The surge of back-logged orders has been reduced and we’re now dealing with a more manageable number. Hopefully this will allow more time for frequent Blog posts. We’ve made a good start today. #

      ( 5:32 PM )  
You Need Alternatives to the Mainstream Media

Let’s talk about the media and how far they have fallen. At one time, being a newspaper reporter was a noble pursuit. Newspapers helped the American Revolution gather speed. Patriots using moveable lead type helped tell the other side of the story. But today, the mainstream media tend to report only what our enemies wish us to hear.

Perhaps reporters today are too lazy to actually research a story. After all, why dig for the hidden story when it is all laid out for you in carefully planned and executed press conferences? Perhaps that is why so many stories are the same in newspapers around the world. The fact is, very few daily newspapers have the staff or financial resources to report on national or international news, so they buy it from wire services, where one worldview is broadcast onto the front page and local TV news around the country

Any American who wishes to know what is really going on should count on alternative news sources. While the BBC often gives a slightly different perspective, the real sources for news about Iraq, Al Qeada and unrest is the Debka File. If you want the real story about what is going on in the Middle East, as well as a careful analysis of what this news means, it is hard to beat the experts at the Debka File.

For example, right now you can read about the Iraqi and Al Qeada plans to fight American forces and how these two anti-American forces have joined together to blow up oil fields.

You can also read that Bush has made up his mind to launch military action and will no longer stall the war effort.

The Drudge Report and WorldNet Daily should not be ignored either. Although more often compendiums of news published elsewhere, these outlets nevertheless help ensure you catch details you might miss elsewhere.

Bookmark these sites and visit them frequently. Then make up your own mind.

#

      ( 5:30 PM )  
The UN vs. Our Sovereignty

The New York Times had an interesting News Analysis today on why the European countries like to work through the UN and why we do not.

“European governments believe in the United Nations as the ‘center of the world order’ and the American Government, especially the current American government, tends to be hostile to that idea.”

It also states that Kofi Anan told the European foreign ministers and heads of state that “the united nations was the only source of legitimacy for the use of force in the world.”

What’s interesting is not the conclusion that the article draws, but that this kind of thinking is not only accepted but also endorsed by so many others. Perhaps they, and I include many Democratic leaders such as Hillary Clinton, forget that the United States is a sovereign nation. It can and will decide when and how it uses force. It does not answer to a higher authority or recognize a world government. We have a constitution that is far superior to that of the United Nations charter, and we will not let it be subverted by a world body, and especially not one staffed with compromise-prone, avoiders and appeasers. It is exactly this policy of appeasement and failure to address a problem while it is small and controllable that led to Hitler’s domination of Europe and World War II.

While it is nice to have our actions endorsed and supported by a body of other countries, it is not necessary. I think we have given the UN its chance, and it is no longer the time for niceties.

If we feel Saddam is a serious threat, we should go in there tomorrow and make him less of a threat. We should send seal teams to take over the three “mystery ships” sailing around, reportedly loaded with Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction. We should send Special Forces into his desserts to seek out and kill Al Qeada operatives that are there planning sabotage. We should strike at the hidden areas where we believe he has weapons of mass destruction hidden in subterranean lairs, and we should launch pre-emptive strikes at the rocket launches he is moving south.

And if countries like France and Germany don’t want to participate, then that is their choice, and by their actions they are precluding themselves from the chance to participate afterwards in the rebuilding of Iraq. If countries like Turkey find it politically inexpedient to base U.S. troops there, then they should not expect to reap the rewards.

In truth, A further UN endorsement of our actions offers us nothing more than political cover for our allies. #

      ( 5:27 PM )  
Third World Lacks Credibility in Pushing For Peace

I don’t know about you, but I’m sick and tired of other nations telling the U.S. that we should opt for peace instead of war with Iraq.

Many of the governments that are calling on us to give Iraq more time are not democracies. Many of them have used brutal tactics to suppress the opposition party and keep people in line. Some of them have large populations of people who have “disappeared.” And most of them are not targets of terrorism or will ever face weapons of mass destruction.

So why does their opinion count? Why should we listen to some third-world African country that cannot manage their own internal affairs, which cannot feed their citizens or provide medical care? Does a South American country with runaway inflation and people living in cardboard shantytowns really have a valid opinion on how we should protect our citizens? Does a former member of the Soviet Union who’s leading occupation is shepherd really have anything to say that should affect us on the global level?

The sad truth is that the U.S. accounts for something more than a third of the world’s economic output, and probably 60 percent of the world’s creativity. We are strong, freedom-loving, right-thinking country that does not tolerate totalitarian governments run by cruel dictators. We have become the sole super power because our approach works. It has a 225-year proven track records, something no other country can claim. We don’t ask other countries how to run our businesses. We don’t let them tell us how to develop medicines to treat their sick, or raise wheat to feed their hungry. So why do they think they should have an input on how we protect our citizens from an overseas threat?

Not only is the U.S. the world’s richest nation, we spread the wealth. We provide food aid, medical aid, military aid, low-interest loans, and intellectual capital. Maybe we should start spending those funds more on the taxpayers who raised them and less on an ungrateful world.

Many of the countries that are criticizing the United States are the very countries that benefit from the U.S. largess, from our economic aid, from our charitable contributions, from our technology and from our role as world cop. If they are biting the hand that feeds them, maybe we should withdraw that hand and see how quickly they change their tune. I think that without the U.S.’s influence and power, the world would be a conglomerate of petty infighting amongst countries, as we have already seen at the UN.

The U.S. was at one time the world’s leading super power. We rode to the rescue of our allies in World War I and World War II. After WWII, we helped keep peace in the world as a counterbalance to the expanding communist threat. Our soldiers, our bombs and our missiles not only kept Western Europe safe -- usually without firing a shot -- they also freed Eastern Europe from the yoke of communism, secret police and oppressive central governments. Now we have turned our attentions South, to the Middle East, and hope to be the saviors of another repressed people, while at the same time protecting our populace and making he world a safer place.

We did not let the Axis stop us in WWII. We did not let Russia and the Warsaw Pact stop us in the Cold War. Does a collection of tired “Old Europe” counties and the underclass of the third world really think they can sway us now? #