Led by Gen. David Petraeus, 1,215 U.S. servicement from the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines, representing all 50 states, took their oath of duty at the Al Faw Palace in Baghdad, Iraq earlier today, July 4, 2008, in the largest known reenlistment ceremony in the history of the U.S. military.

Gen. Petraeus, reiterating earlier remarks made by Command Sergeant Major Hill, said that the unprecedented ceremony sends a “message to friend and foe alike.” He told those assembled that it is “impossible to calculate the value of what you are giving to our country . . . For no bonus, no matter the size, can adequately compensate you for the contribution each of you makes as a custodian of our nation’s defenses.”

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Meanwhile, Stars and Stripes reported that troops at seven bases in Iraq were to get fresh deep dish pizza straight from Chicago as part of their 4th of July celebrations, courtesy of an idea from a retired airman and the generosity of hundreds of others. The 3,000 pizzas — each with a pound of cheese and packed with other toppings — were cooked by Lou Malnati’s Restaurant staffers last week, then shipped though New York, Belgium and Bahrain on their way to U.S. troops around Baghdad.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Sort of brings more perspective to parades and picnics and fireworks, doesn’t it?

[H/T to Bob Krum for the video and details - and the title.]

From many editorials today:
NYT:

In a radical break from 70 years of Supreme Court precedent, Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority, declared that the Second Amendment guarantees individuals the right to bear arms for nonmilitary uses, even though the amendment clearly links the right to service in a “militia.”

WaPo:

Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority, concluded that the amendment guarantees a right to bear arms for private use, such as self-defense, although nowhere is that explicitly mentioned in the Constitution.

Teh Boston Globe:

To arrive at this decision, the court performed a grammatical parsing that would confound the best English teacher, deciding that the first 13 words are merely “prefatory” to the “operative clause” of the one-sentence amendment, thus conveniently tossing aside the importance of “a well regulated militia” to the right to bear arms.

SO what do the people think? CNN asked us last night and within hours it was pretty clear:

Perhaps the editors didn’t read the amendment fully? Or maybe they don’t understand the words? As with all the anti gun fools, any mention of the 14 words in the last sentence mean nothing, because, peoples’ rights mean nothing. Self defense is not a part of the picture here. When people have the means to defend themselves, crime would become less prevalent. And this would end the need for a big chunk of local, state and federal law enforcement.

Either way, it was at age three, my Dad taught me these words. He didn’t teach me about guns, although he owned many. My X took care of that- when he was active USMC. These words cannot be forgotten, wisked under the carpet, or misinterpreted.
“A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

Well aren’t we darned?

YANGON, Myanmar — More than six weeks have passed since Cyclone Nargis swept through the Irrawaddy Delta in southern Myanmar, leaving a trail of flattened villages and broken lives and arousing international sympathy that turned to anguish as the military government obstructed foreign aid.

Now doctors and aid workers returning from remote areas of the delta are offering a less pessimistic picture of the human cost of the delay in reaching survivors.

They say they have seen no signs of starvation or widespread outbreaks of disease. While it is estimated that the cyclone may have killed 130,000 people, the number of lives lost specifically because of the junta’s slow response to the disaster appears to have been smaller than expected.

The people are hardy. They know how to survive. And make the best of such awful conditions. They didn’t need the world to save them.

Of course, just glance through all the headlines bashing the Junta and remember this: Maybe we don’t have a clue what we’re complaining about. Maybe, just maybe, the people didn’t NEED the worlds help. The UN, US, Europe, the whole lot of us, should reflect upon this and not forget the subtle lessons here.

Please tell me the Japs are anti freedom. I am appalled at this article…how do people allow their governments to have such control over them?

AMAGASAKI, Japan — Japan, a country not known for its overweight people, has undertaken one of the most ambitious campaigns ever by a nation to slim down its citizenry.

Summoned by the city of Amagasaki one recent morning, Minoru Nogiri, 45, a flower shop owner, found himself lining up to have his waistline measured. With no visible paunch, he seemed to run little risk of being classified as overweight, or metabo, the preferred word in Japan these days.

But because the new state-prescribed limit for male waistlines is a strict 33.5 inches, he had anxiously measured himself at home a couple of days earlier. “I’m on the border,” he said.

Under a national law that came into effect two months ago, companies and local governments must now measure the waistlines of Japanese people between the ages of 40 and 74 as part of their annual checkups. That represents more than 56 million waistlines, or about 44 percent of the entire population.

WTF? Companies and local governments MUST measure the peasantry? Oh my. There is NO freedom in Japan. And the peasants are stupid to allow such intrusions into their lives. Can we imagine how Americans would react to this? Of course liberals would be FINE with this form of privacy invasion.

Those exceeding government limits — 33.5 inches for men and 35.4 inches for women, which are identical to thresholds established in 2005 for Japan by the International Diabetes Federation as an easy guideline for identifying health risks — and having a weight-related ailment will be given dieting guidance if after three months they do not lose weight. If necessary, those people will be steered toward further re-education after six more months.

To reach its goals of shrinking the overweight population by 10 percent over the next four years and 25 percent over the next seven years, the government will impose financial penalties on companies and local governments that fail to meet specific targets. The country’s Ministry of Health argues that the campaign will keep the spread of diseases like diabetes and strokes in check.

Oh great. Companies that are fined for employing folks with waist lines larger than government standards will FIRE the folks. For every action there is a consequence- something liberal types always forget. And there is little actual evidence to support weight and diabetes/stroke connections. But no one wants to look deeper into THAT cause it’s not politically correct to do so. Weight loss is big business in every nation.

The one voice of reason mentioned in this article:

But on a shopping strip here, Kenzo Nagata, 73, a toy store owner, said he had ignored a letter summoning him to a so-called special checkup. His waistline was no one’s business but his own, he said, though he volunteered that, at 32.7 inches, it fell safely below the limit. He planned to disregard the second notice that the city was scheduled to mail to the recalcitrant.

He is absolutely right. Just damn. The Japs suck big time and this is absurd. I’m having a hard time believing this isn’t a joke or something!

Can we trust the UN to do the right thing? Do we still consider the UN to be a relevant entity that supports freedom and human rights for all people?

NEWS ANALYSIS — After more than two years of accusations and probes into the operations of the United Nations Development Program in North Korea, a weighty report finally reveals how routinely, and systematically, the agency disregarded U.N. regulations on how it conducted itself in Kim Jong-Il’s brutal dictatorship, passing on millions of dollars to the regime in the process.

The 353-page report, by a three-member “External Independent Investigative Review Panel” appointed by UNDP to investigate itself, was published with much fanfare last week after nine months of political maneuvering and research.

The report depicts an organization that for years apparently considered itself immune from its own rules of procedure as well as the laws and regulations of countries that were trying to keep weapons of mass destruction out of Kim’s hands.

Reports like this cause me to wonder what exactly, the UN is supposed to really stand for. Uniting nations or providing nations with the tools, resources and money to create a world of un-United nations.

Yet despite those rules, and in the midst of a growing international storm of concern over Kim’s behavior, UNDP’s North Korea office, as well as other UNDP offices, continued to hand over millions in hard currency to the Kim regime and to transfer sensitive equipment with potential for terrorist use or for use in creating weapons of mass destruction.

“What this report shows is that UNDP has operated lawlessly for far too long,” said Mark Wallace, the former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations who brought many of the original accusations against the U.N. anti-poverty agency to light in January 2007 after examining confidential UNDP internal audits of its North Korean operation.

“U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has indicated that integrity is a high U.N. priority,” Wallace said. “It is now up to UNDP to follow that direction.

The monster has become to big, to bumbling, too corrupt to serve any purpose now. The US should step down from this wasteful organization and start helping nations on it’s own.

Senator Obama gets more delusional each time he opens his mouth on foreign affairs.

In a interview with an Orlando Sentinel, Obama has this to say regarding our favorite Central American thug (H/T):

I would be willing to initiate such talks with leaders of countries adversarial to the United States. There would be a lot of preparation. The first steps would not be to pre-judge all the items on the list.

…

One of the obvious high priorities in my talks with President Hugo Chavez would be the fermentation of anti-American sentiment in Latin America, his support of FARC in Colombia and other issues he would want to talk about. It is important to understand that ignoring these countries has not led to improved behavior on their part and it has not served our national security interests.

There needs to be a shift in foreign politics and return to traditional foreign politics that were supported by both Republicans and Democrats in the past.

What a lovely Orwellian twist you’ve provided at the end, where you claim that your approach represents a return to traditional U.S. foreign policy practiced by both Democrats and Republicans. So you evidently must be longing for a return of the Clinton administration’s naked diplomacy, or lusting in your heart for the glorious bipartisan era of Jimmy Carter and his foreign policy triumphs… (Now that’s a list shorter than the list of French Military Victories.)

Traditional foreign policy, my ass!

Indeed, we haven’t seen a genuine bipartisan consensus on foreign policy since the Eisenhower administration, or perhaps the early days of the Kennedy administration, before the Democratic Party made a hard-left turn.

The only phrase missing from Sen. Obama’s interview is his solemnly declaring that all previous statements are now inoperative. But then again, surely we’ve heard and know that Messiah means never having to be held accountable to the same standards as other political leaders. (Sound vaguely familiar?)

Among Sen. Obama’s disturbingly illogical and dangerous blather, what was most absurd and fatally misguided is that second-to-last sentence, which I’ll quote again so that you can let it sink in:

It is important to understand that ignoring these countries has not led to improved behavior on their part and it has not served our national security interests.

Excuse me, Senator Obama? We’re clearly not ignoring Hugo Chavez. Certainly Hugo doesn’t feel we’re ignoring him, as he keeps claiming that the U.S. is trying to overthrow him and invoking that threat as a pretextual justification for his dictatorial action.

(Note to you Chavez apologists out there: the U.S. doesn’t force Hugo Chavez to behave dictatorially, we’re not responsible for his actions: Hugo Chavez is responsible for his perceptions and for his choice of response.)

So clearly we’re not ignoring Chavez, as our support for Columbia demonstrates.

(Or is it that the ignoring is actually coming from Obama and his Democratic big-labor, anti-trade fellow-travellers, who willfully ignore Hugo Chavez by betraying our friends, the Columbian government, to curry domestic partisan advantage. Nothing like attributing to one’s opponent the very behavior one is acting out.)

Indeed, Sen. Obama could only title as “ignoring” our present administration’s actions toward Hugo Chavez if he defines “ignoring” strictly as “not talking” and nothing else. Or if he defines “ignoring” as choosing to not dance to their tune at their whim.

If so, Sen. Obama, then by all means we need to “ignore” your pronouncements: there’s nothing to discuss. While you blunder onwards, we adults in the room are going to continue to “ignore” Hugo Chavez by your definition while we take effective measures to deal with his unacceptable behavior

Senator, have you ever raised children or had to deal with bullies? Then you know damn well that you don’t reward misconduct by trying to talk with them without any demands or preconditions, as though the mere act of talking will turn around their behavior. That rightly is called appeasement. In child rearing or controlling bullies, while appeasing misbehavior may buy a moment’s peace, it’s disastrous in the longer term.

Same with dealing with Hugo Chavez, a bully at heart.

I wish it were possible to ignore you, Sen Obama. If this is the drivel that the advisors you listen to are feeding you, God help our country if you become our next President!

Need a good laugh?

Read this.

The United Nations can save Burma

THE MILITARY junta in Burma is failing the most basic responsibility of any government to take care of its citizens. In the wake of the devastating typhoon that killed at least 28,000 people and left many thousands more destitute, the international community has marshaled a large-scale humanitarian response to help the millions affected by the deadly storm.
[...]
If not the national government, who can protect the people? The question has long been raised in the context of genocide and large-scale crimes against humanity, and three years ago all the members of the UN provided a solemn answer: the international community. The members agreed that governments have a responsibility to protect their people, and the international community had to assume that responsibility if a government cannot or will not do so.

Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner of France suggested that the United Nations invoke this collective responsibility to protect the people of Burma. Kouchner knows better than most what is really at stake here, having been the founder and leader of the humanitarian relief group Doctors Without Borders.

I’m humored by the blissful ignorance of the writers of this Op/Ed. They live in the world of Tinker Bell and Puff the Magic Dragon…and if the French want to DO something about Burma, let them show they have the balls to DO it. We all know where it will lead (no where). The US has offered help; we have planes and ships full of supplies, medicine, food and other items. We’re not going to deliver this without permission simply because, we know the people of Burma will not see the stuff. Even with the blessing of the junta, we know the hurt and suffering will never see benefit.

Stupid people have their dreams of the UN Saving the World. It makes for good public relations, but it’s nothing more than a dream. If we really want to save those people the world would stand up, beat the junta out of existence and take over that small country. That isn’t going to happen. And the UN and the French will never lead such an adventure.

As the world starves…

WASHINGTON — President George W. Bush called on Congress Thursday to approve $770 million to help alleviate dramatically escalating food prices that threaten widespread hunger and increasing social unrest around the world.

In a surprise appearance at the White House, Bush announced he is asking lawmakers to approve the additional funds for global food aid and development programs. The money is being included in a broader $70 billion Iraq war funding measure for 2009 that the White House sent to Capitol Hill on Thursday.

“In some of the world’s poorest nations, rising prices can mean the difference between getting a daily meal and going without food,” Bush said. “The American people are generous people and they’re a compassionate people. We believe in the timeless truth `to whom much is given, much is expected.”

…the US runs to the rescue.

And the UN sits on tons of cash.

Just weeks before it announced the onset of a global food crisis and the urgent need for donors to provide at least $775 million in additional funding, the World Food Program was sitting on a cash and near-cash stockpile of more than $1.22 billion.

The startling figure is contained in the latest audited statements of the WFP, which were endorsed by the WFP’s executive director, Josette Sheeran, on March 31, just a month before Sheeran announced at an international aid conference on April 22 that a “silent tsunami” in rising food prices demanded the huge infusion of cash for the WFP’s latest budget.

In a May 1 International Herald Tribune op-ed, U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon further declared that the WFP had just “$18 million cash in hand” in the wake of its appeal for emergency funding.

So why are we wasting so much of our money on this? Why are we not insisting the UN be accountable for every penny it has and then some? Cause we have a government full of stupid, bleeding hearted soft kneed polcats who aren’t interested in helping hungry people. Nope. It’s all about being politically correct. And we can afford to continue funding this foolsihness international group of idiOts known as the UN?

Some things simply amaze me.

When I question his patriotism, don’t dare ask me why.

NEW YORK CITY — Former President Jimmy Carter is reportedly preparing an unprecedented meeting with the leader of Hamas, an organization that the U.S. government considers one of the leading terrorist threats in the world.

The Arabic-language newspaper Al-Hayat reported Tuesday that Carter was planning a trip to Syria for mid-April, during which he would meet with Khaled Meshal, the exiled head of the Palestinian terror group Hamas, on April 18.

Deanna Congileo, Carter’s press secretary, confirmed in an e-mail to FOXNews.com that Carter will be in the Mideast in April. Pressed for comment, Congileo did not deny that the former president is considering visiting Meshal.

“President Carter is planning a trip to the Mideast next week; however, we are still confirming details of the trip and will issue a press release by the end of this week,” wrote Congileo. “I cannot confirm any specific meetings at this point in time.”

Meshal, who lives in Syria to avoid being arrested by the Israeli government, leads Hamas from his seat in Damascus, where he is a guest of Bashar al-Assad’s regime.

The State Department has designated Hamas a “foreign terrorist organization,” and some groups hold Meshal personally responsible for ordering the kidnapping of Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit. State Department spokesman Sean McCormack once said of the prospect of meeting with Meshal, “That’s not something that we could possibly conceive of.”

Hmm..what kind of diplomacy could possibly work for people like this? Who think nothing of killing, maiming, beheading, raping, beating….oh wait…this is the former peanut farmer who has shown us his remarkable peacemaking skills. Didn’t he try this one time already? And did it work??

Yesterday,John McCain told the world how he would manage foreign affairs. I’m not sure it’s all right for America.

In his first extensive policy speech since securing the delegates needed to win the Republican presidential nomination, McCain delivered an impassioned argument that achieving democracy in Iraq is necessary for a peaceful world.

“Those who argue that our goals in Iraq are unachievable are wrong, just as they were wrong a year ago when they declared the war already lost in Iraq,” he said, without naming Democratic candidates Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama. “Those who claim we should withdraw from Iraq in order to fight al-Qaeda more effectively elsewhere are making a dangerous mistake.”

I agree.

In a speech to the World Affairs Council in Los Angeles, McCain called himself a “realistic idealist” and outlined a worldview mirroring that of some Bush administration critics, who say the first task of the next president must be to repair relations around the world.

“Today we are not alone,” McCain said. “Our great power does not mean we can do whatever we want whenever we want, nor should we assume we have all the wisdom and knowledge necessary to succeed.”

NOT. Why do we have to “repair” something that has been broken for years? That was broken LONG before Bush came to office; broken as in being biased and unfair to the USA? What is this? Everyone is happy only when the US sits back, coughs up tons of cash for the world and stays asleep.

In the speech, McCain renewed his call for a “global compact — a League of Democracies” that would unite the world’s free countries against tyranny, disease and environmental destruction. As he did in Europe last week, he played down unilateral action and stressed cooperation on global warming, torture of prisoners and trade.

Uh…what the hell is the UN for? Like the UN, this League of Democracies will be nothing more than a HUGE waste of money, resources and effort; a FEEL GOOD group that accomplishes actually NOTHING.

“We need to listen — we need to listen — to the views and respect the collective will of our democratic allies,” McCain said. “When we believe international action is necessary, whether military, economic or diplomatic, we will try to persuade our friends that we are right. But we, in return, must be willing to be persuaded by them.”

We did this in the months prior to invading Iraq. The world was against this, and the reasons clear: Too many of our so called friends had their hands dipped in Iraq’s OIL…and the money profited from it. Make no mistake. THIS was the only reason there was such a lack of support.

At the same time, McCain indicated he would sharply break with Bush’s efforts to accommodate Russia, saying he would push to eject it from the Group of Eight club of industrial powers.

Excellent. Russia is no friend to any democracy.

In Wednesday’s speech, McCain cited China’s emergence as a “central challenge” for the United States but said the two countries are not destined to be adversaries. He said relations will be based on “periodically shared interests rather than the bedrock of shared values” until China allows liberalization.

Well this is bullshit. China is a emerging danger, to humanity as well as freedom. We shouldn’t be doing business with them. Period. I believe the bottom line here is…MONEY. Trade agreements with China produce one hell of a lot of profit for one hell few group of Americans. We’ve traded industries and hundreds of thousands (if not more) jobs in exchange for this profit. As China beats up anyone who dares stand up against the tyranny that is the Chinese government.

McCain speaks well overall. I don’t like the pandering though. I don’t like the politically correct attitude that has always been a part of the US’s foreign policies; McCain isn’t going to change anything. Rather he will bring it back to the pre 9-11 status quo. Which I think our enemies would really like.

So China is “protesting strongly” that the U.S. mistakenly sent non-nuclear ballistic missile parts to Taiwan.

Following in China’s foot prints on how to handle protests… I am thinking that rounding up, arresting and shooting the Chinese is in order…

I never thought I’d say it… I am moving to France!!

French women ‘are the sexual predators now’
By Henry Samuel in Paris
Last Updated: 3:54pm GMT 08/03/2008

French women are becoming increasingly assertive in their sexual habits….

YES! Perhaps French women are longing for those days when American G.I.s were busying beating back the Germans… among other things…

But then I read this part… which makes me wonder if there is something in the water in France….

… while one-in-five younger French men “has no interest in sex”…

WAH?!?! Perhaps that is why the French women are becoming the predators… French men aren’t interested in nookie with French women…. sheesh…

Anybody else have any thoughts on this?

Over in Britain there is a problem with germs- in hospitals and other health care facilities. People are dying, who don’t need to.

A 72% increase in deaths linked to the hospital superbug Clostridium difficile was disclosed yesterday by the Office for National Statistics.

It said the infection, which causes severe diarrhoea among patients whose resistance has been weakened by antibiotics, was mentioned on 6,480 death certificates in England and Wales in 2006, compared with 3,757 in 2005.

More than half registered C difficile as the underlying cause of death and the rest mentioned it as a contributory factor.

The figures showed deaths linked to C difficile were nearly four times more than deaths involving MRSA, which fell slightly in 2006 after rising for 10 years.

Is Islam a factor in Britain’s problem with infection non-control?

Health officials are having crisis talks with Muslim medical staff who have objected to hospital hygiene rules because of religious beliefs.

Medics in hospitals in at least three major English cities have refused to follow the regulations aimed at helping tackle superbugs because of their faith, it has been revealed.

Women medical students at Alder Hey children’s hospital in Liverpool objected to rolling up their sleeves when washing their hands and removing arm coverings in theatre, claiming it is regarded as immodest.

If I were a patient in Britain, I would insist NO MUSLIM caregivers for me until I witnessed them washing their hands and forearms. I can hear the cries of racism already.

The title of this post is credited to my blog friend Big Dog.

Much has been written about Canada’s health care system- how it’s illegal to seek services outside of the system. We’ve heard stories of people coming to the US for care and paying for it with their own money; being on a waiting list isn’t an option for some of those people.

Across the pond in Britain, those who chose this path are finding that they are being denied ALL services when they make this choice.

Although the government is reluctant to discuss the issue, hopscotching back and forth between private and public care has long been standard here for those who can afford it. But a few recent cases have exposed fundamental contradictions between policy and practice in the system, and tested its founding philosophy to its very limits.

One such case was Debbie Hirst’s. Her breast cancer had metastasized, and the health service would not provide her with Avastin, a drug that is widely used in the United States and Europe to keep such cancers at bay. So, with her oncologist’s support, she decided last year to try to pay the $120,000 cost herself, while continuing with the rest of her publicly financed treatment.

By December, she had raised $20,000 and was preparing to sell her house to raise more. But then the government, which had tacitly allowed such arrangements before, put its foot down. Mrs. Hirst heard the news from her doctor.

“He looked at me and said: ‘I’m so sorry, Debbie. I’ve had my wrists slapped from the people upstairs, and I can no longer offer you that service,’ ” Mrs. Hirst said in an interview.

Officials said that allowing Mrs. Hirst and others like her to pay for extra drugs to supplement government care would violate the philosophy of the health service by giving richer patients an unfair advantage over poorer ones.

Mrs. Hirst and others like her???? You mean- the poor peasants people????

Gimme a break.

Let’s be clear about this. An everyday average British citizen has cancer. They’re getting treatment for it- and this treatment doesn’t include the most modern and up to date therapies and drugs. The peasants are on long waiting lists for chemotherapy, radiation, surgeries…at great cost- their lives are at stake. When the peasants manage to raise the money needed for these treatments, from doctors within the country, one would think it shouldn’t be illegal.

The Queen and Princes and Baronesses and famed old rock stars are shamefully wealthy and do not participate in the NHS. They have the resources and cash for buy better health care. What good is a national health care system that allows THIS? In Britain we see richer patients DO have an advantage over the poorer folk. Their NHS is a classy entity: Only the lower classes can participate; the upper echelons can buy their own care from anyone they wish, from within country or out.

Why can’t the peons supplement their care? It’s not coming out of the pockets of anyone else. What good is a national system that can barely manage to keep it’s subjects up to date with immunizations and annual physicals? When a person has a deadly disease, they expect the best care available; in Britain this means substandard care. The peasants are starting to see this.

Uneffingbelievable.