Well! It is good to be back in the blogging saddle....I have been taking an extended sabbatical from posting for some time due to two developments in my life that have severe4ly crimped by ability to post regularly. I had determined that I would continue the sabbatical, but with the year fast drawing to a close, it seemed to require some comment on the year that passed, thus I have returned to blogging, though I fear that I shall be unable to keep a daily log as has been my wont.
I was not going to comment on the results of the November elections, since a wise man once said that people receive the government they deserve. Since the American people decided that the Democrats should receive their chance, far be it from me to demur- especially when the Republican majority was doing their best to cover themselves with shame. Though I do wish our 'fair and balanced' media would report in the same manner when Republicans are in power as they do when Democrats hold the reins.
However, I cannot help but to comment how now that the Democrats have safely taken both Houses of Congress, we are beginning to discover that:
A. Democrats are no more ethical than Republicans (and in some cases, much less so- see the Alcee Hastings case for evidence)
B. Democrats and their media allies were well acquainted with the Mark Foley affair (which to my knowlege was entirely legal- though morally repugnant) far in advance of the election and chose to delay their announcement until it could do the Republicans the greatest damage
C. Now that Democrats are in power, the wonderful economic performance of the last six years is beginning to see some light in the mainstream media
Maybe as we move into the Democratic reign, we will discover even more about how the United States has REALLY been over the last six years, now that their own have managed to take power, however temporarily.
More to follow....
Wednesday, December 13, 2006
Tuesday, July 11, 2006
About that claim of why Muslims hate non-Muslims....
...it does not appear to hold water after the news of Islamic terrorists attacking Bombay's train system. The Islamists have been hating all non-Islamic countries and peoples for centuries. Any liberal/anti-American/fifth-columnist who tries to deny that simply is either a paid stooge or an ignorant fool. History does not back up the "They hate us becasue of our policies" argument.
Why did they attack India? Land, pure and simple. Islam has been trying for centuries to reconquer all land that Muslims once held. Spain, Eastern Europe, etc, all have faced Muslim campaigns to take them from the non-Muslims who control them and whose native lands they are. And Islam has invaded Europe in wars of pure impreialism many times. How many times has Europe or America invaded Arabia or Muslim lands in a desire to conquer and hold? Never. The Crusades, as I must constantly remind the ignoramuses who populate American capmuses these days, were a reaction to retake the Holy Land (never Muslim property) from the Mulsim invaders who ruthlessly conquered and raped it in 1076, and closed the pilgrimage routes. Before that time, the Christians had never invaded Muslim territory in an attempt to conquer, though the Muslims had by that time been conducting a war of extermination against all non-Muslims, leading to the complete destruction of the classical North African states (and the occupation of most of Christian Spain) for over four hundred years.
In this case, India controls most of the majority-Muslim province of Kashmir. This was a result of the 1947 division of the British Raj between Pakistan and India. The afore-linked site is good, though it fails to mention that India is still Hindu- not 'secular'. the difference is that Hindu India is ruled by a non-religious legal system of law, unlike sharia-dominated Pakistan where any so-called imam can accuse anyone of anything and be upheld with or without ev idence. India, in contrast, relies on British rule of law.
Ever since the division, Muslims have been trying to take Kashmir by force, never mind how many Indian civilvians they kill or injure. The two countries have gone to war twice over the disputed province, the last time in 1965. And the Indian Hindus and Sikhs have long known of the terrorist tactics employed by the Muslims, and have first-hand knowledge of living as dhimmis- the long Mughal rule over India gave them plenty of practice!
Hat tip to Breitbart.com.
Why did they attack India? Land, pure and simple. Islam has been trying for centuries to reconquer all land that Muslims once held. Spain, Eastern Europe, etc, all have faced Muslim campaigns to take them from the non-Muslims who control them and whose native lands they are. And Islam has invaded Europe in wars of pure impreialism many times. How many times has Europe or America invaded Arabia or Muslim lands in a desire to conquer and hold? Never. The Crusades, as I must constantly remind the ignoramuses who populate American capmuses these days, were a reaction to retake the Holy Land (never Muslim property) from the Mulsim invaders who ruthlessly conquered and raped it in 1076, and closed the pilgrimage routes. Before that time, the Christians had never invaded Muslim territory in an attempt to conquer, though the Muslims had by that time been conducting a war of extermination against all non-Muslims, leading to the complete destruction of the classical North African states (and the occupation of most of Christian Spain) for over four hundred years.
In this case, India controls most of the majority-Muslim province of Kashmir. This was a result of the 1947 division of the British Raj between Pakistan and India. The afore-linked site is good, though it fails to mention that India is still Hindu- not 'secular'. the difference is that Hindu India is ruled by a non-religious legal system of law, unlike sharia-dominated Pakistan where any so-called imam can accuse anyone of anything and be upheld with or without ev idence. India, in contrast, relies on British rule of law.
Ever since the division, Muslims have been trying to take Kashmir by force, never mind how many Indian civilvians they kill or injure. The two countries have gone to war twice over the disputed province, the last time in 1965. And the Indian Hindus and Sikhs have long known of the terrorist tactics employed by the Muslims, and have first-hand knowledge of living as dhimmis- the long Mughal rule over India gave them plenty of practice!
Hat tip to Breitbart.com.
More Illegal Immigration (Good) News
Despite the failure of the Federal government to put any teeth into the fight against illegal immigration, the states and some municipalities are taking on the fight themselves. According to an article filed today by the AP, Colorado's Democratic-dominated Legislature has passed bills revoking most benefits to illegals over the age of 18. According to the article, "The bill would apply to Medicare, Medicaid, unemployment insurance, energy assistance programs and aging and adult services. (Colorado Governor) Owens has said an estimated 50,000 illegal immigrants could be thrown out of those programs."
Good. There is no earthly reason why the taxpayers of the United States of America should be paying for non-Americans' healthcare and benefits- especially ILLEGAL non-Americans. If they want our benefits, there is an easy way to get them- become LEGAL immigrants. Yes, it is not easy, but that is the only way that most Americans want it to be. Illegal aliens are not welcome in this country, and the sooner more states begin cracking down on these illegals, the better off all Americans will be. And I agree with the Republican legislators who said this does not go far enough. I also think that Colorado's citizens should be allowed to vote on the bill, as the Republicans also suggested.
Undoubtedly the illegal alien lobby will try to overturn this in court. However, should that occur, it provides a wonderful opportunity for the Legislature to tell the Courts to butt out. There is nothing in the Constitution that allows the Judiciary to dictate what legislatures can and cannot do in enforcing illegal immigration. And the Legislature shoul tell the Courts that they have no jurisdiction in this area. By law, they do have that power.
As a side-note, much of this increased enforcement of illegals is directly due to the La Raza/MEChA-sponsored illegal demonstrations that really focused American eyes on the problem. I think most of us are tired of seeing these law-breakers get benefits and services that we American citizens are not entitled to. We are tired of seeing these so-called 'day-laborers' hanging out in parking lots free of police supervision, making us worry about our children. So thank you La Raza. You did a great service for the debate over ILLEGAL immigration- and most American's are coming down on the side of America. As the Colorado legislation proves, even Democrats can see the handwriting on the wall and at least some of them on a local basis are taking it seriously. Too bad their counterparts in Washington, DC are not doing the same.
Hat tip to Matt Drudge.
Good. There is no earthly reason why the taxpayers of the United States of America should be paying for non-Americans' healthcare and benefits- especially ILLEGAL non-Americans. If they want our benefits, there is an easy way to get them- become LEGAL immigrants. Yes, it is not easy, but that is the only way that most Americans want it to be. Illegal aliens are not welcome in this country, and the sooner more states begin cracking down on these illegals, the better off all Americans will be. And I agree with the Republican legislators who said this does not go far enough. I also think that Colorado's citizens should be allowed to vote on the bill, as the Republicans also suggested.
Undoubtedly the illegal alien lobby will try to overturn this in court. However, should that occur, it provides a wonderful opportunity for the Legislature to tell the Courts to butt out. There is nothing in the Constitution that allows the Judiciary to dictate what legislatures can and cannot do in enforcing illegal immigration. And the Legislature shoul tell the Courts that they have no jurisdiction in this area. By law, they do have that power.
As a side-note, much of this increased enforcement of illegals is directly due to the La Raza/MEChA-sponsored illegal demonstrations that really focused American eyes on the problem. I think most of us are tired of seeing these law-breakers get benefits and services that we American citizens are not entitled to. We are tired of seeing these so-called 'day-laborers' hanging out in parking lots free of police supervision, making us worry about our children. So thank you La Raza. You did a great service for the debate over ILLEGAL immigration- and most American's are coming down on the side of America. As the Colorado legislation proves, even Democrats can see the handwriting on the wall and at least some of them on a local basis are taking it seriously. Too bad their counterparts in Washington, DC are not doing the same.
Hat tip to Matt Drudge.
Wednesday, July 05, 2006
Who Hates Whom?
We here in the United States often seem to hear, especially from the Press elites at the NY Times, CNN, etc how "the rest of the world hates America." Well, as in so many other areas, it appears that the Press is not exactly accurate with this statement. A more truthful statement might be "We in the Press hate the United States because most Americans don't believe in our far-leftist causes and don't elect enough Democrats." But that would require actual honesty- not something the American media (aptly re-christened the 'Drive-By Media' by the always-educational Rush Limbaugh) are known for.
However, in the area of international regard, a new survey by the Pew Research Center which was first published in The Economist magazine finds that maybe we Americans are not as despised as the Mainstream Media would like us all to think. You might also be surprised at which countries have the most positive opinions of this great country of ours. And Professor Victor Davis Hanson weighs in by pointing out that Sometimes the caliber of a nation is found not in why it is liked, but rather in why it is not. Dr. Hanson also says in his excellent article:
As I mentioned above, the survey might surprise you, but the most interesting facet for me was finding that approximately 17 percent of Americans have a negative image of their own country. As The Futurist correctly states in his excellent article on this phenomenon, "8-10% of the US population comprises of active or semi-active fifth-columnists." In this, I believe he is correct. The anti-Americans are a small percentage, but because I believe that most of the US Press Corps fall into this category, they receive a much larger voice than they deserve. The Futurist has an excellent article on this fifth column, in which he expands on these thoughts.
In conclusion, on this July 5, 2006, I am even prouder that I live in a country whose current leadership is not afraid to push for freedom, whose citizenry is still largely patriotic (if one excludes Hollywood, most of the US Press and other sundry blue-state elites). And above all I am proud that I am an American.
Happy Birthday, to the United States of America. Happy Birthday, Old Glory. Your stars and stripes have lost none of their luster, and the principles that this great nation was founded upon still persevere in most American hearts- despite the best efforts of the US Media to destroy them.
Hat tip to The Futurist.
However, in the area of international regard, a new survey by the Pew Research Center which was first published in The Economist magazine finds that maybe we Americans are not as despised as the Mainstream Media would like us all to think. You might also be surprised at which countries have the most positive opinions of this great country of ours. And Professor Victor Davis Hanson weighs in by pointing out that Sometimes the caliber of a nation is found not in why it is liked, but rather in why it is not. Dr. Hanson also says in his excellent article:
All that being said, the disdain that European utopians, Arab dictatorships, the United Nations, and Mexico exhibit toward the United States is not (as the Kerry campaign alleged in the last election) cause for tears, but often reason to be proud, since much of the invective arises from the growing American insistence on principles abroad.
As I mentioned above, the survey might surprise you, but the most interesting facet for me was finding that approximately 17 percent of Americans have a negative image of their own country. As The Futurist correctly states in his excellent article on this phenomenon, "8-10% of the US population comprises of active or semi-active fifth-columnists." In this, I believe he is correct. The anti-Americans are a small percentage, but because I believe that most of the US Press Corps fall into this category, they receive a much larger voice than they deserve. The Futurist has an excellent article on this fifth column, in which he expands on these thoughts.
In conclusion, on this July 5, 2006, I am even prouder that I live in a country whose current leadership is not afraid to push for freedom, whose citizenry is still largely patriotic (if one excludes Hollywood, most of the US Press and other sundry blue-state elites). And above all I am proud that I am an American.
Happy Birthday, to the United States of America. Happy Birthday, Old Glory. Your stars and stripes have lost none of their luster, and the principles that this great nation was founded upon still persevere in most American hearts- despite the best efforts of the US Media to destroy them.
Hat tip to The Futurist.
Tuesday, July 04, 2006
Fining the Press?
China is proposing a new law that would fine journalists and media organizations- including foreign journalists- for unauthorized or fraudulent reporting. According to the story as reported by MyWay News:
"News outlets that report emergencies without authorization or issue fraudulent reports would be fined up to $12,500 under the draft law being considered by Parliament."
While I am definitely against the reporting of emergencies without approval clause (that is simply yet another way for China to try to keep its private messes away from the rest of the world and their own people), the fraudulent reporting fines are a great idea. If possible, I think that ought to be implemented here in the United States as well.
Considering the disasters caused by the fraudulent reporting on Plamegate, the Hurricane Katrina fiasco in New Orleans and various other stories- the once-again false reports of an impending Fitzmas (the hope held by most pressies and Democrats that Karl Rove might be indicted, though no one has yet offered a good explanation of any crime he has committed) being merely the latest, the US press needs some kind of mechanism to keep them in check. Their idea of reporting seems to be "if it hurts America (or even better a Republican office-holder, especially the President), let it rip! If it hurts America's enemies (or God forbid, a Democrat), bury it and kill it quick!" Yet another reason why the world's journalists are seeing their credibility and ratings drop precipitously all over, and especially here in the United States.
"News outlets that report emergencies without authorization or issue fraudulent reports would be fined up to $12,500 under the draft law being considered by Parliament."
While I am definitely against the reporting of emergencies without approval clause (that is simply yet another way for China to try to keep its private messes away from the rest of the world and their own people), the fraudulent reporting fines are a great idea. If possible, I think that ought to be implemented here in the United States as well.
Considering the disasters caused by the fraudulent reporting on Plamegate, the Hurricane Katrina fiasco in New Orleans and various other stories- the once-again false reports of an impending Fitzmas (the hope held by most pressies and Democrats that Karl Rove might be indicted, though no one has yet offered a good explanation of any crime he has committed) being merely the latest, the US press needs some kind of mechanism to keep them in check. Their idea of reporting seems to be "if it hurts America (or even better a Republican office-holder, especially the President), let it rip! If it hurts America's enemies (or God forbid, a Democrat), bury it and kill it quick!" Yet another reason why the world's journalists are seeing their credibility and ratings drop precipitously all over, and especially here in the United States.
Monday, July 03, 2006
A Look Back at...
...the "Treason Times", in times of yore, today sometimes called by it's lesser-known nom-de-plume, the "New York Times". Seems the Times has an even longer history of giving aid and comfort to our enemies (by the way, Bill Kellar, since you clearly have no knowledge of our Consititution other than the First Amendment, that is defined as 'treason' in Article III, Section 3) than we thought. Snicker.......
Hat tips to Power Line and Matt Drudge..
Hat tips to Power Line and Matt Drudge..
More Judicial Arrogance...
...from our beloved federal justices. In this case, a federal judge apparently thinks that dolphins are more important than defending ourselves from our enemies. Or maybe she just wants us to lose this war we are fighting against Islam. So she decided that the Navy cannot use one of their most important tools- sonar!
This is simply more proof that the sooner Congress reins in judges who are making decisions about things of which they posses no knowledge or expertise, the better off we will be. I think it is time for Congress to tell the federal judiciary they have no authority over the Armed Forces and that they also have no authority over the open seas. Where do these activist judges think their authority comes from? Certainly not the Constitution! They threw that venerable document out the window long ago in their haste to remake it into a 'living' document. Perhaps we can have Congress write a law removing the Judiciary's power of judicial review and also specifying that any judge who makes decisions like this is subject to immediate removal from the Bench. Without appeal. That ought to rein in our activist judges a bit.
Hat tip to Matt Drudge.
This is simply more proof that the sooner Congress reins in judges who are making decisions about things of which they posses no knowledge or expertise, the better off we will be. I think it is time for Congress to tell the federal judiciary they have no authority over the Armed Forces and that they also have no authority over the open seas. Where do these activist judges think their authority comes from? Certainly not the Constitution! They threw that venerable document out the window long ago in their haste to remake it into a 'living' document. Perhaps we can have Congress write a law removing the Judiciary's power of judicial review and also specifying that any judge who makes decisions like this is subject to immediate removal from the Bench. Without appeal. That ought to rein in our activist judges a bit.
Hat tip to Matt Drudge.
Friday, June 23, 2006
Photo of the Week
This photo, courtesy of RidingSun, is hilarious. Don't forget to read the captions as well.
Courtesy of gaijinbiker.
Courtesy of gaijinbiker.
Thoughts on Vista
Microsoft's that is. An interesting letter from a computer security expert in the United Kingdom was posted on Jerry Pournelle's site. To get to the original, simply click on the link and scroll down to the 'Subject: Microsoft Vista" section. I reproduce it in full as follows:
I have thought for some time that Microsoft is not doing a very good job on their new operating system. Vista is simply a repackaged and (probably) re-programmed version of the aptly-named 'Longhorn' (for the inordinately long time Microsoft has been promising it) and it is still not out. Longhorn itself was promised at least since 2003. Now I read that Microsoft has postponed the release of Vista yet again.
In the meantime, Apple Computer has managed to get OS X released, updated and made into a top-line OS. All for the price of US $129.00 on average for a single-user copy. On that thought, I agree with Dr. Erwin's analysis on the potential price point of Vista. Windows is already ridiculously expensive, and if the price goes up much more, I think more people will commence thinking of switching to a different operating system. The various flavors of UNIX/Linux are mostly free and OS X is not a budget-buster either at it's current pricing. Ergo, Microsoft had better get this new OS out and working in fairly short order, or they may find themselves in trouble, in my opinion. Even Windows users won't wait forever.
Courtesy of Jerry Pournelle.
Subject: Microsoft Vista
I think they may have gone overboard on security. Their programmer productivity has reportedly dropped to a level that they won't be able to sell Vista at its price point. Mac OS X has been beating them on price for some time now, and this may make it worse.
-- Harry Erwin, PhD, Program Leader, MSc Information Systems Security, University of Sunderland. http://scat-he-g4.sunderland.ac.uk/~harryerw
Weblog at: http://scat-he-g4.sunderland.ac.uk/~harryerw/blog/index.php
I have thought for some time that Microsoft is not doing a very good job on their new operating system. Vista is simply a repackaged and (probably) re-programmed version of the aptly-named 'Longhorn' (for the inordinately long time Microsoft has been promising it) and it is still not out. Longhorn itself was promised at least since 2003. Now I read that Microsoft has postponed the release of Vista yet again.
In the meantime, Apple Computer has managed to get OS X released, updated and made into a top-line OS. All for the price of US $129.00 on average for a single-user copy. On that thought, I agree with Dr. Erwin's analysis on the potential price point of Vista. Windows is already ridiculously expensive, and if the price goes up much more, I think more people will commence thinking of switching to a different operating system. The various flavors of UNIX/Linux are mostly free and OS X is not a budget-buster either at it's current pricing. Ergo, Microsoft had better get this new OS out and working in fairly short order, or they may find themselves in trouble, in my opinion. Even Windows users won't wait forever.
Courtesy of Jerry Pournelle.
An Ally For the Ages
Charles Krauthammer today has a column up on the United States' most loyal and trustworthy ally, and the results might surprise you. Quick, what is the only country to have fought side-by-side with the United States in every single conflict since 1914? Is it England? France? Canada? None of the above?
Over the years, the United States has had a strange group of bedfellows- from Communist Russia in World War II to the then-primitive Hmong tribespeople during the Vietnam conflict. However, the only ally who has been steadfast throughout is the republic of Australia. Though we have had our differences, (who can forget Australia's rather foolish insistence on no-nuclear weapons during the 1980s but in the main, the Aussies have stood together with us since the dark days of the 1915 trench wars. They are unique in being able to make that claim, and they are the only one of our allies who has been steadfast in the pursuit of the Muslim terrorists who constitute our current enemy.
Mr. Krauthammer presents a wonderful overview of this staunch ally. Read the whole thing, courtesy of TownHall.com.
07/03/2006 CORRECTION: In my original post, I mistakenly identified Australia as a republic. As a reader corrected me, Australia is a constitutional monarchy- the Queen reigns though she does not rule. Thanks for the correction, mild colonial boy!
Over the years, the United States has had a strange group of bedfellows- from Communist Russia in World War II to the then-primitive Hmong tribespeople during the Vietnam conflict. However, the only ally who has been steadfast throughout is the republic of Australia. Though we have had our differences, (who can forget Australia's rather foolish insistence on no-nuclear weapons during the 1980s but in the main, the Aussies have stood together with us since the dark days of the 1915 trench wars. They are unique in being able to make that claim, and they are the only one of our allies who has been steadfast in the pursuit of the Muslim terrorists who constitute our current enemy.
Mr. Krauthammer presents a wonderful overview of this staunch ally. Read the whole thing, courtesy of TownHall.com.
07/03/2006 CORRECTION: In my original post, I mistakenly identified Australia as a republic. As a reader corrected me, Australia is a constitutional monarchy- the Queen reigns though she does not rule. Thanks for the correction, mild colonial boy!
The Continuing Role of the Press in War
The Associated Press showed once again why the mainstream media is losing readers in droves and why they are rapidly gaining a reputation of being in league (either formally or informally) with the enemies of the free world. Amnesty International threw a protest in Budapest, Hungary against the Guantanamo Bay prison. A grand total of seven people showed up- all of them Amnesty International workers! Not ONE single supporter showed up. And yet the AP ran a big front-page story about the protest, not forgetting to mention the 'horrible conditions" faced by the prisoners at Guantanamo. I think that Amnesty International would have had MUCH more success if they had thrown their protest in Germany or France. Of course, as Glenn Reynolds already noted, we are still waiting for AI to protest the cruel and inhuman treatment meted out by Muslims to the American servicemen (and Iraqi civilians) murdered by Muslim terrorists in Iraq.
*SIGH* These ridiculous Guantanamo claims have been debunked SO many times. Apparently it isn't enough that all the prisoners in Gitmo have plenty of food, their own Korans and are even free to worship at the appropriate times, but the Press seemingly are convinced that the Muslims- the same people who really DO torture, murder and rape innocent civilians- are the good guys in this war. We shall see how they feel if the Muslims win and the Press finds themselves living under Sharia law. They might re-think their protestations and claims of religious intolerance. Of course, by then it will be too late.
The US Press Corps (whom Rush Limbaugh has fittingly dubbed the 'Drive-By Media') will some day have to face up to their shameless and borderline treasonous behavior in this war. I hope that it comes sooner than later. The First Amendment does not protect treason, and the behavior of the Press is getting closer and closer to that as this war progresses. The New York Times's decision to publish yet another leaked story damaging our national security is just another example. Why doesn't the White House start putting these traitors in prison? Despite the Pentagon Papers decision, reporters are NOT exempt form national security laws. If necessary, we need to take this back to the Supreme Court and get the Pentagon Papers decision overturned. As the infamous Dred Scott decision showed, Supreme Court decisions get overturned all the time. Only liberals seem to think that THEIR favorite decisions should be exempt for reconsideration. We also need to start enforcing the treason and sedition laws against this arrogant and traitorous Press. Soon.
Hat tips to Glenn Reynolds and Matt Drudge.
*SIGH* These ridiculous Guantanamo claims have been debunked SO many times. Apparently it isn't enough that all the prisoners in Gitmo have plenty of food, their own Korans and are even free to worship at the appropriate times, but the Press seemingly are convinced that the Muslims- the same people who really DO torture, murder and rape innocent civilians- are the good guys in this war. We shall see how they feel if the Muslims win and the Press finds themselves living under Sharia law. They might re-think their protestations and claims of religious intolerance. Of course, by then it will be too late.
The US Press Corps (whom Rush Limbaugh has fittingly dubbed the 'Drive-By Media') will some day have to face up to their shameless and borderline treasonous behavior in this war. I hope that it comes sooner than later. The First Amendment does not protect treason, and the behavior of the Press is getting closer and closer to that as this war progresses. The New York Times's decision to publish yet another leaked story damaging our national security is just another example. Why doesn't the White House start putting these traitors in prison? Despite the Pentagon Papers decision, reporters are NOT exempt form national security laws. If necessary, we need to take this back to the Supreme Court and get the Pentagon Papers decision overturned. As the infamous Dred Scott decision showed, Supreme Court decisions get overturned all the time. Only liberals seem to think that THEIR favorite decisions should be exempt for reconsideration. We also need to start enforcing the treason and sedition laws against this arrogant and traitorous Press. Soon.
Hat tips to Glenn Reynolds and Matt Drudge.
Thursday, June 22, 2006
War and Democrats
Well, THIS is no surprise. According to an article just published in Human Events Online by the veteran reporter Robert Novak, Democrats are being hurt, as opposed to being helped, but the war in Iraq.
According to Novak,
Well that comes as absolutely no surprise either. Democrats have long since become the Party of Retreat and they have not been truly supportive of their own country's efforts militarily since perhaps 1960, when John F Kennedy famously said "Ask not what your country can do for you, but rather ask what you can do for your country." Today's Democrats are all about asking country to do for them and not making any sacrifices- unless occasionally having to talk to those Neanderthal Republicans and common folk who aren't liberal and who do not live in Washington DC counts as sacrifice. In addition, Democrats are afraid to come out and present their real views on the war and the US troops who are fighting it. Knowing that most Americans do NOT despise their troops and despite an unending line of mis-representations and outright lies by the MSM in an attempt to destroy President Bush and return Democrats to power, most Americans do not believe in the cut-and-run strategy.
This present Democrats with a problem. On the one hand, their core constituency is heavily anti-American, anti-military and above all, anti-George Bush. However, most Americans, despite the negative drumbeat of the Press do not agree with them on these issues. So the Democrats are forced to try to hide their real feelings while letting their moonbat supporters see them acting as they would wish. Which means that they are unable to present any real argument on the war., the few Democrats with honor include Joe Lieberman, who has consistently supported the war. However, he and the recently retired Senator Zell Miller are almost the only Democrats who have been consistent in their pro-US views.
On the other end of the spectrum, John Kerry has been at least consistent in his cut-and-run philosophy- one apparently shared by few other Democrats. This should provide us with some very entertaining mid-term elections, as I am beginning to doubt the Democrats are going to be able to re-take either branch of Congress. The American public may dislike the Iraq war (though if the MSM would actually publish the truth, I think their would be a much hgher approval rating both for the war and for President Bush), but based on the silliness emanating from the other side of the political spectrum, I do not see them entrusting the Democrats with the reins of power until and unless they either come clean about their dislike for American military power or they actually regain their lost patriotism.
Hat tip to Matt Drudge.
According to Novak,
Once again at center stage is Democrats' timidity over Iraq, which one would expect to be as good an election issue as they could ever invent against the Republicans and President Bush. The Iraq War is apparently unpopular and Americans supposedly want the troops to come home -- yet Democrats feel so little confidence that this will translate into election victories that they cannot be persuaded to adopt a consistent anti-war position.
Well that comes as absolutely no surprise either. Democrats have long since become the Party of Retreat and they have not been truly supportive of their own country's efforts militarily since perhaps 1960, when John F Kennedy famously said "Ask not what your country can do for you, but rather ask what you can do for your country." Today's Democrats are all about asking country to do for them and not making any sacrifices- unless occasionally having to talk to those Neanderthal Republicans and common folk who aren't liberal and who do not live in Washington DC counts as sacrifice. In addition, Democrats are afraid to come out and present their real views on the war and the US troops who are fighting it. Knowing that most Americans do NOT despise their troops and despite an unending line of mis-representations and outright lies by the MSM in an attempt to destroy President Bush and return Democrats to power, most Americans do not believe in the cut-and-run strategy.
This present Democrats with a problem. On the one hand, their core constituency is heavily anti-American, anti-military and above all, anti-George Bush. However, most Americans, despite the negative drumbeat of the Press do not agree with them on these issues. So the Democrats are forced to try to hide their real feelings while letting their moonbat supporters see them acting as they would wish. Which means that they are unable to present any real argument on the war., the few Democrats with honor include Joe Lieberman, who has consistently supported the war. However, he and the recently retired Senator Zell Miller are almost the only Democrats who have been consistent in their pro-US views.
On the other end of the spectrum, John Kerry has been at least consistent in his cut-and-run philosophy- one apparently shared by few other Democrats. This should provide us with some very entertaining mid-term elections, as I am beginning to doubt the Democrats are going to be able to re-take either branch of Congress. The American public may dislike the Iraq war (though if the MSM would actually publish the truth, I think their would be a much hgher approval rating both for the war and for President Bush), but based on the silliness emanating from the other side of the political spectrum, I do not see them entrusting the Democrats with the reins of power until and unless they either come clean about their dislike for American military power or they actually regain their lost patriotism.
Hat tip to Matt Drudge.
WMDs Update
The Democrats and their enablers in the Drive-By Media have made a mantra out of claims that George Bush lied to America about the weapons of mass destruction possessed by Iraq since the war that overthrew Saddam Hussein and brought new hope to Iraq's terrorized citizens. The Press and their Democratic Party fellow-travelers in the United States Congress have been claiming with increasing hysteria that 'Bush lied, people died'. Never mind all those who died under Saddam Hussein's brutal rule, or all those who deals under the many other dictators that Democrats and MSM types have cuddled up to for so many years- Castro, Mao, Stalin, Che Guevara, etc.
However, there is now news that might finally lay this tired falsehood to rest. According to Fox News, it appears that not only were the Democrats wrong, George Bush was right- a piece of news almost certainly destined to produce hair-tearing amongst the Democrats and most of the media. In a story published today, Fox reports that Weapons of Mass Destruction HAVE been found in Iraq.
The story says that the United States "has found 500 chemical weapons in Iraq since 2003, and more weapons of mass destruction are likely to be uncovered, according to two Republican lawmakers." This is good news, at least to those of us who believe that the President was entirely justified in his actions since the September 11 attacks on the United States by Islamic elements. While the Press probably wouldn't recognize a WMD if it was placed under their seats in their Bush Derangement Syndrome feverpits, most responsible people recognize the chemical weapons are actually WMDs, and thus Bush's arguments leading up to the 2003 invasion were justified.
The Republicans in question are Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA) and Representative Pete Hoekstra (R-MI). Both made the point that while the weapons found appear to have been manufacturered prior to 1991, they prove two important things- first that Saddam Hussein lied when he claimed all WMDs had been destroyed. Second, and more importantly, these weapons show that the 'weapons inspections' vaunted by the United Nations were in fact not working and were probably enabling Hussein to continue his little game of divide and conquer vis-a-vis the Western powers in order to circumvent the sanctions placed on Iraq following the 1991 Gulf War. They also make fools of the dictator-loving Democrats who claimed so loudly that no WMDs had been found in Iraq. It also raises questions as to the competency of Democrats to run the United States, since they can't even tell the truth about clearly proven issues such as this.
Now we await the Mainstream Media to actually leave off their jihad against the Bush Administration and report that he was in fact correct when he went to war in 2003 against the regime of Saddam Hussein. Of course, I expect we will be waiting for a long, long time. After all, to actually report this would require the media to report good news for the Republicans and the Bush Administration. And we all know that they are completely unable to report honestly when Republicans in general and this President in particular are involved. It is too much easier to slavishly cover Cindy Sheehan's little circus, without delaying with the fact that they might be in the wrong.
Hat tip to Matt Drudge.
However, there is now news that might finally lay this tired falsehood to rest. According to Fox News, it appears that not only were the Democrats wrong, George Bush was right- a piece of news almost certainly destined to produce hair-tearing amongst the Democrats and most of the media. In a story published today, Fox reports that Weapons of Mass Destruction HAVE been found in Iraq.
The story says that the United States "has found 500 chemical weapons in Iraq since 2003, and more weapons of mass destruction are likely to be uncovered, according to two Republican lawmakers." This is good news, at least to those of us who believe that the President was entirely justified in his actions since the September 11 attacks on the United States by Islamic elements. While the Press probably wouldn't recognize a WMD if it was placed under their seats in their Bush Derangement Syndrome feverpits, most responsible people recognize the chemical weapons are actually WMDs, and thus Bush's arguments leading up to the 2003 invasion were justified.
The Republicans in question are Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA) and Representative Pete Hoekstra (R-MI). Both made the point that while the weapons found appear to have been manufacturered prior to 1991, they prove two important things- first that Saddam Hussein lied when he claimed all WMDs had been destroyed. Second, and more importantly, these weapons show that the 'weapons inspections' vaunted by the United Nations were in fact not working and were probably enabling Hussein to continue his little game of divide and conquer vis-a-vis the Western powers in order to circumvent the sanctions placed on Iraq following the 1991 Gulf War. They also make fools of the dictator-loving Democrats who claimed so loudly that no WMDs had been found in Iraq. It also raises questions as to the competency of Democrats to run the United States, since they can't even tell the truth about clearly proven issues such as this.
Now we await the Mainstream Media to actually leave off their jihad against the Bush Administration and report that he was in fact correct when he went to war in 2003 against the regime of Saddam Hussein. Of course, I expect we will be waiting for a long, long time. After all, to actually report this would require the media to report good news for the Republicans and the Bush Administration. And we all know that they are completely unable to report honestly when Republicans in general and this President in particular are involved. It is too much easier to slavishly cover Cindy Sheehan's little circus, without delaying with the fact that they might be in the wrong.
Hat tip to Matt Drudge.
Wednesday, June 21, 2006
More Global Hot Air
It has long been known that the Drive-By Media has bought into the global warming hysteria. It has also been common knowledge for some time that the Drive-By Media has little interest in presenting any stories that show the skeptics of the global warming scare in a positive light. They seem to prefer to try to show the global warming proponents in as positive a light as possible- even when said defenders know less about science than do most reporters.
However, they have now reached what appears to be a new low- even for the Drive-By Media. According to ABC News' own web page, ABC News is begging for 'global warming' horror stories. In their own words, ABC News writes on their web site:
Not content with this clear pitch for unbalanced, probably hysterical and certainly unscientific 'reporting', ABC News continues by letting these amateur jounalists know exactly what they are looking for, writing: "Show us what you've seen. You can include video material of the environmental change, or simply tell your story via webcam." They even don't appear to care for any eveidence, writing in conclusion, "No video? Share your story in words here." Uh, what about evidence? What about verifiable facts? What about opposing points of view? What about *gasp* OBJECTIVITY?!
But wait! This is, after all, the same media who published massively false accounts of hurrican Katrina, who tried to sabotage a Presidency with fake memos, who has published countless other fake 'news' stories, and who would rather undermine the security of the United States (are you reading this, Pinch Sulzberger?) than actually recognize that they are the Islamic terrorists' only real allies. So they don't even care if they receive completely unsourced, unverifiable, made up accounts. ABC is determined to stop the United States from worrying about Islamic terrorists- who after all m ight only kill us all and then impose sharia law on any surviivors, and start us worrying about 'global warming'. which has yet to be proven! Note to ABC- If global warming were a real threat, you wouldn't have to beg for enviro-fanatics' home-made scare stories. BThere would be plenty of real eveidnce that was not arguable. But then, that would require actual honest reporting- something ABC News(along with the rest of the Drive-By Media) long ago abandoned.
Hat tip to Matt Drudge.
However, they have now reached what appears to be a new low- even for the Drive-By Media. According to ABC News' own web page, ABC News is begging for 'global warming' horror stories. In their own words, ABC News writes on their web site:
ABC News wants to hear from you. We're currently producing a report on the increasing changes in our physical environment, and are looking for interesting examples of people coping with the differences in their daily lives. Has your life been directly affected by global warming?
Not content with this clear pitch for unbalanced, probably hysterical and certainly unscientific 'reporting', ABC News continues by letting these amateur jounalists know exactly what they are looking for, writing: "Show us what you've seen. You can include video material of the environmental change, or simply tell your story via webcam." They even don't appear to care for any eveidence, writing in conclusion, "No video? Share your story in words here." Uh, what about evidence? What about verifiable facts? What about opposing points of view? What about *gasp* OBJECTIVITY?!
But wait! This is, after all, the same media who published massively false accounts of hurrican Katrina, who tried to sabotage a Presidency with fake memos, who has published countless other fake 'news' stories, and who would rather undermine the security of the United States (are you reading this, Pinch Sulzberger?) than actually recognize that they are the Islamic terrorists' only real allies. So they don't even care if they receive completely unsourced, unverifiable, made up accounts. ABC is determined to stop the United States from worrying about Islamic terrorists- who after all m ight only kill us all and then impose sharia law on any surviivors, and start us worrying about 'global warming'. which has yet to be proven! Note to ABC- If global warming were a real threat, you wouldn't have to beg for enviro-fanatics' home-made scare stories. BThere would be plenty of real eveidnce that was not arguable. But then, that would require actual honest reporting- something ABC News(along with the rest of the Drive-By Media) long ago abandoned.
Hat tip to Matt Drudge.
Customer "Service"?
All of us probably have horror stories about bad customer service, particularly with the advent of these automated systems that force us to click through multiple options and which do their best to keep us from talking to an actual human being. However, it seems that at least some so-called 'customer service representatives' have even less understanding off what 'service' means than do the soulless machines they are supposed to be so much better than.
In a case posted online, an actual, human representative at AOL actually refused to let a customer cancel his account, even asking as a last resort to speak to the 30-year-old man's father! The customer, who fortuitously was recording the call, then posted it online and received an actual apology from AOL, along with the statement that the representative in question "was no longer with the company".
I should hope not. If that rep WAS still with the company, it would call into question just exactly what AOL was trying to pas off as 'service'. Though I have not been with AOL in a very long time, my wife is still an AOL Japan user and I dread the moment when we actually cancel her account if this is the kind of service we can expect from AOL.
The moral of the story seems to be that many companies (and not a few politicians and members of the Press) have forgotten what 'service' actually means. It would be refreshing if this incident reminded a few of them that they serve at the pleasure of the people and if they cannot provide the kinds of service their constituents expect and deserve, then maybe it is time to send a few of them home. The same is true of the Press, who have clearly forgotten that their role is not to make policy, but rather report it in a clear, unbiased manner. Or if they are biased (which I believe all humans are) then they should at least let their biases show clearly, instead of pretending that they are without bias.
Hat tip to Matt Drudge.
In a case posted online, an actual, human representative at AOL actually refused to let a customer cancel his account, even asking as a last resort to speak to the 30-year-old man's father! The customer, who fortuitously was recording the call, then posted it online and received an actual apology from AOL, along with the statement that the representative in question "was no longer with the company".
I should hope not. If that rep WAS still with the company, it would call into question just exactly what AOL was trying to pas off as 'service'. Though I have not been with AOL in a very long time, my wife is still an AOL Japan user and I dread the moment when we actually cancel her account if this is the kind of service we can expect from AOL.
The moral of the story seems to be that many companies (and not a few politicians and members of the Press) have forgotten what 'service' actually means. It would be refreshing if this incident reminded a few of them that they serve at the pleasure of the people and if they cannot provide the kinds of service their constituents expect and deserve, then maybe it is time to send a few of them home. The same is true of the Press, who have clearly forgotten that their role is not to make policy, but rather report it in a clear, unbiased manner. Or if they are biased (which I believe all humans are) then they should at least let their biases show clearly, instead of pretending that they are without bias.
Hat tip to Matt Drudge.
Tuesday, June 20, 2006
And about time too...
According to a story posted today via yahoo! News, small towns around the United States are finally taking on the problem that so far the federal government refuses to address- illegal immigration and the horrible effects it has on townships and states who are affected.
According to the story, the town of Hazelton, Pennsylvania is cracking down on illegal immigrants, introducing fines and revoking the business licenses of any businesses that are caught employing illegal aliens. A side effect of the new laws is that English is now the city's official language, thus making it harder on illegal aliens who usually cannot speak English well if at all. Other cities across the nation are doing similar things. Even in San Bernardino, in heavily leftist, open-borders-spouting California, there is apparently similar legislation on the ballot.
The usual suspects are of course outraged and the news story presents them in the most positive light possible, though even the reporters have to admit that illegals are a blight to the city. The National Council of La Raza, a racist, Ku Klux Klan-like Latino supremacist group (La Raza means 'The Race') is threatening a lawsuit and the ACLU is probably also considering one, though that is not mentioned in the article. For more info on La Raza and their fellow racist organization MEChA, see this page.
I say that this is about time. Illegal immigration is ILLEGAL! Why should law-abiding American citizens be forced to pay for what Mexico cannot or will not do for their own people? The article claims that according to one 'resident who immigrated from Mexico eight years ago" (can you say illegal who got an amnesty? I can!) "most illegal immigrants obey the law and only want to work". Sure. If they are law-abiding, they WOULDN'T BE HERE! Illegal aliens are by definition NOT law-abiding- they are here illegally! Good for Hazelton. Hopefully more American cities will follow suit and eventually force our resident pork-masters in Washington to as well.
Hat tip to Matt Drudge.
According to the story, the town of Hazelton, Pennsylvania is cracking down on illegal immigrants, introducing fines and revoking the business licenses of any businesses that are caught employing illegal aliens. A side effect of the new laws is that English is now the city's official language, thus making it harder on illegal aliens who usually cannot speak English well if at all. Other cities across the nation are doing similar things. Even in San Bernardino, in heavily leftist, open-borders-spouting California, there is apparently similar legislation on the ballot.
The usual suspects are of course outraged and the news story presents them in the most positive light possible, though even the reporters have to admit that illegals are a blight to the city. The National Council of La Raza, a racist, Ku Klux Klan-like Latino supremacist group (La Raza means 'The Race') is threatening a lawsuit and the ACLU is probably also considering one, though that is not mentioned in the article. For more info on La Raza and their fellow racist organization MEChA, see this page.
I say that this is about time. Illegal immigration is ILLEGAL! Why should law-abiding American citizens be forced to pay for what Mexico cannot or will not do for their own people? The article claims that according to one 'resident who immigrated from Mexico eight years ago" (can you say illegal who got an amnesty? I can!) "most illegal immigrants obey the law and only want to work". Sure. If they are law-abiding, they WOULDN'T BE HERE! Illegal aliens are by definition NOT law-abiding- they are here illegally! Good for Hazelton. Hopefully more American cities will follow suit and eventually force our resident pork-masters in Washington to as well.
Hat tip to Matt Drudge.
Go Ahead- Make Our Day
Kim Jong Il, the mad dictator of the starving 'People's Republic" of North Korea, has finally gone one step too far. It seems that his threats to launch missiles that can reach the United States has caused us to finally activate our missile shield. This is the missile shield which we pulled out of the 1972 ABM Treaty to build and which is just in time. For more details on the shield itself, see this informative article on the missile shield courtesy of the Washington Times newspaper.
If North Korea decides to launch said missile, I trust we will simply shoot that missile down and that ought to leave a major impression on China, which now no longer can use their own nuclear weapons to threaten the United States. And on certain other countries as well. Russia and Iran definitely come to mind.
It is a wonderful thought that we can be safe and everyone else is not. Our nuclear weapons are largely dispersed in submarines stationed around the world- and the United States Navy has no peer. Even the Russians couldn't find our 'boomers' (the great missile submarines) and certainly North Korea and Iran have no hope of finding them. All of which means that we can hit them and they can't strike at us- unless they wish to face instant obliteration.
So if Russia and China cannot or will not stand with us against Iran, let Iran get nuclear weapons, I say. Let North Korea fire off their pitiful little nukes at us. We can turn the Korean Peninsula into a wasteland. How do you like that idea, Beijing?
We are safe behind our shield and if our so-called 'allies' (like the French) do not wish to support us, then we do not need to share this technology with them, do we? Friends will be protected. Fair-weather friends? You might be left on the outside. Japan, I may safely say, is probably sure of protection, as Prime Minister Koizumi has been one of our staunchest allies throughout, even in the face of unpopularity at home. But South Korea? With their anti-American rhetoric and their anti-American population, I am heartily tempted to say pull out the troops and let them suffer. Let those ingrates discover the misery under Kim Jong Il that the North has known for years- and that only US military power has spared them thus far.
Hat tip to Matt Drudge.
If North Korea decides to launch said missile, I trust we will simply shoot that missile down and that ought to leave a major impression on China, which now no longer can use their own nuclear weapons to threaten the United States. And on certain other countries as well. Russia and Iran definitely come to mind.
It is a wonderful thought that we can be safe and everyone else is not. Our nuclear weapons are largely dispersed in submarines stationed around the world- and the United States Navy has no peer. Even the Russians couldn't find our 'boomers' (the great missile submarines) and certainly North Korea and Iran have no hope of finding them. All of which means that we can hit them and they can't strike at us- unless they wish to face instant obliteration.
So if Russia and China cannot or will not stand with us against Iran, let Iran get nuclear weapons, I say. Let North Korea fire off their pitiful little nukes at us. We can turn the Korean Peninsula into a wasteland. How do you like that idea, Beijing?
We are safe behind our shield and if our so-called 'allies' (like the French) do not wish to support us, then we do not need to share this technology with them, do we? Friends will be protected. Fair-weather friends? You might be left on the outside. Japan, I may safely say, is probably sure of protection, as Prime Minister Koizumi has been one of our staunchest allies throughout, even in the face of unpopularity at home. But South Korea? With their anti-American rhetoric and their anti-American population, I am heartily tempted to say pull out the troops and let them suffer. Let those ingrates discover the misery under Kim Jong Il that the North has known for years- and that only US military power has spared them thus far.
Hat tip to Matt Drudge.
Mothers, Watch Your Daughters
And don't let said daughters grow up to marry Muslims. As a story posted today on Yahoo! News shows, if parents do not keep a close eye on their children, they may do things they will later regret. George Bernard Shaw once said, "Youth is wasted on the young". Well, yes. Young people do not have the experience or knowledge to make rational decisions, which is why anyone under 18 is not considered able to make legally binding decisions. And young people tend to do incredibly stupid things under the guise of 'rebellion'.
In this case, a sixteen-year-old girl from Michigan apparently decided to marry an impoverished, 20-year-old Palestinian, who intended to make her convert to Islam. Considering the liberal-controlled educational system in the United States, I doubt whether the teenager in question, one Katherine Lester, knows anything valid about Islam and the sharia religious law it contains. I certainly doubt that a 16-year-old American girl would be willing to put up with the restrictions and lack of rights 'enjoyed' by Muslim women. In fact, according to her sister, the girl denies that she agreed to convert to Islam. Not that she would be given a choice once she reached the Palestinian's home, of course. TThe sister wondered why the young man couldn't come to the U.S. if he really loved her. Why did hee ask her to go there? she wondered. Well, Islam and sharia law are the real reasons that they wanted her to come there- she would be helpless to resist the forced 'marriage' and Islamic conversion that would undoubtedly be required of her. And once married, she would find it almost impossible to get away from her new husband and his family.
In addition, I am appalled that this American girl was even able to spend all these hours online meeting unknown aadult Muslim men. What were her so-called 'loving parents' doing all this time? Where was the supervision? A sixteen-year-old high-school girl certainly should not be unsupervised when she spends hours in online chat rooms meeting God-knows-who. This is yet another reason for parents to keep a close eye on their offspring. I am aware that this is a trying and un-appealing task, especially for liberals who are too lazy to carry our the real tasks of parenthood and who believe that children are capable of making their own decisions. However, this shows once again that parents who do not keep watch over their children meet with disaster. The only redeeming value in this case is that the girl was successfully intercepted before she could be taken by the Palestinians.
The MSM, of course, present the Palestinian in question as a "music-loving computer buff who says he loves the teen and is heartbroken she was sent home". Sure. According to friends quoted in the article, although he claims he has no interest in coming to the United States, he "wanted to take the SAT exam and study computer engineering in the U.S. That is his dream." Uh-huh. So he arranges for an American 16-year-old from the heart of Blue America to come to Gaza? And he says she would convert to Islam? A religion where women are completely controlled by their husbands? And he "has no desire to come to the U.S.?" All of this rings incredibly phony. I expect the Drive-By Media to miss this. However, I also expect others to concentrate on this .
And we definitely need to monitor things like MySpace a little more closely. If Muslim Palestinians are using it to try to acquire ready-made access to America via underage son-to-be slave brides, then what are others using it for?
In this case, a sixteen-year-old girl from Michigan apparently decided to marry an impoverished, 20-year-old Palestinian, who intended to make her convert to Islam. Considering the liberal-controlled educational system in the United States, I doubt whether the teenager in question, one Katherine Lester, knows anything valid about Islam and the sharia religious law it contains. I certainly doubt that a 16-year-old American girl would be willing to put up with the restrictions and lack of rights 'enjoyed' by Muslim women. In fact, according to her sister, the girl denies that she agreed to convert to Islam. Not that she would be given a choice once she reached the Palestinian's home, of course. TThe sister wondered why the young man couldn't come to the U.S. if he really loved her. Why did hee ask her to go there? she wondered. Well, Islam and sharia law are the real reasons that they wanted her to come there- she would be helpless to resist the forced 'marriage' and Islamic conversion that would undoubtedly be required of her. And once married, she would find it almost impossible to get away from her new husband and his family.
In addition, I am appalled that this American girl was even able to spend all these hours online meeting unknown aadult Muslim men. What were her so-called 'loving parents' doing all this time? Where was the supervision? A sixteen-year-old high-school girl certainly should not be unsupervised when she spends hours in online chat rooms meeting God-knows-who. This is yet another reason for parents to keep a close eye on their offspring. I am aware that this is a trying and un-appealing task, especially for liberals who are too lazy to carry our the real tasks of parenthood and who believe that children are capable of making their own decisions. However, this shows once again that parents who do not keep watch over their children meet with disaster. The only redeeming value in this case is that the girl was successfully intercepted before she could be taken by the Palestinians.
The MSM, of course, present the Palestinian in question as a "music-loving computer buff who says he loves the teen and is heartbroken she was sent home". Sure. According to friends quoted in the article, although he claims he has no interest in coming to the United States, he "wanted to take the SAT exam and study computer engineering in the U.S. That is his dream." Uh-huh. So he arranges for an American 16-year-old from the heart of Blue America to come to Gaza? And he says she would convert to Islam? A religion where women are completely controlled by their husbands? And he "has no desire to come to the U.S.?" All of this rings incredibly phony. I expect the Drive-By Media to miss this. However, I also expect others to concentrate on this .
And we definitely need to monitor things like MySpace a little more closely. If Muslim Palestinians are using it to try to acquire ready-made access to America via underage son-to-be slave brides, then what are others using it for?
Tuesday, June 13, 2006
Then Hastert Steps Up...
...on immigration at least. According to a story today posted on Breitbart.com, the Republican Speaker of the House is not too kindly inclined towards the Senate's rush to amnesty. Speaking on the recently-passed Senate bill that allows virtually any illegal alien to blithely ignore American laws and still be rewarded by citizenship,
This is wonderful news, if only the House leadership can continue to stand fast. The Senate bill is a complete disaster, and should definitely not be passed in its current form. The House at least is concentrating on enforcement (and a REAL FENCE) first, which is definitely the way to go. As I have posted before, what is it about ILLEGAL that our Senators cannot understand. For bloviating drunkards like Teddy Kennedy, at least one can understand his eagerness to employ illegals so he doesn't have to pay American wages. But for a Arizonian such as John McCain, what the heck is he thinking?
If the House can stand firm, perhaps we can get our borders secured and then start figuring out how to handle the illegals. And we should definitely make LEGAL immigrants' paths easier to citizenship, as opposed to spending time on our illegal immigrants. LEGAL versus ILLEGAL, Congresspeople. What is it about ILLEGAL that is so hard for you to understand? Personally, I as I wrote in a previous post, I want to see the US government fix the USCIS, not waste time on illegal aliens who do not respect us and are trying to subvert our standards for their own selfish reasons.
So congratulations to the House for at least standing up for CITIZENS' RIGHTS for a change instead of worrying about those who under US law, are here illegally and are deserving of nothing except a quick boot out of the country. Give your Senators and Representatives a call to urge them to support the House's stance- not the amnesty proposed by the Senate. We already had that once and it didn't work out too well, if we recall Simpson-Mazzoli.
Hta tip to Matt Drudge.
"We're going to take a long look at it," Hastert said late Tuesday.
House Majority Leader John Boehner agreed. "I think we should know clearly what's in the Senate bill," Boehner said. But he added there are lots of ways to understand its contents.
This is wonderful news, if only the House leadership can continue to stand fast. The Senate bill is a complete disaster, and should definitely not be passed in its current form. The House at least is concentrating on enforcement (and a REAL FENCE) first, which is definitely the way to go. As I have posted before, what is it about ILLEGAL that our Senators cannot understand. For bloviating drunkards like Teddy Kennedy, at least one can understand his eagerness to employ illegals so he doesn't have to pay American wages. But for a Arizonian such as John McCain, what the heck is he thinking?
If the House can stand firm, perhaps we can get our borders secured and then start figuring out how to handle the illegals. And we should definitely make LEGAL immigrants' paths easier to citizenship, as opposed to spending time on our illegal immigrants. LEGAL versus ILLEGAL, Congresspeople. What is it about ILLEGAL that is so hard for you to understand? Personally, I as I wrote in a previous post, I want to see the US government fix the USCIS, not waste time on illegal aliens who do not respect us and are trying to subvert our standards for their own selfish reasons.
So congratulations to the House for at least standing up for CITIZENS' RIGHTS for a change instead of worrying about those who under US law, are here illegally and are deserving of nothing except a quick boot out of the country. Give your Senators and Representatives a call to urge them to support the House's stance- not the amnesty proposed by the Senate. We already had that once and it didn't work out too well, if we recall Simpson-Mazzoli.
Hta tip to Matt Drudge.
Saturday, June 10, 2006
The States Are Stepping Up..
..to the plate on immigration. If the federal government will not execute its constitutionally mandated duty to protect the border, then the states are using novel ways to step into the breach. In a story today, Breitbart.com reports that an Arizona judge has upheld a law used to target illegal immigrants and their smugglers.
According to the report, Judge Thomas O'Toole upheld the law despite arguments that it was never intended to target illegals- only their smugglers. Displaying a rare attack of common sense from a member of the legal profession, the judge said that their was no evidence the law "intended to exclude any prosecution for conspiracy to commit human smuggling." This allows the Maricopa County Attorney to continue to use the law to target illegal aliens and put them into prison or fine them if they are caught crossing the border.
This is very good news. Arizona and the other border states have suffered immensely from the illegal invasion, and since the US government seems more intent on protecting those who have no right to protection (the illegal aliens) than those whom they are legally sworn to protect (their constituents), the states are stepping up to the plate.
Hopefully, this will shame some Senators and Congresspeople into acting in Washington as well. It is time to stop pandering to people who have no right to be here and start thinking of the people who DO have a right to be here- the citizens and LEGAL residents of the United States. Are the Congress and the President listening?
Hat tip to Matt Drudge.
According to the report, Judge Thomas O'Toole upheld the law despite arguments that it was never intended to target illegals- only their smugglers. Displaying a rare attack of common sense from a member of the legal profession, the judge said that their was no evidence the law "intended to exclude any prosecution for conspiracy to commit human smuggling." This allows the Maricopa County Attorney to continue to use the law to target illegal aliens and put them into prison or fine them if they are caught crossing the border.
This is very good news. Arizona and the other border states have suffered immensely from the illegal invasion, and since the US government seems more intent on protecting those who have no right to protection (the illegal aliens) than those whom they are legally sworn to protect (their constituents), the states are stepping up to the plate.
Hopefully, this will shame some Senators and Congresspeople into acting in Washington as well. It is time to stop pandering to people who have no right to be here and start thinking of the people who DO have a right to be here- the citizens and LEGAL residents of the United States. Are the Congress and the President listening?
Hat tip to Matt Drudge.
Friday, June 09, 2006
Regarding LEGAL Immigration...
The service formerly known as the Immigration and Naturalization Service or INS (now renamed to the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services- USCIS) is famous for capriciousness, arrogance, laziness and sheer incompetence. Having dealt myself with this agency on two separate occasions, I am intimately familiar with their complete lack of anything remotely resembling service. They rank on the same level as the IRS, without the latter's charm.
And apparently I am not the only person who so considers this agency to be in desperate need of a complete and total overhaul. A recent post on the near-miss of citizenship by a wounded LEGAL resident of the United States who was serving in the United States Armed Services by the estimable Japanese-born wife of Dayfdd ab Hugh is painfully true. Anyone who has ever had to deal with the capricious and arrogant inhabitants of this agency is well aware that they take great pleasure in treating anyone who is so unfortunate enough to deal with them in a manner calculated to provoke.
This agency needs a complete overhaul from top to bottom and it's leadership (if such incompetence can even be called leadership) needs thorough training in service. The supplicants of the USCIS are LEGALLY here, they did not swim the Rio Grande like the ILLEGAL ALIENS the Senate so badly wants to give amnesty to. On a slight tangent, I would like to make a note to our esteemed Senators- there is an enormous difference between people who came here LEGALLY and are trying to follow the Byzantine rules and regulations laid down by the USCIS and people who don't even respect us enough to follow the most basic of our laws- in short who break those laws in their illicit border crossings. I would think that the people who are trying their best to FOLLOW our laws and who are here LEGALLY (again, note the difference between LEGAL and ILLEGAL) are the people we should be trying to make welcome, not give them a bad impression of the US Government right off the bat. Again, having intimate experience with this agency gives me the knowledge that it is one that richly deserves all the contempt and disapprobriation that can be heaped upon it.
We need a replacement. Soon.
Hat tip to Sachi at Big Lizards.
And apparently I am not the only person who so considers this agency to be in desperate need of a complete and total overhaul. A recent post on the near-miss of citizenship by a wounded LEGAL resident of the United States who was serving in the United States Armed Services by the estimable Japanese-born wife of Dayfdd ab Hugh is painfully true. Anyone who has ever had to deal with the capricious and arrogant inhabitants of this agency is well aware that they take great pleasure in treating anyone who is so unfortunate enough to deal with them in a manner calculated to provoke.
This agency needs a complete overhaul from top to bottom and it's leadership (if such incompetence can even be called leadership) needs thorough training in service. The supplicants of the USCIS are LEGALLY here, they did not swim the Rio Grande like the ILLEGAL ALIENS the Senate so badly wants to give amnesty to. On a slight tangent, I would like to make a note to our esteemed Senators- there is an enormous difference between people who came here LEGALLY and are trying to follow the Byzantine rules and regulations laid down by the USCIS and people who don't even respect us enough to follow the most basic of our laws- in short who break those laws in their illicit border crossings. I would think that the people who are trying their best to FOLLOW our laws and who are here LEGALLY (again, note the difference between LEGAL and ILLEGAL) are the people we should be trying to make welcome, not give them a bad impression of the US Government right off the bat. Again, having intimate experience with this agency gives me the knowledge that it is one that richly deserves all the contempt and disapprobriation that can be heaped upon it.
We need a replacement. Soon.
Hat tip to Sachi at Big Lizards.
Democrats React To al-Zarqawi's Death
Scott Ott of Scrappleface blog posts a satire on the Democratic Party response to Zarquawi's death that is sadly not too far different from what the Drive-By Media and the Democrats on the Loony Left would really say if they thought they could get away with it. In this case, art imitates life a little TOO closely. However, it is still hilarious. Read the whole thing.
In the same Power Line post that brought this to my attention, there is also a link to a sober article by the esteemed Richard Miniter of the Human Events Online magazine on Zarqawi's atrocities (which interestingly the MSM are never eager to report on- much easier to excoriate the U.S. for holding terrorists in Guantanamo Bay) and a piece from the good folks at MEMRI on the reaction to Zarqwi's death in the Islamic media
(Note: the Iraqi paper Al-Rafadin called on al-Zarqawi and Hamas to go to hell after Hamas declared al-Zarqawi a martyr to the Arab nation. The Minneapolis Star-Tribue- yes, the same paper that illegally broke the news of the US breaking Japanese codes in WWII- fell far short of this standard in its own coverage iof the same event.) Read these as well. Interesting stuff. And the Drive-By Media will report on this, when.....?
Hat tip to the guys at Power Line.
In the same Power Line post that brought this to my attention, there is also a link to a sober article by the esteemed Richard Miniter of the Human Events Online magazine on Zarqawi's atrocities (which interestingly the MSM are never eager to report on- much easier to excoriate the U.S. for holding terrorists in Guantanamo Bay) and a piece from the good folks at MEMRI on the reaction to Zarqwi's death in the Islamic media
(Note: the Iraqi paper Al-Rafadin called on al-Zarqawi and Hamas to go to hell after Hamas declared al-Zarqawi a martyr to the Arab nation. The Minneapolis Star-Tribue- yes, the same paper that illegally broke the news of the US breaking Japanese codes in WWII- fell far short of this standard in its own coverage iof the same event.) Read these as well. Interesting stuff. And the Drive-By Media will report on this, when.....?
Hat tip to the guys at Power Line.
One Down- How Many Left?
I have been unable to post due to personal and professional commitments for the past few days, but the news from yesterday is simply too good to pass up. One of the biggest enemies to Western society and our way of life perished when the United States military, in conjunction with the Iraqi forces killed Abu Musab al-Zarqawi yesterday.
This news cannot be overstated, despite the near-gloom on the Left side of the blogosphere and the attempts of the Drive-By Media to downplay this. One commentator I heard made the very good point that the MSM seems highly pout out that the US is able to score a victory of this magnitude despite their determination that we have lost the war. Perhaps if they would spend a little more time actually reporting honestly on what is happening over in Iraq, fewer people would be against the war? The media has been trying since 2000 to destroy the Bush Presidency and they are determined to cause another Vietnam in Iraq, Interestingly enough, when I GOOGLE for al-Zarqawi's death, I cannot find any of the stories that ran yesterday on it. Could it be that the MSM do not want this story to be read? It is a thought....
I do not know the source of the media dislike for the United States, but I wish that they would either admit it or report objectively. The First Amendment is all well and good, but the Press needs to have some kind of oversight, since they are clearly walking very close to treason and in some cases (The New York Times comes to mind) they have already crossed that line, in my opinion.
However, this does not obscure the fact that AL-ZARQAWI IS DEAD!!!!!! We got the son-of-a gun, and hopefully the charred carcass of Bin Laden himself will not be far behind.
This also brings up an interesting point as to al-Quaeda's organization. With al-Zarqawi dead, the organization in Iraq lacks a leader. Bin Laden has been steadily more isolated and is running out of cohorts, as the US and its allies move ever closer to whatever cave he hides in. In Iraq, the al-Quaeda leadership has been decimated in recent months, according to documents and communications that have been intercepted. Now, with one stroke the US has wiped out the leader and several of his closest deputies, making it even harder for al-Quaeda to function. They may want to make a big splash, but they are finding it ever harder to move around and operate as the Iraqi forces become ever more efficient and the US troops move closer to their boltholes. This has already happened to the main al-Quaeda leadership- they are trapped in case and are not able to move freely anymore.
It will be very interesting to observe what happens now with al-Quaeda. I for one think their days are numbered. We are clearly winning on the battlefields. And if our media would display even a l;little patriotism, we would be winning here at home as well. Only the media's determination to destroy the United States and George Bush have given the Islamists the hope that they can win. Isn't it time to deploy the treason laws against the media, since it is easily provable that they are doing their best to help the enemies of the United States? It is proven from the terrorists' own mouths...
This news cannot be overstated, despite the near-gloom on the Left side of the blogosphere and the attempts of the Drive-By Media to downplay this. One commentator I heard made the very good point that the MSM seems highly pout out that the US is able to score a victory of this magnitude despite their determination that we have lost the war. Perhaps if they would spend a little more time actually reporting honestly on what is happening over in Iraq, fewer people would be against the war? The media has been trying since 2000 to destroy the Bush Presidency and they are determined to cause another Vietnam in Iraq, Interestingly enough, when I GOOGLE for al-Zarqawi's death, I cannot find any of the stories that ran yesterday on it. Could it be that the MSM do not want this story to be read? It is a thought....
I do not know the source of the media dislike for the United States, but I wish that they would either admit it or report objectively. The First Amendment is all well and good, but the Press needs to have some kind of oversight, since they are clearly walking very close to treason and in some cases (The New York Times comes to mind) they have already crossed that line, in my opinion.
However, this does not obscure the fact that AL-ZARQAWI IS DEAD!!!!!! We got the son-of-a gun, and hopefully the charred carcass of Bin Laden himself will not be far behind.
This also brings up an interesting point as to al-Quaeda's organization. With al-Zarqawi dead, the organization in Iraq lacks a leader. Bin Laden has been steadily more isolated and is running out of cohorts, as the US and its allies move ever closer to whatever cave he hides in. In Iraq, the al-Quaeda leadership has been decimated in recent months, according to documents and communications that have been intercepted. Now, with one stroke the US has wiped out the leader and several of his closest deputies, making it even harder for al-Quaeda to function. They may want to make a big splash, but they are finding it ever harder to move around and operate as the Iraqi forces become ever more efficient and the US troops move closer to their boltholes. This has already happened to the main al-Quaeda leadership- they are trapped in case and are not able to move freely anymore.
It will be very interesting to observe what happens now with al-Quaeda. I for one think their days are numbered. We are clearly winning on the battlefields. And if our media would display even a l;little patriotism, we would be winning here at home as well. Only the media's determination to destroy the United States and George Bush have given the Islamists the hope that they can win. Isn't it time to deploy the treason laws against the media, since it is easily provable that they are doing their best to help the enemies of the United States? It is proven from the terrorists' own mouths...
Friday, May 26, 2006
No, MSM, You are Not Exempt...
...from refusing to testify in criminal cases. Or so ordered a federal judge today. "The First Amendment does not protect a news reporter or that reporter's news organization from producing documents ... in a criminal case," said United States District Judge Reggie B. Walton in a ruling released today. According to Breitbart News, Walton ordered Time Magazine and the New York Times to turn over parts of their reporters' notes to the defense team of former Vice-Presidential Chief of Staff Lewis Libby.
This is good news to those of us who find the Drive-By Media a little too imperial for our tastes. Ordinary citizens do not have a choice whether or not they can testify in a criminal case, and certainly are not able to withold information simply because they feel like it. The Press, however, has been throwing their weight around for some time pretending that the US Constitution's First Amendment somehow puts them above the law. They have even been agitating for an official federal shield law to allow them to be the ultimate arbiters of what is fit to print and what isn't - even if it is illegal, as the New York Times's publication of the NSA's phone database almost certainly was.
But do reporters have a right to withold information from judges in a criminal case? Let's review. The actual text of the First Amendment says:
I don't see anything in that Amendment allowing reporters to decide when they will testify in criminal cases and when they will not. Fortunately, the judge in this case resisted the media pressure and (correctly) found the same thing. Although I am sure the Press will appeal, this will hopefully prove to be a sobering impulse to a news media that is entirely too impressed with itself, despite the many documented failures of the Press to report the facts, such as Katrina, the Iraq war, the last two Presidential elections, the forged Bush Guard memos and others.
Hat tip to Matt Drudge.
This is good news to those of us who find the Drive-By Media a little too imperial for our tastes. Ordinary citizens do not have a choice whether or not they can testify in a criminal case, and certainly are not able to withold information simply because they feel like it. The Press, however, has been throwing their weight around for some time pretending that the US Constitution's First Amendment somehow puts them above the law. They have even been agitating for an official federal shield law to allow them to be the ultimate arbiters of what is fit to print and what isn't - even if it is illegal, as the New York Times's publication of the NSA's phone database almost certainly was.
But do reporters have a right to withold information from judges in a criminal case? Let's review. The actual text of the First Amendment says:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
I don't see anything in that Amendment allowing reporters to decide when they will testify in criminal cases and when they will not. Fortunately, the judge in this case resisted the media pressure and (correctly) found the same thing. Although I am sure the Press will appeal, this will hopefully prove to be a sobering impulse to a news media that is entirely too impressed with itself, despite the many documented failures of the Press to report the facts, such as Katrina, the Iraq war, the last two Presidential elections, the forged Bush Guard memos and others.
Hat tip to Matt Drudge.
Thursday, May 25, 2006
More MSM Lies?
Despite an offical announcement from the Justice Department that Speaker of the House of Representatives Dennis Hastert is NOT under investigation, ABC News apparently cannot let go their jihad (shared with the rest of the Drive-By Media) against all Republicans. They are continuing to report that Hastert IS under investigation despite the DoJ's denial. Note to the MSM: Knowingly continuing to do false reporting about someone that damages that person's reputation after the facts have been disseminated constitutes libel. You are not exempt from libel and defamation charges, and apparently Speaker Hastert intends to press those charges, based on this letter that his attorney sent to ABC News today.
I have no particular respect for Speaker Hastert or any other member of the pork-laden Republican leadership. However, the so-called 'Mainstream' news media has been reporting false, misleading and sometimes borderline treasonous stories about Republicans in general and President Bush in particular since the 2000 elections when the MSM tried and failed to illegally throw the election to Gore by mis-reporting the results in Florida. This is merely another example of a hack job, like the Fitzmas reports of a Karl Rove indictment that never seem to happen, yet the MSM continually is anticipating.
I think it is high time that someone used the libel and possibly even the treason laws that are already on the books against the MSM for their consistently false and misleading reporting. I would like to see the Press brought to heel more sharply, since they cannot or will not report the real stories. This SHOULD have happened after they broke federal election law by projecting Florida in 2000 to Gore while the polls were still open, thus disccouraging who-knows-how-many people in the heavily Republican north-western part of the state from even voting.
More recently, the MSM's infamous Katrina coverage, their clear sympathies with the terrorists and their related refusal to report succcess stories in Iraq, their attempt to throw the 2004 Presidential election with the George W. Bush National Guard forgeries which were comprehensively exposed by Dr. Joseph Newcomer, the constant libeling of the President, the leaking of national security secrets, all of these are black marks on the national media, yet no one seems to be able to bring them to account for these spectacular failures. It is high time that someone stood up to this arrogant, spoiled group of children and brought them back to Earth, instead tof the BDS fever swamps so many of them seem to inhabit. I will be rooting for Speaker Hastert in any court case against ABC News.
Hat tip to Matt Drudge.
I have no particular respect for Speaker Hastert or any other member of the pork-laden Republican leadership. However, the so-called 'Mainstream' news media has been reporting false, misleading and sometimes borderline treasonous stories about Republicans in general and President Bush in particular since the 2000 elections when the MSM tried and failed to illegally throw the election to Gore by mis-reporting the results in Florida. This is merely another example of a hack job, like the Fitzmas reports of a Karl Rove indictment that never seem to happen, yet the MSM continually is anticipating.
I think it is high time that someone used the libel and possibly even the treason laws that are already on the books against the MSM for their consistently false and misleading reporting. I would like to see the Press brought to heel more sharply, since they cannot or will not report the real stories. This SHOULD have happened after they broke federal election law by projecting Florida in 2000 to Gore while the polls were still open, thus disccouraging who-knows-how-many people in the heavily Republican north-western part of the state from even voting.
More recently, the MSM's infamous Katrina coverage, their clear sympathies with the terrorists and their related refusal to report succcess stories in Iraq, their attempt to throw the 2004 Presidential election with the George W. Bush National Guard forgeries which were comprehensively exposed by Dr. Joseph Newcomer, the constant libeling of the President, the leaking of national security secrets, all of these are black marks on the national media, yet no one seems to be able to bring them to account for these spectacular failures. It is high time that someone stood up to this arrogant, spoiled group of children and brought them back to Earth, instead tof the BDS fever swamps so many of them seem to inhabit. I will be rooting for Speaker Hastert in any court case against ABC News.
Hat tip to Matt Drudge.
Tuesday, May 23, 2006
About that Global Warming, Al....
Al Gore, the one-time center-left politician from Tennessee, and now a global-warming eco-freak, is running around the world crying wolf about human-induced global warming. And spending lots of money and gas to do it. If Gore is truly concerned about global warming, maybe he ought to think about the consequences of using five cars to go a few blocks for a movie premiere in Cannes? This latest evidence of Gore's arrogance is hilarious if John Lott is correct that walking would have been faster. I love folks who don't practice what they preach, but then that is a failing of lefties- they are so superior to us common folks, so they don't need to follow their own orders, don't you know?
In any event, opponents of the Kyoto Protocol and other international boondoggles have been saying for a long time that the entire idea of 'global warming' is simply not proven. And now there is more evidence that the global warming debate may be lots of hot air about nothing. The National Center for Policy Analysis has just published a new study stating that the science behind the global warming movement is "fatally flawed".
I am not a environmental scientist, and am still up in the air on whether or not global warming actually exists. However, I am firmly in the doubters' camp on the question of whther or not global warming is human-induced. Since there appears to be neither a consensus on the issue nor proof that humans are causeing the Earth's atmosphere to heat up, I am ready to listen to any reasonable argument. However, Hollywood tear-fests based on dubious sciennce and bankrolled by known left-wing moonbats are not my idea of a reasonable argument. The eco-freaks are like a blind religion, and their tactics of pushing their message in their lemming-like Drive-By Media (phrase courtesy of Rush Limbaugh) are not to my liking.
Again, while I have yet to make up my mind if global warming itself is a real issue, I would at least recommend that the opposing side get a hearing. I do not believe we can determine the truth (of lack thereof) in the global warming debate until both sides have an opportunity to present their evidence.
05/25/2006 UPDATE: When I initially posted on Al Gore's five-car entourage to go roughly 500 yards at Cannes, I was unable to find the original press story to link. However, I have been able to recitfy that. Reuters India has the story.
In any event, opponents of the Kyoto Protocol and other international boondoggles have been saying for a long time that the entire idea of 'global warming' is simply not proven. And now there is more evidence that the global warming debate may be lots of hot air about nothing. The National Center for Policy Analysis has just published a new study stating that the science behind the global warming movement is "fatally flawed".
I am not a environmental scientist, and am still up in the air on whether or not global warming actually exists. However, I am firmly in the doubters' camp on the question of whther or not global warming is human-induced. Since there appears to be neither a consensus on the issue nor proof that humans are causeing the Earth's atmosphere to heat up, I am ready to listen to any reasonable argument. However, Hollywood tear-fests based on dubious sciennce and bankrolled by known left-wing moonbats are not my idea of a reasonable argument. The eco-freaks are like a blind religion, and their tactics of pushing their message in their lemming-like Drive-By Media (phrase courtesy of Rush Limbaugh) are not to my liking.
Again, while I have yet to make up my mind if global warming itself is a real issue, I would at least recommend that the opposing side get a hearing. I do not believe we can determine the truth (of lack thereof) in the global warming debate until both sides have an opportunity to present their evidence.
05/25/2006 UPDATE: When I initially posted on Al Gore's five-car entourage to go roughly 500 yards at Cannes, I was unable to find the original press story to link. However, I have been able to recitfy that. Reuters India has the story.
China Dumbs Down?
China is attempting to make their language easier for their citizens to understand. According to a Reuters story, China's media is using fewer characters in their publications. The story states that out of the thousands of extant characters, one only needs around 900 to understand 90 percent of a typical news story. This is interesting in that one needs roughly 2000 characters to function in everyday life in Japan. It had been my understanding that the number of characters required for everyday life in China far exceeded the number necessary in Japan. However, it appears I was mistaken.
The Chinese government began simplifying the Chinese syllabary after their victory in the Chinese Civil War of 1949. However, the Communist version of Chinese, known as Simplified Chinese, has heretofore not gained wide usage amongst overseas Chinese and non-mainlanders. Taiwan, Hong Kong, Macao and most overseas communities still use Traditional Chinese characters, not the newer Simplified. In their attempt to simplify the syllabary, the Chinese are following the lead of Japan, which performed a similar operation in 1945, when they simplified the common characters into the current 1945 Joyo Kanji 常用漢字 (you will need to set your browser to ISO 2022-JP in order to view these), plus the special characters used in Japanese names.
This effort also brings to mind similar effforts by the US education establishment to dumb down the curriculum of American education following the Second World War. In that case, much of the classical education required of young men and women has been lost, leading to an educational system that far too frequently fails to teach our young people anything of value. Touchy-feely education has never replaced a good hard regimen of learning. Throughout our history until very recently, most Americans were expected to have a more than passing familiarity with the classics of Western Civilization, and to have exposure to the great writers such as Shakespeare. Actual knowledge and expertise in the mathematics was also a requirement. That has all gone by the board, as modern teachers seem more interested in pushing a hard-left ideology than actually teaching their charges the necessities that will give them a leg up on life.
In the case of China, this is not an issue, as they are trying to pucsh themselves up, not tear themselves down as we seem to be. However, I am not sure how this will eventually play out, as despite the attempt to simplify the language, one still needs to know a large number (the Reuters article states that a university graduate typically knows around 6000 characters) to function in more than the bare minimum of daily life situations. Even in Japanese, one often encounters rarely-used or classical characters in business or academia. However, the spirit of the Chinese attempt to simplify their language seems to be in good sense, as all languages that use a complicated script like Chinese make it difficult both for practitioners of the language to interact with non-native speakers, and it serves as a barrier to foreign investment as well.
The Chinese government began simplifying the Chinese syllabary after their victory in the Chinese Civil War of 1949. However, the Communist version of Chinese, known as Simplified Chinese, has heretofore not gained wide usage amongst overseas Chinese and non-mainlanders. Taiwan, Hong Kong, Macao and most overseas communities still use Traditional Chinese characters, not the newer Simplified. In their attempt to simplify the syllabary, the Chinese are following the lead of Japan, which performed a similar operation in 1945, when they simplified the common characters into the current 1945 Joyo Kanji 常用漢字 (you will need to set your browser to ISO 2022-JP in order to view these), plus the special characters used in Japanese names.
This effort also brings to mind similar effforts by the US education establishment to dumb down the curriculum of American education following the Second World War. In that case, much of the classical education required of young men and women has been lost, leading to an educational system that far too frequently fails to teach our young people anything of value. Touchy-feely education has never replaced a good hard regimen of learning. Throughout our history until very recently, most Americans were expected to have a more than passing familiarity with the classics of Western Civilization, and to have exposure to the great writers such as Shakespeare. Actual knowledge and expertise in the mathematics was also a requirement. That has all gone by the board, as modern teachers seem more interested in pushing a hard-left ideology than actually teaching their charges the necessities that will give them a leg up on life.
In the case of China, this is not an issue, as they are trying to pucsh themselves up, not tear themselves down as we seem to be. However, I am not sure how this will eventually play out, as despite the attempt to simplify the language, one still needs to know a large number (the Reuters article states that a university graduate typically knows around 6000 characters) to function in more than the bare minimum of daily life situations. Even in Japanese, one often encounters rarely-used or classical characters in business or academia. However, the spirit of the Chinese attempt to simplify their language seems to be in good sense, as all languages that use a complicated script like Chinese make it difficult both for practitioners of the language to interact with non-native speakers, and it serves as a barrier to foreign investment as well.
Monday, May 22, 2006
Baby-Boom Ethos Reaches Japan
It has long been recognized by most responsible people that the Baby Boomers, especially the free-love, drug-addiicted, lefties who are the face of the late Sixties and Seventies in this country are responsible for severely damaging the United States' long and proud tradition of self-reliance through their spoiled, arrogant assumption that only they know best. People like Barbra Streisand, Jane Fonda and Teddy Kennedy- cosseted, spoiled brats who have never had to work for a living and have not been forced by the largely partisan media into paying for their sins. However, it appears that this phenomenon is not unique to the United States.
Acccording to the Japanese Shukan Post (週間ポスト) there is a similar, though probably less-dangerous impulse currently sweeping Japan as well. According to the Post, young Japanese are engaging in sex at younger ages and refusing to enter into the all-out work life that marked their forebears. The Post also comments that their paerents are increasingly living in joyless lives of their own and are seeking romance outside of marriage, as well as increasingly not enjoying the fruits of marriage between themselves. The general drift is that society is breaking down and the new generation will be the death of the Japanese nation.
While I do not believe that the young Japanese are as bad as the Post seems to think, I do agree that the breakdown of society is not always a good thing. The so-pleased-with-themselves Baby Boomers have contributed virtually nothing positive to the United States (despite their claims to the contrary) and the young Japanese risk falling into the same trap. So the Post's article comes as a warning shot. Too bad the media in this country are too busy trying to destroy another Presidency they dislike to take heed to the dangers they are attempting to sow.
Hat tip to Mentok.
Acccording to the Japanese Shukan Post (週間ポスト) there is a similar, though probably less-dangerous impulse currently sweeping Japan as well. According to the Post, young Japanese are engaging in sex at younger ages and refusing to enter into the all-out work life that marked their forebears. The Post also comments that their paerents are increasingly living in joyless lives of their own and are seeking romance outside of marriage, as well as increasingly not enjoying the fruits of marriage between themselves. The general drift is that society is breaking down and the new generation will be the death of the Japanese nation.
While I do not believe that the young Japanese are as bad as the Post seems to think, I do agree that the breakdown of society is not always a good thing. The so-pleased-with-themselves Baby Boomers have contributed virtually nothing positive to the United States (despite their claims to the contrary) and the young Japanese risk falling into the same trap. So the Post's article comes as a warning shot. Too bad the media in this country are too busy trying to destroy another Presidency they dislike to take heed to the dangers they are attempting to sow.
Hat tip to Mentok.
More Immigration Stupidity
So, what part of illegal alien does our wonderful Senate NOT understand? According to the Washington Times, I see that the Senate has so far killed the penalty for employing illegals, and has also given them access to Social Security funds that they have got by lying and breaking American law In addition, they are apparently ambivalent on protecting the border by building an actual, real WALL and they have also, as Senator Sessions of Alabama said made it even more imperative for more Mexican wetbacks to swim the border by pushing for a massive amnesty.
This is NOT what the American people want. Poll after poll, as demonstrated by this FoxNews poll show sizable majorities of Americans want enforcement first. Even sizable (60-70percent) of women and Democrats favor using troops on the border to stop illegal immigration. Why are our Senators unable to understand this? The House didn't seem to have any problem with the concept, except for the usual left-wing moonbats like Nancy Pelosi and Barbara Lee. I also fail to understand why our elected representatives in the Senate are so blind to the fact that they are increasing the load on American citizens and legal residents (the folks who got here by obeying the law and jumping through all the INS' hoops) in favor of uneducated, anti-American, law-breakers who respect not our cculture, nor our language nor our traditions and certainly not our laws.
So you think I am being harsh on these poor Mexicans by referring to them by the derogatory term 'wetback'? Well, let's review. As I have mentioned before, there are two kinds of immigration- though you would never know by reading what Rush Limbaugh hilariously (and truthfully) calls the 'Drive-by media"! There are legal immigrants who are usually educated, and who have stood in line and filled out many forms and who are actually interested in being Americans. I have a number of good friends who are originally from China. One of them recently became a citizen, after many years of being a legal resident, and I remember when he got back from his ceremony, he was so proud that he was now a citizen. My own wife, who is a legal resident and who is originally from Japan, received her green card a few years back, and she also was both proud and a little amused at the INS' vagaries. However, both my wife and my friend are educated professionals who are law-abiding, valuable assets to this country. My friends are mostly engineers and my wife is a nurse. They didn't jump the border and they are not demonstrating in the streets for rights that they have not earned. Why can't our elected representatives give people like my friends and my wife the respect they have earned instead of throwing them under the bus in favor of a wave of American-hating, entitlement-wanting La Raza scumbags?
Being in the United States is not a right, it is a privilege. And it is absolutely the duty of every American citizen to let these idiots in the Senate know that. It is time to pull in the welcome mat for our southern border. Put the United States Army down there and build a wall along the lines of the Great Wall to protect our citizens from these criminals. And then if Mexico's government wants to push, let them. And if they want a war, we are more than ready. It is time to call this illegal onslaught from Mexico and the southern hemisphere, aided and abetted by rich, corrupt politicians who don't want to upset their little cronyist applecart the invasion that it is. When the Mexican government is publishing handbooks on how to break US law, it is time to make Mexico understand that their are consequences to being unfriendly. And I for one am tired of Mexico running immigration policy in Washington.
Hat tip for the text of the Sessions speech to Joe Guzzardi of the blog VDare.com. Hat tip on the Washington Times article to the inestimable Michalle Malkin, who as usual is on top of this disgrace.
This is NOT what the American people want. Poll after poll, as demonstrated by this FoxNews poll show sizable majorities of Americans want enforcement first. Even sizable (60-70percent) of women and Democrats favor using troops on the border to stop illegal immigration. Why are our Senators unable to understand this? The House didn't seem to have any problem with the concept, except for the usual left-wing moonbats like Nancy Pelosi and Barbara Lee. I also fail to understand why our elected representatives in the Senate are so blind to the fact that they are increasing the load on American citizens and legal residents (the folks who got here by obeying the law and jumping through all the INS' hoops) in favor of uneducated, anti-American, law-breakers who respect not our cculture, nor our language nor our traditions and certainly not our laws.
So you think I am being harsh on these poor Mexicans by referring to them by the derogatory term 'wetback'? Well, let's review. As I have mentioned before, there are two kinds of immigration- though you would never know by reading what Rush Limbaugh hilariously (and truthfully) calls the 'Drive-by media"! There are legal immigrants who are usually educated, and who have stood in line and filled out many forms and who are actually interested in being Americans. I have a number of good friends who are originally from China. One of them recently became a citizen, after many years of being a legal resident, and I remember when he got back from his ceremony, he was so proud that he was now a citizen. My own wife, who is a legal resident and who is originally from Japan, received her green card a few years back, and she also was both proud and a little amused at the INS' vagaries. However, both my wife and my friend are educated professionals who are law-abiding, valuable assets to this country. My friends are mostly engineers and my wife is a nurse. They didn't jump the border and they are not demonstrating in the streets for rights that they have not earned. Why can't our elected representatives give people like my friends and my wife the respect they have earned instead of throwing them under the bus in favor of a wave of American-hating, entitlement-wanting La Raza scumbags?
Being in the United States is not a right, it is a privilege. And it is absolutely the duty of every American citizen to let these idiots in the Senate know that. It is time to pull in the welcome mat for our southern border. Put the United States Army down there and build a wall along the lines of the Great Wall to protect our citizens from these criminals. And then if Mexico's government wants to push, let them. And if they want a war, we are more than ready. It is time to call this illegal onslaught from Mexico and the southern hemisphere, aided and abetted by rich, corrupt politicians who don't want to upset their little cronyist applecart the invasion that it is. When the Mexican government is publishing handbooks on how to break US law, it is time to make Mexico understand that their are consequences to being unfriendly. And I for one am tired of Mexico running immigration policy in Washington.
Hat tip for the text of the Sessions speech to Joe Guzzardi of the blog VDare.com. Hat tip on the Washington Times article to the inestimable Michalle Malkin, who as usual is on top of this disgrace.
Tuesday, May 16, 2006
Mexico Wants to Sue
...so let them sue. According to a report by the AP, Mexico is threatening to sue if National Guard begin detaining illegal aliens on the US/Mexican border. My reaction, is to go right ahead. Every country has the right to secure its own sovereign borders and what Mexico does in purusing an open border into the US for its citizens, yet not reciprocating with rights for illegal US immigration is a disgrace. If Mexico cannot control its people, there is no reason why we Americans have to foot the bill.
I would actually push for much more stringent enforcement. There have been reports in the past that the Mexican military has encroached on US soil to help illegal aliens ccross the border. Maybe the National Guard can cut down on that. I don't think Mexico is ready for a war with the US, and if a National Guardsman is killed by a Mexican illegal or one of Mexico's soldiers, I think that there will be a backlash that dwarfs what we have so far seen. Most people in this country are not in favor of the open borders ideals espoused by Mexico. If they are so fond of open borders, how come other South Americans are not permitted to enter their country the same way they want us to permit their citizens to enter ours?
Finally, I think this is a wonderful opportunity for Congress to rein in the court system. The next federal judge who rules that we cannot enforce our own borders ought to be impeached and removed from his or her position post-haste. We are not required to suspend all ofr our own laws and customss just because a not-always-friendly foreign government wants to use us as a release valve for their own corrupt system. And if our politicians can't understand that American wishes matter more than illegal alien wishes, then they deserve to lose their next elections. And that goes for Republicans as well as DEmocrats. No one should pander when the subject is control of our sovereign borders. If Mexico wants to suborn our own system, then maybe we ought to teach them a lesson- a military one. I doubt they are any more ready to defeat us now than they were in 1848.
I would actually push for much more stringent enforcement. There have been reports in the past that the Mexican military has encroached on US soil to help illegal aliens ccross the border. Maybe the National Guard can cut down on that. I don't think Mexico is ready for a war with the US, and if a National Guardsman is killed by a Mexican illegal or one of Mexico's soldiers, I think that there will be a backlash that dwarfs what we have so far seen. Most people in this country are not in favor of the open borders ideals espoused by Mexico. If they are so fond of open borders, how come other South Americans are not permitted to enter their country the same way they want us to permit their citizens to enter ours?
Finally, I think this is a wonderful opportunity for Congress to rein in the court system. The next federal judge who rules that we cannot enforce our own borders ought to be impeached and removed from his or her position post-haste. We are not required to suspend all ofr our own laws and customss just because a not-always-friendly foreign government wants to use us as a release valve for their own corrupt system. And if our politicians can't understand that American wishes matter more than illegal alien wishes, then they deserve to lose their next elections. And that goes for Republicans as well as DEmocrats. No one should pander when the subject is control of our sovereign borders. If Mexico wants to suborn our own system, then maybe we ought to teach them a lesson- a military one. I doubt they are any more ready to defeat us now than they were in 1848.
Thursday, May 11, 2006
President vs Press, Round Two
Well, it is about time, in my opinion. According to a report published in the national Examiner.com, the new White House press secretary, former Fox pundit Tony Snow, came out firing at the biased press coverage of the White House. His first act was to issue detailed and specific rebuttals of the current "news" in emails sent to the various press organizations. He specifically targeted the New York Times and CBS News, sending an email stating “CBS News misleadingly reports that only 8 million seniors have signed up for Medicare prescription drug coverage,” Wednesday’s missive said. “But 37 million seniors have coverage.” His email about the Times said “The New York Times continues to ignore America’s economic progress,”.
This is a good sign. For too long, the White House has allowed the nation's biased and partisan press corps to portray the Adminstration in an unflattering light. Their consistent refusal to print any good news and their unrelenting attacks on the President and his staff has been long untroubled by any counter-attack from the President. Hopefully Mr. Snow will be able to change that. In any case, a vigorous, truthful offense as this is, is a better alternative than a passive defense. Keep up the good work, Mr. Snow. And maybe the rest of the Adminstration will follow this example. It is not enough to be right- one must be able to present one's case to the public as well, especially in the face of a hostile and anti-American Press.
Hat tip to Matt Drudge.
This is a good sign. For too long, the White House has allowed the nation's biased and partisan press corps to portray the Adminstration in an unflattering light. Their consistent refusal to print any good news and their unrelenting attacks on the President and his staff has been long untroubled by any counter-attack from the President. Hopefully Mr. Snow will be able to change that. In any case, a vigorous, truthful offense as this is, is a better alternative than a passive defense. Keep up the good work, Mr. Snow. And maybe the rest of the Adminstration will follow this example. It is not enough to be right- one must be able to present one's case to the public as well, especially in the face of a hostile and anti-American Press.
Hat tip to Matt Drudge.
Tuesday, May 09, 2006
Common Sense
I may have said this before, but Jerry Pournelle is a voice of real common sense in an increasingly nonsensical time. Back in February of this year, he wrote a commentary on liberalism that remains required reading for those of us who are avowed conservatives, libertarians and such.
Read the whole thing. If I have linked to this before, my apologies. However, I believe that it can never be read too many times. And there is much of interest on the rest of his site as well, including an amusing comment on the Great Illegal Walkout. Mr. Pournelle's report makes me wish the illegals would stage walkouts every day of the year.....
Hat tip to Mentok.
Read the whole thing. If I have linked to this before, my apologies. However, I believe that it can never be read too many times. And there is much of interest on the rest of his site as well, including an amusing comment on the Great Illegal Walkout. Mr. Pournelle's report makes me wish the illegals would stage walkouts every day of the year.....
Hat tip to Mentok.
Return of Star Wars
They called former President Ronald Reagan an idiot for even suggesting the famed Space (CORRECTION: Strategic) Defense Initiative back during his term in office. And his critics in the media and the Democratic party (which amounts to roughly the same thing) were legion. However, as a recent article by James Thayer for the Weekly Standard online magazine points out, despite the naysayers, Reagan had the right idea. And as a result, missile defense is almost a reality at last. Well, it wouldn't be the first time that Reagn was proven right and his critics wrong. Does anyone remember his "Tear down this wall, Mr. Gorbachev!" speech? How many Democrats would have dared to say that? Maybe Joseph Lieberman, but no one else I can think of. And how many in the media give him credit for his steadfast vision and courage?
Although the system is not complete, and it is not 100 percent perfect, tests are encouraging and most of our true allies (Australia, Britain, Poland, Japan) are jumping on board. As Donald Rumsfeld said regarding the system, "Did we have perfection with our first airplane, our first rifle, our first ship? I mean, they'd still be testing at Kitty Hawk, for God's sake, if you wanted perfection." I find this an entirely appropriate comment. Of course, the critics don't want perfection- they want surrender.
If we can get a reliable missile defense system deployed, then Iran and North Korea can threaten all they want, and we can simply tell them to do what they wish, sionce they are completely unable to harm us. I am certain that we would be happy to provide our closest allies (Israel comes to mind) with this technology as well. And that would be a blow to the mullahs, as their little nukes would no longer be of any use to them As Michael Ledeen of the National Review likes to say, "Faster please".
05/26/2006 CORRECTION UPDATE: I mistakenly typed "Space Defense Initiative" in my original post. I am not sure what I was thinking, but the correct name of Reagan's proposed program was the Strategic Defense Initiative.
Although the system is not complete, and it is not 100 percent perfect, tests are encouraging and most of our true allies (Australia, Britain, Poland, Japan) are jumping on board. As Donald Rumsfeld said regarding the system, "Did we have perfection with our first airplane, our first rifle, our first ship? I mean, they'd still be testing at Kitty Hawk, for God's sake, if you wanted perfection." I find this an entirely appropriate comment. Of course, the critics don't want perfection- they want surrender.
If we can get a reliable missile defense system deployed, then Iran and North Korea can threaten all they want, and we can simply tell them to do what they wish, sionce they are completely unable to harm us. I am certain that we would be happy to provide our closest allies (Israel comes to mind) with this technology as well. And that would be a blow to the mullahs, as their little nukes would no longer be of any use to them As Michael Ledeen of the National Review likes to say, "Faster please".
05/26/2006 CORRECTION UPDATE: I mistakenly typed "Space Defense Initiative" in my original post. I am not sure what I was thinking, but the correct name of Reagan's proposed program was the Strategic Defense Initiative.
Monday, May 08, 2006
And another Note on Illegals
My good buddy Mentok has posted on his blog some hilarious poetry that is applicable to the subject of illegal aliens. And Doug Giles has a wonderful column on TownHall.com that is also very required reading for all who are interested in the topic.
Go read it. Go read both. And there is an email which is (possibly) apocryphal going around which states that on the Great Walkout Day, sales across the US went down by approximately four percent. But shoplifting went down by 67 percent! So the merchants did good. I have a messsage for the wetback/La Raza/Reconquista racists. Take some more days off. Help our merchants make more money by reducing crime! Think about it as you read Mentok's poetry. For more (similar) efforts, check out Craig's List starting HERE and the post that started it all HERE. Enjoy, y'all....
Go read it. Go read both. And there is an email which is (possibly) apocryphal going around which states that on the Great Walkout Day, sales across the US went down by approximately four percent. But shoplifting went down by 67 percent! So the merchants did good. I have a messsage for the wetback/La Raza/Reconquista racists. Take some more days off. Help our merchants make more money by reducing crime! Think about it as you read Mentok's poetry. For more (similar) efforts, check out Craig's List starting HERE and the post that started it all HERE. Enjoy, y'all....
Some Questions...
Courtesy of my friend Mentok, I am posting the following questions, for discussion together with my take:
Q: What do you think of treating the terrorists by the platinum rule? Meaning, if they're giving us hell, giving them hell via lard dipped bullets, etc.
A: I think this is an excellent idea. My only concern is that we are already winning both the military and the propaganda war in Iraq, and this might push us backward if we hit the wrong folks at all. And that might happen- mistakes do happen in wartime, as we all know. We already know the enemy in Iraq are losing- only the American MSM has apparently not yet read (or more accurately won't report on) the most recently translated al-Quaeda letter, which clearly shows their lack of strength. However, it would be so nice to pay them back in their own coin. And what the h*ll are these idiots at Guantanamo Bay doing still with their Korans? Do any Americans in Iraq get bibles? Or any other Muslim country? Take away those damn Korans. These are terrorists, not POWs!
Q: What do you think of Stephen Colbert and his *ssraping of the US Press Corp on CSPAN?
A: Not having seen Colbert's little "comedy routine" I have no opinion to offer. Mentok says that "not only did he rake President Bush over the coals, he also managed to make a laughingstock of the US MSM." Well, since the MSM already ARE a laughingstock for their blatant bias, their determination to not report the truth and their equal determination to ruin this country, that wouldn't be difficult. However, I will take Mentok at his word. For anyone interested in viewing the routine, Google (yes the hypocritical ChiCom censor enabler for those keeping score at home) has the complete video feed here.
Q: Should the US media be entitled to protection from the United States military?
A: Not anyone from CNN, NBC, CBS, or the New York Times, no. Seriously, if the US MSM insists that they are above being patriotic and that they do not have to support their own country, then why the heck should our soldiers have to risk their lives protecting these useless traitors? The MSM is apparently on very good terms with the enemy- let THEM be responsible for protecting these so-called reporters who only report what they want, not what is true. And if a reporter is traveling with a terrorist group, he/she should be a legitimate target. They certainly would not lift a finger to protect the soldier if they had knowledge of an attack, so why should the soldier lift a finger to protect the reporter? Only if the reporter is embedded and has agreed to follow the military's terms (and that includes reporting both the good and the bad news) should a reporter be entitled to military protection.
Q: Should we repeal the 'Baby Anchor' law?
A: Absolutely. Even though it will require a Constitutional amendment. There is no reason why just being born in the United States should make anyone a citizen- especially not with illegals slipping across the border just to have their babies in US hospitals- which by government fiat cannot ask if they are even citizens! The upshot is that we have just increased our own tax burden with yet another illegal family. Get rid of the baby anchor law and also remove the requirement that healthcare has to available to illegals. If you are not a citizen or legal resident, you should not be entitled to free healthcare. I am a citizen and I don't have it. Why should illegal aliens have benefits that citizens do not?
Q: What to do about Iran?
A: Well, we may not have a choice much longer. I say we give the UN till the end of the year, then start telling Tehran that our forces in Iraq will be moving in unless they unconditionally disarm. And that means a full apology and compensation for 1979 as well. Otherwise, we will remove the mullahs militarily. And let the Iranian people decide who will rule them next. Just like Iraq. And since Iran is the main financier of the "insurrection" in Iraq, there won't be anything a fifth element in Iran since most of the people are much more pro-American that are any other population in the area. Delay is fatal. Remember 1939. Hitler could have been stopped in 1938, but France and Britain did nothing and ended up fighting a six-year war. Can we afford to do that again? Can we afford a nuclear-armed Iran?
Q: What to do about North Korea?
A: Give nuclear weapons to Taiwan, Japan and South Korea. Well, maybe not South Korea. They are a little bit too ungrateful already for my taste. But Japan and Taiwan? Absolutely. The last thing China wants to see is a nuclear-armed Taiwan. And that will make China think twice about whether having North Korea as a client is worth the consequences. Since China will not be helpful, why should we enable their little dreams of power?
Post what you think in the Comments section. As usual, any profanity will be removed. Be polite, be courteous, behave.
Credit for questions 1 and 2 to Mentok.
Q: What do you think of treating the terrorists by the platinum rule? Meaning, if they're giving us hell, giving them hell via lard dipped bullets, etc.
A: I think this is an excellent idea. My only concern is that we are already winning both the military and the propaganda war in Iraq, and this might push us backward if we hit the wrong folks at all. And that might happen- mistakes do happen in wartime, as we all know. We already know the enemy in Iraq are losing- only the American MSM has apparently not yet read (or more accurately won't report on) the most recently translated al-Quaeda letter, which clearly shows their lack of strength. However, it would be so nice to pay them back in their own coin. And what the h*ll are these idiots at Guantanamo Bay doing still with their Korans? Do any Americans in Iraq get bibles? Or any other Muslim country? Take away those damn Korans. These are terrorists, not POWs!
Q: What do you think of Stephen Colbert and his *ssraping of the US Press Corp on CSPAN?
A: Not having seen Colbert's little "comedy routine" I have no opinion to offer. Mentok says that "not only did he rake President Bush over the coals, he also managed to make a laughingstock of the US MSM." Well, since the MSM already ARE a laughingstock for their blatant bias, their determination to not report the truth and their equal determination to ruin this country, that wouldn't be difficult. However, I will take Mentok at his word. For anyone interested in viewing the routine, Google (yes the hypocritical ChiCom censor enabler for those keeping score at home) has the complete video feed here.
Q: Should the US media be entitled to protection from the United States military?
A: Not anyone from CNN, NBC, CBS, or the New York Times, no. Seriously, if the US MSM insists that they are above being patriotic and that they do not have to support their own country, then why the heck should our soldiers have to risk their lives protecting these useless traitors? The MSM is apparently on very good terms with the enemy- let THEM be responsible for protecting these so-called reporters who only report what they want, not what is true. And if a reporter is traveling with a terrorist group, he/she should be a legitimate target. They certainly would not lift a finger to protect the soldier if they had knowledge of an attack, so why should the soldier lift a finger to protect the reporter? Only if the reporter is embedded and has agreed to follow the military's terms (and that includes reporting both the good and the bad news) should a reporter be entitled to military protection.
Q: Should we repeal the 'Baby Anchor' law?
A: Absolutely. Even though it will require a Constitutional amendment. There is no reason why just being born in the United States should make anyone a citizen- especially not with illegals slipping across the border just to have their babies in US hospitals- which by government fiat cannot ask if they are even citizens! The upshot is that we have just increased our own tax burden with yet another illegal family. Get rid of the baby anchor law and also remove the requirement that healthcare has to available to illegals. If you are not a citizen or legal resident, you should not be entitled to free healthcare. I am a citizen and I don't have it. Why should illegal aliens have benefits that citizens do not?
Q: What to do about Iran?
A: Well, we may not have a choice much longer. I say we give the UN till the end of the year, then start telling Tehran that our forces in Iraq will be moving in unless they unconditionally disarm. And that means a full apology and compensation for 1979 as well. Otherwise, we will remove the mullahs militarily. And let the Iranian people decide who will rule them next. Just like Iraq. And since Iran is the main financier of the "insurrection" in Iraq, there won't be anything a fifth element in Iran since most of the people are much more pro-American that are any other population in the area. Delay is fatal. Remember 1939. Hitler could have been stopped in 1938, but France and Britain did nothing and ended up fighting a six-year war. Can we afford to do that again? Can we afford a nuclear-armed Iran?
Q: What to do about North Korea?
A: Give nuclear weapons to Taiwan, Japan and South Korea. Well, maybe not South Korea. They are a little bit too ungrateful already for my taste. But Japan and Taiwan? Absolutely. The last thing China wants to see is a nuclear-armed Taiwan. And that will make China think twice about whether having North Korea as a client is worth the consequences. Since China will not be helpful, why should we enable their little dreams of power?
Post what you think in the Comments section. As usual, any profanity will be removed. Be polite, be courteous, behave.
Credit for questions 1 and 2 to Mentok.
Stupid College Tricks, Part One
There have been a number of wonderful Top Ten lists since David Letterman introduced the phenomenon back in the 1980s. However, one of the best I have read is curently to be found on TownHall.com. The irrepressible Dr. Mike Adams, a criminology professor at University of North Carolina-Wilmington, put together his Top Ten Stupid Conspiracy Theories list. A sample taken from the list is as follows:
10. “911 was a conspiracy planned between the Bush administration and the Jews. They wanted an excuse to attack Arabs and the ignorant public bought into it.” (from a now-deceased college professor).
Hilarious stuff. I highly recommend reading the entire list. Unless you are one of the unfortunates with Bush Derangement Syndrome who inhabits the fever zones of the Daily Kos, I can guarantee your enjoyment. The sad part is that all of the theories on the list were propounded by eeither college professors or college students. And that is all the more eveidence of how the Left's stranglehold on public (and private) education has ruined our educational system in this country. A pity.
10. “911 was a conspiracy planned between the Bush administration and the Jews. They wanted an excuse to attack Arabs and the ignorant public bought into it.” (from a now-deceased college professor).
Hilarious stuff. I highly recommend reading the entire list. Unless you are one of the unfortunates with Bush Derangement Syndrome who inhabits the fever zones of the Daily Kos, I can guarantee your enjoyment. The sad part is that all of the theories on the list were propounded by eeither college professors or college students. And that is all the more eveidence of how the Left's stranglehold on public (and private) education has ruined our educational system in this country. A pity.
Thursday, May 04, 2006
Some Light (Noise) Relief
As in this article posted today in the BBC. Seems that maybe trombones DO qualify as lethal weapons. Now if the BBC wouold spend as much time worrying about real weapons of mass destruction in the hands of our enemies as they do about noisy trombones, maybe we could all sleep a little more securely at night. Of course, that would require the BBC to actually commit to to reporting the news accurately instead of always spinning things so as to reflect badly on their own countries.....
Monday, April 24, 2006
Dems Discover Leaking Is a Crime!
The Democrats have made leaks a powerful weapon in their attempts to destroy the Bush Administration. Together with their allies in the national Press corps, the Democrats have leaked information regarding US covert operations that have certainly put many agents at risk. As long as the leaks seem to put the Bush Administration in a disfavorable position, the Democrats are all ready to protect those law-breakers. However, they have condemned leaks that put themselves or their Press corps allies in an unfavorable light. However, since the firing of a CIA agent for leaking covert operation details to the New York Times, they are now protesting that they also do not condone leaking classified information.
The Valerie Plame case versus the recent firing of Mary McCarthy is a perfect example. As reported by the Washington Post newspaper, Democrats responded to the recent firing of a senior CIA officer, Mary McCarthy by claiming that there is a "double standard" in the way the leaks are handled. According to Rep. Jane Harmon, (D-CA), "...while leaks are wrong, I think it is totally wrong for our president in secret to selectively declassify certain information and empower people in his White House to leak it to favored reporters so that they can discredit political enemies."
Well, yes, Jane, there is a double standard. But not the way you think. If you had learned anything in your hippie school-days other than pot-smoking, you would know that the President has the authority to automatically declassify any information he wishes. In the Plame case, we have an open CIA agent who managed to convince her employer to send her husband on an all-expenses-paid junket which was neither approved nor requested by the White House. Said husband came back and lied about what he found and why he was sent. The President properly used his Constitutional authority to declassify information to disseminate the truth, which did discredit the husband, Joe Wilson, who was proven later by the Senate to be a liar. Nothing illegal about that. On the other hand, Mary McCarthy did NOT have the authority to declassify information.
And one other thing, Ms. Harmon. No one was endangered by the Plame situation. She was known to be a CIA employee, and was not actively under cover. On the other hand, McCarthy's disclosures, if that is what she was fired for, may have cost good men and women their lives. If we want to win this war, covert operations are going to be an integral part of the formula for victory. Getting the covert ops people endangered, or killed just because you don't like the President is pretty close to treason. Hopefully, Ms McCarthy will serve a good long prison term together with her firing. Seems like a pretty big difference to me. But of course, I actually studiedwhen I was in school. Something Ms. Harmon apparently did not, judging by her fatuous and ignorant remarks.
The Valerie Plame case versus the recent firing of Mary McCarthy is a perfect example. As reported by the Washington Post newspaper, Democrats responded to the recent firing of a senior CIA officer, Mary McCarthy by claiming that there is a "double standard" in the way the leaks are handled. According to Rep. Jane Harmon, (D-CA), "...while leaks are wrong, I think it is totally wrong for our president in secret to selectively declassify certain information and empower people in his White House to leak it to favored reporters so that they can discredit political enemies."
Well, yes, Jane, there is a double standard. But not the way you think. If you had learned anything in your hippie school-days other than pot-smoking, you would know that the President has the authority to automatically declassify any information he wishes. In the Plame case, we have an open CIA agent who managed to convince her employer to send her husband on an all-expenses-paid junket which was neither approved nor requested by the White House. Said husband came back and lied about what he found and why he was sent. The President properly used his Constitutional authority to declassify information to disseminate the truth, which did discredit the husband, Joe Wilson, who was proven later by the Senate to be a liar. Nothing illegal about that. On the other hand, Mary McCarthy did NOT have the authority to declassify information.
And one other thing, Ms. Harmon. No one was endangered by the Plame situation. She was known to be a CIA employee, and was not actively under cover. On the other hand, McCarthy's disclosures, if that is what she was fired for, may have cost good men and women their lives. If we want to win this war, covert operations are going to be an integral part of the formula for victory. Getting the covert ops people endangered, or killed just because you don't like the President is pretty close to treason. Hopefully, Ms McCarthy will serve a good long prison term together with her firing. Seems like a pretty big difference to me. But of course, I actually studiedwhen I was in school. Something Ms. Harmon apparently did not, judging by her fatuous and ignorant remarks.
Dems Discover Leaking Is a Crime!
The Democrats have made leaks a powerful weapon in their attempts to destroy the Bush Administration. Together with their allies in the national Press corps, the Democrats have leaked information regarding US covert operations that have certainly put many agents at risk. As long as the leaks seem to put the Bush Administration in a disfavorable position, the Democrats are all ready to protect those law-breakers. However, they have condemned leaks that put themselves or their Press corps allies in an unfavorable light. However, since the firing of a CIA agent for leaking covert operation details to the New York Times, they are now protesting that they also do not condone leaking classified information.
The Valerie Plame case versus the recent firing of Mary McCarthy is a perfect example. As reported by the Washington Post newspaper, Democrats responded to the recent firing of a senior CIA officer, Mary McCarthy by claiming that there is a "double standard" in the way the leaks are handled. According to Rep. Jane Harmon, (D-CA), "...while leaks are wrong, I think it is totally wrong for our president in secret to selectively declassify certain information and empower people in his White House to leak it to favored reporters so that they can discredit political enemies."
Well, yes, Jane, there is a double standard. But not the way you think. If you had learned anything in your hippie school-days other than pot-smoking, you would know that the President has the authority to automatically declassify any information he wishes. In the Plame case, we have an open CIA agent who managed to convince her employer to send her husband on an all-expenses-paid junket which was neither approved nor requested by the White House. Said husband came back and lied about what he found and why he was sent. The President properly used his Constitutional authority to declassify information to disseminate the truth, which did discredit the husband, Joe Wilson, who was proven later by the Senate to be a liar. Nothing illegal about that. On the other hand, Mary McCarthy did NOT have the authority to declassify information.
And one other thing, Ms. Harmon. No one was endangered by the Plame situation. She was known to be a CIA employee, and was not actively under cover. On the other hand, McCarthy's disclosures, if that is what she was fired for, may have cost good men and women their lives. If we want to win this war, covert operations are going to be an integral part of the formula for victory. Getting the covert ops people endangered, or killed just because you don't like the President is pretty close to treason. Hopefully, Ms McCarthy will serve a good long prison term together with her firing. Seems like a pretty big difference to me. But of course, I actually studiedwhen I was in school. Something Ms. Harmon apparently did not, judging by her fatuous and ignorant remarks.
The Valerie Plame case versus the recent firing of Mary McCarthy is a perfect example. As reported by the Washington Post newspaper, Democrats responded to the recent firing of a senior CIA officer, Mary McCarthy by claiming that there is a "double standard" in the way the leaks are handled. According to Rep. Jane Harmon, (D-CA), "...while leaks are wrong, I think it is totally wrong for our president in secret to selectively declassify certain information and empower people in his White House to leak it to favored reporters so that they can discredit political enemies."
Well, yes, Jane, there is a double standard. But not the way you think. If you had learned anything in your hippie school-days other than pot-smoking, you would know that the President has the authority to automatically declassify any information he wishes. In the Plame case, we have an open CIA agent who managed to convince her employer to send her husband on an all-expenses-paid junket which was neither approved nor requested by the White House. Said husband came back and lied about what he found and why he was sent. The President properly used his Constitutional authority to declassify information to disseminate the truth, which did discredit the husband, Joe Wilson, who was proven later by the Senate to be a liar. Nothing illegal about that. On the other hand, Mary McCarthy did NOT have the authority to declassify information.
And one other thing, Ms. Harmon. No one was endangered by the Plame situation. She was known to be a CIA employee, and was not actively under cover. On the other hand, McCarthy's disclosures, if that is what she was fired for, may have cost good men and women their lives. If we want to win this war, covert operations are going to be an integral part of the formula for victory. Getting the covert ops people endangered, or killed just because you don't like the President is pretty close to treason. Hopefully, Ms McCarthy will serve a good long prison term together with her firing. Seems like a pretty big difference to me. But of course, I actually studiedwhen I was in school. Something Ms. Harmon apparently did not, judging by her fatuous and ignorant remarks.
Friday, April 21, 2006
Economy & Media
The United States economy is roaring along, by all accounts. Unemployment is hovering well below the average for the 70s, 80s or 90s (yes, that includes the vaunted 'Clinton Boom') but according to a new report, a majority of Americans trust Democrats to handle the economy more than Republicans. Never mind that the Democrats have produced exactly one economic boom (Clinton's) and that had to be forced on them by the Federal Reserve chairman! Meanwhile, the Republicans produced the booms of the 1980s and the 2000s, despite the attacks of September 11, and the resulting war.
So why don't Americans recognize this? Well, the main reason is a national Press corps that is bound and determined to get the Democrats into power at the first available opportunity, and which hates the Bush White House with deep passion. This Press will not report any good economic news and will emphasize anything that is bad, thus delivering a false picture of economic growth. And this Press will lie and deceive Americans as far as they are able in order to get their lemans in the Democratic Party back in power.
So what can Republicans do about it? Well, they need to start talking very loud about their achievements. And they need to do it in local papers and news stations that are less connected to the Bush-deranged national Press corps. They need to talk about what this administration has accomplished- and its accomplishments are many, despite the haters in the Media. But unless Republicans have the guts to do this, I think their chances of success in the elections are minimal.
In one regard, a Democratic victory in the midterm elections will put the onus on the Democrats to actually do something. They will no longer be able to simply carp and complain. But as their policies are surrender, retreat and cowardice (with the exception of Joe Lieberman), I fear that we cannot afford to open Americans' eyes to the true nature of the Democratic Party. They will pull out of Iraq, cower to the Chinese and the Iranians and kowtow to the UN. All of which puts us in mortal danger.
So why don't Americans recognize this? Well, the main reason is a national Press corps that is bound and determined to get the Democrats into power at the first available opportunity, and which hates the Bush White House with deep passion. This Press will not report any good economic news and will emphasize anything that is bad, thus delivering a false picture of economic growth. And this Press will lie and deceive Americans as far as they are able in order to get their lemans in the Democratic Party back in power.
So what can Republicans do about it? Well, they need to start talking very loud about their achievements. And they need to do it in local papers and news stations that are less connected to the Bush-deranged national Press corps. They need to talk about what this administration has accomplished- and its accomplishments are many, despite the haters in the Media. But unless Republicans have the guts to do this, I think their chances of success in the elections are minimal.
In one regard, a Democratic victory in the midterm elections will put the onus on the Democrats to actually do something. They will no longer be able to simply carp and complain. But as their policies are surrender, retreat and cowardice (with the exception of Joe Lieberman), I fear that we cannot afford to open Americans' eyes to the true nature of the Democratic Party. They will pull out of Iraq, cower to the Chinese and the Iranians and kowtow to the UN. All of which puts us in mortal danger.
Thursday, April 20, 2006
The Dookie Scandal
Posting has been light of late while I deal with some medical issues. However, I am back in the saddle, and I must say that the Duke rape case is getting interesting, though I deplore the mindset of the media that attracts them to such spectacles. Needless to say, as a Tar Heel, I have little sympathy for the elite and obnoxious behavior that is so often associated with the rich and spoiled New Yorkers and NorthEasterners who inhabit Duke University. However, I cannot remain silent while there is a clear bias as well.
According to the Durham, North Carolina Herald-Sun, a teen-aged (probably black) murder suspect, had his bail set at $50000. However, the accused Duke lacrosse players had to post $400000 in order to secure their release. This in a case where there is serious doubt that a crime has even occurred, according to the evidence released thus far. And in a case where at least one of the indicted students apparently was already gone from the party when the supposed 'rape' occurred.
I would never argue that rape is a minor offense. However, it seems that all a woman has to do is cry 'Rape' and immediately the accused are considered guilty in the Court of the Press. The woman, as in the Kobe Bryant case, clearly has credibility issues, and her story, at least on the available evidence, does not stand up well. Yet she is a 'victim' and her name cannot even be published. While the students are dragged across the dirty pages of the nation's scandal-mongers. Is this fair? I do not think so. If the woman were the same color as the students, this would be left off the front pages. If the woman were white and the players black, would race even be mentioned? Of course not. It's open season on whitey. But if the 'victim' is black, then of COURSE he/she must be a VICTIM. Gosh, he/she COULDN'T have maybe been an agent in this mess.
The race-baiters strike again. Only when they are as willing to condemn the violence committed by blacks against whites as they are the reverse will they command my respect. And unfortunately, they are completely unwilling to do that.
According to the Durham, North Carolina Herald-Sun, a teen-aged (probably black) murder suspect, had his bail set at $50000. However, the accused Duke lacrosse players had to post $400000 in order to secure their release. This in a case where there is serious doubt that a crime has even occurred, according to the evidence released thus far. And in a case where at least one of the indicted students apparently was already gone from the party when the supposed 'rape' occurred.
I would never argue that rape is a minor offense. However, it seems that all a woman has to do is cry 'Rape' and immediately the accused are considered guilty in the Court of the Press. The woman, as in the Kobe Bryant case, clearly has credibility issues, and her story, at least on the available evidence, does not stand up well. Yet she is a 'victim' and her name cannot even be published. While the students are dragged across the dirty pages of the nation's scandal-mongers. Is this fair? I do not think so. If the woman were the same color as the students, this would be left off the front pages. If the woman were white and the players black, would race even be mentioned? Of course not. It's open season on whitey. But if the 'victim' is black, then of COURSE he/she must be a VICTIM. Gosh, he/she COULDN'T have maybe been an agent in this mess.
The race-baiters strike again. Only when they are as willing to condemn the violence committed by blacks against whites as they are the reverse will they command my respect. And unfortunately, they are completely unwilling to do that.
Thursday, April 13, 2006
Energizing the Dem Base...
...or not. According to a new Los Angeles Times poll, (which should be taken with a large grain of salt, considering the lack of trustworthiness the Times has displayed recently, it appears that Democrats are less enthusiastic about a guest-worker program than Republicans. It also appears that among Democrats without a college degree, only 38 percent support legalizing the aliens who are invading our country. The support among Democrats in general is at only 59 percent, as opposed to 67p percent among Republicans.
Mickey Kaus, comments on this in the online version of Slate magazine, writing, "I think this means that black Democrats without a college degree oppose guest-worker plans by something like a 3-1 ratio, but the Times doesn't give the "especially low" breakout. Talk about demoralizing the base! Can Democrats afford to alienate the black vote going into the midterms?"
I wish that this was true. However, I would remind Mr. Kaus that the black vote has been loyal to the Democrats despite repeated evidence that the Republicans are actually much more aligned with their interests. They have been loyal despite bigots like Byrd and Kennedy sitting in Congress. The Democratic Party bought the black leadership a long time ago, and in election after election, the blacks vote the same party line without so much as a chirp. The few who do think for themselves are the Condoleeza Rices and the Thomas Sowells of the world- and they vote conservative. It seems that most blacks either cannot or will not get off the victimhood train- and will not think for themselves either. Apparently they would rather let their so-called 'leaders' do their thinking for them- as long as the welfare checks keep coming. And this embrace of victimhood is irritating, especially to sometone who has seen real racism- and it isn't here in the United States! As long as we are on the subject, the Asian immigrants, most of whom are legal, by the way, (Chinese, Japanese, etc) had a much harder time when they first got here than did the blacks post-Civil War. And they have mostly turned out fine, though they also seem to vote in a Dedmocratic bloc, which I don't reallly understand, unless they are hoping for some of the same victimhood handouts as the blacks and Latinos usually get.
In any event, while I respect Mr. Kaus' opinions, I do not think that the Democratic Party has much to worry about as regards their black membership. They can say or do anything and those reliable, 'disadvantaged' dupes will still vote the Democratic party line, sending racist ignoramouses like Cynthia McKinney to Congress, no matter what. Makes one sad, doesn't it?
Hat tip to Glenn Reynolds.
Mickey Kaus, comments on this in the online version of Slate magazine, writing, "I think this means that black Democrats without a college degree oppose guest-worker plans by something like a 3-1 ratio, but the Times doesn't give the "especially low" breakout. Talk about demoralizing the base! Can Democrats afford to alienate the black vote going into the midterms?"
I wish that this was true. However, I would remind Mr. Kaus that the black vote has been loyal to the Democrats despite repeated evidence that the Republicans are actually much more aligned with their interests. They have been loyal despite bigots like Byrd and Kennedy sitting in Congress. The Democratic Party bought the black leadership a long time ago, and in election after election, the blacks vote the same party line without so much as a chirp. The few who do think for themselves are the Condoleeza Rices and the Thomas Sowells of the world- and they vote conservative. It seems that most blacks either cannot or will not get off the victimhood train- and will not think for themselves either. Apparently they would rather let their so-called 'leaders' do their thinking for them- as long as the welfare checks keep coming. And this embrace of victimhood is irritating, especially to sometone who has seen real racism- and it isn't here in the United States! As long as we are on the subject, the Asian immigrants, most of whom are legal, by the way, (Chinese, Japanese, etc) had a much harder time when they first got here than did the blacks post-Civil War. And they have mostly turned out fine, though they also seem to vote in a Dedmocratic bloc, which I don't reallly understand, unless they are hoping for some of the same victimhood handouts as the blacks and Latinos usually get.
In any event, while I respect Mr. Kaus' opinions, I do not think that the Democratic Party has much to worry about as regards their black membership. They can say or do anything and those reliable, 'disadvantaged' dupes will still vote the Democratic party line, sending racist ignoramouses like Cynthia McKinney to Congress, no matter what. Makes one sad, doesn't it?
Hat tip to Glenn Reynolds.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
