular performance. Our guys see in the dark and own the night, period. Very little enemy action after evening prayers. More and more of the enemy are being whacked at night during movement by our hunter-killer teams. We've all seen the videos.
• Lights: Thumbs up. Most of the weapon-mounted and personal lights are Surefires, and the troops love 'em. Invaluable for night urban operations. [Name redacted] carried a $34 Surefire G2 on a neck lanyard and loved it.

I can't help but notice that most of the good fighting weapons and ordnance are 50 or more years old. With all our technology, it's the World War II- and Vietnam-era weapons that everybody wants. The infantry fighting is frequent, up close and brutal. No quarter is given or shown.
Bad guy weapons:
• Mostly AK47s. The entire country is an arsenal. Works better in the desert than the M16 and the .308 Russian round kills reliably. PKM belt-fed light machine guns are also common and effective. Luckily, the enemy mostly shoots like s***. Undisciplined "spray and pray"-type fire. However, precision weapons are more and more common, especially sniper rifles. Fun fact: Captured enemy have apparently marveled at the marksmanship of our guys and how hard they fight. They are apparently told in jihad school that the Americans rely solely on technology, and can be easily beaten in close quarters combat for their lack of toughness. Let's just say they know better now.
• The RPG: Probably the infantry weapon most feared by our guys. Simple, reliable and as common as dog****. The enemy responded to our up-armored Humvees by aiming at the windshields, often at point blank range. Still killing a lot of our guys.
• The improvised-explosive device: The biggest killer of all. Can be anything from old Soviet anti-armor mines to jerry-rigged artillery shells. A lot found in [name redacted]'s area were in abandoned cars. The enemy would take two or three 155mm artillery shells and wire them together. Most were detonated by cell phone, and the explosions are enormous. You're not safe in any vehicle, even an M1 tank.
Driving is by far the most dangerous thing our guys do over there. Lately, they are much more sophisticated "shape charges" (Iranian) specifically designed to penetrate armor. Fact: Most of the ready-made IEDs are supplied by Iran, the country which is also providing terrorists, Hezbollah types, to train the insurgents in their use and tactics. That's why the attacks have been so deadly lately. Their concealment methods are ingenious, the latest being shape charges in Styrofoam containers spray-painted to look like the cinderblocks that litter all Iraqi roads. We find about 40 percent before they detonate. The bomb-disposal guys are unsung heroes of this war.
• Mortars and rockets: Very prevalent. The Soviet-era 122mm rockets, with a range of 18 kilometers, are becoming more prevalent. One of [name redacted]'s NCOs lost a leg to one. These weapons cause a lot of damage "inside the wire." [Name redacted]'s base was hit almost daily his entire time there by mortar and rocket fire, often at night to disrupt sleep patterns and cause fatigue (it worked). More of a psychological weapon than anything else. The enemy mortar teams would jump out of vehicles, fire a few rounds and then haul *** in a matter of seconds.
Bad guy technology is simple yet effective. Most communication is by cell and satellite phones and also by email on laptops. They use handheld Global Positioning System units for navigation and "Google Earth" for overhead views of our positions. Their weapons are good, if not fancy, and prevalent. Their explosives and bomb technology is top of the line. Night vision is rare.
They are very careless with their equipment, however, and the captured GPS units and laptops are intelligence treasure troves when captured.
Who are the bad guys? Most of the carnage is caused by the Zarqawi al Qaeda group. They operate mostly in Anbar province -- Fallujah and Ramadi. These are mostly "foreigners," that is, non-Iraqi Sunni Arab jihadists from all over the Muslim world and Europe. Most enter Iraq through Syria -- with, of course, the knowledge and complicity of the Syrian government -- and then travel down the "rat line" which is the trail of towns along the Euphrates River that we've been hitting hard for the last few months. Some are virtually untrained young jihadists who end up as suicide bombers or are used in "sacrifice squads."
Most, however, are hard-core terrorists from all the usual suspects -- al Qaeda, Hezbollah and Hamas. These are the guys running around murdering civilians en masse and cutting heads off. The Chechens, many of whom are Caucasian, are supposedly the most ruthless and the best fighters. In the Baghdad area and south, most of the insurgents are Iranian inspired and led Iraqi Shi'ites. The Iranian Shia have been very adept at infiltrating the Iraqi local government, police and army. Since the early 1980s during the Iran-Iraq war, they have had a massive spy and agitator network there. Most of the Saddam loyalists were killed, captured or gave up long ago.
Bad guy tactics: When the enemy is engaged on an infantry level they get their a**** kicked every time. Brave, but stupid. Suicidal banzai-type charges were very common earlier in the war and still occur. They will literally sacrifice eight-to-10 man teams in suicide squads by sending them screaming and firing AKs and RPGs directly at our bases just to probe the defenses. They get mowed down like grass every time -- see the M2 and M240 above. [Name redacted]'s base was hit like this often. When engaged, the enemy has a tendency to flee to the same building, probably for what they think will be a glorious last stand. Instead, we call in air and that's the end of that, more often than not.
These hole-ups are referred to as "Alpha Whiskey Romeos" ("Allah's Waiting Room"). We have the laser-guided ground-air thing down to a science. The fast movers, mostly Marine F-18s, are taking an ever-increasing toll on the enemy. When caught out in the open, the helicopter gunships and AC-130 Spectre gunships cut them to ribbons with cannon and rocket fire, especially at night. Interestingly, artillery is hardly used at all. Fun fact: The enemy death toll is supposedly between 45,000 and 50,000. That is why we're seeing fewer and fewer infantry attacks and more improvised-explosive devices, suicide bomber s***. The new strategy is simple: attrition.
The insurgent tactic most frustrating is their use of civilian non-combatants as cover. They know we do all we can to avoid civilian casualties, so therefore schools, hospitals and especially mosques are locations where they meet, stage for attacks, cache weapons and ammo and flee to when engaged. They have absolutely no regard whatsoever for civilian casualties. They will terrorize locals and murder without hesitation anyone believed to be sympathetic to the Americans or the new Iraqi government. Kidnapping of family members, especially children, is common to influence people they are trying to influence but cannot otherwise reach, such as local government officials, clerics or tribal leaders, etc.
The first thing our guys are told is, "don't get captured." They know that if captured they will be tortured and beheaded on the Internet. Zarqawi openly offers bounties for anyone who brings him a live American serviceman.
This motivates the criminal element who otherwise don't give a s*** about the war. A lot of the beheading victims were actually kidnapped by common criminals and sold to Zarqawi. As such, for our guys, every fight is to the death. Surrender is not an option.
The Iraqis are a mixed bag. Some fight well, others aren't worth a s***.
Most do okay with American support. Finding leaders is hard, but they are getting better. It is widely viewed that Zarqawi's use of suicide bombers, en masse, against the civilian population was a serious tactical mistake.
Many Iraqis were galvanized and the caliber of recruits in the Army and the police forces went up, along with their motivation. It also led to an exponential increase in good intelligence because the Iraqis are sick of the insurgent attacks against civilians. The Kurds are solidly pro-American and fearless fighters.
According to [name redacted], morale among our guys is very high. They not only believe they are winning, but that they are winning decisively. They are stunned and dismayed by what they see in the American press, whom they almost universally view as against them. The embedded reporters are despised and distrusted. They are inflicting casualties at a rate of 20-1 and then see s*** like "Are we losing in Iraq?" on television and the print media.
For the most part, they are satisfied with their equipment, food and leadership. Bottom line, though, and they all say this: There are not enough guys there to drive the final stake through the heart of the insurgency, primarily because there aren't enough troops in-theater to shut down the borders with Iran and Syria. The Iranians and the Syrians just cannot stand the thought of Iraq being an American ally -- with, of course, permanent U.S. bases there.
That's it, hope you found it interesting, I sure did.

Labels: heroes, iraq

Permalink

Military Recruiting and Evidence of WMDs

Once again I apologize. I've been remiss in keeping the blog current. I'm only one person, and I expect work conditions to keep me in this semi-blogging state probably through the holidays. In the meantime, I'll try to get one or two posts a week up, and if any non-bloggers out there have any good original material, send it my way and I'll see if I can't fill some gaps.

The first thing I want to mention today is Colin Powell. He's apologized for his speech in the UN. NewsMax asked a very good question, though -- why has everyone forgotten the actual evidence he presented? Does no one else remember the audio tape of a base commander freaking out because inspectors were coming to his base, and he still had some evidence? If not, the link above has a transcript.

The second thing I want to mention is an article entitled Who Bears the Burden? Demographic Characteristics of U.S. Military Recruits Before and After 9/11. I hate the title, personally -- it should be "Who Carries the Torch?" or something a little more reflective of the debt we owe those who protect our nation. The upshot of the article is that despite liberal assertations to the contrary, the military is not feeding off the poor and underprivileged. Military recruits come from all walks of life, but are slightly skewed towards the wealthier end of the scale. Since 9/11, the average recruit is better educated and better off than before.

What does this mean? It means that despite a few angry personnel mouthing off in the MSM, the majority of our Soldiers and Sailors joined not out of necessity, but out of desire to serve. They believe in America, they believe in our country, and they believe in our elected leaders. They don't feel they're being let down, as liberals claim, but rather that they are backing us up.

Labels: heroes, iraq, UN

Permalink

This Week in Iraq

Busy week for me here, so I haven't had as much time to do research as I'd like. That seems to be turning into a tradition here, but I'll do my best.

We've seen construction start on a number of water and sanitation projects in Iraq this week: a new sewer in Baghdad (11/8), some water compact units in Baghdad (11/11), and a new water transmission main in Fallujah (11/13). Work also completed on a water network project in Baghdad (11/10), and a new electricity network in Baghdad (11/9).

Many of these projects are now being done with local labor, which improves the economy and raises employment rates. The picture to the left shows Iraqi residents repairing their own electric lines, work that used to be done by US contractors. There's a good article about this here. The CENTCOM newsletter also listed a bunch of other signs of progress this week, but I can't provide any more detail on these:

• Fifty-eight teachers, supervisors, and administrators attend training to improve teaching methods.
• The Model Schools training program shows continued success in preparing secondary school teachers.
• Iraq Transition Initiative (ITI) grant provides for the rehabilitation of a local road, employing 60 local residents.
• ITI helps expand a non-governmental organization (NGO) focused on promoting gender equality and combating the physical abuse of women.
• A community center in northern Iraq, established to assist returning refugees, receives help in facilitating a training series.
• Construction continues on the library and student center for a university in the Wassit governorate.
• Universities discuss Centers for Excellence (CFE) to increase cross cultural understanding.
• Reconstruction of primary school in Qadissiyah completed.
• Work continues on Al-Sadder Stadium.
• Internet center in Wassit benefits Persons with Disabilities (PWD).

I'm hearing increasing reports of local support for terrorists diminishing within Iraq, and even cases of factional fighting between terrorist groups. Last year, after the elections, the terrorists suffered from a loss of support. Now, with elections approaching again, it appears they will suffer even more as Sunnis seem ready to vote in large numbers.

Labels: iraq

Permalink

More News About Jordan

Moustafa Akkad and his daughter died in the Amman terrorist attacks. Don't recognize his name? Sounds like another terrorist to you? Akkad was born in Aleppo, but immigrated to Los Angeles and become a filmmaker. He was responsible, among other films, for all eight Halloween horror flicks. Just thought you should know that. The Lebanese Daily Star carried the story here.

So the Washington Post carried an article today about Washington area Muslims mourning relatives lost in the attacks. Apparently two attendees of the Falls Church Dar Al-Hijrah Islamic Center lost a combined 17 relatives. Sheikh Shaker Elsayed decried "...this senseless act -- people who did nothing but go about celebrating the wedding of their son and daughter." He also said that Islam does not condone the killing of innocents.

What a nice man, and right here in our own backyard, too.

I could have swore I'd heard that name before. Shaker Elsayed used to be the Secretary General of the Muslim American Society. I wasn't surprised when The Counterterrorism Blog told me in this article why the name Sheikh Shaker Elsayed sounded familiar. Let me quote his speeches when he isn't comforting relatives of those who died in terrorist attacks:

"...about the subject unfairly named suicide bomber, homicide bomber, murderers, or killers. Our answer to this issue is simple... The Islamic scholars said whenever there is an attack on an Islamic state or occupation, or the honor of the Muslims has been violated, the Jihad is a must for everyone, a child, a lady and a man. They have to make Jihad with every tool that they can get in their hand. Anything that they can get in their hand and if they don't have anything in their hand then they can fight with their hand without weapons..."

"We say to the Palestinian people, 'Go ahead. Continue your fight against occupation no matter what name they give you because we give you the name of courageous people who stand for the rights and we're standing with you.' ...My name is Shaker Elsayed ... I'm the Secretary General of the Muslim American Society."

Heck, one only has to look at his perverted view on the US and Iraq, including the bizarre belief that the US ordered Saddam Hussein to attack Kuwait so that we could drove him out in order to justify our "occupation" of Saudi Arabia. It's clear this man sees the world through blood-colored glasses.

So what's my point? We've got a rat in our own backyard, encouraging terrorism. Suddenly his good friends and followers come up and tell them they lost close relatives in a terrorist attack, and now he says Zarqawi was wrong. Wrong for hurting his friends, that is -- he should have concentrated on American troops and Israelis. You gotta love that hypocrisy.

Labels: iraq, jordan, terrorism

Permalink

Burn in hell, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi!

I'm coming late to this topic (I've been overworked and unable to post for awhile now), but I couldn't let this one slip by. Thousands of protestors took to the streets in Jordan, denouncing Al Qaeda, and specifically the Jordanian Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. This fits in nicely with my last post about Moroccan protests against Al Qaeda. The difference? Western media covered this one. (AP, CNN, USA Today)

Interestingly, of that list none mentioned that Zarqawi was born in Jordan. Also, while some mentioned the protests occurred across the country, none mentioned the specific cities of Zarqa (Zarqawi's birthplace), Aqaba (the site of the last terrorist attack in Jordan), and Maan (considered the most fundamentalist of Jordanian cities). Al Jazeera did cover that, and more. They were also the only major press outlet to post pictures of the protests.

Bloggers have been covering this very well, as you can see in this partial list:

• "Burn in hell, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi!", In The Bullpen
  
• Jordanians Protest al-Zarqawi, Right Truth
• Terror attacks spark fury in Jordan, Jihad Watch

Why the increased coverage of this protest, and none at all of the Moroccan protests? Perhaps it's because Jordan has historically allied itself with the US. Jordan was a bigger supporter of the US invasion of Iraq than, say, France... and the western news consistently fails to even mention the rioters in France are Muslim. It appears as if the media is content to draw false images of the world as they want to perceive it.

Reading the news, one could draw the following conclusions:

1. The French poor are rioting because France's socialistic system has failed to take care of them. Reality: Muslims in France are attempting to establish autonomous ghettos where they will be able to self-rule under Sharia law, thus allowing Wahhabist sanctuaries in Europe.
2. Iraqi's have attacked Jordan because Jordan supported the invasion of Iraq. Reality: Very few suicide bombers are Iraqi. The hotel bombings were orchestrated and prepared in Iraq, by a Jordanian, and conducted by non-Iraqi citizens.
3. The majority of Sunni Muslims support Al Qaeda. Reality: Nearly one hundred percent of Jordanians are Sunnis. Across the Middle East, there is no country in which the majority of Muslims, much less Sunnis, support Al Qaeda.

I'd go on, but I'm running low on time and energy. I can only continue to ask that readers continue to look beyond the MSM for news and perspective on world events.

Labels: France, jordan, media, Morocco, terrorism

Permalink

Riots in Morocco

Another day, another riot where thousands pour in the streets, chanting "Death to America, Death to Israel!", and generally being a pain in the neck, right? No, not at all. Fortunately, there are millions of Muslims in the world who understand that death and destruction are wrong, and that freedom and liberty are rights. This picture shows them protesting against Al Qaeda. Betcha didn't see that on CNN, did you? As of today, searching CNN.com's website produces no mention of them, but they did cover a Moroccan sports story from the same day! Oddly enough, the AP and Reutuers did release it, but the MSM hasn't picked it up yet.

Once again, a hat tip to Al Jazeera for covering this story that the western press is afraid to touch. Also, the Lebanese Daily Star and the Iraqi Al Mendhar covered the story well.

After two Moroccans were kidnapped and sentanced to death by Al Qaeda in Iraq, Moroccans have become inflamed. Morocco has been supportive of the new Iraqi government, and the Iraqi people. In a speech that I felt echoed some of President Bush's comments, Moroccan Foreign Ministry said its embassy would not succumb to "blackmail," particularly "coming from a terrorist group which cannot claim to represent Iraq."

Funny how Moroccans in France violently riot, trying to gain the right to enforce Sharia law within the ghettoes, while Moroccans in Morocco peacefully demonstrate against violence.

Good comments on these protests are over at Hyscience, Gateway Pundit, In the Bullpen, and Officers Club. Check them all out.

Labels: iraq, media, Morocco

Permalink

This Week in Iraq

Yes, I know, I'm late. I apologize, but I've been very busy. Still, here's some news from Iraq for the last week.

Omar has some great pictures of a family amusement park built by Americans to give Iraqi families something to enjoy. Check out his blog entry to see more photos like the one here. Samawa is the MSM's darling city of death and destruction; if you listen to them, there is nothing in the city but terrorists trying to kill Americans. These photos show the side of the majority, ordinary people who want to enjoy life.

I'd also like to point out this week saw a wave of major infrastructure projects beginning work. Construction began on a new sewer system in Mosul (11/1). Also new water systems in Al Dayer (11/2), Karadah (11/3), and Kirkuk (11/6). A new substation feeder broke ground in Altrush as well (11/4).

On a humor note, I'd like to also draw your attention to two terrorists in Baghdad who were assembling a car bomb when it detonated. In America, we teach children not to make homemade explosives. If only that message were taught around the world....

In somewhat related news, Project Valor-IT is trying to raise money to purchase voice-activated laptops for Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, and Marines with hand or arm injuries. It's being run as a competition between supporters of each of the service (as of writing Navy is winning). To donate, go to this link and support your troops.

Lastly, I want to show the dedication that our troops have to defending our freedom. Roderick Evans was at home when a recruiter stopped by to talk to his son. Inspired by the recruiter, Roderick said he wanted to join as well. Unfortunately, at 418 pounds, Roderick was too heavy to walk a block, much less fight a war. To join, he began a workout regimen that caused him to lose 230 pounds. He's now a private in the Reserves, undergoing combat medical training. For more information (and photographs) of this amazing story, click here.

Labels: heroes, iraq

Permalink

Democrats Reject Free Speech

If you've been following campaign finance reform at all (and you should), then you probably know that the courts ruled public communications to include the Internet. This means that any speech on the Internet endorsing or disparaging a candidate or political party in an election would be considered regulated campaign contributions. In other words, every blogger in America who posted opinions on an election should add the cost of the endorsement (computer, blogging service, bandwidth, etc.) and count that as a campaign contribution. Campaigns should also track these contributions to ensure they don't exceed any limits.

I'm against Campaign Finance Reform in general. Every time I see it, its invariably a proposal to limit speech somehow. When the courts determined that the most recent law applied to the Internet, it had the effect of legally regulating speech by individuals so far as to effectively prohibit it.

HR Bill 1606 was introduced to plug that gap. Specifically, it states:

Paragraph (22) of section 301 of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 431(22)) is amended by adding at the end the following new sentence: `Such term shall not include communications over the Internet.'.

A very simple bill that shouldn't generate any opposition, right? Representative Hensarling (TX-5) didn't think so, and he brought the bill to a vote on a motion to suspend the rules. This is typically done for bills that are so noncontroversial that normal procedures are pointless; instead a vote is brought out immediately. To prevent abuse, bills brought forward under this motion require a two-thirds majority to pass. Clear so far?

The bill didn't pass. Click here for a XML breakout of who voted what, or here for some basic analysis include a colored map of the nation. The vote was roughly along party lines, with 82% of Republicans voting Aye, and 24% of Democrats doing the same. Totals were 225 Aye, 182 Nay, 26 Not Voting. While that's a majority, it didn't meet the higher requirements brought forth by suspending the rules.

Representative Martha Blackburn has some thoughts on why it didn't pass, and Matt Johnston has some more at his blog. But both missed the underlying reason -- the majority of the liberal left oppose free speech. Rather than allowing a free discourse of ideas, they believe that Americans should be feed a healthy mixture of approved ideas. Let the public be educated by the government; don't let the public experiment with the government.

Don't believe it? Just look to California, where Gov. Schwarzenegger has put Proposition 75 up for a referendum on November 8th. This law, if passed, would prohibit unions of public employees from spending dues on contributions to political parties and candidates. A quick trip to the liberal Alliance for a Better California will list many reasons why this bill is bad:

Supporters of Prop. 75 aren’t for workers rights. They’re using that argument as a smokescreen to push their real agenda. They’re against the minimum wage, against strengthening employee health care and against the eight-hour work day. And they support cuts to education, health care and oppose retirement security.

Nevermind that none of that is mentioned in the bill. The Alliance does post the real reason they oppose Proposition 75: "Prop. 75 is designed to reduce our ability to respond when politicians would harm education, health care and public safety, effectively clearing the opposition to the Governor’s education and health care cuts." It's not about education or health care cuts; those are scare tactics to motivate voters. It's the first phrase -- "Prop. 75 is designed to reduce our ability to respond..."

Yes, Proposition 75 forces the public to do the actual thinking and voting. Democrats prefer a system where the union forces the public to hand over cash in dues in order to keep their jobs. The union then distributes that money to political causes that it believes are right. What makes Proposition 75 such a good idea is that it specifically targets public employees. Did you realize that many state government employees, as a condition of employment, must pay union dues -- and then watch as the union passes that money directly to the Democratic party?

The good news? Polls show a majority of Californians oppose Porposition 75. And HR 1606 is not dead. Now that it failed to bypass the rules, it can still be considered as a conventional bill. This is a stumbling block, but a minor one. With a majority of representatives in favor, it stands a very good chance of passing. Improve that chance by writing your representative and senator today! Also, check out EFF's resources for bloggers, and blogging freedom.

Labels: free speech, personal freedoms

Permalink

What the Press Won't Tell You

Michelle Malkin writes in a wonderful piece entitled "All the news that's fit to omit" about a New York Times article opining about the 2,000 casualty in Iraq (link here, but you have to pay). Let me start by saying that the article failed to alert readers to the fact that nearly a quarter of those deaths were not combat related. I don't know why 1,588 combat fatalities is a "grim milestone," but I'll grant the NY Times that license to embellish.

What bothers me is that the article focuses on a single soldier, Cpl Jeffrey B. Starr, who died April 30th in Ramadi. Note that Cpl Starr wasn't the 2,000 soldier to die, rather, he died months ago. He was chosen out of all the soldiers who perished in Iraq, to symbolize the cost of the war. The title of the piece? THE CONFLICT IN IRAQ: THE FATALITIES; 2,000 Dead: As Iraq Tours Stretch On, a Grim Mark

Allow me to quote from the article:

Sifting through Corporal Starr's laptop computer after his death, his father found a letter to be delivered to the marine's girlfriend. ''I kind of predicted this,'' Corporal Starr wrote of his own death. ''A third time just seemed like I'm pushing my chances."

Is it just me, or does it sound like this young man was disillusioned, upset at being in Iraq, and fearful for his own life? One is left wondering why he was willing to go to Iraq three times with that attitude. Lest I leave you with the impression that this hero of our country was anything less than that, allow me to quote a little more of the letter, not published by the New York Times:

Obviously if you are reading this then I have died in Iraq. I kind of predicted this, that is why I'm writing this in November. A third time just seemed like I'm pushing my chances. I don't regret going, everybody dies but few get to do it for something as important as freedom. It may seem confusing why we are in Iraq, it's not to me. I'm here helping these people, so that they can live the way we live. Not have to worry about tyrants or vicious dictators. To do what they want with their lives. To me that is why I died. Others have died for my freedom, now this is my mark.

The American public needs to know the Cpl Jeffrey Starr did not die following orders he did not understand. He did not die fighting for a cause he didn't believe in. Cpl Starr died because he felt it was his duty to allow people all around the world to enjoy the same freedoms he enjoyed at home. He found for his country, and the Iraqi country. He knew the risks, and accepted them freely without hesitation or reservation. The New York Times has no right to take that away from him, and turn him into a symbol for peace at any cost.

In lighter local news, the Washington Post reports that Mayor Anthony Williams has changed his mind and signed the emergency DUI law. It's obvious that he did so in order to attempt to preserve some kind of high ground for a compromise law that, while not setting the legal limit as ridiculously low as before, would still have DC presuming intoxication at levels every other state in the nation recognizes as generally safe. This is at best a half-victory; it means the police harassment of innocent people will abate for the time being, but everyone needs to write their councilmen and Mayor Williams and tell them the only acceptable law is one in line with the rest of the nation.

And click on the news article scan, it's worth reading. Trust me.

Labels: alcohol, dc, heroes, iraq, media

Permalink

More News on Iran

Where to start? With Iran trying to minimize the hatemongering spewing from their "elected" leader, the last thing they need is further evidence that they are providing weapons to the terrorists in Iraq. However, it appears the British have found such. Hyscience has the story here.

You would think that this kind of news would put a damper on Iran's attempts at hegemony, right? Not on the anniversary of the 1979 embassy takeover, where over 10,000 demonstrators chanted "Death to America" and "Death to Israel" outside the former compound (news story).

Well, if Iran is going to be confrontational, then at least we ought to be preparing for war with them, right? Not so, claims Iran, which declared its intention to resume uranium production "for peaceful purposes." (news story) Iran has already produced enough uranium to fuel a nuclear weapon, but apparently it screwed up. The uranium is too impure to convert to UF6, which is needed to enrich uranium into the state required for a nuclear weapon. So, as the old adage goes, "try, try again."

So Iran is arming terrorists, chanting "Death to America! Death to Israel!", threatening countries with extinction, and would like, pretty please may I, to enrich uranium to make a nuclear weapon. Dream on, Ahmadinejad. Stay the course, President Bush.

In other news, Paulieworld is carrying two new letters from the front. Well worth reading!

Labels: iran, israel

Permalink