Update on 1st Sgt Brad Kasal

***UPDATE*** Ssgt Viklund did not lose his leg. The infection was light and local and they knocked it out. He will be on IV antibiotics for 6 weeks or so, but has great hopes of keeping his leg. PRAISE GOD!!

1st Sgt Kasal had his monthly Dr. appointment Tuesday and is healing well and has excellent bone growth. He should have his devise removed in mid-late July (Brad had hoped for June but knows how important it is to make sure his bone is strong)

The 1st Sgt is a very self disciplined individual, which is a very positive thing right now. He exercises his leg every day, many times a day, gaining movement and strength, and also circulating blood through the leg, stimulating bone growth. He also cleans his wounds many times a day, which has so far kept him from having infections. The threat of infection with external fixating devises in huge, and can be devastating.

A while back I posted photos of 1st Sgt Kasal and one of his marines, Ssgt Viklund, who also has an external fixating divise. At that time Ssgt Viklund was doing great. But now he has developed an infection, and is facing the loss of his leg. He has a very difficult decision to make, and whatever he decides, he has a very tough time ahead of him.

Please pray for Ssgt Viklund as you pray for 1st Sgt Kasal

The best argument for the Death Penalty

Cathy Young writes in The Boston Globe about retribution (revenge actually) as the only legitimate reason for the death penalty. She claims that unless death penalty proponents admit that retrubution is their real motive their "arguments fall flat".

I get so tired of the arguments anti-death penalty people use to keep murderers alive. One of their favorites (used in a rather lame way by Ms. Young) is to claim that "life in a prison cell" is just as bad (Ms Young says "6' by 6' cell). Can anyone name a state where convicted murderers stay in a 6' by 6' cell? Can anyone name a state where they are in solitary confinement (excepting death row)? No!! Another of their arguments is to claim that "since there is always the 'chance' that an innocent person will be executed, the 'state' has no right to authorize 'murder' in my name". Only the worst of the worst murderers are sentenced to death, and then only after years of appeals are they executed, and guess what...............the state isn't doing the authorizing of execution, a jury of 12 is (that jury represents we the people, not the state)

There is one argument for the death penalty that cannot be refuted by the anti crowd, and that is this..........It is immoral and uncivil to make people (prisoners, guards, doctors, lawyers etc.) be in close contact with a known cold blooded murderer. No one should have to risk their lives being in the same cellblock with a person who enjoys killing other people. Nor should anyone have to risk being murdered while providing food, care, cloting, or anything else to one. It is far more caring to all humanity to kill a murderer than to give him the chance to murder again.

This is true even when weighing the risks of putting an innocent person to death, something that hasn't happened in a very long time.

Another Kennedy out of touch with reality

Joseph P. Kennedy II has come up with a great new plan that would allow every American to invest in private retirement accounts. He calls it "A populist approach to pension funds." It is so simple and cost effective that I can't believe nobody thought of it yet. Oh..............Wait..........somebody did think of it. In fact his idea already exists. It's called the Tax Sheltered Annuity. Does Kennedy not know that people already have the ability to invest in their own retirement fund? Or does Kennedy think that a government run fund would be a better investment alternative than a private fund? Or, as I suspect, is Kennedy trying to create a diversion from President Bush's Social Security reform plan, and he's dumb enough to think we won't notice?

Kennedy is basically saying that Americans should have the ability to invest their own money (not the money they pay in taxes...........because that's not their own money of course) in a well run and profitable retirement fund. The twist is that Kennedy's plan would allow people to invest in "public" retirement funds, like the Massachusetts retirement fund, or California's fund. That's right, instead of putting your hard earned money into a private fund, you would put it into a fund run full of public employee pension money.

Can't you just hear the "giant sucking sound" of dollars being pulled from private funds and rushing into the state funds?

NO? Neither can I?

What's the point? The democrats know that private retirement accounts are the only way to save Social Security, they just don't want to admit it because that would be to admit Bush is right. Bush knows that millions of Americans have no "extra" money to invest in retirement accounts and will rely on Social Security, so he wants to let them direct some of their Social Security tax dollars into private accounts. The democrats cant stand the idea of their hard earned tax dollars being skimmed off to invest in private retirement accounts. Could this be the first attempt by the dems to alter the social security system and allow private investment?

I doubt it, and think a better question is.....Is Joseph Kennedy II really so out of touch with reality?

Jonathan Chait, wrong in so many ways

Jonathan Chait has a commentary in today's LA Times which is wrong in it's premise, ignorant in it's reporting, and fatally flawed in it's logic. He claims that the "Christian right" is hypocritical because they don't want there to be any reporting on the "scandal" at the Air Force Academy, thus proving that the loony left is right (correct) in it's assumption that Christians really do want to ram the bible down their throats. Chait's premise is that Christians want to "impose their beliefs on everyone else", and are lying when they say they don't. He tries to show hypocrisy by claiming that the conservative press is not reporting on supposed instances of religious discrimination at USAFA. He wraps it all up with a point of logic that works only if one starts with the assumption that Christians really do want to impose their beliefs (circular logic in the 1st degree).

First of all, as a born again believer in Jesus Christ (as my Savior and as Savior to everyone who believes in Him), as well as a hard right conservative, I find the presumption that Christians want to impose their beliefs on the world a patheticly weak notion, and completely ignorant of the facts. Christians believe in spreading the Gospel of Jesus Christ through good works and proclamation of the gospel. It is antithetical to Christian teaching to impose the gospel on anyone. In fact, a person can only come to faith in Jesus by their own free will. This is not to say that some Christians do not act in a bad manner..............indeed some do. Yet the vast majority of gospel spreading is done by hard working "missionaries" who first feed and clothe, then preach. People like Chait, who do not know this to be true, cannot come to a correct conclusion on what it is Christians desire, and often end up ascribing evil motives to us. Worldwide, christianity is the most tolerant religion as well as the most generous.

Secondly, how does the fact that three news sources (cherry picked I'm sure) equate to a news blackout on the USAFA story? How many sources did Chait "search" to find the three he names? A quick Google search shows many"conservative" news sources reporting the story, including the San Diego Union/Tribune, Rocky Mountain News, Deseret News, The Daily Texan and the Jewish News Weekly, all sources where conservatives might read the story. Even more telling is that CNN and MSNBC are both listed in the Google search, but FoxNews is not. Yet a search of foxnews.com shows that it has reported the story, even reported it before CNN and MSNBC did. Fox News is far and away the main source of news for most conservatives (Christian and non-Christian). There's no hypocrisy in the fact that two out of three hand picked sources did not report a story. Publications pick their stories in the manner they see fit, and readers are free to read other sources. I'd venture to guess that more conservative Christians have read about this "scandal" than have secularist liberals. Why do I say that? Because it matters to us far more than it matters to them (they have won all the major battles in the last 50 years where freedom of religion vs freedom from religion was concerned)

Lastly, what is with the ridiculous logical mistake of claiming that "Most Americans are Christian, therefore the United States is a Christian country. Therefore, the institutions of this state ought to promote the religious views of the majority............."(the last part isn't worth repeating due to it's petty and insulting nature). Does Chait give a single example of any Christian American making this claim? I'll answer that..........NO! Why not? I'll answer that too. Because Christians in America don't believe it.............never have, never will. A logical statement would have been "Most Americans are Christian, therefore the United States is a Christian country. Therefore having examples of in America of Christians expressing their views should not come as a surprise to anyone"

I wonder how Chait and those like him came to their mistaken view of Christianity and what Christians want? As a young boy was he beat up by roving bands of bully Christians who insisted that he tithe his allowance? Perhaps during the school Christmas Pagent he didn't sing "Silent Night" as loud as the rest of the children, and thus became the object of intense scorn. As an adolescent was he force fed Christian views by authority figures.....maybe his drivers education teacher continually crossed himself and said the Rosary as Chait sat behind the wheel? As a grown up man has he had to work for a company that forced their Christian views on him, made him attend prayer meetings and revivals, or donate to Christian charities? I think none of the above. Yet he believes this is how we act, and preaches thusly from his pulpit at the LA Times

The problem with the "Anti-Immigration" Right

Of course they say they are not anti "immigrant", they are only anti "illegal immigrant". They cover their rants with the righteous cloth of the Global War On Terror, and "They should wait in line to enter the US just like everyone else had to do". It's pointless to argue with them for they get vigorously agitated and angry and dismiss all logical but contrary points of view. It pains me to hear some of the conservative radio talk show hosts.........Laura Ingraham for instance, or Roger Hedgecock (the convicted conspirator/ex-mayor...........oh yeah, it was overturned on a technicality........even though the other three conspirators plead guilty) locally here in San Diego..........rant on incoherently about how the "Border is like swiss cheese and any terrorist could just walk across" (I guess they could if they were tiny rodents) and "They are taking our jobs and keeping wages down", and my favorite........"They come for the health care and education..........paid for by the taxpayers"

This all pains me so for I agree with them on 99.9% of all issues. I hate seeing them so blinded by this one, and am forced to wonder............"Are they just plain anti-Mexican?"

You see, Mexican and Central American migrants have been coming to America to work since before California was a state. They do in fact perform "the jobs that the rest of us won't do". They work hard for low wages in agriculture, and landscaping, restaurants and hotels. The other day I was stunned when Laura Ingraham, in a pathetic attempt to refute this fact, claimed..........."My mother was a waitress for 30 years!".........as though the illegals have the waiter/waitress jobs all Americans long for. No Laura, they wash the dishes and bus the tables, then, after the waiters/waitresses go home, they mop the floor, clean the grease traps, wash the owner's Mercedes, and generally get the place ready for the next day

Is there a problem with illegal immigration? Yes! But the problem is not the workers who work hard at honest jobs so they can send a little money home to support the families they see one or two months each year. The problem is that along with the hard working migrants come lawbreakers (don't try to tell me "they all are lawbreakers by coming here illegally" for I will be forced to prove you to be the biggest of hypocrites). These lawbreakers, mostly gang members and drug dealers/smugglers cause a lot of problems and use up a lot of resources (yes money, tax dollars).

We do need to have a border where everyone who comes here comes through a gate and is checked by proper authorities, but we will not get that sort of border until we also deal with the fact of the 10-13 million workers who are here and working productively.

President Bush wants to deal with the workers first. The ferocious anti-immigrant righties would be more productive if instead of their constant drone of "Bush is wrong" they would begin a drone of.........."Build the wall at the same time"

The problem with the US Senate

Spinelessness!! That's the only term I can come up with for the way some republican senators are acting. With John McCain leading the way they are letting the minority set the agenda for the future of this nation.

A showdown looms on the floor of the Senate, yet I fear that repbulicans will pack up their weapons and go home. They will claim that "it's better to live to fight another day", and "we avoided a catastrophic fight", yet we grass roots republicans will be left bleeding on the real battlefield.

Senator Arlen Specter, a man whose approach to politics and leadership I despise, had this to say about the crisis over judicial nominees....."If we fail to step back from the abyss, we will descend into a dark, protracted era of divisive partisanship". What? Is he nuts? Does he live in a cave, or is he just to busy rubbing elbows with the high and mighty in DC? Are we not living in times of excruciating partisanship? The democrats have called us every name from Satan to Hitler. They attribute to us evil motives in everything we find dear. They would legislated us out of existance if it were possible, and if these Senators keep it up, someday it will be possible.

Pablo the Chump

Pablo Paredes, the anti-war activist, has been sentenced to 3 months of hard labor, and demoted to Seaman Recruit, the lowest rank in the Navy. I did not hear if he will be discharged, but I hope not, for I would like to see him face the Seamen and Officers he slandered.

Pablo is a chump. The anti-war crowd convinced him that he would be a hero, a symbol of their movement. Yet they have deserted him and he is nobody's hero. The fact that he's a selfish, lying brat should be enough to disqualify him from continued service in the navy, but I hope he stays in long enough to face the men and women he deserted.

Pablo; a word of advise......while in jail..........don't drop the soap.

Update on 1st Sgt Brad Kasal

1st Sgt Kasal is progressing very well in the area of bone growth and mobility, as well as attitude. The bone growth continues at a good rate, and in the past couple of weeks he has been able to move his ankle more and more, getting his foot to nearly 90 degrees (in relation to the leg). That's an improvement of 200% or better in just a few weeks. Getting his foot to 90 degrees is crucial if he is to be able to walk again, which he is confident of doing. He is able to stand longer and walk more every day, which should help with the pain and swelling (when he stands his leg and foot swell like a water balloon being filled with a firehose)

Brad has had a great few weeks. In addition to the good news on his leg, he was able to spend time with his mother and brother who came to visit him. While they were here he did many things with them, ranging from visiting a gun show to attending a memorial for the marines of 3/1 Weapons Company who were killed in Iraq.

Iraq, the reality on the ground

Today the blogosphere is filled with rants about Conscientious Objector Aidan Delgado and the outrageous claims he has made about how the US military treats Iraqi citizens. Excellent blogs like Powerline and Blackfive are all over the story, and will undoubtedly come up with the truth of the story (which I believe will prove Delgado to be a liar). I want to approach the story from a different angle, and talk about the truth about how the US military, the Marines in particular, treat the Iraqi people.

My son spent 7 months in one of the worst cities in Iraq, Husaybah. Husaybah made the news in a big way three weeks ago when al Qaeda suicide bombers attacked Camp Gannon with three massive suicide bombs (see the terrorists video of the attack here). But the Marines in Husaybah always showed restraint when dealing with the Iraqis who live and work there. In fact, the case could be made that marines were injured because they used so much restraint and employed such stringent Rules of Engagement.

Tonight I offer proof that Delgado's version is wrong. A friend of mine gave me photos taken during the battle for Fallujah in November 2004. What we see are photos like this which show incredible restraint in taking a terrorist prisoner (look at the others, here, here, and here). There is no abusing him, even though he very likely was trying to kill these marines just minutes or hours earlier. Then there are photos like these, here and here, where a navy corpsman is treating a wounded terrorist. It's very likely that wounded marines are sitting very close to this action, watching the corpsman patch up the guy who just shot marines. The best is yet to come. The marines of 3/1 came upon many innocent civilians during the battle. After days of little rest and non-stop fighting, they came upon this particular family, check this one, this one and this one too. Notice the lack of menfolk? All the men were likely off killing marines.Civilians in Iraq are told that US marines must kill their mothers to become marines. Don't they look so frightened?

33 marines from 3/1 died during the 2 week long battle in Fallujah, yet they treated the Iraqis in Fallujah with incredible decency.

The protection women and children, the caring for injured enemy soldiers (terrorists), the decent capture of prisoners are really what the US military is all about

Defense Department report on killing of Italian hero

In the news today was a story about the Pentagon's investigation into the killing of Nicola Calipari, the Italian hero who died trying to shield an Italian anti-war, communist, news woman, after securing her release from Iraqi kidnappers.

From the first momments after this terrible incident (American soldiers hate killing innocent civilians during war) it was clear that the Italians were going to try to make this a story about Americans screwing up. There has already been so much said by the Italian media and politicians that any hope of them accepting the results of an honest investigation were futile.

But in the aftermath of the tragedy, and in attempts to get the facts out quickly, we find that the US did screw up, not in the fatal incident, but in the reporting, by releasing the investigation report in a format that included access to "classified" redacted parts of the report.

Italian media are quick to point out differences between the American and Italian assesment of fact. One such difference is found in this story, picked up by the Assyrian International News Agency. The Americans say the car carrying the reporter and the two Italian security men was travelling at a high rate of speed and did not slow down, even after lights were flashed and warning shots were fired. The Italians say that they stopped the car immediately upon seeing the warning signs and lights, which only appeared 10 yards ahead of them (I'm paraphrasing all of this). So, if the Italian reports are to be believed, the getaway car was travelling at approximately 30 mph down the most dangerous stretch of highway in all of Iraq (to stop withing 10 yards a car could be travelling no faster than 30 mph). We would also have to believe that the Americans allow cars travelling at high rates of speed to approach to within 10 yards of them before firing warning shots. I sure hope no car bombs ever approach the Americans, because 10 yards is pretty darn close for an explosion.

The Italian report is to come out soon. Perhaps we'll find out that Assyrian reporting is flawed and they meant to say 100 yards (a far more likely distance). But I'm not holding my breath.

Prediction.................Within a year forces in the Italian government will be seeking to try the American in the world court on charges of war crimes.

Scott Ritter.......Al Jazeera's favorite son?

Spring is upon us, and the snakes are coming out of their holes to bask in the sun on these warm autumn days. One of their favorite places is in the road on the black ashphalt pavement. Every year we see many on the roads near our house, often slowing to show the children..............."Look Joshua, it's a King Snake", or "Beth Ann, did you see that Rattlesnake?"

I was going to start this post by saying......."yesterday another snake crawled from his hole. American traitor punk Scott Ritter slipped into the light of day with this commentary". But this morning I googled Rtter to refresh my memory about him. Now I'm troubled, and find myself wondering "what the heck happened to the guy?" I have found no answer, but suspect that his personal troubles have affected his ability to think rationally.

Ritter exploded into the limelight in 1991 when he became the UN's chief weapons inspector in Iraq, charged with insuring the destruction of Iraq's WMD stockpiles and programs He was an impressive individual and a hero to many of us who thought Saddam's Iraq was a problem in need of a solution. For years he agressively pursued WMD in Iraq and dogged the UN to give him the support he needed.

Then something wierd happened. In 1998 Ritter abrubtly resigned, making claims that the US was making his job for the UN harder, if not impossible. No biggie, Hans Blix was available. I say this was "wierd" because it came out of the blue, and seemed to be contrary to what I knew about Ritter (I admit I knew him only from what I read and heard in the news.........he could have been misleading America all along)

Then, during the buildup to the Iraq war, Ritter called for impeachment and prosecution of President Bush, making claims that Iraq was really not a threat, and that the US could not win a war with Iraq. He is quoted as saying in March 2003 that the US "would leave Iraq with it's tail between it's legs". For all you "Bush lied" freaks, Ritter stated that if the US attacked Iraq, Iraq would respond with poison gas (Ritter believed Iraq had WMDs) then the US would retaliate with nukes.

Today Ritter is a totally discredited farce and liar who ought to dissappear into the closet whatever room he lives in. Yet instead he continues bashing the US and is now the darling of Al Jazeera. In his latest "commentary" he pulls the pit out of the truth then stuffs it with an anti-US, anti-military lie. Ritter makes the claim that a few disillusioned marines from the 3rd battalion 7th MAR, who had a tough time in Husaybah Iraq back in April 2004 are proof that the US is not winning the war. He completely leaves out the fact that 3/7 was replaced by 1/7, who kicked the terrorists butts for 7 months before turning Husaybah over to 3/2. Then he uses the triple SVBIED attack of April 11, 2005 as proof that things are not better in Iraq. NO MARINES DIED IN THAT ATTACK, and up to 50 terrorists did (many non-iraqi terrorists who will not drive suidide bombs into American schools, malls, or churches).

Ritter has a problem with the facts, but a bigger problem with perspective. Everything Ritter writes shows up in far left scialist news sites, making him the American far left's hero.

I started this post mad at the guy for his stupid comments about the Marines in Iraq. I now finish it feeling sorry for him as it has become clear Scott Ritter is mentally unstable.