Defaults. Foreclosures. Evictions. Every media venue is clogged with stories about people behind on their mortgage payments, who have defaulted, who are facing foreclosure and eviction from their homes. How bad is it?
According to today's (12/7/07) Wall Street Journal:
"Subprime adjustable-rate mortgages continued to have the most problems, with 4.72% of those loans starting the foreclosure process during the quarter. Those mortgages represent 6.8% of loans outstanding but accounted for 43% of new foreclosures during the quarter."
Okay. The Journal claims that 6.8% of all mortgages are Subprime Adjustable-rate Mortgages. Thus, out of 1,000 existing mortgages, the Subprime Adjustables financed 68 homes. The Journal also states that 4.72% of the Subprime Adjustables went to foreclosure in the latest quarter.
In other words, 4.72% of the 68 homes purchased with Subprime Adjustables entered foreclosure. That's 3.2 mortgages out of 1,000. Or, since it's not likely a fraction of a mortgage is in foreclose while the remainder is healthy, 32 out of 10,000 mortgages went into foreclosure in the latest quarter.
The article also says the 32 troubled Subprime Adjustable Mortgages amount to 43% of the total entering foreclosure. Thus, out of 10,000 mortgages, 74 entered foreclosure.
Is this a problem?
Putting it another way, the numbers show that 99.26% of all mortgages are performing. More significant is the fact that as foreclosures rise, the number of non-performing mortgages will decrease as the foreclosed homes are purchased by solvent buyers.
Where's the problem?
A small group of former owners may once again become renters. Meanwhile, it's just as likely that a small group of former renters will become owners if they purchase the foreclosed homes at discounts to recent neighborhood prices.
Where's the problem?
How did we get here?
There was a time -- a few decades ago -- when a bank issuing a mortgage held that mortgage on its balance sheet until the home was sold or paid off. Secondary markets did not exist. Thus, if a bank issued a mortgage to a borrower who later defaulted, the bank was stuck with real estate it did not want.To minimize the risk of defaults, banks offered mortgages to only their most creditworthy customers. Banks further insulated themselves against real estate risks by refusing to lend money to purchase houses in questionable neighborhoods.
The upshot of these sensible policies was twofold. First, non-whites were far less likely to meet the credit standards of banks. Thus, they got few loans. Second, whole neighborhoods were judged as bad bets for lenders. Hence, red-lining. Banks are in business to make money for their owners. To lend money to borrowers who will return it with interest. Better to be safe than sorry is the banking mantra.
What did these policies bring?Polarized enclaves. New York City evolved into a collection of neighborhoods that were either good, starting to decay, or in some state of despair and delapidation. The race of residents usually told the story.
But today, NY City is a city of well over 8 million citizens, all of whom are living in neighborhoods that have been on an upward economic trajectory for the last 15 years.
What changed?Mortgage lending. Why? Declining crime rates, improving economy. But a key change occurred in the credit process. Securitization became the standard practice. Secondary markets for all forms of financial assets arose. Thus, bankers were able to issue mortgages and sell them in new secondary market, freeing the banks from certain risks.
Investment companies were able to buy those mortgages and bundle them into huge pools of interest-paying securities, minimizing the impact of the occasional defaulted mortgage.Banks were free to issue mortgages on properties in troubled neighborhoods. They were relieved of the risk of holding mortgages on questionable properties. But they were able to obtain funds for buyers and earn fees. The arrival of secondary markets and securitization was the end of red-lining. No neighborhood was off-limits to buyers who needed a loan to acquire property.
Moreover, other antiquated banking rules were repealed. Many old banking rules put geographical limits on lending by individual banks. Thus, a bank often held a near monopoly on lending in the neighborhoods surrounding its branches. But secondary markets, securitization and new banking regulations that increased competition changed all that. Buyers were given choices. Instead of one or two local banks from which to seek a mortgage, buyers were faced with too many to count. Commercial banks, savings banks, savings & loan associations, credit unions, mortgage banks, mortgage brokers, Wall Street brokerage firms, credit card companies. All of them in the mortgage business.
There were still questions, however. Buyers were rated. What's today's most often asked question? Once it was your zodiac sign. Today it's your credit score. Like it or not, almost everyone has been profiled for creditworthiness. As consumers we might have a long history of borrowing and repaying. Or no history.
Either way, there's a lender willing to supply capital to almost any borrower. For a price.There's also another factor in play. When it comes to the price of an object, its price reflects the amount of money available to pay for it. Thus, housing prices will rise in tandem with the number of people able to obtain mortgage money. Therefore, it's no surprise that home prices have risen a lot over the last 15 years.
Will housing prices drop due to foreclosures? If so, how much? Sure they'll drop. So what? The downside isn't really a downside at all. It's nothing less than a temporary sale. A January White Sale for housing. When prices are perceived as bargains, buyers will rush in and prices will begin to rise again. Does it matter if it takes two years before prices set new records? No.
Meanwhile, for years many elected officials charged the lending industry with bias and accused it of discriminatory lending practices. The arrival of secondary markets, securitization and heavy competition among lenders solved that problem. Home ownership among blacks and hispanics has increased faster than home ownership among whites. Ironically, with defaults and foreclosures rising, the same politicians are now accusing lenders of a new form of malfeasance. Easy credit, no questions asked. The old crime was tightfistedness. The new crime is improvidence.
There ought to be signs of indignance coming from blacks and hispanics about this. The subtext of the new crime implies the victims of these easy credit schemes are too dumb to know they should not borrow money to buy homes. Apparently the troubled borrowers were expected to believe that getting a mortgage fell into that "too-good-to-be-true" cateogory of offerings.
Were some people scammed? Certainly a few were. But no lender can earn profits from people who fail to repay loans. However, there are critics who seem to think some businesses can make money by losing money.Why are people in default? Lots of reasons. Some simply cannot afford the payments they face after the Subprime Adjustable Mortgages adjust. But what is unclear is the percentage of people who refinanced existing homes with Subprime Adjustable Mortgages as a strategy to extract equity from their appreciated properties. How many of them are in trouble now? On what did they spend the money they obtained through refinancing? It matters.
How many borrowers borrowed everything, including their downpayment money? Many programs exist to help buyers get their first homes. They usually include downpayment cash. Thus, borrowers often kick-off their home-ownership with zero or even negative equity to cushion them against setbacks. If a buyer with no skin in the game loses his house, he simply returns to his previous life as a renter without losing a dime out of his pocket. Thus, he speculated on home-ownership and failed. At no cost to him.
In other words, many defaulters have shown full understanding of the value of OPM -- Other People's Money. Hey, for them, things could be much worse. They could have wagered their own money. But they didn't. Quite a few homes were financed with 100% OPM. Donald Trump applauds. Who wouldn't want to purchase valuable assets financed entirely with OPM?
Enter the Government. Washington has reluctantly agreed to step in. That's bad news. However, it appears that help for troubled homeowners will come in small doses. That's better. But any safety net will encourage more people to jump. Today it appears that only people who have not defaulted will be eligible for assistance. Imagine the surprise when people who had been prepared to pay the higher adjusted rates of their mortgage contracts opt for the free pass offered by Washington. Oh, I can pay my introductory teaser rate of 1% for another 5 years? Yippee. Where do I sign?
We are deep in the grip of a media-driven hysteria. The only role for Washington is one aimed at keeping order while the private sector develops strategies to solve the problems. Unfortunately, this is the same federal government that lacks the will to reduce the threat of punishing oil prices by expanding oil drilling in the US. The solution that would create many high-paying jobs for people who would obtain more mortgages.
Friday, December 7, 2007
Friday, November 30, 2007
D.C. v. PARKER
Some of the less talked about potentials arising from a potential SCOTUS ruling affirming that the Second Amendment is indeed an individual right.
It is my understanding that visa vi the 14th Amendment; states would no longer be able to regulate firearms and would have to instead rely on federal law.
While it seems the focus is whether or not one is allowed to "keep arms", little attention is paid to the "bear arms" portion of the right. Will the Feds be issuing national carry permits?
Will civil rights organizations like the NRA (the "gun lobby" to you MSM sycophants) no longer be able to effectively lobby the government?
Friday, November 9, 2007
SPEAKING TRUTH TO IDIOCY
Truths that lefties either wont admit or simply don't understand.
The whole of Korea would likely look like North Korea were it not for the intervention of the U.S.
The NRA is a Civil Rights organization.
The ACLU is no longer a Civil Rights organization.
The notion of anthropogenic global warming is more about defeating capitalism than it is about science.
The list could go on, but lets chew on these for now.
The whole of Korea would likely look like North Korea were it not for the intervention of the U.S.
The NRA is a Civil Rights organization.
The ACLU is no longer a Civil Rights organization.
The notion of anthropogenic global warming is more about defeating capitalism than it is about science.
The list could go on, but lets chew on these for now.
Saturday, November 3, 2007
AS PREDICTED
Michael Yon has an interesting story indicating that according to the Iraqi Islamic Party, al Queda in Iraq is defeated.
Having observed history I had previously indicated that once the charismatic leader of al Queda In Iraq was killed, we would begin to see the deterioration of the organization. So, here we are not even a year and a half latter to watch history unfold yet again. All notions be they good or bad seem to succeed when they have a charismatic leader at the helm of said notion.
Of note in the Yon story:
Of course, not understanding that they themselves were/are part of the propaganda war with their usual zeal for American failure, many lefties were attributing the "civil war" in Iraq to the lack of understanding of Iraqi history and the tensions that were pre-existing and could never be brought to resolution because of the past. To believe this idea that "history is all" in understanding a culture or society, we would have to model any contemporary American societal notion with the idea that slavery is still an issue. This idea of course was resolved with a real civil war and we have collectively never looked back at the notion excepting to resolve that it would never happen again.
In fact we find that if we really want to use history as a guide, it is apparent that across the globe societies and cultures evolve and change at the will of many external and internal influences, sometimes for better and sometimes for worse. Notable instances are the whole of the Korean peninsula and the nation of Japan.
Having observed history I had previously indicated that once the charismatic leader of al Queda In Iraq was killed, we would begin to see the deterioration of the organization. So, here we are not even a year and a half latter to watch history unfold yet again. All notions be they good or bad seem to succeed when they have a charismatic leader at the helm of said notion.
Of note in the Yon story:
During the meeting, another member of the Iraqi Islamic Party said that al
Qaeda has changed its strategy now that fomenting civil war between Sunni
and Shia has backfired.
Of course, not understanding that they themselves were/are part of the propaganda war with their usual zeal for American failure, many lefties were attributing the "civil war" in Iraq to the lack of understanding of Iraqi history and the tensions that were pre-existing and could never be brought to resolution because of the past. To believe this idea that "history is all" in understanding a culture or society, we would have to model any contemporary American societal notion with the idea that slavery is still an issue. This idea of course was resolved with a real civil war and we have collectively never looked back at the notion excepting to resolve that it would never happen again.
In fact we find that if we really want to use history as a guide, it is apparent that across the globe societies and cultures evolve and change at the will of many external and internal influences, sometimes for better and sometimes for worse. Notable instances are the whole of the Korean peninsula and the nation of Japan.
Thursday, November 1, 2007
EDUCATION
As some of you know, I have in the past indicated that education was the most important issue surrounding a free people. Both knowledge and propaganda are power. While one allows us the freedom of original thought, the other allows us to be the vehicle for someone else's agenda. Having long been an advocate of what I call "responsible school choice", I was intrigued when I encountered a column by George Will at Realclearpolitics.
Like the Conservative in-roads into liberal media bias that were gained after it's deregulation by Ronald Reagan, there is hope that we will someday see the taming of "Big Education" via a voucher system. Of course, standing in the way of this are the usual detractors the Teachers Unions, whose concerns seem to be more about whats in their benefits package instead of the education of our children, and who (as Will puts so aptly) are not progressive at all and are instead champions of the status quo.
Like the Conservative in-roads into liberal media bias that were gained after it's deregulation by Ronald Reagan, there is hope that we will someday see the taming of "Big Education" via a voucher system. Of course, standing in the way of this are the usual detractors the Teachers Unions, whose concerns seem to be more about whats in their benefits package instead of the education of our children, and who (as Will puts so aptly) are not progressive at all and are instead champions of the status quo.
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
ENLIGHTENMENT
Is there any doubt that those who claim it's mantel as their own engage in pompous behavior?
It has been my experience in life that the more enlightened a person seems to be, the less likely it is that he or she will advertise it. As I have observed, humility and enlightenment often times go hand in hand.
update:
It has been my experience in life that the more enlightened a person seems to be, the less likely it is that he or she will advertise it. As I have observed, humility and enlightenment often times go hand in hand.
update:
Harvard joins the "select few" who can see the bias!
Maybe now, even the brain-washed,, er,, I mean "enlightened" amongst use will see what the rest of us have seen over the past 20 years or so.
Sunday, September 23, 2007
Saturday, September 22, 2007
Optimist?
While we most have heard that seeing a glass as “half empty” makes you a pessimist, it dawned on me that a glass that is half full has yet to have reached it’s capacity (and may never), and a glass that is half empty has been full at one point and may be again.
Wednesday, September 19, 2007
Can someone show me the "lie"?
PRESIDENT: Good evening.
Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.
Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world.
Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons.
I want to explain why I have decided, with the unanimous recommendation of my national security team, to use force in Iraq; why we have acted now; and what we aim to accomplish.
Six weeks ago, Saddam Hussein announced that he would no longer cooperate with the United Nations weapons inspectors called UNSCOM. They are highly professional experts from dozens of countries. Their job is to oversee the elimination of Iraq's capability to retain, create and use weapons of mass destruction, and to verify that Iraq does not attempt to rebuild that capability.
The inspectors undertook this mission first 7.5 years ago at the end of the Gulf War when Iraq agreed to declare and destroy its arsenal as a condition of the ceasefire.
The international community had good reason to set this requirement. Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them. Not once, but repeatedly. Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war. Not only against soldiers, but against civilians, firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. And not only against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq.
The international community had little doubt then, and I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again.
The United States has patiently worked to preserve UNSCOM as Iraq has sought to avoid its obligation to cooperate with the inspectors. On occasion, we've had to threaten military force, and Saddam has backed down.
Faced with Saddam's latest act of defiance in late October, we built intensive diplomatic pressure on Iraq backed by overwhelming military force in the region. The UN Security Council voted 15 to zero to condemn Saddam's actions and to demand that he immediately come into compliance.
Eight Arab nations -- Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, United Arab Emirates and Oman -- warned that Iraq alone would bear responsibility for the consequences of defying the UN.
When Saddam still failed to comply, we prepared to act militarily. It was only then at the last possible moment that Iraq backed down. It pledged to the UN that it had made, and I quote, a clear and unconditional decision to resume cooperation with the weapons inspectors.
I decided then to call off the attack with our airplanes already in the air because Saddam had given in to our demands. I concluded then that the right thing to do was to use restraint and give Saddam one last chance to prove his willingness to cooperate.
I made it very clear at that time what unconditional cooperation meant, based on existing UN resolutions and Iraq's own commitments. And along with Prime Minister Blair of Great Britain, I made it equally clear that if Saddam failed to cooperate fully, we would be prepared to act without delay, diplomacy or warning.
Now over the past three weeks, the UN weapons inspectors have carried out their plan for testing Iraq's cooperation. The testing period ended this weekend, and last night, UNSCOM's chairman, Richard Butler, reported the results to UN Secretary-General Annan.
The conclusions are stark, sobering and profoundly disturbing.
In four out of the five categories set forth, Iraq has failed to cooperate. Indeed, it actually has placed new restrictions on the inspectors. Here are some of the particulars.
Iraq repeatedly blocked UNSCOM from inspecting suspect sites. For example, it shut off access to the headquarters of its ruling party and said it will deny access to the party's other offices, even though UN resolutions make no exception for them and UNSCOM has inspected them in the past.
Iraq repeatedly restricted UNSCOM's ability to obtain necessary evidence. For example, Iraq obstructed UNSCOM's effort to photograph bombs related to its chemical weapons program.
It tried to stop an UNSCOM biological weapons team from videotaping a site and photocopying documents and prevented Iraqi personnel from answering UNSCOM's questions.
Prior to the inspection of another site, Iraq actually emptied out the building, removing not just documents but even the furniture and the equipment.
Iraq has failed to turn over virtually all the documents requested by the inspectors. Indeed, we know that Iraq ordered the destruction of weapons-related documents in anticipation of an UNSCOM inspection.
So Iraq has abused its final chance.
As the UNSCOM reports concludes, and again I quote, "Iraq's conduct ensured that no progress was able to be made in the fields of disarmament.
"In light of this experience, and in the absence of full cooperation by Iraq, it must regrettably be recorded again that the commission is not able to conduct the work mandated to it by the Security Council with respect to Iraq's prohibited weapons program."
In short, the inspectors are saying that even if they could stay in Iraq, their work would be a sham.
Saddam's deception has defeated their effectiveness. Instead of the inspectors disarming Saddam, Saddam has disarmed the inspectors.
This situation presents a clear and present danger to the stability of the Persian Gulf and the safety of people everywhere. The international community gave Saddam one last chance to resume cooperation with the weapons inspectors. Saddam has failed to seize the chance.
And so we had to act and act now.
Let me explain why.
First, without a strong inspection system, Iraq would be free to retain and begin to rebuild its chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs in months, not years.
Second, if Saddam can crippled the weapons inspection system and get away with it, he would conclude that the international community -- led by the United States -- has simply lost its will. He will surmise that he has free rein to rebuild his arsenal of destruction, and someday -- make no mistake -- he will use it again as he has in the past.
Third, in halting our air strikes in November, I gave Saddam a chance, not a license. If we turn our backs on his defiance, the credibility of U.S. power as a check against Saddam will be destroyed. We will not only have allowed Saddam to shatter the inspection system that controls his weapons of mass destruction program; we also will have fatally undercut the fear of force that stops Saddam from acting to gain domination in the region.
That is why, on the unanimous recommendation of my national security team -- including the vice president, the secretary of defense, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, the secretary of state and the national security adviser -- I have ordered a strong, sustained series of air strikes against Iraq.
They are designed to degrade Saddam's capacity to develop and deliver weapons of mass destruction, and to degrade his ability to threaten his neighbors.
At the same time, we are delivering a powerful message to Saddam. If you act recklessly, you will pay a heavy price. We acted today because, in the judgment of my military advisers, a swift response would provide the most surprise and the least opportunity for Saddam to prepare.
If we had delayed for even a matter of days from Chairman Butler's report, we would have given Saddam more time to disperse his forces and protect his weapons.
Also, the Muslim holy month of Ramadan begins this weekend. For us to initiate military action during Ramadan would be profoundly offensive to the Muslim world and, therefore, would damage our relations with Arab countries and the progress we have made in the Middle East.
That is something we wanted very much to avoid without giving Iraq's a month's head start to prepare for potential action against it.
Finally, our allies, including Prime Minister Tony Blair of Great Britain, concurred that now is the time to strike. I hope Saddam will come into cooperation with the inspection system now and comply with the relevant UN Security Council resolutions. But we have to be prepared that he will not, and we must deal with the very real danger he poses.
So we will pursue a long-term strategy to contain Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction and work toward the day when Iraq has a government worthy of its people.
First, we must be prepared to use force again if Saddam takes threatening actions, such as trying to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction or their delivery systems, threatening his neighbors, challenging allied aircraft over Iraq or moving against his own Kurdish citizens.
The credible threat to use force, and when necessary, the actual use of force, is the surest way to contain Saddam's weapons of mass destruction program, curtail his aggression and prevent another Gulf War.
Second, so long as Iraq remains out of compliance, we will work with the international community to maintain and enforce economic sanctions. Sanctions have cost Saddam more than $120 billion -- resources that would have been used to rebuild his military. The sanctions system allows Iraq to sell oil for food, for medicine, for other humanitarian supplies for the Iraqi people.
We have no quarrel with them. But without the sanctions, we would see the oil-for-food program become oil-for-tanks, resulting in a greater threat to Iraq's neighbors and less food for its people.
The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world.
The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people. Bringing change in Baghdad will take time and effort. We will strengthen our engagement with the full range of Iraqi opposition forces and work with them effectively and prudently.
The decision to use force is never cost-free. Whenever American forces are placed in harm's way, we risk the loss of life. And while our strikes are focused on Iraq's military capabilities, there will be unintended Iraqi casualties.
Indeed, in the past, Saddam has intentionally placed Iraqi civilians in harm's way in a cynical bid to sway international opinion.
We must be prepared for these realities. At the same time, Saddam should have absolutely no doubt if he lashes out at his neighbors, we will respond forcefully.
Heavy as they are, the costs of action must be weighed against the price of inaction. If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors. He will make war on his own people.
And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them.
Because we're acting today, it is less likely that we will face these dangers in the future.
Let me close by addressing one other issue. Saddam Hussein and the other enemies of peace may have thought that the serious debate currently before the House of Representatives would distract Americans or weaken our resolve to face him down.
But once more, the United States has proven that although we are never eager to use force, when we must act in America's vital interests, we will do so.
In the century we're leaving, America has often made the difference between chaos and community, fear and hope. Now, in the new century, we'll have a remarkable opportunity to shape a future more peaceful than the past, but only if we stand strong against the enemies of peace.
Tonight, the United States is doing just that. May God bless and protect the brave men and women who are carrying out this vital mission and their families. And may God bless America.
Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.
Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world.
Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons.
I want to explain why I have decided, with the unanimous recommendation of my national security team, to use force in Iraq; why we have acted now; and what we aim to accomplish.
Six weeks ago, Saddam Hussein announced that he would no longer cooperate with the United Nations weapons inspectors called UNSCOM. They are highly professional experts from dozens of countries. Their job is to oversee the elimination of Iraq's capability to retain, create and use weapons of mass destruction, and to verify that Iraq does not attempt to rebuild that capability.
The inspectors undertook this mission first 7.5 years ago at the end of the Gulf War when Iraq agreed to declare and destroy its arsenal as a condition of the ceasefire.
The international community had good reason to set this requirement. Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them. Not once, but repeatedly. Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war. Not only against soldiers, but against civilians, firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. And not only against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq.
The international community had little doubt then, and I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again.
The United States has patiently worked to preserve UNSCOM as Iraq has sought to avoid its obligation to cooperate with the inspectors. On occasion, we've had to threaten military force, and Saddam has backed down.
Faced with Saddam's latest act of defiance in late October, we built intensive diplomatic pressure on Iraq backed by overwhelming military force in the region. The UN Security Council voted 15 to zero to condemn Saddam's actions and to demand that he immediately come into compliance.
Eight Arab nations -- Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, United Arab Emirates and Oman -- warned that Iraq alone would bear responsibility for the consequences of defying the UN.
When Saddam still failed to comply, we prepared to act militarily. It was only then at the last possible moment that Iraq backed down. It pledged to the UN that it had made, and I quote, a clear and unconditional decision to resume cooperation with the weapons inspectors.
I decided then to call off the attack with our airplanes already in the air because Saddam had given in to our demands. I concluded then that the right thing to do was to use restraint and give Saddam one last chance to prove his willingness to cooperate.
I made it very clear at that time what unconditional cooperation meant, based on existing UN resolutions and Iraq's own commitments. And along with Prime Minister Blair of Great Britain, I made it equally clear that if Saddam failed to cooperate fully, we would be prepared to act without delay, diplomacy or warning.
Now over the past three weeks, the UN weapons inspectors have carried out their plan for testing Iraq's cooperation. The testing period ended this weekend, and last night, UNSCOM's chairman, Richard Butler, reported the results to UN Secretary-General Annan.
The conclusions are stark, sobering and profoundly disturbing.
In four out of the five categories set forth, Iraq has failed to cooperate. Indeed, it actually has placed new restrictions on the inspectors. Here are some of the particulars.
Iraq repeatedly blocked UNSCOM from inspecting suspect sites. For example, it shut off access to the headquarters of its ruling party and said it will deny access to the party's other offices, even though UN resolutions make no exception for them and UNSCOM has inspected them in the past.
Iraq repeatedly restricted UNSCOM's ability to obtain necessary evidence. For example, Iraq obstructed UNSCOM's effort to photograph bombs related to its chemical weapons program.
It tried to stop an UNSCOM biological weapons team from videotaping a site and photocopying documents and prevented Iraqi personnel from answering UNSCOM's questions.
Prior to the inspection of another site, Iraq actually emptied out the building, removing not just documents but even the furniture and the equipment.
Iraq has failed to turn over virtually all the documents requested by the inspectors. Indeed, we know that Iraq ordered the destruction of weapons-related documents in anticipation of an UNSCOM inspection.
So Iraq has abused its final chance.
As the UNSCOM reports concludes, and again I quote, "Iraq's conduct ensured that no progress was able to be made in the fields of disarmament.
"In light of this experience, and in the absence of full cooperation by Iraq, it must regrettably be recorded again that the commission is not able to conduct the work mandated to it by the Security Council with respect to Iraq's prohibited weapons program."
In short, the inspectors are saying that even if they could stay in Iraq, their work would be a sham.
Saddam's deception has defeated their effectiveness. Instead of the inspectors disarming Saddam, Saddam has disarmed the inspectors.
This situation presents a clear and present danger to the stability of the Persian Gulf and the safety of people everywhere. The international community gave Saddam one last chance to resume cooperation with the weapons inspectors. Saddam has failed to seize the chance.
And so we had to act and act now.
Let me explain why.
First, without a strong inspection system, Iraq would be free to retain and begin to rebuild its chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs in months, not years.
Second, if Saddam can crippled the weapons inspection system and get away with it, he would conclude that the international community -- led by the United States -- has simply lost its will. He will surmise that he has free rein to rebuild his arsenal of destruction, and someday -- make no mistake -- he will use it again as he has in the past.
Third, in halting our air strikes in November, I gave Saddam a chance, not a license. If we turn our backs on his defiance, the credibility of U.S. power as a check against Saddam will be destroyed. We will not only have allowed Saddam to shatter the inspection system that controls his weapons of mass destruction program; we also will have fatally undercut the fear of force that stops Saddam from acting to gain domination in the region.
That is why, on the unanimous recommendation of my national security team -- including the vice president, the secretary of defense, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, the secretary of state and the national security adviser -- I have ordered a strong, sustained series of air strikes against Iraq.
They are designed to degrade Saddam's capacity to develop and deliver weapons of mass destruction, and to degrade his ability to threaten his neighbors.
At the same time, we are delivering a powerful message to Saddam. If you act recklessly, you will pay a heavy price. We acted today because, in the judgment of my military advisers, a swift response would provide the most surprise and the least opportunity for Saddam to prepare.
If we had delayed for even a matter of days from Chairman Butler's report, we would have given Saddam more time to disperse his forces and protect his weapons.
Also, the Muslim holy month of Ramadan begins this weekend. For us to initiate military action during Ramadan would be profoundly offensive to the Muslim world and, therefore, would damage our relations with Arab countries and the progress we have made in the Middle East.
That is something we wanted very much to avoid without giving Iraq's a month's head start to prepare for potential action against it.
Finally, our allies, including Prime Minister Tony Blair of Great Britain, concurred that now is the time to strike. I hope Saddam will come into cooperation with the inspection system now and comply with the relevant UN Security Council resolutions. But we have to be prepared that he will not, and we must deal with the very real danger he poses.
So we will pursue a long-term strategy to contain Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction and work toward the day when Iraq has a government worthy of its people.
First, we must be prepared to use force again if Saddam takes threatening actions, such as trying to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction or their delivery systems, threatening his neighbors, challenging allied aircraft over Iraq or moving against his own Kurdish citizens.
The credible threat to use force, and when necessary, the actual use of force, is the surest way to contain Saddam's weapons of mass destruction program, curtail his aggression and prevent another Gulf War.
Second, so long as Iraq remains out of compliance, we will work with the international community to maintain and enforce economic sanctions. Sanctions have cost Saddam more than $120 billion -- resources that would have been used to rebuild his military. The sanctions system allows Iraq to sell oil for food, for medicine, for other humanitarian supplies for the Iraqi people.
We have no quarrel with them. But without the sanctions, we would see the oil-for-food program become oil-for-tanks, resulting in a greater threat to Iraq's neighbors and less food for its people.
The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world.
The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people. Bringing change in Baghdad will take time and effort. We will strengthen our engagement with the full range of Iraqi opposition forces and work with them effectively and prudently.
The decision to use force is never cost-free. Whenever American forces are placed in harm's way, we risk the loss of life. And while our strikes are focused on Iraq's military capabilities, there will be unintended Iraqi casualties.
Indeed, in the past, Saddam has intentionally placed Iraqi civilians in harm's way in a cynical bid to sway international opinion.
We must be prepared for these realities. At the same time, Saddam should have absolutely no doubt if he lashes out at his neighbors, we will respond forcefully.
Heavy as they are, the costs of action must be weighed against the price of inaction. If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors. He will make war on his own people.
And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them.
Because we're acting today, it is less likely that we will face these dangers in the future.
Let me close by addressing one other issue. Saddam Hussein and the other enemies of peace may have thought that the serious debate currently before the House of Representatives would distract Americans or weaken our resolve to face him down.
But once more, the United States has proven that although we are never eager to use force, when we must act in America's vital interests, we will do so.
In the century we're leaving, America has often made the difference between chaos and community, fear and hope. Now, in the new century, we'll have a remarkable opportunity to shape a future more peaceful than the past, but only if we stand strong against the enemies of peace.
Tonight, the United States is doing just that. May God bless and protect the brave men and women who are carrying out this vital mission and their families. And may God bless America.
Monday, July 9, 2007
Socialism
and the liberal notion in general, create no wealth and extract it from the productive. Will it kill the host?
Tuesday, May 15, 2007
Cowardice
After watching tonight’s Republican debate on Fox, is it any wonder why the Democrats boycotted any Fox sponsored Democrat presidential candidate debate? They might have actually been asked a tough question or two, or perhaps be called out on the fact that the answer provided wasn’t one that had anything to do with the question asked! We as Americans need to ask this question: If the Democrats cant face off with the likes of Brit Hume, how in the hell could we trust them to conduct any type of foreign policy where there may be confronted with someone a little more adversarial. Clearly the Democrat candidates are freighted or unable to answer the types of questions posed by adults and are only capable of answering the sort of juvenile drivel that is dolled out to them by their media lap dogs, and as such not worthy to be president of the United States.
It has also now become very clear why it is that the Democrats are pushing for the “Fairness” Doctrine. After being allowed to get away with saying almost anything they want and answer any question posed to them in any way they wanted, Democrats are frightened of the new media and its ability to shine a light on them when the mainstream media wouldn’t dare. So funny to see the party that is supposed to be for progressive “open-mindedness” cower from one of the very notions that they claim to support.
I used to really hate the media bias, but now that it becomes more and more apparent that it will be the undoing of the fringe left, it kinda makes me chuckle.
It has also now become very clear why it is that the Democrats are pushing for the “Fairness” Doctrine. After being allowed to get away with saying almost anything they want and answer any question posed to them in any way they wanted, Democrats are frightened of the new media and its ability to shine a light on them when the mainstream media wouldn’t dare. So funny to see the party that is supposed to be for progressive “open-mindedness” cower from one of the very notions that they claim to support.
I used to really hate the media bias, but now that it becomes more and more apparent that it will be the undoing of the fringe left, it kinda makes me chuckle.
Sunday, May 13, 2007
How much longer
until the ACLU will try to thwart the will of the people in the guise of Civil Rights?
It appears that the people in Farmers Branch Texas have voted to make it against the law for landlords to rent to illegal immigrants.
Now, it seems to me that it is settled reason, that illegal immigrants burden American society as a whole and that their presence here only benefits a few. So what would be wrong with making it illegal for a landlord to rent to an illegal immigrant?
It appears that the people in Farmers Branch Texas have voted to make it against the law for landlords to rent to illegal immigrants.
Now, it seems to me that it is settled reason, that illegal immigrants burden American society as a whole and that their presence here only benefits a few. So what would be wrong with making it illegal for a landlord to rent to an illegal immigrant?
Sunday, May 6, 2007
George S. Patton
A dear friend and colleague of mine insists on making comparisons between WWII and Iraq and it got me thinking:
What would Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi have to say about the now infamous General George S. Patton speech? More importantly, what would General George S. Patton have to say about Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her inability to even meet with General Petraeus?
The Speech
Somewhere in EnglandJune 5th, 1944
"Be seated."
"Men, this stuff that some sources sling around about America wanting out of this war, not wanting to fight, is a crock of bullshit. Americans love to fight, traditionally. All real Americans love the sting and clash of battle. You are here today for three reasons. First, because you are here to defend your homes and your loved ones. Second, you are here for your own self respect, because you would not want to be anywhere else. Third, you are here because you are real men and all real men like to fight. When you, here, everyone of you, were kids, you all admired the champion marble player, the fastest runner, the toughest boxer, the big league ball players, and the All-American football players. Americans love a winner. Americans will not tolerate a loser. Americans despise cowards. Americans play to win all of the time. I wouldn't give a hoot in hell for a man who lost and laughed. That's why Americans have never lost nor will ever lose a war; for the very idea of losing is hateful to an American."
"You are not all going to die. Only two percent of you right here today would die in a major battle. Death must not be feared. Death, in time, comes to all men. Yes, every man is scared in his first battle. If he says he's not, he's a liar. Some men are cowards but they fight the same as the brave men or they get the hell slammed out of them watching men fight who are just as scared as they are. The real hero is the man who fights even though he is scared. Some men get over their fright in a minute under fire. For some, it takes an hour. For some, it takes days. But a real man will never let his fear of death overpower his honor, his sense of duty to his country, and his innate manhood. Battle is the most magnificent competition in which a human being can indulge. It brings out all that is best and it removes all that is base. Americans pride themselves on being He Men and they ARE He Men. Remember that the enemy is just as frightened as you are, and probably more so. They are not supermen." "All through your Army careers, you men have bitched about what you call "chicken shit drilling". That, like everything else in this Army, has a definite purpose. That purpose is alertness. Alertness must be bred into every soldier. I don't give a fuck for a man who's not always on his toes. You men are veterans or you wouldn't be here. You are ready for what's to come. A man must be alert at all times if he expects to stay alive. If you're not alert, sometime, a German son-of-an-asshole-bitch is going to sneak up behind you and beat you to death with a sockful of shit!"
"There are four hundred neatly marked graves somewhere in Sicily, all because one man went to sleep on the job. But they are German graves, because we caught the bastard asleep before they did." "An Army is a team. It lives, sleeps, eats, and fights as a team. This individual heroic stuff is pure horse shit. The bilious bastards who write that kind of stuff for the Saturday Evening Post don't know any more about real fighting under fire than they know about fucking!" "We have the finest food, the finest equipment, the best spirit, and the best men in the world. Why, by God, I actually pity those poor sons-of-bitches we're going up against. By God, I do." "My men don't surrender, and I don't want to hear of any soldier under my command being captured unless he has been hit. Even if you are hit, you can still fight back. That's not just bull shit either. The kind of man that I want in my command is just like the lieutenant in Libya, who, with a Luger against his chest, jerked off his helmet, swept the gun aside with one hand, and busted the hell out of the Kraut with his helmet. Then he jumped on the gun and went out and killed another German before they knew what the hell was coming off. And, all of that time, this man had a bullet through a lung. There was a real man!"
"All of the real heroes are not storybook combat fighters, either. Every single man in this Army plays a vital role. Don't ever let up. Don't ever think that your job is unimportant. Every man has a job to do and he must do it. Every man is a vital link in the great chain. What if every truck driver suddenly decided that he didn't like the whine of those shells overhead, turned yellow, and jumped headlong into a ditch? The cowardly bastard could say, 'Hell, they won't miss me, just one man in thousands.' But, what if every man thought that way? Where in the hell would we be now? What would our country, our loved ones, our homes, even the world, be like? No, Goddamnit, Americans don't think like that. Every man does his job. Every man serves the whole. Every department, every unit, is important in the vast scheme of this war.
The ordnance men are needed to supply the guns and machinery of war to keep us rolling. The Quartermaster is needed to bring up food and clothes because where we are going there isn't a hell of a lot to steal. Every last man on K.P. has a job to do, even the one who heats our water to keep us from getting the 'G.I. Shits'." "Each man must not think only of himself, but also of his buddy fighting beside him. We don't want yellow cowards in this Army. They should be killed off like rats. If not, they will go home after this war and breed more cowards. The brave men will breed more brave men. Kill off the Goddamned cowards and we will have a nation of brave men. One of the bravest men that I ever saw was a fellow on top of a telegraph pole in the midst of a furious fire fight in Tunisia. I stopped and asked what the hell he was doing up there at a time like that. He answered, 'Fixing the wire, Sir.' I asked, 'Isn't that a little unhealthy right about now?' He answered, 'Yes Sir, but the Goddamned wire has to be fixed.' I asked, 'Don't those planes strafing the road bother you?' And he answered, 'No, Sir, but you sure as hell do!' Now, there was a real man. A real soldier. There was a man who devoted all he had to his duty, no matter how seemingly insignificant his duty might appear at the time, no matter how great the odds.
And you should have seen those trucks on the road to Tunisia. Those drivers were magnificent. All day and all night they rolled over those son-of-a-bitching roads, never stopping, never faltering from their course, with shells bursting all around them all of the time. We got through on good old American guts. Many of those men drove for over forty consecutive hours. These men weren't combat men, but they were soldiers with a job to do. They did it, and in one hell of a way they did it. They were part of a team. Without team effort, without them, the fight would have been lost. All of the links in the chain pulled together and the chain became unbreakable." "Don't forget, you men don't know that I'm here. No mention of that fact is to be made in any letters. The world is not supposed to know what the hell happened to me. I'm not supposed to be commanding this Army. I'm not even supposed to be here in England. Let the first bastards to find out be the Goddamned Germans. Some day I want to see them raise up on their piss-soaked hind legs and howl, 'Jesus Christ, it's the Goddamned Third Army again and that son-of-a-fucking-bitch Patton'."
"We want to get the hell over there." The quicker we clean up this Goddamned mess, the quicker we can take a little jaunt against the purple pissing Japs and clean out their nest, too. Before the Goddamned Marines get all of the credit." "Sure, we want to go home. We want this war over with. The quickest way to get it over with is to go get the bastards who started it. The quicker they are whipped, the quicker we can go home. The shortest way home is through Berlin and Tokyo. And when we get to Berlin", he yelled, "I am personally going to shoot that paper hanging son-of-a-bitch Hitler. Just like I'd shoot a snake!"
"When a man is lying in a shell hole, if he just stays there all day, a German will get to him eventually. The hell with that idea. The hell with taking it. My men don't dig foxholes. I don't want them to. Foxholes only slow up an offensive. Keep moving. And don't give the enemy time to dig one either. We'll win this war, but we'll win it only by fighting and by showing the Germans that we've got more guts than they have; or ever will have. We're not going to just shoot the sons-of-bitches, we're going to rip out their living Goddamned guts and use them to grease the treads of our tanks. We're going to murder those lousy Hun cock suckers by the bushel-fucking-basket." "War is a bloody, killing business. You've got to spill their blood, or they will spill yours. Rip them up the belly. Shoot them in the guts. When shells are hitting all around you and you wipe the dirt off your face and realize that instead of dirt it's the blood and guts of what once was your best friend beside you, you'll know what to do!"
"I don't want to get any messages saying, 'I am holding my position.' We are not holding a Goddamned thing. Let the Germans do that. We are advancing constantly and we are not interested in holding onto anything, except the enemy's balls. We are going to twist his balls and kick the living shit out of him all of the time. Our basic plan of operation is to advance and to keep on advancing regardless of whether we have to go over, under, or through the enemy. We are going to go through him like crap through a goose; like shit through a tin horn!" "From time to time there will be some complaints that we are pushing our people too hard. I don't give a good Goddamn about such complaints. I believe in the old and sound rule that an ounce of sweat will save a gallon of blood. The harder WE push, the more Germans we will kill. The more Germans we kill, the fewer of our men will be killed. Pushing means fewer casualties. I want you all to remember that." "There is one great thing that you men will all be able to say after this war is over and you are home once again. You may be thankful that twenty years from now when you are sitting by the fireplace with your grandson on your knee and he asks you what you did in the great World War II, you WON'T have to cough, shift him to the other knee and say, 'Well, your Granddaddy shoveled shit in Louisiana.' No, Sir, you can look him straight in the eye and say, 'Son, your Granddaddy rode with the Great Third Army and a Son-of-a-Goddamned-Bitch named Georgie Patton!' "
"That is all".
What would Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi have to say about the now infamous General George S. Patton speech? More importantly, what would General George S. Patton have to say about Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her inability to even meet with General Petraeus?
The Speech
Somewhere in EnglandJune 5th, 1944
"Be seated."
"Men, this stuff that some sources sling around about America wanting out of this war, not wanting to fight, is a crock of bullshit. Americans love to fight, traditionally. All real Americans love the sting and clash of battle. You are here today for three reasons. First, because you are here to defend your homes and your loved ones. Second, you are here for your own self respect, because you would not want to be anywhere else. Third, you are here because you are real men and all real men like to fight. When you, here, everyone of you, were kids, you all admired the champion marble player, the fastest runner, the toughest boxer, the big league ball players, and the All-American football players. Americans love a winner. Americans will not tolerate a loser. Americans despise cowards. Americans play to win all of the time. I wouldn't give a hoot in hell for a man who lost and laughed. That's why Americans have never lost nor will ever lose a war; for the very idea of losing is hateful to an American."
"You are not all going to die. Only two percent of you right here today would die in a major battle. Death must not be feared. Death, in time, comes to all men. Yes, every man is scared in his first battle. If he says he's not, he's a liar. Some men are cowards but they fight the same as the brave men or they get the hell slammed out of them watching men fight who are just as scared as they are. The real hero is the man who fights even though he is scared. Some men get over their fright in a minute under fire. For some, it takes an hour. For some, it takes days. But a real man will never let his fear of death overpower his honor, his sense of duty to his country, and his innate manhood. Battle is the most magnificent competition in which a human being can indulge. It brings out all that is best and it removes all that is base. Americans pride themselves on being He Men and they ARE He Men. Remember that the enemy is just as frightened as you are, and probably more so. They are not supermen." "All through your Army careers, you men have bitched about what you call "chicken shit drilling". That, like everything else in this Army, has a definite purpose. That purpose is alertness. Alertness must be bred into every soldier. I don't give a fuck for a man who's not always on his toes. You men are veterans or you wouldn't be here. You are ready for what's to come. A man must be alert at all times if he expects to stay alive. If you're not alert, sometime, a German son-of-an-asshole-bitch is going to sneak up behind you and beat you to death with a sockful of shit!"
"There are four hundred neatly marked graves somewhere in Sicily, all because one man went to sleep on the job. But they are German graves, because we caught the bastard asleep before they did." "An Army is a team. It lives, sleeps, eats, and fights as a team. This individual heroic stuff is pure horse shit. The bilious bastards who write that kind of stuff for the Saturday Evening Post don't know any more about real fighting under fire than they know about fucking!" "We have the finest food, the finest equipment, the best spirit, and the best men in the world. Why, by God, I actually pity those poor sons-of-bitches we're going up against. By God, I do." "My men don't surrender, and I don't want to hear of any soldier under my command being captured unless he has been hit. Even if you are hit, you can still fight back. That's not just bull shit either. The kind of man that I want in my command is just like the lieutenant in Libya, who, with a Luger against his chest, jerked off his helmet, swept the gun aside with one hand, and busted the hell out of the Kraut with his helmet. Then he jumped on the gun and went out and killed another German before they knew what the hell was coming off. And, all of that time, this man had a bullet through a lung. There was a real man!"
"All of the real heroes are not storybook combat fighters, either. Every single man in this Army plays a vital role. Don't ever let up. Don't ever think that your job is unimportant. Every man has a job to do and he must do it. Every man is a vital link in the great chain. What if every truck driver suddenly decided that he didn't like the whine of those shells overhead, turned yellow, and jumped headlong into a ditch? The cowardly bastard could say, 'Hell, they won't miss me, just one man in thousands.' But, what if every man thought that way? Where in the hell would we be now? What would our country, our loved ones, our homes, even the world, be like? No, Goddamnit, Americans don't think like that. Every man does his job. Every man serves the whole. Every department, every unit, is important in the vast scheme of this war.
The ordnance men are needed to supply the guns and machinery of war to keep us rolling. The Quartermaster is needed to bring up food and clothes because where we are going there isn't a hell of a lot to steal. Every last man on K.P. has a job to do, even the one who heats our water to keep us from getting the 'G.I. Shits'." "Each man must not think only of himself, but also of his buddy fighting beside him. We don't want yellow cowards in this Army. They should be killed off like rats. If not, they will go home after this war and breed more cowards. The brave men will breed more brave men. Kill off the Goddamned cowards and we will have a nation of brave men. One of the bravest men that I ever saw was a fellow on top of a telegraph pole in the midst of a furious fire fight in Tunisia. I stopped and asked what the hell he was doing up there at a time like that. He answered, 'Fixing the wire, Sir.' I asked, 'Isn't that a little unhealthy right about now?' He answered, 'Yes Sir, but the Goddamned wire has to be fixed.' I asked, 'Don't those planes strafing the road bother you?' And he answered, 'No, Sir, but you sure as hell do!' Now, there was a real man. A real soldier. There was a man who devoted all he had to his duty, no matter how seemingly insignificant his duty might appear at the time, no matter how great the odds.
And you should have seen those trucks on the road to Tunisia. Those drivers were magnificent. All day and all night they rolled over those son-of-a-bitching roads, never stopping, never faltering from their course, with shells bursting all around them all of the time. We got through on good old American guts. Many of those men drove for over forty consecutive hours. These men weren't combat men, but they were soldiers with a job to do. They did it, and in one hell of a way they did it. They were part of a team. Without team effort, without them, the fight would have been lost. All of the links in the chain pulled together and the chain became unbreakable." "Don't forget, you men don't know that I'm here. No mention of that fact is to be made in any letters. The world is not supposed to know what the hell happened to me. I'm not supposed to be commanding this Army. I'm not even supposed to be here in England. Let the first bastards to find out be the Goddamned Germans. Some day I want to see them raise up on their piss-soaked hind legs and howl, 'Jesus Christ, it's the Goddamned Third Army again and that son-of-a-fucking-bitch Patton'."
"We want to get the hell over there." The quicker we clean up this Goddamned mess, the quicker we can take a little jaunt against the purple pissing Japs and clean out their nest, too. Before the Goddamned Marines get all of the credit." "Sure, we want to go home. We want this war over with. The quickest way to get it over with is to go get the bastards who started it. The quicker they are whipped, the quicker we can go home. The shortest way home is through Berlin and Tokyo. And when we get to Berlin", he yelled, "I am personally going to shoot that paper hanging son-of-a-bitch Hitler. Just like I'd shoot a snake!"
"When a man is lying in a shell hole, if he just stays there all day, a German will get to him eventually. The hell with that idea. The hell with taking it. My men don't dig foxholes. I don't want them to. Foxholes only slow up an offensive. Keep moving. And don't give the enemy time to dig one either. We'll win this war, but we'll win it only by fighting and by showing the Germans that we've got more guts than they have; or ever will have. We're not going to just shoot the sons-of-bitches, we're going to rip out their living Goddamned guts and use them to grease the treads of our tanks. We're going to murder those lousy Hun cock suckers by the bushel-fucking-basket." "War is a bloody, killing business. You've got to spill their blood, or they will spill yours. Rip them up the belly. Shoot them in the guts. When shells are hitting all around you and you wipe the dirt off your face and realize that instead of dirt it's the blood and guts of what once was your best friend beside you, you'll know what to do!"
"I don't want to get any messages saying, 'I am holding my position.' We are not holding a Goddamned thing. Let the Germans do that. We are advancing constantly and we are not interested in holding onto anything, except the enemy's balls. We are going to twist his balls and kick the living shit out of him all of the time. Our basic plan of operation is to advance and to keep on advancing regardless of whether we have to go over, under, or through the enemy. We are going to go through him like crap through a goose; like shit through a tin horn!" "From time to time there will be some complaints that we are pushing our people too hard. I don't give a good Goddamn about such complaints. I believe in the old and sound rule that an ounce of sweat will save a gallon of blood. The harder WE push, the more Germans we will kill. The more Germans we kill, the fewer of our men will be killed. Pushing means fewer casualties. I want you all to remember that." "There is one great thing that you men will all be able to say after this war is over and you are home once again. You may be thankful that twenty years from now when you are sitting by the fireplace with your grandson on your knee and he asks you what you did in the great World War II, you WON'T have to cough, shift him to the other knee and say, 'Well, your Granddaddy shoveled shit in Louisiana.' No, Sir, you can look him straight in the eye and say, 'Son, your Granddaddy rode with the Great Third Army and a Son-of-a-Goddamned-Bitch named Georgie Patton!' "
"That is all".
Monday, April 30, 2007
What some of us instinctively knew
The Washington State Supreme Court on April 26th held that radio commentary during regular broadcast time is protected free speech. Concurring opinion by justice James Johnson admonishes prosecutors for attempting to silence political opponents.
The communications of today’s talk radio in my mind is very much akin to that of America’s Pamphleteers. While some give this distinction almost exclusively to bloggers, not everyone has access to the Internet and as such it is still largely a community of the privileged.
Talk radio requires only a second hand a.m. radio and a phone line to participate. It is modern street corner political rant, biased without any pretense to “journalistic integrity” and to the point.
The communications of today’s talk radio in my mind is very much akin to that of America’s Pamphleteers. While some give this distinction almost exclusively to bloggers, not everyone has access to the Internet and as such it is still largely a community of the privileged.
Talk radio requires only a second hand a.m. radio and a phone line to participate. It is modern street corner political rant, biased without any pretense to “journalistic integrity” and to the point.
Friday, April 27, 2007
The sport of gentlemen
I was just thinking about a time when perhaps shooting rivaled or even surpassed golf as the sport of choice for gentlemen.
Rest assured...
....that if this minstrel act where taken on the road by a white conservative, the media would have made a great deal of "hay" over it.
Sunday, April 22, 2007
Thursday, January 18, 2007
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)