Saturday, April 30, 2005
Outlining Social Security reform
Social Security is in a financial nightmare. Before 2050, the system will be brokes and laying out more money then it is taking in. PresidentBush has made some proposals to fix SS. One of those was allowing younger workes to set aside a small portion of their contributions into private accounts. To hear the dems/leftists tell it, you would think that the Presidnt wants to privatize the enitre system. The President has made some other proposals as well. The Washington Times commnets in their editorial. To attain that major achievement, the president embraced the proposal of "progressive price indexing," which has been put forth by Robert Pozen, who served in 2001 as a Democratic member on the President's Commission to Strengthen Social Security. Under current law, the "wage-indexation" formula for determining first-year Social Security benefits is based on trend changes in wages, which historically have risen faster than prices. Thus, based on current law and projected rising inflation-adjusted wages, the Congressional Budget Office has estimated that the scheduled initial annual benefit for the median-wage earner born in 1990 will be $23,300 (expressed in 2004 dollars). That is 56 percent higher than the scheduled initial benefit ($14,900) of the median-wage earner born in 1940 and retiring this year. The president's solvency plan would replace the wage-indexation formula with progressive price indexing.
This will have the net effect of helping to keep SS more solvent, while helping lower income wage earners. As for private accounts, what is being proposed is allowing workers born after 1950, the ability to put 4% of their contributions into these private accounts.
Progressive price indexing would effectively guarantee that the Social Security benefits of the lowest 30 percent of wage-earners would continue to increase in accordance with the rising trend of inflation-adjusted wages. For the vast majority of the remaining 70 percent of workers in the middle- and upper-income categories, according to a sliding scale that incorporates both price changes and rising wages, initial inflation-adjusted Social Security benefits would continue to increase, but not as fast as real wages. Given Social Security's huge and ever-rising unfunded liabilities, the president has exerted solid leadership as the Senate Finance Committee begins writing reform legislation. Mr. Bush has offered a sensible proposal that addresses about 70 percent of the 75-year solvency problem, and he continues to invite Democrats to the table, where he welcomes discussion and negotiation of all options, except raising the payroll-tax rate. Solving nearly three-fourths of Social Security's long-term financing problems, while still allowing real initial benefit levels to continue to rise for the overwhelming majority of workers, represents a major, positive step forward.
Would some one like to explain the dem/leftists plan to make SS solvent? What plan some may ask. I am asking that very same question. Where is the dem plan? Trashing Bush's proposals is not a plan, it is merely politics as usual for the dem/leftists. - Sailor
Democrats who reflexively reject the progressive price-indexing option reveal themselves to be more interested in demagoguing Social Security than in rescuing it.
Friday, April 29, 2005
Sometimes, it simply isn't Vietnam
Since the end of the Vietnam War, anytime the US becomes involved in hostilities, the left and the other usual suspects bring up the spectre of Vietnam. They did this during the Gulf War, the invasion of Afghanastan and once again with the Iraq War. Teddy (The Swimmer) Kennedy was one of those leading the "Iraq is another Vietnam" mantra. Let us not forget the cries from the liberal MSM such as "quagmire". Now Jonah Goldberg explains why these usual whiners, teeth gnashers and defeatsts were wrong once again in his commentary. The gravitational pull of Vietnam analogies is so powerful in some quarters that it can bend not only light but logic. At The New York Times, especially, there seems to be a hair trigger for such comparisons. It's as if their computers have macros designed to bypass the laborious and go straight to the lugubrious; so that R.W. “Johnny” Apple & Co. needn't even type words such as “quagmire” or phrases such as “echoes of Vietnam” when deadlines loom.
The MSM went quiet very quickly on Afghanastan and the Vietnam comparisons. Now Afghanastan has an elected government and is a functioning demacracy. There are still issues to be resolved there, but it is no quagmire or Vietnam, much to the chagrin of the leftists.
For example, on Day 24 of the war in Afghanistan, Apple wrote, “Like an unwelcome specter from an unhappy past, the ominous word ‘quagmire' has begun to haunt conversations among government officials and students of foreign policy, both here and abroad. Could Afghanistan become another Vietnam?” Apple pondered. “Echoes of Vietnam are unavoidable.” For some, the echoes stopped suddenly when the Taliban fell a few days later.In Iraq, meanwhile, it's nothing but insurgency now. But, unlike the Viet Cong, Iraq's insurgency is ideologically diverse. Some are terrorists seeking to impose a pan-Arab theocracy, some are looking to restore the secular bacchanalia of fear they enjoyed under Saddam Hussein, and others are just gangsters. Vietnam was a jungle war that started against the French in the 1950s. Iraq was a desert war that permanently toppled Saddam's regime in a month. The technologies in play are incomparable. The terrain, the political will and ideologies behind the efforts, the cultures — almost every single point of comparison doesn't add up — save the common bravery of America's military. Perhaps most important: Casualty rates are vastly different.
The left is still enamoured with the idea that Vietnam was won by a popular insurgency, which could not be further from the facts. The Viet Cong were more or less destroyed as an insurgency during the Tet Offensive. The left is still in denial that Vietnam was a state to state war. The MSM has tried in vain to make the Iraqi insurgency looklike the Viet Cong, to the point that they alluded to the Falujiah battle as the Iraqi Tet Offensive. Ironically, they were in a sense correct. Falujiah reduced this so called insugency into just what it always was, terrorism pure and simple. Of course the liberal MSM still think the Viet Cong won the Tet Offensive. - Sailor
Now, none of this is to say that the Iraq war was right (though I believe it was). The point is that a war can be completely different from Vietnam in almost every major respect and still be wrong — and hard. We've come to think that any military blunder or challenge must be akin to Vietnam (in much the same way some people think that if a law is bad, it must be unconstitutional). The war on terror and the Cold War are profoundly different enterprises, so it should only follow that the conflicts they generate would be different, too.
Of course, there are some similarities between Iraq and Vietnam — including the press' attitude toward both. But such similarities are inherent to all wars and national struggles in a republic such as ours. The Spanish-American War, for instance, would probably be a far more fruitful point of comparison for critics of the Bush administration, but that would require they read up on it first.
Ending the Judicial Nomination Impasse
Here is the text of Bill Frist's speech on the Senate floor on judicial nominees. SOURCE - Sailor
April 28, 2005
Ending the Judicial Nomination Impasse
By Senator Bill Frist
(Note: Majority Leader Frist delivered the following remarks on the floor of the United States Senate today.)
Throughout the judicial obstruction debate, emotions have run high on both sides. This should remind all of us, once again, of the need to return civility to our nation’s capital.
The American people want their elected leaders to work together to find solutions. To them -- doing what’s Republican or Democrat matters far less than doing what’s right for our country.
Let me briefly discuss how we got here.
Never in 214 years -- never in the history of the Senate -- had a judicial nominee with majority support been denied an up-or-down vote…until two years ago.
In the last Congress, the President submitted 34 appeals court nominees to the Senate. A minority of senators denied ten of those nominees -- and threatened to deny another six -- up-or-down votes.
They wouldn’t allow votes, because they knew the nominees would be confirmed and become judges. The nominees had the support of a majority of senators.
Now, in this new Congress, the same minority says it will continue to obstruct votes on judges. And, even worse, if they don’t get their way, they threaten to shut down the Senate and obstruct government itself.
Throughout this debate, we have held firm to a simple principle -- judicial nominees deserve up-or-down votes. Vote for them. Vote against them. But give them the courtesy of a vote.
Yet judicial nominees have not been given that courtesy. They’ve gone 2, 3, even 4 years without a vote. Now 46 seats on the federal bench are vacant -- as case after case and appeal after appeal stack up.
One nominee -- Priscilla Owen -- has served 10 years as a justice on the Texas Supreme court. She won reelection with 84% of the vote in Texas, yet she can’t get the courtesy of a vote to be confirmed by the Senate.
Judicial nominees are being denied. Justice is being denied. The solution is simple -- allow Senators to do their jobs and vote.
In the spirit of civility and with sincere hope for a solution, I make an offer.
This offer will ensure up or down votes on judicial nominees after fair, open, and, some might say, exhaustive debate. It’s a compromise that holds to constitutional principles.
First, never in the history of the Senate had a judicial nominee with majority support been denied an up-or-down vote until two years ago. However, it was not unprecedented either for Republicans or Democrats to block judicial nominees in committee.
Whether on the floor or in committee, judicial obstruction is judicial obstruction. It’s time for judicial obstruction to end no matter which party controls the White House or the Senate.
The judiciary committee will continue to play its essential oversight and investigative roles in the confirmation process. But the committee -- whether controlled by Republicans or Democrats -- will no longer be used to obstruct judicial nominees.
Second, fair and open debate is a hallmark of the Senate. Democrats have expressed their desire for more time to debate judicial nominees. I respect that request and honor it.
When a judicial nominee comes to the floor, we will set aside up to 100 hours to debate that nomination. Then the Senate as a whole will speak with an up-or-down vote.
The Senate operated this way before we began to broadcast debates on television in 1986. This would provide more than enough time for every Senator to speak on a nominee while guaranteeing that nominee the courtesy of a vote.
Third, these proposals will apply only to appeals court and Supreme Court nominees. Judges who serve on these courts have the awesome responsibility of interpreting the Constitution.
So far, only up-or-down votes on appeals court nominees have been denied. I sincerely hope the Senate minority does not intend to escalate its judicial obstruction to potential Supreme Court nominees.
That would be a terrible blow to constitutional principles and to political civility in America. I hope my offer will make it unnecessary for the minority to further escalate its judicial obstruction.
Fourth, the minority of senators who have denied votes on judicial nominees are concerned that their ability to block bills will be curbed. As Majority Leader, I guarantee that power will be protected.
The filibuster -- as it existed before its unprecedented use on judicial nominees in the last Congress -- will remain unchanged.
Senator Reid and I have been talking almost every day on this issue. And I’m hopeful he’ll accept my offer as a solution. It may not be a perfect proposal for either side, but it’s the right proposal for America.
For 70% of the 20th Century, the same party controlled the White House and the Senate. Yet no minority ever denied a judicial nominee with majority support an up-or-down vote until the last Congress.
These minorities showed self-restraint. They treated judicial nominees with fairness. And they respected the Senate’s role in the appointments process -- as designed by the Framers of the Constitution.
Resolving the judicial obstruction debate, for me, isn’t about politics. This is about constitutional principles. It’s about fairness to nominees. It’s about Senators doing their duty and doing what’s right for our country.
Arbitrarily voting on just a few judicial nominees, as some have proposed, will fail to restore the Senate’s 214 year practice of up-or-down votes for all judicial nominees that come to the floor.
Senators have a duty to vote up-or-down on judicial nominees -- confirm them or deny them -- but give them all the courtesy of a vote.
Thursday, April 28, 2005
United Nutters
I wonder what the dems/leftists/one worlders and UN ass kissers think of Zimbabwe being one of 15 countries selected by the UN's Economic and Social Council in New York to serve on the UN Commission on Human Rights. Dosen't the UN have enouch scandals to deal with? Now they have Robert Mugabe's repressive regime looking out for human rights. What a joke. Roger Bate details the abuses of the Mugabe regime in his article. U.S. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) was dismayed:
John Bolton should be confirmed ASAP. This nonsense at the UN needs to be exposed and Bolton certainly is the man to do it. By the way, where is the wailing from the left and the MSM? "The Government of Zimbabwe has consistently disregarded the rights of its people, repressed political dissent and quashed any and all opposition. Far from earning a role as a protector of human rights, their membership renders the Commission illegitimate and irrelevant. A real and credible UN Human Rights Commission would be condemning the current regime and its activities. I deplore their selection as a Commission member, and hope that this outrageous appointment will help inspire UN members to enact extensive and meaningful reform of the Commission."
Sen. Frist is correct in every way, but he probably should have added that such disgraceful UN behavior is why it's vital that John Bolton is approved to be the US ambassador to the UN as soon as possible -- take note Sens. Voinovich, Chafee and Hagel.But it's often the smallest stories that grab people, so try this. In 2001 a Zimbabwean policeman with a reputation as a serial torturer was seconded to the UN police force in Kosovo. Not minding whose human rights he abused, Henry Dowa carried right on torturing and was eventually asked to leave in 2003. He is now back in Harare committing more offences against the powerless populace of Zimbabwe's capital. The human rights group, REDRESS, recently published a report on Dowa -- it makes grisly reading. According to the report, the UN acknowledged the gravity of the allegations made against Dowa. But here's the kicker:
The bottom line here is that the UN is either to much of the coward or too incompitent to do anything about prosecuting those that they KNOW have committed atrocities, torture and other crimes. I wonder what how the usual suspects are going to either try nad spin this or just ignore, hoping no one will notice. It is high time for Bolton to be confirmed. - Sailor"However, after very careful consideration and in consultation with UN Headquarters, we have with regret concluded that UN…cannot pursue criminal prosecution of the officer in Kosovo…[as the UN] has a very limited number of international judges and prosecutors to whom the case would have to be referred."
The plea of "scarce resources" sits rather uncomfortably amid any noble claim to protect human rights -- what point is the UN Commission on Human Rights if it refuses to prosecute known torturers? But honoring commitments was never high on the list for the UN at any level. Or maybe it's just another case of sordid backscratching among the powerful elite at the UN. Kojo Annan, who is still under investigation for his financial dealings in the Iraqi oil-for-food scandal, has also made a mint as a contractor for the construction of Harare's new International Airport. The airport is very nice, it reminded me of Stansted in England -- unnerving given that it's surrounded by abject poverty. One wonders what Mugabe has promised him and his father this time.
I hope the Senate Foreign Relations committee votes positively for John Bolton; his style is much needed there. Although he is wrong on one thing: losing ten floors of the UN building is not enough.
Who's Afraid of John Bolton?
It would seem that the usual suspects, dems/leftists/one worlders, are scared to death of John Bolton. There are also a few hidden agandas here. OpinionJournal lays out a few of these hidden agandas in its Review & Outlook commentary. Or consider the unnamed State Department official who recently told Newsweek that in November 2003, British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw had complained personally to Mr. Powell that his Undersecretary was taking too tough a line on Iran's nuclear weapons program. "Get a different view of [the Iranian problem]," Mr. Powell is reported to have told the aide. "Bolton is being too tough." Remember that at the time, Britain, along with France and Germany, had recently negotiated a nuclear-freeze deal with Iran, a deal Iran violated within months. (For the record, Mr. Straw denies Newsweek's report.)
So we have an "unnamed" source making a claim that is being denied. How convenient. Do you think the dems on the committee will name this source? Highly unlikely. Yet, they want to use this now denied information against Bolton. So much for truth. Bolton called North Korea exactly what it is. Now the uproar from the mamby pamby diplomats. Maybe they are afraid that Bolton hurt "The Leader's" feelings?
And then there is Thomas Hubbard, the former U.S. ambassador to South Korea, who objected to portions of a speech Mr. Bolton delivered in Seoul in which the Undersecretary called North Korea a "hellish nightmare" ruled by a "tyrannical dictator." Mr. Hubbard does not formally oppose Mr. Bolton's nomination, but he has let it be known that he considered the speech "counterproductive" and overly "antagonistic."This was the consensus that held, or holds, that North Korea and Iran can be bribed away from their nuclear ambitions, that democracy in the Arab world was impossible and probably undesirable, that fighting terrorism merely encourages more terrorism, that countries such as Syria pose no significant threat to U.S. national security, that the U.N. alone confers moral legitimacy on a foreign-policy objective, and that support for Israel explains Islamic hostility to the U.S. Above all, in this view, the job of appointed officials such as Mr. Bolton is to reside benignly in their offices at State while the permanent foreign service bureaucracy goes about applying establishment prescriptions.
Exactly right. - Sailor
John Bolton would have none of this. For this, he has been smeared by his partisan critics and maligned, often anonymously, by his former colleagues. But he has also been vindicated by events, and by his accomplishments, in the last four years. If this makes Mr. Bolton unconfirmable in the eyes of the Senate, then talented Americans have no place in our government.
Spitting on Hanoi Jane
Doc Farmer has some things to say about the recent incident where a Nam vet spit in Hanoi Jane's face. As for me, if Hanoi Jane was across the street on fire, I would not cross the street to piss on her. - Sailor
Spitting on Hanoi Jane
Written by Doc Farmer
Wednesday, April 27, 2005
Last week, you probably heard about an American Veteran of the Vietnam War who spat in Hanoi Jane Fonda's face at one of her book signings. The veteran, one Michael A. Smith of Kansas City, MO, apparently hocked a tobacco-laden loogie at the actress/fitness guru/traitor, and then ran off, only to be apprehended later by the local constabulary. Hanoi Jane declined to press charges. When asked why he had taken this action, Mr. Smith
reasoned, "she (Hanoi Jane) spit in our faces for 37 years. It was absolutely worth it. There are a lot of veterans who would love to do what I did."
Sorry, Mr. Smith, but I have to disagree.
Sure, Hanoi Jane is a squamulose, evil, self-centered, vulgar, money-grubbing, idiotic, treasonous b*tch who should be hanged in an electric chair in front of a firing squad. Except for the minds of the gilded (or is that gelded?) acting cesspool that is Hollyweird, and lib/dem/soc/commie apologists, this is an undeniable fact. She provided aid and comfort to an enemy of the United States during a time of war. She caused pain and suffering to our troops, both in the field and in the hellish POW camps. She broke the ONLY law described directly within our Constitution. And she did so with impunity.
That does not give Mr. Smith, or anybody else, however, the right to act in such a boorish
fashion. I don't care if it's tobacco juice or a custard cream pie, there are some things you just don't fire at somebody's face. No matter how much you feel that person may deserve it. No matter how much you disagree with her.
I do not condone Mr. Smith's actions, and I don't believe anybody else should either. Including Hanoi Jane. She did not act out of compassion; she acted so that she'd be the "good guy" in this instance. That's all that was, by the way - an act. And, as her cinematic history has proved, not a very good act either (see also: Barbarella).
Look, spitting in her ugly mug did nothing to correct the harm she caused. It didn't heal the wounds she created. All it did was give her the high moral ground. Which, considering who we're talking about, is an accomplishment of almost biblical proportions.
Does Hanoi Jane deserve a gob of phlegm in her face? No. What she deserves, and will never get thanks to our spineless Department of (No) Justice, is
a fair trial followed by a firing squad. Yes, she deserves the death penalty. It's that simple. She admitted her treason, the evidence is on film and audiotape, and the suffering she caused is well documented. She has earned six bullets in what passes for her heart, delivered by our judicial system. But thanks to the Tower of Jell-O that is our United States Government (from both sides of the political aisle, I might add), this walking turd in tights gets to hawk her putrid book, make non-apologies on national TV, and (Heaven help us all) is even now preparing sell that idiotic exercise tape she did a score of years ago on DVD.
You want to get back at Hanoi Jane, Mr. Smith? Or Hanoi John, or Beijing Bill, for that matter? Save your spittle for the nearest cuspidor, and get on the phone to your Congressman, your Senators, the Department of (No) Justice and the President and DEMAND they get off their fat, lazy butts and put that woman before the bench. Followed by a blindfold,
cigarette, and an early morning volley of gunfire.
That's what Hanoi Jane deserves.
It's also what America deserves.
About the Writer: Doc Farmer is a writer and humorist who is also a moderator on ChronWatch's Forum. He formerly lived in Saudi Arabia and Qatar, but now resides in the Midwest. Doc receives e-mail at docfarmer9999@yahoo.co.uk.
This Article Was First Published In ChronWatch At: http://www.chronwatch.com/content/contentDisplay.asp?aid=14272
Here is an update on the petition to secure our borders. - Sailor
3 p.m. Wednesday, April 27, 2005
DEAR PETITION SIGNERS,
We now have more than 220,000 signers on the petition to President Bush urging him to immediately secure our borders!
Thanks to all of you who have been inviting your friends and relatives to sign up. Let's keep moving toward that goal of a million Americans on this petition: www.ReformUS.org
Congress working on border issues this afternoon
Although we won't be delivering the petitions to President Bush until Memorial Day, Congress is making decisions this afternoon that will have great influence over the fight against illegal immigration.
The only way for you to influence these decisions is to make a phone call to select Members of Congres THIS AFTERNOON.
For many of you, making a phone call to your U.S. Senator or Representative may be a little too much for you. If so, that's OK. Every citizen should try to do what feels right for them.
But for those of you who are ready for your next action after signing that petition, you should get on the phone this very minute and make a difference when it counts.
What's at stake in Conference (negotiating) Committee
The Senate and House have each passed Iraq supplemental spending bills. But each has attached wildly differing immigration provisions.
Official Conferees from both chambers have been working this week to negotiate which immigration provisions stay and which are dropped.
Citizen members of the NumbersUSA Action Network have been phoning and faxing for months to make sure that this defense bill includes items that will enhance the security of the United States on issues related to illegal immigration.
Our team of Capitol Hill professionals tells us that at this very moment, the Conferees are trying to decide whether to keep greatly expanded funding for more Border Patrol and interior enforcement agents.
Below are the Conferees. If you are from the state of one of them, your call into the D.C. office could be influential.
What you might say when you call
When a staffer answers, start by saying you are calling about the Senator or Representative's work on the Conference Committee on the Iraq spending bill.
Then, you might want to say in your own words that you urge the Senator or Representative to appropriate the highest amount of money possible to hiring more Border Patrol and interior enforcement agents and inspectors. And also more detention beds to hold illegal aliens so they can be deported.
For full information about the immigration items being debated in this Iraq spending bill, go to:
http://numbersusa.com/hottopic/0125sensenbrenner.htm
Phone these congressional Negotiators
who most need to hear from you
We have no assurance that the following Conferees will do what is best for Americans when it comes to combatting illegal immigration or protecting workers from unfair foreign labor competition.
Be firm but polite.
Top priority: Call any Negotiators from your state.
==========
ALABAMA
==========
Senator Richard Shelby
DC phone number: 202-224-5744
=========
ALASKA
=========
Senator Ted Stevens
DC phone number: 202-2243004
===========
CALIFORNIA
===========
Senator Dianne Feinstein
DC phone number: 202-224-3841
===========
COLORADO
===========
Senator Wayne Allard
DC phone number: 202-224-5941
==========
HAWAII
==========
Senator Daniel Inouye
DC phone number: 202-224-3934
=======
IDAHO
=======
Senator Larry Craig
DC phone number: 202-224-2752
=========
ILLINOIS
=========
Senator Richard Durbin
DC phone number: 202-224-2152
==========
INDIANA
==========
Rep. Peter Visclosky
DC phone number: 202-225-2461
=========
IOWA
=========
Senator Tom Harkin
DC phone number: 202-224-3254
===========
KANSAS
===========
Senator Sam Brownback
DC phone number: 202-224-6521
===========
KENTUCKY
===========
Senator Mitch McConnell
DC phone number: 202-224-2541
============
LOUISIANA
============
Senator Mary Landrieu
DC phone number: 202-224-5824
=========
MARYLAND
=========
Senator Barbara Mikulski
DC phone number: 202-224-4654
============
MINNESOTA
============
Rep. Martin Olav Sabo
DC phone number: 202-225-4755
==============
MISSISSIPPI
==============
Senator Thad Cochran
DC phone number: 202-224-5054
=================
MISSOURI
=================
Senator Kit Bond
DC phone number: 202-224-5721
===========
MONTANA
===========
Senator Conrad Burns
DC phone number: 202-224-2644
===========
NEVADA
===========
Senator Harry Reid
DC phone number: 202-224-3542
==================
NEW HAMPSHIRE
==================
Senator Judd Gregg
DC phone number: 202-224-3324
============
NEW MEXICO
============
Senator Pete Domenici
DC phone number: 202-224-6621
==============
NEW YORK
==============
Rep. Nita Lowey
DC phone number: 202-225-6506
===============
NORTH DAKOTA
===============
Senator Byron Dorgan
DC phone number: 202-224-2551
===================
OHIO
===================
Senator Mike DeWine
DC phone number: 202-224-2315
====================
PENNSYLVANIA
====================
Rep. John Murtha
DC phone number: 202-225-2065
Senator Arlen Specter
DC phone number: 202-224-4254
===================
SOUTH DAKOTA
===================
Senator Tim Johnson
DC phone number: 202-224-5842
==========
TEXAS
==========
Senator Kay B. Hutchison
DC phone number: 202-224-5922
======================
UTAH
======================
Senator Robert Bennett
DC phone number: 202-224-5444
==============
VERMONT
==============
Senator Patrick Leahy
DC phone number: 202-224-4242
============
WASHINGTON
============
Rep. Norm Dicks
DC phone number: 202-225-5916
Senator Patty Murray
DC phone number: 202-224-2621
=================
WEST VIRGINIA
=================
Senator Robert Byrd
DC phone number: 202-224-3954
Rep. Alan Mollohan
DC phone number: 202-225-4172
============
WISCONSIN
============
Senator Herbert Kohl
DC phone number: 202-224-5653
Rep. David Obey
DC phone number: 202-225-3365
Wednesday, April 27, 2005
Annan Threatened: Pay My Bills Or I'll Spill the Beans
It would seem that Kofi Annan has more troubles. Benon Sevan, who is the subject of investingation by the UN and US, has sent a letter to Kofi, demandin that the UN pay his legal bills or else. Stewart Stogel sheds some light on this in his article. Volcker has publicly complained that Sevan has "been less than forthcoming" during his panel's investigation into the multi-billion dollar scandal.
The question becomes what does Sevan know, when did he know it and who does it involve? Will Kofi Annan lift Sevan's immunity? This will certainly be interesting to follow. - Sailor
Currently, Sevan enjoys "functional immunity" - U.N.-speak for diplomatic immunity.
Annan, however, has pledged to remove such immunity if any U.N. staffer is indicted for criminal activity or found to be obstructing the Volcker investigation.
If Sevan does indeed have new information - information kept from the Volcker investigation - that may prompt Annan to revoke his diplomatic shield before any criminal indictment, confirmed the U.N. official.
NewsMax has leaned that in addition to the U.N. investigation, Sevan is also the target of an Internal Revenue Service probe into possible tax evasion.
Neither Sevan Nor his legal team would comment on the recent turn of events.
One Year Later.......
It was one year ago today that I made my very first blog post here. I want to thank everyone who has encouraged me to keep on blogging, especialy my BlogMom, Indigo. It has been a very interesting experience for me, at times both frustrating and satisfying. Thanks to all of you that have come here to read the rantings of this sailor. - Sailor.
Tuesday, April 26, 2005
No Deal: Frist Wants Vote on All Judges
Looks like Bill Frist has been told that he is the Majority Leader. He is standing firm on the issues of judicial confirmations. Mean while Harry Reid thinks he is the majority leader and is trying to dictate the terms of any deal on judges. NewsMax, via the AP, has more on this. But Frist, in a rare news conference conducted on the Senate floor, said he would not accept any deal that keeps his Republican majority from confirming judicial nominees that have been approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Harry wants to give a little here, so he and the dems can use the filibuster later, especially when the Supreme Court openings occur.
"Are we going to step back from that principle? The answer to that is no," Frist said.
That means he and Reid are still at deadlock, because Democrats have said they would not accept any deals that would permanently ban them from blocking Bush's nominees to the Supreme Court or the federal appellate courts, the top two tiers of the judicial system.
"As part of any resolution, the nuclear option must be off the table," said Reid, referring to the GOP threat to change the filibuster rules.Frist would not talk about specifics on Tuesday, but said he would not advocate the withdrawal of any judicial nominee and would continue to insist they all get confirmation votes. "That would mean people in the past as well as the future," Frist said.
The dems know they do not have the votes to kill any of these nominations, do they resort to the filibuster, which is outside of the Senates Advice and Consent Constitutional role. Each of these nominees deserve an up or down vote in the Senate. There was a time when the ABA rating of most qualified was sufficient for confirmation, now it is all about politics.
Republicans have threatened to use their majority to change long-standing senatorial rules that Democrats used to block 10 of Bush's first-term appeals court nominations. They fear a Democratic blockade could affect a Supreme Court vacancy if a high court seat opens in Bush's second term.Democrats argue that the nominees are too conservative to warrant lifetime appointments to the nation's highest courts. They have threatened to block the seven nominees that Bush sent back after winning re-election, and any others they consider out of the mainstream of judicial temperament.
As I just said, it is all about politics. No where in the Constitution does it require a super majority to confirm judges. But that is exactly what the dems are trying to do using the filibuster. A note to Harry Reid: When you are the Majority Leader, then you can set the agenda. Until then, you are the leader of the loyal opposition. Time you started remembering that. You will have your chance in 2006. Try getting more of your party elected to the Senate. Until then it is the GOP that sets the agenda. - Sailor
Democrats drew criticism when they threatened to slow the Senate's business if Republicans eliminate judicial filibusters. Democratic leaders began stressing an alternative approach Monday, attempting to force debate on their own agenda rather than the president's.
"I've always said that we'd make sure the Senate went forward, but we're going to do it on our agenda, not their agenda," Reid said.
Sudan's oil makes China a defender against U.N
The next time leftists start their no oil for blood chant, it should be in front of the Chinese embassy. Sudan is being protected in the UN by China. Why you ask? Over Sudan's oil reserves. In the menatime, the situation in Darfur is still desperate and the Sudanese government continues to wage war on the rebels there, ignoring the plight of the civilians there and at the same time killing those same civillians. David Blair explains in his article. Without this windfall -- likely to be far larger this year -- analysts say it would be difficult for Mr. Bashir to maintain his military machine, let alone wage war against rebels in the western region of Darfur.
China is energy starved, so they are more then willing to defend Sudan in the UN, despite the human rights debacle. France wants desperately to sell weapons to China. In the coming years, China's thirst for oil will increase. At some point, they may be desperate enough to seize oil fields by military means.
Energy-hungry China has invested more than $15 billion in Sudanese oil through the China National Petroleum Corp. (CNPC), a state-owned monolith. The cost of Khartoum's new refinery alone was about $700 million.China is dependent on Sudan for 7 percent of its oil imports.
So where are the leftists? Where is their cry for the human rights violations in Sudan? Why are they not taking China to task on all of this? Where is the UN? - Sailor
When the United Nations' Security Council passed Resolution 1564, threatening Sudan with oil sanctions unless it curbed the violence in Darfur, China rendered the resolution meaningless by pledging to veto any bid to impose an embargo.
China is one of five veto-wielding permanent members of the Security Council, along with the United States, Britain, France and Russia.
Critics accuse China of being Sudan's chief international protector.
"It's very clear that's what is happening," said Georgette Gagnon, deputy director of the Africa desk at Human Rights Watch.
"China is now the largest foreign investor in Sudan, so it has an economic interest in ensuring that the Sudanese government is not penalized too harshly. It has been opposed to sanctions from Day One," she said.
'Reform' and a Hidden Agenda
Looks like the some of the same groups that used deception and outright fraud to foist campaign finance reform upon us, have been busy in Illinois. Specifically, the Illinois Supreme Court race. Ryan Sager, who exposed the fakery used to support, pass and defend McCain-Feingold, sheds some light on those involved in the Illinois issue. Money rolled in from pro- and anti-tort-reform forces around the country. And so one group appointed itself traffic cop: the Illinois Campaign for Political Reform, the state's resident good-government watchdog. The "nonpartisan" group spearheaded a Tone and Conduct Committee organized under the aegis of the state Bar Association aimed at keeping advertising by outside interests to a minimum.
Once again the MSM is either hoodwinked, stupid or perhaps in cahoots with this group. How can a group formed under the aegis of any bar association not be supportive of anything that benefits the bar's membership? As for independent, pigs will fly first.
The media bought this charade hook, line and sinker, referring to the Illinois Campaign for Political Reform as "nonpartisan" and the Tone and Conduct Committee as "independent."
In fact, the group has extensive ties to the trial-lawyer lobby. That fact was only brought to light this year, in a report from the business-funded, pro-tort-reform Illinois Civil Justice League. How does the Illinois Campaign for Political Reform answer that evidence? "Our work speaks for itself," says Cindi Canary, the group's executive director. (She also says ICPR reaches out to Republicans, Democrats, business and labor.)
But out of three senior staffers listed on the group's Web site, two have extensive ties to trial lawyers. The assistant director, David Morrison, used to work for the Coalition for Consumer Rights, a typical "consumer" group opposed to tort reform. The project manager of ICPR's Judicial Campaign, Mary Schaafsma, has been affiliated for almost two decades with a group, Illinois Citizen Action, that is funded by trial lawyers and also aggressively opposes tort reform.It turns out that the eight groups under the umbrella (ICPR, the Sunshine Project, the Citizen Advocacy Center, Protestants for the Common Good, the Better Government Association, Common Cause Illinois, Illinois Public Interest Research Group and the League of Women Voters of Illinois) have received about $3 million in grants from George Soros' Open Society Institute and the Joyce Foundation since 1997.
Once again, we see the convicted swindler, George Soros, funding groups that are deceiving all of us by claiming to be nonpartisan and only "concerned" about cleaning up campaign financing. What they are really doing, is trying to shut up their opposition, by what ever means possible. As fore the MSM, as usual they are failing to do their jobs. Of course, it seems the MSM always has a problem doing their jobs, when it is liberal/leftist groups using subterfuge and deceipt. It could be some in the MSM are just looking the other way because they support the ultimate goals of those groups. Once again, it will be up to the bloggers to expose them. - Sailor
Those names should sound familiar to anyone who has followed the unmasking of the campaign-finance lobby at the national level. They are two of the eight liberal foundations that spent more than $120 million between 1994 and 2004 to fake up a "grass-roots movement" to pass the McCain-Feingold law, defend it in court and lobby for further restrictions on political speech.
These state groups are part of the same effort to restrict all political speech deemed unworthy of a hearing by a cadre of liberal foundations.
These groups exist in nearly every state. And just as at the federal level, they get almost no scrutiny from the press. "The news media in Illinois have not really done the kind of reporting that shows who's playing this game," says Murnane.
"They accuse us of being a front for big business . . . We don't hide from that," he says, referring to his group's business backing. "They're hiding, pretending they're somebody that they're not." As in neutral, nonpartisan.
Monday, April 25, 2005
We are all aware of the intolerable situation on our borders. It is time to let out voices be heard. Please go and sign the petition! - Sailor (hat tip: Doc Farmer)
Email a link to this page to friends and family so that President Bush can receive a petition with a million American names before Memorial Day.Mr. President, Please Secure Our Borders Immediately
It has been nearly four years since the 9/11 attacks inside our country by foreign nationals. Yet, tens of thousands of foreign nationals every few weeks continue to be allowed to enter this country illegally through our loosely guarded borders. All of these illegal entrants threaten American citizens in one way or another—either as unfair labor competition, tax burdens, instruments of organized crime including drug running and slavery, or as terrorists.
We can no longer allow such disorder on our borders. One of the clearest responsibilities of the federal government and of the President is to protect this country's citizens from attacks across our borders.
We urge you to direct your officials in the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to create and institute plans to ensure that foreign nationals who attempt to cross our borders without permission will be (a) detected, (b) apprehended and (c) either removed from this country or detained for appropriate punishment under the law.
While your Administration is implementing long-term sustainable programs to achieve border security, we urge emergency measures that begin to provide the same protection immediately by mobilizing some combination, as necessary, of Border Patrol, other DHS personnel, the military, other federal personnel and technological tools.Various pilot programs at selected locations have proven that zero tolerance of illegal human traffic across our borders is achievable if the federal government places a priority on protecting its citizens. We submit our names with the appreciation of your consideration and action.
Copies will also be delivered to the Republican and Democratic leaders of the House and Senate.
Republican joins Bolton hearing monkey biz
Mark Steyn has a few things to say on the Bolton hearings. I am still trying to figure out how Voinovich did not have time to attend all but one day of the hearings. It would do Voinovich some good to actually read the transcripts of the hearings so he might be able to figure out that the dems/leftists are trying any way they can to kill the Bolton nomination. As Shakespeare didn't quite say, who is Voinovich? What is he? Well, he's a fellow called George, and he's apparently a senator from Ohio who's on this Foreign Relations Committee. He was, alas, unable to interrupt his hectic schedule to attend either of the committee's hearings for John Bolton's U.N. nomination, but nevertheless decided last week he could not bring himself to support Bolton's nomination. ''My conscience got me,'' he said. Maybe one day his conscience will get him to attend the hearings he's paid to attend, but, for the moment, his conscience is more troubled by the story brought up by the senior Democratic obstructionist Joe Biden. As Sen. Biden put it, ''The USAID worker in Kyrgyzstan alleges that she was harassed -- not sexually harassed -- harassed by Mr. Bolton.''
It would be nice if some of these Senators earne dtheir pay from time to time. The USAID worker in question was also the head of "mothers Against Bush" in Texas. There were no witnesses to this alleged harrassment either.
This was a decade ago, in some hotel. John Bolton allegedly chased this woman down a corridor in a non-sexual manner. It's not clear from Biden whether he would have approved had she been chased down the corridor in a sexual manner, as the 42nd president was wont to do. But the non-sexual harassment was instead about policy matters relating to Kyrgyzstan. Maybe Bolton was in a foul mood or maybe he was in a vowel mood and, this being Kyrgyzstan, they didn't have any. But this is what the pitiful constitutional travesty of the Senate's ''advise and consent'' role has now dwindled down to: a sex scandal with no sex. All talk and no action. Only in America, folks. Or, to be more precise, only in the U.S. Senate.The weak bromides touted by the Dems in lieu of a policy -- a legalistic approach to the war on terror, greater deference to the U.N. and America's ''friends'' -- were defeated at the polls. Since then, they've been further discredited: The failure of terrorist prosecutions in Europe underlines how disastrous John Kerry's serve-'em-with-subpoenas approach would be; the sewer of the Oil-for-Food scandal and the attempts by Kofi Annan to castrate the investigation into it demonstrate yet again that there is no problem in the world today that can't be made worse by letting the U.N. have a hand in solving it; and America's ''friends'' -- by which Kerry meant not allies like Britain and Australia but the likes of France and Canada -- turn out to be some of the countries most implicated in the corruption of U.N. ''humanitarianism.''
The UN is a major cesspool of corruption and scandal. Everything the UN touches seems to turn to shit. Of course, I am sure there are those that actually think that Libya should haed the UN Commission on Human Rights. After all, who knows more about supressing human rights than Libya?
Republican voters understand this. Why don't Republican senators? The rap against John Bolton is that he gets annoyed with do-nothing bureaucrats. If that's enough to disqualify you from government service, then 70 percent of citizens who've visited the DMV in John Kerry's Massachusetts are ineligible. Sinking Bolton means handing a huge psychological victory to a federal bureaucracy that so spectacularly failed America on 9/11 and to a U.N. bureaucracy eager for any distraction from its own mess. The Democrats' interest in derailing Bush foreign policy is crude but understandable. But why would even the wimpiest Republican ''moderate'' want to help them out? Who needs capuchin monkeys in the Senate when GOP squishes are so eager to tap-dance for Democrat organ grinders?
Some one needs to remind the dems that they are the minority party. Some one also needs to remind the republicans as well. The dem/leftist policy on national security and foreign affairs, what little there is of that, was defeated at the polls in November. If they want to have their "ideas" implemented, then they need to get elected. - Sailor
Sunday, April 24, 2005
Kofi Annan's 'leadership'
Kofi Annan's leadership of the UN has been nothing less than disasterous. Under his so called "leadership" the UN has become an ecer greater cesspool of corruprion and scandal, not too mention the failures of the UN to prevent and/or react to genocide. Yet, the leftists, one worlders UN lovers and assorted others continue to praise Annan's "leadership". The Washington Times lays out Annan's failures in an editorial. Sadly, the reality bears little resemblance to the gushing praise Mr. Annan often receives from political and media elites. In his two most recent posts (director of U.N. peacekeeping operations from 1993 to 1996 and secretary-general since 1996), Mr. Annan has presided over a panoply of international disasters, ranging from genocide to the erosion and collapse of international sanctions against Iraq and the oil-for-food scandal. He is currently under fire for blocking, at the behest of Syria, a U.N. report critical of Damascus' role in Lebanon. Following are just some of the most prominent debacles that occurred on his watch:
I suggest it is not John Bolton who does not belong at the UN, but rather Kofi Annan.
• Rwandan genocide. In 1994 in Rwanda, Mr. Annan failed to act upon receiving warning from Lt.-Gen. Romeo Dallaire, the commander of U.N. peacekeeping forces there, that Hutu radicals were planning to massacre members of the rival Tutsi tribe. Gen. Dallaire said he requested permission to seize an arms cache that Hutus aligned with the Rwandan government were planning to use as part of their impending ethnic-cleansing campaign against the Tutsis. Mr. Annan rejected the request to seize the arms cache, helping pave the way for the ensuing massacres, in which 800,000 people were killed. An independent report concluded that Mr. Annan and aides in his peacekeeping headquarters encouraged the Security Council's indifference on the matter.
• Other peacekeeping failures. In July 1995, U.N. peacekeepers who worked for Mr. Annan broke their promise to protect Bosnian Muslims in a "safe area" at Srebrenica. As a result, Serbian troops and militiamen executed 7,000 Muslim men and boys -- one of the worst massacres in Europe since World War II.
In Congo, the Office of Internal Oversight Services, a U.N. watchdog, issued a report in November documenting a pattern of sexual abuse by U.N. peacekeepers who are supposed to be protecting local residents. Some of the victims were girls as young as 13.
• The oil-for-food scandal. In March 2000, when Saddam Hussein was systematically diverting assistance intended for the Iraqi people to his cronies, Mr. Annan was telling the Security Council about all he had done to reform the program to make it more transparent. After coalition troops ousted Saddam, investigators found Iraqi Oil Ministry records that say Benon Sevan -- the man Mr. Annan picked to run the program -- received vouchers for millions of barrels of oil from Saddam. Only when he came under political pressure did Mr. Annan cooperate with congressional investigatations of the scandal by releasing internal U.N. audits of the program. Mr. Annan's chief of staff, S. Iqbal Riza, authorized his secretary to shred several years worth of documents relevant to the investigation.
• Iraq. In addition to oil for food, Mr. Annan has come under fire for appeasing Saddam during the 1990s. In February 1998, for example, when the Iraqi dictator provoked a crisis by blocking weapons inspectors, Mr. Annan traveled to Baghdad in order to cut a deal with Saddam that weakened weapons inspections. He heaped praise on Saddam for his courage and asserted that the Iraqi ruler had been misunderstood. Mr. Annan was feted at a state dinner in Paris by French President Jacques Chirac and was given a hero's welcome by U.N. staff when he returned to New York.By contrast, Iraqis liberated from Saddam's tyranny reacted very negatively last year after Mr. Annan warned coalition forces against an assault on the terrorist insurgent stronghold of Fallujah. "Where was Kofi Annan when Saddam was slaughtering the Iraqis like sheep?" Iraqi Defense Minister Hazem Sha'alan demanded. The secretary-general has much to answer for.
Perhaps Kofi was too busy watching the money his son Kojo was raking in from the Oil-for-Food scam.
Annan indeed has much to answer for, but do not expect those currently at the UN to do anything, especially the French, Germans and Russians. After all, many influential political figures in those countries allegedly profitted form Oil-for-Food as well, not to mention the large amounts of hard currency coming in from illegal arms sales to saddam. - Sailor
France Not Softening on Push to Lift China Arms Embargo
Once again, the French have found another repressive government they would love to sell arms to. In this case it is China. Forget that the US, rest of the EU and several human right groups oppose this. For the French it is as usual, all about money. Patrick Goodenough has more in his article. An informal meeting of E.U. foreign ministers last Friday ended with representatives expressing doubts that the embargo could be lifted soon.
The French have also decided to side with China on the use of force against Taiwan. Seems now that a pre-emptive war is just fine with the French. It would seem the French see this just as another opportunity to increase foreign trade in weaponry.
Shortly beforehand, the European Parliament voted 431 to 85 in favor of a report urging the 25-member union not to lift the embargo. The report cited concerns about human rights as well as the "anti-secession" law allowing force against Taiwan.
But French Prime Minister Jean-Pierre Raffarin, who began a visit to Beijing on Thursday, made it clear that Paris would continue to press for the "unfair" embargo to end.Raffarin said the E.U. was convinced that China, as a responsible country and a large power, would continue to live in harmony with its neighbors and play a larger role in maintaining world peace and stability.
Live in harmony alright. As long as you do not happen to be Taiwan or any of the countries that have legitimate claims to the Spratly Islands. China has a huge thirst for oil and the Spratly Islands may hold the potential for billions of barrels of oil. Raffarin did not explain how France intended to get E.U. consensus before June, but he did say the decision "is to be taken between Europeans," and that efforts where underway to "reassure" the U.S.
The French have already helped the Chinese upgrade their submarine forces' electronic capabilities. I some how doubt that this will be "symbolic". The French will do anything to turn a few euros. After all, the French economy is in the dumper and unemployment is hovering around the 10% mark. One also has to wonder with the French, how many politically connected Frenchman are having their palms greased here. - Sailor
U.S. undersecretary of state Nicholas Burns told lawmakers last week that the administration would shortly begin a "strategic dialogue" with the E.U., covering issues like the arms embargo.
Burns said the E.U. had not made a compelling case for ending the ban on weapons sales, and U.S. officials would use the dialogue to ensure the Europeans understood the dangers that lifting it would pose to regional security.
Proponents of ending the ban, led by France and Germany, argue that doing so would be more symbolic than practical, and would not lead to a significant surge in weapons sales to China.
Beijing characterizes the embargo as "discriminatory" and has been lobbying hard for its removal.
Saturday, April 23, 2005
Heralds of a Brighter Black Future
Heralds of a Brighter Black Future
Heather Mac Donald has a marvelous column at City Journal, on the bright black future. It will, natuarally upset the usual dem/lib/leftist crowd as well as the race baiters like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. Here are some tease for you. When Bill Cosby, in a speech to the NAACP last May, let fly a merciless condemnation of black illegitimacy, educational apathy, and the idea that white racism causes black social problems, political commentators dropped their jaws. They remained stunned when he vented similar frustration to audiences across the country over the next six months. Sure, “civil rights” advocates have been known, on rare occasions, to criticize self-defeating black behavior, but convention requires that after briefly denouncing, say, black-on-black crime (as if black-on-white crime would be okay), the “leader” should turn his attention to the racial injustice that allegedly causes such crime and harp on that for the next year or so. This Cosby refused to do. “It’s not what [the white man] is doing to you; it’s what you’re not doing,” he thundered in Detroit.
We all know what a bombshell Cosby dropped on the so called civil rights, (blame whitey} establishment.
The reaction of black audiences was just as unexpected. Rather than take offense, they waited hours in line, in blistering heat and freezing cold, to hear Cosby deliver his impassioned plea for bourgeois behavior.How can anyone in their right mind accept reparations?” asks Rapheal Adams incredulously. “I would never accept them,” he says, pressing his hands to his chest. “I don’t have shackles.” Suddenly solemn, Adams intones melodramatically: “ ‘Four hundred years ago, they brought us here!’ ” He squints skeptically: “Yeah? You’re lookin’ pretty good for 400 years old. Guess what? The slaves have been dead a long time. Show me where the ‘Colored Only–Whites Only’ signs are in this country . . . anywhere. Everyone agrees slavery was horrific, but you have to look at what people did to end it. I’m sorry, you’re not owed one damn dime.”
Dissention by a black is sometimes met with violence. This nonsense about reparations is just that, nonsense. Many of our forebearers came to theis country well after slavery was abolished and, quite frankly, were in no position to discrimate angainst anyone, since some of them were fighting through that issue as well.
Rapheal Adams is a dissenter in Cincinnati, seat of the country’s most vicious race politics. Until recently, the ebullient 43-year-old fought the city’s racial arsonists as a host on black talk radio, working the night shift at a General Electric jet-engine plant in order to promote his views during the day. When race riots erupted in 2001, Adams, as the sole pro-police counter-demonstrator at an anti-cop rally, barely escaped assault.David A. Clarke, the towering sheriff of Milwaukee County, Wisconsin, electrified Milwaukee in 2003 with his candid expression of disgust at the scapegoating of police. Lamarr Nash, a 24-year-old criminal, had stolen a truck and then led the police on a 17-mile high-speed highway chase, ending when he crashed into a deputy’s squad car. Nash exited the truck with his hands up and lay down on the asphalt. The deputies surrounded him, and for a brief moment, one put his foot on Nash’s neck, without causing any injury.
This is quite typical of the NAACP and their dem/lib/leftist allies. Blame the police, extol the criminal behavior and portray the criminal as the victim.
Predictably, the black civil rights establishment erupted in rage at this instance of police “brutality.” The NAACP called a meeting to denounce the police. At the meeting, Sheriff Clarke asked the crowd if they thought the offending deputy was a racist. The verdict was yes. Interesting, said Clarke; here’s his picture. The deputy was black.
Hopefully these snippets will be sufficient the whet your interest in the full article. - Sailor
Let blogs run free
"Let blogs run free Copyright © 2005, Chicago Tribune "
Let the Blogs run free
Here is an editorial from the Chicago Tribune on the how to deal with Blogs. I could not agree more, some one in the MSM finally gets it. - Sailor
April 23, 2005
Sometimes the best political action is no action. When Congress passed the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform law in 2002, it deliberately avoided mention of the Internet. That has been very healthy for American democracy.
Unfortunately recent actions by the courts and Congress raise new questions as to how long that benign neglect will last, particularly for that feisty, sometimes foul-mouthed, but often innovative new medium known as the blog.
Short for Web log, the Internet-based diaries have exploded into a bountiful and boisterous blogosphere of voices from diverse political views. Some of the blogs got a lot of attention in 2004, raising funds, Web-casting attack ads and providing links to candidate sites and political action groups.
Whether the authors of the 1st Amendment imagined such a boundless platform for a cacophony of voices, it is not hard to imagine that they would have approved.
Nevertheless, questions have been raised about whether bloggers are making an end run around campaign finance laws. Should a blogger's online endorsement and promotion of a candidate be counted as an "in-kind contribution" to the campaign? Should the blogger be subject to campaign finance law if he's raising money? Are these journalists or political activists?
That last question erupted with a vengeance after revelations that South Dakota Republican John Thune's Senate campaign paid two bloggers who posted attacks against Thune's Democratic opponent, Tom Daschle. Howard Dean's presidential campaign paid two blogs for (presumably) unrelated consulting services.
The Federal Election Commission has proposed new rules and scheduled public hearings in June to address blogging-for-dollars and other political funding issues in the largely uncharted universe of cyberspace.
This creates all sorts of potential tensions. Which Web sites and blogs should be considered legitimate news organizations, exempt from McCain-Feingold's restrictions, and which should not? Should individual bloggers be treated differently than organizations? If a blogger receives payment for a political activity, does that turn the blog into a political committee that is subject to campaign finance regulation?
Such questions would be rendered moot under new laws proposed by Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, a Nevada Democrat, and Rep. Jeb Hensarling, a Texas Republican, to exclude the Internet from federal campaign finance laws. They have the right idea.
Attempts to regulate the flow of political writing run smack into the 1st Amendment protection of speech. And there's a long trail of evidence that campaign finance "reform" laws are ultimately futile. Campaign cash, like water, finds new channels when old ones are blocked.
Democracy is better served by more voices and choices, not fewer ones. Congress and the FEC should encourage more civic involvement and welcome more online voices to the political process instead of throwing regulatory roadblocks in the way.
Celebs Ignore Death, Poverty on MTV Enviro Series
A critic of the environmental movement condemned the new MTV series. "There's something perverse and immoral when multi-millionaire Hollywood celebrities head off on junkets in the jungle - and then preach to us lesser mortals about the joys of the simple life, and how we should protect the Earth, conserve energy, prevent global warming, and help the poorest people on our planet continue 'enjoying' their poverty, malnutrition and premature death," Paul Dreissen, author of Eco-Imperialism: Green power/Black Death told Cybercast News Service. "Life in these developing countries is still nasty, brutish and short. And that there is a reason our parents and grandparents worked so hard to create modern homes and hospitals and technologies, so they could leave behind the unsafe water, dung fires, pollution, rotted teeth, infant mortality and life expectancies half or ours," said Driessen. "This entire MTV series totally glosses over the hardships and premature death that is right before their eyes. Even mentioning these facts would obviously get in the way of their ideological message, and their determination to turn [MTV viewers] into little ventriloquist's dummies for the sustainable development movement," Driessen explained.
MTV has this new series, "Trippin'," that extolls the the "virtues" of backward, third world countries and how "environmentally" friendly they are. Of course, they do neglect to mention the high infant mortallity rate and the far shorter than average life expectancies. Actress carmen Diaz and some of her Hollywood elitist pals, go jetting around the world, to these places to revel in "environmental" correctness. The article by Marc Morano, looks into these Hollywood environuts. Actress Drew Barrymore, who reportedly earns $15 million a film, told MTV viewers in one episode that after spending time in a primitive, electricity-free Chilean village, "I aspire to be like them more."
Well how nice for you Drew. Her is a pampered little phony going on and on about a primitive lifestyle that she is in no way going to live. I seriously doubt Drew is about to give upo her plush lifestyle to save the environment.
Barrymore, apparently enthralled by the lack of a modern sanitary facilities, gleefully bragged, "I took a poo in the woods hunched over like an animal. It was awesome."Diaz also criticized the lifestyles of many Americans after visiting an indigenous village in Chile. "It's kinda gotten out of hand how much convenience we think we need," she said.
Well then Ms. Diaz, why do you not lead by example and give up all of your excessive convenience? Not likely to happn. Then there is the hypocricy of dissing SUVs while beinf chauffeured around in one. I wonder how many SUVs this group owns anyway?
Despite the celebrities' praise for the primitive life, "Trippin'" shows them flying on multiple airplanes and chartering at least two helicopters and one boat to reach remote locations over the course of the first four episodes.
The series also showed the celebrities being chauffeured to the airport in a full-size Chevy SUV -- despite several on-screen, anti-SUV factoids noting how environmentally unfriendly SUVs are.'The first four episodes of the MTV series made scant mention of the difficult economic and social conditions of the countries visited. Bhutan, a country that received particular praise from Diaz for its environmental policies, has one of the highest infant mortality rates (103 infant deaths per 1,000 live births) and lowest life expectancies (54 years) in the world. By comparison, the United States, which Diaz described as having too much "convenience," has an infant mortality rate of only 6.6 per 1000 and an average life expectancy of more than 77 years.
I suppose this is evirnmentally sound. You a lower birth rate due to high infant mortallity, you have a lower population because no one lives that long, then all these people that die early get buried and fertilize the land.
Located between China and India in the Himalayan Mountains, Bhutan was profiled on the second episode of "Trippin'."
Diaz described it as the "only country in the world where forest cover is increasing."
According to CIA estimates, Bhutan has one of the world's smallest and least developed economies, with the country's 2-million people surviving mostly on the crops they grow themselves.
I wonder how many of these "stars" are now going to live this lifestyle? Do not hold your breath waiting to anyone of these spoiled Hollywood brats packing up and leaving their creature comforts to go live in some backward, Third World remote, primitive village. What hypocricy. - Sailor
Friday night blogs.
Radio Blogger has a Friday night discussion, which is becoming a regular event over at his blog. Tonight the subjuct is the UN and John Bolton. Here is just a little tease for you. As is becoming the norm on this site, every Friday the blogosphere holds court with Larry Kudlow on CNBC's Kudlow & Company. The target: Kofi Annan. The panel? Roger L. Simon, Austin Bay, & a special appearance by Wall Street Journal columnist and Foundation for the Defense of Democracies scholar, Claudia Rosett. Claudia has done Pulitzer-caliber work on the Oil for Food scandal, and if the subject is Kofi Anna, Claudia is the one you want on to comment.
Head on over to read the transcript. It makes for a good read. Oh, and not forget not to pay any attention to the man behind the curtain. - Sailor
Friday, April 22, 2005
Gen. Peter Pace Nominated to be Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
President Bush today nominated Marine Gen. Peter Pace, to replace retiring Air Force Gen. Richard B. Myers as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. As the Predisdent said in his remarks, Americans know that Marine is really shorthand for 'can do'. Pace was alos born in Brooklyn, which can only add the tenacity that is emblematic of Brooklynites. I have had quite a few dealings with Marines over the years. Some were your basic barroom brawls, some were in combat. In both cases, I have the greatest admiration and respect for the Marines, though I still would not want my daughter to marry one. Bush said that his most sacred duty is to protect the American people and that choosing the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is one of the most important decisions the commander in chief makes.
No matter what those on the far left may think or spew, those who serve in our military are indeed our best young men and women.
“The first thing America needs to know about Pete Pace is that he is a Marine,” Bush said at the White House. “To the American people, ‘Marine’ is shorthand for ‘can-do,’ and I’m counting on Pete Pace to bring the Marine spirit to these new responsibilities.”
Pace said the task ahead of him is exhilarating and humbling. “It’s exhilarating because I have the opportunity … to continue to serve this great nation,” he said. “It’s humbling because I know the challenges ahead are formidable, but I have great faith in our ability to meet those challenges.”
Pace said the reason he has such confidence is “that we have the world’s best young men and women serving in our armed forces. Active, Guard, Reserve, civilian -- they simply deliver every time our nation calls.”Bush noted that under the glass on Pace’s desk, the general keeps a photo of Lance Cpl. Guido Farinaro, the first Marine Pace lost in combat during Vietnam.
The true measure of any commander is how he views they loss of those under his command. Peter Pace more then passes muster. - Sailor
Moussaoui Pleads Guilty in 9/11 Conspiracy
Zacarias Moussaoui pleaded guilty to conspiring with the other 9/11 hijackers to crash commercial airliner into buildings. According to Moussaoui's statement, his intended target was the White House. Moussaoui also fingered Osama bin Laden as the mastermind behind the plot as well as the one that gave the oreders to proceed. Read the full Pete Yost AP story. Moussaoui, a 36-year-old French citizen, pleaded guilty to six felonies, four of which carry the death penalty. They accuse him of conspiring with the 19 hijackers and al-Qaida leaders in a broad plot to kill Americans using commercial airliners as weapons. The conspiracy included the Sept. 11 attacks.
Since 4 of the 6 charges that Moussaoui pled gulity to are capital offenses, the death penalty should be handed down. Moussaoui has said he will fight the death penalty and I am sure scores of left wing organizations will try and assist him in this fight. Then there are the French, who will be sure to be having a hissy fit, should Moussaoui be sentenced to death. No doubt the French will try to intercede in a world forum of one sort or another.
In a "statement of facts" compiled by prosecutors and signed Friday by Moussouai, he acknowledged knowing about the plot to fly planes into prominent U.S. buildings, then lying to federal agents after his arrest in August 2001 to avoid exposing the plot.
But in his court appearance, Moussaoui hinted at a possible death penalty defense. He tried to distance himself from the specific events on Sept. 11, saying that nothing in the statement he signed declared he was "specifically guilty of 9-11."The judge asked Moussaoui to review the lengthy statement of facts in which prosecutors laid out their case against him. He appeared to carefully review it as hushed court spectators watched intently. Brinkema asked if he understood it.
Perhaps this will give some closure to the families of the 9/11 victims. If there was ever a justification for implementeation of the death penalty, this is it. - Sailor
"Yes, I have read more than 10 times this statement," he said. "I pondered each paragraph and find it factual."
In the statement, Moussaoui said bin Laden had personally selected him to take part in an attack on the White House with a commercial airliner.
Bin Laden told Moussaoui, "Sahrawi, remember your dream," according to the statement. Abu Khaled al Sahrawi was one of the names Moussaoui used.
Brinkema asked defense lawyer Alan Yamamoto, the only attorney Moussaoui has been willing to talk to in recent weeks, if he was satisfied his client understood what he was doing by pleading guilty.
"When I have spoken to him, we have disagreed," Yamamoto said. "He is facing the possibility of death or life in prison. He has told me that he understands that."
Prosecutor Robert Spencer told the court he believed Moussaoui should be ordered to pay restitution to the Sept. 11 victims.
When the judge noted that part of the penalties could include a $250,000 fine, Moussaoui replied, "I wonder where I will get the money."
Before he formally entered the plea, he was asked if he understood the statement could be used against him to prove he was guilty. "Absolutely, I do understand that," he said.
A few seconds later, he added, "Where do I get the pen?"
Outside the courthouse, family members of Sept. 11 victims expressed satisfaction with the outcome and their gratitude to the government for pursuing the case.
Dominic J. Puopolo Jr. of Miami Beach, Fla., whose mother from Dover, Mass., died on American Airlines Flight 11 that crashed into the World Trade Center, said he had "a tremendous feeling justice is being served." He said, "I promised my mother shortly after she was murdered I'd somehow have justice."
Bolton has common sense -- that's why Democrats hate him
Commons snese is a commodity sorely lacking today. Take the UN. Here people look at the Secretary General as some all fired world leader, when the position is an adminstrative one. One of John Bolton's "sins" in the eyes of the One Worlders is that he had the audacity to point this out. Mona Charen has more in her commentary. Here is Bolton's take on the post of U.N. secretary-general: "... One should not invest excessive hope in any secretary-general. The U.N. Charter describes the secretary-general as the U.N.'s 'chief administrative officer.' He is not the president of the world. He is not a diplomat for all seasons. He is not Mr. Friend of the Earth. And most definitely of all, he is not commander in chief of the World Federalist Army. He is the chief administrative officer. Nothing less than that, to be sure, but, with even greater certainty, nothing more."
The UN is a cesspool of corruption and scandal. Bolton is a man that has the gumption and capacity to tell it as it is. In diplomatic circles that is more or less unheard of. It is clear that the dems/leftists do not want to change the status quo. The question indeed should be do they not.
A wound to the quick! In a few words, Bolton ridiculed liberal U.N. worship. It's no surprise that they did not thank him for bringing them down to earth with a jolt. Bolton's point in that article is that the United Nations is a tool, not an end itself. Rather than the "parliament of man" liberals fondly imagine, the United Nations is a collection of nations each pursuing its own interests, and an unaccountable bureaucracy awash in waste, sloth, luxury and abuse.
Frankly, in a decade that has brought us the Oil for Food scandal, the child sex slave trade carried on by U.N. workers, U.N. failures to confront horrific human rights disasters like North Korea and Sudan -- indeed, even offering the genocidal regime of Sudan a place on the Human Rights Commission (other members: Zimbabwe, Congo, Cuba, Saudi Arabia) -- the real question ought to be not why John Bolton isn't sentimental about the United Nations, but rather why Democrats are.Bolton was placid during his grilling -- though why so few Republicans chose to attend the hearing is anybody's guess. Perhaps sensing that substantive policy differences with Bolton would not be enough to sink his nomination -- he is, after all, supposed to represent President Bush at the United Nations, not President Kerry -- the Democrats switched tactics. This is a well-worn pattern by now. We saw it with Robert Bork, and then with Clarence Thomas and countless others. It is the find dirt game. Or perhaps the invent dirt game.
Oh my goodness, a manager that actual yells at a subordinate that lies or is incompetent. Imagine how hurt that subordinate must have been. This is utter nonsense. It it best we keep the dems/leftists away fromany military basic training. They would be aghast. Drill instructers have actually been known to yell at recruits.
It has now reached truly hilarious depths. It seems, don't say this too loud, that Bolton has been known to yell at subordinates, particularly those who lie to him. This intelligence has led Democratic senators -- and two very limp Republicans, George Voinovich and Chuck Hagel -- to conclude that Bolton lacks the proper "temperament" for a high-ranking position in the U.S. government. Can anyone say this with a straight face?
Here's the real bottom line: Republicans have permitted this to happen. If the president had backed Bolton more forthrightly; if Republican senators had supported him during his hearing; and if two Republicans had not bid for The New York Times' approval, this could not have happened.
When the dems/leftist approach of going after Bolton on his ideologic thoughts on the UN failed to be the issue they wanted it to be, they went after his management style. When that did not turn out to be enough to sink Bolton, they have gone to character assasination. John Bolton is exactly the man we need at the UN. Time for him to be confirmed is now. - Sailor
Thursday, April 21, 2005
A Solution for U.S. Foreign Antagonists: The Battleship
Over the past month, Oliver North, Jim Carey and myslef have been pressing for the re-activation of the 2 remaining Iowa Class battleships. Now the cause has been joined by Frederick W. Stakelbeck Jr.who has written an article also pressing for the re-activation of these ships. Opponents of battleship re-activation note that the dominance of carrier-based air power since WWII has made the once-mighty battleship a relic. They argue that advances in offensive weapons technology, naval manpower shortages, insufficient domestic shipyard capabilities, a lack of tooling facilities, and the cost prohibitive nature of re-activation in a time of federal budget shortfalls, dictate an end to the battleship.
Both ships could be re-activated at cost of 2 billion dollares, which is the cost of one DD(x) Class ship. The Iowa class are more hevily armed, heavily armored and faster the the DD(X) Class of ships.
However, many in Congress and the military believe dismissing the battleship is a bad idea. Veteran U.S. Senators Edward Kennedy (D-MA) and John McCain (R-AZ), USMC Commandant Michael Hagee, and General Walt Bommer (USMC-Ret), have all questioned the Navy’s ability to support Marine expeditionary forces without suitable sea-based fire support that only battleships can provide.The Iowa-class battleships have 9 16” guns that can throw a 2,700 pound projectile more than 20 miles inland; 32 Tomahawk ASM/LAM cruise missiles; 16 Harpoon ASM missiles; 12 Mk 28 5” 38 caliber guns; 4 Mk 15 20 mm Phalanx CIWS; and air/surface search radar. With a top speed of 33 knots, they are amazingly fast and carry an unbelievable amount of munitions. This exceptional combination of speed and power makes the Iowa-class battleship an awesome weapon.
The capability of the 16 inch naval rifle is as currently configured. Ollie North point out in his article, that with advances in projectiles, the range of the guns could reach 100 miles. With the threat of war in the Pacific a distinct possibility, it would be a mistake to dismiss the pivotal role that the two remaining battleships, the USS Iowa and USS Wisconsin, can play in a military conflict. Not even the stealthy, futuristic DD(X) class ship, the next generation of Navy ship, can provide the overwhelming firepower of an Iowa-class battleship. Moreover, the new generation of lightly armored DD(X) ships will not be available until 2013. At a staggering $2-$3 billion dollars each, defense orders have already been slashed from 24 to 5 ships, making the Navy’s job of enforcing U.S. foreign policy interests even more difficult.
While congress has continued toscale bck the Navy, the Chinese continue to build their's up. In time, the PLA(N) will be more then a credible threat ti the US Navy. With China looking to expand to Tiawan and the Spratley Islands, no it not the time to be weaking the ability of the Navy to both interdiction missions and mission supporting the possible need for landing Marines on hostile shores.
So, what can the U.S. Navy do in the interim to meet emerging global threats? It would take less than two years to re-activate the USS Iowa and USS Wisconsin at the cost of one new DD(X) ship. The logical step would be to use the older Iowa-class battleships until new ships have been proven to be combat ready. Future global conflicts will require large Marine amphibious landings, especially if China invades Taiwan and occupies the island before U.S. forces based in Guam and Japan can adequately respond. Battleships are well armored with a greater survivability rate than today’s lightly armored Aegis frigates. Possible military engagements with China, Cuba, and Venezuela will require maximum volume and lethality on hardened targets at close range. This is what the battleship does best. Commenting on the psychological impact of the battleship on hostile forces, Captain Larry Seaquist of the USS Iowa noted,
This last quote is a telling tribute to the fear placed in the heart of an enemy that the Iowa Class brings.
“When we would sail the USS Iowa down the Strait of Hormuz [to protect oil tankers] during the Iran-Iraq War, all of southern Iran would go quiet.” Abandoning the battleship will only weaken the U.S. as its overseas commitments increase. Battleships are needed in the U.S. Navy arsenal more than ever today, since many of the ongoing disputes involve island nations such as Taiwan and Cuba. The demoralizing effect of 16” shells raining down for hours on a Chinese mechanized division or Cuban infantry division would be enormous.
Some times old is better. It is time for Congress to put the great ladies of the sea back in action. - Sailor
Is it possible that Chinese dictator Wen Jiabao, North Korean strongman Kim Jong Il, Venezuelan leftist Hugo Chavez, or Iran’s terrorist-sponsor Mohammad Khatami could become the next Saddam Hussein, invading a helpless neighbor for economic and political gain? Let’s hope not.
But in case any of these tyrants have thoughts of using military force to conquer or intimidate, the Iowa-class battleships can provide a quick and deadly response. They are a flexible, mobile and powerful platform by which U.S. foreign policy objectives and democracy can be promoted worldwide. Battleships continue to be an unmistakable sign of American commitment and strength.
It will take up to two years to prepare the USS Iowa and USS Wisconsin for active service. The U.S. Congress and U.S. Navy should start the re-activation process right now by implementing recommendations for capital improvements that have already been made.
For once the last two great battleships are converted into museums, they will be gone forever.
Wednesday, April 20, 2005
Weird Al TV: Al Gore, Al the Time
Doc Farmer looks at the new cable channel that Al (hang that chad) Gore is putting together. In the spirit of bipartisanship, Doc has a few programming suggestions for Al. Hats off to Doc, for being so gracious in this day of back biting, gutter politics. - Sailor
Weird Al TV: Al Gore, Al the Time
Written by Doc Farmer
Wednesday, April 20, 2005
By now, you’ve probably heard that former Vice President and failed Presidential candidate Al Gore has decided to create a “new” cable television network. He’s hoping to attract the all-important 18 to 25 year old demographic, in order for them to consider politics more seriously. Mr. Gore has some serious backing, and hopes to have his new cable channel up and running before year’s end.
Apparently, Mr. Gore
seems to feel that there’s not enough lib/dem/soc/commie bias permeating the Mainstream Media, Hollyweird, Network News, and most (if not all) major broadsheet newspapers. He’s concerned that Fox News’ “fair and balanced” format is a serious threat to all he holds dear. Further, I’m sure he lives in fear of the Maha Rushie, waking each night in a cold sweat as he sees himself being chased by El Rushbo, brandishing the sword of truth in his left hand and a Bible in the right.
I’ve heard various predictions of doom and gloom regarding this new cable network, but I don’t put too much stock in them. Firstly, Mr. Gore has obviously put a lot of influence into getting this channel off the ground. Secondly, there’s plenty of money floating around out there, waiting like flowers to be plucked by the nearest lib/dem/soc/commie gardener. Who knows? It might even be delivered to him in paper sacks at nearby monasteries from some Eastern religious
group. One also has to consider that folks predicted the death of “Air America” (aka “FrankenRadio”), but it’s still around. Granted, FrankenRadio appears to be headed toward the slab, and no amount of electricity may revive it, but like Sen. Robert Byrd (KKK-WV) himself, it just seems to hang on far past its usefulness.
Personally, I have no problem with Mr. Gore’s new network, or “Air America” being presented to the public. We’re a large enough country for a wide variety of viewpoints and opinions. The more the merrier, I always say. I mean, that’s what free speech is supposed to be about.
However, populating a 24-hour a day, 7 day a week programming format is a daunting task for anyone. You have to have informative, entertaining, and thoughtful shows in order to attract the Pepsi Generation, Generation X, the Next Generation, or whatever the callow youth of today call themselves. Their brains have been MTV’d down to around the attention span of your average
retarded goldfish. So, keeping the audience interested in the message will be challenging, to say the least.
So, in the spirit of friendship and helpfulness, I’d like to propose these program ideas to Mr. Gore for his new network. I think you’ll find they’re right in line with the beliefs of Mr. Gore, his party and his financiers.
Pork Fat Rules! - Hosted by acclaimed television chef Emeril Lagasse, this program would invite current and former Representatives and Senators who found ways to waste the most taxpayer money on boondoggle projects and self-aggrandizing government buildings named after themselves. There’ll also be a contest to see who can create the largest “entitlement” project that provides the least support to the actual end-users (see also: poor people).
Starr Warz - This science fiction drama depicts the epic struggle of valiant lib/dem/soc/commies to protect their beloved leader, Bill Tonsilbanger, from the evil Darth Kenny. Princess Hilla shoots down Vast Right Wing Stormtroopers with her Harridan Ray, while Obi-Gore Two-By-Foury uses his mystical powers to befuddle their enemies by boring them to death. Look out for the cameo appearance of Teddy the Hutt.
Knight Writer - A comedy-drama about two Southern Democrats in the 1950s, one a Klansman, the other an ordinary man who kept to his principles by “keepin’ the darkies down” in order to continue being re-elected. There’s Southern comfort, pregnant housemaids, and cross-burnin’s aplenty in this nostalgic looks back at those carefree days of separate (but equal) water fountains, lynchings, and pure redneck hijinks.
Great River Journeys - This historical program will take a look at the great waterways of America, their history, their culture and their impact on modern society. The premier episode, “The Bridges Of The Chappaquiddick” will focus on the important aquaculture of this famous river, including its ability to get rid of annoying assistants as well as several hours of memory.
That’s My Janet! - A rollicking comedy, set in the Clinton Justice Department, this program will highlight the wacky antics of everybody’s favorite killer dyke. Watch Janet’s madcap adventures as she bulldozes compounds, violates court orders, kidnaps innocent children at gunpoint, and then relaxes in the back of the First Lady’s Limo for a bit of “quality time.” Please note, before watching this program, order your official DNC barf bags - in Regular, and Secret Service Limo Driver sizes.
The Soros Group - Hosted by multimillionaire and convicted insider-trader George “I Hate Dubya So Much I Spent $23 Million To Slander Him And All I Got Was This Lousy TV Show” Soros, the “news” and “discussion” format will follow much of the same structure as the ever-popular “McLaughlin Group” - sans the whimsy. Soros will bring up issues, yell at his guests (who have all been paid to agree with everything he says) and blame everything on President Bush.
The Newlywed Perverts Game - Each week, four lucky same-sex couples will answer personal and embarrassing questions about their partners in perversion for cash prizes. Hosted by Andres Serrano (the “artist” who put a crucifix in a vat of his own liquid waste), Robert Maplethorpe (another “genius” of art nouveau), and Enrique the Love Goat, the contestants will describe their lifestyles in lurid detail. Make sure your kids watch, so they can be more inclusive and accepting of other people who want to rape and infect them.
Great Liberals Of History - Another historical docudrama series, this program will take a look at the luminaries of socialism. Features will include a tough, hard-hitting, no-holds-barred look at why the greatest representatives of socialism and liberalism throughout history have been badly treated by the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy. Programs will focus on such great historical figures as Stalin, Lenin, Pol Pot, Hitler, Mao Tse Tung, Saddam Hussein, Kim Jong Il, and why we should ignore all those inconvenient facts about them.
The AGN Evening News with Dan Rather - What national network would be complete without a 30 minute encapsulation of the day’s news, dumbed down by a folksy and accomplished liar? The Columbia Broadcasting System didn’t appreciate his genius, but I’m sure the Al Gore Network will make good use of his services - just like they did when he worked at CBS, in fact. With crack(ed) reporters around the world like Al Franken, Alan Colmes, Jane Fonda and the Baldwin Brothers, they’ll bring you the news the way you want it - formulated and one-sided, like you’re used to having.
Well, Al, there you go. A line-up I’m sure will enthrall and enrapture your audience of lib/dem/soc/commies. Good luck, Godspeed, and please make sure to tell us the difference between you and the test pattern!
About the Writer: Doc Farmer is a
writer and humorist who is also a moderator on ChronWatch's Forum. He formerly lived in Saudi Arabia and Qatar, but now resides in the Midwest. Doc receives e-mail at docfarmer9999@yahoo.co.uk.
This Article Was First Published In ChronWatch At: http://www.chronwatch.com/content/contentDisplay.asp?aid=14126
George Soros' Five-Year Plan
Geoge Soros is going to do everything he can to ensure that his hand picked candidates evenrtually are elected and in control of the United States. From pushing campaign finance reform, which he promptly used a loophole in to funnel millions into in an attempt to elect John Kerry, to funding a so called "constitutional convention" at Yale, now he is organizing this self called Phoenix Group. It would seem that the sole purpose of this group is to get liberal, leftist and dem candidates elected. Hans Nichols has more on this in his commentary. George Soros told a carefully vetted gathering of 70 likeminded millionaires and billionaires last weekend that they must be patient if they want to realize long-term political and ideological yields from an expected massive investment in “startup” progressive think tanks.
Be prepared to see a plethera of new so called "non-partisan" think tanks trying to influence public policy. It will be reminiscent of the recent drive to foist campaign finance reform upon us.
The Scottsdale, Ariz., meeting, called to start the process of building an ideas production line for liberal politicians, began what organizers hope will be a long dialogue with the “partners,” many from the high-tech industry. Participants have begun to refer to themselves as the Phoenix Group.Senior Democratic National Committee (DNC) officials were quietly briefed about the meeting in recent weeks. DNC Chairman Howard Dean was aware of it, in part though his friendship with Stein, but one senior DNC source said the organizers “kept that list [of attendees] kind of tight.”
Already you can see that this is anything but non partisan. The ground work is being set to once again bypass campaign finance reform, that the dems so desperately wanted. The DNC is already being briefed, so expect dmes of all stripes to be praising these groups and trying to have them appear as mainstream. This is the same tactic used with campaign finance reform.
Sarah Ingersoll, de facto spokeswoman for Stein’s Democracy Alliance, said it was “a very preliminary meeting of committed donors interested in building a community to support progressive infrastructure.”
The Democracy Alliance will act as a clearinghouse and is expected to channel much of its money to new organizations and existing ones such as John Podesta’s Center for American Progress and David Brock’s Media Matters for America.One source at the DNC with direct knowledge of the agenda said that the Phoenix Group had three specific goals at the outset. It wants to create liberal think tanks, training camps for young progressives and media centers.
There you have it, all laid out in a neat little package. George Soros and the DNC in bed once again. You can expect that the Soros funded 527's will also be at the forefront of hyping the think tanks funded by the Phoenix Group. Keep your eye for more on this from the blogosphere, since the MSM will also likely be in bed with this group. - Sailor
Despite the general recognition that progressives are several years behind conservatives, liberal activists are confident that technology will help them close the gap. “Technology may allow us to do in a few years what it took the other side 40 years,” the DNC source said.
But the Phoenix Group is not beholden to the political calendar, and several sources insisted that four-year electoral exigencies were not motivating the project. Indeed, part of the reasoning in keeping D.C. consultants away from Scottsdale was to shield the high-tech donor base from political operatives, who are always eager for quick dollars to buy media points and fund direct mail.
“This is bigger than that,” the DNC source said.
ADL: Pope 'Atoned' for Hitler Youth
I hope this article from NewsMax, will put to rest this leftist generated nonsense over Pope Benedict XVI's membership in the Hilter Youth when he was 14. ADL: Pope 'Atoned' for Hitler Youth
It is time to put this leftist hysteria right where it belongs, in the garbage can. - Sailor
The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) today welcomed the election of German Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger as the new pope, Benedict XVI.
Under his leadership in Germany and Rome, the Catholic Church made important strides in improving Catholic-Jewish relations and atoning for the sin of anti-Semitism.
Cardinal Ratzinger has been a leader in this effort and has made important statements in the spirit of sensitivity and reconciliation with the Jewish people.
Abraham H. Foxman, ADL National director, issued the following statement:
"We welcome the new Papacy of Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger. From the Jewish perspective, the fact that he comes from Europe is important, because he brings with him an understanding and memory of the painful history of Europe and of the 20th Century experience of European Jewry.
"Having lived through World War II, Cardinal Ratzinger has great sensitivity to Jewish history and the Holocaust. He has shown this sensitivity countless times, in meetings with Jewish leadership and in important statements condemning anti-Semitism and expressing profound sorrow for the Holocaust. We remember with great appreciation his Christmas reflections on December 29, 2000, when he memorably expressed remorse for the anti-Jewish attitudes that persisted through history, leading to 'deplorable acts of violence' and the Holocaust. Cardinal Ratzinger said: 'Even if the most recent, loathsome experience of the Shoah (Holocaust) was perpetrated in the name of an anti-Christian ideology, which tried to strike the Christian faith at its Abrahamic roots in the people of Israel, it cannot be denied that a certain insufficient resistance to this atrocity on the part of Christians can be explained by an inherited anti-Judaism present in the hearts of not a few Christians.'
"Though as a teenager he was a member of the Hitler Youth, all his life Cardinal Ratzinger has atoned for the fact. In our years of working on improving Catholic-Jewish ties, ADL has had opportunities to work with Cardinal Ratzinger. We look forward to continuing that relationship."
Tuesday, April 19, 2005
Criticism of Ratzinger's Youthful Past Unfounded
With the election Cardinal Ratzinger as Pope Benedict XVI, the leftists have started to whine, hand wring and gnash their teeth over the fact that Pope Benedict XVI, was a member of the Hitler Youth at the age of 14. They ignore the record of the man as a clergyman and reach back to his youth. How desperate are these poeple? Ed Koch, the former mayor of New York City, has some commnets. How can the decision to join the Hitler Youth corps be the responsibility of a child? The Nazis brilliantly exploited German children with the games and military outfits that most youngsters enjoy. Former New York Times Executive Editor, Max Frankel, in the opening paragraph of his book, The Times of My Life and My Life With The Times, summed up a child’s feelings at the time: “I was not yet three years old when Adolf Hitler came to power in 1933, and I could have become a good little Nazi in his army. I loved the parades: I wept when other kids marched beneath our window without me. But I was ineligible for the Aryan race, the Master Race that Hitler wanted to purify of Jewish blood and other pollutants so that it could rule the world for ‘a thousand years.’”
Joining the Hilter Youth was expected, and almost mandatory, if you wanted to live your life in Nazi Germany with a minimun of danger.
The leader of the Hitler Jugend, Balder von Shirach, was convicted at Nuremberg after the war and sentenced to 20 years in prison. However, the Allies did not find that the Hitler Jugend organization itself was a criminal organization.
If Cardinal Ratzinger had not joined the Hitler Youth, it would have been because his parents kept him out, which some but very few parents did with their children. While Germans were not automatically jailed or shot for such conduct, you can be sure that refusing to cooperate with the Nazi authorities would had subjected them to adversity. Very few people had the courage to stand up to the Nazi murderers, especially when their children’s lives were involved.
So the left starts it's character assasination of the new Pope. - Sailor
Joseph Ratzinger is Pope Benedict XVI
The Catholic Church has elected it's new leader. I wish Pope Benedict XVI all the wisdom in guiding the Church in these troubled times. - Sailor
This is from CNN.
German cardinal elected new pope
Joseph Ratzinger is Pope Benedict XVI
VATICAN CITY (CNN) -- Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger of Germany has been selected by the Roman Catholic Church as the new pope.
Ratzinger, who took the name Benedict XVI, appeared on the balcony of the Vatican Basilica to greet the people and deliver his first papal blessing.
"Dear brothers and sisters, after our great pope, John Paul II, the cardinals have elected me, a simple, humble worker in God's vineyard," according to a translation of remarks he made in Italian. "I am consoled by the fact that the Lord knows how to work and how to act, even with insufficient tools, and I especially trust in your prayers.
"In the joy of the resurrected Lord, trustful of his permanent help, we go ahead, sure that God will help. And Mary, his most beloved mother, stands on our side."
He then delivered his first Urbi at Orbi papal blessing, after which the crowd in St. Peter's Square chanted, "Viva il Papa," or "Long live the Pope."
In Ratzinger's hometown of Traunnstein, Germany, seminary students happily reacted to the news. (Full story)
Powerful figure in Vatican
Once the archbishop of Munich, Germany, and for many years prefect of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith, Ratzinger, 78, was one of the most powerful men in the Vatican and is widely acknowledged as a leading theologian.
Ratzinger, who turned 78 on Saturday, served for 20 years as John Paul II's chief theological adviser.
As a young priest he was on the progressive side of theological debates but shifted to the right after the student revolutions of 1968.
In the Vatican, he has been the driving force behind crackdowns on liberation theology, religious pluralism, challenges to traditional moral teachings on issues such as homosexuality, and dissent on such issues as women's ordination.
The dean of the College of Cardinals since November 2002, he was elevated to cardinal by Pope Paul VI in June 1977. (Profile)
Cardinal Jorge Arturo Medina Estevez announced Benedict XVI's election in the traditional Latin, but he prefaced it by saying the words "brothers and sisters" in several languages, an introduction that is likely a bow to the universality of the Roman Catholic Church and its 1.1 billion members.
Opposed to relativism
There had been a great deal of speculation about who would be chosen to succeed John Paul II, who died April 2 at age 84.
John Paul was widely credited with extending the reach of the papacy. He spoke more than a dozen languages and set an unprecedented pattern of pastoral travel, drawing huge crowds all over the world.
He was also strictly traditional on issues of sexuality and the role of women in the church, which won him support among some Catholics but alienated others. Similar disagreement exists over the next pontiff's stances on issues such as birth control, stem cell research and the ordination of female priests.
Benedict XVI, however, has been critical of progressive Catholicism. In a homily delivered at Monday's Eligendo Summo Pontifice Mass before the cardinals began the conclave, he warned against "relativism, which is letting oneself be 'swept along by every wind of teaching.' (It) looks like the only attitude (acceptable) to today's standards. We are moving towards a dictatorship of relativism, which does not recognize anything as for certain and which has as its highest goal one's own ego and one's own desires."
White smoke, bells
White smoke rising from the Sistine Chapel chimney gave the first indication that the cardinals had chosen a pope.
The crowd clapped and waved flags as the smoke billowed over Vatican City about 5:50 p.m. (11:50 a.m. ET). Suspense built for the next 10 minutes as pilgrims waited for the ringing of bells -- at which point tens of thousands of onlookers let out a roar of jubilation.
Pope John Paul II had decreed that white smoke be accompanied by the ringing of bells, to avoid a repeat of the confusion after his election in 1978.
Chemicals were added to the ballots to turn the smoke white or black.
The conclave of 115 cardinals had voted three times previously -- once Monday night and twice Tuesday morning -- before selecting the new pope.
Why the Liberals Can't Keep Air America From Spiraling In
Air America is one year old. After all the hype, free publicity from the MSM, all the predictions of how Air America would change the political landscape of talk radio, Air America has has as much impact as shovelling sand against the tide. When Air America initiated it's broacasts, a good friend of mine, Casty, predicted it's demise. Now Brian C. Anderson, in his commentary, bears out Casty's early prediction. Wait a second, you say, didn't I read that Air America has expanded to more than 50 markets? That's true, but let's put things in perspective: Conservative pundit and former Reagan official William J. Bennett's morning talk show, launched at the same time as Air America, reaches nearly 124 markets, including 18 of the top 20, joining the growing ranks of successful right-of-center talk programs (Limbaugh is still the ratings leader, drawing more than 15 million listeners a week).
If Air America cannot get good ratings in those liberal bastions, how can they expect to do so in the rest of the country. Even Lynn Samuels had better ratings in NYC.
And look at Air America's ratings: They're pitifully weak, even in places where you would think they'd be strong. WLIB, its flagship in New York City, has sunk to 24th in the metro area Arbitron ratings — worse than the all-Caribbean format it replaced, notes the Radio Blogger. In the liberal meccas of San Francisco and Los Angeles, Air America is doing lousier still.So why do liberals fare so poorly on air? Some on the left say it's because liberals are, well, smarter and can't convey their sophisticated ideas to the rubes who listen to talk radio. Former New York Gov. Mario Cuomo, whose own stint as a talk-show host was a ratings disaster, gave canonical expression to this self-serving view. Conservatives "write their messages with crayons," he maintained. "We use fine-point quills."
Mario is typical of the liberal/leftist arrogant position that it is becasue they are all so much smarter then the rest of the great unwashed masses. What the masses are rejecting is the liberal/left's ideology and of late, their total lack of ideas for dealing with the issues that face the nation. Successful talk radio is conservative for three reasons:
Let's face it, the liberal/left has had an almost complete monopoly with the MSM. It was the birth of talk radio that began to chip away at that monopoly on information. People turned to talk radio and now the internet to get away form one source of quite biased information. Unable to prosper in the medium, liberals have taken to denouncing talk radio as a threat to democracy. Liberal political columnist Hendrik Hertzberg, writing in the New Yorker, is typically venomous. Conservative talk radio represents "vicious, untreated political sewage" and "niche entertainment for the spiritually unattractive," Hertzberg sneers.
Now you knowhow much of an impact conservative talk radio has had. The liberal/left is whining and gnashing their teeth over it. So much so, to the point of trying to legislate it out of existence. They are trying the same thing with the blogosphere as well. Those "great" champions of human rights, would love nothing better than to muzzle the right of the people to free speech.
If some liberals had their way, Congress would regulate political talk radio out of existence. Their logic is that scrapping Air America would be no loss if it also meant getting Limbaugh and Sean Hannity and Bennett off the air.
To accomplish this, New York Democratic Rep. Maurice D. Hinchey has proposed reviving the Fairness Doctrine to protect "diversity of view," and John Kerry recently sent out some signals that he too thought that might be a good idea.Sure, talk radio is partisan, sometimes overheated. But it's also a source of argument and information. Together with Fox News and the blogosphere, it has given the right a chance to break through the liberal monoculture and be heard. For that, anyone who supports spirited public debate should be grateful.
So, take a bow, Casty, you were right on target in your initial analysis that Air America would spiral into the ground. - Sailor
Dems' Suicide Plot
The time for the GOP to drop the hammer on filibustering judicial nominees is close at hand. Seems it does not matter to the dems if a nominee has an ABA most qualified rating. Since the Bush nominees are, gasp, conservatives, that is all the dems need to block them. In days gone by, whether a nominee was conservative or liberal, the ABA most qualified rating was enough for the Senate to confirm the nominee. Now it is all about politics and the dems are using the filibuster to prevent these nominess from getting up or down vote in the Senate they deserve. With this rule change looming, the dems led by Harry Reid are threatening to slow down or even shut down the Senate. John Podhoretz explains why the is the dems' suicide plan. For the past two years, Democrats in the Senate have used the filibuster in a new and highly controversial manner — to block consideration of appeals-court and district court nominees who would otherwise be confirmed by the full Senate. (Yes, past judicial nominees by both Republican and Democratic presidents have been held up in the Senate. But those were due to "holds," a different and even more dubious Senate maneuver by which a senator anonymously threatens to consider a filibuster.)
Just like little kids, the dems in the Senate are going to hold their collective breath until they turn blue in the face. All because they cannot have their way on judicial nominees. Just a note to Harry and the dems: If you want nominees to the federal bench that you think will be sympathetic to your ideology, elect one of your own President and elect enough members of the Senate to control that body. Try and get over the fact that you are the minority party.
The Republican plan is being called "the nuclear option," ostensibly because it will break with 46 years of tradition and alter a rule that's been in place in the Senate since 1949. But there's nothing really "nuclear" about the rule change itself, or the spate of new judges who will be confirmed in its aftermath. The only "nuclear" explosion that will occur is the response Democrats are vowing to unleash in response.
Democrats say unambiguously that they will gum up the Senate works in response. They will make it impossible for Republicans to take up legislation, to pass bills, to do much of anything.The American people don't like it when politicians announce that they're going to see to it that nothing happens. Voters don't elect senators to do nothing.
Knowing the arrogance of the left, I am sure the dems think that they will be immune from any criticism for taking this drastic action. Of course unlike the GOP in 1995, the dems will have the MSM siding with them. This is, however a new age and the MSM no longer packs the influence they once had, nor do they have a stranglehold on the dissemination of information.
Republicans learned this lesson to their sorrow in the fall of 1995. They went into confrontation mode with President Bill Clinton by sending him budget bills they knew he wouldn't sign. When he vetoed the bills, the federal government was forced to shut down.
The GOP hoped the public would blame Clinton, since he had vetoed the bills. House Speaker Newt Gingrich said, "We want the country to understand that the only way the government will close tomorrow is that President Clinton is determined to close it." That's not the way it went down. Because the GOP had provoked the showdown, it got blamed for the shutdown.
The entire business was a political calamity for Republicans. They appeared to be acting out of pique, keeping the government closed in order to force Clinton to bow to their wishes. And Clinton went after them for it, constantly saying he wanted the government to go back to work to serve the American people.If Reid's Democrats effectively shut down the Senate, they will open themselves up to the same criticism that the GOP received back in 1995. They too will be crosswise of a president — in this case, George W. Bush, who will be able to play the same "get back to work" card that Clinton played.
Reid and the dems are playing a very dangerous game for thir party. The American people have a senese of fairness that plays to the GOP simply wanting each nominee to have that Senate up or don vote. Threatening contnued obstruction will not play well at all. There are serious issues facing the nation, and the American people expect that the politicians in DC go about doing the people's business. - Sailor
The Republican argument on behalf of the rules change is far simpler and easier to understand than the Democratic argument. Bush and the GOP will say all they've done is to allow a candidate a fair, up-or-down vote instead of all this fancy footwork designed to delay that vote indefinitely.
So go ahead, Harry Reid. Make George W. Bush's day. If Democrats go into an active and public stance of truculent obstruction, they will hand Bush a giant stick to beat them with when 33 senators — including 6 very vulnerable Democrats — face the voters in their states in 2006.
Monday, April 18, 2005
A Raid to Remember
63 years ago, the US was in it's darkest hour of World War II. The US Navy Paific Fleet was little more then a bunch of battered hulks at Pearl Harbor. The Japanese jugganaut was cruising acress the western Pacific. Bataan had fallen. Things looked very bleak. A few months before, a Naval staff officer, had a wild idea. There were no US bases close enough to Japan to initiate air raids, so this officer, after seeing the outline of a carrier deck at Norfolk, thought that B-25s could be launched from a carrier deck. Thus was the beginings of the Doolittle raid on Tokyo. Read all of Stroube Smith's fine article here. There was no Allied base close enough to Japan, however, for the launch of such a retaliatory mission. Months passed with no answer. Then a Navy staff officer on a visit to Norfolk saw painted on the ground at a nearby airfield the outline of a carrier deck, inspiring the idea of flying land-based bombers -- with their greater range -- off a carrier.
With that, came the rigorous training for the mission. This would be a one way mission, with the the B-25s to land on airfields held by the Chinese.
Under a heavy cloak of secrecy, Capt. Marc Mitscher, Hornet's commander, found B-25s could be airborne from as little as 500 feet of deck. The raid was no longer only a hope but became a plan for action. The eventual operation was more daring than most of the 16,000 men in the task force could imagine. After refueling on April 17, Hornet, Enterprise and four cruisers left the destroyers and support ships behind and dashed westward as fast as possible toward the Japanese home islands.
And so one of the most daring raids in the annals of military history was off to a shakey start. The B25s would not have enough fuel to reach those airfields in China. So they were basically on their own.
Things were going according to plan until 3 a.m. April 18, when radar picked up surface contacts. Halsey maneuvered his force around the contacts and continued west. But at 6 o'clock a patrolling plane 42 miles ahead spotted a Japanese picket ship.
Amid stormy seas, Adm. Halsey pushed on. Ninety minutes later, the Hornet's lookouts spotted the masts of more Japanese picket ships. About 200 miles short of the planned launching line, Adm. Halsey decided he could gamble no more, and ordered the B-25s into the air.
And so Col. James Doolittle led his flight of bombers off the carrier. Many of the planes nearly stalled after leaving the flight deck, a much shorter run-out than on land, but the high winds helped them lift up and fly away.One plane turned north and surprised the Soviets by landing near Vladivostok. The other 15 crashed or ditched in China. Remarkably, most of the 80 fliers survived the raid. Of the eight captured, three were executed by the Japanese and one died in captivity. Four others were killed during the mission.
While the raid did little damage to the Japanese war making infrastruture, it was an enormous morale boost for the Allies and especially the American people. With all the bad news that was being received, this was the shot in the arm that was needed. At the same time, the Japanese High Command was in disarray, the army and the navy pointing fingers of blame at one another. The myth of Japanese invincibility had been smashed. - Sailor
Both Col. Doolittle and Adm. Halsey went on to higher rank and more military glory and honors. But nothing surpassed this mission as a feat of daring.
Breaking the steady drumbeat of months of defeat, Americans finally had a victory to celebrate. It gave a salutary and necessary boost to morale.
On the other hand, the boasts by the Japanese leadership of an invulnerable Tokyo were rendered obsolete and the empire's claim of invincibility was made a mockery.
Rarely have so few achieved so much.
Before Firing 'Nukes,' Senate Should Debate Bush's Judicial Picks
Mort Kondracke has an interesting thought on this judicial nominee filibustering. Too bad the dems will never go for it. Here is Mort's take on this. Democrats have proved over the years that they are perfectly capable of mounting public relations campaigns to block nominees they regard as unqualified and defeating them by majority vote. Think of Supreme Court nominees Robert Bork in 1987 and Clement Haynesworth in 1969.
Sorry Mort, but you said it all when you said that they have nothing to block these nominees on. Most have the ABA most qualifiied rating. That is exactly why the dems will never go for this.
The process wasn't pretty. The nominees were misrepresented as throwbacks to the era of Jim Crow and back-alley abortions. But arguably, character assassination is preferable to systematic vaporizing of Senate procedures.
In the case of Bush's nominees, Democrats have scarcely tried to mount a campaign on the merits. The quick, now-routine resort to the filibuster suggests that Democrats don't think they can muster convincing, substantive arguments that the nominees are extreme.
Nice try Mort, but it will not fly. - Sailor
Frist's Folly
April 18, 2005 -- SENATE Majority Leader Bill Frist may have just killed his hopes to be the Republican nominee for president in 2008 — by coming out against a proposal to bar illegal immigrants from getting drivers licenses. All but one of the 19 9/11 hijackers had a valid drivers license. In a bid to tighten our security, House Judiciary Chairman F. James Sensenbrenner Jr. (R-Wisc.) is pushing legislation to make it illegal for a state to issue a drivers license to an illegal immigrant. At the moment, he's trying to pass it into law as an amendment to the Supplemental Defense Appropriation Bill.
There is no valid reason for any illegal to have a valid driver's licence, none, no matter what anyone says. Illegals should be rounded up and deported, not rewarded with a driver's licence. In this day and age of terror threats, why give ilegals a means of identification? Dick Morris has some things to say about Frist's opposition to preventing illegals from getting licences in his commentary.
So why make it easy for a potential terrorist to get a valid ID? Is it not bad enough that out borders are porous? If there is one issue I am not at all pleased with the Bush adimistration's handling, it is illegal immigration.
Licenses are the main American form of ID; in our nationwide post-9/11 security upgrade, they have become, in effect, passports for air travel. The Sensenbrenner bill would require states to ascertain that the applicant is here legally before granting him a drivers license that would be recognized as adequate identification to board an airplane. (States could also offer "soft-ID" licenses, which would not be adequate for air travel.)
Liberal and leftists think all we have to do is sit down and have tea with terrorists and all will be well. Companies hiring illegals should be heavily fined and if there are repeat offenses, perhaps some jail time for company officers. As for those republicans that are knuckling under to these agricultural interests, they should be defeated in primaries by conservatives that are more concerned about the safety of the American people and not the interests of big business.
Even though this measure is a vital part of our battle against terrorism, liberal Democrats and some big business Republicans are opposing it — the former on civil-liberty grounds, the latter because it would interfere with making money.When I worked for President Clinton, I proposed again and again a ban on licenses to undocumented people. I urged that licenses to non-citizens expire when visas do and that anyone found driving without a license be referred to the INS and the FBI to see if they are here illegally or are on a terror watch list. Clinton, under pressure from liberals, wouldn't agree.
It is about time that congress get serious about protecting this country and pass both Sensenbrenner's bill and some serious immigration reform. If they cannot do it, then the American people will have to find politicians with the gumption to do so. - Sailor
When Mohammed Atta, the ringleader of the 9/11 attacks was pulled over in Florida for driving without a license, he got a summons and was sent on his way, a free man.
Some have described the GOP debate over licenses for illegals as a fault line between the cultural conservatives and business interests. It is really more like a division between those who put protection against terror first — versus those who prefer to curry favor with campaign contributors who want to hire illegal immigrants.
By blocking efforts to attach the license ban to the defense appropriation, Frist is siding with those who put profit ahead of national security.
Sunday, April 17, 2005
Bolton's just too hip for scaredy-cat Dems
Leave it to Mark Steyn to lay it on the dems opposing the Bolton nomination in his commentary. You can hear Boxer, Biden et al, gnashing their teeth all over the country. Boy, this confirmation battle over John Bolton, the president's plain-spoken nominee for U.N. ambassador, is really heating up. Sen. Barbara Boxer, the Democratic Party's comely obstructionist, has charged that Bolton needs ''anger management lessons.''
Oh the inhumanity of it all. Bolton with his hands on his hips. One can only imagine what Boxer would think of a Marine Drill Instructor. Talk about some one that can really ream an ass out!
I don't know about you, but nothing makes me want to hurl a chair through the window and punch someone's lights out like being told I need anger management lessons. So I was interested to hear about the kind of violent Boltonian eruptions that had led Boxer to her diagnosis. Well, here it comes. (If you've got young children present, you might want to take them out of the room.) From the shockingly brutal testimony of Thomas Fingar, assistant secretary of state for the Bureau of Intelligence Research:
Q: Could you characterize your meeting with Bolton? Was he calm?
Fingar: No, he was angry. He was standing up.
Q: Did he raise his voice to you? Did he point his finger in your face?
Fingar: I don't remember if he pointed. John speaks in such a low voice normally. Was it louder than normal? Probably. I wouldn't characterize it as screaming at me or anything like that. It was more, hands on hips, the body language as I recall it, I knew he was mad.
He was ''standing up'' with ''hands on hips''! Who's he think he is -- Carmen Miranda? Fortunately, before Bolton could let rip with a ''pursed lip'' or escalate to the lethal ''tsk-ing'' maneuver, Fingar was able to back cautiously out of the room and call the FBI anger management team, who surrounded the building and told the deranged diplomat to come out slowly with his hands above his hips.If the Senate poseurs and the media wanted to mount a trenchant critique of Bolton's geopolitical philosophy, that would be reasonable enough. But there's not even a pretense of any of that. Instead, his opponents have seized on one episode -- an intelligence analyst in a critical position with whom Bolton and others were dissatisfied -- and used it to advance the bizarre proposition that every junior official should be beyond reproach, and certainly beyond such aggressive ''body language'' as putting one's hands on hips. Or as Peter Beinart, editor of the New Republic, complained to the BBC the other night: Bolton was ''disloyal to his subordinates.''
How insensative of Bolton, to admonish an incompetent employee. I suppose this is the culture of DC, where incompetence is over looked and some times even rewarded. Otto Reich, who has worked with Bolton, has a few things to say about how Bolton dealt with incompetence.
It's been obvious for three years now that the torpid federal bureaucracies -- the agencies that so comprehensively failed America on 9/11 -- are resistant to meaningful reform, but Beinart, in demanding that the executive branch swear fealty to the most incompetent underling, distills the ''reform'' charade to its essence: We'll talk reform, we'll pass reform bills, we'll merge and de-merge and re-merge every so often, we'll change three-letter acronyms (INS) to four-letter acronyms (BCIS) just to show how serious we are, and a year or four down the line we may well get real tough and require five-letter acronyms.And, if an underperforming bureaucrat winds up getting Atlanta or Dallas nuked, tough. Better that happen than that out-of-control nutcakes rampage around with hands on hips. After all, as National Review's John Derbyshire put it three years ago, deftly summing up the philosophy of this new war: Better dead than rude.
It would appear that Boxer and crew are afraid to upset the status quo at their precious UN, an organization mired in corruption and scandal. I suppose they fear that Bolton will put his hands on his hips and make some poor UN diplomat cry. - Sailor
As for the job Bolton's up for, what would make Barbara Boxer and Joe Biden put their hands on hips? Child sex rings run from U.N. peacekeeping operations? Sudan sitting on the Human Rights Commission while it licenses mass murder in Darfur? Kofi Annan's son doing a $30,000-a-year job but somehow having a spare quarter-million dollars to invest in a Swiss soccer club? There are tides in the affairs of men when someone has to put his hands on his hips and toss his curls. And, if the present depraved state of the U.N. isn't one of them, nothing is. Unlike most of the multilateral blatherers, John Bolton is hip to that.
Liberal Media Target Tom DeLay Because He's an Effective Leader
The onslaught from the dem propaganda machine, also known as the liberal MSM, continues on Tom DeLay. To date, they have presented no eveidence of any wrong doing. What they have presented, is all within the House ethics rules. In fact, what they have not presented, is how many dems have done the same thing. Nor have they taken Rep. Pelosi to task on her violations of election law, that the FEC has fined her for. Based on their so called reporting on DeLay, they should also be demanding that Pelosi step down. Have you seen any of the liberal MSM demanding that Rep. Jim (Baghdad) McDermott resign? After all Rep. Jim McDermott, the Washington Democrat who also faces ethical charges involved in the illegal taping of a Republican member's cell-phone conversation. Do not hold your breath waiting to see any of this in the liberal MSM. Former Rep. Bob Livingston, in his commentary for Human Events, points out the hypocricy that is known as the shills for the DNC. First, let's get some indisputable facts out on the table. DeLay has been the most effective majority leader of either party in the last half century. Even with the razor-thin margins he has had to work with, when was the last time he lost a vote? His understanding of the intricacies of redistricting is legendary. The only person I know who came close was Rep. John Burton, a liberal Democrat from California whose groundbreaking use of computerized gerrymandering in the 1970s was considered clever and praiseworthy by many of the same voices who condemn DeLay for the same talents. And on a personal note, DeLay is an honorable, compassionate human being who does not deserve the current treatment he gets from much of the media.
The liberal bias of the MSM is very telling here. Praise for a liberal dem and condemnation for a conservative republican, both using the same techniques for redistricting. Indeed, the Post articles that contain allegations and innuendo about overseas trips and political work by Christine DeLay and Dani DeLay Ferro leave much to be desired. As a co-chairman of the House Ethics Reform Task Force in the late 1990s, I am familiar with both the ethics rules and the FEC regulations at issue. Nothing I have seen so far leads me to believe DeLay--or any of the other members of both parties who went to Korea or London--violated House rules. Nor do I believe allowing a politically talented wife and daughter to work on one's political campaign is problematic. If I have somehow missed a major rules change, then a number of senators and representatives of both parties should immediately call their lawyers--many of them have wives, sons or daughters in paid roles with their campaigns or political action committees.
There is nothing illegal about any of this, though you would not know it from the Post and Times reporting. You can see a partial listing of others in Congress that have doe the same thing here. As now widely reported, I have recent experience with the attack dog mentality at the Times. When a representative of "All the News That's Fit to Print" called me, the message was immediately obvious. The Times contacted my office fishing for a leading Republican to write a negative op-ed that would call for DeLay's resignation. When I responded that any op-ed would likely be in defense of DeLay, the response was, "We'll certainly consider it." But the clear implication was, "Good luck. It'll never see the light of day."
If the Times had compelling and irrefutable evidence of wrong doing by DeLay, why the need for an Op-Ed piece from a prominent Republican to trash Delay? Could it be because they have nothing? The MSM wonders why they are losing readers and viewers. It is unabashed partisanship such as this, that has many people turning to other souces of information. Seems they have yet to learn the lessons of Rathergate. As for the dems, since they have nothing to offer for dealing with the issues this country is facing, they have resorted to this type of gutter politics. - Sailor
It appears that the press corps has decided that DeLay, for his opinions, his intensity, his effectiveness and his leadership skills, should be the next journalistic scalp in their trophy case.
Stealing From the Troops
My good Marine buddy, GOC at Obnoxiuos Droppings has a disturbing post on some scum bags at San Francisco International, stealing from packages destined for troops stationed at Okinawa. Go on over and have a look for yourselves. - Sailor
China's sub plan menace
Over the last few months I have been posting about the military build up by China, especially the Chinese navy. Now comes this disturbing report from James T. Hackett, on the scope of the build up of China's submarine forces. "Much has been written about China's arms buildup. Perhaps most ominous is the major ugrading of Beijing's submarine fleet. The world's third-largest submarine force is training to blockade Taiwan and attack U.S. aircraft carriers."
The Chinese navy's progression froma brown water to a green water to a blue water force can only be construed as a preparation for an assault on Taiwan and the Spratly Islands. The Spratly Islands are claimed by several countries, including China and Taiwan, and may have extensive oil and gas reserves. Oil is some thing China has a large thirst for.
Here is a listing of the upgrades China has made to it's submarine fleet, I have gleaned from the article:
The article has more information on this build up. I noted that the French have been heavily involved in assisting China in upgrading submarine technology. All the more reason for the US to bear as much pressure on the EU to stop any more arms sales to China. Congress, in it's rush to cash in on the so called "peace dividend", has ended the construction program of the Sea Wolf class of submarines. Perhaps it is time to look anew at that weapons program. - Sailor.
Keep the Internet free
The FEC continues to try and piece together a set of rules to regulate political speech on the internet, particularly to limit the free speech of bloggers.This is all because some federal judge some how decided that McCain-Feingold requires it. Finally congress has gotten off their collective dead asses and decided to take some action to protect free political speech on the net.
"The Federal Election Commission is busily working on new rules to regulate political speech on the Internet - not because it particularly wants to, but because a federal judge ruled that the McCain-Feingold campaign finance act made such rules mandatory. Now it's up to Congress to set matters straight."Some times you just have to wonder how some of these judges find things in laws that are not specifically there.
"The FEC's proposed rules - you can read them at here - would entangle potentially millions of people who write about politics on the Web in miles of red tape. They would be a nightmare to administer - not to mention the fact that suppressing political debate during a campaign is a bad idea."The FEC proposed rules are in the pdf format. As with any government regulation, it is very convoluted and a mess to try and administer. Of course, it has been my opinion that both McCain-Feingold and these proposed rules are unconstitutional assaults on free speech. Now it would appear that the American people were duped on campaign finance reform. See this post.
"To address the court's concern, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada has introduced a bill that says public communication "shall not include communications over the Internet." Regulation of the Internet, Reid said, "would blunt its tremendous potential, discourage broad political involvement in our nation and diminish our representative democracy."Once again, it is time to put pressure on our representatives in Congress to get this legislation approved. At the same time, we should demand that Congress launch an investigation into how eight liberal/leftist groups and George Soros managed to frauduently foist McCain-Feingold on us. - Sailor
A Texas Republican, Jeb Hensarling, has introduced the same measure in the U.S. House. This is truly a bipartisan measure that Congress should approve quickly."
Saturday, April 16, 2005
Filibuster myth-busters
There is a good deal of noise over the so called "nuclear" option that would end the filibustering of judicial nominees. To hear the dems and their shills in the MSM, this would be an attak on the Constitution and free speech. There are many myths being presented as fact by the dems and the MSM that backs them. Wendy Long takes on the myths and and debunks them in her commentary.
The filibustering of judicial nominees is a so called tradition recently started by the dems.
Bush nominations have the lowest confirmation rate since FDR.
The Senate does not have a co-equal role, it's Constitutional role is of advice and consent. There is no two thirds majority required for confirmation.
The free speech arguement is the lamest of all. No one is stopping the dems from speaking out. It is the dems that are trying to stiffle the free speech of the majority by refusing to permit an up or down vote on judicial nominees.
The minority does not have the right to veto nominees. If that were the case, then the Constitution would require a two thirds majority and not a simple majority. A liberal minority needs federal judges to advance their agenda — allowing child pornography as free speech, mandating same-sex marriage, removing "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance, banning school prayer and preventing the death penalty for murderers and terrorists — because they can't win these issues at the ballot box. Mr. Bush promised to nominate judges who will apply the law as written and stay out of politics. The recent Ayres survey shows 67 percent of voters agree that "we should take politics out of the courts and out of the confirmation process." A full 61 percent of Democrats agree with this statement, as well as 73 percent of Independents and 69 percent of Republicans.
Here is the real agenda behind this obstructionism. What the dems cannot get through legislation, they are trying to get through an activist judiciary. By blocking well qualified Bush nominees, they must be hoping that Bush will withdraw those nominees in favor of those that would be more accepting of the liberal, leftist agenda. The American people have spoken and it is time the dems stop dancing to the tune of their special interest groups and do the work the people sent them to DC to do. - Sailor
The American people want senators to do the job our tax dollars pay them to do. Senators who fail to do their jobs — either by failing to show up for their committee meetings, by voting against restoring the Senate tradition of up-or-down votes for judges, or by halting the work of the federal government — might find themselves out of work when they really need the consent of the governed: at their next election.
LOST at Sea
The Law Of the Sea Treaty (LOST), is the single largest threat to US sovereignty this country has ever seen outside of war. Marshall Manson goes into detail in his article. Here are the treaty items that have the most impact on the US:
These are just a few of the flaws with LOST.
I urge all of you to contact your Senators and tell them to oppose LOST. Here is an easy way for you to contact all 100 Senators. No to LOST Take action before it is too late! - Sailor
Friday, April 15, 2005
U.N. Officials Cited in Oil-For-Food Case
While Kofi Annan tries to deflect the blame for the oil-for-food scandal from himself to the US and UK, A US indictment of a South Korean businessman in this scandal, cites two high ranking UN officials as well. This is definitely more bad news for Annan and the UN. Read more about this in this AP report. "The reported involvement of the two unidentified U.N. officials was likely to cast a new shadow on the world body, which has spent more than a year trying to get to the bottom of allegations of massive corruption in the $64 billion humanitarian program that was aimed at helping Iraqis cope with U.N. sanctions.
Looks like Annan's attempt to incite the blame America first crowd is going to fall flat. Annan had best be trying to explain how this all happened on his watch as well as explain his son's involvemnet.
The complaint calling for an arrest warrant against Tonsun Park was made public at the same time as an indictment charging a Texas oil company owner and two oil traders from Britain and Bulgaria with paying millions of dollars in secret kickbacks to Saddam Hussein's Iraqi regime to secure oil deals.""Volcker and the leaders of his inquiry say their final report - expected in midsummer - will likely lead to dozens of criminal prosecutions by legal authorities in various countries for bribery, sanctions busting, money laundering and fraud.
It will be interesting to see what spin will be placed on the final Volker Report when it is released. It will also be interesing to see which UN officials and/or their relatives are named as well.
The U.S. Attorney's office in New York has already gotten one guilty plea. On Jan. 18, Samir A. Vincent, 64, an Iraqi-born American businessman accused of skimming money from the program, admitted to being an illegal agent of Saddam's government.""Park told the government witness in 1997 or 1998 that he had invested about $1 million that he had gotten from Iraq in a Canadian company established by the son of "U.N. Official 2," though the company failed and the money was lost.
It makes one wonder who these UN officials are.
The agent also said the cooperating witness wrote a letter to Iraqi government officials in July 1997 to say that he and Park were splitting funds the Iraqi government was forwarding, but that both groups were supposed to "take care" of "U.N. Official No. 1.""
The scandal plagued UN gets deeper and deeper into the cesspool. This is the status quo the dems in the Senate are trying to protect by attempting to blcok theBolton nomination. It makes absolutely no sense to me. Some one needs to tell the UN emporer that he has no clothes on and Bolton is just the man to do it. - Sailor
Democrats vow to keep blocking ethics committee
" About three-quarters of the way into her weekly press conference yesterday, which was dominated by ethics questions, Mrs. Pelosi tried changing the subject. "But this is taking up too much time," she said. "I am very proud of Democrats and what they have done in town meetings across the country, inoculating the public against the unwise privatization of Social Security that the president is advocating, that they are talking in very strong words about having pay-as-you-go as our budget so that we reduce the deficit and do not further impact the solvency of Social Security." After listing a few other planks of the Democratic agenda, she summed up by saying that the minority party wants to take America to a place "where we have accountability — accountability in our budget and accountability in our ethical standards.""
The dems in Congress continue their obstructionist ways. This time it is in the House Ethics Committee. They continue to block the Ethics Committee from meeting, claiming it is in oppostition to new ethics rules passed by the House. Seems to me this is more to keep Tom DeLay from being able to present his case before the committee. After all, politically, it is in the best interests of the idealess dems to keep Delay swinging in the wind, whilst their propagandists in the MSM continue to assault DeLay. Of course, by blocking the committee from meeting, they are protecting one of their own, Jim McDermott, who is facing ethics charges over a wiretapping incident. There is more in this article by Charles Hurt. " "It is not about Democrats not cooperating," Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi told reporters yesterday. "It is about Republicans gutting the process to a point that any participation would be an accomplice to undermining an ethical standard in the House." "
But yes it is Ms. Pelosi. That is exactly what it is about. I find this quite amusing coming from the ethically challenged Pelosi, who has been fined $21,000.00 by the FEC for campaign violations. How come the MSM is not clamoring for her to stepdown as minority leader? Pelosi never answered the question put to her on this issue.
What about your accountability, Ms.Pelosi? The MSM is giving her a free ride here. Try finding information about her FEC fines by doing a google news search. Good luck.
What we have here is the dems doing what they seem to do best these days, being obstructionists and using the time they are gaining to use their usual smear tactics. It is time that they be held accountable for this. - Sailor
Save the battlewagons - Save them Hell - Bring them back!
""There is no weapon system in the world that comes even close to the visible symbol of enormous power represented by the battleship." -- Retired Gen. P.X. Kelly, USMC "
It warms the cockles of this old sailor's heart to know how much the Marines appreicate the firepower of the Iowa Class battleships. Oliver North has a few things to say about re-activating these old warhorses. There are times when old is better. "WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Those words of the former Marine commandant resonate with me. In 1969, gunfire from the battleship USS New Jersey (BB-62) saved my rifle platoon in Vietnam. During her six months in-theater, the USS New Jersey's 16-inch guns were credited with saving more than 1,000 Marines' lives. The North Vietnamese so feared the ship that they cited her as a roadblock to the Paris peace talks. Our leaders, as they did so often in that war, made the wrong choice and sent her home. Now, 36 years later, Washington is poised to make another battleship blunder."
These ships never should have been de-activated. Especially in these trouble days when US military forces may be called upon to hit the beaches once again. "After the USS Iowa (BB-61) and USS Wisconsin, (BB-64) were taken out of active service in 1992, Congress passed Public Law 104-106, a 1996 measure requiring that our last two battleships be kept ready for reactivation. But today's Navy brass wants Congress to repeal the law, strike the ships from Naval Vessel Register -- the official list of available ships -- and donate them to museums."
This would be a huge mistake. I urge everyone to write, call or e-mail their Congressional representatives and tell them to get on the ball and re-activate the USS Missouri and USS Wisconsin. "In 1983, the USS New Jersey was the best support available to the Marines after their barracks were bombed in Beirut. During the "tanker war," in the mid-1980s, every time the USS Iowa steamed into the Persian Gulf, the Iranians ceased hostile action.
Very heavy fire power. As currently constituted, the 16 inch naval rifle can fire a 2000 pound projectile, (that is the weight of an old VW bug folks), over 20 miles, with deadly pinpoint accuracy. As for survivability in this missile age, here is a snippet from a 20/20 segemnt on the USS New Jersey:
During Desert Storm, cruise missiles launched from both the USS Missouri (BB-63) and the USS Wisconsin attacked scores of targets deep inside Iraq; and an entire Iraqi Naval Infantry unit surrendered to one of the USS Wisconsin's unmanned aerial vehicles. Unlike any other naval vessel, battleships combine survivability, speed and immediate, heavy firepower.""Overall I think the thing that hits you most about this ship is her massive armor protection. This is no modern lightweight ship. This mighty battleship and her sisters are the most heavily armored US warships ever constructed. They were designed to engage in direct ship to ship combat against 16" guns, take hits, keep fighting and win. Or, as one sailor put it, "this ship can take a lickin' and keep on tickin."' First there is the main armor belt in the hull. It consists of class A armor that is 12 inches thick at the top, tapering to 1.6 inches thick below the waterline. There is a second armor belt that is 13.5 inches thick, protecting the propeller shafts. The turret faces are 17 inch armor, the second deck is 6 inch armor and on and on. When we asked the Navy what would happen if the New Jersey were hit with an Exocet type of missile, they said that it would take perhaps as many as ten well placed hits with such a weapon to penetrate the armor protection. The Captain pointed out that the Kamikaze attacks packed as much wallop as an Exocet and they literally just swept them off the decks of the Iowa class ships."
These ships were designed and built for surface action against other battleships. Unlike today's thin skinned ships, the Iowa Class are heavily armored. They can also cruise at a speed of 35 knots, which is faster then some of the ships currently on the Navy's design boards.
Lt. Colonel North concludes with this: "Our Navy currently has no capability for providing the lethal, high-volume firepower that would be required if -- God forbid -- we should have to land Marines on the coasts of Iran or North Korea, or in defense of Taiwan. When the Marines assaulted Um Qasr at the start of Operation Iraqi Freedom in March 2003, they had to rely on naval gunfire from an Australian frigate. The Navy's answer is to wait six years for the costly, unproven ERGM system and a half-dozen or fewer, yet-to-be-built DD(X) ships. But America's enemies may not wait that long. And America's taxpayers may not want to pay the price -- in blood or treasure. The DD(X)-ERGM experiments are estimated to cost between $12 billion and $16 billion.
I could not agree more. The Marines need this kind of firepower support. The Iowa Class is the perfect weapons platform in this age of low intensity conflict and should low intensity become high intensity, it is still a great weapons platform. - Sailor
It would take less than two years to reactivate the Iowa and Wisconsin. The battleships are 10 percent faster than the still-conceptual DD(X). They each bring to bear 12 5-inch and nine 16-inch guns -- capable, with new munitions, of firing accurately to nearly 100 miles. The two battleships can also carry nearly twice as many cruise missiles as all the DD(X) hulls combined. All that firepower is available for $2 billion -- the cost of one DD(X).
Sometimes, as I tell my grandchildren, older is better. In the case of the two battlewagons, older is not only superior, it's also a lot less expensive."
You can read more on the Iowa Class ship specifications here.
Confirm Bolton; revamp U.N.
it has been interesting to watch the dems and leftists attack John Bolton. I would say that these usual suspects are all bent out of shape over having a nominee before them that is a no nonsense fellow. Of course, these apologists for the increasingly ineffective UN, want to keep the status quo. Forget that the UN has become a cesspool of scandal, the one worlders do not want to hurt the feelings of the despots, socialists and communists at the UN. Halle Dale has a few comments on this. ""This is just about the most inexplicable appointment the president could make to represent the United States to the world community," said Sen. Ted Kennedy after Mr. Bolton's nomination. Sen. Joseph Biden accused Mr. Bolton of lacking "diplomatic temperament." They don't get the point. Mr. Bolton is indeed not known for diplomatic diction. He speaks his mind plainly and clearly, and his is a sharp mind to boot. During the 1990s, he said some harsh things about the United Nations — which are now being quoted back at him — but there was much to criticize, particularly as the Clinton administration was about to farm out U.S. foreign police to the United Nations.
How soon these dems forget some of the best UN Ambassadors this country has ever had. Namely Daniel Patrick Moynahan and Jeanne Kirkpatrick. Both had what some would consider some highly undiplomatic things to say at the UN. The UN does not need some one that goes along with the status quo. What is needed here is some one that will challenge the UN to reform itself. The UN is heading down that slippery slope to irrelavence.
It is no wonder that fans of the U.N. status quo, be they diplomats or Democrats on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, have been having fainting spells over his nomination. Mr. Bolton's hearings were off to a bumpy start as Democrats lined up against him firing off tough rounds of questioning. Few have any doubt that Mr. Bolton will get the confirmation; after all, he was confirmed for the sensitive post of undersecretary of state for arms control. But critics of the war in Iraq want their pound of flesh. Mr. Bolton is in good company, though. Senate Democrats likewise held up the confirmation of Mr. Bolton's boss, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, in order to make points about the president's policy in Iraq."" In his opening statement, Mr. Bolton stressed problems with anti-corruption efforts, the bloated U.N. bureaucracy and organizational structures, abuses by U.N. peacekeepers and a paltry human-rights record. Tellingly, however, his immediate focus was the international security challenges facing the world of the 21st century. This issue was also the focus of the report of the secretary-general's high-level panel, published in November.
It would seem that the Senate dems and their leftist allies would prefer the UN as the cesspool of corruption and anti-Americanism that it has become. Then there is the politics of it all. Ler's face it, the dems have nothing to offer in terms of ideas, so they will stay in obstructionist mode. It would appear that they have learned nothing from Tommy Daschle's defeat in 2004. - Sailor
"If the U.N. is to play a role in fulfilling [its] mission, however, it is not enough to reform its internal structures. It must also clearly and forcefully address the new challenges we face. Rogue states, which do not necessarily subscribe to the theories and deterrence, now threaten the global community as both possessors and proliferators of weapons of mass destruction," Mr. Bolton said. He further stressed the nightmare scenario of a nexus between rogue proliferator states and terrorist organizations.
Rather than bicker, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee ought to seize the opportunity and confirm this tough-minded civil servant. If the United Nations can be redeemed, it will need someone like Mr. Bolton to take charge."
Thursday, April 14, 2005
Limbaugh: Harry Reid Family Cashing In
Seems, according to Rush Limbaugh, that my Senator and Senate Minority Leader, Harry Reid, may not be so pure when it comes to nepotism. Naturally, the MSM is making believe this does not exist, even as they continue thier assault on Tom DeLay for what amounts to the same issues. And the left claims there is no media bias. You can read all about it here. "For instance, the Nevada Democrat once sponsored an environmental bill that he touted as a bipartisan measure to protect the ecosystem and help the economy in America's fastest-growing state.
So, you ask, where is the MSM on this? The New York Times is likely still looking for a republican to trash Tom DeLay. The rest of the MSM is likely hoping if they ignore Reid's trangressions everyone will forget about them. Hundreds of thousands of dollar may not be "real" money in DC, but it sure is to us regular Joes.
But as the LA Times reported: "What Reid did not explain was that the bill promised a cavalcade of benefits to real estate developers, corporations and local institutions that were paying hundreds of thousands of dollars in lobbying fees to his sons' and son-in-law's firms, federal lobbyist reports show."
Turns out that the Reid family gravy train relied on some of America's biggest corporate names.""Reid's response to the obvious conflicts of interest?
So, it is okay for Reid's kids to cash in on his position in the Senate, but let Tom DeLay pay his wife and daughter out of his campaign funds and it is a scandal. This is just another example of how the MSM is nothing but a shill dor the DNC. - Sailor
"Lots of people have children, wives and stuff that work back here," he insisted. "It is not as if a lot of cash is changing hands."
Hundreds of thousands of dollars - not a lot of cash?
One wonders how journalists would have reacted had Tom DeLay said that."
John Bolton vs. the Moral Cowards
Once again the dems and leftists in the Senate engage in character assasination in the John Bolton nomination hearings. They are not content merely to oppose this nomination, but seem determined to destroy the reputaion of the man. Never mind that Mr. Bolton has served this country well and had been confirmed for three other posts by the Senate over the years. It becomes obvious that the dems are desperate to block this nomination and since they cannot make thier case with factual information, they resort to the smear. Otto Reich, who has worked with Bolton over the years, has a few comments. "The Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearings on the nomination of John Bolton to be U.S. ambassador to the U.N. publicly unmasked the campaign which has been underway to discredit him and derail his nomination. They also demonstrated once again the need to reform the Senate confirmation process, which has become so politicized that it is not serving its constitutional purpose. I have strong opinions on the Bolton hearings in particular--and Senate hearings in general--since in the past two decades I have been confirmed twice by the Senate and smeared once."
Indeed any of these Senate confirmation hearings have become a political circus. If the dems want people they prefer in these positions, then all they need do is get their candidates elected. As always, the dems seem to feel the need to smear those they oppose. "It was stated repeatedly at the hearings that Mr. Bolton and I tried to get an intelligence analyst--referred to as "Mr. Smith"--fired, or tried to block his promotion or to get him transferred. I cannot speak for Mr. Bolton (though having known him since 1981, I can attest to his integrity). But I can speak for myself: In 2002, after consulting with many of my interagency colleagues about how to handle the loss of confidence in Smith's judgment, I most certainly did complain to Smith's supervisor about the consistently unacceptable quality of his work. My actions are now being distorted and attributed to Mr. Bolton in order to harm his nomination."
Looks like if you have an issue with the work of some one and complain about it, it is grounds for some in the Seante to oppose your nomination and a free pass to smear you. Not to mention the fact that John Kerry, et al, exposed the actual name of this CIA operative. "John Bolton has served our nation well in many posts under three presidents. He deserves to be confirmed. But regardless of the outcome of the hearings, he has provided another valuable service: he has revealed Senate hearings to be the weapon of choice of vicious and anonymous staffers and their narcissistic bosses to engage in character assassination and ideological vendettas. But more important to our national security in this time of war, he has uncovered a dangerous willingness by some senior intelligence officers to protect underlings who have been promoted to their highest level of incompetence. The intelligence community is our first line of defense against today's enemies. In seven different government positions, I have worked with hundreds of these skilled and brave officers and have witnessed their unselfish dedication to our nation. Practically any of them could make much more money working for a private consulting firm and thus provide a more comfortable life for his family than the inadequate government salary allows. When a bad apple is allowed to spoil the barrel of intelligence information, then not only does the reputation of good officers suffer; so, too, does the security of our nation. "
I find it interesting that the very same dems that have whined and cried about intelligence failures, want to smear a man that has exposed incompetence in the intelligence communtity. John Bolton is the right man to be at the UN. He should be confirmed forthwith. - Sailor
Wednesday, April 13, 2005
A List of Relatives on Lawmakers' Payrolls
Seems that Tom DeLay is not alone with relatives on his payroll. I do not recall seeing anything about this in the New York Times. Did anyone else? SOURCE
None of this is illegal. So now why all the big deal over DeLay? Could it be the usual liberal MSM smear tactics? - Sailor
The Continental Dream: Will the French Shatter It?
Oh those pesky French. According to the latest polling data, the ordinary French citizen is about to vote down the EU constitution. This would be a very hard slap in the face to old Jaques Chirac and the other french elitists. There are also some rumbligs in other countries on rejecting the EU constitution. It would be the irony of inronies for old Jaques should France reject this. Here is some more from an article in the New York Times. "So with few exceptions, French politicians on both the right and the left have predicted dire consequences for both France and Europe if that happens.
Read this to mean that France would finally have to accept it is not a world power and would finally have to accept that it is not. A blow to Franco arrogance to be sure.
"We would likely be completely isolated," President Jacques Chirac said last month. Rejection of the constitution would threaten France's ability to protect its national interests; nothing less than "peace, stability, democracy, human rights and economic development and social progress in the world of tomorrow" is at stake, he added."""The French believe that their system is the best and that they are the center of the universe," Bernard Kouchner, the Socialist former health minister and one of the most popular political figures in France, said in a telephone interview. "It's not true. They don't realize they are like an old ship sinking slowly in the sea."
The French like to think that they are the center of the known universe. It is interesting how some in France now fear the old Warsaw Pact countries that are now a part of the EU. As for the ailing French economy, when was it ever really healthy? Contrary to what the leftists tell you, socialism really does not work.
The constitution has been transformed into a repository of all the fears of the French today.
Some are convinced that the constitution will unfairly strengthen the power of the new countries of the union. Nearly 70 percent of farmers are opposed, for example, according to a poll in mid-March, because they see the European Union taking away precious farm subsidies.
Others fear that accepting the document will further damage the ailing French economy and increase unemployment - 10 percent in January - by moving jobs to places like Poland.
"For the past 25 years unemployment has been the French public's foremost concern and their prime voting motivation," said a recent editorial in the left-leaning newspaper Libération, in explaining mounting opposition to the vote.""But so far the French elite has failed to explain what the constitution will do for the average French citizen. This is a country where lobbying has not yet been elevated to a fine art. There is no "war room," as there was when the Clinton administration lobbied Americans to embrace the idea of NATO expansion, no bipartisan observer group of lawmakers, no pinpointing of interest groups."
Has some one actually explained what this all means, to the French elite?
This will be interesting to watch as it unfolds. A French no vote on the EU constitution would have some very serious ramifications all over Europe. - Sailor
Dem Junketeers Make DeLay Look Like Piker
Far be it for the DNC allies in the MSM to report on the dems travelling on the taxpayers and other groups. Here are the junkets taken by just the dems in the New York delegation: "Democrat Maurice Hinchey, who - according to the News - "has clocked more miles than the other 28 members of [New York] state's delegation." The well-traveled liberal took 27 trips costing private groups $157,000 over the past five years.
Mind you, this is just the New York delegation. Then there is all this reporting on DeLay paying members of his family from campaign funds. Has there been anything reported on dems doing the same? Of course not. Here is one the DNC propaganda arm missed.
And Hinchey traveled in style; luxuriating at resorts like the Four Seasons in Punta Mita and other sumptuous retreats in Morocco, Madrid, Budapest, Helsinki, Tunisia, Cancun, Italy, Vancouver, Shanghai and Grand Cayman Island.
According to the News, Democrat Elliot Engel "has whisked his wife to first-class resorts in San Juan and Las Vegas, Wyoming and Florida - and barely spent a nickel." He even scored a $5,300 junket to New Orleans for his daughter and took his teenage son to Seattle and London and Jerusalem, gratis.
Democrat Charlie Rangel jetted off to the Dominican Republic three times in recent years, courtesy of the Punta Cana Beach Resort in 2001, American Airlines in 2002 and the Dominican/American Roundtable in 2003.
Democrat Gregory Meeks has taken 37 trips in the last five years - 30 privately funded and seven government-paid. Destinations included Jamaica, Barbados, St. Lucia, Antigua, Venezuela and Honolulu. Total cost for Meeks' meanderings: $150,000.
Democrat Jerrold Nadler has traveled with his wife, Joyce, courtesy of the Association of American Railroads, on a pair of trips costing $5,500 and $6,600, respectively - while serving on the House Railroad Subcommittee.
Democrat Anthony Weiner took the longest and most expensive taxpayer-paid trip in the delegation - a fact-finding expedition to Antarctica. According to the Daily News, taxpayers wound up shelling out more than $350,000 for the nine-day, 12,500-mile marathon two years ago - with Weiner traveling as part of the 13-member Science Committee.
Democrat Joseph Crowley took the New York delegation's longest trip on record, a 13-day, $8,900 getaway to India and Bangladesh sponsored by an Indian trade group. Crowley has also taken his wife, Kasey, on freebies to India, New Orleans and the Dominican Republic."""Rep. Bernard Sanders [Ind.-VT] used campaign donations to pay his wife and stepdaughter more than $150,000 for campaign-related work since 2000, according to records filed with the Federal Election Commission.
Just another example of media bias and their unrelenting attempts to get Tom DeLay, at any cost. - Sailor
"Jane O'Meara Sanders, his wife, received $91,020 between 2002 and 2004 for "consultation" and for negotiating the purchase of television and radio time-slots for Sanders' advertisements, according to records and interviews.""
Source
Surviving the Great Escape: A POW Remembers
The Great Escape was one of the most daring operations in the annals of military history. Doug Pricer, of Military History Magazine, interviews one of the survivors, George McKiel, about this grand escape attempt. Here is a snippet to entice you to read this interview. "MH: What else did you do?
This is a very compelling read. - Sailor
McKiel: I was very active in the theater. We had a very classy theater in the camp. One of the plays we did was The Philadelphia Story. I played Katharine Hepburn's role. It took me three months to learn to walk and talk like a woman! Actually, the theater played a vital role in the escape. We had a number of London West End producers, actors and technical people in the camp. So our productions were all very good, and the German officers always wanted to see our plays. We'd reserve the front two rows for them. So then we'd tell them that the play should be recorded for history. They'd always agree and give us film and let us take pictures. Of course, most of the film was used for making passport photos and documents.
MH: That is amazing. Did you know Roger Bushell?
McKiel: Oh yes. Roger was the "Big X." He had quite a reputation for escaping from various camps, and they finally sent him to Stalag Luft III because it was a new camp, and they had built it with great care and planning and thought that it was escape-proof. He was actually a student in Germany before the war. He was from South Africa, so he spoke Boer. He was quite fluent in German. He was a very bright fellow, and he ran a very tight ship. For example, when anyone came up with a plausible escape plan he would listen to it and criticize the plan and then approve or disapprove it. His word was pretty much law. He got a great deal of respect from the inmates and at the same time had a great deal of respect from the Germans. They really acknowledged that he was a dangerous individual, so he was watched in particular. He was very careful about his activities so they would not realize that something was cooking.
MH: He sounds like a hell of a guy.
McKiel: He was. And unfortunately he didn't make it. He had an excellent escape plan himself. He was going to head to Czechoslovakia and then get out through the Balkans. He would have made it, except at the border there was a minor discrepancy on one of the papers and he was caught."
New York Times-Democrat?
As I posted here the other day, the New York Times went over the line when they started trolling for Republicans, via e-mail, to trash Tom DeLay. Considering all of the so called "reporting" that is favorable to the DNC, perhaps the Times should be honest and change it's name to the New York Times-Democrat. Russ Smith, in his commentary, cites the reasons why this would be a flash of honesty from the self proclaimed "paper of record". "It'd be an overdue act of integrity if the country's most influential liberal daily newspaper altered its name to The New York Times-Democrat. Any number of editorial employees might actually applaud the liberating move, but the "branding" implications would kill the idea in the business and marketing departments. Likewise, the elimination of the anachronistic and grand motto (and the Times sneers about George W. Bush's "hubris"!) "All the News That's Fit to Print" won't happen on a Sulzberger watch, even if the company's extensive tax breaks from the city aren't considered "news."
When Congressman Bob Livingston told the Times that he would write an Op-Ed piece on DeLay that would be positive in nautre, the Times, who has solicited him via e-mail, to write an Op-Ed piece, decided not to take the Congressman's offer. Of course, that is because the Times is trolling for an Op-Ed piece from a Republican that beats DeLay up. Naturally favorable tax breaks are not news.
So the paper's p.r. hacks and editors continue the charade that the Times is impartial in its news coverage and offers readers a wide array of views on its opinion pages. Executive editor Bill Keller is probably heartened by the claims of extreme left-wing media critics (often found rustling about the Neverland of college campuses) that in reality the Times is getting redder month by month. And not the "good" kind of red, but rather the color that television broadcasters decided five years ago represented states that voted for Bush rather than Al Gore." "The paper's antipathy—more shrill than the mere condescension of a decade ago—toward any creature that "smells" Republican, is aptly typified by Sheryl Gay Stolberg's homage to 87-year-old Sen. Robert Byrd in the news section on April 3. The reporter's affection for the showboating Byrd is so pronounced that, again, in an honest world, the article would've been slugged at the top, "A Times Editorial." The ostensible reason for the piece is the upcoming congressional battle, with Byrd as lead gladiator, over the GOP's attempt to torpedo the filibuster so that Bush's judicial nominees are subject to a majority Senate vote rather than the 60-vote supermajority that thwarted some of them in the president's first administration.
Of course, the Times never mentions Byrd's hypocrisy, or their own, for that matter, on ending filibusters.
Stolberg taps away, presumably not chuckling at the keyboard, "Christian conservatives and right-wing bloggers are unearthing [Byrd's] past as a one-time member of the Ku Klux Klan," as if that obituary-leading blot on the West Virginia legislator's record hasn't been well-reported by mainstream media outlets for years now. She goes on to describe the left-wing ATM group MoveOn.org's infatuation with Byrd, claiming that at a recent rally the "crowd swooned like schoolgirls catching their first glimpse of the Beatles," when the man who has compared the Bush administration's tactics to those of the Third Reich gave a speech. And, in an interview with Byrd at his office last week, Stolberg swoons herself, saying "Mr. Byrd seemed energized, casting thunderbolts like Zeus from the mountaintop."
This is the very first time I'd ever considered that Zeus was an asshole."
Smith goes on to cite a couple of more examples of the Times' bias. This couples with the recent Times attempt to find a Republican to trash Tom DeLay, is ample reason for a name change for the Times. - Sailor
Al Qaeda Remains Trapped in a Vietnam Fantasy
Al Qaeda is desperately trying to create a "Tet Offensive" type attack in Iraq. It would seem that Al Qaeda bekieves the media generated lie, that the Tet offensive was a major victory for the viet cong and North Vietnamese. The truth is that the Tet Offensive was a major defeat for them. In fact, according to the North's General Giap, it was a devistating defeat for his forces. But Walter Cronkite declared it a victory for Giap's forces and so it is believed, the facts be damned. It could be that Al Qaeda is looking for the same type of reporting. The old media refuses to report on the positive things happening in Iraq, and in so doing, plays right into the hands of Abu Musab al Zarqawi and his ilk. Austin Bay details how Zarqawi has attempted to repeat the "Tet offensive" in Iraq. "On April 2 and again on April 4, the terror gang led by Al Qaeda's Iraq commander, Abu Musab al Zarqawi, launched "military-style attacks" on the Abu Ghraib prison complex in Baghdad. In the April 4 assault, U.S. forces took 44 casualties (most of them minor wounds). The terrorist gang, however, took 50 casualties, out of a force estimated at 60 gunmen.
Al Qaeda is taking heavy casualities in these attacks. They cannot successfully engage US forces in platoon size and larger engagments. They will be defeated every time by a better equiped, trained and motivated soldier. Al Qaeda has increasingly targeted Iraqi forces and civilians because of this.
On April 11, the gang attacked a Marine compound at Husaybah near the Syrian border. As I write, terrorist casualties are unconfirmed, but the assault flopped." "While bomb attacks on unarmed Iraqi civilians continue (particularly against Shiites), public opinion now matters in Iraq, and the thugs' public slaughters have killed too many Iraqi innocents. January's election dramatically lifted public morale and changed the media focus -- suddenly, democracy looks possible, and an Arab Muslim democracy is Al Qaeda's worst nightmare.
Austin Bay goes on to explain, as I did, why Tet was a major defeat for the communists.
Hence the "Tet gamble." Bombs haven't cowed the Iraqi people -- but perhaps the American people will lose heart and buckle if Al Qaeda concocts a military surprise.
US forces, however, are "hard targets" -- unlike civilians standing in line to vote, US troops shoot back. Since 9-11, Al Qaeda has never won a military engagement at the platoon level (30 men) or higher. Coalition forward operating bases are heavily fortified.""But the Tet fantasy is so compelling. Though Tet was by most measures a disaster for the communists, as a media and hence political event, Tet snuffed "the light at the end of the tunnel." The Johnson administration had told the American public Vietnam had reached a turning point -- "the light" -- but Tet demonstrated that North Vietnamese Army (NVA) regulars and Viet Cong (VC) guerrillas were still capable of potent action.
This may be what Al Qaeda is trying to accomplish. The way the old media is reporting on Iraq, can do nothing but encourage this type of activity. What the old media and Zarqawi cannot seem to understand, is that Iraq is not Vietnam.
NVA General Vo Nguyen Giap planned for maximum psychological and political impact. Communist forces simultaneously hit cities and military bases throughout the south. Though they took huge casualties, Giap's real target was President Johnson. Communist attackers managed to break into the US embassy compound in Saigon. The assault was repelled, but the moral damage -- and dramatic photos -- energized Sen Eugene McCarthy's "peace candidacy." Political support for LBJ and the Vietnam War withered.""Iraq, however, is no Vietnam. The Vietnam War was strategic defense, a bitter Cold War "battle of containment." The War on Terror is a strategic political and military offensive directed at the dictators and theocrats who rule by death squad and export terror -- and it's a war we are winning."
You would not know that we are winning this global war on terrorism by reading and watching the reporting from the MSM. - Sailor
Tuesday, April 12, 2005
Old media on Iraq: Good news not newsworthy
"Similarly, how about the relative decline in American fatalities? How about reports that Iraqi security forces are maturing and strengthening each day? How about recent hints that if current trends continue we could begin withdrawing substantial numbers of troops toward the end of the year? Perhaps Gen. Sattler's declaration in November that our victory in Fallujah had "broken the back of the insurgency" was not an overstatement. Only time will tell. But in the meantime, I suppose we'll not hear much from the Old Media until the next coalition setback. In case you're wondering, I'm not saying the Old Media don't want good things to happen in Iraq -- but just not on President Bush's watch. Now that's newsworthy."
If all information on Iraq comes fromthe MSM, then you likely think all is lost. The facts, however, do not match what the MSM is reporting. One would think that those media elitists were actually rooting for things to blow up and for more Iraqis and Americans to die. If the worst possible scenario had played out in Iraq, the MSM would have tried to bludgeon the President with this, in an attempt to bolster their DNC bosses. It would appear that the MSM is merely an extension of the DNC propaganda machine. David Limbaugh has some things to say on this in his commentary. "I realize many just chalk up the media's emphasis on bad news as intrinsic to journalism: the attitude that if nothing is going wrong, it's not really newsworthy. But that just doesn't wash.
A reduction in anarchy makes Busk look good and the doom and gloom leftists look like fools.
How could anyone seriously contend that a reduction in the anarchy isn't newsworthy? What could be more important than signs indicating we might have turned the corner on the "insurgency"?
While we heard a daily drumbeat of despair and an ongoing tabulation of American dead when things were looking bleaker -- a look, I might add, that was meticulously cultivated by the Old Media -- we hear nothing but a thundering silence today.
How can we but conclude that the media simply don't want to promote the good news out of Iraq? But why? Well, obviously, they suppress good news because it vindicates their nemesis, President Bush, and incriminates them and their liberal comrades." "We heard barely a whisper from these naysayers when we witnessed the popular uprising in Lebanon against Syrian occupation. Rather, they chose to highlight counter-protests by Hezbollah-sympathizers -- as if the media were rooting against democracy and independence.
The President had the same intelligence as did the Clinton administration, the Congress, Italy, France, Russia, etc. on and on. Perhaps if the old media keeps repeating this nonsense, they will believe it.
They don't even pretend to be balanced. Remember the early anti-administration reporting that accompanied the beginning of the ground war? There were predictions of quagmire, reports we were being greeted as occupiers and not liberators, exaggerated stories of museum lootings, complaints about our supply lines not keeping pace with our advancing troops and the like.
Don't forget the media hype over alleged coalition negligence leading to missing explosives in Al Qaqaa, nor the media's preposterous, relentless quest to pin the Abu Ghraib abuses directly on Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.
The most egregious example of bias involved their conspiratorial joinder with Democrats to smear President Bush as a liar concerning his claims of WMD in Iraq. When we failed to find large WMD stockpiles after deposing Saddam Hussein, they helped Democrats portray a global failure of intelligence (assuming the weapons weren't there and moved before our invasion), as premeditated deception by President Bush. They've all repeated the lie so much now that it has become part of the "conventional wisdom.""
This about says it all. The old media wants any thing good that happens in Iraq, the Middle East, or for that matter, any where in the world, to be on the watch of one of their hand picked leftists. Then the old media wonders why they are losing readership and viewers. - Sailor
The Left's Campaign Against Tom DeLay
"WASHINGTON -- On March 24, former Congressman Bob Livingston was sent an e-mail by a New York Times editorial page staffer suggesting he write an op-ed essay. Would Livingston, who in 1998 gave up certain elevation to be House speaker because of a sexual affair, write about how Majority Leader Tom DeLay should now act under fire? In a subsequent conversation, it was made clear the Times wanted the prominent Republican to say DeLay should step aside for the good of the party. Livingston in effect declined by responding that if he wrote anything for the Times, it would be pro-DeLay. But this remarkable case of that august newspaper fishing for an op-ed piece makes it appear part of a calculated campaign to bring down the single most powerful Republican in Congress. The Democratic establishment and left-wing activists have targeted DeLay as the way to end a decade of Republican control of the House."
Seems that the New York Times, in it's efforts to get tom DeLay, has gone over the line of journalism and dirctly into partisan politics. Of course, this would not be the first time that the Times has been in the role of shill for the DNC. Robert Novak explains in his article.
This is not journalism, this is trolling for the DNC. Once again, the Times is busted for being a propaganda arm of the DNC. - Sailor
Calling for Tom Delay's Suicide
Doc Farmer has a few things to say about those "compassionate" and "tolerant" lib/dem/soc/commies and their willing accomplises in the MSM are attacking Congressman DeLay. There is a related post on how the New York Times has gone over the line in it's attempt to get DeLay. - Sailor
Calling for Tom Delay's Suicide
Written by Doc Farmer
Tuesday, April 12, 2005
Before you read any further, it isn't ME who is calling for Tom DeLay, Leader of the House of Representatives, to take his own life. However, I think you might want to know who is.
Tom DeLay is not having a good week. Or a good month. In fact, I'd venture to say that so far, this year has probably sucked like a black hole at the core of a super-galaxy for Mr.
DeLay. The lib/dem/soc/commie press, in their standard feeding frenzy approach, has taken it upon themselves to "protect" America from this vile and dangerous man. Why is he vile and dangerous? Because, he doesn't think like they do. That is a sin they cannot abide.
So, how does the lib/dem/soc/commie press, guided of course by their DNC masters, go about taking down this threat to their authority? Do they go about a structured and reasoned debate of Mr. DeLay's statements? Do they provide alternatives to his public policy pronouncements? Nope. They trash him. They misrepresent his statements. They bald-faced lie. They root around in the bottom of the stable, looking for something brown and smelly to smear on their political opponent.
There have been stories about DeLay's EVIL policy of hiring family members to work on his political action committee. A policy, oddly enough, that seems to
be almost a standard practice for BOTH sides of the political aisle. They pile innuendo on innuendo, hoping that they can destroy his reputation and political traction. What they cannot obtain at the ballot box, they dredge up from the septic tank of their souls.
Odd thing, though. So far, there has been NO evidence set forth to show that Mr. DeLay has broken any laws or ethics rules. Ah, well, when it comes to inconvenient things like facts and truth, the lib/dem/soc/commies are happy to ignore them.
Tom DeLay stated that there should be some form of Congressional oversight of an out-of-control judiciary, as was evidenced in the recent Teri Schiavo debacle. DeLay recommends that Congress exercise their Constitutional duty as is enumerated in Article III, and the lib/dem/soc/commies start screaming that he's calling for the execution of judges. Odd, they didn't seem to mind the execution of an innocent woman starved to death all
that much. Must be that double-standard of theirs.
We all know that the Nation's Capitol is a rough-'n'-tumble place. It is not for the faint of heart or the thin of epidermis. Folks who go there know this, and are generally prepared for it.
There are limits, however. And thanks to an enterprising "artist" (and from what I've seen of his website, that term is being extremely generous) those limits were broken on Monday. Kudos to Matt Drudge for finding this little gem. And a hearty boo-hiss to Christopher Goodwin for delving into the depths of depravity.
Mr. Goodwin decided that he doesn't like Mr. DeLay very much. No problem with that. It's a free country and all that good stuff. However, Mr. Goodwin decided to vent his spleen in a rather an unfortunate way.
While I cannot show you the t-shirt here, luckily, I saved a picture of it to my own files--and it's seared, seared! in my memory. It reads:
- Dear Tom DeLay,
Please commit suicide.
Sincerely,
Everyone
This, to me, is not a nice thing.
I wonder if Mr. Goodwin, being a touchy-feely-sensitive-kinda-guy, thought for a nanosecond about how patently offensive this T-Shirt might be. Not only to Mr. DeLay, but also to folks who have lost a loved one through self-homicide. Further, I always thought that lib/dem/soc/commies were supposed to be caring people, willing to
accept almost any type of behaviour. Well, I suppose that only goes for "their own kind."
Imagine, if you will, that somebody started selling T-shirts that said "Hang Yourself, Hanoi Jane" or "How About A Fourth Purple Heart, Senator Kerry? - Blow Your Own Brains Out!" Or even "Geld Yourself, Bill Clinton" - although I'm quite sure the Hildebeast would have about 20 gross of those in her closet already. Can you imagine the hue and cry that would arise from the lib/dem/soc/commies?
Now, the good news is that Mr. Goodwin no longer sells this particular item. He even put a note on his blogsite that says, (and I quote) "The Tom DeLay suicide shirt was in poor taste. I apologize. Now, please stop sending me hate mail. I get the point." Well, Mr. Goodwin, I don't think you do get the point. I don't for a second believe or accept your apology. What you did was beyond the pale. It was heartless, disgusting, vile and (quite possibly) illegal. All the things I have sadly come
to expect from the more rabid of the lib/dem/soc/commie species.
Folks, if you'd like to provide Mr. Goodwin with your own opinion of his tasteless "art", please feel free to send him a quick note. Be polite, don't be vulgar or potty-mouthed, but make your feelings known. After all, free speech isn't just within Mr. Goodwin's purview. It's also yours. His e-Mail address is chris@goodwinart.com.
Oh, and since he tried to make money off of his hate-speech (gee, I thought lib/dem/soc/commies were against that kind of thing) you might want to ask his on-line vendor to drop him as a client. He sells his dreadful wares through CaféPress (the same company that sells good, honest, all-American ChronWatch products) and you can reach them at http://www.cafepress.com/cp/info/help/contact.aspx or by telephone at 1-877-809-1659. While you're there, order a genuine ChronWatch T-shirt.
By the way, ask them when they'll start selling Fez hats!
About the Writer: Doc Farmer is a writer and humorist who is also a moderator on ChronWatch's Forum. He formerly lived in Saudi Arabia and Qatar, but now resides in the Midwest. Doc receives e-mail at docfarmer9999@yahoo.co.uk.
This Article Was First Published In ChronWatch At: http://www.chronwatch.com/content/contentDisplay.asp?aid=13980
p.s. Although this couldn't be included in the original article, here's the photo for your viewing displeasure - hope the link still works...
Monday, April 11, 2005
More funny business in the Washington governor's race.
We keep hearing about supposed election day irregularities from the dems and the left. Of course, they offer no proof other then flawed exit polls. But never do you hear them mention the election fiasco in Washington State. Of course, that is because their candidate won after two recounts and some mysteriously appearing "uncounted" votes. John Fund has a few things to comment on in his article. "The infamous 2004 governor's race was finally decided seven weeks after the election, after King County officials found new unsecured ballots on nine separate occasions during two statewide recounts. After the new ballots were counted, Democrat Christine Gregoire won a 129-vote victory out of some three million ballots cast. Even as she was sworn in last January, King County election supervisor Dean Logan admitted it had been "a messy process."
Considering the number of questionable ballots cast and the margin of victory, there is ample reason for a new election. Do note that once again, the military has been disenfranchised. You never hear kerry whine about that, or for that matter, clinton and the rest of the military hating left.
He wasn't kidding. During the two recounts, Mr. Logan's office discovered 566 "erroneously rejected" absentee ballots, plus another 150 uncounted ones that turned up in a warehouse. Evidence surfaced that dead people had "exercised their right to vote"; documentation was presented that 900 felons in King County alone had illegally voted and that military ballots were sent out too late to be counted (emphasis mine). A total of 700 provisional ballots had been fed into voting machines before officials had determined their validity. In the four previous November elections, King County workers had never mishandled more than nine provisional ballots in a single election.""Stefan Sharkansky, a computer engineer who runs SoundPolitics.com, a comprehensive blog on the election debacle, uncovered the errors in King County's absentee voter report through a state Public Disclosure Act request. He has filed additional requests for the audit trail created by King County election officials to handle all the ballots. He was told he would have the records delivered by March 31, but that date has slipped to April 15. Mr. Sharkansky reports that date may now move again because "county officials are scrambling to explain their latest mistakes and say they may not have time to answer my request." Let's hope they do before next month's trial."
I have been recommending Sound Politics to anyone interested in the shenanigans going on in Washington State. This is a real travesty and it needs to be fixed! - Sailor
John R. Bolton The Right Man at the Right Time for the UN
John Bolton is a straight shooting, tell it like it is fellow. Naturally, the dems and leftist despeise him. The UN has become ineffective and is mired in a cesspool of scandals. Bolton is the medicine the UN needs. Below is Bolton's statement before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. "Chairman Lugar, Senator Biden, I am honored to appear before you today as President Bush's nominee to be the U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations. I am grateful for your consideration and I look forward to discussing the critical leadership role that the United States plays in the United Nations. I would like to extend my warm thanks to Senator Warner for his kind words and introduction. He is a true and valued friend, and his remarks are all the more appreciated given his long history of service to our nation.
You cna expect the dems and leftists to hem and haw, whine, grumble and complain. They will try and make Bolton look like a demagogue. In fact, they will try what ever they can to smear this man. - Sailor
Mr. Chairman, I am grateful for the opportunities that I have had to work with this Committee over the years. This is the fourth time I have appeared before this Committee in a confirmation hearing. If confirmed, I pledge to fulfill the President's vision of working in close partnership with the United Nations.
The United States is committed to the success of the United Nations and we view the U.N. as an important component of our diplomacy. As the President stated before the U.N. General Assembly last September, "Let history show that in a decisive decade, members of the United Nations did not grow weary in our duties, or waver in meeting them."
The Secretary has made this a top priority as well. She was unequivocal in her remarks about how, "The American people respect the idealism that sparked the creation of the United Nations and we share the U.N.'s unshakable support for human dignity. At this time of great opportunity and great promise, the charge to the international community is clear: we who are on the right side of freedom's divide have an obligation to help those who were unlucky enough to be born on the wrong side of that divide. The hard work of freedom is a task of generations; yet, it is also urgent work that cannot be deferred….Now, more than ever, the U.N. must play a critical role as it strives to fulfill the dreams and hopes and aspirations of its original promise to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, to reaffirm faith and fundamental human rights and to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom."
If confirmed, I look forward to working closely with this Committee to forge a stronger relationship between the United States and the United Nations, which depends critically on American leadership. Such leadership in turn must rest on broad bipartisan support in Congress that must be earned by putting to rest skepticism that too many feel about the U.N. system.
Through the course of three decades of public service, both in and out of government, I have learned that this consensus is not only essential, but possible. Working together, in the spirit of bipartisan cooperation, I believe we can take important steps to restore confidence in the United Nations. Mr. Chairman, we are at a critical juncture, and I fully share the sentiments you expressed in 1997, when you remarked that, "It is time to decide if we want a strong and viable United Nations that can serve United States interests, or a United Nation that is crippled by insolvency and hobbled by controversy and uncertainty."
A Stronger, More Effective United Nations
The President and Secretary Rice believe that a stronger, better, more effective United Nations is one which requires sustained and decisive American leadership, broad bipartisan support, and the support of the American public. If confirmed, that would be my objective as well. Walking away from the United Nations is not an option. I undertake to do my utmost to uphold the confidence that the President, Secretary Rice, and the Senate will have placed in me if confirmed. Mr. Chairman, now more than ever, the United Nations needs American leadership. President Franklin Roosevelt and Prime Minister Winston Churchill promoted a post-war international organization to avert another world war when they envisioned a collective security organization that would resist aggressor states that threatened international peace and security. Accordingly, the U.N. Charter lists as its first objective, "to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war."
If the U.N. is to play a role in fulfilling that mission, however, it is not enough that it reform its internal structures. It must also clearly and forcefully address the new challenges we face. Rogue states, which do not necessarily subscribe to theories of deterrence, now threaten the global community as both possessors and proliferators of weapons of mass destruction. These weapons could also be transferred to terrorist organizations that would have no compunction about using them in cold blood against innocent civilian populations.
I believe my past government experience and writings reflect my awareness of both the strengths and weaknesses of the United Nations. I learned much about the U.N.'s potential when I served for four years as Assistant Secretary of State for International Organization Affairs in 1989-1993, and again later when I worked for the United Nations pro bono between 1997 and 2000, assisting former Secretary of State James Baker in his capacity as the Secretary General's Personal Envoy for the Western Sahara. I saw first-hand the impact of armed conflict and repression, and the devastating consequences this can have on innocent civilian populations.
I therefore wish to assure the Committee, the American people, and potential future colleagues at the United Nations that, if confirmed, I will strive to work with all interested parties to build a stronger and more effective United Nations. Doing so will promote not only American interests, but will inevitably improve and enhance the U.N.'s ability to serve all of its members as well.
Mr. Chairman, if confirmed, I pledge to bring my strong record of experience of working cooperatively within the United Nations to fulfill the intentions and aspirations of its original promise. In particular, I will work closely with the Congress and this Committee to achieve that goal. In attempting to strengthen the U.N.'s effort to promote international peace and security, I would like to identify several priorities.
Supporting Freedom and Democracy
One priority is to strengthen and build institutions that serve as the cornerstone of freedom in nascent democracies. I am proud of my record in this regard. In 1981, as General Counsel of the Agency for International Development, I proposed that we fund international observers to witness upcoming elections in El Salvador so that there would be an independent assessment of whether those elections would be free and fair. Many experts at the time thought that the Government of El Salvador would not accept this idea, but, with the support of USAID Administrator Peter McPherson and Deane Hinton, then our Ambassador to El Salvador, I was encouraged to raise the possibility with President Jose Napoleon Duarte in late 1981. I did so and we were able to fund international election observers through Section 116 of the Foreign Assistance Act, very likely the first such assistance provided by USAID, thus leading to further success stories in legitimizing and instilling confidence in democracy in countries once torn apart by violence.
During my service in IO in President George H.W. Bush's Administration, I personally observed the legislative elections in Namibia in 1989 as part of a presidential delegation led by former Senator Edward Muskie, the largest effort to organize elections by the United Nations in its history to that point. It constituted a major test of U.N. capabilities and resources, and served as a successful model for future elections in Nicaragua, Cambodia and elsewhere.
Some of these earlier missions have no doubt helped pave the way for the recent and remarkable success stories we have observed in Afghanistan and Iraq, where U.N. assistance in both countries played a critical role. Many of us today, myself included, still marvel at the success of those elections - elections which are having repercussions throughout the region and beyond, as they are already doing in Lebanon. We appreciate that the United Nations is committed over the long-term to respond positively to the elected Iraqi Government's request for help with its constitutional process and subsequent elections, as laid out in Resolution 1546.
Mr. Chairman, we should never underestimate the impact of free and fair elections on a country. I look forward, if confirmed, to working with relevant U.N. agencies to enable them to contribute further to democratic institutions in countries freed from the bonds of oppression. I am sure that many of you are aware of our support for programs such as the Community of Democracies. If confirmed, I also look forward to working with you on President Bush's request for $10 million in the Fiscal Year 2006 budget to set up a Democracy Fund within the United Nations, and I am grateful to Secretary General Annan for endorsing the President's proposal in his new report on U.N. reform. This fund would have a lean staff of experts who identify carefully tailored projects for strengthening democratic institutions, political parties, administration of justice programs and respect for human rights advocacy. If successful, the Fund will be among the best diplomatic tools we have in the global war on terrorism.
While the U.N. has had its successes in the human rights field, there have been problems as well, such as in the United Nations Commission on Human Rights ("UNHRC"). For too long, some of the most egregious violators of human rights have undercut the UNHRC's principles and its effectiveness. The consequence, as Secretary-General Kofi Annan has said, is that the Commission's important work has "been increasingly undermined by its declining credibility and professionalism." We must work with our friends and allies to keep those who would usurp the moral authority of this Commission off of it, and we must send clear and strong signals that we will not shy away from naming human-rights violators.
We must work to galvanize the General Assembly to focus its attention on issues of true importance. Sadly, there have been times when the General Assembly has gone off track. In my view, one of the greatest stains on the United Nations was the abominable Resolution 3379 equating Zionism with racism. This canard for many years distracted the General Assembly from focusing its attention on the very real problems confronting the international community. I am proud to have been an active player in getting this resolution repealed. I recall fondly the day of December 16, 1991, when the General Assembly voted 111-25 to repeal this odious resolution, when our delegation was led by Acting Secretary of State Lawrence Eagleburger, accompanied in the General Assembly by Senator Moynihan. I was proud to have served also as one of the original members of the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom from 1999-2001.
Stopping the Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction
Mr. Chairman, a second priority should I be confirmed will be stemming the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction to ensure that terrorist organizations and the world's most dangerous regimes are unable to threaten the United States, our friends, and our allies.
As Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security, I have worked with our friends and allies to press states that have violated important treaties to stop WMD proliferation such as the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, the Biological Weapons Convention, and the Chemical Weapons Convention, to live up to their obligations or face a referral to the U.N. Security Council. I have worked hard to promote effective multilateral action to curb the flow of these dangerous weapons. I served as the lead U.S. negotiator in the creation of the G-8 Global Partnership Against the Proliferation of WMD, through which we aim to add an additional $10 billion in Nunn-Lugar type programs through contributions by other nations. In the case of Libya, I had the opportunity to work in close consultation with our British colleagues in diplomatic efforts to secure the verifiable elimination of their weapons of mass destruction programs.
I helped build a coalition of more than 60 countries to help combat the spread of dangerous weapons through President Bush's Proliferation Security Initiative ("PSI"). The Administration welcomes the endorsement of this initiative in the recently published Secretary-General's Report, "Strengthening the United Nations: an agenda for further change." And despite fears that the U.S. withdrawal from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty would result in a new arms race, exactly the opposite occurred. I was proud to serve as the Administration's chief negotiator for the Treaty of Moscow, signed by Presidents Putin and Bush in 2002, which reduced operationally deployed strategic nuclear warheads by two-thirds.
Effective multilateral solutions reflect a commitment on the part of this Administration to use the best tools in our arsenal. Activities such as these are helping to create a new international consensus that recognizes the danger posed by these weapons of terror. I have no doubt these efforts played a crucial role in enabling the United States to lead the Security Council to pass Resolution 1540, first suggested by President Bush in his speech to the General Assembly in September, 2003. This resolution calls upon "all Member States to fulfill their obligations in relation to arms control and disarmament and to prevent proliferation in all its aspects of all weapons of mass destruction." Resolution 1540 was the first of its kind focusing on WMD proliferation, and I am proud that our strong leadership contributed to its unanimous adoption. I am happy to report that as of March 15, over 80 countries have submitted reports required by the resolution outlining their plans to enact and implement measures to stop WMD proliferation. I look forward to working with Security Council members to achieve 100% compliance with the Resolution.
We also cannot ignore the real possibility that countries may be brought before the Security Council if they do not cease the pursuit of weapons of mass destruction. Failure of the Security Council to act on such fundamental threats to international peace and security will only weaken the Council's role in security issues more generally. If confirmed, I would make it a top priority to work with the Security Council to take meaningful action in the face of these grave threats.
Winning the Global War on Terror
A third priority that I would pursue if confirmed is supporting the global war on terror. As we all learned on September 11, 2001, no one is safe from the devastating effects of terrorists' intent on harming innocent people. Confronting and triumphing in the global war on terror remains a central priority of the Bush Administration, and to win this war requires long-term cooperation with all like-minded nations.
The President is firmly committed to working with the United Nations to make this shared goal of the civilized world a reality. As he noted in his speech to the U.N. General Assembly in September 2003, "All governments that support terror are complicit in a war against civilization. No government should ignore the threat of terror, because to look the other way gives terrorists the chance to regroup, recruit and prepare. And all nations that fight terror, as if the lives of their own people depend on it, will earn the favorable judgment of history."
The United Nations has taken positive steps to support the war on terror, but more of course remains to be done. In the wake of September 11th, we have been actively encouraging Member States to become parties to the U.N. Conventions on Terrorism. I have been personally involved in the past four years as well in working to complete the negotiations on a Nuclear Terrorism Convention. We must build upon Security Council Resolution 1368, passed one day after the tragic events of September 11th, which for the first time classified every act of international terrorism as a threat to international peace and security. We must also work together to help Member States build capacities to combat terrorism as outlined in Resolution 1373, passed on September 28, 2001. This resolution obligates all U.N. member states to use their domestic laws and courts to keep terrorists from sheltering resources or finding safe haven anywhere in the world and to cooperate in investigating, prosecuting, and preventing terrorism wherever it may spring up. The U.N. Security Council is monitoring compliance with the requirements of this resolution, with impressive results: to date 142 countries have issued orders freezing the assets of suspected terrorists and terrorist organizations; accounts totaling almost $105 million have been blocked - $34 million in the U.S. and over twice that amount in other countries. Overall, Resolution 1373 has been the framework for unprecedented international consultation and coordination against terrorism, including the provision of technical assistance to governments that want to do the right thing, but may not have the specialized expertise necessary.
International Humanitarian Efforts
Mr. Chairman, a fourth priority of mine should I be confirmed is addressing humanitarian crises. Following the successful prosecution of the first Gulf War, we worked through the Security Council to address the humanitarian disaster caused by Saddam Hussein's repression of Shiites in southern Iraq and the Kurdish population in the north and east of that country. As we are all aware, this was a thorny and delicate issue - one that required carefully calibrated coordination within the Security Council.
During 1990, we were successful in having the United Nations impose its most comprehensive economic sanctions package ever, in Resolution 661, against Iraq. We were also successful in passing the first Security Council authorization for the use of force since Korea in Resolution 678. It was not lost upon us, however, that a humanitarian crisis was beginning to erupt. Hundreds of thousands of refugees fleeing Iraq into other countries would certainly have had a dramatic and destabilizing effect, in addition to the humanitarian costs of lives lost and displaced.
As a result of our leadership and collaborative efforts, we secured the adoption of Resolution 688, which decided that internal repression causing substantial refugee flows could be a threat to international peace and security. This gave the Security Council jurisdiction to approve intervention into Iraqi territory to aid displaced persons. The United States took the lead in implementing this Resolution, under the name "Operation Provide Comfort." Success stories such as these are a direct result of decisive American leadership and our effective multilateral diplomacy.
Of pressing urgency now is stopping the genocide and violence devastating the Darfur region in the Sudan. The United Nations has already played a critical role in bringing attention to this crisis. But we all know there is much more to be done. If confirmed, I pledge to work with our partners in the Security Council to pressure parties to stop the violence in Darfur, deploy the new peacekeeping mission to secure implementation of the comprehensive North-South peace agreement, and to assist the African Union mission in Darfur to punish those responsible for the genocide. My hope is that we can build upon the United Nation's considerable success record in helping to ensure free and fair elections in the Sudan despite its tortured past of violence and strife.
Careful oversight of such operations is critical, particularly in light of recent reports concerning abuse by U.N. peacekeepers themselves. If confirmed, I will make every effort to see that the Secretary General's new zero-tolerance policy of such behavior by U.N. personnel is enforced. There is a pressing need to do so. In light of the current global situation, we anticipate that 70,000 peacekeepers will be deployed by the end of 2005, compared with 39,000 by the end of 2002. Since October 2003, the U.N. has created four new missions including Liberia, Cote d'Ivoire, Burundi, and Haiti and has expanded the Congo mission. In addition to the proper oversight of such troops, there are additional concerns about capacity and stressing the U.N. system too far. This is not lost upon U.N. officials either. Jean-Marie Guehenno, Under Secretary-General for Peacekeeping Operations, acknowledges the system is getting stretched to its limits, and that, in his own words, "It is difficult to run and tie your shoelaces properly. I sincerely hope that the organization will not be required to deploy any new complex peacekeeping operations in 2005, beyond what is already on our plate or in the pipeline." Currently, we pay roughly 27% of the costs of these operations.
Other humanitarian crises demand our attention as well. It is not just the scourge of war we must confront. We must confront the scourge of disease and afflictions such as HIV/AIDS through strong U.S. leadership in the United Nations system. We strongly support the U.N. Declaration of Commitment on HIV/AIDS and are working to ensure resources from the Global Fund for AIDS, Malaria and Tuberculosis are available to countries most severely affected. We are actively pursuing the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, a five-year $15 billion investment, the largest commitment ever by a nation toward an international health initiative for a single disease or affliction.
I will make it a key priority as well to improve programs that have been involved in the tsunami relief effort, so that we can enhance and build upon structures and institutions already in place. Doing so will not only help current victims and communities, who will surely need help for years to come, but will help prepare for the next time a natural disaster of this magnitude strikes. More broadly, we must confront the scourge of poverty, which leaves hundreds of millions on the margins of societies scrambling for food or shelter with little opportunity to improve their lives or those of their children.
We also must make sure that the U.N. acts effectively in promoting the economic and social advancement of all people. For far too long, the U.N. promoted statist solutions to the problems of poverty and underdevelopment. Today, we know the private sector can do the best job in generating flows of investment capital and encourage small entrepreneurship, as set out in the remarkable report of the Commission on the Private Sector and Development, chaired by President Zedillo and Martin, and in the consensus results of the Monterey Conference on Financing for Development. Policy reform, institution building, appropriate technology transfer and private sector involvement are all necessary for underpinning sustained economic growth. We will continue to support the contribution of women to economic growth and development as well as their critical role in the growth of democratic institutions worldwide.
The U.N., in conjunction with U.S. leadership, is hopefully now recognizing that the traditional models of development are insufficient to achieve development objectives and better the lives of people around the world. The Partnership for Maternal, New Born and Child Health, The Global Alliance for Vaccinations & Immunizations, and Roll Back Malaria, are all examples of how U.N. agencies, such as UNICEF, are working along side the private sector, charitable organizations, and foundations, such as the Gates Foundation, to leverage resources, generate new activities and impact the lives of millions in developing countries.
To enhance these efforts, if I am confirmed, I hope I would have your support in increasing the level of American representation in U.N. agencies and affiliated organizations. This is not a question of simply getting our fair share of positions. Americans have the skills and training to contribute significantly to making the U.N. more efficient, effective, and accountable.
A More Efficient U.N. Will Make a Stronger U.N.
Accountability and reform of the United Nations is something I know this Committee has encouraged, including by holding a hearing on this important question just last month. This will be a top priority of mine if confirmed. During the first President Bush's Administration, I worked hard to secure appropriations to repay U.S. arrearages. Working with the Congress, we also made sure that the United Nations would target these arrearages to effective programs rather than treating them as a "windfall." If confirmed, I would look forward to working with the Congress again to make certain that the money you allocate is spent wisely and accountably.
I look forward if confirmed to reviving the concept of the "Unitary U.N.," which served as a guiding analytical construct during our work under Secretaries Baker and Eagleburger. As the system has grown, there has been too little attention paid by member governments to coordinating their efforts in key programs. The consequence is a tremendous waste of resources due to duplication, overlap and inefficiencies, all of which can be corrected if member governments have the political will.
The Administration welcomes the Secretary-General's new report on U.N. Reform, and we are examining carefully its many recommendations. I hope to work closely with the Secretary-General and my colleagues if confirmed to bring greater accountability and transparency to the United Nations. The key is to implement changes to the UN structure and management, including budget, personnel, and oversight reforms. Scandals, such as those we have witnessed with the Oil-for-Food program, undermine not only America's confidence in the United Nations, but the confidence of the international community as well. They must not recur. To make this outcome a reality, we must recognize the proper roles and capabilities of U.N. agencies, funds and programs. Some have all but concluded that the Oil-for Food scandal was bound to happen because it was beyond the U.N.'s capabilities. Even the Deputy Secretary-General Louise Frechette, has lamented, "Personally, I hope to God we never get another oil-for-food program or anything approaching that kind of responsibility, which was tantamount to trying to oversee the entire import-export regime of a country of 24 million people." Whether or not this is so, we must never lose sight of the reality that ultimately it is member governments that must take responsibility for the UN's actions, whether they be successes or failures.
The successful implementation of any reform will require broad consensus among member states. If confirmed, I will work actively with my colleagues at the United Nations and with Congress to help restore confidence in the organization.
Mr. Chairman, let me close by reiterating what I said at the beginning. If confirmed, I will work closely and effectively with this Committee and both Houses of Congress. The President and Secretary Rice are committed to building a strong, effective United Nations. The United Nations affords us the opportunity to move our policies forward together with unity of purpose. Now, more than ever, the UN must play a critical role as it strives to fulfill the dreams and hopes and aspirations of its original promise to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, to reaffirm faith and fundamental human rights and to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom. This effort demands decisive American leadership, broad bipartisan support, and the backing of the American public. I will undertake to do my utmost to uphold the confidence that the President, Secretary Rice, and the Senate will have placed in me.
Thank you, and I would welcome the opportunity to answer your questions."
Acclaimed Cuban Medical Care a Sham
If the New York Times and those elitist Hollywood leftists were to be believed, Cuba has world class healthcare and healthcare in the US is relegated to Third World status. Turns out, just as with Canada's "vaunted" healthcare system, all this praise belies the facts. According to this article, one of Cuba's top neurosurgeons, Dr. Hilda Molina, has blown the lid off of healthcare in Cuba. "Molina exposed Cuba's two-tier medical system that enabled rich foreigners to come in for treatment at first-class facilities in Cuba, paying in dollars, while ordinary Cubans got some of the most atrocious medical care on the planet.
So, as with Healthcare Canada, as long as you have the dollars, you can have world class healthcare. In the case of Healthcare Canada, that means going to the United States for treatment (see here.
According to The American Thinker magazine, Molina was seriously punished for her revelations, as well as objecting to Castro's fetal stem-cell research program on the grounds of conscience.
In the end, she lost her job, her parliament position, her livelihood and everything she'd worked for.""Dr. Molina was not alone in decrying the shabby state of medical care inflicted on ordinary Cubans under Castro. The American Thinker cited a Cuban source that took on the issue head-on.
Can you ever remember seeing any negative articles in the leftist media on healthcare in Cuba?
Wrote the Cuban source, babalublog.com "Every single time the island of Cuba and Fidel Castro's revolution are covered anywhere in the media, one of the points always mentioned is Cuba's free healthcare. You can practically time it. If it's in print, you get the lead issue in the first and second paragraph, a mention of Fidel Castro or one of his cronies in the third paragraph, and then the plug for the lauded free healthcare available to Cubans in the fourth. I don’t think I've ever read an article about Castro or Cuba where the 'healthcare' isn’t mentioned." ""Of course, none of these 'free healthcare!' cheerleaders have ever been to a Cuban hospital. They've never been to a Cuban clinic. Hospitals and clinics serving the average Cuban, that is."
You can see some of those pictures here. All in all, a rather damning piece on healthcare in Cuba, not something you will see anytime soon from the Cuba cheerleading MSM. - Sailor
The writer then published photographs showing cockroach-infested hospital rooms: "Cockroaches. Twenty-seven of them to be exact. All swept together after having been squashed by patients and patrons of El Hospital Clinico Quirurgico de la Habana."
Other photos showed a hospital interior that would be shut down in the U.S. because of its shockingly unsanitary conditions."
Sunday, April 10, 2005
She's still 'Hanoi Jane'
Hanoi Jane Fonda has a books to sell. So she is trying to make believe she has apologized for her treansonous behavior during the Vietnam War. The left wing MSM has gushed over her supposed apology. The only problem is, she has not apologized in any sense of the word. Robert Caldwell explains in his article. "The most famous – make that infamous – image of Jane Fonda from her years protesting the Vietnam War was a photograph taken during her wartime visit to North Vietnam in 1972. In the photo, Fonda is sitting on a North Vietnamese anti-aircraft gun clasping her hands, singing, a rapturous smile on her face, a North Vietnamese helmet on her head, surrounded by grinning North Vietnamese soldiers.
She has not apolgized and I doubt she ever will. If she were on fire, I would not even piss on her to put the fire out. - Sailor
Fonda, out promoting her autobiography these days, now says she regrets that particular "betrayal," and that is her word. In an interview with Leslie Stahl on CBS's "60 Minutes," Fonda said: "I will go to my grave regretting that ... It was the largest lapse of judgment that I can even imagine."
She expressed similar regrets in an interview in 1988 and again in 2000, when she called posing on the enemy's anti-aircraft gun "thoughtless."
Careful readers will note that "thoughtless" and "lapse of judgment" and even "betrayal" are not apologies. In truth, Jane Fonda has never apologized for eagerly lending herself and her celebrity to the wartime propaganda of an enemy state, a Stalinist dictatorship no less, that killed 58,000 Americans.
And she's not apologizing today."
Gang Colors Update
The saga of Raven Fubert continues. You may remember her as the 13 year old school girl that wore a red, white and blue bead necklace to school in honor of her uncle and three other relatives in the military who are fighting overseas. The Schenectady School District deems these colors to be gang oriented. This in an area that has not had any gang related activity. Raven was ordered by the school not to continue wearing her necklace or face suspension. Raven's mom has filed a federal civil rights violaton claim. here is an update from the Albany, NY TimesUnion. "Friday, the case again boiled over when Furbert's mother, Katie Grzywna, was called to school after her daughter was threatened with in-school suspension if she didn't remove the beads.
For more on this, go on over to Stark Truth. Also goover to my good Marine friend GOC at Obnoxious Droppings for his take on all of this. Strikes me that we have an out of control school adminstration that did notlike being challenged by a 13 year old defending her Constitutional rights. Stay tuned. - Sailor
Grzywna opted instead to take her daughter home for the day.
"This is ridiculous," she said. "If she's in an in-school suspension Monday, I'll be sitting on the hood of my car wearing a red-, white- and blue necklace from 8 to 3."
"This is an action taken by the district to punish her for standing up for her rights," added the family's lawyer, Bob Keach.
"They're enforcing an unwritten, unconstitutional policy against a 13-year-old who wants to show her patriotism.""
Now George Soros wants to Re-Write The Constitution
"Saturday, April 09, 2005 Like the Energizer Bunny, George Soros never rests. Now he is underwriting what we can only describe as a Shadow Constitutional Convention. Hosted by Yale Law School, the two-day conference (April 8–10, 2005) bears the title, "The Constitution in 2020." It seeks to "rehabilitate" the U.S. Constitution as an instrument for fostering "progressive" change in America; to propose amendments or alterations to said Constitution; and finally to develop strategies for putting those changes into effect (hat tip, Clarice Feldman).
After spending millions of dollars to foist campaign finance reform on us, George Soros promptly found and exploited a loophole to funnel more of his millions into leftwing 527 groups, in a failed attempt to defeat the President in 2004. Now Soros is spending more millions to hold a "shadow constitutional convention" at Yale. The American Constitution Society for Law and Policy is conducting Constitution in 2020 Conference as you read this. Here are some of the topics to be discussed: "Themes of the Conference
It appears to me, that this is a rather leftist, internationalist agenda.
America in the World: This theme addresses the challenges posed by the dual issues of terrorism and globalization. Critical issues include: the tension between democracy and globalization, national security, warmaking, immigration, and the interaction of foreign law with the U.S. Constitution.
Liberties and Communities: The questions encompassed by this theme include the relationship between the Constitution and the broader social fabric of the United States, and in particular the constitutional protections provided to individuals acting alone and as members of various groups. Critical issues include: family, religion, federalism, and crime.
New Politics: This theme focuses on the challenges to democratic processes in an age of economic and technological change. Critical issues include: money in politics, voting rights, media concentration, gerrymandering, and the constitution of the public sphere in a digital age.
Social and Economic Inequality: This theme concerns the constitutional obligations of the government to protect against discrimination and to guarantee minimum standards of living. Critical issues include: the nature of constitutional equality, the causes and remedies of inequality, the disparate roles of courts and Congress in vindicating rights of equal citizenship."
Richard Poe over at Moonbat Central has unmasked some ot the groups and people behind this.
All in all, it looks like George Soros' fingerprints are all over this. - Sailor
Soros Rewrites U.S. Constitution
The conference Web site proudly announces that its sponsors are the American Constitution Society, the Yale Law School, the Arthur Liman Public Interest Program at Yale, the Open Society Institute and the Center for American Progress.
Our colleague Charles Johnson at Little Green Footballs astutely notes that, "The `Open Society Institute' is, of course, George Soros’s tool for promoting his transnational agenda.
"Very true. But there is more. Had Mr. Johnson consulted our DiscovertheNetwork database, he would have learned that the American Constitution Society and the Center for American Progress are also Soros-funded operations — and that all three groups coordinate their pernicious activities through Soros' Shadow Party network.
For more information, see the official "Constitution in 2020" weblog: constitutionin2020.blogspot.com.
Posted by Richard Poe @ 6:16 PM Eastern Time"
The weakest spot
A few days ago, first responders in Connecticut and New Jersey, participated in a mock terrorist attack. The point of the drills was to find any weak spots that need to be addressed. I have participated in a few disaster drills and they are good for finding ways to improve readiness and fins ares that require special attention. After all, it is not a question of if there will be another terrorist attack on US soil, but when. That being said, why are we not concentrating on stemming the tide of illegal immigration on our porous southern border? Cal Thomas asks the same question in his article. "What does it say about our anti-terrorist efforts if we prepare for disasters in Connecticut and New Jersey instead of directing substantial efforts on our weakest spot: the borders?
It is good to see that some one else agrees with me that these are not "undocumented" workers, but illegal aliens. As for the leftist nonsense about these illegals' contributions to Social Security, well here is a news flach, Social Security is going to go broke with or without their minor contributions. The border is where these terrorists willmake their entry intop the US. Is it not time to seal it?
The Bush administration's weakest spot is its refusal to stop illegal aliens (not "undocumented workers" in the politically correct lingo that seeks to pull the wool over our eyes) from invading our nation.
Numerous officials have said another terrorist attack is not a matter of if, but when. Among low-wage workers in fields, restaurant kitchens and other venues are radical Islamic terrorists whose sole purpose is to kill Americans and weaken our economy. They have said so and continue saying so in their schools and mosques on our soil and similar places worldwide.
In the face of this, we get nothing but meaningless mumbo jumbo from defenders of illegal immigration, who ask us to look at how much these lawbreakers contribute to Social Security. ""The Minuteman Project is temporary. Though U.S. and Mexican authorities estimate the volunteers cut illegal immigration by half, the citizen groups are expected to be gone next month and areas they patrolled will likely again become virtual superhighways for lawbreakers. Meanwhile, smugglers and trespassers have shifted to less-protected border areas.
My hat is off to the volunteers of the Minuteman Project. These concerned American citizens, exercised their Constitutional rights, and have been smeared, belittled and worse. They have been called everything from racists to vigilantes. They are neither. They have taken up what should be done by the government.
The Departments of State and Homeland Security announced Tuesday that American citizens will be required to show a passport when re-entering the United States from Canada, Mexico, Panama, Bermuda and the Caribbean by 2008. Whatever benefits might come from this new effort -- and the ridiculous body searches of frequent flyers like me and little old ladies in wheelchairs -- shouldn't we pay at least as much attention to the illegal aliens flooding into this country?"
The bottom line here is that illegal immigration costs US taxpayers billions of dollars each year. Add to this the simple fact that this porous border makes infiltration by terrorists much easier and thereby puts every American at risk. It is high time the border is sealed. Vincente Fox and his corrupt government be damned! - Sailor
Saturday, April 09, 2005
Obstructing Justice
Once again the dems and libs in the Senate continue to hold up votes on the President's judicial nominees. The latest is the nomination of Thomas Griffith to the appeals court. This time the dems did not bother to show up for the committee meeting on Thursday. Not only cannot Bush nominees get an up or down vote, now they cannot even get out the committee. This is not about qualifications, it is about ideology and politcs as brought into the light in this IBD editorial. "The other four had no excuse, except the claim expressed through aides that they were unwilling to debate and vote on the nomination with senior members in Rome. Committee rules require a quorum of 10 senators, so committee Chairman Arlen Specter was forced to cancel the proceedings and reschedule.
I suppose that the dems that were in DC needed to get their talking points and instructions from their leadership. Again, let me state that this is not about qualifications, it is about ideology. Of course, you can see from the staff memo to Durbin, that the dems are beholding to cetain groups that want to shape the courts, but cannot get enough liberals elected to do so, so they are going the obstructionist route.
Of course, none of the committee Democrats, here or there, has any intention of doing anything but voting against Griffith in committee and then joining a filibuster against his confirmation on the Senate floor. And opposition to Bush's nominees has nothing to do with qualifications and everything to do with ideology.
Among these nominees was Miguel Estrada, described in a Nov. 7, 2001, borderline-racist staff memo to committee member Dick Durbin, D-Ill., as "especially dangerous, because he has a minimal paper trail, he is Latino and the White House seems to be grooming him for a Supreme Court appointment. They want to hold Estrada off as long as possible."
"They" are left-leaning special interest groups such as People for the American Way and the National Organization of Women.""Estrada, who had enough votes to be confirmed in the absence of a filibuster, remained in limbo for more than two years until this nominee, rated "well qualified" by the American Bar Association, gave up in frustration and withdrew his nomination for the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in 2003.
It used to be that a "well quailified" rating by the ABA was sufficient to have a nominee confirmed. No longer, especially if that nominee is a conservative minority. The comments on Estrada and Brown are racist pure and simple. So when ever you hear some dem talking about diversity, you now know it means minorities that tow the leftist line.
Imagine the media feeding frenzy if a Republican had written that a Democratic nominee was "dangerous" because he was a "Latino." Or if a Republican pledged, as Kennedy did, "to resist any Neanderthal that is nominated by this president . . . for any federal court" in the U.S.
Neanderthal? Does Kennedy consider Janice Rogers Brown, nominated to the D.C. Court of Appeals, the first black woman to sit on the California Supreme Court, re-elected with 76% of the vote, the daughter of an Alabama sharecropper, a Neanderthal?
Brown's crimes, apparently, include being (1) a staunch supporter of property rights, which she views as under assault by eminent domain abuses, (2) an articulate voice for limited government and individual freedom and (3) a black conservative."
It is time for Frist to go to the so called "nuclear option" and restore the Senate's original advise and consent role. - Sailor
Inside Scoop -- Not Any Longer
Enter Captain Ed Morrissey, from the Minnesota based bog, Captain's Quarters. To the great delight of Canadian political junkies -- 133,000 in the first few hours -- Ed published a summary of the first day of Brault's damning testimony. The Captain got his information from an as yet unidentified individual who had access to the still open testimony at the public hearing.Many pixels were spilled in the Canadian blogosphere hinting at where to find Captain's Quarters on the net and speculating whether a link to this blog violated the publication ban.Gormery's people and lawyers for the federal government threatened prosecution for contempt. However, at least one Canadian television network broadcast the Captain's location. His server was overwhelmed."
Canada is in the midst of a scandal that could bring down the current government. You will not see anything on this in the Canadian media, simply because the Canadian judge selected to head up the public inquiry has slapped a publication ban on any testimony coming from the investigation. Captain Ed over at Captian's Quarters, is outside of the reach of this Canadian judge and has posted a good deal of information on the proceedings. Jay Currie, a Canadian writer and blogger has more on this in his Tech Central Station article. "Things recently heated up when the former CEO of one of the ad companies alleged to have paid kickbacks was called to testify. Jean Brault has been charged with criminal fraud in the matter and his lawyers have asked for and been granted a publication ban on his testimony. The ban is supposed to protect his right to a fair trial which had been scheduled to begin in less than a month.
This is, after all, supposed to be a public inquiry, so why the publication ban. Claiming that it would influence potential jurors is a rather lame excuse.
Implicit in the publication ban is the assumption that potential jurors could not be trusted to hear only the evidence which was actually presented at Brault's trial. An assumption for which there is next to no evidence and which reflects a striking paternalism implicit in the entire idea of publication bans."
Hat's off to Captain Ed. Some one needed to get the light of scrutiny on this. "What was once inside information closely held by political, legal and media elites is now available to anyone who can manage a simple search on Google.
Jay Currie, being Canadian, may be in some trouble over this publication ban. I will keep my ear to the rail on this one. - Sailor
Captain Ed may very well have ensured the collapse of a remarkably corrupt Canadian political party in a nation not his own. For which many of us are very grateful.
But Captain's Quarter's broadside has holed the edifice of inside information beneath the waterline. The Internet has transformed the theory of a peoples' right to know into a realistic practice.
For better or worse, the paternalism and condescension towards the public which is embodied in the very idea of a publication ban has been fatally short-circuited.
Thanks Ed."
Thursday, April 07, 2005
Mexican cops warn migrants at border
It's about damned time that this has happened. Perhaps this should become a permanent thing. Of course, these "officials" and assorted others have been telling tall tales that the members of the Minuteman Project will hurt these illegals. Nothing could be further from the truth, but then again how often do leftists tell the truth? There is more in this article by Jerry Seper. "The Mexicans are telling the prospective border crossers that Minuteman Project protesters will hurt them when they enter Arizona, and also are moving the migrants away from the zone being patrolled by the protesters.
A word of advice here to these Mexicans: Keep your people in Mexico by ending the corruption that pervades your government. Make your economy function and provide a decent standard of living for your people. That is the responsibility of your government.
The Mexican government has been distributing a red flier headlined "¡Peligro!" meaning "danger," and featuring an icon of two crossed rifles. The flier warns readers that hundreds of "vigilantes," whom it says could be armed but are not part of the U.S. Border Patrol, will guard that segment of the border 24 hours a day all month.""Enrique Enriques Palafox, a commander of Grupo Beta, a Mexican government-funded humanitarian organization, said his group wants to protect the migrants and is willing to "terrify" them into delaying their journey.
They are not migrants, they are people attempting to break the law by trying to enter the US illegally. It is really a shame that it is taking action by American citizens to stem the flow of illegal aliens into this country.
"We know [the Minuteman volunteers] are armed and our job is to protect migrants," said Bertha de la Rosa, a coordinator for Grupo Beta, which yesterday loaded pickup trucks with migrants on the Mexican side of the border and relocated them.
A Mexican official, speaking on the condition of anonymity, yesterday said migration from Mexico has dropped by 50 percent along the 20-mile stretch of border that is being monitored by about 200 Minuteman volunteers."""It doesn't matter whether the reason is that we are on the border or that the Mexican government has clamped down on their side because of us," Minuteman organizer Chris Simcox said.
Clearly, the Minuteman Project is having a very significant impact on the numbers of illegals entering the US. They are doing the job that the US government should be doing. - Sailor
"The object of our protest was to show that a presence on the border would significantly impact on the number of people crossing into the United States," he said.
"I think it is clear we have already shown that to be true," said Mr. Simcox, a newspaper publisher and founder of the Civil Homeland Division organization in Arizona."
saddam's Bad Day
saddam had a really bad day to today. First, a Kurd is president of Iraq and a Shia is prime minster. To top it all off, saddam saw a video of the Iraqi elections. ""He was clearly upset. He realized that it was over, that a democratic process had taken place and that there was a new, elected president," Bakhtiar Amin said.
A Kurd as president should have saddam shaking. After all, saddam did try to exterminate the Kurds, saddam even used WMds against them. 11 of saddam's lieutenants watched the video as well. What they saw may "inspire" them to be more open and truthful when the tribunals begin.
"It was not just the fact that there was a new president, but that the president was a Kurd. What's more, it all happened without bloodshed," he said."""I feel this will affect how they respond when they go to trial," he said.
All and all, a very bad day for saddam. - Sailor
"Now they know . . . for sure that they are not coming back and my feeling is that they may be inclined to be more honest when they go before the tribunal.""
Democrats of Mesopotamia
"One of the other great disputes seems to have been largely resolved, at least to the extent that they have agreed on the mechanism for resolving it.The Hussein regime had expelled thousands of Kurds from their historic, oil-rich city of Kirkuk. The current tentative agreement calls for the repatriation of Kurds expelled from the city and "redrawing the administrative boundaries of the governate to its 1968 borders." That was the year that Saddam annexed pieces of Kirkuk to other Sunni governing units. After all these human movements are completed, there will be regional referenda to determine whether they wish to be administered by Baghdad or the regional Kurdish authorities. These would be very impressive negotiations for a mature democracy. Sens. Harry Reid and Bill Frist would be throwing their arms out slapping themselves on the back on television if they could achieve a small fraction of such agreements in the Senate this year."
Much to the chagrin of the usual whiners, hand wringers, terrorist appeasers and supports, as well as leftists of allsorts, iraq has a government in place that is not a theocracy. A Kurdish president, a Sunni Speaker of the Assembly, a Shai Prime Minister and Sunni and Shia vice presidents. Imagine the horro saddam must be feeling to see a Kurd as Presidrnt of Iraq. Tony Blakely has an angle on all of this in his commentary.
It seems that democracy has taken a firm rooting in the Iraqi desert, some thing which many pundits said could not happen. So much for punditry. - Sailor
Wednesday, April 06, 2005
Dandruff - The Latest Global Warming Culprit
Just when you thought April Fool's Day had past, there is this item; "A team of scientists reports in the prestigious journal Science that dandruff levels in the atmosphere are surprisingly high, and the load of biological aerosols from flaking skin, fur, and pollen can make up between 25% and 80% of the aerosols in the atmosphere." Yes, these folks are serious. Robert Balling reports on this over at Tech Central Station and the item is also being reported at msnbc. "No day goes by without another story regarding global warming, and the latest news has scientists throughout the world scratching their heads about climate change. A team of scientists reports in the prestigious journal Science that dandruff levels in the atmosphere are surprisingly high, and the load of biological aerosols from flaking skin, fur, and pollen can make up between 25% and 80% of the aerosols in the atmosphere. These aerosols are important building blocks for clouds, and clouds remain the greatest mystery in the global warming debate. If our future has more high clouds, any greenhouse warming will be amplified, but if our future has more low clouds, their ability to reflect away solar radiation will dampen any warming caused by elevated concentrations of greenhouse gases. Clouds are widely recognized to be the wild cards in the greenhouse debate, and at present, clouds are notoriously poorly represented in numerical models of climate. The latest news about dandruff has implications for future clouds, and the results from the German team mean more uncertainty in predicting the future climate."
I have read some other articles on the role clouds may or may not play in global warming, but I have often wondered if any of these computer models have used that as part of the algorithm. "We cannot wash away these uncertainties in any discussion of policy actions, and as we see in the latest news about dandruff, important changes to the atmosphere may be undiscovered at this time. Anyone claiming to know where we are headed climatically, with or without policy actions, is disregarding the complexities in predicting the future climate of the Earth."
Of course, this could be a boom for those companies that manufacture dandruff shampoos. Can you see the ads now? "Use our dandruff shampoo and help save the planet from the global warming disaster". On a serious note, findings such as this one just go to show that no one has any solid clue as to future global weather patterns or if the planet is going to warm up or cool down. - Sailor
Crime and (Non)Punishment
Doc Farmer and I seen to be on the same wave length today, both of us posting opinions on the Sandy Berger follies. - Sailor
Crime and (Non)Punishment
Written by Doc Farmer
Wednesday, April 06, 2005
I was a bit careless this past weekend. And, in the spirit of confession being good for the soul, I'd like to tell you about it.
Normally on the weekend, I like to sleep. A lot! One of my colleagues, a former paramedic, has informed me without any doubt or hesitation that there is no way to "make up" for lost sleep. Well, call the Mayo Clinic (and hold the ham on rye) because I do it every single weekend. I'm talking serious snore time here.
But not this past weekend. No, I decided to take a quick trip over to the National Archives in Washington, D.C. When I lived in the D.C. area, it was the one place I never visited, so I figured now was the time. The Library of Congress, the Smithsonian, Anacostia during daylight hours (with full body armor, of course), the White House, etc., are all sites I had seen. But not the National Archives.
I sauntered in as if I owned the place. Which, in point of fact, I do - along with about 300 million other people. I looked at the stacks, I wandered around a bit, I admired the architecture - a bit too froggy-like for my tastes, but nobody's perfect - and I found some highly classified documents. They were copies, of course, but they had some interesting comments written in the margins.
So, as I was in a building I owned (even if only by a miniscule percentage), I figured that the stuff inside was mine as
well. That said, I took them. I had forgotten my briefcase - mainly because I don't even own one - but necessity is a mother, as they say (well, as the rude ones say, at least) and I have had the good fortune to drop some serious tonnage in the past few months. Therefore, my clothing is now rather less form-fitting than it once was. Not to worry, though - the documents filled out that wasted space quite nicely. Even my socks, which would once droop to the ankles, were now staying up rather well thanks to the pages wrapped around my calves.
Granted, the flight home was a bit crinkly, but I suffered no major paper cuts near any vital organs so I consider it a win-win situation.
When I returned home, though, I was suddenly struck with a bit of a conundrum. You see, I didn't read the documents all that closely while in the National Archives - I was a bit busy stuffing them in my shorts at the time, don'tchaknow - and when I looked them over, I found that a number of them
were actually copies of the same document. Oh, there were different notes in the margins on a few of them, but that couldn't have been too important, right? So, ever the environmentalist, I put on my best Fawn Hall outfit and ran the excess paperwork through my shredder. I had planned to put them in the recycling bin at work.
Just then, Jim from the building next door had announced a wienie roast, but was short on kindling. Naturally, I wanted to be a good neighbor. Besides, the environment's overrated. Therefore, I took my bag of shredded National Archives documents and popped them under the charcoal briquettes. They took to the match most happily and in mere minutes, there was a red rosy glow where once there was only blackness.
Y'know, I think those wienies tasted even better than usual - they had a sort of historical flavor.
But I digress.
After that satisfying sausage soirée, I decided that my Dad (ever the history buff) would love to take a look
at these potentially earth-shattering pages, plucked from our Nation's Capitol. A quick Fed-Ex, and they arrived safe and sound. I'm sure Dad will keep them where he keeps a number of important family records - in the support joists, just above the water heater in the basement. Yeah, they'll be safe there, no problem.
After relating my weekend adventures to some of my co-workers, however, there was some consternation on their part. They started talking about gloom and doom scenarios. 20 years in Leavenworth, being "disappeared" by MIBs at two in the morning (or is it one in the morning? Damn Daylight Saving Time!), that sort of thing. They kept telling me that I had committed a major crime. Pshaw and Balderdash, I replied. Nobody would miss those documents. They were only copies. And so what if they were marked "Eyes Only" in big red letters? We're a government of, by and for the people, right? Well, last time I checked, I'm people (no comments, please, from any of my ex-wives) so I figured I was entitled.
Besides, what's the worst I can expect, eh? A fine, maybe. And they might take away my National Archives library card for a couple of years. Big whoop.
- ~~~~~oo0oo~~~~~
However, that issue notwithstanding, I want you to imagine that it was true. Do you believe that I'd be free to write this article? Do you think for one second that I wouldn't be anywhere else but in an FBI interrogation room, shackled to the chair, hot lamp shining in my eyes, with a rack of rubber hoses on the wall?
Well, I wouldn't be. If my name were Sandy Berger.
Somehow, this guy commits a major security breach. He steals classified government documents from a secured facility within the National Archives by shoving them down his pants. He destroys some of those documents. Copies
or not, he destroyed them, which is a major faux pas judicially speaking. Is he jailed? Is he hauled before a Federal Judge? Is bail denied, while the scope of the damage he caused can be assessed?
Nope.
He says "Oops!" and gets fined.
If it were you or I, we'd be eligible for a PhD in manual gravel manufacturing in about 30 years or so. Our homes would be ransacked trying to find the documents, we'd be grilled like a steak the way my Mom likes it (well done, or "ashes"), and we'd be thrown in a cell so deep underground that the moles would have to read to us.
Somehow, though, the concept of "justice" has escaped a Federal department whose name includes that very word! They, in a decision of epic stupidity, have decided to give Sandy Burglar a pass. A
fine, a slap on the wrist, and a declaration that he showed "bad judgment" in his criminal acts. Gee, next time I want to rob a bank, I'll see if I can cut a deal like that. I didn't do anything that bad, your honor - besides, it's just paper, right? Lots of copies around, too.
Since we've got a new Attorney General, I'll assume that he's not quite up to speed on how things work. Well, Mr. Gonzalez, let me clue you in. When you have a major crime involving a breach of national security, you throw the bastard in jail! You don't let him have a news conference to say "Sorry" and then let him walk. You don't take away his security clearance for three years.
You take it away FOREVER!
If this is the way you're going to run the Department of Justice, I think America deserves a refund on your salary!
About the Writer: Doc Farmer is a writer and humorist who is also a moderator on ChronWatch's Forum. He formerly lived in Saudi Arabia and Qatar, but now resides in the Midwest. Doc receives e-mail at docfarmer9999@yahoo.co.uk.
This Article Was First Published In ChronWatch At: http://www.chronwatch.com/content/contentDisplay.asp?aid=13881
Sandy Berger takes One for the Clintons?
You have to wonder why a guy as smart as Sandy Berger came up with such lame excuses for having stolen and destroyed documents relevant to 9/11. Could it be Berger was trying to protect his former boss, Bill Clinton? Dick Morris, who helped get Clinton elected President twice and likely knows the Clintons as well as anyone speculates on why Berger committed this crime. "Berger has admitted that he stuffed top-secret documents into his pockets, shirt and pants, and why he sliced some up with scissors, destroyed them and then lied about it. Until he gives a credible explanation for this behavior, we are all entitled to make the logical inference — that he was hiding something to protect himself and his old bosses.
Indeed why did Berger steal this documents? And why was he willing to ruin any future career ambitions by doing so? One alsomust speculate what was so embarrassing to the Clinton Administration that may have been hamdwritten on those copies of that report.
The documents were an "after-action review" by Richard Clarke, then the National Security Council's terrorism expert, discussing and analyzing our efforts to stop attacks during the Millennium celebrations. They were so secret, the Washington Times reports, that anyone seeking to remove the documents would have had to do so in a briefcase handcuffed to his wrist. And, it seems, they were so critical of the former administration that Berger felt he needed to steal them. But why did Berger steal them?
The most obvious reason would be to stop the 9/11 commission from including embarrassing revelations in its report.
Yes, the documents Berger purloined were not the only copies, but it's not clear that Berger knew that. Or there may have been handwritten notes in the margins of the copies Berger destroyed — written by the president, Berger or others.""Berger would also have us believe he "inadvertently" cut up and "inadvertently" destroyed the documents — that he had no intention of concealing anything from the commission. And then, I suppose, he inadvertently lied about what he'd done.
Could ot be that any handwritten notes on that document may have pointed out that the softness on terrorism by the Clinton Administration led to the planned MilleniumAttack/ After all, it appears that it was the vigilance of one individual and some luck that thwarted that attack and not any policy or action put forth by the Clinton Adminstration.
Come on. With a shabby explanation like that, Berger invites speculation that he is covering for himself or for the Clintons.
Back in the '90s, I found Berger consistently unwilling to act vigorously against terror-sponsoring nations. When Sen. Al D'Amato proposed sanctions against Iran, Berger tried to get Clinton to veto the bill; it was only after much public pressure that he signed it."
Morris concludes with this: "Picture the fevered atmosphere in the months after 9/11. Any indication by the commission investigating the attack that the Clinton administration hadn't taken terrorism seriously would badly damage the former president's reputation and the former first lady's chances. Any loyal adviser would have worked to mitigate the possible damage. The measure of how serious the damage may have been is how far Berger risked falling to prevent it — and how far he did fall rather than reveal why. "
This may be the most viable explanation for the crimes of Sandy Berger. - Sailor
Tuesday, April 05, 2005
San Francisco May Regulate Blogging
Just when you thought that the blogosphere was safe from an attempt by the FEC to muzzle it, now San Francisco will try it. Supervisor Sophie Maxwell has written legislation that will force San Francisco bloggers to register with the Ethics Commission there. Some one needs to send this Supervisor a copy of the Constitution. The Personal Democracy Forum has the full scoop. - Sailor
The Berger wrist slap: A dangerous precedent
Here is a guy, Sandy Berger, that for months denied he had done anything wrong and now admits he did. Berger should be well aware of the implications of his theft of classified documents and the his destruction of them. Why the Justice Depaertment let him off wiht nothing more then a slap on the wrist is very troubling. It is also bothering David Limbaugh and he has a few things to say about it. "Berger, a national security adviser in the Clinton administration, was caught red-handed removing sensitive, classified documents from the National Archives.
The question that comes up is, were there any hand written notes on these documents? We will never know since Berger destroyed them.
He wasn't doing something as innocuous as research for his personal memoirs. No, he was preparing for testimony before the 9/11 Commission to vindicate Bill Clinton's performance in response to the terrorist threat. The documents he secreted, purloined, and later deliberately destroyed, were exceedingly relevant to the subject matter of his 9/11 testimony.
The documents were drafts of a damning "after-action review" by anti-terrorist expert Richard Clarke of the Clinton administration's actions in thwarting an attack by Al Qaeda against America during the millennium celebration. The report revealed "glaring" national security weaknesses and attributed prevention of the attack to "luck."""We now know Berger deliberately took the documents knowing it was against the law to do so. He acted with malice aforethought. He later lied repeatedly in saying he took them by mistake. The documents pertained to the competence of the Clinton administration in responding to the terrorist threat when that question was directly at issue before the commission and part of the fiercely partisan political debate of the day. Berger had every interest in making the Clinton administration look good in the very area addressed by the Clarke memo. Is it just a coincidence that the documents he took and destroyed pertained specifically to these questions and were unfavorable to the administration he served?
Again, we will never know since those documents were destroyed. As for the democrats, they are still trying to find ways to blame 9/11 and the intellignce failures on the Bush dministration. The truth has no meaning to them, unless it paints the President in a bad light. To the dems it is all about politics.
Where are the Democrats on this issue? Are they not the ones who have been obsessed with retrospectives and endless self-flagellating investigations into how our intelligence agencies failed, implying that we could have prevented 9/11?""Given the gravity they attach to these investigations, how can they possibly understate the significance of Berger's crime? His actions -- even if you naively believe they weren't in furtherance of a Clinton cover-up -- grossly undermined the integrity of our investigative process and national security in general.
Berger has made a mockery out of the importance of classified documents. As for Berger doing jial time, I think that was in order. After all, 10,000 dollars is chump change. If Berger was trying to protect Clinton here, it would not hurt Clinton financially to pony up the 10 grand. Jail time is the removal of freedom and it is some thing that a man like Berger would fear the most. As for losing his security clearences for only three years, Beeger should never, ever be granted a security clearence ever again. - Sailor
I have no desire to see Berger in jail, but we darn well should be sure that he loses his national security clearance permanently. If not, we are saying these investigations are really just partisan showmanship, that national security document classification and other security laws are much ado about nothing and that if you're important enough, you can violate national security laws with virtual impunity.
Justice is setting a dangerous precedent with the Berger plea agreement."
Iraq war hero earns first Medal of Honor
There are times when we tend to throw around the word hero all too loosely. The a true hero comes along and we take stock of how much we over use that word. Army Sgt. 1st Class Paul Ray Smith is a true hero in every sense of the word. And he has bee rightfully been arwarded this country's highest award for valor, the Congressional Medal of Honor. Sadly, it was awarded posthumously. His young son accepted the arward from President Bush. Here is an excerpt from the Washington Times article. "The 33-year-old sergeant, who was born in El Paso, Texas, but moved to Tampa, Fla., as a boy, was the senior noncommissioned officer in a platoon of engineers during the 3rd Infantry Division's northward push toward Baghdad.
No greater love has a man then to lay down his life for his fellow man. I salute the Sergeant and hope that his family will be comforted by his memory and his heroism. - Sailor
U.S. and coalition forces had sprinted to Baghdad and had already captured the international airport, one of the key objectives to securing the city, according to an Army narrative. As troops encircled Baghdad, Iraqi militiamen and special Republican Guard forces were trapped, prompting fierce firefights.
Near the eastern edge of the airport, Sgt. Smith, a veteran of the first Gulf war, had been put in charge of 2nd Platoon, Bravo Company, 11th Engineer Battalion, while his lieutenant and other soldiers went on a scouting mission.
The sergeant's task that day was to turn a courtyard into a holding cell for Iraqi prisoners of war. The courtyard, just north of the main road between Baghdad and the airport, was near an Iraqi military compound.
But just as they began their work, armed Iraqis were spotted approaching from beyond the gated walls of the courtyard. Another group of Iraqis occupied a nearby tower. Altogether, there were more than 100 Iraqis, outnumbering the Army troops 4 to 1.
Almost immediately, Sgt. Smith took charge of a Bradley fighting vehicle and positioned it to block the enemy. An M-113 armored personnel carrier joined the fray.
The Iraqis attacked with rifle fire, mortars and rocket-propelled grenades. Sgt. Smith threw a grenade over a wall to drive back some of the Iraqis, then fired a rocket.
Incoming grenades battered the Bradley, which retreated. Then a mortar slammed into the M-113, wounding the three soldiers inside and leaving its heavy machine gun unmanned. After directing another soldier to pull the wounded crewmen to safety, Sgt. Smith climbed into the machine gun position and began firing at the tower.
"With complete disregard for his own life and under constant enemy fire, Sergeant Smith rallied his men and led a counterattack," Mr. Bush said yesterday.
"From a completely exposed position, he killed as many as 50 enemy soldiers as he protected his men," he said.
With American medics, scouts, a mortar unit and a command post -- all lightly armed and vulnerable -- to protect, Sgt. Smith manned the gun for 15 minutes or longer, firing more than 300 rounds as Pvt. Michael Seaman, protected inside the M-113, passed him ammunition.
Then Sgt. Smith was struck in the head and mortally wounded. At almost the same time, 1st Sgt. Timothy Campbell ended the threat from the tower with a grenade, and the surviving Iraqis withdrew. Medics tried to save Sgt. Smith, but he died about 30 minutes later."
French flag tribute to Pope sparks left-wing anger
Leave it to the French leftists to bellyache about France lower thirs flags to half-staff out of respect for Pope JohnPaul II. Their major complaint is that it is a sreperation of church and state issue (sound familliar?). Seem the French left either does not know or does not care to know that the Pope is also the heard of a country, in this case, the Vatican City-State. Since France has good diplomatic relations with the Vatican, it is proper to lower their flags to half-staff. Hear is the article and some excerpts. "Socialist senator Jean-Luc Melenchon and Yves Contassot, a senior Green party member on the Paris City Council, said the government had abused its powers on Monday by ordering the official tribute to the Pope, who died on Saturday.
I am no expert in French law, but as a head of state, I doubt that lowering the flags has any illegal implications.
The Unsa union said the government was guilty of double standards having ordered schools to take part in the tribute to a religious leader after banning Muslim headscarves in state schools in a drive to keep them firmly secular.
"Let the Christians pay tribute to the head of their church, it's a private matter," Contassot told France Inter radio.
"Today, we have a government and a head of state who, clearly, for political reasons, are trying to take advantage of an issue that is a private matter," he said.
Lowering of flags on all state buildings was "totally out of place and at the limit of legality."""Cardinal Bernard Panafieu, Archbishop of Marseille, said he had "difficulty understanding" some of the reactions to the state's decision to lower French flags.
Do not feel bad, Cardinal, I do not understand it either. The left in france is having a coniption over the EU and the staggring unemployment rate. This is not the way to show that anger. - Sailor
A spokesman for Prime Minister Jean-Pierre Raffarin said France also ordered its flags lowered in 1991 on the death of Norway's King Olaf V and in 1989 when Japanese Emperor Hirohito died.
"It's a republican tradition ... that applies to heads of state in office with which France has special relations or is friendly," the official said.
"The Pope is head of the Catholic Church and head of the Vatican City State" and flags would again be at half mast on Friday when the Pontiff is buried. French President Jacques Chirac and his wife Bernadette are to attend the funeral."
Monday, April 04, 2005
Six Iraqis Detained on Mexican Border
Here is some thing that should scare you. Six Iraqi's have been detained in Mexico for having forged passports. These people were trying to enter the US using conventional means, albeit with forged passports. One can only imagine how many are trying to infiltrate into the US by other means. Here is some more from the article. "The men were carrying Dutch passports under the names of Richard Richters, who Mexican officials say is Yacer Yoser Hana; Mikel Leewen, who turned out to be Basam Kiryakous; Jan Pieter Drijfhout, who is Basam Toma Jou and Robert Schurtman, whose real name is Sabham Kamel.
Seems they were able to get away with the forged passports in Europe.
"Once in custody they told authorities they intended to sneak into the United States," Sarabia said. "They said they started their journey in Greece, traveled to Spain and then to Mexico City."""Also Tuesday, soldiers detained two Iraqi men traveling on Greek passports at a roadside checkpoint near Mexicali.
Another European connection.
The two men were traveling aboard a bus bound for Mexicali. However, the photo on one of the men's passport's had been altered; he was also held pending charges, while the other man was held pending deportation."
We realy need to domore to secure our southern border. The Minuteman Project is a start. The feds need to get off their collective asses and start being more pro-active. - Sailor
Obituary for Mr. Sense
(Received from a retired Marine and Recycled because it's worth another read)Obituary for Mr. Sense
Many thanks to my BlogMom, Karma. Visit her at Indigo Insights. - Sailor
Today we mourn the passing of a beloved old friend, Mr. Common Sense.
Mr.Sense had been with us for many years. No one knows for sure how old he was since his birth records were long ago lost in bureaucratic red tape. He will be remembered as having cultivated such valuable lessons as knowing when to come in out of the rain, why the early bird gets the worm and that life isn't always fair. Common Sense lived by simple, sound financial policies (don't spend more than you earn) and reliable parenting strategies (adults, not kids, are in charge). His health began to rapidly deteriorate when well intentioned but overbearing regulations were set in place. - Reports of a six-year-old boy charged with sexual harassment for kissing a classmate; teens suspended from school for using mouthwash after lunch; and a teacher fired for reprimanding an unruly student, only worsened his condition. Mr. Sense declined even further when schools were required to get parental consent to administer aspirin to a student; but, could not inform the parents when a student became pregnant and wanted to have an abortion.
Finally, Common Sense lost the will to live as the Ten Commandments became contraband; churches became businesses; and criminals received better treatment than their victims. Common Sense finally gave up the ghost after a woman failed to realize that a steaming cup of coffee was hot, she spilled a bit in her lap, and was awarded a huge settlement.
Common Sense was preceded in death by his parents, Truth and Trust, his wife, Discretion; his daughter, Responsibility; and his son, Reason. He is survived by two stepbrothers; My Rights and Ima Whiner. Not many attended his funeral because so few realized he was gone. If you still remember him, pass this on; if not, join the majority and do nothing.
Veiled Threat
One would think Islamic women would be safer in "enlightened" Europe. Sadly, that is not the case. Of course you would not know this if the MSM were your only source of information. Olivier Guitta detials some of what is happening to Islamic women in Europe in an article at Tech Central Station. "Indeed, in some areas and regarding some issues, European Muslim women are no better off than their Arab Muslim counterparts. Here are just some examples of the abuse suffered by some European Muslim women:
I do not recall NOW or any of the other feminist groups crying out on this, or for that matter, that big mouthed feminist, Susan Estrich, either. Talk about a rekigious perversion, gang raping women for not respecting Islam. It does not get much more perverse than that.
- Forced to wear the hijab, i.e. headscarf
- Forced to marry someone according to the family's will
- Must undergo excision "procedure"
- Gang rapes for not "respecting" Islam
- Killed by a relative because for "dishonoring" the name of the family.
Most Muslim French women who wear the hijab are forced to do so by their family or because of pressure from the community. In many testimonies young women have stated that they were wearing it not to be "bothered" by the men in their community. There were multiple cases in the suburbs of Paris of gang rapes of women who were too "Westernized".""In a book entitled Wed By Force (Oh Editions, Paris, May 2004), Leila -- the author could not reveal her last name -- tells of her own nightmarish existence. She was raped by one of her brothers when she was quite young and did not tell anyone -- even her mother -- because she would have not been believed. She was regularly beaten up by her father because she was a little rebellious. She just wanted to behave like a girl her age but it was impossible because otherwise she would ruin the family's reputation. Like her other Muslim friends, she had to respect the law of silence. She also depicts how her family chose a husband for her. He was 15 years older than she and she does not know him.
Again, where are the NOW gang on this? Why are they not speaking out in defense of their Isalmic "sisters"? Well, could it be that this is happening in France, that vestige of socialism many of these feminist organizations embrace?
You may guess that Leila lives in Saudi Arabia but she lives in the suburbs of Paris in 2005. She is a French citizen born in France of Moroccan parents. Unfortunately, Leila is not alone. Statistics do not lie: each year, in France, 50,000 women are wed against their will.""But this is not the worst of it, because sometimes death is the punishment. Indeed the number of "honor crimes" - where women are attacked by relatives for "shaming" the family name -- has increased alarmingly in Europe in the past year. For instance, according to the German TV Station ARD, ten "honor crimes" have been committed in Germany since summer 2004. A horrible recent one has scandalized German opinion. A Turkish Muslim woman, a 23-year-old mother of one, was gunned down at a Berlin bus stop. The presumed culprits are three of her brothers who repeatedly threatened her. For them, she led an "un-Islamic" life because she had stopped wearing the hijab and was outgoing. On top of this horrific murder, the reactions among some Turks living in Germany are disgusting. For instance, a male student of Turkish origin at a high school located near the scene of the crime, said, "She deserved what she got -- the whore lived like a German.""
Honor crimes are spreading throughout Europe and, yes, there has been at least one identified here in the US.
All in all, this is a very sobering article of the plight of Islamic women in the West. - Sailor
Robert (KKK) Byrd says........
Here is a little something that may have gone unnoticed. Seems Robert Byrd has said that the Constitution does not require a vote on judicial nominees. At least according to a piece at OpinionJournal. "Shortly before Congress recessed for Easter vacation, here's what the Senator said on Fox's "Hannity & Colmes": "The President is all wrong when he maintains that a nominee should have an up-or-down vote. The Constitution doesn't say that. The Constitution doesn't say that that nominee shall have any vote at all. There doesn't have to even be a vote."
No vote necessary? So then it would seem that a simple majority of Senators could vote on a resolution to confirm all judicial nominees?
As the Senator says, Article II of the Constitution is silent on how the Senate shall exercise its "advice and consent" power in confirming judicial nominees. For more than 200 years, however, that body has interpreted the Founders' injunction to mean that a simple majority of Senators--51 in our age--must vote to confirm. That's why we cried foul in President Bush's first term when Democrats filibustered 10 appeals-court nominees, thereby denying them an up-or-down vote on the floor--even though every candidate had the support of a bipartisan majority. A vote to end a filibuster requires a super-majority of 60 Senators.
""But now that Senator Byrd has expressed the view that the Senate doesn't have to vote at all, here's a better idea for ending the impasse over judicial nominations: Fifty-one of the 55 Republican Senators can simply send the President a letter expressing their support for his candidates. Under Mr. Byrd's Constitutional analysis, the Senate will have exercised "advice and consent" and the judges will be confirmed. "
If only Frist and the Republicans had the gumption to try it! - Sailor
Sunday, April 03, 2005
America bashing continues
Once again, the usual suspects continue to bash America and Americans. It appears that the left needs to denigrate America to deflect the successes of America. Tibor R. Machan provides the latest example of America bashing. "When you read most prominent mainstream newspapers and magazines — The New York Times, The Washington Post, The New Republic, The New York Review of Books, for example — these too often and sadly aim their criticism exactly at those principles. It is when America is most American, one might say, that they pick on her.
You have to love it when these America bashers make claims that are just not true. Our closet allies, I suspect Traub is referring to the EU here, have not done this at all. You can find some figures here on who provides the most monetary aid to combat world hunger and it is not our closest allies. (You will have to scroll down a bit for the numbers.) You will see that it is not even close.
Take as an example James Traub’s Feb.13 column in The New York Times Magazine, "Freedom From Want." It is a nasty little piece that calls into question America’s generosity toward those around the globe who are in dire straits. As the tag line quotes Traub — which pretty much summarizes the piece — "Our closest allies have put world poverty at the top of their agenda. Why can't Americans do the same?"
Well, for starters, our closest allies haven’t put world poverty at the top of their agenda — it is their governments that have made the decision to send some of the money they take from their citizens in taxes to help some of the poor around the globe. This is a totally neglected distinction by Traub and others: confusing what governments do in the way of forcibly transferring wealth from their citizens to whoever government officials think should get the wealth, and what the citizens of a country support out of their own pockets voluntarily, without being threatened with jail time if they refuse.""And here Americans as a whole come off as the most generous people on the face of the earth. I am not talking about the considerable foreign aid the government of the U.S. is sending abroad, secured through the extortionist means of taxation (yes, Virginia, taxation is extortion — you pay or you go to jail). I am talking about the fact, noted poignantly in a letter to The New York Times Magazine by Carol Adelman, Senior Fellow at the Hudson Institute, that while the U.S. government sends $16 billion — still the highest absolute amount — as aid, "This number, however, excludes American private giving of more than $43 billion, more than double the government aid in 2003.""
And yet Traub makes his disingenuous claims. "Yes, while I am a fierce critic of U.S. government policies, I confine my criticism mainly to when that government undermines the principles of individual rights on which it was founded — the unalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, among others. But in continuing to sustain a legal and cultural atmosphere of voluntarism, many Americans are still doing what distinguishes them from the rest of the world, acting freely to do the right thing.
Well said. - Sailor
Whenever you encounter critics of the American system, please look out: If it is being put down for upholding the principles of individual rights, the critics are actually being anti-American in the important sense of that term, namely turning against America’s central ideal. When the critic employs the standard of liberty, then he or she is urging America to be more like what it should be in the first place."
U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan can't escape blame so easily
The usual suspsect have been trying to float the idea that Kofi Annan was exonerated by the Volker investigation's interim report. Not so fast. If anything, the report shows Annan to be quite incompetent and creates new questions on his and his son, Kojo's involvement in the Oil-for-Food scandal.
In his article, 'In the wrong', Jack Kelly expands on this.
""We did not exonerate Kofi Annan," Swiss organized crime expert Mark Pieth, one of Volcker's three investigators, told The Associated Press."Of course they did not. It was after all, an interim report.
"In an editorial headlined: "Report Spells the End of Kofi Annan," the Montreal Gazette noted that Annan's then executive assistant destroyed three years worth of files on Oil for Food the day after the Security Council passed a resolution authorizing Volcker's inquiry.With the UN's failures in Rwanda and Sudan, along with the sex scandals, this is an organiztion that is crumbling from within.
"Just connect the dots," the newspaper said. "What a damning picture it is. Its reputation already in tatters, the U.N. stands today weaker than it ever was. Only major governance reforms can save the world body now, and the first order of reform business needs to be finding a credible replacement for Annan.""
"Oil-for-food is surely one of the largest financial scandals in the history of the world, but it is hardly the United Nations' only problem. There are the sex scandals involving U.N. peacekeepers in the Congo and elsewhere, and the United Nations' inability or unwillingness to put a halt to genocide in Darfur. The United Nations came late and brought little to the aid of victims of last December's tsunami.There were also many complaaints form those in the US military on how these UN "officials" whined and bellyached about the hardships they were enduring. There were also complaints on how these same officials messed up relief operations because of their travel needs. Never forget it was some of these same people who criticized the US economic response.
"Up until four or five days ago ... the U.N. was nowhere to be seen -- except quite overwhelmingly in Jakarta's luxury hotels, a few UNocrats in Medan, and a tiny handful at the airport in Aceh writing up press releases claiming all the credit for the U.N. and bad-mouthing the hard working Aussies and Americans," wrote the Diplomad, a blogging foreign service officer involved in the relief effort in Indonesia, on Jan. 27, a month after the tsunami struck."
"Annan's term expires at the end of next year. Bill Clinton would love to replace him. But no citizen of a permanent member of the Security Council should get the job. It should go to a genuine democrat of unquestioned integrity and demonstrable guts, such as former Czech President Vaclav Havel, current Czech President Vaclav Klaus, Polish President Aleksander Kwasniewski, former Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar or Australian Foreign Minister Alexander Downer."Any of these men that Kelly has suggested would be an excellent choice to attempt to bring the UN from the cesspool it has become, to the organization it was hoped to be when it was founded. - Sailor
Governor vetoes bill requiring all voters to show identification
Want to get on an airliner to fly some place? How about cashing a check on your own account at your bank? Going to use your credit card to make a purchase at a store? If you answered yes to any of these questions, you had best have your photo ID handy, or you will not likely get on that plane, cash that check or make that purchase. So why not be required to have your photo ID when you vote?
Arizona Governor, Gov. Janet Napolitano, thinks it is unfair or too much of a hardship to require voters to produce a photo ID when they arrive at the polls. So she vetoed a bill that would make that a requirement.
This is from Howard Fischer's article is Napolitano's reasoning: "Napolitano, however, said Proposition 200 says only that identification is needed to get a "ballot." She said this new measure would have denied people the opportunity to vote even a "provisional ballot." .....
If they left their ID home, they can simply go home and get it. Most states, such as Nevada, will give you a photo ID if you do not have a driver's licence. This is a load of bull, quite frankly. With all the accusations of voter fraud, such as dead people voting, people voting more than once and illegal aliens voting, this is one way to reduce that. Remember, Napolitano blongs to the party that wanted to reject military absentee ballots in Florida back in 2000 over the lack of a postmark on military mail. I suppose that those that defend our freedoms are okay to disenfranchise. - Sailor
Maybe they're nuts but Minutemen have been effective
First of all, the Minutemen are not nuts, they are not vigilantes and they are not gun nuts. What they are is American citizens trying to help stem the tide of illigal immigration, by observing and reporting violatins to the appropriate law enforcement agencies. They are the same as any neighborhood or block watch. They lengths to which the lefists, ACLU, the MSM and Vincente Fox are going to, to smear this group should tell one that these groups fear how effective the Minutemen will be.
Laurie Roberts of the Arizona Republic calls them effective. "I'd call them fairly effective. Before they even set foot among the scrub oak and chaparral of southeastern Arizona, they have done what politicians and policymakers in this part of the country have been unable to do.
Well it about damned time some one in the federal government got off their dead ass and is going to try and take some action. It is a real damned shame it had to take this type of determination by a group of American citizens to get to this point. My biggest disappointment with the Bush Adminstration has been illegal immigration.
They have, as advertisers like to say, reached their target audience.
On Wednesday, just two days before the Minutemen assembled on the Arizona-Mexico border, the head of U.S. Customs and Border Protection hightailed it to Tucson to announce a "comprehensive strategy" to secure the border. Suddenly, Arizona is getting 534 new Border Patrol agents. Suddenly, Arizona is getting 23 aircraft to patrol the border, to bolster the 15 here. So urgent is the need, that 155 officers are en route. "The point is, we're determined to take control of our border," Robert Bonner, the border commissioner, said.
""Bonner said Wednesday's announcement had nothing to do with the prospect of hundreds of people headed to the banks of the San Pedro River to "help" the government do what it has been unable to do.
Trying to pin this just on the Bush Administration is wrong. The Clinton Adminstration did nothing on this issue as well. That does not absolve the Bush Administration, it simply points out that there has been a lot of talk about illegal immigration, but no action. Until now. Cracking down on those that employ illegals, (note to the leftists: they are illegal aliens, not undocumented workers), is only a part of stemming this tide. The border must be secured, especially in this age of terrorism.
Of course it didn't. This administration and this Congress have been determined to take control of the border for years now.
Which explains why 11 million people are in this country illegally. Which explains why one in three newcomers to Arizona over the past five years is a person who had to sneak into the state. Which explains all those crackdowns on employers who provide the jobs that lured them here.""Surely a country that can send people to live in space, that can cure disease, that can accomplish any number of amazing feats, can figure out a way to fix, finally, that standing joke we call our immigration policy. Surely the people we entrust with running this country can pass some realistic laws that actually work, then enforce them, at the border and in the workplace.
I have a few words for Vincente Fox as well. Get rid of the corruption, get your economy working and keep your people in YOUR country. One other thing Mr. Fox, keep your 10th rate army on YOUR side of the border. You are not Poncho Villa and quite frankly, you may want to remember what happened to him. Any incident involving your army will only incite the American people to demand a swift and devistating retaliation, you can ask saddam and the Taliban about that. - Sailor
As for Mexico, surely a country that puts out guides telling people how to safely cross the border can put out a guide warning them not to dare try it."
Saturday, April 02, 2005
Pope JohnPaul II RIP
Pope JohnPaul II has died. His positions on communism were key to seeing it fall in Europe, especially in his beloved homeland of Poland. His influence was so great in the Eastern bloc that the Soviets plotted to have him killed in 1981. he led the Catholic Church through some very difficult times, including having to deal with pedaphilia in the American Church. He will be sorely missed. "Pope John Paul II Dies at 84
Apr 2, 9:33 PM (ET)
By VICTOR L. SIMPSON
VATICAN CITY (AP) - Pope John Paul II, who helped topple communism in Europe and left a deeply conservative stamp on the church that he led for 26 years, died Saturday night in his Vatican apartment, ending a long public struggle against debilitating illness. He was 84.
"We all feel like orphans this evening," Undersecretary of State Archbishop Leonardo Sandri told the crowd of 70,000 that gathered in St. Peter's Square below the pope's still-lighted apartment windows.
In the massive piazza that stretches from St. Peter's Basilica, the assembled flock fell into a stunned silence before some people broke into applause - an Italian tradition in which mourners often clap for important figures. Others wept. Still others recited the rosary. A seminarian slowly waved a large red and white Polish flag draped with black bunting for the Polish-born pontiff, the most-traveled pope in history.
At one point, prelates asked those in the square to stay silent so they might "accompany the pope in his first steps into heaven."
But as the Vatican bells tolled in mourning, a group of young people sang, "Alleluia, he will rise again." One strummed a guitar, and other pilgrims joined in singing the "Ave Maria."
"The angels welcome you," Vatican TV said after papal spokesman Joaquin Navarro-Valls announced the death of the pope, who had for years suffered from Parkinson's disease and came down with fever and infections in recent weeks.
In contrast to the church's ancient traditions, Navarro-Valls announced the death to journalists in the most modern of communication forms, an e-mail that said: "The Holy Father died this evening at 9:37 p.m. in his private apartment." The spokesman said church officials now would be following instructions that John Paul had written for them on Feb. 22, 1996. A precise cause of death was not given.
In the last two days of the pope's life, after it had become clear he would not recover, the tide of humanity near the vatican had ebbed and flowed, swelling again Saturday night.
"He was a marvelous man. Now he's no longer suffering," Concetta Sposato, a pilgrim who heard the pope had died as she was on her way to St. Peter's to pray, said tearfully.
"My father died last year. For me, it feels the same," said Elisabetta Pomacalca, a 25-year-old Peruvian who lives in Rome.
"I'm Polish. For us, he was a father," said pilgrim Beata Sowa.
A Mass was scheduled for St. Peter's Square for 10:30 a.m. (4:30 a.m. EDT) Sunday. The pope's body was expected to be taken to the basilica no earlier than Monday afternoon, the Vatican said.
It said the College of Cardinals - the red-robed "princes" of the Roman Catholic Church - would meet at 10 a.m. (4 a.m. EDT) Monday in a pre-conclave session. They were expected to set a funeral date, which the Vatican said probably would be between Wednesday and Friday.
Karol Joseph Wojtyla was a robust 58 when the last papal conclave stunned the world and elected the cardinal from Krakow, the first non-Italian pope in 455 years.
In his later years, John Paul was the picture of frailty. In addition to Parkinson's, he survived a 1981 assassination attempt, when a Turkish gunman shot him in the abdomen, and had hip and knee ailments. His anguished struggle with failing health became a symbol of aging and, in the end, death with dignity.
People in John Paul II's hometown in Wadowice, Poland, fell to their knees and wept as the news reached them at the end of a special Mass in the church where he worshipped as a boy.
Church bells rang out after the announcement, but it took several minutes for people inside the packed church to find out as they continued their vigil into a second night.
Then the parish priest, the Rev. Jakub Gil, came to the front as the last hymn faded away. "His life has come to an end. Our great countryman has died," he said. People inside the church and standing outside fell to their knees.
John Paul's passing set in motion centuries of tradition that mark the death of the leader of the world's 1.2 billion Roman Catholics, whom he led into the faith's third millennium.
The Vatican chamberlain formally verified the death and destroyed the symbols of the pope's authority: his fisherman's ring and dies used to make lead seals for apostolic letters.
The Vatican did not say if the chamberlain followed the other ancient practice of verifying death by calling the pope's name three times and tapping his forehead three times with a silver hammer.
The Vatican has declined to say whether John Paul left instructions for his funeral or burial. Most popes in recent centuries have asked to be buried in the crypts below St. Peter's Basilica, but some have suggested the first Polish-born pope might have chosen to be laid to rest in his native country.
As John Paul's death neared, members of the College of Cardinals were already headed toward the Vatican to prepare for the secret duty of locking themselves in the Sistine Chapel to elect the next pope. Tradition calls for the process to begin within 20 days of death.
Among possible successors are German Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger - one of the pope's closest aides and the Vatican's doctrinal watchdog. Others mentioned include Brazilian Cardinal Claudio Hummes, Cardinal Oscar Andres Rodriguez Maradiaga of Honduras, Cardinal Francis Arinze, a Vatican-based Nigerian, Cardinal Christoph Schoenborn of Austria and Cardinal Dionigi Tettamanzi of Italy.
In Washington, President Bush mourned the loss of "a good and faithful servant of God (who) has been called home" and said the pontiff "launched a democratic revolution that swept Eastern Europe and changed the course of history."
A fierce enemy of communism, John Paul set off the sparks that helped bring down communism in Poland, from where a virtual revolution spread across the Soviet bloc. No less an authority than former Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev said much of the credit went to John Paul.
But his Polish roots also nourished a doctrinal conservatism. He reaffirmed the church's ban on artificial birth control and denounced in vitro fertilization, abortion, euthanasia, divorce, sex outside marriage, homosexual relations and same-sex unions.
He demanded celibacy of Roman Catholic priests and said yet again that the priesthood was not open to women. He did give in to the demands of liberal Catholics to allow altar girls.
A man who had lived under both the Nazis and the Soviets, he loathed totalitarianism, which he called "substitute religion." As pope, he helped foster Poland's Solidarity movement and bring down Communism. Once it was vanquished, he decried capitalist callousness.
During World War II, he appeared on a Nazi blacklist in 1944 for his activities in a Christian democratic underground in Poland. B'nai B'rith and other organizations testified that he helped Jews find refuge from the Nazis.
While the pope championed better relations with Jews - Christianity's "older brothers," as he put it - the Vatican formally recognized Israel in 1993. He also met with Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat and urged the Holy Land's warring neighbors to reconcile.
John Paul was intent on improving relations with Muslims. On a trip to Damascus, Syria, in May 2001, he became the first pope to step into a mosque.
The 264th pope also battled what he called a "culture of death" in modern society. It made him a hero to those who saw him as their rock in a degenerating world, and a foe to those who felt he was holding back social enlightenment.
"The church cannot be an association of freethinkers," John Paul said.
However, a sex abuse scandal among clergy plunged his church into moral crisis. He summoned U.S. cardinals to the Vatican and told them: "The abuse which has caused this crisis is by every standard wrong and rightly considered a crime by society; it is also an appalling sin in the eyes of God." Critics accused the pope of not acting swiftly enough.
Other critics said that while the pope championed the world's poor, he was not consistent when he rebuked Latin American priests who sought to involve the church politically through the doctrine of "liberation theology."
John Paul's health declined rapidly after he suffered heart and kidney failure after he was hospitalized twice in as many months. Just two hours before announcing his death, the Vatican had said he was in "very serious" condition, although he was responding to aides.
After his passing, Vatican, Italian and European Union flags were lowered to half-staff. In Washington, flags over the White House also were lowered.
The pope's final public appearance was Wednesday when, looking gaunt and unable to speak, he briefly appeared at his window.
His health sharply deteriorated the next day after he suffered a urinary tract infection.
In his last medical statement Saturday, Navarro-Valls said John Paul was not in a coma and opened his eyes when spoken to. But he added: "Since dawn this morning, there have been first signs that consciousness is being affected."
"Sometimes it seems as if he were resting with his eyes closed, but when you speak to him he opens his eyes," Navarro-Valls said.
Navarro-Valls said the pope was still speaking late Friday but did not take part when Mass was celebrated in his presence Saturday morning.
He said aides had told the pope that thousands of young people were in St. Peter's Square on Friday evening. Navarro-Valls said the pope appeared to be referring to them when he seemed to say: "'I have looked for you. Now you have come to me. And I thank you.'"
---
Associated Press reporters Nicole Winfield, Frances D'Emilio, William J. Kole and Brian Murphy in Rome contributed to this report."
My deepest sympathies to all of my Catholic friends and especially to the people of Poland. - Sailor
What you can learn from a Navy SEAL
We could all stand to learn something from the Navy SEALS
Two things Navy SEALS are always taught:
1. Keep your priorities in order
2. Know when to act without hesitation
A college professor, an avowed atheist and active in the ACLU,
was teaching his class. He shocked several of his students when
he flatly stated that for once and for all he was going to prove
there was no God.
Addressing the ceiling he shouted: "GOD, if you are real, then
I want you to knock me off this platform. I'll give you exactly
15 minutes!!!!!"
The lecture room fell silent. You could hear a pin drop. Ten
minutes went by.
"I'm waiting God, if you're real, knock me off this platform!!!!"
Again after a few more minutes, the professor taunted God saying,
"Here I am, God!!! I'm still waiting!!!"
His count down got down to the last couple of minutes when a
NAVY SEAL, just released from the Navy after serving in
Afghanistan and Iraq and newly registered in the class, walked up
to the Professor.
The SEAL hit him full force in the face and sent the Professor
tumbling from his lofty platform.
The Professor was out cold!! The students were stunned and shocked.
They began to babble in confusion. The SEAL nonchalantly took his
seat in the front row and sat silent. The class looked at him and fell
silent.....waiting.
Eventually, the professor came to and was noticeably shaken. He looked
at the SEAL in the front row. When the professor regained his senses
and could speak he asked: "What the hell is the matter with you? Why
did you do that!?"
"God was really busy protecting America's soldiers, who are protecting
your right to say stupid shit and act like an asshole!!! So he sent me!!"
ONE NATION UNDER GOD!!!
GREG
Many thanks to my BlogMom Karma for this one. - Sailor
Friday, April 01, 2005
Apollo bacteria spur lunar erosion
The blame America first crowd is at it again Now they are claiming that American astronauts have contaminated the Moon with bacteria, causing the Moon to erode significantly. "Apollo bacteria spur lunar erosion
You can read the entire article here. - Sailor
Michael Hopkin & Mark Peplow
Images reveal worrying cracks in the face of the Moon.
Pictures captured by an orbiting spacecraft have revealed that the Moon is being heavily eroded. Images of the lunar surface reveal deep cracks and holes that are slowly but surely releasing gas and dust into space.
"This is serious," says Brad Kawalkowizc, an astrogeologist from the Sprodj Atomic Research Centre in Belgium, who has analysed the pictures. "There really is less Moon up there than there used to be." If the process continues, he adds, the Moon could eventually crumble away to nothing.
Researchers are not yet certain what is causing the erosion. Kawalkowizc suggests that bacteria left behind by the Apollo Moon landings of the 1960s and 1970s may be responsible. These earthly bacteria, exposed to intense ultraviolet radiation on the lunar surface, could have acquired mutations that allow them to digest Moon rocks, he suggests.
"If those guys didn't wipe their feet when they stepped off the craft then, yes, there could be bugs up there eating the rock," he says. "And after three decades there must be tonnes of them."
I'm amazed that we didn't notice this before.
Earnest Sober
EcoLunar
Crater fuss
Tycho crater, the youngest large-impact crater on the Moon's nearside, is particularly badly affected. The erosion has already revealed a large slab of jet-black rock deep in the crater, which has unusual magnetic properties. "We hope to send a manned expedition to investigate," says Haywood Floyd, a senior official with the Canadian National Council of Aeronautics, Newfoundland.
Recriminations are already brewing over why astronomers didn't spot the problem earlier. Amateurs on the ground have reported, on an almost monthly basis, that the light reflected from the Moon shows a dimming pattern: perhaps a sign that its weathered surface was becoming less reflective.
"I'm amazed that we didn't notice this before," says Earnest Sober of EcoLunar, a California-based charity that campaigns for sustainable management of the Moon. "We've only got one Moon and it's about time we started paying it a bit more attention."
One thing on which experts agree is that the Moon's disintegration would be a disaster, as tides on Earth would effectively stop. "This really would be bad for us," comments Pete Swell of the World Surfers' Association. "Life would sure be a lot less fun. And I guess, like, fish and ecosystems might totally be affected too."
Time and tide
But others are seeing a positive side. "Without tides, there would be no need to upgrade London's flood defences for the next two centuries," says coastal geologist Barry Surge of the University of Middle England in Barnstaple, UK. "As it is, if you live on the River Thames flood plain, the Moon is your enemy."
John Koenig, director of Moonbase Alpha, a US project to establish a habitable colony on the Moon, insists that there is absolutely nothing to worry about. "There's absolutely nothing to worry about," he told news@nature.com. "Do you really think we would invest in building a base on prime interplanetary real estate that is evaporating?"
The images of the Moon were captured on 1 April by the Floating Optical Orbital Lens, as part of a multinational effort to photograph the Apollo landing sites. The mission aims to prove, once and for all and at fantastic expense, that the NASA astronauts really did go there."
The Big Business of Climate Change Research
Just how big of a business is climate change research? That is a rather interesting question. In order to keep the money flowing it would seem that there has to be doom and gloom predictions which will "require" more study, hence more money. Then of course, there is the influence of organizations such as the Pew Charitable Trusts. I have posted about their involvement in fraduently presenting campaign finance reform. Roy Spencer looks into this matter. "But a new report released today by the Marshall Institute, a Washington-based science policy group, looks at the major donors to environmental groups for climate-related activities. It finds that the vast majority of those donors represent and promote left-leaning causes.
Since any beneficial impact from global climate change would not be part of the world view of those organizations funding this research, you can bet that money for researchers finding beneficial effects would dry up in a hurry.
Historically, those causes often involve lobbying Congress to promote a specific agenda. A startling example of this is the recent report of a former officer of the Pew Charitable Trusts admitting that Pew heavily funded a number of private interests to make it look like there was a grassroots movement in favor of campaign finance reform, which was later passed by Congress.
A wide variety of charitable foundations fund organizations whose very existence depends upon environmental crises. Does anyone really believe that organizations such as Environmental Defense, Natural Resources Defense Council, and World Resources Institute would breathe a collective sigh of relief if the balance of evidence were to show that global warming was going to be relatively small, benign, and even beneficial?
I know at least two climate scientists that have received MacArthur Fellowship "genius grants", large no-strings-attached monetary awards, for their work on raising awareness of the threat posed by climate change. I wonder if there will ever be a MacArthur Fellowship for any researcher that finds evidence for a much reduced threat to humanity from human-induced climate change? "The article concludes with:"While the distribution of these funds to universities and private companies might be expected to be policy-neutral, the real situation isn't quite so simple. Government agencies that disperse research funds have an infrastructure that depends upon congressional support for their existence. Their level of continued support depends upon the level of the threat perceived by the public, which then justifies the expenditure of tax dollars.
The question now becomes, which bias wins out and how accurately does that bias reflect the factual data. - Sailor
I'm not questioning the potential threat that climate change presents -- it is indeed an issue worthy of the investment. I am questioning, however, the perception that environmental organizations, and federal funding, are policy- and politically-neutral.
Someone once said, it's not a matter of who is biased (because everyone is) the real question is, which bias is the best bias to be biased with? I'm thankful that we have the freedom which allows the open exchange of ideas, and the competition between alternative philosophies and worldviews. The more money we spend on specific environmental threats, the less there is to devote to other issues. Therefore funding decisions must be based upon well informed citizens and policymakers. But let's not be naïve about unbiased motives. They simply do not exist."
Vatican: Pope Worsens Again
Fox News is reporting that the Vatican is saying that Pope John-Paul II's condition has worsened. Earlier reports in the Italian media of the Pope's death have been denied by the Vatican. "Italian media backed away from reports that the pope had died.
From all of the reports and the statement from the Vatican, it is would appear that it is only a matter of hours before the Pope passes on. - Sailor
Some Italian wire and television sources reported just before 9 p.m. Rome time that the pontiff's heart and brain activity had stopped and a monitor on a machine had displayed a flatline, but they reversed that proclamation after Vatican sources said it wasn't true and there was no such machine in the pope's apartment.
Earlier Friday evening, the pope lost consciousness, his breathing was shallow and his kidneys were also apparently failing. He slipped in and out of a coma overnight, according to Italian media reports."
Discovering the Obvious
So much for education being the free and open exchange of ideas and points of view. Imagine if a conservative professor said this to leftist students. I can hear the cries from the left to have that professor fired or censured. That is the hypocricy of the left. It is also the impact of not having a balance in academia. Perhaps now that the one of the liberal MSM has recognized that there is a leftist bias, this is the first step in creating a better balance. Some how, though, I think it will take considerably more then this to accomplish that end. - Sailor
Well, well, well. The Washington Post and New York Times have finally figured out what most of us have known for some time now, college and university falcuties are heavy with leftists. To think for years these bastions of liberalism have laughed off conservative claims about this. Michael Reagan comments on these "revelations". "The secret is now out. It’s official. If the Post has written about it, liberalism’s Washington mouthpiece has put its stamp of approval on the notion that liberals run America’s higher education establishment and the rest of the media is therefore now free to write about it. It’s only taken them about 30 or 40 years to cotton up to the idea, but what the heck, better late than never.
Once again, the leftists have been caught with their collective pants down. For years they denied that there was any liberal/leftist bias on the nation's campuses. Now one of their leading mouthpieces has had to admit there was and still is that bias.
Of course for years those of us in talk radio, David Horowitz, the Young America’s Foundation and others in the conservative movement have been telling anyone who’d listen that liberal professors vastly outnumber conservatives and how they bring their Marxist politics to the classroom and indoctrinate our children.
For our pains we have been laughed at and told we didn’t know what we were talking about. Now comes the Post to admit that we did. ""According to the Post, the study authored by Robert Lichter, a professor at George Mason University and fellow political science professors Stanley Rothman of Smith College and Neil Nevitte of the University of Toronto, concluded that 72 percent of those teaching at American universities and colleges are liberal while a miniscule 15 percent are conservative. Moreover, 50 percent of the faculty members surveyed identified themselves as Democrats but only 11 percent admitted to being Republicans.
Possible discrimination? I would suggest that the numbers sited by Dr. Rothman indicate a pattern of discrimination againts conservative professor. Of course you would have to expect that sort of rhetoric from the left, I suppose.
Noted the Post, it’s even worse at the most elite schools, where a whopping 87 percent of faculty are liberal while only 13 percent are conservative. The study was based on a survey of 1,643 full-time faculty at 183 four-year schools.
Dr. Rothman said the study findings are evidence of "possible discrimination" against conservatives in hiring and promotion. Even after factoring in levels of achievement, as measured by published work and organization memberships, "the most likely conclusion" is that "being conservative counts against you," he said. "It doesn't surprise me, because I've observed it happening." ""My daughter Ashley attends a Lutheran university where you would not expect to find a clone of Professor Ward Churchill. If so, you’d be wrong. A year ago, she walked into a class she had to take, and on the first day the teacher said to the students, "Listen, I’m a liberal Democrat. If you are a conservative, you will have no standing in my class so I would suggest that you drop it."
Syria and the New Axis of Evil
Despite all his rhetoric to the contrary, Assad, Jr. is up to his eyeballs in mischief in both Lebanon and Iraq. Despite all his promises to withdraw Syrian troops from Lebanon, Assad Jr., will likely be leaving behind his security and intel operatives along with continuing to support Hezbollah, Hamas and Islanic Jihad. Then there is that pact with Iran, which has been a very active supporter of the terrorist groups hunkered down in the Bekkah Valley. Iran provides aid to those groups through Syria with Syria's support. Where it gets interesting is the long times Syrian support for Iran, including backing Iran against Iraq during the 1980's. Remember that Syrians are Arabs and the Iranians Persians. Historically not the best of friends. Charles Krauthammer looks into this alliance in his article. "Say what you will about Bashar Assad, dictator of Syria and perhaps the dimmest eye doctor ever produced by British medical schools, but subtle he is not. Since the huge street demonstrations against his occupation of Lebanon, three terrorist bombings have occurred there, all in heavily Christian, anti-Syrian neighborhoods. Only slightly less subtle was the nearly half-million-man Beirut rally demanding Syria's continued occupation, staged by Syria's Lebanese client, Hezbollah, followed by the "spontaneous" demonstration Assad orchestrated for himself in Damascus.
What co-incedence that these bombing occurred in oppostion areas of Lebanon. I suppose no one ever accused Assad Jr. of being the brightest light in the sign. I would suspect that any serious investigation into the Hariri assaination will end up pointing to Damascus.
Then there is this week's public admission by a captured Hamas terrorist in Israel that he was trained in Syria. This is the first direct account of such active involvement by Syria, although everyone knows that the Palestinian terrorist groups Hamas and Islamic Jihad are headquartered in, and assisted by, Syria. Everyone also knows that Syria is abetting the terrorist insurgency in Iraq. ""Iran is the senior partner of this axis of evil. Syria is the crucial middle party allowing a non-Arab state to reach into the heart of the Middle East. For example, Hezbollah receives its weapons from Iran, shipped through Syria. And Iranian Revolutionary Guards are stationed today in the Bekaa Valley, under Syrian protection.
The last thing the mullahs in Iran need is another democracy blooming in the region and for the Isrealis and Palestinians to come to peaceful terms. There is already the rumblings of dissent in Iran, with younger Iranians very much looking to democracy. This does not bode well for the mullahs and it is crucial for them to kill off this budding democracy movement. As it is, Iran is becoming surrounded by democracies blooming in Afghanastan and Iraq.
The alliance goes back a long way. Syria under the Assad dynasty was the only major Arab country to support Persian Iran against Arab Iraq in the Iran-Iraq War. They form a true axis because, unlike the 2002 State of the Union axis, all of the parts are connected and working with each other. The last axis of evil -- Iran, North Korea and Saddam Hussein's Iraq -- was evil but no axis. They were more like points of evil, with North Korea included, as I wrote at the time, as a concession to ethnic diversity.
Today the immediate objective of this Iran-Syria-Hezbollah-Hamas-Islamic Jihad axis is to destabilize Syria's neighbors (Iraq, Lebanon, Israel and the Palestinian Authority) and sabotage any Arab-Israeli peace. Its strategic aim is to quash the Arab Spring, which, if not stopped, will isolate, surround and seriously imperil these remaining centers of terrorism and radicalism. "
So then what to do about Syria? Ralph Peters in his article has some suggestions. And Krauthammer as some as well, much along the same line as Peter's "Syria is the prize. It is vulnerable and critical, the geographic center of the axis, the transshipment point for weapons, and the territorial haven for Iranian and regional terrorists.
The harder we push the better. Now the leftists and terrorist appeasers and the othe assorted whiners will gnash their teeth over the humiliation suggestion. It is obvious that they have no understand of the culture being dealt with here. That is, however, a topic for another day. It is time to apply as much pressure as possible on Assad Jr., including the use of military force should that become necessary. - Sailor
If Syria can be flipped, the axis is broken. Iran will not be able to communicate directly with the local terrorists. They will be further weakened by the loss of their Syrian sponsor and protector. Prospects for true Lebanese independence and Arab-Israeli peace will improve dramatically.
As Iraq, in fits and starts, begins finding its way to self-rule, the center of gravity of the Bush Doctrine and the American democratization project shifts to Lebanon/Syria. The rapid evacuation and collapse of the Syrian position in Lebanon is crucial not just because of what it will do for Lebanon but because of the weakening effect it will have on the Assad dictatorship.
We need, therefore, to be relentless in insisting on a full (and as humiliating as possible) evacuation of Syria from Lebanon, followed by a campaign of economic, political and military pressure on the Assad regime. We must push now and push hard."
An honest look at the facts surrounding ANWR drilling
The usual suspects are all in a dither over the Senate's passage of drilling for oil in ANWR. Most of these hand wringers have never been to the North Slope, let alone ANWR, to see the environmeantal controls in place. Nor have they managed to do any research into how well the local flora and fauna have co-existed with the drilling and the pipeline. Alsaka Govenor Frank H. Murkowski looks at the facts of drilling in ANWR. "The benefits to Washington state's economy will continue to grow if Congress approves oil development in a small section of Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
Not that these econuts would take note of the lower standards of foreign oil production. Nor do they seem to care that America is far too dependent on oil from non-American sources. "Alaska's environmental standards are the highest in the world, and yet Washington Sens. Maria Cantwell and Patty Murray — opponents of ANWR drilling — have repeatedly declined my invitations to visit ANWR and see firsthand this area of national importance.
Washington's five oil refineries process billions of dollars of Alaska crude, supplying consumers throughout the Northwest with energy. Washington alone consumes 18 million gallons of petroleum daily. Apparently, not everyone is traveling to their destinations on bicycles. If Alaska's crude oil were not available, Washington state would be getting its oil supply from Middle Eastern nations in foreign ships with foreign crews, built in foreign shipyards.
More than half of this country's oil comes from foreign sources, particularly OPEC. America needs American oil — to reduce our dependence on the foreign oil that threatens our national security. We must develop energy sources in America, for the American consumer, while safeguarding American security."
Your senators would have witnessed that Alaska mandates the highest environmental standards in the world. Technological advances in environmentally friendly drilling, developed in Alaska, have been transferred to other locations around the globe, lifting the bar for the entire industry." As I posted upfront, the great majority of those opposed to drilling in ANWR have never seen any of the North Slopeoperations or the strict environmenatl standards Alaska imposses. They blindly say no and tow the leftist line. "Protecting the environment is a global issue, not just an Alaskan issue. Stopping the exploration of ANWR only shifts oil production to other parts of the world where environmental standards are lower.
Once again, as I posted up front, the environment has not been damaged. In the case of the caribou, they appear to have thrived.
Advances in directional drilling make the footprint in ANWR extremely small. Use of only 2,000 acres for ANWR development is authorized in the House energy bill, yet ANWR is 19 million acres, about the size of Colorado.
Federal biologists began surveying the Central Arctic caribou herd in 1978, after the Alaska pipeline began operation. Since then, the herd has grown from 5,000 to over 32,000 animals. Alaska has proven it can be responsible; wildlife in ANWR will continue to coexist with cautious oil and gas exploration.""Critics falsely claim ANWR will only produce six months of oil. This incorrectly assumes ANWR would be the only oil field in operation in the world. In fact, ANWR oil will make significant contributions to the nation's energy supply for decades, replacing what we import from Saudi Arabia for the next 20 years. To bring this statistic home, ANWR alone would supply the state of Washington with all of its oil needs for 15 years.
As always they econut crowd tries to make figures lie to their advantage. The figures sited by the Governor is for current technology. There is no reason to expect that technology will remain stagnant, so there may be more recoverable oil in the future.
Some estimates use the most pessimistic production figures by counting only 3.5 billion barrels of oil. The U.S. Geological Survey estimates between 12 billion and 32 billion barrels exist in the ANWR "1002 area," of which between 6 billion and 16 billion barrels are recoverable using current technology."
The Governor goes on to say that he supports finding alternative energy solutions, as do I. But we need to have enough energy to get us through the time frame it will take to develop these alternative energy sources. We must drill in ANWR. - Sailor
Lebanon's Peril
Syria has promised to withdraw from Lebanon. Well, at least it's poorly trained draftees. But what about it's intelligence people? Ralph Peter's has a few points and suggestions on Lebanon's Peril. "The question now is: How much damage does Syria intend to do on the way out?
Assad Jr. has agreed to quickly, in my opinion, to withdraw from Lebanon. He must have something up his sleeve.
While a commitment from Damascus to the U.N. has a whiff of a pimp's promise to a hooker, international pressure will force the Syrians to honor their word. The problem lies in what the agreement omits. Getting the 12,000 or so remaining Syrian troops out of Lebanon certainly matters. But ridding the country of Bashar Assad's 5,000-plus intelligence operatives is what really counts. And Damascus has been coy about their removal.
Syria's troops are bums with guns — largely undertrained draftees with unreliable equipment. They can't act without being seen by all. They'd be hard to use effectively.
The intel and security boys are another matter. Some function overtly, an acknowledged presence. But many work in the shadows. And there's no place on earth where the shadows grow longer and darker than in the Middle East.
If the intelligence personnel — overt, covert and clandestine — aren't removed, the Syrian menace remains as grave as ever. Their agents don't merely spy and report. They bribe, bully, blackmail — and kill.""Syrian intel operatives were behind the assassination of Lebanon's former prime minister, Rafik Hariri. Even if they worked through Hezbollah or contract killers, Syrian agents doubtless sponsored the recent terror bombings in Christian enclaves, as well.
There is no doubt in my mind that Assad Jr. will try to dosome thing to keep his influence over Lebanon. Syria has always veiwed Lebanon as a part of Greater Syria, much like Saddam viewed Kuwait as another provence of Iraq.
What does Syria want? Enduring control of Lebanon, its people, its foreign policy, its wealth and its strategic location. Assad and his cronies regard Syria as Saddam Hussein regarded Kuwait: an integral part of the homeland, hewn off by outside powers.
How will Syria try to get what it wants? Subversion. Terror. Resurrecting yesteryear's fears and hatreds. By bribing, blackmailing and murdering. By igniting a new civil war, if Damascus can get away with it.
Who will do it? Those intelligence operatives, if they stay behind. Along with Hezbollah dead-enders who want nothing to do with true democracy, civil liberties or a just peace with Israel.
Like the 21st-century IRA and Saddam's Baathists, Hezbollah has become a deadly mafia whose immediate goals are self-perpetuation and power.
Even if there's a formal withdrawal of Syrian intel agents, it's extremely unlikely that the undercover operatives would go home. And Syria will continue pulling the strings in Lebanon's own penetrated and compromised security services — which need to be purged. ""If Assad and his henchmen try to destabilize Lebanon, the Syrian government must pay a painful price. Even if that requires military action.
There is another point Peters has made. We have not been holding Assad Jr's. feet to the fire on Iraq. A very large percentage of these so called "insurgents" are foreigners that have come to Iraq through Syria. Then of course there are the French. Who knows what Chirac will do to try to keep French influence in Lebanon? It will be a difficult task to keep the French from trying to cut a deal. Just look what the French did with Iraq.
Thus far, Assad has literally gotten away with murder in Iraq by feigning innocence and intermittent cooperation. Our reluctance to call him to account may have led him to believe that he can pull a sleight-of-hand trick in Lebanon, withdrawing troops publicly while attacking the country in the netherworld of terror.
There's an impressive international consensus for getting the Syrians out — lock, stock and hookah. Terrified of being deprived of influence in the changing Middle East, even the French have aligned themselves with America on this issue. Assad will try to divide us, to cut backroom deals. We must hold the French to an Anglophone standard of reliable behavior — no secret handshakes between Paris and Damascus."
Peters concludes with a rather strong recommendation on how to deal with Syrian duplicity and any attempt to destabilize Lebanon. "Our successes in the Middle East have changed the region's political direction. Freedom and democracy are gathering momentum. But the course of reform could still be reversed among the failure-haunted Arabs. Lebanon is the next potential crisis and a critical test of our will. President Bush must continue to make our resolve explicitly clear, if we hope to prevent the ruin of Lebanon's convalescent society and economy.
I find myself in agreement with Peters. Syria must not be allowed to have any more influence over Lebanon and may need to be hit militarily, if they try to destabilize Lebanon. - Sailor
If the Syrian government attempts to destroy Lebanon, the Damascus regime itself must be destroyed. "
