Ponderstorm My Brainstorm on Life & Politics

After being subjected to years of fraudulent “voter” registrations (more, more and more) conducted by radical left-wing groups like ACORN, Americans are now forced to take additional steps to protect the integrity of our electoral process. However, with the 2008 Presidential election just three weeks away there is simply not enough time to check and validate voter rolls sufficiently to purge them of all deceased people, duplicate names, fictitious persons (ACORN attempted to register Mickey Mouse in Florida this summer) and errors that have in many cases been deliberately injected into our system by those who want to throw the election for radicals like Barack Obama (who is closely associated with ACORN).

Fortunately, there is a simple but effective measure that would go a long way in protecting the integrity of our election process and ensure the one person one vote principle is honored. As Americans, we need to borrow an innovation used successfully in recent elections in Iraq, Afghanistan and several other nations. We need to employ election ink.

Election ink is a semi-permanent dye or stain that is applied to a finger or thumb after voting to prevent electoral fraud, namely double voting. The process is quick, inexpensive and almost impossible to circumvent. While requiring election ink would do nothing to prevent fraudulent and illegal voters from casting ballots in the first place, It would effectively prevent illegal multiple votes within or across electoral districts.

It’s a shame that such a step is needed within the United States; however, we must act defensively because efforts are underway to stuff our ballot boxes with fraudulent “votes” and sway the election against the will of the people.  We must protect the integrity of our elections or the results will be held in suspicion. Frankly, given the absence of meaningful voter ID requirements, we should have adopted election ink years ago in my opinion.

Please join me in demanding that election ink be required for all voters on November 4th. Read More…

Posted under Barack Obama, Campaign, Iraq

The New York Post reported today that during his July trip to Baghdad, Democratic Presidential nominee Barack Obama, while “campaigning in public for a speedy withdrawal of US troops from Iraq . . . tried in private to persuade Iraqi leaders to delay an agreement on a draw-down of the American military presence.” This report, by Amir Taheri, cites Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari as the source of this accusation.

According to Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari, Obama made his demand for delay a key theme of his discussions with Iraqi leaders in Baghdad in July.

In discussing Obama’s position, Taheri writes:

Though Obama claims the US presence is “illegal,” he suddenly remembered that Americans troops were in Iraq within the legal framework of a UN mandate. His advice was that, rather than reach an accord with the “weakened Bush administration,” Iraq should seek an extension of the UN mandate.

Such an extension is due in December of 2008 and is likely to be granted anyway according to Taheri. Taheri also writes that Obama tried to persuade U.S. commanders including Gen. David Petraeus to suggest a “realistic withdrawal date.” Taheri explains that a delay in negotiating a troop agreement would be significant given the U.S. and Iraqi election timelines that would have to be taken into consideration.

Towards the end of his report, Taheri writes:

Obama has given Iraqis the impression that he doesn’t want Iraq to appear anything like a success, let alone a victory, for America. The reason? He fears that the perception of US victory there might revive the Bush Doctrine of “pre-emptive” war - that is, removing a threat before it strikes at America.

Despite some usual equivocations on the subject, Obama rejects pre-emption as a legitimate form of self-defense. To be credible, his foreign-policy philosophy requires Iraq to be seen as a failure, a disaster, a quagmire, a pig with lipstick or any of the other apocalyptic adjectives used by the American defeat industry in the past five years.

Obama’s consistant anti-war stance has made Read More…

Posted under Barack Obama, Iraq, War

On the 7th anniversary of September 11, 2001, I am thankful that we have not been attacked on our soil since that dreadful day.  I am very grateful for the incredible sacrifices that hundreds of thousands of military personnel and their families have given to protect us. I am also deeply honored by those who gave their life in the fight to protect ours. I elaborated more about those thoughts in a post entitled “Remembering 9/11” on my company blog earlier today.

I think it is fitting to commend President George W. Bush for his leadership in the war against radical Islam. I feel his unwavering dedication to offensive military action against terrorism is a major reason why we have not experienced a second attack. His move to take the battle to them on their soil has undoubtedly,  in my mind, saved thousands of American civilian lives.

Furthermore, the invasion of Iraq created a “terrorist magnet” that pitted radicals against our highly-trained and prepared military instead of leaving them free to attack unarmed civilians at home. That strategy provided an important element in our safety, I feel, by allowing thousands of bad guys to be killed and captured.

I am also thankful for the dedicated intelligence operations that have been put into place to intercept plots and plans against America and other Western targets. These noteworthy efforts are not forgotten by me.

In spite of our best intentions, though, it could all be in vain if it were not for the grace and mercy of God. I am reminded of Psalm 127:1: “Unless the LORD builds the house, They labor in vain who build it; Unless the LORD guards the city, The watchman stays awake in vain.”

I am incredibly thankful for God’s blessings on our efforts and pray for continued success both at home and abroad. May we as Americans always build and watch and pray for God’s continued good success.

Posted under Foreign Policy, Iraq, Radical Islam, War

It seems that Americans are very impatient when it comes to anything. Take Iraq for example. We expect the Iraqi people to quickly develop a representative government even thought they have no history of ever experiencing such. Let’s take a few moments and think about this in terms of our own government history.

On July 4, 1776 the American people declared their independence from the British Empire. Our first governing document, the Articles of Confederation was not fully ratified for almost 5 years until March 1, 1781. Like Iraq, we had years of war during this time.
Read More…

Posted under History, Iraq

Many Democrats, while stating that we have lost the War in Iraq and should leave now, are asking Republican supporters to define what victory means. This question is often asked to counter the accusation that they (the Democrats) do not support our troops and are on a path of retreat.

So with that in mind, I offer the following definition of victory in Iraq. But before stating my definition of victory, I wish to lay out a few points that leads me to arrive at this definition. Read More…

Posted under Foreign Policy, Iraq, Radical Islam, War