As many of you have heard by now, pro-Western former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto was assassinated today shortly after a pro-Democracy rally in Pakistan. Not a stranger to attacks since her return to the country this year, she faced the fear of death in the attempt to show strength and instill hope in her fellow countrymen that peace and democracy in her country is possible, and that the terrorists will not win. Unfortunately, they did today.

So, the question racing across the news today was “What should the U.S. do?” With the Presidential elections heating up here, the obvious people to ask first were the candidates. This is what they had to say:

Biden: “I know that Benazir’s followers will be tempted to lash out in anger and violence. I urge them to remain calm – and not play into the hands of the forces of destruction. I urge Pakistan’s leaders to open a fully accountable and transparent investigation. We must find out who was behind this and bring those responsible to justice. And the United States should offer any assistance necessary, including investigative teams, to get to the bottom of this horror.”

Obama: “We were distracted from focusing on [al Qaeda]. And they are causing us problems, and they are still plotting to do harm to America. And once we have focused on how to stabilize Iraq and reduce our footprint there — saying no permanent bases, we are not occupying this country — we will then be in a position to really take on those who actually killed 3,000 Americans. That’s what I intend to do as President of the United States.”

Clinton: “She has given her life for that hope, and I know that the people of our country stand in solidarity with those who believe as we do in the rights of people to be heard at the ballot box.”

Edwards: “We should do everything in our power to help bring the perpetrators of this heinous act to justice and to ensure that Bhutto’s movement toward democracy continues.”

Romney: “I don’t know that we can assess the political process that has been under way in Pakistan to determine exactly where we put our greatest support. Obviously, we have also encouraged a political process which included Madame Bhutto and Mr. Sharif. We have had interest in seeing a progression toward more democratic leadership and governance in Pakistan. Our nation was disappointed with the declaration of martial law, as has been pronounced by the President. So I don’t know that we could make that assessment at this stage.”

Giuliani: “The assassination of Benazir Bhutto is a tragic event for Pakistan and for democracy in Pakistan. Her murderers must be brought to justice and Pakistan must continue the path back to democracy and the rule of law. Her death is a reminder that terrorism anywhere — whether in New York, London, Tel-Aviv or Rawalpindi — is an enemy of freedom. We must redouble our efforts to win the Terrorists’ War on Us.”

McCain: “Given Pakistan’s strategic location, the international terrorist groups that operate from its soil, and its nuclear arsenal, the future of that country has deep implications for the security of the United States and its allies. America must stand on the right side of this ongoing struggle.”

Huckabee: “The terrible violence surrounding Pakistan’s upcoming election stands in stark contrast to the peaceful transition of power that we embrace in our country through our Constitution. On this sad day, we are reminded that while our democracy has flaws, it stands as a shining beacon of hope for nations and people around the world who seek peace and opportunity through self-government.”

So, what should we do? For starters, we need to do two key things. First, we need to ensure that the Pakistani nuclear arsenal is safe. As the New York Times was so nice to expose for us, the US has been working with Pakistan since 2001 to ensure that there are proper safeguards in their country to keep the nuclear weapons from falling into the wrong hands. This includes extensive training and keeping the weapons disassembled with parts stored in separate locations.

Secondly, we need to ensure the Pakistani military remains intact and responsive to the government. With the party made up of members from multiple ethnic and religions groups, keeping these units together and united to protecting the government rather than splintering away into smaller militias is important to ensure some sort of stability remains, and the chance of calm can be restored to the streets.

Failure to do both opens the door for the collapse of the county as a whole.

Next, Pervez Musharraf, Amin Fahim, and General Ashfaq Kiyani need to be brought together for an emergency meeting to project a sense of power and cooperation between the major players: Musharraf representing the government, Fahim representing Bhutto’s party and ideals, and Kiyani representing a unified military. The should call for an international investigation into the assassination as a sign of openness, taking pressure off of Musharraf and the opposition parties as being the ones behind the attack.

These three steps should be the focus of our message to Pakistan, both publicly and through back channels. The stability of the country is of key importance to us and our own security as well as those of our allies.

Source:  eWorldVu

 The problem with the true believer is that an issue becomes black and white. There is no room for discussion. The true believer is right and if you do not agree with him/her, you are dead wrong. The fact is the true believer is not satisfied just with the knowledge that they are right. They need you to acknowledge that they are right as well. They need to convert you. There can be no dissension. There can be no discourse. Facts do not really matter if they do not fit into the true believer’s argument.

In extreme and violent terms we have seen this behavior manifest itself throughout history. The Crusades and the misguided horrors of Nazi Germany in the Second World War are examples. Today the violent true believer mentality can be seen in the extreme elements of Islam.The true believer mentality also exists in less dramatic and more subtle ways throughout our society. It can be seen in ethnic, racial or gender discrimination. It can be seen in religious intolerance. Unfortunately, it was also be seen in the United Nations sponsored climate change event in Bali in December 2007.

The U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) panel’s chairman, Rajendra Pachauri, said: Climate change imperils “the most precious treasures of our planet,” and the effects are “so severe and so sweeping that only urgent global action will do.

In fact, the United Nations reports that global warming is “unequivocal”. It estimates that as early as the year 2020 between 75 and 250 million people in Africa will suffer water shortages. It goes on to state that residents of Asia’s largest cities will be at great risk of river and coastal flooding. Europeans can expect extensive species loss. North Americans will experience longer and hotter heat waves and greater competition for water.

The world’s scientists have spoken clearly and with one voice,” UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said, “I expect the world’s policy makers to do the same.”

According to the United Nations true believers, global warming is “unequivocal” and the world scientists “have spoken clearly and with one voice”. There is no discussion. There is no dissent. All knowledgeable people now have been converted to this crusade. The reality, of course, is that global warming consensus is not the case in the scientific community. ( See article: The Secret Scientific Debate On Global Warming ).

Indeed for the Nobel winning United Nations panel (IPCC) and Nobel Prize winner Al Gore, fundamental problems with their global warming argument have already started to appear. As true believers in their global warming crusade, they will probably rationalize or ignore all facts that do not advance the cause. For the rest of us, as objective observers of the issue of global warming, the following facts should be carefully considered.

Global warming was supposed to cause frequent and violent hurricanes. The fact is that neither the intensity nor the frequency of hurricanes has increased. The 2007 season was the third quietest since 1966. In 2006 not a single hurricane made landfall in the U.S..

Since the mid 19th century, the mean global temperature has increased by 0.7 degrees Celsius. This slight warming is not unusual, and lies well within the range of natural variation. Carbon dioxide continues to increase in the atmosphere, but the mean planetary temperature hasn’t increased significantly now for the last nine years.

In fact , 2007 provides anecdotal evidence that the Earth is, in effect, cooling. Antarctica is getting colder. Snow fell for the first time in Buenos Aires since 1918. Australia had the coldest June in its history this year. It snowed in South Africa for the first time in 15 years. South America experienced one of its coldest winters in the last three decades.

The truth is that the entire southern hemisphere experienced bitter cold weather in 2007.  In addition, the Canadian government has just warned that this winter is likely to be its coldest in at least 15 years. Already, this winter has been very cold in many other parts of the Northern Hemisphere as well.

We have heard about global warming causing the rapidly melting Arctic Ice Cap in the last several years. In fact, advocates of man made global warming point to the rapidly melting Arctic ice as a sign that global warming is occurring even faster than expected.

However, the facts as reported by NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in California last month indicate a quite different conclusion. The melting of the Arctic sea ice in this study has nothing to do with global warming. It was a natural phenomenon caused by unusual winds and atmospheric pressure.

The project studied trends in Arctic Sea Ice using satellite data , computer models and buoy observations of sea ice drift. The conclusion of the study was as follows: “The rapid decline in winter perennial ice the past two years was caused by unusual winds. Unusual atmospheric conditions set up wind patterns that compressed the sea ice, loaded it into the Transpolar Drift Stream, and then sped its flow out of the Arctic. When that sea ice reached lower latitudes, it rapidly melted in the warmer waters. The winds causing this trend in ice reduction were set up by an unusual pattern of atmospheric pressure that began at the beginning of this century”.

Global warming proponents have pointed out that records showed that 1998 was the hottest year on record in the United States. Several of the years surrounding 1998 were very warm and near the record as well. It certainly appeared that the climate was warming due to these historical records. However, it has just been discovered that the records were erroneous. A Canadian blogger named Steve McIntyre audited the NASA records and found errors. When he reported his findings to NASA scientists, they conducted a review that showed he was correct.

This led NASA to recently revise the data published on its website. The errors change the historical facts concerning the global warming argument. The hottest year in the United States is no longer 1998, but 1934. 2001 is no longer in the Top Ten. Instead, four of the top ten hottest years are in the 1930s.

Global warming is an issue that needs to be looked at objectively. It is an issue for rational discourse concerning science and facts. However, it has become a crusade for environmental true believers. Despite the United Nations rhetoric, scientists do not speak with “one voice” and man-made global warming is not “unequivocal”.

The danger in blindly following the United Nations global warming crusaders is that we become far removed from the facts of the issue. Indeed, these same United Nations true believers could one day be wearing winter coats in tropical Bali asking Gaia, (the goddess of nature), for increased global warming. Such perversity happens when an issue becomes a crusade.

Source:  Ed Gruberman

This better make somebody angry. I don’t even have a lot to say for this except that it speaks for itself.

Wash Times

Congress last night passed a giant new spending bill that undermines current plans for a U.S.-Mexico border fence, allowing the Homeland Security Department to build a single-tier barrier rather than the two-tier version that has worked in California. …

“The fact that this was buried in a bloated, 3,500-page omnibus speaks volumes about the Democrats’ unserious approach on border security and illegal immigration,” said House Minority Leader John A. Boehner, Ohio Republican. “Gutting the Secure Fence Act will make our borders less secure, but it’s consistent with the pattern of behavior we’ve seen all year from this majority.”

The 2006 Secure Fence Act specifically called for “two layers of reinforced fencing” and listed five specific sections of border where it should be installed. The new spending bill removes the two-tier requirement and the list of locations.

House Republican Whip Roy Blunt of Missouri said the bill is full of “misguided” policy decisions: “On one page, for instance, you will find a set of new restrictions on the construction of our security fence along the border; on another, $10 million in ‘emergency’ funding for attorneys of illegal immigrants.

What the hell? This is apparently the “New Direction” for the left. Ignore Homeland Security by keeping the borders open, then allow criminals who have no rights in the US to get a defense for their crimes and completely ignore the fact that some statistics say that 80% of the US feels that closing the border is the most important issue of our time.

Hat Tip Infidels Are Cool

From all of us on the U.S. Common Sense web site, we wish you a very wonderful and safe Christmas and New Years.  For those of you who are traveling, we hope you arrive at your destinations safely.

Yes, that is what I said.  Senator Harry Reid is a “Loser.”  I know, some of you are saying “Oh my goodness, the maturity of the Common Sense has just dropped!”  Fear not.  I am not resorting to elementary school playground name-calling here.  When I refer to Reid as a “Loser,” I am referring to his view on reality and not his character.

In the latest category of “losing,” Harry Reid had this to say regarding the lack of victories by the Democratic Party in Congress, where they hold the majority in both chambers:

“Who’s winning?” Reid asked a group of reporters. “Big Oil, Big Tobacco. … Al Qaeda has regrouped and is able to fight a civil war in Iraq. … The American people are losing.”

The American People are losing?  Some might argue the fact that Congress hasn’t been able to do anything significant this year as a victory.  Kidding aside, there are some items that have come before Congress that should have been considered and/or passed as separate bills rather than lumped into large bills, like the omnibus spending pill passed by Congress this week.  Additionally, if al Qaeda has regrouped anywhere, it is currently in Afghanistan, not Iraq - just in case the Senator was confused about his geography.  However, to say that the American People are losing is really petty on the Senate Majority Speakers behalf.  Let us look at some of his other “loser” comments.

Back in April of 2007, at the point that troop deployments were beginning for the “surge” called for by President Bush, the Senator had this to say:

“I believe … that this war is lost, and this surge is not accomplishing anything, as is shown by the extreme violence in Iraq this week.”

Ok, so before the surge was even fully implemented, it is already a failure?  The war itself is lost?  Now, he might say that the strategies used up to that point have failed to bring forth the desired result, but to say that the war is lost shows that the Senator does not have America’s best interest in mind, since it weakens our troops morale as well as the standing of the country on the international scene.  Maybe this is what he meant this week when he said the “American people are losing.”  Is it a self-fulfillling prophecy?  I don’t know, but I fear that our nation might lose if Reid’s view of the world is adopted by more people.