Saturday, June 23, 2007

Taliban Try to Blow-up Boy of Six and Karzai Blame NATO for Civilian Deaths

Taliban warriors of the religion of peace in Afghanistan strapped an explosive vest on a 6-year-old boy this past Friday, reported the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF). The little boy was told by Taliban sickos to walk over to an Afghan Army checkpoint and detonate the bomb.


"They placed explosives on a six-year-old boy and told him to walk up to the Afghan police or army and push the button," said Captain Michael Cormier, the company commander who intercepted the child, in a statement. "Fortunately, the boy did not understand and asked patrolling officers why he had this vest on."

Lieutenant Colonel David Accetta, ISAF eastern regional command spokesman, told the Guardian: "In the past we have not seen the Taliban sink that low, to use children as suicide bombers. The personnel secured the vest to make sure the child was safe."

Lt Col Accetta said the procedure for dealing with an armed minor had so far been untested in Afghanistan.

"It would have been difficult to know what to do considering it was a six-year-old boy and he was presumably going to push the button himself or someone was going to detonate it for him remotely," Lt Col Accetta said.

The rules of military engagement are easily muddied when a child poses a direct threat, he explained. "What we do if we identify the fact that an adult is wearing a suicide vest is we use whatever force we deem necessary to protect the lives of our soldiers and any civilians. Of course it makes it more difficult - it's a six year-old child."

"They will normally intermix with the civilian population with the thought that we won't engage them there, and it's true, we won't do that," Lt Col Accetta maintained. "They are deliberately putting civilians - women and children - at risk by bringing the combat into close proximity with them."
(Read the whole article at Indigo Continuum.)

Using very young children is not a tactic commonly seen in Afghanistan and the ISAF hopes it isn't a new tactical battlefield element. American forces saw this same tactic used in VietNam, and it created great confusion among the soldiers who understandably have an aversion to purposely killing a child for any reason.

However, that was not the headline part of the story. Media outlets emphasized the deaths of 9 women, 3 babies, and a local mosque mullah in a NATO airstrike. "Infants dead in NATO attack" reads the headline of the Winnepeg Free Press. Most other headlines were similar and only later tell the rest of the story. Oh, by the way, TWENTY TALIBAN FIGHTERS were also killed alongside the presumably innocent babies.

The airstrike was precipitated by Taliban attacks on the nearby town of Gereshk. The Taliban attacks have killed 170 people in the past few weeks. Afghan President Karzai, our buddy, is hopping mad about the deaths. But he's ticked-off at NATO, not the Taliban. On Thursday Karzai said, the deaths are "difficult for us to accept or understand."

NATO commanders are adamant that the militants -- not foreign forces -- deserve most of the blame for the toll among civilians.

An alliance statement said NATO aircraft struck after Taliban fighters attacked troops from NATO's International Security Assistance Force about 15 kilometres northeast of the town of Gereshk.

"A compound was assessed to have been occupied by up to 30 insurgent fighters, most of whom were killed in the engagement," the statement said.

Lt.-Col. Mike Smith, a NATO spokesman, expressed concern about Afghan police reports that civilians also died in the air strike. But he said insurgents chose the time and place for their attack, so "the risk to civilians was probably deliberate." "It is this irresponsible action that may have led to casualties," he said.

(Read the whole article at Indigo Continuum.)

What President Karzai meant to say before he said what he didn't mean was, "Yes, the Taliban are killing more civilians than NATO. But the Taliban are our Muslim bothers and killing is what Muslims do. For NATO forces to kill Afghani civilians is barbarous and unacceptable because NATO forces are infidels."

(H/T Curt at Flopping Aces)



The life of Indigo Red is full of adventure. Tune in next time for the Further Adventures of Indigo Red.

Thursday, June 21, 2007

MOOO-ve Over Illegal Aliens, USDA to Track Cows

The U.S. government has repeatedly told the public it is not possible to track 12 million to 20 million illegal aliens, many of whom entered the country legally and just didn't go home. Despite the impossibility claim to keep tabs on the illegals in this country, the government believes, writes Henry Lamb, it can efficiently track cows everywhere within the borders of the 5o States. Not only track cows, all 100 million of them, but also 500 million chickens and every horse, sheep, goat, and any other barnyard livestock one can think of. Llamas? Yep, llamas, too.

Read the entire article at Indigo Continuum.

The National Animal Identification System (NAIS), an international program intended to track and stop the spread of diseases across domestic and international borders, intends to tag every animal, most probably, with a Radio Frequency Identification Device (RFID). Each animal will bear a unique number and radio frequency that the Agriculture Dept can track by satellite. If any animal leaves their last known address for any reason (like the cow is going to leave a note), the farmer, rancher, 4-H'er, every Mary with a little lamb will have 24 hours to notify the authorities. If not, 8 year old Mary will face a stiff fine and/or serve time in the pokey.

The NAIS website, says the program "makes it easier for producers, States, industry, and USDA to determine the scope of a disease or animal health event and locate infected animals." It will also ensure that farmers and ranchers "receive accurate information about where a disease outbreak or other animal health event is occurring and where it is headed."

While all of this is laudable and perhaps even desirable given the recent pet food contamination from China and the contaminated fruit from Guatamala a few years ago (raw human wastes were used to fertilize apples resulting in intestinal distress for thousands and some deaths among the elderly and those with weakened immune systems in the U.S.), the tracking of cows pales in comparison with the danger illegal aliens pose. An estimated 1200 terrorists have entered the country across our southern border, the majority of prisoners in California penitentiaries are illegals, and a rising tide of child molesters are illegals, these among other dangers are threatening to bankrupt the various local and state governments. Additionionally, many new diseases are being brought here from there, like dengue fever, Nile River fever, Avian Influenza, while older diseases once eradicated like polio, mumps, measles, whooping cough (pertusis) are once again seen in our streets, schools, and hospitals.

Illegals have brought increased crime and drugs, gang activity, all of which clog our legal system, jails, and prisons. The drain on the treasuries of the Federal government and those of the several States is crushing. Nearly all of the trauma centers in Los Angeles, once the pride of the nation's health care system have closed for lack of operating funds caused by the overwhelming influx of illegal aliens. And the government is helpless to do anything other than offer legislation to give amnesty-lite to the illegals.

Through all of this, the Department of Agriculture proceeds apace to track cows.

And sheep, goats, chickens, pigs, turkeys, ducks, geeses, llamas ...


The life of Indigo Red is full of adventure. Tune in next time for the Further Adventures of Indigo Red.

Tuesday, June 19, 2007

Annex Mexico

Widely debated before the 1848 Mexican-American War, the All of Mexico Movement advocated the annexation of Mexico in its entirety. The proposition was seen as a real possibility because of the war. After thousands of American volunteers had entered Mexico and began sending letters home.

The volunteer soldiers told the folks back home that annexing Mexico would be disastrous. The social, political, and religious sensibilities and traditions between America and Mexico were so different as to make assimilation and melding of the two cultures all but impossible. The idea and the movement soon lost favor and President James Polk eventually rejected the informal proposal.

The idea was broached once again during the American Civil War when information was obtained that France, which was then in possession of Mexico, intended to use the strife between the States as an opportunity to obtain territory north of the Rio Grande. President Lincoln postponed any such action saying, "One war at a time." He didn't entirely close the door.

With the modern day illegal influx of Mexicans into the United States, perhaps it's time to open that door. Many Mexican nationals are working today for the elimination of borders from Hudson Bay to Costa Rica. This "Reconquesta" may only be a figment of the imagination, but one cannot deny that 10% of the Mexican population currently lives and works in the US. From the American point of view, it might be in the best interest of the US to annex Mexico before the US is swallowed-up by millions more Mexican nationals.

Time to Annex Mexico!
By Alan Caruba
June 13, 2007

Since we obviously cannot safeguard our border with Mexico, why not just annex Mexico? Let's declare Mexico a protectorate of the United States and set about governing it in a benevolent, but self-interested way. In time, we could incorporate it as several new States.

The current illegal flow of Mexicans and Central Americans to the United States constitutes the largest diaspora in modern history. An estimated 10 percent of Mexico's population of more than 107 million people is now living in the United States. About 15 percent of Mexico's labor force is working in the United States, and one in every seven Mexican workers migrates to the United States.

The immediate benefits of annexation are obvious. Mexico's oil industry is its largest provider of revenue, but is very poorly managed. Its vast revenues are not benefiting the Mexican people - who clearly feel compelled to emigrate to the United States. The Mexican government relies on oil income because its national tax evasion rate is more than 40 percent.

Given America's growing need for oil, annexing Mexico and denationalizing its oil industry would permit the investment necessary to upgrade it, while providing less reliance on foreign sources in the turbulent Middle East or Venezuela.

The second largest source of income for Mexico is the remittances Mexicans who are illegally in the United States send home. It is currently estimated at between $23 and $25 billion. That is equal to the foreign aid the United States annually provides to the entire world. It is nearly equal to what Mexico's oil industry generates every year.

It is U.S. money that is literally going South while native-born and naturalized Americans are required to fund our education and health systems that provide free care for illegal Mexicans and their families, a vast number of whom qualify for welfare as well. The U.S. is literally importing poverty. Economist Robert J. Samuelson has noted that, "the ranks of the poor are constantly replenished. Since 1980, the number of Hispanics with incomes below the government's poverty line (about $19,300 in 2004 for a family of four) has risen 162 percent."

Meanwhile, a June 2004 agreement between the U.S. and Mexico that is waiting for President Bush's signature would literally bankrupt the Social Security system if approved by Congress. The Totalization Agreement could allow millions of illegal Mexicans to draw billions of dollars from the U.S. Social Security Trust Fund.

A study by the United Nations Population Fund concluded that remittances to Mexico are, in fact, not helping that nation's economy. The money is primarily spent on groceries and other daily expenses. A study by the Banco de Mexico, its central bank, came to the same conclusion, noting that reliance on remittances was itself a cause of poverty, since it provides fewer incentives to seek other sources of income.

By annexing Mexico and encouraging American business and industry to expand there, creating new jobs, improving that nation's prosperity, Mexicans would have less need to relocate in America. Even a Mexican government spokesman, addressing a press conference in January 2006, acknowledged that many of the illegals are actually seeking "a better condition of life, despite the fact that they had work here."

Then there's the issue of crime. Mexico is a major corridor for the drug cartels that feed the addictions of American citizens. The cartels are violent and have corrupted the governance of Mexico at all levels. By annexing Mexico, we can more effectively battle this pernicious enemy that already threatens the peace of many Southwestern cities and communities.

There is the language problem and, frankly, English will have to become a mandatory second language for Mexicans if they insist on coming to America to work or live here. Many Americans throughout the Southwest have had to learn Spanish just to converse with their neighbors and to conduct business. For generations, Puerto Ricans have routinely learned and used both languages.

Will we allow Mexicans to vote in American elections? Yes, but only when they become Americans! Initially we would need a long period of assimilation and acceptance of American values, in the same fashion we currently mandate for those seeking citizenship through our naturalization process.

American laws and jurisdiction to facilitate trade, guarantee the rights of their citizens, and initiate a crackdown on the drug cartels that threaten the police, the courts, and other Mexican leaders would replace current Mexican laws.

There is more than a bit of arrogance for thousands of Mexicans, illegal aliens, to march in the streets of American cities demanding that we grant them privileges equal to Americans, without the responsibilities of citizenship, i.e., paying taxes and obeying our laws.

The greatest benefit of annexation is that America would avoid becoming a de facto Third World nation.

Mexico would not cease to exist. It would become a functioning element of an expanded United States of America. Mexican-Americans would enjoy the full benefits of citizenship while retaining their unique history and culture. In the past, America has achieved this with millions of former Irish, Italian, Russian, German, and other nationalities.

Mexico as a separate nation on our Southern border threatens our sovereignty by virtue of openly and deliberately encouraging millions of its citizens to ignore our laws, enter our nation illegally, and benefit from our economy.

Mexico as a protectorate and, eventually, a part of America, is a realistic, rational solution. Mexicans are here already. Let's make them Americans who will want to live in the former nation of Mexico.

Impossible, you say? Probably yes, and, in truth, I am content to let Mexico be Mexico, but if you have begun to see how impossible it is for the United States to continue absorbing millions of illegal immigrants, then you will understand why the defeat of the immigration "reform" legislation is a victory for the sovereignty and security of the United States.
The alternatives are the current comprehensive immigration bill, "No Illegal Alien Criminal Left Behind", "It's Not an Amnesty - Amnesty", before the Senate again this week, surrendering our sovereignty to an inferior government, or deportation of millions of foreign nationals. All of the options are viable and deportation has been done before. Can we realistically deport millions again? Deportación. Sí, se puede!


SOURCE:
eco-logic Powerhouse



The life of Indigo Red is full of adventure. Tune in next time for the Further Adventures of Indigo Red.

Fred Thompson: Reid Calling Kettle Black

A few words from Fred Thompson on Harry Reid's insulting, childish, and petulant remarks about United States Army General David Petraeus and United States Marine Corps General Peter Pace:

Reading Harry Reid
By Fred Thompson
Monday, June 18, 2007

Well, you've heard by now that Senate leader Harry Reid insulted one of this country's brightest military minds, Marine Corps General Peter Pace -- calling him "incompetent." Let me take a few moments to put this in context.

First, Harry Reid voted for the war, like a majority of our legislators. America decided as a nation to free Iraq and the region from Saddam Hussein's tyranny. I have friends, both Democrat and Republican, who questioned the decision at the time, but the Republic made a commitment based on constitutional and democratic procedures. So they are now a hundred percent committed to moving forward in a way that’s best for our country. None of them, by the way, believe surrendering to the forces of terror in Iraq is what's best for our country.

Harry Reid, though, has taken a different route. He made his statement about General Pace on a conference call with fringe elements of the blogosphere who think we're the bad guys. This is a place where even those who think the 9/11 attacks were an inside job find a home.

And why shouldn't they think that? Reid has led the attack on the administration, with Nancy Pelosi, charging it lied and tricked America into supporting the war. Ignoring multiple hearings and investigations into pre-war intelligence findings that have debunked this paranoid myth, they accuse an entire administration of conspiracy to trick us into a war.

I suppose that's easier for some than admitting that they've flip flopped -- but the fact that Reid says this sinister Republican plot is going to help him elect more Democrats ought to be raising a few flags. Saying General Pace is incompetent doesn't even rank near the top of his bizarre statements.

How could anyone possibly believe, as Reid charges, that our commanding general in Iraq, David Petraeus, is out of touch with what's going on. Surely someone in Reid's position would know that Petraeus is briefed daily on all aspects of Iraq -- from civil to military. Surely he has to know that Petraeus is a true warrior scholar who literally wrote the Army's book on counterinsurgency warfare.

But Reid's comments are not meant for logical analysis. He proclaimed the war lost some time ago, and the surge as a failure even before the additional troops were on the ground. The problem is that every one of Reid's comments I've noted here has also been reported gleefully by Al Jazeera and other anti-American media. Whether he means to or not, he’s encouraging our enemies to believe that they are winning the critical war of will.

Fred Thompson is an actor and former Senator. His radio commentary airs on the ABC Radio Network and be blogs on The Fred Thompson Report.
SOURCE:
Townhall



The life of Indigo Red is full of adventure. Tune in next time for the Further Adventures of Indigo Red.

Monday, June 18, 2007

Lake Superior Shrinking



The legend lives on from the Chippewa on down
Of the big lake they call Gitche Gumee
Superior, they say, never gives up her dead
When the gales of November come early.
Superior, they say, is drying up and will soon blow away. At least, that's what will happen if you believe the Gore Global Fireball Coalition. There may even be a consensus, a consensus. And if there is, well, then the debate is over.

The largest freshwater lake on the Earth, Lake Superior at 31,700 square miles has a surface area almost equalling that of South Carolina, its shoreline of 1,826 miles is the distance from Duluth, Minnesota to Miami, Florida. Superior is the deepest of the Great Lakes with an average depth of 601.92 feet, its current depth is 600.25 feet.

My god! Lake Superior is disappearing just like the Hot-Earthers are saying! Lake Superior is 1.67 feet below its average and only .33 feet above the lowest level recorded in 1926. The lake water is at the lowest depth in 81 years, 20 inches below average, and a foot lower than just last year. Doom. DOOM, I tell ya!

The falling waterline is causing very serious environmental and economic consequences. Wetlands have withered and dried, power plants operate at half power, cargo ships ship out with 5% lighter loads, boaters struggle to obtain docking, and bathers must trudge 50 feet farther to reach the water. In Marquette, the receding water has exposed drainage pipes across the beach spoiling the scenery. Oh, the horror!

Out in the not much deeper water, which at one time was 1,330 feet deep, but has shrunken to a piddling 1,328.42 feet, professional fishers are catching huge quantities of trout and whitefish and can only wait for the lake to rise once again. Oh, the humanity! Will the disasters never end?!

Just one question though: what caused the lowest recorded water level of Lake Superior in 1926, 81 years before Al Gore invented Global Warming? Just wondering.



The life of Indigo Red is full of adventure. Tune in next time for the Further Adventures of Indigo Red.

Sunday, June 17, 2007

Democratic Self-Rule Not Possible in Arab Middle East

Hamas has looted the home of the late PLO leader/pirate/murderer/terrorist Yasser Arafat, and thousands of Palestinians flee Gaza, and Israel plans to attack Gaza to destroy the threat from Hamas, ordinary Israelis can rightly tel the world, "We told you so. This is what happens when Palestinians rule themselves."


Our mistake was to think the Middle East wants democracy
Rod Liddle
The Sunday Times Online
June 17, 2007

So, the Palestinians have got their “two state solution”, even if it’s not quite the thing they, or the rest of the world, envisaged. The homicidal fundamentalists of Hamas now control the Gaza Strip, while the corrupt and incompetent Fatah controls the West Bank enclaves of Hebron, Nablus and Ramallah (although let’s see how long that lasts: I give it three months). That’s the choice the Palestinians have when they go to the polls: happy-go-lucky Hamas versus the good old PLO, Fatah - and the people, the voters, seem to like it.

If a third party came along that was simultaneously corrupt, incompetent, homicidal and fundamentalist it would probably clean up in Palestine. The old neocon fallacy, upon which we went to war in Iraq, was that the people of the Middle East desire nothing more than to be led by decent, secular, democratically minded politicians who wished ill upon nobody - Menzies Campbell in a headscarf. And then every time they are given a chance to vote they go for the likes of Hamas, or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in Iran. In the case of Palestine, the election result so appalled Tony Blair that he generously invited them to have another poll and this time try to get the right result - a suggestion considered a little cheeky by most Palestinians. Which is another thing he and George Bush do not understand: the more closely identified they become with supposedly moderate forces in the Middle East (such as, laughably, Fatah), the more fervently the mass of people will side with those Bush and Blair consider extremists. This is part of what has happened in Gaza and may soon happen on the West Bank. By and large, the Arabs and the Iranians hate and mistrust us and have no great appetite for liberal democracy; rather, it seems the people of each benighted satrapy yearn only for a leader who will exert maximum violence and misery upon almost everybody else but themselves.

“We want peace, my frent,” ordinary Arabs plead with the western news crews in front of smashed homes and bombed buildings after each successive spurt of nihilistic carnage, from Basra to Beirut. And so they do, probably, just as soon as they’ve exterminated one or another local enemy - Fatah, Hamas, Sunni, Shi’ite, Kurd, bedouin, Druze and, of course, the Jews.

And the more western politicians treat democracy in each of these countries as a means to their own strategic ends and refuse to accept election results, the more democracy will be seen as just another western con trick, never to be trusted.

As the recriminations begin in Gaza, the Israelis - whom the world knows to be in the wrong in its occupation of the West Bank - will sit back and say, “See, told you, that’s what happens when these people are allowed to rule themselves”.

Both the Israeli deputy defence minister and a bunch of West Bank Jewish settlers repeatedly told me recently that the Palestinians would turn their country into “another Somalia”. Being a good western liberal I replied well, I doubt it, but that’s their right. And so it is.

But the Palestinians would seem to have exceeded even these hawkish expectations. The Gaza Strip right now makes Mogadishu look like Lucerne. The Katyusha rockets will soon be raining down on those Israeli citizens unfortunate enough to be within striking range of Gaza City - and who, then, will have the nerve to censure Israel for responding with what one imagines will be insuperable force? They knew it would happen; it did happen.
What we really must remember is that the entire situation is about power dressed up as religious differences, and righting imagined historical wrongs. It's always been about power. Arafat used the conflict to get rich. His uncle, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem used the Jews and nomad tribes to gain favor with Hitler, thereby gaining real estate to get rich. He then sold the land to early Jewish settlers at inflated prices.

The money provides power. Without strongmen leading them by the nose, the Muslim Arabs, and their pagan tribalists before them, are simply incapable of governing themselves either as a nation, or as individuals. They not only don't want democracy, their culture is unable to meld with democracy. It simply isn't possible.



The life of Indigo Red is full of adventure. Tune in next time for the Further Adventures of Indigo Red.

Mexico Captures 70 Illegal Border Crossers

Amnesty for illegal aliens will be all the talk in America again this coming week. What shall we do with the 12mil to 20mil foreigners who have violated our laws to get here. However, Mexico has a different idea of what to do with border crashers.

Mexican police on Friday arrested 70 illegal immigrants from Central American nations in the central state of Tlaxcala.

The arrests took place near train tracks in the city of Apizaco, said Fernando Azael Mendoza Lopez, a delegate from the National Migration Institute.

The immigrants, from Honduras, El Salvador, Guatemala and Nicaragua, were healthy but tired due to the wearisome trip from their native countries to Mexico, he added.

Over the past five days, 159 immigrants from Central America have been arrested in Mexico.

According to figures from non-governmental organizations, some 500 immigrants die every year in their attempt to seek illegal entry into the United States via Mexico.
In Mexico, illegal aliens are dealt with swiftly and decisively. The immigration bill returning to the Senate, should adopt the Mexican immigration laws.

And why do we have to go all the way to the Communist Chinese newspaper to find out what the Mexicans do with gate crashers? Why isn't this news published openly and freely in our open and free society?


Source:
Xinhua
The People's Daily Online




The life of Indigo Red is full of adventure. Tune in next time for the Further Adventures of Indigo Red.