The "War on Terror" is over!!

Well, the Obama administration has done it! The "War on Terror" is officially over, according to this article in the Washington Times. So does this mean the United States is declaring victory over the Taliban, al Qaeda and radical Islamofascists? Oh no, that would be too much work. Rather, the Obama Administration has determined that the term "war on terror" is no longer acceptable terminology:

It’s official. The U.S. is no longer engaged in a “war on terrorism.” Neither is it fighting “jihadists” or in a “global war.”

President Obama’s top homeland security and counterterrorism official took all three terms off the table of acceptable words inside the White House during a speech Thursday at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a Washington think tank.

“The President does not describe this as a ‘war on terrorism,’” said John Brennan, head of the White House homeland security office, who outlined a “new way of seeing” the fight against terrorism. The only terminology that Mr. Brennan said the administration is using is that the U.S. is “at war with al Qaeda.” “We are at war with al Qaeda,” he said. “We are at war with its violent extremist allies who seek to carry on al Qaeda's murderous agenda.”

Alrighty then, so things really haven't changed, we're just going to change the way we designate things. Oh, well I can see where that is important ... I guess ... if I really think hard about it. Then again, I don't get it.

Why do we -- "we" being the United States -- care what other countries think about our terminology? Does it matter if we're conducting a "war on terror" or a "war against al Qaeda and it's violent extremist allies"? Isn't it really the same thing? Isn't is fair to say that the US, and pretty much the entire Western World, is in a battle with Islamic Jihadists? Not according to Mr. Brennan and the Obama administration:

Mr. Brennan said that to say the U.S. is fighting “jihadists” is wrongheaded because it is using “a legitimate term, ‘jihad,’ meaning to purify oneself or to wage a holy struggle for a moral goal” which “risks giving these murderers the religious legitimacy they desperately seek but in no way deserve.”

Really? "Jihad" means to "purify oneself" or to "wage a holy struggle for a moral goal"? What planet is this guy from and where the hell has he been the last 30+ years? This is akin to CAIR convincing the Bush administration that jihad was really an "inner struggle" for Muslims to resist sin and strive for harmony between faith and action. In this respect, the term is very similar to the goal of Christians to be more Christ-like in their everyday activities. But who are they trying to kid? Jihad, as used and understood in the world today, is the mechanism for islamofacists to spread Islam by the point of the sword -- and its not like this is something new. Islam has been spread at the point of a sword since the time of Mohammed. There is a reason that so many terrorist organizations use the term in their name (Egyptian Islamic Jihad, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, Islamic Jihad Organization). There is a reason that leaders such as Osama bin Laden and Ayatollah Khomeni have called for "jihad" against the United States and other Western nations.

This is just another example of "style over substance" common among politicians these days. I guess I like it better when people tell you what they really mean instead of trying to sound politically correct. The hard truth is that the US and the rest of the Western world has been at war with violent Islamofascists since at least 1972, when the Munich Olympics were interrupted by Black September -- we just didn't realize we were in the war until that fateful September day in 2001.

If nothing has changed in our actions, there is no need to change the terminology. The Obama administration has proven that the Bush administration was doing the right thing, because nothing in the War on Terror ... er, I mean, the War with al Qaeda and Its Violent Extremist Allies ... has changed. The US is still conducting successful drone attacks, extraordinary rendition and generally taking it to the bad guys. If you're going to change the terminology, lets change it to something more honest: "The War Against Islamofascism."

What's Good For The Goose Apparently Isn't Good Enough for the Gander

"All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others." — George Orwell (Animal Farm)

Well, the hypocrits in Congress are rearing their ugly heads again. According to this article on HumanEvents.com, the House Ways and Means Committee is dead set on imposing goverment-run health care on the citizens of this country. In fact, the Democrats on the Committee love government-run health care so much they voted -- in a strict party-line vote -- to fully exempt Congress from the plan. The relevant section of the article states:

Democrats also voted down an amendment from Rep. Dean Heller (R-Nv.) that would require all Members of Congress to get insurance through the government-run plan. Apparently Democrat members of Congress do not like the government plan they’re trying to inflict on the rest of us. In a straight party line vote, Democrats voted against exempting themselves from the government-run plan by a vote of 21-18.

"We also had an amendment to require that members of Congress must participate in the government-run plan,” Camp said. “If it’s such a great idea, it should be a great idea for members of Congress. The majority voted to prevent that from happening. They voted to exempt members of Congress from the government-run plan.”

Another great example of our elected representatives looking out for us. If this health care plan is the greatest thing since sliced bread, why doesn't Congress want to join in the fun? Hmmm, maybe because our elected officials know that government-run health care is a disaster in every other country in the world. Don't worry about the $1.5 TRILLION (thats $1,500,000,000.00) initial cost estimate for this plan, we all know that a goverment entitlement program blows through the cost estimate in weeks and months, not years and decades; instead worry about whether you're going to be able to get the medical care you want, when you want it, from the doctor you want to see. Its highly unlikely that will happen under any goverment-sponsored health plan.

Does health care in the United States need some work? Yes, without a doubt. Its expensive, time consuming and involves lots of unnecessary preventative healthcare (primarily to avoid medical malpractice lawsuits -- damn lawyers screw everything up for everyone). But for all its faults, the health care system is far and away the best in the world. There is a reason that people from all over the world come to the USA to get specialized medical care: they want the best medical treatment they can get. But if Obamacare actually gets passed into law, the days of the superior American health care system will go the way of the Dodo.

Under any goverment run program, you can expect rationing, long delays for necessary surgeries and, if you think health care is expensive now, just wait until its free. If you don't believe me, just check out some critiques of the British and Canadian health care systems -- its where we're headed. And if the United States goverment does move into the health insurance business (on top of the banking and auto manufacturing business), where, as Glenn Beck asked, will all the rich Canadians and Europeans go for their health care? Certainly not the US anymore.

Come on Congress, resist the temptation to continue the march toward Socialism and leave our health care system alone. But if you can't resist, at least have the honesty and guts to join us for the implosion.

Much ado about Sotomayor

Do you remember back in the old days when the President nominated a judge to the Supreme Court and the Senate hearing was nothing more than to confirm that the nominee was alive and wasn't a child molesting mass murderer? Yeah, me neither. I think Justice Scalia was the last one that had a hearing like that all the way back in 1986 or so. Ever since the Democrats came out swinging for Robert Bork, confirming a Supreme Court Justice has been a blood sport. Unless the nominee is made by a Democrat president, of course (see, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer).

After the relative ease of W's nominees, we now come to President Obama's first nominee, Sonia Sotomayor. Its pretty fair to say that Judge Sotomayor is not a legal giant, but she is an Hispanic female, which is apparently much more important than legal ability. She's had a relatively undistinguished career at both the District and Circuit Court level; reversed quite a bit, but nothing like the judges of the Ninth Circuit. Legally, her nomination is better than Harriet Miers, not as good as John Roberts. But most importantly, she will be the first Hispanic member of the Court ... assuming we're not going to count Benjamin Cordozo, the son of Spanish and Portugese immigrants.

The question is not whether or not she is going to be confirmed -- that's a foregone conclusion with the makeup of the Senate -- but whether she is the best nominee for the job. Personally, I think there are much better judges available, not to mention plenty of attorneys who would be great nominees, regardless of their liberal/conservative leanings. She's basically Obama's O'Connor -- not a great jurist, but she fits a demographic need. The nomination is a big old "blah."

I guess it will be fun to watch the Republicans on the Judiciary Committee try to make hay with the few controversial remarks and opinions Sotomayor has made, but its all for naught. The votes are there for the confirmation. Save your bullets for a nominee that matters. In the end, the nomination will not make much of a splash. She'll get confirmed with a few Republicans squawking about how she's a judicial activist, etc. Big deal, she's replacing a judicial activist. If she was replacing a Scalia or Thomas or Roberts, then we'd need a big fight. At the end of the day, Sotomayor will be sitting on the Supreme Court when it convenes the first week of October. She'll never be a Scalia, but she will be on the Court for a long time. Basically, this is much ado about nothing ... a/k/a Sotomayor.

I'm entering the blogosphere

After much debate, I've finally decided to enter the blogophere. I figured that everyone else in the world seems to offering their opinions on the important, mundane and somewhat interesting events of their lives, so why not join them?

To give you a little background, I am a lawyer by trade (but don't hold that against me) trying to make ends meet while attempting to understand my wife and (soon to be) 4-year old daughter. On any given day, I fail miserably at both. Luckily, I'm pretty good at my job and enjoy what I do. I'm conservative - you'll figure that out pretty quickly - but I have a very low tolerance for idiocy, no matter where it is found. Which leads to how I decided on the title to this blog. Years ago, back when my only responsibilities in life were waking up in time to make it to all my classes, I came up with The Idiot Rule when hearing about a decision in a lawsuit (it may have been the Stella Liebeck/McDonald's coffee case, but I'm not sure), and it goes something like this: If you do something and 90% of the people in the world respond by saying "What an idiot!" you have no legal cause of action, you cannot complain and you're lucky you're not jailed for extreme stupidity. I think its a brilliant rule -- so brilliant it should be a law. But then, I'm biased.

So anyway, if you actually take the time to read the blog, I hope you find it equally interesting, thought provoking, annoying and whimsical. I'll try not to get too over the top with my comments but if I do, well, too bad. I'll be exploring everyday life, politics, pop culture and pretty much anything that riles me up enough to write about. Please leave comments, as I love a good debate (my wife says I argue for the sake of arguing, but I totally dispute that assessment). Hope you enjoy.