StoneHeads ( 頑固者 )

Fascism, Communism and the TEA Party

2011-09-02T16:03:00.001-07:00

I have written before about how Fascism as practiced in Germany, Spain and Italy, far more closely resembles left-wing political philosophies than it does the modern American conservatives. That StoneHeads post of mine back in 2010 was prompted by an interesting post from Professor Ilya Somin at the Volokh Conspiracy. Now Bill Flax, over at Forbes.com, has written a powerful article making the same argument.

Flax looks at the policies proposed and executed by both Communists and Fascists and observes,

In Argentina, everyone acknowledges that fascism, state capitalism, corporatism – whatever – reflects very leftwing ideology. Eva Peron remains a liberal icon. President Obama’s Fabian policies (Keynesian economics) promise similar ends. His proposed infrastructure bank is just the latest gyration of corporatism. Why then are fascists consistently portrayed as conservatives?

In the Thirties, intellectuals smitten by progressivism considered limited, constitutional governance anachronistic. The Great Depression had apparently proven capitalism defunct. The remaining choice had narrowed between communism and fascism. Hitler was about an inch to the right of Stalin. Western intellectuals infatuated with Marxism thus associated fascism with the Right.

This is very true. Fascism and Marxist Communism both feature very powerful national governments, a Leader class that lives quite differently from the masses, a State-run command economy and government-sponsored winners and losers. The differences were that while Communism focused more on class, the German Nazis focused more on race. However, the Fascist nations also were not friendly to the entrepreneurs and powerful industrialists, though not quite to the same degree as the Communists.

And the Communists and fascists, despite their enmity during the Spanish Civil War, were quite willing to work closely together. The USSR provided Nazi Germany much-needed training facilities during the 1930s for Hitler's slowly growing war machine and World War II could not have happened without the 1939 Non-Aggressions Pact between Hitler and Stalin. In addition, the many dupes and paid tools of the Communists in the United States and Western Europe created a large, vocal presence urging the West not to interfere in Hitler's military adventures and which, following the attack on Poland, was equally vigorous in urging the United States to allow Britain and France to fall. This movement utterly vanished on June 22, 1941, of course.

American conservatives, on the other hand, argue for a small government and accountability for the many government functionaries. They don't like heavy taxes, they don't like many government programs and they prefer to be left alone to do their own thing. This is the impulse that led to the TEA Party movement. American conservatives also are opposed to social engineering as a rule - something that both communists and Fascists truly love to engage in. And they like to own weapons o a hobby that both Communists and Fascists dislike since it makes totalitarian rule much more difficult. On a policy level, the TEA Party argues for a more decentralized form a of government where the majority of decision-making happens on a local level. This too is anathema to both the American Left and to the communists and fascists, who all prefer a much stronger central presence. Above all, TEA Party members argue for individuality and the freedom to make their own decisions, something that Marxists and Fascists alike despise.

Flax also points out that fascism, like communism and the modern American left, despises religion. The TEA Party on the other hand argues religion should have a central place in American life, although I have y7et to encounter a TEA Party member who thinks that government should dictate how and what people should worship. And like the modern American left, both communists and fascists hate private schooling. The indoctrination for both fascists and communists is based on having a school system that no one can escape. TEA Party members - like conservatives - argue that families ought to have choices.

Property rights are another area where TEA Partiers part company with the fascists. The Nazis and all other fascists were terrible on property rights, believing that the government should be the owner, not people. They ruthlessly appropriated property without compensating the owners. Peron in Argentina did as well. Communists too are in agreement with this theory. Hugo Chavez in Venezuela is now taking private property, as Castro did before him in Cuba. And the American Left loves the Kelo decision that eviscerated property rights. TEA Partiers on the other hand, were outraged.

Keynsian economic theory, which has been eagerly adopted by every left-wing politician in America since Woodrow Wilson, also is more closely aligned with the fascist model than with anything suggested by the TEA Party. As Flax writes,

Mussolini recognized, “Fascism entirely agrees with Mr. Maynard Keynes, despite the latter’s prominent position as a Liberal. In fact, Mr. Keynes’ excellent little book, The End of Laissez-Faire (l926) might, so far as it goes, serve as a useful introduction to fascist economics.” Keynes saw the similarities too, admitting his theories, “can be much easier adapted to the conditions of a totalitarian state than . . . a large degree of laissez-faire.” Hitler built the autobahn, FDR the TVA. Propaganda notwithstanding, neither rejuvenated their economies.

It seems to me that Flax, Somin and others pretty much have it right. I don't see too many parallels between American conservatives and the Nazis or any other fascists. But I do see a lot of parallels between the communist ideas espoused by the modern American Left and the fascist ideology. As Flax sums up his article by writing,

Even using Republicans as proxies, there was little remotely conservative about fascism. Hitler and Mussolini were probably to the right of our left-leaning media and education establishments, but labeling Tea Partiers as fascists doesn’t indict the Right. It indicts those declaring so as radically Left.

If only our history books and our media were honest enough to admit it, maybe the tired and vile claims that conservatives are somehow equivalent to the German Nazis could finally be laid to rest. But of course, by admitting it, the Left would be admitting who are the real heirs of that horrific philosophy. And that, they can never do.

More Media Hypocrisy - Solyndra vs Enron

2011-09-02T14:04:00.000-07:00

Yes, the title is redundant. We should expect to see media hypocrisy when it comes to how they cover Democrat scandals versus Republican scandals. The differing treatment received by John Edwards and Mark Foley should tell us that. But I digress..

I was perusing the Solyndra scandal and a few thoughts came to mind. Remember how the media relentlessly tied Enron to George W. Bush's Administration? Yet most people forget Enron's extensive ties to the Clinton Administration, as well as the undisputed fact that the only government official to openly attempt to secure special treatment for Enron during Enron's troubles was in fact Robert Rubin, a former Clinton official. As the Seattle Times admits in their article,

In late 2001, after revelations about Enron's accounting made headlines, Citigroup and J.P. Morgan sought to arrange the company's sale to rival Dynegy so they could split a $90 million investment banking fee and stave off its likely bankruptcy. The suit said calls by Citigroup Vice Chairman and former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin and J.P. Morgan Chairman William Harrison to credit-rating firm Moody's Investors Service were attempts to "strong-arm" the firm from downgrading Enron before a sale could be completed.

Now the Bush Administration's ties to Enron were in fact far less than the Obama Administration's ties appear to be with Solyndra. Both companies used political connections to try to get ahead. The situations seem pretty similar. So...Will the Press treat this the same way? I'm not holding my breath...

Treat Govt Failures Like Market Failures

2011-09-02T12:30:00.000-07:00

Jonathan Adler makes a great point today on the Volokh Conspiracy. Writing on the fact that every time markets crash (leaving out the fact that said crashes, as in the case of the mortgage crisis often occur because of, not in spite of, government regulations)he opines,

Indeed, when many policymakers see a potential market failure, they almost inevitably call for government intervention to restrain market excesses. Yet when government fails, interestingly enough, the proposed policy solution is often the same: more government intervention. The point here is not that government intervention is never justified — Becker himself believes some government regulations are “essential” — but that it must be justified with serious comparative analysis considers the possibility government may fail as well.

Translation: Why don't we the people treat government failures that same way government likes to treat 'market failures'? Seems to me it is because the market failures are often - perhaps even usually - caused by government in the first place. And government likes this model, as it usually leads to more power for the same organizations that caused the problem! As Rahm Emmanuel famously let slip "Never let a serious crisis go to waste".

I think it is high time we used government failures to strip power from government. Private enterprise is not perfect, but it has a far better track record than government does. One of the many reasons why no command economy has ever succeeded.

Hat tip to Glenn Reynolds.

Clausewitz and Current Events

2011-05-26T21:56:00.000-07:00

The classic work 'On War' by the eighteenth centure military genius Carl von Clausewitz is rightly considered a classic. Although Clausewitz himself wrote based on his observations of the Napoleonic conflicts that wracked Europe for over twenty years, many of his comments can be equally applied to more current conflicts, including the asymmetrical one in which the Untied States is currently engaged. One such comment is to be found in Chapter Two, Volume One of his masterpiece. Clausewitz wrote,

The military power must be destroyed, that is, reduced to such a state as not to be able to prosecute the War. This is the sense in which we wish to be understood hereafter, whenever we use the expression "destruction of the enemy's military power."

The country must be conquered, for out of the country a new military force may be formed.

But even when both these things are done, still the War, that is, the hostile feeling and action of hostile agencies, cannot be considered as at an end as long as the will of the enemy is not subdued also; that is, its Government and its Allies must be forced into signing a peace, or the people into submission; for whilst we are in full occupation of the country, the War may break out afresh, either in the interior or through assistance given by Allies. No doubt, this may also take place after a peace, but that shows nothing more than that every War does not carry in itself the elements for a complete decision and final settlement.

Why our own leaders do not understand this simple concept is beyond me. When we went into Kosovo, so it was when we went into Iraq, Afghanistan, and now it is true again as we are engaged in Libya. It is imperative, when a nation-state is involved in an armed conflict, that the enemy's will to win be wiped out. We engaged in total war in World War II and when the respective peace treaties with the Axis countries were eventually signed, those nations knew they were beaten. The will of their governments and of their populations to continue waging war had been blunted and they had no more desire to take up arms again.

But in our current conflicts - at least since Vietnam - we have not engaged in this total war. Why we have not availed ourselves of one of our most powerful assets is not really a mystery however. I can think of several reasons why we have not engaged in total war since 1945. These are as follows:

The Unpatriots: Ever since the Communist revolutions of the early twentieth century, the United States, like Western Europe, has been home to a large, well-organized and strongly anti-American group of secret Communists. These are the folks who organized the SDS of the 1960s, who did their best to give away the atomic bomb to the Soviets, and who will gleefully repeat every anti-Americans screed that can possibly be imagined. their numbers include most of Hollywood, much of the popular music industry, the vast majority of the American Press, and virtually the entire membership of the collegiate professorial class. They are embittered by the knowledge that their social model has failed and they hate capitalism, even though few of them would prosper in an environment that they try to hard to create. They are vocal and they wield great power, as shown by their ability, even in their current weakened form, to so cleverly destroy any politicians they dislike. I refer here primarily to Sarah Palin, but virtually any Republican who takes aim at the socialist policies this group professes can become a target. Few survive them - Ronald Reagan is one of the very few conservatives they have been unable to demean or destroy. This group will always support any enemy of the UNited States and will do their best to prop it up even when they have been defeated on the ground. It is this group who really won the Vietnam War for the Communists. They are a serious obstacle

The Rivals: Communism may be discredited (except among the aforementioned Unpatriots) but China and Russia remain as formidable adversaries in the world of international politics. Russia may be much weakened but it is led by many of the same people who were our adversaries and they will do everything in their power to diminish the United States, including offering alliances to groups and nations they have little love for. This groups is also swelled by power-hungry ego-maniacs like Chavez in Venezuela and the Iranian mullahs who understand that the US is their primary obstacle in their respective quests for regional or world conquest. Russia and China also understand that the US is the primary obstacle preventing them from seizing world power. The UNited States in some of the conflicts would have had to fight with one or both of these hegemonies and has not wanted to engage in World War III over objectives that are not vital to our national interests. Thus the ridiculous situation in Korea. This is a more traditional obstacle as most Great Powers have faced similar difficulties. However, in the past our leaders were both better men and stronger leaders. I cannot see Reagan or Roosevelt shying away from confrontation with these dictators. But it is one reason why total war is not always an option.

Our Own LeadershipOur current President is an ignorant, arrogant empty suit who has little knowledge or expertise in much of anything. He has never managed anything and has never actually had to take a leadership position on anything and thus he is good only at trying to look good while doing not much of anything. Much of our diplomatic corps seems more interested in advancing other nations' interests in preference to our own and much of the political class have neither the skills nor the understanding to actually step up and lead. In addition, a half-century of steady demeaning of the US from the edicational establishment and te Press has left many Americans unsure what they ought to be proud of. The great feats of the previous centuries and the great men who led, such as Lincoln, Washington, Jackson, etc have been replaced in the schools with stories of Susan B. Anthony. Anthony is important in one aspect of American history, but as a historical actor, she comes nowhere close to any of the Presidents, Generals, Admirals and statesmen who built the country. So our leaders tend to be tentative and apologetic. They should instead be fiery and unapologetic. Has any other nation a better historical record? I would argue that the answer is no.

Moral Relativism: There should never be a comparison between the armed forced of the United States of America and medieval butchers who cut people's heads off, rape female prisoners and deliberately target women and children. Not to mention hiding behind said women and children when they fight. There should be no comparison between a religion that requires its adherents to go out and kill non-members and religions that do not make such demands. There should be no comparison between a culture that allows men to rape women and then kill them for 'honor' and one that offers women freedom. And there should be no comparison between a society that fought a bloody war to end its short experiment with slavery and a culture that acted as the world's slavemasters for almost a thousand years. And with which we fought a war BECAUSE of their slavery (th Barbary Wars). If the Unpatriots did not have such a loud megaphone, we would not even be having this discussion. But they have forced us to defend what should not need to be defended. And moral relativism is a deadly argument. When taken to its logical conclusion, it clearly shows that there is no difference between a Taliban-dominated Afghanistan where women are chattel and where unelected 'religious leaders' can condemn any man or women for any reason and a United States where no one can be condemned without a court trial.

There are other reasons as well, such as the reflexive greed, moral incompetence and reflexive anti_americanism in most international institutions. This is due to envy on the part of Europe and hatred on the part of everyone else. they want to come and live in America, but live like kings (See Dominique Strauss-Kahn) and continue to indulge as they try to force everyone else to give up more annd more so they can continue to indulge. But all of these reasons would be prey to a leader who understood both the unique position and the incredible strength that the correct use of the Armed Forces can bring.

It's time and past time to elect a President and a Congress that understand these concepts. People like Barney Frank, John Kerry, Trent Lott - these are professional politicians who will do and say anything to get elected. We need a leader who can cut through the specious arguments these weaklings bring to the table and take the actions that must be taken. Speaking to the English House of Commons in 1848, the great British Prime Minster Lord Palmerston once famously said,

Therefore I say that it is a narrow policy to suppose that this country or that is to be marked out as the eternal ally or the perpetual enemy of England. We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow.

We need a leader who understand that and who is not afraid to take the necessary steps, even when countries that claim to be our 'friends' complain. We need a President who understands that our future friends are in the Anglosphere - Australia, possibly Canada, possibly Great Britain and maybe a few others such as India, Japan, etc. These countries share many of our bedrock principles to one degree or another and these are the cultures with whom we should ally. We may have other allies of the moment, but we must find countries that are truly our friends, not our frenemies. Would that we could elect a leader who actually understand this.

View From The Porch Gets It Right

2011-03-18T12:23:00.000-07:00

After all the hyper-ventilating and thoroughly false information we have had issuing from the American (and most of the world) media about the disaster in Japan that caused the Fukushima Number One nuclear plant to have major problems, it is refreshing to note that while the MSN with their "layers of fact-checkers" (as a senior MSN-er once opined) seemingly have no clue as to the differences between Chernobyl and Fukushima, one blogger - a BLOGGER - gets it absolutely right.

Indianapolis-based blogger Tam of View From The Porch writes,

Remember back in '50s and early '60s, when we set off something like 900 atomic bombs in Nevada? And how we just let the fallout blow wherever and it landed all over the eastern US? And how it wiped out life as we know it and all that was left from Colorado to the Atlantic were six-legged rats battling two-headed cockroaches in the glowing ruins?

Yeah. Exactly. So shut up with the panic already.

All I can say is: Precisely. Thank you Tam! Now, if you vaunted MSN only had half of Tam's common sense and understanding of nuclear design. Oh, wait, they're...JOURNALISTS! They don't need no stinking facts - they have an AGENDA - they must CHANGE THE WORLD and save it from we eeevil humans.

So of course if the facts don't fit the meme, one ignores the facts. It didn't stop them during the Bush Administration, it didn't stop them during Katrina, it certainly didn't stop them during most of the past fifty or so years, so I guess it won't stop them now. Problem is, as the great John Adams once said, "Facts are stubborn things". So maybe the truth will come out. We can hope, anyway. Preferably before we end up like Greece.

Common Sense on Social Security

2011-02-06T10:25:00.000-08:00

ObamaCare has been pretty much exposed as a government power grab that will neither improve the people's quality of healthcare or lower costs - absent of course the bureaucratic 'death panels' that former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin pointed out. The very fact that ObamaCare has already issued some 700-plus waivers (mostly to their union and corporate friends) simply underscores how bad the attempted government takeover really is.

Although the Democrats and their sycophants in the Pravda-esque 'media' are still trying desperately to force government health-care on the American people, the American people seem to have figured out that this boondoggle is one step down the Socialist road to hell that they do not wish to take. Whether the looming debts that always accompany socialism have frightened them or whether at last we have awoken to the reality of the left's agenda is irrelevant. The facts are that the Republicans - prodded by the Tea Partiers - seem to have realized that this monstrosity must not live.

The Tax Prof today drew my attention to an interesting article in the Wall Street Journal asking whether the 1099 reporting repeal - which passed by huge margins in both Houses - is a controlled burn or a wildfire. The Journal writes:

The 1099 ObamaCare footnote thus received no scrutiny at first because it was so mundane. Everyone in Washington agreed that corporations were stealing billions of dollars every year that rightfully belonged to Congress to spend. (The issue only blew up when the IRS's National Taxpayer Advocate Nina Olson, followed by the GOP and the business lobby, made it a priority last summer.) ...
[T]otal repeal sailed through the Senate on Wednesday, 81 to 17. The mystery is the 17 Democrats who continue to think this is a good idea ,,,
The larger political question is whether voters will be satisfied by this or that "improvement" to ObamaCare. The White House is trying to outflank public opposition with a controlled burn, but wildfires often move in surprising and unmanageable directions.

However, it is apparent that some people are still laboring under misconceptions. One Linda Beale from Wayne State, writes,

I’m more and more convinced that it is not the deficit that the Republicans hollering for “entitlement reform” care about–it is that they just simply want to destroy all of the things that the New Deal did to provide a safety net for ordinary people, while making sure that they reinstate brute-force capitalism like existed in the 1920s, back when Teddy Roosevelt made his famous statement about the corporate titans and malefactors of great wealth.

Ms. Beale seems to have missed that fact that the New Deal did absolutely nothing to 'establish a safety net'. Instead, it took people's private funds, forcibly transferred them to government, who then wasted the money. Every promise made about Social Security during the New Deal has been broken. And the money is long gone - spent by successive Congresses and Administrations. Any honest comparison between the stock market and the government 'trust funds' since Social Security was established shows quite plainly that the private market does a far better job. And there is no doubt that individuals do a better job managing their own money than faceless and unaccountable federal bureaucrats.

Do We Need Lawyers?

2011-02-03T16:12:00.000-08:00

Dr. Daniel Mitchell's fascinating blog International Liberty had an article today on the problem of the self-serving legal profession. Among other things, Professor Mitchell writes,

There are also two comments, by 'Mack' and 'Paul' that I believe hit the nail on the head. Lawyers make laws for their own self-interest and the Courts, which are of course composed entirely of lawyers, interpret laws so as to benefit their own profession. I was having lunch today and a friend made the comment that lawyers don't know right from wrong and don't really care either - they only care what the loopholes in the law as regards any given case allow them to do.

I agree that lawyers should not be allowed to serve at any level of government. But I would go one step further. The Supreme Court needs to lose its designated status as the sole arbiter of what the Constitution does or does not mean. In short, if the Court says one thing and the President and Congress disagree, then the Court's opinion is rendered moot. In short, any two branches of government should be able to over-ride the third. The three branches are equal - the Court is not superior to Congress according to the Constitution. And it is also time to stop looking at Supreme Court case law. The only law that matters is what the plain text of the Constitution and those treaties signed (and ratified) by the United States. Case law is made to be overturned - especially when it conflicts with the clear language of the Constitution (yes, I'm talking about Kelo, among many, many other instances of judicial over-reach).

In the end, lawyers are simply another special interest group. Are they a necessary evil? I'm actually not convinced of that. I think that if laws were written by people with common sense, then a lot of the difficulty in the law would vanish and the need for lawyers would lessen as well. Lawyers exist to make the law difficult to understand. if it were in plain English, as the Constitution is, then why would we need lawyers at all? The answer is, we probably wouldn't. And this is a state of affairs much to be desired.

Citizen Verbally Assails Reid - Left Promptly Complains

2011-02-02T10:31:00.000-08:00

G.M. Heller's excellent Berkshire Blog had a wonderful story today. It seems that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D - NV) was out shopping (at an upscale market, naturally) when he was recognized by a citizen who proceeded to ask his vocally and repeatedly why he was holding up the repeal vote on ObamaCare. Reid refused to answer and literally ran away from the encounter, leaving in a fleet of black SUVs. An interesting discussion has developed in the comments between those who (like myself) see this as a good thing and those who seem to thin that now the Democrats run the country, dissent should no longer be allowed. A typical comment from this side of the aisle is the 7:19 PM comment from 'Anonymous' re-posted below:

That's what you would expect from a stupid Republican. Thank God he did not have a gun and shoot Harry. Republicans love to RELOAD their guns. Normal people don't act like those Tea Bagger wackos. Where are the Death Pannels Consevative Republicans lied about for months. Oh yeah - Death Pannels are where the Iraq missles of mass destruction are. I guess with my statement I'm being an ass just like the person that annoyed Harry.What goes arround comes arround.

This is sadly typical of so many on the political left. They cannot argue; they can only post vile epithets and baseless accusations. In response to the thread, I posted the following comment:

Senators, Representatives and the President himself are all elected representatives of The People. This is a point we would do well to remember. They work for we the people. We are not their servants, their subjects or any other position less prestigious.

If said representatives actually held regular meetings with their constituents (as opposed to the reality we witnessed during the run-up to ObamaCare when most of them ducked and ran) this sort of behavior would not be necessary. Unfortunately, most if not all of these self-important hypocrites do their utmost to restrict their actual meetings with their constituents to stage-managed affairs where as many attendees as possible are hand-picked from their special-interest supporters.

In light of that reality, this citizen was not out of line, from what I can discover. I do not see any indication that profanity, violent rhetoric (unlike that seen constantly among the Democrats and their tools in leftist media) or any threatening behavior was used in this encounter. The citizen appears to have been merely verbally forceful. And the security forces present did not see any need to interfere, which would seem to indicate that they did not see any threat either.

As for the argument about 'harassment', it was only two short years ago that the media and Democrats were claiming that 'dissent is the highest form of partiotism'. And throwing shoes at a sitting President was hailed in that same media as being 'heroic'. Very well. This citizen was dissenting. Why then the disapproval from the left side of the political divide? Isn't dissent patriotic anymore? Or is it that those who made that claim only want free speech for their side, not for their opponents? if so, I find that attitude both reprehensible and entirely unwelcome in this country.

Our elected (and appointed) representatives need to be reminded frequently that they serve at the pleasure of We The People. They are our servants not our rulers - a distinction that too many of both parties tend to forget. Therefore, when they do things like ObamaCare that are against the interests of those same People, they should expect to be called to account for their behavior. Which this citizen did. And which the rest of us should do as well. We should be be polite. We should be courteous. But we should be forceful in expressing our opinions. Remember - they serve us, not the other way around.

I do not think that Senators, Representatives, Presidents or judges for that matter should enjoy any superiority over the rest of us. All of the branches of government can and often do, get things wrong. The Supreme Court authored the horrible Roe decision in a blatant example of judicial over-reach and has stretched the Commerce Clause out of all recognition. In addition, it has invented new 'rights' for prisoners-or-war as well as those explicitly denied POW rights under the Geneva Conventions as laid out in the blatantly unfounded Boumediene decision), ignored Constitutional language (the 10th Amendment, the 4th Amendment and the 2nd Amendment) that is plain and unambiguous. Not to mention the blatant re-creation involved in the Kelo decision that allowed government to redistribute private property against the plain intent of the Founders.

Congress meanwhile has acquiesced as the courts have legislated wildly from the bench and has itself tried to make a mockery of the Constitution with laws dating back to the New Deal. ObamaCare is only the latest statist power grab. And the Executive has itself a sorry record of abusing its powers as well. So why should any of these so-called 'betters' be treated with any respect?

To my mind, they have not earned it and they should be required to answer to their fellow Americans often. Forcing someone to defend their mistakes is a far better way of forcing those mistakes to be rectified than pretending that somehow a mistake is 'settled case law'. In any event, I applaud this citizen. I only wish that more of us would do the same.

The Media Memes

2011-01-18T12:54:00.000-08:00

I am sad to say that I have neglected this blog of late and so it feels good to be back in the saddle. I cannot guarantee how often I shall be able to post, but i shall commit to doing better this year than I did last year.

Why am I posting again? Well, I was depressed and concerned after the epic wipeout by the left in the 2008 elections, not to mention the media malfeasance that allowed a woefully unprepared and inexperienced politicians without a single achievement or any experience in much of anything to be elected President of the United States. In the past two years, we have clearly seen how much damage this unqualified President has done. And the voters rightfully paid back the tone-deaf and arrogant leftists who would not listen to their concerns. Can the Republicans do a better job? I am unconvinced, but i am willing to give them a chance. Certainly new Speaker John Boehner seems to understand that his party is governing on a very thin tolerance. We shall see.

However, that is not the main reason for this post. Recently there has been a vicious and well-planned campaign by the Left to blame conservative voices - particularly former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin - for the attempted murder of Arizona Representative Gabrielle Giffords. At this time I shall not engage in dealing that piece of verbal assassination - it has been well-debunked in many other places. However, I would like to remind anyone who stumbles across this blog that the media has a long and sordid history of trying to manipulate public opinion with false and misleading reporting. Walter Cronkite's infamous lie about the Tet Offensive comes to mind fairly quickly, as does Dan Rather and Mary Mapes' failed attempt to use forged documents to swing a Presidential election. Yes, I know I'm linking to a very sympathetic report from NPR, but the point is that even NPR was forced to admit that what Mapes and Rather did was utterly wrong.

More recently, a large group of leftist writers and bloggers put together a well-organized machine for coordinating memes called JournoList. Though JournoList is supposedly dead, I have no doubt that a successor (probably with a slightly smaller membership) still exists.

Just as a reminder, these are the people who tried (and are almost certainly still trying) to shape the news to ensure that their particular agenda gets the best possible coverage. They also engaged in some extremely hateful speech and used far more violent terminology than anything any figure on the political Right has done in the last forty years. In other words, they did exactly what they are accusing the Right of doing in the Loughner case - they incited hate with their rhetoric.

The 150 names on this list come from (The Vail Spot). I haven't confirmed them on my own, so this may not be entirely accurate. Suffice to say that any time you read anything from any one of these would-be propagandists or the media that employs them, I recommend both a hearty dose of skepticism AND a thorough fact-checking. They have proven themselves to be untrustworthy.

The JournoList:

1. Spencer Ackerman - Wired, FireDogLake, Washington Independent, Talking Points Memo, TheAmerican Prospect
2. Thomas Adcock - New York Law Journal
3. Ben Adler - Newsweek, POLITICO
4. Mike Allen - POLITICO
5. Eric Alterman - The Nation, Media Matters for America
6. Marc Ambinder - The Atlantic
7. Greg Anrig - The Century Foundation
8. Ryan Avent - Economist
9. Dean Baker - The American Prospect
10. Nick Baumann - Mother Jones
11. Josh Bearman - LA Weekly
12. Steven Benen - The Carpetbagger Report
13. Ari Berman - The Nation
14. Jared Bernstein - Economic Policy Institute
15. Michael Berube - Crooked Timer, Pennsylvania State University
16. Brian Beutler - The Media Consortium
17. Lindsay Beyerstein - Freelance journalist
18. Joel Bleifuss - In These Times
19. John Blevins - South Texas College of Law
20. Sam Boyd - The American Prospect
21. Ben Brandzel - MoveOn.org, John Edwards Campaign
22. Shannon Brownlee - Author, New America Foundation
23. Will Bunch - Philadelphia Daily News
24. Rich Byrne - Playwright
25. Jonathan Chait - The New Republic
26. Lakshmi Chaudry - In These Times
27. Isaac Chotiner - The New Republic
28. Ta-Nehisi Coates - The Atlantic
29. Michael Cohen - New America Foundation
30. Jonathan Cohn - The New Republic
31. Joe Conason - The New York Observer
32. Lark Corbeil - Public News Service
33. David Corn - Mother Jones
34. Daniel Davies - The Guardian
35. David Dayen - FireDogLake
36. Brad DeLong - The Economists’ Voice, University of California at Berkeley
37. Ryan Donmoyer - Bloomberg News
38. Adam Doster - In These Times
39. Kevin Drum - Washington Monthly
40. Matt Duss - Center for American Progress
41. Gerald Dworkin - UC Davis
42. Eve Fairbanks - The New Republic
43. Henry Farrell - George Washington University
44. Tim Fernholz - American Prospect
45. Dan Froomkin - Huffington Post, Washington Post
46. Jason Furman - Brookings Institution
47. James Galbraith - University of Texas at Austin
48. Kathleen Geier - Talking Points Memo
49. Todd Gitlin - Columbia University
50. Ilan Goldenberg - National Security Network
51. Arthur Goldhammer - Harvard University
52. Dana Goldstein - The Daily Beast
53. Andrew Golis - Talking Points Memo
54. Jaana Goodrich - Blogger
55. Merrill Goozner - Chicago Tribune
56. David Greenberg - Slate
57. Robert Greenwald - Brave New Films
58. Chris Hayes - The Nation
59. Don Hazen - Alternet
60. Jeet Heer - Canadian Journolist
61. Jeff Hauser - Political Action Committee, Dennis Shulman Campaign
62. Michael Hirsh - Newsweek
63. James Johnson - University of Rochester
64. John Judis - The New Republic, The American Prospect
65. Foster Kamer - The Village Voice
66. Michael Kazin - Georgetown University
67. Ed Kilgore - Democratic Strategist
68. Richard Kim - The Nation
69. Charlie Kireker - Air America Media
70. Mark Kleiman - UCLA The Reality Based Community
71. Ezra Klein - Washington Post, Newsweek, The American Prospect
72. Joe Klein - TIME
73. Robert Kuttner - American Prospect, Economic Policy Institute
74. Paul Krugman - The New York Times, Princeton University
75. Lisa Lerer - POLITICO
76. Daniel Levy - Century Foundation
77. Ralph Luker - Cliopatria
78. Annie Lowrey - Washington Independent
79. Robert Mackey - New York Times
80. Mike Madden - Salon
81. Maggie Mahar - The Century Foundation
82. Dylan Matthews - Harvard University
83. Alec McGillis - Washington Post
84. Scott McLemee - Inside Higher Ed
85. Sara Mead - New America Foundation
86. Ari Melber - The Nation
87. David Meyer - University of California at Irvine
88. Seth Michaels - MyDD.com
89. Luke Mitchell - Harper’s Magazine
90. Gautham Nagesh - The Hill, Daily Caller
91. Suzanne Nossel - Human Rights Watch
92. Michael O’Hare - University of California at Berkeley
93. Josh Orton - MyDD.com, Air America Media
94. Rodger Payne - University of Louisville
95. Rick Perlstein - Author, Campaign for America’s Future
96. Nico Pitney - Huffington Post
97. Harold Pollack - University of Chicago
98. Katha Pollitt - The Nation
99. Ari Rabin-Havt - Media Matters
100. Joy-Ann Reid - South Florida Times
101. David Roberts - Grist
102. Lamar Robertson - Partnership for Public Service
103. Sara Robinson - Campaign For America's Future
104. Alyssa Rosenberg - Washingtonian, The Atlantic, Government Executive
105. Alex Rossmiller - National Security Network
106. Michael Roston - Newsbroke
107. Laura Rozen - POLITICO, Mother Jones
108. Felix Salmon - Reuters
109. Greg Sargent - Washington Post
110. Thomas Schaller - Baltimore Sun
111. Noam Scheiber - The New Republic
112. Michael Scherer - TIME
113. Mark Schmitt - American Prospect, The New America Foundation
114. Rinku Sen - ColorLines Magazine
115. Julie Bergman Sender - Balcony Films
116. Adam Serwer - American Prospect
117. Walter Shapiro - PoliticsDaily.com
118. Kate Sheppard - Mother Jones
119. Matthew Shugart - UC San Diego
120. Nate Silver - FiveThirtyEight.com
121. Jesse Singal - The Boston Globe, Washington Monthly
122. Ann-Marie Slaughter - Princeton University
123. Ben Smith - POLITICO
124. Sarah Spitz - KCRW
125. Adele Stan - The Media Consortium
126. Paul Starr - The Atlantic
127. Kate Steadman - Kaiser Health News
128. Jonathan Stein - Mother Jones
129. Sam Stein - Huffington Post
130. Matt Steinglass - Deutsche Presse-Agentur
131. James Surowiecki - The New Yorker
132. Jesse Taylor - Pandagon.net
133. Steven Teles - Yale University
134. Mark Thoma - The Economists' View
135. Michael Tomasky - The Guardian
136. Jeffrey Toobin - CNN, The New Yorker
137. Rebecca Traister - Salon
138. Tracy Van Slyke - The Media Consortium
139. Paul Waldman - Author, American Prospect
140. Dave Weigel - Washington Post, MSNBC, The Washington Independent
141. Moira Whelan - National Security Network
142. Scott Winship - Pew Economic Mobility Project
143. J. Harry Wray - DePaul University
144. D. Brad Wright - University of NC at Chapel Hill
145. Kai Wright - The Root
146. Holly Yeager - Columbia Journalism Review
147. Rich Yeselson - Change to Win
148. Matthew Yglesias - Center for American Progress, The Atlantic Monthly
149. Jonathan Zasloff - UCLA
150. Julian Zelizer - Princeton University
151. Avi Zenilman - POLITICO

The source:
Free Republic Webcache

My Take:
Again, I have not done the legwork to confirm these are really all Journolisters. However, none of these names have so far challenged the accusation of being members. So I think that the odds are pretty good that they really were Journolisters. And if so, then they are folks that have forfeited any trust on the part of the general public. They are no more honest reporters than was the infamous Walter Duranty (Stalin's tool who worked so hard to cover up the man-made famine in 1930s-era Ukraine). Feel free to pass this on to remind people just how dishonest and hypocritical the media really is.

Oh, and one more thing. The next time these self-satisfied hypocritical hatemongers try to call for 'civility', or blame a politician for the acts of a madman, let's remind them of their own words in the privacy of their little community. Remind them too that every single political act of violence since 1960 - with the sole possible exception of Tim McVeigh - has been perpetrated by the Left.

Thoughts on the Target Campaign

2010-08-20T13:56:00.000-07:00

It seems that some time ago the Target Corporation donated some money to a group that supports a Republican candidate (Tom Emmer) for Governor. Emmer is opposed to gay marriage, just like a majority of Americans. But since this has come to light, Target is now facing a huge outcry from the usual suspects. The main bone of contention seems to be that the corporation donated to a conservative cause.

Both the original CBS News story and today's Yahoo News story are fairly representative of the media reaction. CBS wrote,

Here's something Target Corp. isn't advertising in its Sunday circular: The discount retailer is now a major donor to a group backing the Republican candidate for Minnesota governor.

And that's not sitting well with every Target shopper.

CBS begins their story with a very negative tone, implying that this donation is a Bad Bad Thing. And as shown by their later comments, they appear to have no problem with the fact that the opponents of Target are trying to censor the corporation's freedom of speech. CBS continues,

In Minnesota, where Target has its headquarters and opened its first store 48 years ago, Democrats are grumbling about the large donation, and some are talking about striking back at the popular brand.

A few voices are even calling for a boycott in the state, one of Target's top three for sales. One Democratic-backed group is reaching out to Target employees through Facebook ads urging them to sign a petition opposing the donations.

"I think Target is making a huge mistake," said Laura Hedlund, a former Democratic campaign worker who picketed outside a suburban Minneapolis Target store on Saturday, urging shoppers to spend their money elsewhere.

At least CBS (for once) mostly identified the opposition as Democratic Party and left-wing activists. This is stark contrast to the usual media pattern of refusing to identify left-leaners and Democrats - they are suually presented as 'civic-minded people' or some such.

But the real problem is that left-wing contributions by business are treated by the media as both desirable and of no particular news-worthiness at all. How many stories have been run about George Soros' contributions to the plethora of left-wing groups he bankrolls? How many media stories are run about the left-wing contributions of say, Apple? But when Target makes a donation to a Republican, the media suddenly thinks this is a terrible idea.

The Associated Press (via Yahoo News) continues this meme, writing,

Target and its corporate retail cousin Best Buy are continuing to suffer fallout from donations to a Minnesota group that backed a gay-marriage opponent for governor. On top of organized consumer boycotts and public pressure campaigns, some of the retail giant's investors are up in arms, according to the Associated Press.

Notice how the meme is that opposition is rising? And notice how they can only come up with three very minor stockholders? Funny how these three minor stockholders are placed front and center by the AP. If it were a liberal company donation and three minor conservative-leaning stockholders protested, would they be given such positive press? I think we all know the answer to that one.

What all this really comes down to is that the media-Democratic complex wants free speech for me but not for thee. Like so many other closet totalitarians, they want the power to speak to be reserved to themselves so they are attempting to bully anyone of opposing views into silence. This is why whistleblowers during Republican Administrations are treated like gods even when they lie (Joe Wilson) but whistleblowers during Democratic Administrations cannot get the time of day from the media (see J. Christian Adams). I find both their views and their tactics repugnant. If they can win the argument, then let's have a real debate. but trying to bludgeon one's opponent into silence via threats only shows the hollow nature of one's argument. And by this standard, so have those who are so unhappy with Target shown the clay feet of their own golden idols.

The TSA Strikes Again

2010-08-20T10:04:00.000-07:00

The TSA is supposed to be the first line of defense for threats crossing into our country via the airlines. They are also supposedly created to ensure that our flying experience is safe. According to the TSA website, their mission is,

The Transportation Security Administration protects the Nation’s transportation systems to ensure freedom of movement for people and commerce.

The TSA website continues with their core values:

To enhance mission performance and achieve our shared goals, we are committed to promoting a culture founded on these values:

* Integrity:
o We are a people of integrity who respect and care for others and protect the information we handle.
o We are a people who conduct ourselves in an honest, trustworthy and ethical manner at all times.
o We are a people who gain strength from the diversity in our cultures.
* Innovation:
o We are a people who embrace and stand ready for change.
o We are a people who are courageous and willing to take on new challenges.
o We are a people with an enterprising spirit, striving for innovations who accept the risk-taking that comes with it.
* Team Spirit:
o We are a people who are open, respectful and dedicated to making others better.
o We are a people who have a passion for challenge, success and being on a winning team.
o We are a people who will build teams around our strengths.

Not a single one of these core values applies to the TSA's performance, as any traveler can testify. And as for their 'mission, the simple fact is that the TSA is utterly incompetent at every job is purports to perform. The TSA has stopped not a single terrorist attack since its institution - every single major attempt has been thwarted either by passengers or by the terrorists' own incompetence. Examples of the TSA failures can be found in the Shoe Bomber, the Crotch Bomber and the fact that TSA screeners fail the vast majority of tests every time they are tested.

But they are certainly vigilant about trying to take passengers' personal possessions - especially if they are valuable. According to a story today by Daniel Rubin in the Philadelphia Inquirer, the TSA once again has ignored a citizen's Constitutional rights (they are VERY good at ignoring citizens' rights, though they are signally bad at actually doing their jobs) and treating an innocent passenger as a criminal. Writes Rubin,

At what point does an airport search step over the line?

How about when they start going through your checks, and the police call your husband, suspicious you were clearing out the bank account?
...
Two Philadelphia police officers joined at least four TSA officers who had gathered around her. After conferring with the TSA screeners, one of the Philadelphia officers told her he was there because her checks were numbered sequentially, which she says they were not.

"It's an indication you've embezzled these checks," she says the police officer told her. He also told her she appeared nervous. She hadn't before that moment, she says.

She protested when the officer started to walk away with the checks. "That's my money," she remembers saying. The officer's reply? "It's not your money."

This is absolutely infuriating. Citizens are under no compulsion to tell government officials anything and police and TSA personnel have absolutely no right whatsoever to behave with this kind of contempt. Congress needs to make the individual TSA screeners liable for their actions and the police officers in question need to be sued for civil rights violations and hopefully fired. Have any of these people ever heard of the United States Constitution and its prohibitions on unreasonable searches? How about search warrants? How about the presumption of innocence?

i hope this poor woman sues and gets a massive payout from those who utterly ignored her rights. I hope the TSA screeners in questions are fired (oh, wait, they are government workers. You could kill someone and not lose your job - see Ted Kennedy. At the very least the ignorant police officers who showed an equal disregard for the law need to be brought into court and at the very least have their badges stripped.

The TSA is looked about with justifiable contempt by anyone who has ever had to deal with their low-grade, ignorant and incompetent employees - which is just about everyone who has ever flown. Incidents like this simply reinforce the case for the immediate disbandment of the TSA. They are not in any way an improvement on the private firms that formerly did airport security. And like most government workers, they have an inflated sense of their own importance. I hope that the first thing a new Congress does is strip the TSA of their law enforcement status. These people are not law enforcement as they clearly do not know the most basic law of the United States. And the second thing they should do is get rid of the TSA and return its duties to the private firms - at least they have no illusions as to their status!

Reagan vs Obama?

2010-08-18T09:01:00.001-07:00

Kevin Williamson writes in today's National Review Online edition,

News flash: This is not 1982, and Obama is not Reagan.

The important difference is this: There was a good reason for the Volcker-Reagan recession: defeating inflation. American voters may not be terribly economically sophisticated, but they sure as heck did notice when inflation went from 13.5 percent to 3.2 percent — in two years.

This is a salient point - Ronald Reagan was trying to reduce the damage done by the previous Administration's ham=handed and inept economic policies. And it worked - as Williamson notes, inflation dropped drastically in only two years. Mission accomplished!

Unfortunately, this does not seem to be clear to our friends on the Left side of the political spectrum. One of the commenters writes,

Reagan was an incredible deficit spender, I don't think you can distinguish between Obama and Reagan on that factor.

Unless this is a joke, this comment displays a distressing lack of understanding both of history and of international relations. Yes, Reagan did do some large defiicit spending. But, as was the case with the economic policies, there was a reason. A good one. Reagan believed that the Cold War needed to end and he did not think (correctly, as it turned out) that the Soviet Union could keep pace with the US if the Cold War turned into a competition between economic methodology. By spending freely on the US military, he forced the Soviets into an arms race they simply could not win. And his full-throated defense of liberty and freedom gave heart to the millions of enslaved Eastern Europeans. Essentially, Ronald Reagan put his money where his mouth was and bet that the US could win an economic showdown with the Soviet Union. And he was right.

In 1980, when Reagan came into office, the world was resigned to the grim menace of Soviet tanks and proxy wars. Reagan ended that, at least as far as the Soviets were concerned. Proxy wars will go on forever, but the specter of Russian tanks crossing into Western Europe is gone. Ronald Reagan performed two vital actions during his eaight years in office - he won the Cold War (though the Soviet Union did not finally collapse until his successor was in office) and he crushed the inflation caused by Jimmy Carter and his de-regulation put the US on a solid economic course that has lasted by and large until the current Administration.

I don't see how you can compare Reagan and Obama either, but not for the reasons our commenter friend listed. I don't see how you can compare actions taken with a firm goal in mind - a goal that was achieved in both cases largely by the time Reagan left office - to Obama's destructive spending. If Obama's goal is to make the entire country dependent on government and to make the political class into feudal masters, then I guess he is succeeding. But to me there is a fundamental difference between spending to defeat an enemy and spending to make government more powerful. Reagan was all about smaller government. Obama? Not so much.

On Limiting Spending

2010-05-14T11:59:00.000-07:00

Mark Tapscott has a column today in the Washington Examiner online edition about the Constitutional Amendment introduced by three members of the US House of Representatives - Mike Pence (R, IN), John Campbell (R, CA) and Jeb Hensarling (R, TX). His money quote is,

Put another way, the SLA would cap Uncle Sam's take from our wallets at one of every five dollars we earn. Is it too much to ask our elected representatives in Washington that they not spend more than one of every five of our dollars?

Yes, is it really too much that Congress restrict themselves to taking only one fifth of our money, instead of trying to seize it all? Is it too much to ask that they live within the same kinds of spending restrictions that we must abide by? I do not think so and to that end have written and sent the following letter to my three members of Congress, with appropriate personalization:

Dear [congressperson],

As you are probably aware, Greece is undergoing some serious financial problems as a result of its out of control deficits. What you may not know is that the United States is currently on course for the same financial problems that currently plague Greece. Greece's problems began occurring as their deficit reached thirteen percent of their GDP. Currently, the United States has a deficit that takes up 10 percent of the GDP.

The problem is not that American taxpayers so not pay enough to the various layers of government. The problem is that the government - like an alcoholic - simply does not know when to stop. Would you spend more than your paycheque every month until you had your home foreclosed and your assets seized? Would you regard your salary as a 'guideline' as opposed to an actual limitation on your personal spending? If not, then why would you do this with American taxpayers' dollars? This is not Monopoly money that is inexhaustible.

I understand that a bill has been introduced by three members of the House (Congressmen Mike Pence, John Campbell and Jed Hensarling) that would amend the US Constitution to restrict Congress from spending more than twenty percent of GDP. The bill is HJ Res 79.

Unless you enjoy the thought of your children and grandchildren facing the same crushing debt that my children face, unless you like the prospect of the kinds of social unrest Greece is seeing and unless you honestly have no qualms about spending money that you did not earn, I would urge you to sign on to this bill as a sponsor or introduce it in the Senate if that has not already been done. Only by forcing Congress to rein in their appetites for spending other people's money can we get this looming financial disaster under control.

Please sign on to HJ Res 79. This is one bill that absolutely must proceed if we are to have any chance of saving our country before we end up like Greece.

I hope that anyone who reads this (and who is a US citizen or legal resident) emails their Congressperson and their Senators, urging them exactly the same thing. The problem, as Ronald Reagan once famously put it, is the government. Only by forcing government to live within the same means that we the people must are we going to climb out way out of this looming pit. And since Congress and the current Administration seem to have neither the will nor the leadership to do it, we must force them to do it against their own wishes. After all, it's our money their wasting and out children they are saddling with this frightful debt.

Term Limits and other suggestions

2010-05-07T12:59:00.000-07:00

Over at Michelle Malkin's place on the Net, one of the commenters suggested that three terms in the House of Representatives is more than enough. Writes hawkeye54,

Nah, that’s too drastic. There are some worth keeping. I say, though, after 3 terms in the House, find another job. 6 yeas is enough exposure to DC swamp gas. There are other places and ways good people can be politically effective.

That is a good suggestion to start, but I think that it is not enough. After all, Senators serve six-year terms. Thus a Senator with only two terms' experience has been in the Washington, D.C. cesspool for twelve years. So let's make Representatives have term limits of six terms, Senators have a two-term limit and Supreme Court justices have to retire at or before age 75. But that alone will not clean up the Washington corruption. We need to do more. So here are a few suggestions:

Pass a Constitutional amendment stating that Congressional spending cannot exceed twenty percent of GDP. All existing spending promises are counted. Any overspending must be paid back by the elected officials who voted for it, their staffs and federal employees, other than the military.

Pass a Constitutional amendment stating that the federal government can under no circumstances compete with or have any financial interest in any private industry or business in any field except those specifically stated in the Constitution (eg. Post Office). Fields aside from those specifically mentioned in the Constitution are forbidden for the federal government to interfere in any way aside to verify that the products offered are accurately being described. No false advertising - it must accurately reflect the product and any attendant risks.

Pass a Constitutional amendment stating that the federal government may not mandate the purchase of any product or service under any circumstances.

Define the Commerce Clause as referring ONLY to services or businesses that cross State lines - it give the Feds no power whatsoever to interfere in any business or enterprise that is entirely inside one state.

Congress must use the same accounting rules applied to corporations.

Congress may not mandate the purchase of any product or service.

Public servants may not be members of unions. Period.

Any public servant must answer any citizen question in full. No government department may ignore any FOIA request. Failure to comply within the specified time will result in a fine, paid directly to the citizen requesting of not less than 1000 dollars per day for each day of delay.

Get rid of EPA, Transportation Dept, the Fed, all foreign aid, all tuition support and all government subsidies. And I'd also eliminate any other Federal department not specifically mentioned in the Constitution and move the CIA's duties back to military intelligence - they're doing a far better job than the CIA at present.

Get rid of the income tax and either make it a flat tax or replace it with a sales tax. the income tax is repressive and inherently unfair as most taxes are paid by a minority.

Anyway, that's where I would start. I'm sure my readers can come up with a few others.

More TSA Follies

2010-05-07T00:26:00.000-07:00

I have long maintained that the TSA is a massive scam to get unqualified people jobs in the federal government. And the fact is that TSA has managed a complete and epic FAIL at it's core mission. Consider the following:

TSA has not caught a single would-be terrorist such as the crotch bomber since its institution. All of the serious attempts have been stopped by passengers on the lookout for suspicious activity. TSA has not stopped a single one. But they 're sure good at strip-searching kids, women and disabled people!

TSA screeners routinely miss at least 70 percent of bombs and weapons in tests. But they are really good at putting kids on no-fly lists. And then insulting the family of said kids on the official TSA blog.

This is pretty good evidence that TSA, at least as currently constituted, is a useless waste of everyone's time and money. The so-called screeners are inefficient, ignorant (they cannot seem to differentiate musical instruments from bombs), arrogant when questioned, arbitrary, fond of cruel jokes that would get a passenger arrested and completely inconsistent in their methodology not only between different airports but even between different screeners AT THE SAME AIRPORT!!!

However, it seems that TSA screeners also are busy engaging in pre-adolescent humor as to their colleagues private parts. Humor that resulted in violence. For our far-left Obama propagandists at MSNBC, the New York Times, CNN, CBS, NBC and ABC, that would be real, physical violence - the kind caused by leftist protests like those against Arizona's attempt to actually enforce existing immigration law - as opposed to the entirely nonexistent violence the media keeps breathlessly claiming the Tea Partiers MIGHT cause. some day. As (unexpectedly) reported by the NBCMiami.com website,

A TSA worker in Miami was arrested for aggravated battery after police say he attacked a colleague who'd made fun of his small genitalia after he walked through one of the new high-tech security scanners during a recent training session.

So, to recap. TSA employees are perfectly fine mocking, insulting and thoroughly inconveniencing travelers while managing to miss ever serious threat to this country's security. Oh, and they also apparently enjoy child porn - the TSA is pushing to electronically strip search your child (and your spouse, of course). But when their own personal body parts are mocked (with admittedly juvenile and exceedingly crude humor), they immediately think it is OK to resort to violence.

Hmmm. So, what does this tell us about the TSA? Well, for this writer it confirms that this is an agency that never should have existed in the first place and ought to be disbanded as soon as possible. Return all these incompetents to the depths from which they came (probably welfare for most of them based on their demonstrated lack of intelligence). And the bloviating members of Congress who thought this was an excellent idea should be forced to fly coach class (especially including Speaker Pelosi) without access to any VIP treatment at all domestic airports. Perhaps a dose of what the little people have to endure might cause an outbreak of common sense. Oh, wait. These are politicians we're talking about. With very rare exceptions they don't HAVE any common sense. Or much intelligence, seemingly, if their comments on CSPAN are any indication!

Those 'Tolerant' Muslims

2010-05-05T09:57:00.000-07:00

There is much angst and whining in these United States over the recent Arizona law that (gasp!) actually required state officials to enforce already-existing national immigration law. The open-borders lobby is insistent that enforcing existing law is intolerant and racist.

So I'm sure that the same grievance-mongers who are so upset about Arizona's law will be quick to take offense at the restrictions Dubai (and most other Muslim countries) place on visitors. According to a story in the United Kingdom's Daily Mail website, these restrictions include the following:

Alcohol is only allowed in licensed restaurants, pubs, clubs, private venues. And to drink at home, you must have a special alcohol licence. Alcohol can only be consumed by over 21s.

Drugs are strictly forbidden, and even having a residual amount in your bag or on clothing could result in a four-year jail sentence. Even if you are importing prescription drugs you may need to get permission from the UAE authorities first.

Sex outside of marriage is illegal and sharing a hotel room could land you in a police cell.

Holding hands is tolerated if you are married, but kissing and hugging is considered an offence against public decency.

Dancing is only allowed in the privacy of your home or at licensed clubs. Dancing in public is classed as indecent and provocative.

Offensive language, spitting and aggressive behaviour (including hand gestures) is though to be unacceptable. British offenders have been known to receive a six-month jail sentence for such an act and some have been deported.

Drink-driving is illegal and the UAE has a ZERO-tolerance policy. Even having the smallest amount of alcohol in your system is banned. Tailgating, speeding, racing, lane jumping, or using a mobile phone while driving are also against the law.

Addressing women in public, or taking their photo without permission is strictly frowned upon and it is forbidden to take pictures of government buildings.

So to recap. Enforcing existing immigration law in the United States is racist. But it is perfectly OK for foreign countries to place far more restrictive limits on visitors. As an aside, how does Mexico treat visitors? I think we all know the answer to that - they are famous for their shakedown tactics and the corruption and arrogance toward foreigners are well-documented. I'll take all this outrage over the Arizona law with more than a grain of salt when and if they adopt open-borders policies in their own country. And when the professional open-borders lobby targets countries other than the United States.

Were the Nazis Socialists?

2010-04-21T10:10:00.001-07:00

The early-twentieth century National Socialist (Nazi) Party of Germany are usually classified - at least in the United States - as adhering to a 'right-wing' political philosophy. However, Professor Ilya Somin over at the Volokh Conspiracy wrote an interesting post on the question of the German Nazis as Socialists. His main premise seems to be as follows,

The idea that Nazism was an extreme form of "capitalism" and Hitler primarily a tool serving the interests of "big business" is a longstanding myth that even now retains a measure of popularity in some quarters. This, despite the fact that the full name of the Nazi Party was the National Socialist German Workers' Party, and that Nazi political strategy was explicitly based on combining the appeal of socialism with that of nationalism (thus the choice of name). Once in power, the Nazis even went so far as to institute a Four Year Plan for running the German economy, modeled in large part on the Soviet Union's Five Year Plans.

I find this interesting, as I have long wondered why Nazism is usually classified as 'right-wing' when in fact it appears to hold more in common with the 'left-wing' philosophies such as Communism than it does with modern right-wing thought in the untied States. However, the answer is that the United States is in fact almost unique in its political divisions. In this country, the modern political Right is in fact closer to classical liberalism - standing strongly for individual rights, equality for all, small government and less regulation. On the other hand the modern political Left stands for big government, economic control by the State, identity politics and individual freedoms subject to regulation and dispersal by the elites. Therefore the correct classification -at least for American political schools of thought - would be to classify the divide as between statists and individualists.

The modern political Right cannot be said to have any real connection to statism, although some post-war Republican Presidents have shown fondness for Big Government - notably Richard Nixon and both Bush presidents. But the main philosophy on the political Right in the United States seems to be a consistent call for smaller government, more individual freedom and less regulation. Ronald Reagan is the most consistent practitioner of these principles, but they have been among the modern conservative planks for some time.

The American Left in contrast is and has been for some time a powerful supporter of statist totalitarianism. Leftist support for Josef Stalin, Mao Tse-tung, Pol Pot, Fidel Castro, Ho Chi Minh and other totalitarian leaders who are thought to have socialist or communist policies has been a marked aspect of the Left for over a century. Remember that until that fatal day in June of 1941, the Left in the West were fervent supporters of both Hitler's Germany and Stalin's USSR, since they were allied. Therefore, i think it is a fair statement to say that the American Left - including a wide swath of the Democratic Party - is in favor of statist approaches. And Nazism is definitely a statist philosophy.

In conclusion, the labels Left and Right are not really valid in determining where Nazism lies in the political spectrum. but if one divides political philosophies into those who are in favor of State control and those that are not, it is pretty clear that National Socialism is far closer to Marxism and Communism than it is to any definition of free-markets and individual rights. At its core Nazism is a statist doctrine and as such it is far closer to the modern American Left than is the American Right.

Time for a Constitutional Convention?

2010-04-07T10:10:00.000-07:00

Well, Lawrence Lessig and Mark McKinnon certainly think so. In today's Daily Beast, the two - one a conservative one a liberal - lay out their rationale for why a Constitutional convention might just be a good idea. Write the pair,

Washington is hopelessly addicted to money and thus to the status quo; drunk with power and incapable of getting sober and fixing itself. It’s time for an intervention—by the states.

As anyone with a cursory interest in the United States Constitution knows, there is a way to amend the Constitution without Congressional approval. As laid out in Article V, the Constitution states (emphasis mine),

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

This may be the only way we can rein in Congress. As Lessig and McKinnon state, Washington has long since abandoned any pretense of adhering to their constituents' wishes. Members of Congress engage in open graft, corruption and legal thievery to grease the palms of their corporate, nonprofit and governmental special interests. And thei spending is simply out of control. And if I were to propose amendments, they would be as follows:

Any Act passed by Congress will apply to all elected, appointed and career members of the executive, legislative and judicial branches.

No regulatory agency has authority to alter or amend its scope or requirements without said regulation being reviewed and approved by Congress.

Neither Congress, the Executive nor the Judicial Branch may nationalize or have any ownership interest in any business, industry or other commercial endeavor.

Neither Congress nor any State may mandate the individual purchase of any goods or services.

Prisoners of War and non-legitimate combatants as defined by the Geneva Convention are not entitled to any access to any US court.

No executive order may remain in effect for more than 365 days without Congressional review and approval.

No Act of Congress may remain in effect for more than five years without Congressional review and approval.

The President shall have a line-item veto as defined in California's Constitution Article IV, Section 10e

The Second Amendment shall be interpreted as follows: The right of individuals to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

This would be a good place to start. We need to get the career corruptocrats out of Washington and remind Congress that this is a Federal system of checks and balances - not a parliamentary format where the national government has all the power!

At the One-Year Mark

2010-03-26T14:56:00.000-07:00

When Barack Obama was elected, I made some predictions as to what his Presidency might look like. These predictions were as follows:

1. Fairness Doctrine is back- goodbye conservative radio. Rush will be either fined out of business or imprisoned for 'sedition'.
2. All conservative websites will be closed down- we're FAR more dangerous than those Islamic terrorists, didn't you know?
3. Taxes will skyrocket, our economy will tank.
4. The Second Amendment will be revoked by a liberal Supreme Court.
5. The US military will be emasculated and used solely as an international police force.
6. Iran will have nuclear weapons in two years.
7. Israel will no longer exist in two years.
8. Iraq will become another Islamic terror sponsor.
9. America will accept UN domination over all aspects of our foreign policy; we will sign a treaty giving the UN the power to control our treasury and our military.
10. No contrary opinions of an Obama Presidency will be tolerated- critics will be fined and possibly even imprisoned.
11. Congress will roll out universal health care and our health care system will become worse than Canada's. Americans will face huge long waits in line and many Americans will die from lack of timely care. Many doctors will go out of business due to their inability to get reimbursed. Getting health care will be worse than a trip to the DMV. (Advice- if you have anything that needs to be addressed health-wise, get it done now. In two years, our health care system will be a disaster).
12. Borders will be flung open- all illegal aliens will be legalized, provoking a fresh flood of illegals wanting citizenship.
13. Human Rights Commissions like those in Canda will form to prevent conservative speech from being heard. Any speech deemed 'hateful' (this only applied to comments made by conservatives, of course- liberals and leftists can do and say anything they wish) will be punished severely.
14. Starting January 20, expect to see the same economic numbers that were deemed to be bad for Bush spun as being wonderful under an Obama Presidency.

So. How accurate was I?

Hasn't happened yet, but several Democratic members of Congress have talked about doing it. I would not be surprised if they ram it through before the 2010 midterm elections.

Hasn't happened yet, although the Obama Justice Department thinks that Tea Partiers are a greater threat than armed Black Panthers.

This is a given, especially considering the health care boondoggle, the 'Stimulus' the nationalization of Government Motors and the attempted takeover of student loans. Expect to see your taxes skyrocket next year.

Second Amendment is still under attack, but Heller is so far holding firm. Don't expect to see the Left give up. Language actually in the Constitution (The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed) is MUCH less important than language based on 'emanations from a penumbra' (Justice Douglas' rationale for making up a new right to privacy found nowhere in the actual Constitution)

To his credit, Obama hasn't actually done this yet, although he DID just cave to the Russians as far as nuclear weapons. How many actually expect Russia to keep its word? Yes, Barack, you can put your hand down. Anyone else? No? Hmmm...

Likely. Iran is well on the way to nuclear weapons. While Obama sends them pitiful little Christmas messages. Sigh...

Well, so far Israel has managed to resist Obama's best efforts to destroy them. But how much longer can they hold out if Obama is supporting their enemies? Only time will tell...

Well, Obama doesn't get much credit here, but at least he hasn't utterly ruined the Bush plan of action in Iraq. So far, Iraq is still surpassing expectations. In the latest development, a secular, anti-Iranian leader beat out the Islamic PM. Good for them!

Obama hasn't quite dared to do this, but the signs are certainly there. Let's hope for a Republican Congress so that he can't give away our sovereignty just yet!

Here again, Obama's Justice Department hasn't taken the final steps, but the warning signs are here. They seem more concerned about Tea Partiers than actual terrorists and criminals like Bill Ayers and ACORN. Oh, wait. They support Democrats. Can't possibly be bad!

Done. Now we are stuck unless we can somehow get rid of it before 2013. We'll be almost as good as Canada! Oh, wait...

Congress and Obama have been talking about doing exactly this since 2009. Amnesty (and vast new votes of Democrats), here we come!

Campuses already do this. It is only a matter of time before these get support from the Democrats. The only speech they want to hear is the echo chamber they and teh media inhabit.

heh. You mean, like this (Obama) as opposed to this (Bush)?

Well, I am batting 4 for 14. In baseball that would be a wonderful percentage. Unfortunately, this isn't baseball. This is reality. And the reality is that most of these prophecies are either already complete (higher taxers, healthcare, media spin) in progress (immigration, speech restrictions on conservatives) or are being made more possible by Obama's policies (Iranian nukes, Israel's destruction, American decline). i only hope that the electorate does something about it in the next two elections. I don't like socialism, nor its kissing kin Communism! So, how's that Hope and Change working out for all your rubes who voted for the Marxists occupying our White House and Congress?

Government 'Efficiency' At Work

2010-03-26T14:32:00.000-07:00

The government likes to tell us how much better they are than those eeevil corporations that only care about profit. Government will make our lives better!

However, in the latest failure of this meme, it turns out that the Energy Star rating, which is supposed to be given only to products that are genuinely energy-efficient, actually gave its stamp of approval to at least fifteen fake products. As (surprisingly) reported by the Associated Press,

Fifteen phony products — including a gasoline-powered alarm clock — won a label from the government certifying them as energy efficient in a test of the federal "Energy Star" program.
Investigators concluded the program is "vulnerable to fraud and abuse."
A report released Friday said government investigators tried to pass off 20 fake products as energy efficient, and only two were rejected. Three others didn't get a response.

Why this should surprise anyone is beyond me. Government programs by definition are usually inefficient and frequently corrupt (TARP, the Stimulus, etc). The Department of Motor Vehicles is famously incompetent and the US Postal Service's lack of service is so well known that going to the Post Office has become as enjoyable as having a tooth pulled out with pliers. And we haven't even gotten mentioned the power-hungry would-be overlords at the EPA or Congressional staffers.

But when Big Government takes over your health care, of course, it will all be different.

Federalism

2010-03-26T10:16:00.000-07:00

With the recent power grab by the federal government in the person of the health care takeover (which followed the automotive takeover) ther is some talk of a Constitutional amendment. These are difficult, but the States can call one at any time.

Over at the Volokh Comnspiracy, Randy Barnett has posted his suggestions, provoking some fascinating comments. Barnett writes,

THE FEDERALISM RESTORATION AMENDMENT
The legislative power of Congress shall not be construed to include mandating, regulating, prohibiting or taxing the private health insurance of any person; nor shall the power of Congress to make all laws which are necessary and proper to regulate commerce among the several states be construed to include the power to mandate, regulate, prohibit or tax any activity that is confined within a single state and subject to the police power thereof, regardless of the activity’s economic effects outside the state, whether it employs instrumentalities therefrom, or whether its regulation or prohibition is part of a comprehensive federal regulatory scheme.

I commented with the following:

As long as we're ~~dreaming~~ brainstorming:

The Commerce Clause shall be interpreted as follows: Congress may not regulate any commercial activities confined solely within the borders of a State.

Congress may not nationalize or have any ownership interest in any business, industry or other commercial endeavor.

Congress may not pass unfunded mandates.

Congress may not link funding to any specific actions on the part of the States or the People.

Neither Congress nor any State may mandate the individual purchase of any goods or services.

States may not tax businesses not physically located within the boundaries of that State.

No executive order may remain in effect for more than 365 days without Congressional review and approval.

No Act of Congress may remain in effect for more than five years without Congressional review and approval.

Any Act passed by Congress will apply to all elected, appointed and career members of the executive, legislative and judicial branches.

Any Act passed by Congress must be on a pay as you go basis.

No regulatory agency has authority to alter or amend its scope or requirements without said regulation being reviewed and approved by Congress.

Prisoners of War and non-legitimate combatants are not entitled to any access in any US court.

The Second Amendment shall be read as written. The right of individuals to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The rights and privileges enumerated in this Constitution are restricted to US citizens and legal residents only.

I'm no lawyer, but I think that by framing it this way, the Equal Rights parts are unaffected. We want to restrict the power of the feds to use the Commerce Clause to stick their noses into things they shouldn't be. Thoughts?

That data mining again...

2010-03-23T18:58:00.000-07:00

Remember all the brouhaha over the supposedly illegal NSA data-mining and the Able Danger team? Well, it turns out that the Clinton Adminstration had a much more intrusive program going on - and one which was aimed solely at benefitting the Democratic Party. It was called Echelon.

Among other things, the program reportedly was used to eavesdrop on Republican congressmen and win contracts for American companies. As 60 Minutes host Steve Kroft said in an 2000 interview with Porter Goss and others,

Ms. NEWSHAM: It was definitely an American voice, and it was a voice that was distinct. And I said, 'Well, who is that?' And he said it was Senator Strom Thurmond. And I go, 'What?'

KROFT: Do you think this kind of stuff goes on?

Mr. FROST: Oh, of course it goes on. Been going on for years. Of course it goes on.

KROFT: You mean the National Security Agency spying on politicians in...

Mr. FROST: Well, I--I...

KROFT: ...in the United States?

Mr. FROST: Sounds ludicrous, doesn't it? Sounds like the world of fiction. It's not; not the world of fiction. That's the way it works. I've been there. I was trained by you guys.

Rep. GOSS: Certainly possible that something like that could happen. The question is: What happened next?

KROFT: What do you mean?

Rep. GOSS: It is certainly possible that somebody overheard me in a conversation. I have just been in Europe. I have been talking to people on a telephone and elsewhere. So it's very possible somebody could have heard me. But the question is: What do they do about it? I mean, I cannot stop the dust in the ether; it's there. But what I can make sure is that it's not abused--the capability's not abused, and that's what we do.

KROFT: Much of what's known about the Echelon program comes not from enemies of the United States, but from its friends. Last year, the European Parliament, which meets here in Strasbourg, France, issued a report listing many of the Echelon's spy stations around the world and detailing their surveillance capabilities. The report says Echelon is not just being used to track spies and terrorists. It claims the United States is using it for corporate and industrial espionage as well, gathering sensitive information on European corporations, then turning it over to American competitors so they can gain an economic advantage.

I was reminded of this by the tumult over Google's disagreement with China. I do believe that companies should be subject to national laws of the country in which they do business. but I also believe that China is a growing threat and think that if we are to have any influence over them, we must demonstrate that we are not always pushovers, no matter how much President Obama might genuflect.

Kudos to Google

2010-03-23T17:59:00.001-07:00

Followers of this blog know I am no fan of Google. Their refusal to respect privacy (especially for organizations that the political Left hates - see their exposure of the location of Britain's main SAS base) and their history of preferring to kowtow to tyrannical governments as opposed to cooperating with Republican Administrations leave me suspicious of their intentions. And of course the founders are well-known for being enthusiastic supporters of Big Government - as long as said Big government is run by their friends in the Democratic Party.

However, with all that being said, I must congratulate them for showing a little spine and refusing to continue their cooperation with China's repressive government. Whether they have finally woken up to the reality of the Chinese government or whether they are simply seeking revenge for what is almost certainly government-directed industrial espionage is irrelevant. the fact is that for once Google is actually living up to their motto 'Don't Be Evil'.

A more evil form of government than that practiced by the Chinese Communists is difficult to imagine, though north Korea certainly qualifies, as does Cuba. And if Obama gets his way, the United States may well one day fall into that category as well. I would hope that the executives at Google are watching the current shenanigans in Washington, DC closely. They appear to have finally awoken to the folly of cooperating with tyrannies. Perhaps they might actually wake up to the ever-increasing threat of tyranny here at home.

An American Prophecy

2010-03-23T16:50:00.000-07:00

The passage of ObamaCare (with all its corrupt bargains, un-Constitutional mandates and parliamentary skullduggery) has put the United States firmly on the road to decline and fall unless it can somehow be repealed by the Legislature (unlikely) or invalidated in the courts (even more unlikely based on the legal profession's long-standing love of Marxism, Socialism and all other social fads).

Now Mark Steyn has written a somber and probably accurate prophecy of what the future without the United States may hold. Writes Steyn,

Is America set for decline? It’s been a grand run. The country’s been the leading economic power since it overtook Britain in the 1880s. That’s impressive. Nevertheless, over the course of that century and a quarter, Detroit went from the world’s industrial powerhouse to an urban wasteland, and the once-golden state of California atrophied into a land of government run by the government for the government. What happens when the policies that brought ruin to Detroit and sclerosis to California become the basis for the nation at large? Strictly on the numbers, the United States is in the express lane to Declinistan: unsustainable entitlements, the remorseless governmentalization of the economy and individual liberty, and a centralization of power that will cripple a nation of this size. Decline is the way to bet. But what will ensure it is if the American people accept decline as a price worth paying for European social democracy.

The sad part? Speaking as someone with more than a casual knowledge of history, I think he's right. Decline is a choice, but history has proven time and again that most liberal nations eventually choose it. Athens, Rome, Byzantium and Britain are all great nations that allowed themselves (and in the case of Britain encouraged themselves) to grovel at their enemies' feet and profess their own inadequacies. So too does much of the self-elected elite in the United States celebrate barbarism and blindly follow social system and philosophies that have long been exposed as good only to the elites.

The United States has indeed had a great run, but once socialism has taken over, we are done as surely as the Western European nations who have lived off our backs for the past sixty years or so. And once America falls, who will protect Europe? Who will be the motor of the UN's corrupt coffers? As Steyn concludes.

One sympathizes with Americans weary of global responsibilities that they, unlike the European empires, never sought. The United States now spends more on its military than the next 40 or so nations combined. Yet in two rinky-dink no-account semi-colonial policing campaigns, it doesn’t feel like that, does it? A lot of bucks, but not much of a bang. You can understand why the entire Left and an increasing chunk of the Right would rather vote for a quiet life. But that’s not an option. The first victims of American retreat will be the many corners of the world that have benefited from an unusually benign hegemon. But the consequences of retreat will come home, too. In a more dangerous world, American decline will be steeper, faster, and more devastating than Britain’s — and something far closer to Rome’s.

And when that inevitable decline begins to make its effects felt, will the American media and Leftists who worked so hard to bring down their own country at last acknowledge their own responsibility for hat decline? Will they finally admit that they are the villains? Don't hold your breath.

Illegal lived on taxpayer money in DC

2010-03-18T23:35:00.000-07:00

And this, ladies and gentlemen, is why we desperately need to fix our border security. And our immigration system. As reported in the Washington Examiner, an escaped Panamanian murderer lived high on the hog illegally in Washington DC for over a year - on the taxpayer's money! As The Examiner reported,

A Panamanian murderer who escaped a prison in the Central American country has been captured in the District, where authorities say he used a fake Social Security card to obtain federally subsidized housing and cruised around town in three luxury cars.

Barrera reportedly told authorities he used the bogus Social Security card to get the driver's license and secure his U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development subsidized apartment, court documents said. A property manager for Brookland Manor Apartments told authorities Barrera paid his rent for one year in advance.
Authorities also found that Barrera had three cars registered to his alias in the District: a 1998 Lexus, a 2003 Infiniti and a 2008 Acura.
Barrera reportedly told authorities he entered the United States by sneaking in through Mexico, the affidavit said.

I don't have any problem believing it. Our border authorities are disgustingly, horrifyingly incompetent. I am referring of course to the TSA, the Border Patrol, the Customs agency and any other federal agency charged with protecting our borders. These folks are always ready to read you the riot act when you complain about being profiled for the 1,000,000,000,000,000th time as a white male or as a white female. While they pass Hispanic and Arabic men and women (including fully robed and veiled women) without even so much as a tough query. But yet they consistently fall far short of the standard that we as American citizens have a right to expect. They can't even be bothered to find and deport the millions of illegals who hang out in parking lots waiting for under-the-table work. Nor do they bother to do any investigation into the H1B abuse that is rampant among employment agencies - especially those who specialize in using natives of the Indian subcontinent.

Until our elected representatives take border security (and all other forms of national security) seriously, we are going to be in danger of a repetition of September 11, 2001. Except next time, it may not be so harmless as that attack was. And Barack Obama, Eric Holder and their fellow believers in the government will probably still blame George Bush.

Happy Birthday, Nat Cole

2010-03-17T09:30:00.000-07:00

The Power Line crew reminded me that today is the 101st anniversary of the birth of the great Nat 'King' Cole. Although Cole himself lived in times of serious racial, he and the other great jazz musicians of that era managed to transcend it and produce some of the greatest music ever recorded. Read the whole thing.

Here is a recording of Cole's 'Mona Lisa', one of my favorite songs by the great vocalist/pianist.

Deeming without Doing

2010-03-16T16:52:00.000-07:00

Since Congress thinks it is perfectly acceptable to pass legislation without actually voting on said legislation, why don't they extend that right to the rest of us.

Lucidicus has a novel idea. He tweets,

Perhaps taxpayers should "deem" their taxes to be considered paid without actually sending a check this year. http://bit.ly/dlnGAp

That goes in the same category as the novel idea that when Congress creates sweeping social engineering for the little people, they better apply it to themselves as well.

Hat tip to Glenn Reynolds.

Is the SEC over-lawyered?

2010-03-16T12:45:00.000-07:00

Well, Harry Markopolos certainly thinks so. As reported by Gordon Smith at The Conglomerate blog, Markopolos (who blew the whistle on Madoff) says in an interview with Deborah Solomon,

Solomon: Are you saying the S.E.C. under Schapiro is about to catch fraud on Wall Street?
Markopolos: She has the wrong staff. They’re a bunch of idiots there.

Solomon: What do you mean?
Markopolos: The five commissioners of the S.E.C. are securities lawyers. Securities lawyers never understand finance. They don’t have the math background. If you can’t do math and if you can’t take apart the investment products of the 21st century backward and forward and put them together in your sleep, you’ll never find the frauds on Wall Street.

Solomon: So why doesn’t the S.E.C. hire finance people? Why don’t they hire you?
Markopolos: They’re overlawyered. They’re poisoned by lawyers.

Smith has a possible solution - hire some financial experts! He writes,

We now require at least one member of the audit committee of a public company to be a "financial expert," but where are the financial experts at the SEC? Maybe bolstering the investigative staff with forensic accountants would be sufficient, but if the leadership sets the tone for the agency, wouldn't the appointment of commissioners with experience in forensic accounting be worth exploring?

Makes sense to me. Most lawyers have little expertise or real understanding of most of the fields they litigate. Kind of like....journalists!

Of course this is the government we are talking about. So if something actually makes sense, there is probably very little chance the lawyers who make up large sectors of the government will actually do anything constructive. That would reduce their opportunities for bribery and graft, after all! Hat tip to Glenn Reynolds.

Journalists and History...

2010-03-16T09:46:00.000-07:00

...don't mix it would seem. According to Tom Elia at The New Editor blog, the Chicago Tribune's Ron Grossman sent a copy of the photograph reproduced below to his newsroom. Recognize it?

A sample of the reactions from Mr. Grossman's supposedly elite colleagues are reproduced below:

While some instantly recognized the image, others couldn't quite place it.

"I know I ought to know it," one co-worker said. "It was in the movie, ‘Flags of Our Fathers.' " Some, seeing uniforms, realized it must be a war photo. Maybe Vietnam? One got the era right but the battlefield wrong. She guessed it was D-Day, not, as it was, the raising of the American flag on Iwo Jima.

I have said many times before. Journalists are among the least skilled professionals in the world. They are not trained in any of the arenas they purport to explain to we the people and yet they expect those same people to listen to their analysis and instruction with respect and awe. Why? Tell me why should we give any respect or credence to what journalists say when they are so clearly deficient in both knowledge and comprehension?

As a bonus question, with what side did Japan and Italy ally with during the First World War? And what were the Triple Alliance and the Triple Entente? (Hint: One included Germany). No Googling!

Hat tip to Glenn Reynolds. His money quote:

HOW IGNORANT ARE JOURNALISTS? This ignorant.

Google, China and Reality

2010-02-01T15:15:00.000-08:00

Recently Google was hacked by reportedly Chinese hackers. This was reported at the time by a number of news outlets, including the Telegraph of London. The US media were conspicuously silent - no surprise there, since they have a long history of publishing propaganda that suits their agenda (and ignoring news that does not - see teh ACORn scandal that the MSM are trying to bury. Or the John Edwards love-child they hushed up while salivating over Tiger Woods and Mark Sanford's marital affairs. Remember any of these events?

CNN colluded with Saddam Hussein to hide the atrocities that were ocurring in Iraq. Real atrocities, not the much-ballyhooed antics of some out-of-control prison guards.

The New York Times colluded with Josef Stalin's massacre of Ukrainians in the person of their far-left propagandist Water Duranty - whose Pulitzer they have yet to admit was awarded on the blood of the people who desperately needed Duranty to tell the truth.

CBS used forged documents to try to sway election results to elect their preferred candidate.

Now we learn, once again courtesy of The Telegraph, that the hacks may have been an inside job by Google's own Chinese employees. As the Telegraph article says,

Sources familiar with the situation told Reuters that Google is investigating the possibility that employees with access to specific parts of Google's networks could have played a role in the cyber attacks, which saw the email accounts of human rights activists compromised, and prompted the search giant to announce that it was considering closing its Chinese operation unless it could offer the country's citizens access to an uncensored web.

Hmm. No surprise there either. China, like most repressive, totalitarian governments, believes in free speech only for those with government authority behind them. Ordinary citizens are not allowed to exercise free speech - especially when said speech contains items that the Chinese government disagrees with. And when it comes to industrial espionage, the Chinese have been infamous for years for their aggressive thievery. The question is why we remain so ignorant that China and many other countries that wish us ill DO NOT PLAY BY OUR RULES! So why the HELL are we blathering about things like 'torture' that these buggers could not care less about. They want us destroyed.

China is a seriously imperialist power - their recent weakness vis-a-vis the West has only made them greedier to regain what they feel is rightfully theirs. Remeber what the REAL name for China is? Take a look at the characters - they mean 'Middle Kingdom' - literally the center of the world. And China behaved like that for centuries. Sheesh. Our government - especially clueless dimwits like Obama, Pelosi, etc - should all be taught a lesson in power politics. The Chinese are playing fo keeps. Are we?

As for the useless socialist cowards in Europe, I hope you're happy. You've done your best over the past sixty-plus years to undermine the United Sates - most recently in your dealings with Iraq and Iran. While the US pays for your socialist fantasies by protecting you. Well, hope you like what you get - you deserve it! See how you like kow-towing to China's wishes - I suspect you will soon be pining for the good old days when the US was a superpower.

Hat tip to my friend the Drunken Economist.

More Elitism...in Georgia???

2010-01-21T12:56:00.001-08:00

In 2008, twenty-two Gerogia state legislators failed to pay taxes, according to a report filed at the time by the Associated Press. This year, twelve more failed to pay taxes, as reported by the Georgia Public Broadcasting website. Georgia's state legislature, which is currently led by Republicans, had an interesting response to this - they have a pending bill that would make it illegal for anyone who is delinquent on his or her taxes to serve. Said Republican State Senator Dan Moody, as quoted by the Atlanta Journal-Constitution,

“They’re being compensated with a part-time salary for a full-time job. “Hurting in the General Assembly should not come as a surprise to anybody.”

The best comment I have seen in years was posted at the bottom of the original story on the TaxProf Blog. Commenter Just A Grunt wrote,

There is no danger of any of these elected officials losing their seats. Just like the crop from last year, if any of the names are ever known they will turn out to be Democrats and as everybody should know by now this is known as a resume enhancement for them. Besides Democrat voters don't really care about issues, they just care about the (D) after the name.

Regrettably, I agree with him. And I wish that more of our so-called 'public servants' took the 'servant' part of their title seriously, instead of thinking they were some kind of aristocrat. Just a thought guys - 2010 elections aren't THAT far away...

Oooh, girls don't like geeks...

2009-12-18T11:19:00.000-08:00

Or so moans Jeanna Bryner in a sob-story on the dropping numbers of women in computer science written for MSNB's Live Science portal. Writes Bryner,

The stereotype of computer scientists as geeks who memorize Star Trek lines and never leave the lab may be driving women away from the field, a new study suggests.

And women can be turned off by just the physical environment, say, of a computer-science classroom or office that's strewn with objects considered "masculine geeky," such as video games and science-fiction stuff.

Oh, the poor dears and their tender little sensibilities. Over a hundred years ago, English novelist Jane Austen wrote a novel entitled Sense and Sensibility that clearly showed the superiority of sense over sensibility. At the end of the novel, the character whose sensibilities had previously dominated her decisions realized that common sense was superior to being driven by her emotions (sensibilities). Women have been telling the world that they are equal (and for some feminists, more than equal) for many years. Thus, they have abrogated their privilege to being allowed to claim some 'sensibility' problem, in my view.

Let's turn the argument on its head. Most women-dominated professions decorate their offices with fluffy, girly things and engage in water-cooler discussions that mot men would find utterly inane. Men do not feel comfortable in such surroundings, but it is a rare man who speaks up to complain about this overly feminine, masculine-unfriendly atmosphere. Men prefer a different sort of atmosphere and women should accept it. If a profession is male-dominated as computer science is, then women need to realize that most of the atmosphere will be more masculine than they might prefer, just as men who enter occupations that are female-majority, like teaching or nursing, need to understand that football posters and discussions of the latest tech gadgets are unlikely to occur with any frequency. Both need to adjust.

This is not to say that women should be deliberately made to feel uncomfortable, any more than men should be made to feel uncomfortable. but both sexes have top understand that the majority is probably not thinking about that - they are creating an atmosphere that is best sited to themselves. men have long since accepted that idea. It is time and past time for women to do the same. And sob-stories like Bryner's do not help that progress.

Rules are for the Little People, Part...

2009-12-11T14:45:00.000-08:00

I've lost count. How many members of the Obama Administration is this now who apparently believe that rules are only for their ~~subjects~~ constituents?

Meet Cindy Padilla who, according to Dan Riehl, got a lengthy vacation - very likely paid for by taxpayers - while she dealt with the results of a DWI conviction. Can you imagine any normal person getting that kind of treatment? No, neither can I. Just one more example of how the Washington crowd in general, and Democrats and Obama staffers in particular, seem to believe that rules are for the little people.

And as a bonus, the Associated Press, which originally reported this story, didn't feel the need to include her political party affiliation. Need we guess? Of course she is a Democrat.

Hat tip to Glenn Reynolds.

Another One Bit The Dust...

2009-12-11T12:22:00.000-08:00

According to CBS News (yes, the 'fake-but-accurate' people, so take this with a LARGE grain of salt), an unmanned drone attack in Pakistan killed Al-Quaeda's number three commander, one Abu Yahya al-Libi. The United States has yet to confirm the reports.

Good job, U.S. Armed Forces! Note to President Obama - kill these cowardly murderers faster, please.

Congressional Power Grab - Athletics Edition

2009-12-09T10:53:00.000-08:00

The United States Constitution clearly spells out the areas in which the U.S Congress is entitled to exercise authority. I don't recall college athletics as being mentioned anywhere in the actual text of the Constitution. However, this has not stopped some of the Constitutionally illiterate members of Congress from attempting to impose their authority on yet another area where they ought to leave well enough alone. According to an Associated Press report posted on FoxSports.com today, U.S. Representative Joe Barton, a Texas Republican who really should know better, sponsored a law to force the NCAA to have a playoff. The AP reported,

A House subcommittee approved legislation Wednesday aimed at forcing college football to switch to a playoff system to determine a national champion, over the objections of some lawmakers who said Congress had more pressing matters on its plate.

The only Representative to vote No was Democrat John Barrow of Georgia.

"With all due respect, I really think we have more important things to spend our time on," Barrow said before the vote, although he stressed he didn't like the current Bowl Championship Series, either.

Barrow is right that this should have been hastily voted down, but he has his rationnale a little mixed up in my opinion. The United States Constitution's clear text on Congressional powers is pretty simple. As follows:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

I don't see anything in that text that allows Congress to regulate whether or not college football's Division One schools have a playoff system or not. It is obvious that the current system is a pathetic disgrace, the more so since every other division in college football has a playoff system. However, until the schools themselves decide to change things, Congress should focus their attention on things that are within their province. The utterly unconstitutional power grab by the EPA with their recent decision to class carbon dioxide as a pollutant - never mind that CO2 is a substance that is vital to human life on Earth - as a pollutant would be a good place to start.

It would be nice if our Congresspeople were actually cognizant that Congress - like the President and the court system - are not granted the power to do whatever they wish. There are limits on government power in the Constitution. If only our government would actually respect them!

Boxer: Leaked emails are 'crime'

2009-12-02T23:37:00.000-08:00

So, California junior senator Barbara Boxer has decided that it is a crime to blow the whistle on a massive fraud. According to The Hill, Boxer is planning to hold criminal investigations into the hacked emails depicting the cover-up, lies and manipulated data produced by the University of East Anglia's global warming factory.

According to TheHill.com, Boxer is quoted as saying,

"You call it 'Climategate'; I call it 'E-mail-theft-gate,'" she said during a committee meeting. "Whatever it is, the main issue is, Are we facing global warming or are we not? I'm looking at these e-mails, that, even though they were stolen, are now out in the public."

So Boxer is unhappy with leaked data? Where was all this outrage when the New York Times was breaking laws left and right to blab national security secrets all over its front pages? Front pages that are currently bereft of any mention of the fraud being perpetrated by the global warming - oops, sorry - Global Climate Change proponents. Where was her outrage when the CIA was leaking left and right to try to undermine a sitting President?

It seems to me that the Left only cares about leakers who leak when a Republican Administration is in power. Funny how Obama, even though he is continuing virtually every single one of the previous Administration's policies, doesn't seem to have that problem. This tells me that the bureaucracy in Washington is so highly partisan and so hostile to Republican office-holders that they will commit treason - which is then facilitated by their allies in the media like Eric Lichtblau and James Risen - if they think it will hurt a Republican. Never mind what the results may be for the United States - these partisan hacks care only about putting their preferred political allies into power.

I think that it is time to flush out the entrenched bureaucracies in Washington. Dissolve the CIA. Get rid of all the various bureaus and let's start over. And this time, let's see if we can find patriots, not political partisans. Every member of the bureaucracy, just like every elected official, takes an oath to uphold the laws of the United States. Isn't it time that we demanded that they actually adhere to the oaths they willingly take, instead of preferring to cherry-pick the ones they wish to follow? It's time that they were called to account. And it is time that the government either enforced the laws - including forcing journalists who help lawbreakers to name their sources - or cease pretending that these laws even matter. You can't have it both ways.

Gay Lobby Loses....Again

2009-12-02T16:42:00.001-08:00

You mean not only so-called 'red' states are ignorant and tyrannical? New York's state Senate kills gay marriage in New York.

This seems like a tempest in a teacup in many ways, but the underlying issue is one that we would do well to remember. The Left (and yes, this includes the militant gay lobby) has always been about the tyranny of the minority. And as I have written before, despite the gay lobby's in-your-face tactics and attempts to paint the issue as one of civil rights, most people simply do not agree that marriage is a right. And no minority has a right to dictate to a majority what that majority's idea of social normality should be. Absent some violation of civil rights (race-based discrimination, for example), the majority has the right to set their own standards. And homosexual behavior is simply not a normal social standard of behavior. This does not change my stance that government ought to get out of the entire debate and let the churches determine what marriage is or is not. But when a standard is as long-established as marriage, there is little reason to change it (again absent some violation of civil rights).

Ultimately, the people have the right to set their own standards and despite their enablers in the media and the support of large swaths of government, the gay lobby has failed to make a convincing argument. Instead, they have engaged in hateful, violent rhetoric against anyone who stands against them.

The worst part for the gay lobby is that in ultra-Left/liberal New York, a good percentage of the senate Democrats voted against it. Wonder how long it will take the gay lobby to call them insulting names and hurl hateful rhetoric in their direction?

Media (Un)Ethics

2009-11-30T12:19:00.000-08:00

The media loves to destroy careers and damage peoples' lives. if someone is unfortunate enough to be in the media spotlight due to their iridescent talents, that person can count on being treated like the subject of the Truman Show. Especially if something in that microscopically-studied life should happen to occur that promises lots of free publicity for the jackals of the Press.

Tiger Woods is one of these unfortunates. The man is a supremely skilled golfer. He is athletic, rich, attractive to the fair sex and seemingly lives the Perfect Life. But he is also an intensely private person off the golf course. He doesn't appear on frothy 'celebrity' shows. He doesn't appreciate fake topless shots of his wife. And he certainly doesn't enjoy the media intruding into what he does off the golf course. All of which stands should be uncontroversial. But the media can't let it go. In a world populated by self-serving trash like TMZ and Mario Armando Lavandeira Jr (who calls himself Perez Hilton), if the media cannot catch a celebrity in an embarrassing, headline-provoking scandal, they are perfectly prepared to create it out of whole cloth.

Such is the case here. The undisputed facts are these:

The National Enquirer magazine published a story claiming Mr. Woods had an affair with a woman.

Both Woods and the woman (Rachel Uchitel, 34) promptly denied the report.

Mr. Woods and his wife may have had an argument, possibly caused by the Enquirer's story. No physical force has been reported to have been involved.

Mr. Woods left the house at a very early hour and was involved in a minor automobile accident.

Mrs. Woods assisted in rescuing her husband, who suffered minor injuries.

As far as I am aware, no laws were broken by either Mr. or Mrs. Woods. However, the media, having created the situation that caused the problem, are now in full-throated roar demanding that Mr. Woods somehow owes them an explanation.

Er, how to put this in language our logically- and ethically-challenged media will understand? NO. Tiger Woods owes the the press nothing at all. In addition, unless some evidence emerges that he broke the law in some manner, neither does he owe the police an explanation. Jason Whitlock, one of the very few members of the press who has both respect for others' privacy and common sense (he was virtually the only member of the national media to get the Duke Rape Hoax right), put it best in his column this morning, writing,

The media members/outlets asserting Tiger Woods owes the public and the Florida Highway Patrol an explanation for a fender-bender and his wife's jaws-of-9-iron rescue owe America an explanation for their self-serving jealousy and obvious stupidity.
...

The price of fame and wealth should not be the sacrifice of marital privacy. Tiger Woods plays golf for our enjoyment. He didn't marry Elin Nordegren for our entertainment.

Jason Whitlock gets it. Why don't the rest of America's supposedly 'professional' press corps? The media does not have a right to invade the privacy of people just because their professions bring them into the public eye.

America's media has a lot of problems, from their abject failure to actually display any professional objectivity (11 'fact-checkers' for Sarah Palin's book, zero for Barack Obama's or Joe Biden's)to their complete failure to accurately inform the American public about many important stories currently ongoing (ACORN's corruption, the University of East Anglia's emails, etc.). But while they don't seem to have enough time to actually deal with actual issues of real importance to most Americans, they do have enough time to descend on a professional athlete who has done nothing wrong and try to wreck his life. For shame!

Courts Destroy Citizen Rights, Part 2,000,000

2009-11-24T08:57:00.001-08:00

It has always been my understanding that the courts' major job is to ensure justice and uphold the law of the land. Pity that so many of them seem to have signed on to the statists' big government mantra. Starting with the empowerment of government over citizens in the Progressive era at the beginning of the 20th century, the courts have steadily ceased to perform their role as limiters of government's constant power grabs.

The latest example of courts riding roughshod over citizens' rights occurred in Brooklyn, New York. The New York Supreme Court ruled that the government could use eminent domain to force homeowners and businesses to give up their property so that a multi-millionaire developer could build a new sports arena among other things.

The main problem, as I see it, is that the Founders supposed that the government would not attempt to engage in mass redistribution of wealth at the expense of their subjects - er, I mean citizens. Therefore, they wrote in the Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution (which statement is echoed in the New York Constitution),

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Note that nowhere do they specifically say that property may not be taken for public use. Nor is there any mention that property may not be taken for private use. Thus the government is not breaking the letter of the law, though they have long since broken the spirit into a million little pieces (see Kelo).

The answer, I regret to say, is a Constitutional amendment stating that no private property can be seized for any reason save those specifically stated, and that under no circumstances can private property be seized for transfer to any non-public use. We have a government and a court system that wants to impose government oversight over every aspect of its citizens' lives. The only way to prevent this is to specifically bar the government and the courts for being allowed to impose. We have gone a long way down the road to serfdom already and unless we act, we will wake up in a feudal system - which of course is precisely what the big government proponents in the courts and the government want - a hierarchy where they may enjoy the fruits of everyone else's labors.

The Tarkanian Touch

2009-11-20T14:00:00.001-08:00

In the interests of full disclosure, I was never a big fan of Danny Tarkanian when he played basketball at UNLV and I have a long-standing contempt for his father Jerry. However, the Danny Tarkanian for Congress campaign has come up with one of the most hilarious political advertisements I have seen in a long time. As both Ed Morrissey and Jim Geraghty have said - watch this before YouTube pulls it for copyright infringement.

Danny Tarkanian advertisement:

Liberal Arrogance - and Guilt

2009-11-20T10:01:00.000-08:00

It has been noted many times that the modern American Left - which includes a large percentage of the Democratic Party - seems to be more interested in controlling every aspect of the Little People's lives than they are in anything else. Evidence for this proposition includes the massive government power grab of the financial, automotive and health care industries, as well as the ever-increasing reams of regulation that are mainly spearheaded by the Left.

However, there is another piece of evidence for the predilection - the tendency of self-professed 'elites' in the United States to try to force Americans to pronounce foreign words exactly as a native speaker would. Food Critic and Top Chef judge Toby Young mercilessly exposes this affectation in his Spectator column today, writing,

In the States, pronouncing foreign words ‘correctly’ is a high-status indicator. It’s not just about demonstrating your racial sensitivity. It’s a way of advertising your membership of the elite. Saying ‘py-el-a’ rather than ‘py-ay-a’ is to risk being thought of as lower class.

I don’t mean that they’re concerned about appearing not very well travelled, though that comes into it. It’s more a question of manners. Not tiptoeing around other cultures is considered impolite. To make a ‘racially insensitive’ remark is to reveal a lack of familiarity with the code. They’re worried about appearing ignorant, but not of other cultures. What concerns them is that people might think they don’t know the form. Being politically correct is also socially correct — which helps explain its ubiquity. When a political trend is reinforced by snobbery it becomes an irresistible force, which helps explain the success of the environmental movement.

As a speaker of Japanese, I am well-acquainted with the fact that a Japanese person will not pronounce English words in precisely the same accent as a native American. Words are spoken differently by different cultures. For instance, in English Roma is Rome, 東京 is Tokyo, and Paree is Paris. In Japanese London is 'Rondon' and Los Angeles is 'Rosu'. And why not? Making an effort to pronounce words correctly when speaking a foreign tongue aids communication. However, when speaking English, I do not labor to pronounce foreign words as they would be in their native tongue - I give them the common English pronunciation.

In essence what these elitists are doing is trying both to show their elite status and to force everyone to meet their own narrow ideas of what is 'correct'. As Mr. Young so correctly concludes,

A world in which all ethnic groups speak slightly differently, following their own idiosyncratic rules when it comes to pronouncing words not in their language, is preferable to one in which everyone is forced to pronounce things ‘correctly’ by a bunch of guilty white people. In the end, that’s more ‘imperialist’ than saying ‘py-el-a’.

I could not agree more. Hat tip to Glenn Reynolds.

Is Major Hasan a Traitor?

2009-11-12T10:25:00.001-08:00

Austin Bay makes a strong case in his StrategyPage column today that the answer may be yes. Writes Bay,

One word aptly describes Ft. Hood mass murderer Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan: traitor.

Traitor is a tough word. It doesn't smudge and squish. "Traitor" draws a hard line, one that sharply divides essential life-determining values and marks a defining personal choice between the profound and the profane.

Treason is one of the few crimes specifically defined in the text of the United States Constitution. As defined in Article Three, Section Three,

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

Well, then. Major Hasan was a voluntary member of the United States Army, sworn to protect the United States and furthermore, he was a member of the Army Medical Corps, sworn to serve his fellow soldiers. He voluntarily swore two oaths to that effect. Yet he opened fire on his unarmed fellow soldiers, on a military base on his country's soil. He did not take the honorable course of resigning and seeking to fight as a part of our enemies' forces, but instead hid behind his rank and shot down his fellow soldiers when they could not defend themselves. I would say that this meets the characterization of 'levying war' as well as 'adhering to their enemies'. Taken together, this is a pretty clear picture of a traitor. Colonel Bay compares Hasan with Benedict Arnold and I believe that to be a fair analogy but I would classify Hasan's acts as even more despicable than Arnold's.

Bay also takes to task journalists and activists like Joe Klein and the partisan hacks at MoveOn.org for abusing the word treason - a word that in some cases (ie. Eric Lichtblau and James Risen) actually applies better to those same abusers. Bay says of these contemptible members of the chattering class,

Self-styled mainstream journalists with no regard for the awful moral weight and terrible consequences of the actual act of sedition heedlessly employ the accusation as a word weapon to thwart discomfiting political criticism. For example, Time Magazine's Joe Klein wrote this past Oct. 23 that "some of" what Fox News presents ("peddles" was Klein's verb) "borders on sedition."

Klein's rash innuendo (so indicative of people who live in a relatively safe world protected by cops and soldiers) is lightweight prostitution compared to the thoroughly dirty work of the hard left propagandists at MoveOn.org, who all but called Gen. David Petraeus a traitor.

This is unfortunately true. Many members of the left like to throw around words like this in an attempt to silence their political opponents. However, treason has a deeper meaning - simply disagreeing with a President's policies, and pointing out the flaws and problems with those policies, is not treason. That is dissent, and is the lifeblood of a free country. The Left, however, prefers to silence their adversaries than to hold an open debate. I would suggest that my readers, such as they may be, might want to take note of that tendency. Republicans and conservatives are not known for silencing debate - quite the contrary. It is the Left who wishes to shut down open discourse, whether by the Orwellian 'Fairness Doctrine' or by cruder threats, such as frivolous lawsuits or even using their SEIU shock troops.

Did Major Nidal Malik Hasan commit treason? Based on the available evidence the answer appears to be a resounding yes. I fully support a full investigation in a military courts martial. However, should the resulting judgment agree with this assessment, we can only hope that a military overcome with dangerous political correctness can and will take the necessary steps to execute him for actions against the men and women he was sworn to protect and serve.

AP Rewrites History for Muslim Sniper John Muhammad

2009-11-10T10:00:00.000-08:00

Today's AP article on the Yahoo! News site regarding the impending execution of convicted Virgina sniper John Muhammad is almost breathtaking in its politically correct craven-ness. Muhammad and his accomplice, Lee Boyd Malvo, confessed that they were undertaking a home-grown jihad against Americans in support of their Muslim brethren overseas. In addition, drawings done by Malvo in jail leave no doubt that the two were inspired by Muslim theology.

However, the Associated Press cannot bring itself to admit what is well-known. Instead, in an article on Yahoo! News today, reporter Dena Potter writes,

The motive for the shootings remains murky. Malvo said Muhammad wanted to use the plot to extort $10 million from the government to set up a camp in Canada where homeless children would be trained as terrorists. But Muhammad's ex-wife has said she believes the attacks were a smoke screen for his plan to kill her and regain custody of their three children.

Um, no. Muhammad and Malvo were unrepentant Muslim terrorists. Their aims, as presented in court and reported at the time by the New York Sun newspaper, were to terrorize American cities and ultimately create a force of of like-minded terrorists to spread out and execute similar terror missions in other cities. At no time did either Muhammad or Malvo try to deny that Islamic teachings formed a major part of their inspiration. In fact, in his courtroom testimony, Malvo specifically said that Muhammad had introduced him to the Nation of Islam teachings.

So we must ask ourselves - is Ms Potter ignorant or is she simply following the meme and is unable to think for herself? Based on the AP's track record, I would suspect the latter. Remember - it's only news if it fits the narrative.

Fort Hood Thoughts

2009-11-09T15:07:00.001-08:00

I had not intended to blog about the events that took place at Fort Hood on November 5, 2009. This is mainly because I do not believe that I can add anything to the discussion. However, an article on the Forbes online edition today has changed my mind. But first, allow me to offer my sympathy and outrage to the families of those killed and wounded in this despicable attack. And let me suggest to our elected leaders that a more sincere expression of outrage and tangible actions to deter any future episodes of this nature are absolutely required. The current lukewarm reaction simply won't cut it.

The facts of the case are not in doubt. Major Nidal Malik Hassan opened fire at a processing center on the base, killing thirteen and wounding twenty-nine people befire he was taken into custody. Based on reports that have been coming in regularly, ther seems to be little doubt that Hassan's motives were due to his identification with fundamental Islamic terrorists and thier attempts at global jihad - attempts that include the attacks on the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001.

Since the attacks, the Obama administration has bent over backwards to obscure any possible linkage of the shooter with the Islamic religion. And they have also shown a startling lack of compassion or sympathy with the victims, choosing to focus on Indian tribal matters as opposed to the US Armed Forces.

Today, Forbes editor Tunku Varadarajan writes a column about the lessons and possibilities opened by Hassan's actions. Regarding the shooter's motives, he writes chillingly,

"Going postal" is a piquant American phrase that describes the phenomenon of violent rage in which a worker--archetypically a postal worker--"snaps" and guns down his colleagues.

As the enormity of the actions of Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan sinks in, we must ask whether we are confronting a new phenomenon of violent rage, one we might dub--disconcertingly--"Going Muslim." This phrase would describe the turn of events where a seemingly integrated Muslim-American--a friendly donut vendor in New York, say, or an officer in the U.S. Army at Fort Hood--discards his apparent integration into American society and elects to vindicate his religion in an act of messianic violence against his fellow Americans. This would appear to be what happened in the case of Maj. Hasan.

This is a truly frightening thought. The United States, as Varadarajan points out, has a long history of assimilating new arrivals and in most cases, has successfully managed to integrate them quite well. This appears to be less successful in the case both of the illegal aliens from the south and the Muslim immigrants, regardless of their country of origin. As Varadarajan says,

America differentiates itself on integration from Western European countries, which are far more cringing and guilt-driven in their approach. But can the American swagger persist if many Americans come genuinely to view Muslims as Fifth Columnists? The integration compact depends on a broad trust that the immigrant's desire to be American can happily co-exist with his other forms of racial/cultural/religious identity. Once that trust doesn't exist, America faces a problem in need of urgent resolution.

This is undoubtedly true. If a majority of Americans come to see Muslims as incapable of assimilating, they could eventually lead to a violent confrontation. And that is something that no one in their right minds wishes to see. But if this phenomenon is not dealt with, that possibility could come to pass.

Finally, it is clear that the Army itself and the federal government ignored signs that Hassan was no friend of the United States. The question has been raised as to why he was still an officer in the United States Army. That question is salient. Why indeed? The Obama Administration has reportedly instructed the FBI to rule out any idea that this is related to Islam or Islamic terror. if this report is tru, then the Obama Administration is even more pathetic and less friendly to the country they are sworn to represent that was previously thought. The first and foremost duty of the President is to protect the United States. Hassan killed thirteen members of the US Armed Forces while they wer unarmed. This is murder, plain and simple. Why is the FBI not allowed to pursue all possible leads?

Finally, Varadarajan points out the the Army itself failed to take action on the many warning signs Hassan exhibited before he opened fire. Among these were the following:

Dressed in traditional Islamic garb

attended a mosque closely linked to the 9/11 terrorists

wrote comments highly critical of the UNited States and supportive of the Islamic terrorists

Why was Hassan never investigated for these actions? Taken together, they present a fairly consistent pattern of anti-American, pro-Islamic terror actions. But apparently no action was ever taken. Was this because Hassan was Muslim and no one dared to complain, fearing the lawsuits of the grievance-mongers like CAIR? Was there some policy that stated Muslims were to be given extra leeway in their actions? Answers need to be provided. As Varadarajan concludes,

Let the first lesson of the Hasan atrocity be this: The U.S. Army has to be a PC-free zone. Our democracy and our way of life depend on it.

I could not agree more.

Thoughts on Maine and Gay marriage

2009-11-04T14:45:00.001-08:00

In the aftermath of last night's elections, it has become apparent that the gay movement has failed to redefine marriage in Maine, one of the most left-leaning states in the entire country. I have received several comments on Facebook to the effect that somehow this vote is a disgrace and that those who voted should be ashamed of themselves. Ed Morrissey at Hot Air has weighed in with his thoughts, and between the two points of view, this has occasioned a few thoughts on my part as well.

First, the gay movement has for some time been heavily invested in painting its critics as racists, sexists and any other derogatory term they think they can get away with using. After losing the Proposition 8 vote in California, they unleashed a torrent of hatred and even violence against those they chose to identify as opposing gay marriage. This is tyranny and absent the government supporting it, it doesn't work too well in a free society. If I could give one piece of advice to the gay movement, it would be to concentrate more on persuasion and coming up with valid arguments as to why marriage even needs to be redefined. So far, the gay movement has not made a single valid argument for why society's definition of marriage needs to be redefined. Which brings up the second point.

Marriage is not a right. Not for heterosexuals, not for homosexuals, not for pedophiles, not for sado-masochists and not for anyone else. No one is guaranteed a marriage partner. Marriage has been many things through humanity's long history - a duty, a burden and a privilege. But it has never been a right. Just because four California judges are too arrogant or too power-hungry (yes, the original judgment that provoked Prop 8 was a judicial power grab, just like Roe vs. Wade and the more recent Boumedienne ruling) to understand that does not make their point of view correct. Five justices of the Supreme Court once ruled that slavery was OK too. Were they correct? Marriage is a social contract, and as such, should, be defined y society. For those of you who have difficulties with math, that means a majority. Homosexuals are not by any stretch of the imagination a majority and due to their utter inability to breed true never will be. So absent some violation of their rights, they are not allowed to dictate to the majority. Ed Morrissey over at Hot Air writes,

The recognition of marriage is a legitimate public policy question, one that should be decided through either the legislature or by direct vote in referendums. No one has proposed any law to ban gay relationships, and the law should not interfere with consenting, non-sanguinary adults in creating legal partnerships for property, access, and so on — the incidentals of long-term relationships. But the people of the states have the right to determine what relationships qualify for state recognition as marriage.

But the homosexuals claim that they are being discriminated against - that they are somehow being denied their 'rights'. As to the right of marriage, see above. As to their ability to form domestic partnerships with the consenting adult of their choice, no one is denying them this privilege. However, as Ed notes, it is society's privilege to set the terms of its contracts. Not a tiny little minority. And in most states, homosexuals are offered essentially the same legal protections for their relationships as normal people have. So I fail to see their complaint.

I would suspect that the real goal of the gays is to replace the current definition of marriage with their own and force the rest of society to embrace their particular sexual choices. Allowing them to do this would be a tyranny of the minority, especially when foisted on the majority by a group of arrogant, unelected judges. Which was one of the main rallying points for the Prop 8 supporters last year.

So for the gay movement, may I suggest that it is time to abandon the vicious language and hateful demonization of your opponents. Concentrate on defining a valid argument for why marriage ought to be redefined. So far, the homosexual movement has utterly failed in making a valid argument for redefining marriage. And no, making obviously false comparisons to the civil rights movement is winning no arguments. Persuade society that marriage needs to be redefined. Until that happens, you will continue to lose these contests and your behavior is not calculated to win any friends in the electorates you are so ready to insult!

Ed concludes his piece by writing,

People would be better protected by partnership contracts, where property and child access would be decided and agreed long before problems appeared in the relationship, and leave marriage to the churches, which are much better suited to protect the institution. Divorce is a much bigger danger to marriage than gay marriage ever will be, and the dissolution of the nuclear family a much bigger threat to the fabric of society than gays and lesbians living together. Everyone would be better off with government out of the bedroom and the chapel — and so would marriage.

I think if the homosexual movement wanted to make better use of their energy, they should join with the Tea Party folks in demanding that government get out of our daily lives. Let government give out 'partnership contracts' and leave marriage where it should be - in the domain of the churches and individual choice. Just a suggestion....

The Coming Crash?

2009-11-02T23:26:00.000-08:00

Peggy Noonan has an opinion piece in today's online Wall Street Journal talking about the current state of things in the United States. She writes,

The biggest threat to America right now is not government spending, huge deficits, foreign ownership of our debt, world terrorism, two wars, potential epidemics or nuts with nukes. The biggest long-term threat is that people are becoming and have become disheartened, that this condition is reaching critical mass, and that it afflicts most broadly and deeply those members of the American leadership class who are not in Washington, most especially those in business.

She has a point. While the ignorant, self-important corruptocrats in Washington DC and mot State and local governments continue their orgy of spending, new taxes and increasing the size and power of their governments, ordinary Americans are beginning to turn away and lose faith in them entirely. And if the governed once lose trust in the governors, then he system will no longer work at all,

The Constitution is built upon one simple idea - that the governed PERMIT their elected representatives to make decisions for them. In return, they expect their representatives to exercise restraint and behave morally in their best interests. This contract has long since been abandoned by the inhabitants of that strange city we call Washington DC. Buoyed by the ranks of government unions (since when is it acceptable that bureaucrats get unions while the soldiers and sailors - the only government employees who actually EARN their pay have none), the elected representatives are busily dipping into the public till or their own perks while ignoring the interests of the people they profess to serve. William Jefferson had freezers full of cash, and the Washington establishment has ben almost entirely silent about his corruption. Chriss Dodds and Barney Frank have massive sweetheart deal with shady lobbyists - including many of the people responsible for the financial collapse, and the Washington establishment seems to think that is perfectly fine.

Noonan suggests that it is because they are the Baby Boomers - a generation that has never had to worry about anything and one that is infamous for it's selfishness and self-obsession. She writes,

We are governed at all levels by America's luckiest children, sons and daughters of the abundance, and they call themselves optimists but they're not optimists—they're unimaginative. They don't have faith, they've just never been foreclosed on. They are stupid and they are callous, and they don't mind it when people become disheartened. They don't even notice.

I hope that they notice at some point. The tea partiers may not have the juice in the long run to end this orgy of disaster that the Washington elites are engaged in, but they symbolize a frustration and a slow-growing wave that may in time take down the corruptocrats. And I issue a warning to these self-important jacks-in-office. Be careful. You folks - particularly on the Left side of the political spectrum - have made a career out of polarization and personal attacks. Remember the typical descriptions of every conservative from Ronald Reagan to George Will to William F. Buckley. They have ben demonized, hung in effigy and compared to Nazis (who were actually closer to the political Left than to the modern American conservative movement). And these same people - many of whom could not have succeeded at a real job where there are actual performance reviews - who are increasingly telling us that only they are qualified to make decisions for us on all levels of our daily lives, regardless of the Constitutional limits on what government can and cannot do.

Be careful, government bureaucrats. Remember that it was a similar situation in ancient Rome that gave rise to Julius Caesar and the Empire. While I would be happy to see most of the bureaucracies disbanded (especially on the Federal level), I don't think that any of us wish to see an American equivalent either to the Roman Empire or to the Socialist nightmares that the current Adminitration seems to be bent on recreating here. But I warn the political elites (and their shills in the Establishment media) - ignore the rising anger and cycnicism at your own cost. Some day there WILL be a reckoning.

To the Democrats, I warn you to stop with the socialism. Most Americans are not socialists and socialism is a system that has failed everywhere it has been tried. Name a single state that has experienced success with a socialist philosophy. There is not one. You can bribe your way to power, but most Americans are still adamantly opposed to your particular brand of ideology - even those nominally DEmocrat. The Leftists who actually support your agenda are noisy, but they constitute under thirty percent of the UNited States. They are not a path to power. Respect the Constitution instead of merely picking the parts you like. All parts of the Constitution should hold equal power. Just because you don't like guns or conservative speech is no reason to toss aside the First and Second Amendments. Weren't you the folks who screamed about dissent being the highest form of patriotism when George W. Bush was President?

To the Republicans, I say - return to your roots or you will cease to exist. Conservatives outnumber liberals and if we have no place to go, we will form our own party. The Democrats are the party of bribery, of election-rigging, of racial politics and of out and out machine politics. The Republicans must be a viable alternative preaching small government, self-respect, individualism and the responsibility. If you are merely Democrat-lite, you have no reason for being. Small government, a strong defense of American interests and a healthy respect for free markets, private property and the individual are the path to power, but only so long as you continue to support those beliefs. The Left controls the Press, the educational establishment and most of the legal profession. You will get no help from any of those and they will sabotage you at every turn. But if you can put your case directly to the voters, I believe that you can persuade them that your path is the correct one. Maybe not in states too far gone down the corruption path - I refer to New York, California, New Jersey, Illinois, etc - but to the swing states you will need to get a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. You must not merely reduce the rate of growth of government, but somehow begin reducing it!

Noonan suggest that if the government pushes people far enough, they might simply tune out and take their tax dollars with them. That is possible - in Italy, tax evasion is a national sport. if that begins to happen in this country, there is no way the Federal government could finance their grandiose dreams and the IRS cannot persecute everyone in this country - though they certainly will try! However, history says that is is far more likely that if the people are pushed far enough, a strong leader will arise who will simply take power in his own way. And ultimately, that is not a good thing for the country's survival. Rome itself endured a mere four hundred years or so after the change from Republic to Empire. And I doubt that a multi-cultural America ha any chance at matching that record.

If I had influence or money or power on the requisite scale, I would be busy recruiting solid conservatives in every state to go to Washington and their local governments and dismantle this socialistic nightmare that the left is busy erecting around us. But I don't have any of that. I wrote my thoughts on the future of this once-great nation when Obama won. Nothing I've seen since has changed that opinion.

Remembering 9/11

2009-09-11T17:30:00.000-07:00

I have been struck by the many posts on Facebook and other places remembering the attacks of September 11, 2001. So I thought I would post a few thoughts as well.

It is interesting how no one in our media (and few in our current Administration) seems to want to recall that this attack was unprovoked, uncalled for and thoroughly against every law of war that there is. It is strange how most Americans seem to have forgotten that the same people who organized the attacks of September 11 were the same folks who attacked US military bases, who attacked US embassies, who attacked US warships and who had tried once before to destroy the World Trade Center. And that these people were utterly unmolested by the US government prior to September 11.

The attackers of the World Trade Center on September 11 were all Muslim. They were mainly from Saudi Arabia, but their countries of origins were largely irrelevant to their mission. No government officially backed, them though many - including Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and others - gave them refuge and supplied money and training facilities. The Muslim terrorists who carried out the September 11 attacks and their ilk (such as Hezbollah) were fired by the ideals of Muhammad - the failed businessman who despite being run out of Mecca somehow manged (due entirely to a fortunate marriage) to create the greatest force for bloodshed and suffering the world has ever seen. Muslim armies exploded out of Arabia in the mid-sixth century AD and proceeded to being a campaign of blood and terror that would cause half the world to end up in the chains of Islam - a religion that is nearly as harsh on its female adherents as it is to anyone who is not a member. Islam has a simple ideal - join or die. And once joined, you can never leave. Trying to convert is met by death in the Arab countries - by imprisonment and 'reeducation' in the supposedly moderate ones such as Indonesia and Malaysia.

For al Quaeda and its many sympathizers around the world, such as the regimes in Iraq, Iran and many of the powers that be in other Muslim states, there are no rules of war. They are essentially cowards - fighting behind the unwilling human shields of the captive populations and refusing to show their faces. They wear no uniform, carry no flag and answer to no defined command structure. This is the reason that the Geneva Conventions specifically deny terrorists and those who fight without following acceptable rules of war the benefits of their protections.

Let us never forget the evil that these attackers did and continue to try to do. When we tried to fight them with criminal courts and lawyers, the lawyers turned against us, like the traitress Lynne Stewart and the courts, lacking any understanding of military strategy, ended up using laws the United States never agreed to to force us to allow these men to use our own courts against us. Only when President George W. Bush, in one of the most courageous decisions a president has undertaken in recent years, unleashed the military against their sponsor states did their reign of terror slowly begin to be brought under control. As Americans, we should know these people better. We have fought them before and for similar reasons - have we already forgotten the Barbary Wars against the Muslim Pashas of North Africa?

And then too, let us not forget that these enemies of civilization follow the creed that has been trying to destroy the West since Muhammad led his first imperial jihad out of the Arabia in the mid-sixth century AD. The civilizations of North Africa - wiped from the face of the Earth. Spain conquered in 714, France barely saved by Charles Martel in 732. None of that was provoked either. The Crusades were a reaction to the Muslim wars of conquest, not an action. I wish more Americans realized that. The people who attacked us on 9/11 are the ideological heirs of Muhammad and his bloodthirsty wars of conquest that nearly conquered the entire world. Europe barely escaped this fate many times, most recently in the campaigns of 1680 before the gates of Vienna, when forces led by the military genius Prince Eugene of Savoy fought off a Muslim force led by the Ottoman Sultans. After first serving in the great defense of Vienna in 1683, he finally stopped the Muslim tide in its tracks with his victories at Belgrade and Petrovaradin in the mid-eighteenth century. That is less than three hundred years ago - no time at all in terms of history. Muslims spent nearly eight hundred years trying to bring down the Byzantine Empire before they finally succeeded in 1453. A mere three centuries is nothing.

Many have claimed that Christianity is a greater force of evil that Islam and there are certainly many episodes of terror and brutality in the kingdoms that call themselves Christian. Nor have the Church's leaders always shown to advantage. But I cannot find any similar campaign to conquer the world as that carried out by Muslim armies for nearly a thousand years. Christianity has never tried to take by military force any of the traditional Muslim homelands in Arabia - I do not count Israel as that is a special case and is not a traditional Muslim homeland in any case. Christianity is also not a religion that mixes politics with its preaching. Although many political leaders have wrapped themselves in the Church, at no time has any Pope or other religious leader sent Christian armies out to conquer the world by force of arms for Christiantiy as Muslim leaders have done for centuries. And Christianity is aided by the fact that it has traditionally been a bottom up religion. many of its most influential leaders are not men of great power, but rather poor or ignobly born men. Islam, incontrast, is a religion run by the elites. Chirstianity is not, though it has gone through phases where the elites have tried.

As to the argument of imperialism, the West has been practicing imperialism for a far shorter time than has Islam. Islam has been exporting blood and war since roughly 550 AD. The West began to practice such in the 1500s, and mass imperialism did not become popular in Europe until the 1800s. Quite a difference. Nor did European imperialism involve forcible religious conversion in most cases - again utterly unlike Islam. In fact, under TE Lawrence, British imperial forces actually aided Muslims against other Muslims - the forces of Ottoman Turkey And the US itself has fought alongside Muslims many times - including defending Bosnians from other Christians. But to the wild-eyed Muslims, this matters not at all.

I put all this to paper to remind America that the attacks of September 11 did not occur in a vacuum. Are all Muslims bloodthirsty monsters? Of course not. But Islam itself has a streak of imperialist violence we would do well to remember . And we also would do well to remember that this is the same religion that calls non-Muslims inferiors and requires submission by such to Muslims. This attack is part of a long story of war and conquest. It was not begun by Christians, but if our children are to survive to see a world where they can freely worship and speak in public, we may need to finish it. In that vein I call upon all Americans to think well about the events eight years ago. While we argue about 'torture' and 'Abu Ghraib', Muslims are sharpening their spears and waiting for their next chance. They think that they can win and if we don't start defending our culture a bit more strongly, they may well prove to be right. The lessons of September 11 are that we must never relax - we are fighting a war and it is a war that we can only win by shouting the virtues of our civilization as opposed to the barbarian monsters we face.

So on this eight anniversary of the bloody and unprovoked attacks on the World Trade Center that took over three thousand innocent lives, I ask that you remember 9/11. Never forget!

The Bush and Reagan Speeches to Schoolchildren

2009-09-04T16:24:00.000-07:00

There has been a lot of angst about President Obama's upcoming speech to school children. Spokesman Robert Gibbs made the point that both President Ronald Reagan and President George H.W. Bush also made addresses to schoolchildren. Just for reference, here is a link to the text of President George H.W. Bush's 1991 speech to schoolchildren.
The Bush speech can be found at The Bush Library online resources hosted by Texas A&M University.

For a transcript of Reagan's 1988 address, I have unearthed a link from the University of Texas: Reagan Address to School Children, November 14, 1988

Once Obama's transcript is posted it will be interesting to compare them. Both Reagan and Bush's were innnocuous, though Reagan did make the case for low taxes, and less governmetn spending. However, neither Reagan nor Bush tried to push the children in any particular direction as the Soviets, the Chinese and the imperial Japnese models certainly do. We shall see if Obama can rise to that level of statemanship - to date he is both more partisan and less willing to reach across the aisle to the opposition than either Ronald Reagan or either of the Bushes ever were.

Hat tip to Allahpundit over at Hot Air.

Beck, Letterman and Censorship

2009-09-03T11:36:00.000-07:00

It appears that Fox News host Glenn Beck has gotten himself into some trouble of late. According to the New York Daily News, he referred to President Barack Obama as racist:

The combustable Beck ignited a firestorm when, during a Tuesday morning appearance on FNC's freewheeling "Fox and Friends," he said the President's reaction to the Henry Louis Gates Jr. arrest situation in Cambridge, Mass., suggested a "deep-seated hatred for white people or the white culture."

To his credit, "Fox & Friends" co-host Brian Kilmeade — who recently had to apologize for comments he made about racial issues — immediately responded, saying that most of the faces people see of the Obama administration are white, such as spokesman Robert Gibbs or chief of staff Rahm Emanuel.

"I'm not saying he doesn't like white people. I'm saying he has a problem," Beck responded. "This guy is, I believe, a racist."

Around the Internet, this comment seems to have outraged a number of people, to the point where there is a Facebook poll asking if Beck should be fired. Funny how the same people calling for beck to be fired for suggesting that Obama is racist were silent when late-night host Dave Letterman suggested that baseball player Alex Rodriguez had sex with former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin's 14-year old daughter. As reported by the Hollywood Grind,

On Tuesday’s show, David Letterman joked in his opening monologue that the Alaska Governor Sarah Palin visited Yankee Stadium, sitting in "far, far right field" with Rudy Giuliani. "They had a wonderful time," he continued. "The toughest part of her visit was keeping Eliot Spitzer away from her daughter." Letterman also said that Alex Rodriquez knocked up Palin’s daughter at the game, except the daughter at the game was not 18 year-old Bristol Palin, it was Palin’s 14 year-old daughter.

Neither Beck's nor Letterman's comments are useful additions to political discourse in this country, and both are despicable. However, I disagreed with the campaign to ask CBS to fire Letterman and I also disagree with the campaign to have Fox fire Beck. What both these campaigns are trying to accomplish is pure censorship, albeit in the name of decency. I ask those calling for him to be fired - do you agree with censorship? Because that is what you are proposing. By all means show your disapproval and refute his statements. But to try to get him fired for speech with which you disagree is censorship, which is anathema to me. Censorship makes totalitarian governments like Cuba and Communist China possible.

As far as Beck and Letterman and all the other commentators making extreme statements - and yes, this definitely includes the many on the Left who used Nazi terminology to refer to former President Bush for the last eight years - should they face some sort of discipline? Maybe, but that is up to their employers. As far as we consumers, we can choose not to watch their shows. But we should never risk employing the whip of censorship. The power of censorship, once granted to a government authority, can never be revoked and can easily be employed against any subject. Censorship is the weapon most desired by totalitarian governments, and we should be exceedingly wary in its use here. Censorship in a war zone to protect troops? Absolutely. Censorship for two brainless commentators? Both needless and dangerous. The First Amendment was written for a reason and that reason has everything to do with political speech.

The Media - Then and Now

2009-09-02T01:07:00.001-07:00

Once upon a time, the American media was an organization that for all its faults, understood that American interests were more valuable than the interests of our enemies. Allow me to share with you a moment from World War II.

The San Francisco Examiner newspaper in 1944 wrote an editorial suggesting that the Marines were operating under incompetent leadership because they were in a bloody and desperate battle for the island known as Iwo Jima. The Examiner strongly suggested that perhaps the Army, under the leadership of the media's favorite general, Douglas MacArthur, could do a far better job. This provoked the San Francisco Chronicle - a that time a paper with some sympathy for American fighting men - to respond as follows:

To slur the United States Marines in one type of operation, however, to draw odious comparisons between theirs and the type of operations conducted by General MacArthur, is to raise a sinister fantasy. To hint that the Marines die fast and move slowly on Iwo Jima because Marine and Naval leadership in that assault is incompetent is an attempt at a damnable swindle of the American people.

The Chronicle does not propose to engage in controversy over the relative merits of our fighting forces in he various theaters of war. But neither does the Chronicle propose to remain mute when United States Marines or any force on the world battle line, is butchered at home to make a Roman holiday.

It is a pity that the media of today, and several of our supposed leaders - yes, John Murtha, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama, I mean you - cannot give our armed forces the respect that once was considered their due. It is a greater pity that when elements of our so-called intelligentsia do relapse into cheap attacks on the men and women of our Armed Forces that the Press cannot bring themselves to defend those who have given them the privilege of writing so negatively about that same military. I follow the line proposed by the San Francisco Chronicle before it decided that playing the role of Democratic Party propaganda organ as preferable to reporting news. I wish that more of our so-called elites did as well.

The Chronicle quote was taken from page 169 of Richard F. Newcomb's 1965 book "Iwo Jima", published by Signet.

Immigration Thoughts

2009-04-28T09:59:00.000-07:00

It seems that the Obama Administration, like the Bush Administration before it, prefers to allow anyone who can sneak illegally across the border to remain free to enjoy the fruits of their ill-gotten rewards. However, as highlighted by Mickey Kaus, there IS a solution, and surprisingly, it was identified by the Jordan Commission, a bi-partisan group initially formed by President George H.W. Bush and continued by President Clinton. This group, headed by former Congresswoman Barbara Jordan, consisted of five Democrats and four Republicans. However, their recommendations were almost entirely unanimous. These recommendations consisted of the following:

1. Eliminate the diversity category (the green card lottery).
2. Eliminate the category for unskilled workers to come to the U.S.
3. Cut down or eliminate the extended family- restrict immigration to the nuclear family only.
4. Reduce total admissions to approximately 550,000 per year.
5. Enhance border management to reduce the number of illegals who can enter the United States.
6. Improve enforcement at worksites to catch illegals and punish employers who use illegal aliens.
7. Speedy removal of any illegals caught.
8. Total opposition to any new amnesty or guest-worker program.

Taken together, these recommendations can be boiled down to a succinct statement, as articulated by Vernon Briggs, the author of a paper on the Commission.

...people who should get in do get in; people who
should not get in are kept out; and people who are judged deportable are required to leave.

The complete reports of the Commission on Immigration Reform can be found at the website of the University of Texas. Hat tip to Glenn Reynolds.

Presidential Popularity

2009-03-11T09:18:00.000-07:00

The US ~~Press~~ Democratic Party Propaganda Corps likes to tell us that President Obama's popularity is immense, and indeed, according to Gallup, Obama still enjoys a personal support level of over sixty percent. However, when it comes to his policies, that support disappears in a hurry. According to an (admittedly unscientific) poll posted at MSNBC (yes, the network that is unabashedly in the tank for Obama, and whose commentators did not even attempt to hide their partisanship- do you recall Chris Matthews' "leg shiver" comment?), over seventy percent of the voters have given Obama's policies as expressed so far either a 'D' or and 'F' grade. Only 27 percent would give Obama a passing grade.

See the below chart for more:

This snapshot was taken at 0930 this morning. To me this clearly indicate that the is widespread apprehension and distaste for the Obama policies- regardless of how most people view The One himself.

And it is telling that in the first seven weeks of the Obama Administration, we have seen the stock market plunge further than it did in eight years on George w. Bush's watch. This despite a recession and a terrorist attack on the heart of American's Financial District that killed over three thousand people. Yet in those eight years, according to the New York Stock Exchange, the Dow's lowest point was 7673.99 on March 6, 2002 (following the recession and the terrorist attacks). After that low point, the Dow did not sink under 10000 for the remainder of the Bush Administration, and reached a high of over 14000 (four thousand points higher than it ever was under Clinton, by the way). Yet in the seven weeks since President Obama's team has taken control in Washington (and not coincidentally announced programs that would damage the US economy), the Dow is currently at 6326.94. Since it became clear in October that Obama would win the election, the Dow has been dropping steadily. Since Obama became President, the decline has increased. Since Inauguration Day, the Dow has dropped by almost two thousand points.

If Barack Obama and his far-left allies in Congress think that they can impose European-style socialism on this country without a fight, they may have mistaken their constituents. I hold my fellow voting Americans in the lowest possible light, seeing as how they have ignored the fact that the last two years- two years of increasingly partisan politics, increasing deficits and shrill rhetoric- the democrats have controlled Congress. They have ignored that the Democrats are largely responsible for the financial debacle we face. But when the Democrats make the naked power grab for their wallets that is going on in Washington, maybe they may arise from their self-imposed ignorance and fight back. Our money is ours- not those bloated corruptocrats in Washington DC. It is time to make that point. We cannot count on the courts. We cannot count on government. We can only count on ourselves, and it is time for the people of this country to tell Washington (and all other governments who engage in this type of behavior (are you listening Sacramento?)- "Enough!"

I would like to see Congress forced to pay out of their own pockets when they spend more than they take in. I would like to see the government workers forced to actually work a real workday. I would like to see government employees in office on all these holidays that they don't allow us, but only to themselves. And I would like to see them held accountable in the Press for their bad decisions. Of course none of this will happen.

I predicted when Obama won the election that this country had chosen to abrogate personal responsibility. For Obama is a Chicago machine politician and his party is the party of dependence. Not that the Republicans are much better. I would wish for a true third party- made up of those like me who are disgusted with the hypocrisy and corruption in government. But that is a pipe-dream. All we can do if fight as hard as we can, so that our children and grand-children might remember America with some kind of pride when the Democrats- helped by their shills in the media- have finished destroying her.

Hat tip for the poll to Glenn Reynolds.

Free Speech Trends

2009-02-19T09:42:00.000-08:00

Remember how the Democratic Party has referred to President Bush over the past eight years? Remember all the 'Bushitler' references, the 'Kill Bush' signs seen at many if not most left-leaning rallies and the many, many suggestions by the political Left (including a Nobel 'Peace' Laureate) to kill the President? Does anyone recall the news media actually reporting in a negative manner on any of these insults and downright threats?

But how things have changed once the Obamessiah is in office. Now that Obama has reached the Promised Land (and intends to drag the country with him into the depths of mass socialization), a mere First amendment protest can be grounds for police or Secret Service harassment, as a now-approving Press looks on complacently. I warned of this shortly after the election, when I noted Obama's long-standing aversion to any sort of criticism.

Now, the results of this aversion are beginning to show. According to a report in the NewsOK site, an Oklahoma City man was hassled by both the local Oklahoma City police and the Secret Service for carrying a sigh saying 'Abort Obama'. According to the NewsOK site,

The police officers who stopped Oklahoma City motorist Chip Harrison and confiscated a sign from his car told him he has a right to his beliefs, but the Secret Service "could construe this as a threat against President Obama," according to the incident report released this morning.

Now I have no problem understanding the actions of the Oklahoma City police, especially as it seems the Secret Service was putting them under some pressure, although i think they went a little overboard. However, the story continues that the man was then visited by the Secret Service. This strikes me as harassment. Where were the secret Service when most of the literati and the political Left were issuing threats against President Bush? I certainly do not recall any stories about the Secret Service investigating these people. And since these people were preaching how 'brave' they were in standing up to power, one would think the media would be filled with those stories. There were certainly enough instances of Bush-hatred spilling out in signs, speech and other formats. Yet I cannot recall a single story of the Secret Service investigating.

But now, a sign that does have some potential ambiguity is cause for a citizen's First Amendment rights to be severely crimped? And even the Oklahoma news media cannot find any room to complain? The story appears to be written in a largely neutral voice, so apparently the Oklahoman newspaper is fine with government enforcing speech restrictions that were certainly not in effect during the last Administration. If the man had sported a sign proposing a violent death or even some bodily harm to the President, i would completely understand the actions of the authorities. But this is a case where it appears over-zealousness to stamp out criticism was the cause.

Liberals have liong been the party of censorship. Think back on the campaign trail and recall that not Gore, not kerry and not Obama was comfortable giving full access to reporters, and in fact the reporters mildly complained about it- even as they propagandized for their chosen candidates. Hillary Clinton was the same way- I recall a report from a reporter on her campaign about how she kept the media at arm's length. And the Democrats are the party who tries to suppress speech they disagree with via 'speech codes', the grossly misnamed 'Fariness Doctrine' and other Orwellian techniques. The Democrats, ladies and gentlemen, not the Republicans. None of these are creations of Reprublicans- they are creations of the Left.

And in government, did the Republicans shut the Democrats out of policy? When they proposed the so-called 'nuclear option' in the Senate, howls of protest arose from the media and every Democrat. But now, when the Democrats have gone even further to ensure that Republicans cannot participate in government, there is only silence from the media. Do these so-called 'professional journalists' not understand that censorship is a weapon that, once allowed, will sooner or later surely be used against them as well? I guess partisanship is more important that actually doing their job.

Obama himself is no stranger to the idea of political censorship. When a reporter on the campaign trail dared to ask hard-hitting questions, his station was banned from any further interviews. And Obama also banned the Washington Times, the Dallas Morning News and the New York Post (three newspapers that endorsed John McCain for President) from his campaign plane. It is no coincidence that these three newspapers are among the very few conservative news voices in the country. They were likely to be more critical of Obama, and he does not react well to criticism.

So I believe that we will be seeing more of this type of thing as Obama gathers the reins of power ever more tightly. As reported by the intrepid Ed Morrissey over at Hot Air, he has already removed the independence of the internal Inspector Generals with a hidden provision in his monster pork bill. This essentially removes any chance of an independent investigation into the 'Most Ethical Congress In History'.

Ultimately, i think that Obama will fail to completely eradicate the First Amendment, but he will probably do such severe damage that for conservatives and other members of the loyal opposition, we will be watching our backs very carefully for the next eight years- or however long the Obamedia can run interference for him and his cronies in 'The Most Ethical Congress In history'.

I predicted that America had sold itself out in this past election. i do not back away from that prediction- I think that by the end of Oabam's term in office, we will have essentially given the right to free speech only to those favored of the liberals, and we will have created a permanent class dependent entirely on government. that is what brought Rome down and that is what may bring us down as well. I predicted after the election that the United States had at most a hundred years of life remaining. I may have been slightly pessimistic, but I doubt that our great-grandchildren will see the bastion of liberty that we once knew- I think it more likely that they will live in a state more resembling Stalin's Russia.

Apologizing to Mark McGwire

2009-02-10T14:45:00.000-08:00

Alex Rodriguez, supposedly the most talented player in Major League Baseball (MLB), has admitted that he took steroids - illegal performance-enhancing drugs - during the first part of this decade, while he was employed by the Texas Rangers baseball organization. Now FoxSports columnist Mark Kriegel has written a column in which he says,

At this point, the only guy I want to hear from is that one who changed the game's culture, the prototype, the ballplayer who made people think that ballplayers could look like comic book heroes, Mark McGwire. I'd not excuse him. I didn't then, and would not now. But 11 years removed from the counterfeit glories of '98, some context is in order, and now more than ever.

My question for Kriegel and every other member of the media who have so relentlessly vilified Mark McGwire is two-fold - first, what evidence do you have that he did anything that was illegal, and second, what makes McGwire the most culpable of anyone who played in what has jusitifiably become known as the Steroids Era?

I remember the home-run campaigns of the late 1990s, and unlike Jose Canseco (his former teammate with the Oakland Athletics) Mark McGwire did nothing illegal that I am aware of. The infamous bottle of antro that was seen in his locker was reportedly out in plain view and the substance itself was not banned at that time. McGwire himself referred to it openly as a 'supplement', and it was only later that MLB banned andro and many other substances. Can Kriegel, or any other reporter, show me any evidence that McGwire EVER knowingly did anything against the rules of Major League baseball?

I am not defending the decision to take performance-enhancing substances, and since MLB later did indeed ban andro, there is no doubt that McGwire did take said substance. However, why is he being demonized for doing something that was completely legal at that time? The blame in my mind belongs more on those players who took outlawed substances after MLB banned them. People like Bonds, who was well-known to be jealous of McGwire's accomplishments, took the substances AFTER MLB banned them- of that there can now be little doubt. But McGwire retired in 2001- andro was not banned until 2004! Why is McGwire demonized for doing something that was completely legal at the time he was playing? For that matter, if Rodriguez only took steroids up until 2003, then he also did not break any rules.

In McGwire's defense, he was a power hitter from the time he was in college. Was he doing steroids in college? Very possibly. However, unlike some of the obvious steroid users - like Bonds - there is no point in McGwire's career at which he physically changed or at which he suddenly became a huge home-run hitter. His 70-home run season in 1998 came in a competition with Sammy Sosa, and McGwire has said on a number of occasions that it was the competition that enabled him to hit that many. But he had hit fifty or more home runs before- even as a rookie he hit 49. Just for comparison, Bonds never hit more than 46 until he suddenly began hammering them in 1999- coincidentally the year after McGwire's and Sosa's well-publicized home run competition.

I also think it is extremely unfair to label McGwire as the face of the steroids era. He was the only player who refused to testify at the congressional hearings, but since Congress should have nothing to do with baseball anyway, I do not see that as a problem. Congress has far more serious problems that they ought to be dealing with- looking into allegations of illegal steroid use in a sport is not one of them. However, because McGwire refused to testify, and essentially took the Fifth Amendment, he was widely vilified by both sportscasters and regular journalists alike.

Mark McGwire came into the Major Leagues in 1987, and immediately became a home-run threat. Was steroid use widespread at that time? It is impossible to know. However, as a rookie, it is very difficult to suggest that McGwire suddenly introduced a culture of steroid use to his new team. If the 1990s were indeed the 'steroid decade', then it is very difficult to say that Mark McGwire was the face of that decade. There were a number of better-known players who were tied to the steroid scandal. These included Jose Canseco, Sammy Sosa, Roger Clemens, Jason Giambi, Andy Pettite and of course Barry Bonds. Several of these players had more seniority and more fame in the league than McGwire. Therefore, to accuse McGwire of being the cause and the reason for the steroid problem seems to me to be going a bit far.

If I could give some advice to the sports columnists, it would be this- be careful to label a man you do not know. Kriegel accuses McGwire of being the problem, and basically suggests that he sold out to gain his son's admiration. I don't think so. I watched that home run too, and I saw a guy who would never have done something for a short-term admiration that would ultimately cause his son embarrassment.

I think the sports media owe Mark McGwire an apology. It is certain that he took supplements that were later outlawed. But since he didn't do anything illegal, I would suggest that reporters apologize for casting him the villain in a situation that he almost certainly did not create. In this country, a man is innocent until proven guilty. I think that the media too often forget that simple fact. And as Josephine Tey wrote in her brilliant 1936 mystery A Shilling for Candles in which her character Sergeant Williams says to the Press representative, (I regret I must paraphrase)

You know that the press is responsible for hounding more people in a day's work that Scotland Yard has in its entire existence. And ALL your victims are innocent!

Not much has changed in the intervening years since A Shilling for Candles was published. Pity.

The Myth of Walmart

2009-02-09T11:02:00.000-08:00

Most of the supposed elites and a large part of the political left views the Walmart chain of discount super-stores as something almost as evil as George Lucas' Empire. However, in an attempt to find out the truth about Walmart, Charles Platt, a former senior writer for the magazine Wired (itself not known for its sympathies to Walmart or to anything that Middle American finds attractive) went undercover as an employee at a Walmart in his locale.

Mr. Platt wrote about his experience in the New York Post recently. He was surprised at both how well-treated the Walmart employees he worked with were and at how much autonomy they actually have. And he marvelled, "Here was the unseen, unreported side of the corporate behemoth. Big as it was, it was smart enough to give employees a feeling of autonomy."

Platt then proceeds to take on a few of the standard canards and debunks them thoroughly, saying that the company informs all employees how to report anyone who orders them to do unpaid overtime and that the illegal alien story actually referred to the company Walmart employed as janitors- it was the vendor, not Walmart, who actually employed the illegal aliens.

He also emerged with a new impression of just why Walmart is so reviled among the self-elected elites in thsi country. As Mr. Platt tells it,

You have to wonder, then, why the store has such a terrible reputation, and I have to tell you that so far as I can determine, trade unions have done most of the mudslinging. Web sites that serve as a source for negative stories are often affiliated with unions. Walmartwatch.com, for instance, is partnered with the Service Employees International Union; Wakeupwalmart.com is entirely owned by United Food and Commercial Workers International Union. For years, now, they've campaigned against Wal-Mart, for reasons that may have more to do with money than compassion for the working poor. If more than one million Wal-Mart employees in the United States could be induced to join a union, by my calculation they'd be compelled to pay more than half-billion dollars each year in dues.

Anti-growth activists are the other primary source of anti-Wal-Mart sentiment. In the town where I worked, I was told that activists even opposed a new Barnes & Noble because it was "too big." If they're offended by a large bookstore, you can imagine how they feel about a discount retailer.

And of course, most of those unions are major contributors to the Democratic Party, as most of the mainstream media sources are in need of union money to peddle their propaganda. Since those 'news' organizations and their elected representatives are financially beholden to organizations who desperately want the revenue that the non-unionized Walmart employees could bring to their organizations, it is unlikely that they would actually tell the truth about Walmart.

Mr. Platt, however, has a different view after actually working for Walmart. As he concludes,

Based on my experience (admittedly, only at one location) I reached a conclusion which is utterly opposed to almost everything ever written about Wal-Mart. I came to regard it as one of the all-time enlightened American employers, right up there with IBM in the 1960s. Wal-Mart is not the enemy. It's the best friend we could ask for.

Now if only our media and the Democratic PArty would listen...

Whose Country is it Anyway?

2009-02-09T08:54:00.000-08:00

That is the question after a group of illegal aliens sued a US citizen for 32 million dollars in federal court. The defendant is an Arizona rancher who is trying to prevent said illegals from destroying his property. According to a report in the Washington Times online newspaper, the illegals filed suit against Arizona resident and US citizen Roger Barnett " for violating their civil rights".

The Washington Times says that,

An Arizona man who has waged a 10-year campaign to stop a flood of illegal immigrants from crossing his property is being sued by 16 Mexican nationals who accuse him of conspiring to violate their civil rights when he stopped them at gunpoint on his ranch on the U.S.-Mexico border.

Roger Barnett, 64, began rounding up illegal immigrants in 1998 and turning them over to the U.S. Border Patrol, he said, after they destroyed his property, killed his calves and broke into his home.

His Cross Rail Ranch near Douglas, Ariz., is known by federal and county law enforcement authorities as "the avenue of choice" for immigrants seeking to enter the United States illegally.

I'm not sure which part of this story is more outrageous- that a group of people who are deliberately breaking laws and destroying someone else' property have the gall to actually sue a citizen of that country who is merely trying to protect his property, or that the US courts are so skewed that they would allow a group of self-admitted criminals to sue someone who was attempting to enforce the law. And of course, the fact that the government admits that Mr. Barnett's ranch is a 'known crossing point' for illegals is aggravating as well. If so, why can't the government actually put some effort into enforcing the laws on the books? Why does Mr. Barnett have to do this himself- last time I checked, the government's primary responsibility was to protect its citizens against hostile invasions- and the influx of illegals from the South is certainly a hostile invasion. These people have no respect for our culture, our laws or our way of life- they just want as much of our money as they can grab, and their government is a willing conspirator in this, since the government cannot or will not actually do anything to improve Mexico.

It is time and past time for our government to enforce border security. And yes, that does include protecting and aiding US citizens who are trying to protect their property from the floods of illegals who come into the United States every year. A man's home is his castle, but while the government feels no constraints in zealously checking if a homeowner is smoking at home (and then fining him if he does), they become suddenly listless in actually helping said homeowner protect his property from a hostile invasion.

I cannot imagine that our courts will rule against the illegals, but it would be nice if once in while, these folks were informed that the only thing they can expect from our courts is a long prison sentence and a heavy fine. Suing a US citizen for enforcing US law should have been laughed out of court- only our open-borders judges don't seem to understand that illegal means illegal.

Taxation Is Voluntary...

2009-02-06T13:49:00.001-08:00

...according to our representatives in Congress. Here's Colorado Senator Harry Reid, the Senate Majority Leader, making the argument:

It seems that the only folks for whom taxation is voluntary are the members of the Democratic Party- even when they are nominated for posts in President Obama's Cabinet!

Yet another example of 'do as I say, not as I do'.

A New Year

2009-02-06T09:45:00.001-08:00

Disclaimer: In the aftermath of the election disaster that showed so clearly how many Americans will put their own personal selfishness over the needs of our country as a whole, and with the Obama campaign's well-known tendency to silence critics, I thought that this blog had outlived its usefulness. However, as I survey the scene, I see that perhaps my commentary may have some value, so i shall re-open this blog.

Well, it is now 2009. The Great Obama is occupying the White House and the eeeevil George W. Bush is no longer President of the United States. But have things changed for the better? Let us see...

Congress-critters still unable to follow the rules they want to impose on the rest of us? Check.

President pushing for massive expansion of powers? Check.

Media prostrating themselves at the feet of government? Check. (Yes, that would be CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, PBS, AP, UPI, AFP, {insert newspaper name here], and most local 'news' stations.

Complete failure by the federal authorities to deal with a disaster in Kentucky? Check. (Funny how a far lesser failure was front-page news for weeks in New Orleans, where most of the failures were a direct result of the local and state failures, but this time, where it is unquestionably a federal failure, the Press is silent. Could it be they don't care about rural white folks?)

And several things have gotten worse. The economy, which the mainstream media has been lying about for the past eight years, is actually in much worse shape now than it ever was during the Bush Administration. This is partly due to forces beyond Obama's control (the spending orgy engaged in by both the Bush Administration and the last several Congresses), but also partly (and as we shall see largely) due to forces that can be laid squarely at the feet of the Democratic Party.

The financial mess, as has been stated earlier, was caused mainly by Democratic power grabs. See John Pilla's excellent essay on the causes of the financial crisis at Public Opinion Online. And many of the power-brokers in the Congress have taken more than their share of goodies from the people who caused the mess in the first place. John Murtha, Chris Dodd and Charlie Rangel are all guilty, as are most other members of the current party leadership on both sides of the aisle.

In short, this Administration seems to combine arrogance with incompetence. This is only to be expected, as President Obama has no executive experience and has never had to actually live up to any promises in the past (he is a creature of the Chicago political machine, after all). For the sake of our country, I hope that Obama grows up fast and begins to exhibit some leadership skills. Otherwise, I fear greatly for our country.

Happy Veteran's Day

2008-11-11T14:33:00.000-08:00

Today is Veterans Day. It was established in 1954 to honor the veterans of all wars throughout the history of the United States.

Originally known as Armistice Day, it falls on the anniversary of the end of the First World War. However, in 1954, it was expanded to include all US veterans' regardless of the war in which they fought.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank all veterans, and urge all readers to do likewise. As the old saying goes, it is not the Press that ensures freedom of the press. It is not the politicians who ensure free elections and it is not preachers who ensure freedom of religion.

Instead, it is the men and women of the United States Armed Forces- the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, Coast Guard, National Guard and Merchant Marine- who guarantee that our great country remains free of whatever totalitarian philosophy is currently in vogue amongst the intelligentsia- whether that philosophy goes under the name of Communism, Nazism, or the currently popular imperialist Islam.

Thank you, veterans. Thank you. Your sacrifices are certainly appreciated by this American.

A Press Essay

2008-11-11T13:08:00.000-08:00

It has long been apparent to any rational observer of the national press corps that their objectivity and fairness is mostly a figment of the press corps' collective imagination. Coupled with the press corps' lack of courage, complete obliviousness to the very real threats facing the United States in the world today and their collaboration with the very enemies who so badly wish to destroy the United States, they have made the final transition into the useful idiots Josef Stalin spoke of during the early phases of the Cold War. And the recent election completed their transformation into a propaganda machine for the Democratic Party.

But the media in the United States was not always this way. Once upon a time, members of the Press had courage, and were willing to delve deeply into corruption to discover truth. once upon a time, the Press was willing to assist their fellow Americans, instead of doing their best to help America's enemies. I speak not of tools like the infamous Walter Duranty, or the the more recent James Risen and Eric Lichtblau, but of brave members of the press like Ernie Pyle, or Edward Steichen. These men, and many others, went into combat with their peers, and were always ready to report honestly. More recently, brave men like Michael Yon have carried out this tradition. But for most members of the national press corps, their own selfish interests take precedence over the interests of their country and their fellow citizens. Only this can explain why most members of the Press are ready to throw open the borders for illegal aliens, but are not ready to help when those same illegal aliens kill citizens or damage property. The press is always ready to write about enemies' rights, though you won't find any mention of how those same enemies treat lawful combatants when they capture them.

And the press is always ready to write in sobbing phrases about perceived crimes committed by Americans, yet for some reason those same crimes committed by a non-American get not a mention or sometimes even a defense. When an American kills an enemy in a firefight, the press is always ready to declare that soldier a criminal, but somehow the barbarians who fight in disguise, who are not brave enough to fight openly and who in their own families torture children and kill women who even look at another man are considered brave freedom fighters.

Today Wesley Pruden, a former editor-in-chief at the Washington Times newspaper, has an editorial about the current status of the American Press. After examining their disgraceful behavior, and how they waited until after the election to admit what everyone already knew- that they were completely in the tank for President-elect Obama- he concludes,

The most discouraging part of the sad state of media affairs is that there's scant sign it will ever get better. All that writhing around together down in the tank has only reinforced the high opinion the correspondents and commentators have of themselves. They imagine they're responsible for electing a president - and maybe they are - and they can't wait to keep on doing it.

To me this says that we the American people should abandon any hope that the media will ever improve. it is time to kill these dinosaurs and build new media to replace them. Nothing is assured in this world, and despite their belief that they are too valuable to die, no media organ has ever done anything deserving of being saved. Let them die and let us find better alternatives. Let us turn off the television, and end our subscriptions to these newspapers. Let us throw rags like Newsweek and Time into the wastebin where they rightfully belong, and search for the source data ourselves.

Are reporters any better trained at finding truth than you or I? Of course not- they merely have better connections. But journalism is famously one of the least demanding disciplines extant. To be a journalist requires no hard study of anything that requires expertise. Do journalists really understand economics, or history, or engineering, or politics? Of course not. They think that because they can write that they automatically are experts, but they are simply the blind leading the ignorant.

The raw source data for any particular story can be found- all we the people have to do is expend the time and effort necessary to find that data. And if each and every one of us does our job to find the truth, then we can dispense with the biased 'news' and false analysis presented by the dinosaurs of our modern-day Pravda. For that is what the media have become- a cheerleader for one party and their ideals. Therefore, they have forfeited any real claim to the moral high ground and we should expect them to play fast and loose with the truth- they have proven just how partisan and false they have become.

It is time for those of us who care about our great country to move in a different direction. There are alternatives to the Pravda group, but we have to be energetic in order for those sources to become the replacement we as a country desperately need. We must nurture them with tough love. When Pajamas Media or NewsBusters is wrong, we must let them know. But we should give them a chance- certainly they cannot do worse than the media we have now.

A Path to Destruction

2008-11-05T10:49:00.000-08:00

I know I said I was done writing political posts, but this one is too important to miss. Michael Medved wrote on the eve of Election Day a prescient comment:

John McCain and his advisors picked an appropriate slogan when they came up with the phrase “Country First.” Those two words neatly contrast the Republican emphasis on lasting values and long-term security with the Democratic preference for feel-good, immediate gratification initiatives to pay off the party’s hungry and demanding special interests. The final results will indicate whether the people saw the current global economic crisis as serious enough to warrant transcending narrow advantage for the sake of the Republic at large, and placing the security of the national whole above politically popular efforts at pleasing one party’s favored parts.

How right he was- the American people have chosen to elect special interests that in the long term will damage this country. And because Democrats (aided and abetted by their shills in the supposed 'Press') prefer to pander to these special interests is precisely why I do not believe that we as a country can survive. It happened to Rome, it happened to Constantinople and it will happen to us. We cannot survive if we prefer to put special interests above the good of the country, and with this election, we have chosen our course to self-destruction. This statement is not specifically about Obama, though I do believe that we will see his true colors as a William Ayers-following, tax-and-spending, arrogant Chicago machine politician once he gets inaugurated. Instead, I look at the hypocrisy and pandering of the Democratic Party as a whole. This party is willing to ignore and in fact support wholesale voter fraud (ACORN) and illegal fund raising (Obama's credit-card server) if it gets them power. They control the educational system and so are able to lie about history, deny credit to leaders such as Ronald Reagan for ending the Cold War and twist economic facts to exonerate the guilty. Has anyone actually seen any history book that gives due credit to Reagan, or admits that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was actually created and first proposed by Republicans? Or that it was mainly Democrats that as a party opposed it and that it was the Republicans who managed to provide the votes to pass it? They are willing to de-fund our military on the verge of victory in Vietnam (and soon to repeat this maneuver in Iraq) and then blame a President who was not in fact guilty of starting the war (Nixon). When Iraq turns into a mess after they de-fund our military there, they will no doubt rewrite the history books to blame George W. Bush.

This is why I predict that in a hundred years or thereabouts, we will no longer exist- we will go down the same destructive path taken by Europe before us, and eventually, Islam will conquer the world- something they have been trying to do for 1400 years. If we cannot put the good of our country and our principles above our selfish interests, then we are doomed. I may be pessimistic when I predict a hundred years, but with Democrats set on destroying any impetus to actually create wealth with their high taxes and vast new government programs, while simultaneously muzzling their opponents (the Fairness Doctrine and legal threats to anyone who dares criticise them), they can rapidly achieve their dreams. And then only the self-proclaimed elites (who by the way are the main funders of the Democratic Party) will be able to enjoy life- the rest of us will be as oppressed as the serfs of Russia- working our little lives so that the elites may take our hard-earned money for their particular brand of wealth redistribution.

Does that sound familiar? For anyone who studied history, it should- that is how the Communists seized power in Russia and China, and that is the path that the Democratic Party (which contains many of the same people who actively worked to help the USSR in the Cold War) want to take our country down. Socialism has failed in Europe- even the Europeans know that- several socialist countries in Europe and North America have elected leaders who share more Republican principles (Harper, Merkel, Sarkozy). And yet the Democrats want to make our country a socialist country as well. In five, or ten years, we will look back and ask ourselves how we let this happen. The answer, as always, is that people are more interested in being selfish, and our Press failed us when we needed it most. Since the vast majority of the Press prefers to be the propaganda wing of the Democratic party, I doubt they will have any regrets, since they see themselves as ideologically allied to the socialists. So you can count on their complicity in this program- it is an established fact that no Democrat ever has to actually face the consequences of their bad policy. How many history books actually admit that Roosevelt's policies, far from ending the Great Depression, actually intensified it?

As always, civilizations wake up too late. And we are no exception to this rule. We have so many advantages, but the Democrats seem determined to give our enemies more rights than citizens, not to mention giving illegal aliens more rights than citizens. And at some point, one must ask oneself what benefit citizenship actually brings? I am asking myself that question today, and I cannot answer it. So I believe that for my family, it is safer to live in a country that at least understands the value of a cultural identity and in one that appears determined to give its hard-earned rights and privileges to those who wish to destroy us. And yes, illegal aliens fall under this category, as do the Islamic imperialists who are trying once again to dominate us. It is a pity that we will probably only wake up when it is too late. Maybe a few parts of America will remain free, but once the Democrats eviscerate the Second Amendment (and don't laugh, they have stated they intend to overturn Heller and with a few years, the Democrats can easily pack the Supreme Court to accomplish that goal) I have no confidence in that possibility either. The First Amendment is already under attack- the Democrats and their shills in the press believe that only their speech should be protected, regardless of how vile it is- conservative speech is far more pernicious to them than any Chicago preacher asking his congregation to damn America or an unrepentant, anti-American terrorist setting educational policy.

Ultimately, I see no brightness in the future for America. We will either fall to our selfish elites, or our multicultural infatuation will hand some less tolerant culture (La Raza, Islamic imperialists, Communists, etc) the tools to destroy and consume us. I repeat- it happened to Rome, to Constantinople, and we are not immune to history. Just today I heard someone say we will always be free. This makes me laugh- if I could muster up any amusement at the sobering reality of the future we face. Freedom is not free- that is a cliche but it is true. If a culture is not willing to defend its own values, and farms out its strength to its enemies, then that culture is eventually going to fall. We already are a long way down that path, allowing Islamic imperialists to infiltrate our universities, relying on oil from our enemies, and not bothering to defend our own moral values or state in public why we are better than they. And one of our major parties (aided and abetted by its shills in the Press) is more interested in gaining power than doing what is best for the country. The Democratic Party (and their shills in the Press)are so partisan that they would rather see our country lose a war than help a President of the opposite party.

This is a recipe for cultural suicide. I believe Europe is already too far gone to be saved, and with this election, perhaps America is as well. When the West falls, and submits to the darkness of Islam, perhaps some few souls will be brave enough to fight, but as always, it will be too little, too late. The great Mark Steyn's work America Alone professes that only America offers the world hope to avoid the coming of the new Dark Ages, but with this election, we have shown that we are just as foolish, if not more so, than those cultures who preceded us though the pages of history. I ask those who complain now about the United States- would China be as tolerant and open-handed as the United States in a position of power? Ask Tibet. Would Islam? I think we all know the answer to that question.

And what about the supposed Democratic respect for free speech? Well, we are vilified in every arena, we are treated as criminals, and we are subject to government harassment if we dare open our mouths. No college actually allows conservative speech, and Obama has already shown that his Justice Department, will not tolerate any opinions that are not sufficiently exalting of him. In this respect, an Obama Justice Department is likely to resemble that of Janet Reno's before him, which ignored court orders and conducted armed invasions of those who they deemed to be enemies, regardless of whether that person was indeed a threat.

We as Americans have enjoyed our moment in the sun, but that is ending. The stock market is already falling again- the Wall Street mavens (even those like Buffet and Soros who gave their billions to help the Democrats win this election) know that Democratic rule means high taxes and oppressive regulation. Not to mention that with this new regime, the unions will be able to dispense with secret ballots for unionization, making America too expensive to compete in the world market. All signs point to the end of America. Whether that end comes in a hundred years, or we mimic the centuries-long fall of Constantinople is a question that only history can answer. The only thing certain about that fall is that the press and their political allies will make sure to write the history books to avoid taking any of the blame they so richly deserve.

And with that, I am done commenting on any current issues. No one is listening, and for those who still care about our great country, I can offer little hope.

Election Final

2008-11-05T09:38:00.000-08:00

This will be my final political post on StoneHeads- as I previously wrote, criticism of Obama and his party is simply unsafe now that the Democrats have made plain that they intend to shut down all critical thoughts.

So Barack Obama is our President. Congratulations to Senator Obama.

However, our media deserves to be taken out to the dust heap for their performance in this election. And now that the Democrats control all branches of government, we will quickly lose our pre-eminent status in the world.I have already posted my predictions, but i wish to write one last thought.

I predict that Republicans will never win another Presidential election- just as in California, once Democrats gain power, they never relinquish it, and since the Press will not report anything detrimental to a Democrat, they never pay the price for their policies. Just as the Press would not honestly report on the financial crisis which Democrats caused, Democrats can do anything without negative consequences.

Perhaps a new party will emerge, but for Republicans, America has rejected the ideas of self-reliance, small government and strong defense with this election. And that is the Republican brand. The Second Amendment will be emasculated, free speech is already under attack, and the idea that people take responsibility for their actions doesn't seem to apply to Democrats. And so I predict that in less than a one hundred years, this country will no longer exist. Remember, terrorists like William Ayers now have their friends and fellow-travelers running this country. Either the United States will break into component parts, it will be consumed by Mexico or it will be over-run by our Islamic enemies- they are already on the attack through our courts.

Thank you for reading StoneHeads through these last two years. From now on I will focus solely on historical commentary.

UPDATE: One small bright spot- Proposition 8, which deals a setback to activist judges and the gay-rights movement, appears to have passed. Maybe there are still a few people in this country who appreciate tradition and don;'t like a tiny little minority and it's beholden, activist judges dictating to them. The bad news- Obama will almost certainly stack the Supreme Court to change this nationally.

My Last Post

2008-11-04T09:35:00.000-08:00

This will be my last political-based post on this blog until I feel safe to speak again. I do not expect to feel safe for the next eight years unless Obama is defeated in his re-election bid (also something I do not expect, since the Press is so in love with The One). However, in my previous post, I forgot to make my predictions about the coming Obama Presidency. Yes, this is a worst-case scenario, but I am depressed and I believe that our country has begun the walk to destruction. It took Byzantium almost five hundred years to die, and the reasons that them to fall are the same ones espoused by the Left and the Democratic Party in this country. I predict that in less than a hundred years, the United States will no longer exist. It will either have splintered into component parts (not entirely a bad thing, in my opinion), be part of Mexico (the mythical Aztlan) or it will be ruled by Islamic imperialists.

So for the next eight years, I will confine myself to posting on history (until the Dear Leader rewrites all our textbooks to his friend Terrorist Bill Ayers' specification). In any event, here are my predictions:

1. Fairness Doctrine is back- goodbye conservative radio. Rush will be either fined out of business or imprisoned for 'sedition'.
2. All conservative websites will be closed down- we're FAR more dangerous than those Islamic terrorists, didn't you know?
3. Taxes will skyrocket, our economy will tank.
4. The Second Amendment will be revoked by a liberal Supreme Court.
5. The US military will be emasculated and used solely as an international police force.
6. Iran will have nuclear weapons in two years.
7. Israel will no longer exist in two years.
8. Iraq will become another Islamic terror sponsor.
9. America will accept UN domination over all aspects of our foreign policy; we will sign a treaty giving the UN the power to control our treasury and our military.
10. No contrary opinions of an Obama Presidency will be tolerated- critics will be fined and possibly even imprisoned.
11. Congress will roll out universal health care and our health care system will become worse than Canada's. Americans will face huge long waits in line and many Americans will die from lack of timely care. Many doctors will go out of business due to their inability to get reimbursed. Getting health care will be worse than a trip to the DMV. (Advice- if you have anything that needs to be addressed health-wise, get it done now. In two years, our health care system will be a disaster).
12. Borders will be flung open- all illegal aliens will be legalized, provoking a fresh flood of illegals wanting citizenship.
13. Human Rights Commissions like those in Canda will form to prevent conservative speech from being heard. Any speech deemed 'hateful' (this only applied to comments made by conservatives, of course- liberals and leftists can do and say anything they wish) will be punished severely.
14. Starting January 20, expect to see the same economic numbers that were deemed to be bad for Bush spun as being wonderful under an Obama Presidency.

There are probably things I have missed, but these are the major initiatives I expect to see from an Obama Presidency. And I ask all of you to ask yourself this- the Press has been telling us for eight years how terrible Bush was. But in eight years from now, ask yourself if you were better off under Bush's Administration or under Obama's? I think the answer might surprise you. Not that the Press will tell the truth, of course.

Farewell. my next post will be about some aspect of history that interests me. I hope that you will bear with me until it once again safe to speak freely.

Election Thoughts

2008-11-04T08:52:00.000-08:00

I voted this morning. Since I live in an area that is dominated by the left, I do not expect that my vote will mean anything. However, as this will be perhaps the last opportunity for those of us who are no acolytes of The One to actually speak freely before the Obama Thought Police close down any criticism of His policies, i decided to post my thoughts on this election.

1. The Press: The American press corps has disgraced itself with its unthinking advocacy of the Obama campaign. Not only has the Press refused to do any vetting whatsoever on Obama, they have repeated the sins of the 1992 election, in which they sat on stories that might hurt the Democratic candidate. In addition, the vitriol that the press has aimed at Governor Palin is simply disgraceful. The only reason i could possibly support any version of the Fairness Doctrine would be to pull the MSM into some kind of real journalism. It no longer deserves the title, since it has devolved into a propaganda machine for the Democratic party.

2. Projections: I expect Senator Obama to win the election. He has all the advantages and with his illegal money (and ACORN's illegal voters) and the assistance of his personal propaganda machine (see point 1), the McCain campaign simply is out-gunned. The press has ensured that there can be no honest discussion of the two candidates, sicne they will not run any stories that show The One in an unflattering light. However, if Obama does win (and I expect that he will), I fear our country has taken one more large step toward destruction. Obama is an admitted socialist with a strong streak of arrogance.

3. Free Speech: Obama has not shown any willingness to allow criticism. And of course once he is in office, you can count on the Democratic Congress to shut down any and all critical voices. I write this since I do not believe that we who still have faith in our country will be allowed under an Obama presidency to speak openly. I expect an Obama Justice Department to come for all writers who disagree with The One- he has already shown that side of his personality. We will be threatened, fined and possibly imprisoned if we criticize Obama. Free speech as we know it will end with an Obama Presidency.

4. The World: an Obama win today will end America's strength abroad. Europe has been praying for an Oabma win. Well, be careful what you wish for- Obama intends to eviscerate the US military and that means that nice protective umbrella Europe has lived under since World War II is gone. So Europe, how do you like being on your own? Under Obama, you will be, since The One does not believe in fighting our enemies- he would prefer to surrender.

5. Guns: Obama will take your guns away. Remember, the Supreme Court is already leaning to the Left, and an Obama Presidency will certainly accelerate that trend. And liberals do not like the Constuitution- they prefer to rewrite it as they wish it could be- in otyher words, they want to make the Untied States into a new Soviet Union. Guin rights will be the first to go under an Obama Presidency- don't forget he thinks that we are bitter people who cling to guns and religion. And once the gunsa re gone, who will stop the government from putting us into re-education camps? That is what Bill Ayers wanted to do, and Obama is unquestionably an Ayers acolyte. I expect to see Ayers as Secretary of Homeland Security, so he can implement his re-education plans.

In conclusion, this will probably be my last post for the next eight years, since will not be safe to write anything critical of Obama. Why eight years? Well, regardless of how badly Obama does and how terribly our economy is damaged, the Press will not allow Him to be held accountable for any of His sins. So it is almost certain that we are stuck with The One for the next eight years. Remember- the financial crisis is entirely caused by Democrats, yet somehow the Republicans got blamed for it, despite the facts being available. The mainstream media and their refusal to honestly report the truth has destroyed this great country.

Thank you all for reading this blog over the last few years. If Obama loses today, then I will feel safe to continue writing, but I regret that I cannot be optimistic. Republicans have too many hills to climb and the Democrats are slowly eroding our basic rights while the Press cheers them on. I recommend that all those who can, prepare to emigrate to other countries that still believe in the rights our Founders enshrined in the Constitution- the same Constitution that Obama is about to destroy completely. The United States is not longer a safe place to live if you are not a fervent True Believer in The One.

2008 Election Recommendations

2008-10-27T12:44:00.000-07:00

I have been very remiss in keeping up this blog of late, for which I duly apologize- between work and family issues, I have not had the time to blog as I would ordinarily have preferred as we approach this election on November 4. However, I do have my recommendations for the main ballot issues here in California. These recommendations are as follows:

President:
John McCain / Sarah Palin (Republican)- My reasoning has been set out previously, but in short, I do not believe that Barack Obama is qualified for the high office of President, and i believe that the shameless behavior of our major media has prevented most voters from gaining any real understanding of Obama's past or real beliefs. I have many disagreements with john McCain on policy, but I believe him to be a better choice for our nation- especially in these dangerous times- than the inexperienced, insincere Obama.

Propositions:
There are a number of propositions on the California ballot this year, and I will list each of them together with my recommendation. The full information for each of the current ballot propositions are taken from Ballotpedia's page. Official descriptions can be found at the California Secretary of State web site.

Proposition 1a: High-speed Rail. In theory, a high-speed railway running through California and linking the major metorpolises is an excellent idea- California is one of the few places in the U.S. where such a rail system makes sense. However, after reading the proposition, I do not believe that this is anything more than one more attempt to spend taxpayer money without anything to show for it. And until our Legislature can fix the financial problems in California, I do not believe that we should hand over any more of our hard-earned money to them to play with. Vote No on Proposition 1a.

Proposition 2: Animal Rights. This specifies conditions for raising egg-laying chickens. Folks, we have far more pressing issues than this. And the end result will almost certainly be to raise our food prices, as most egg-producers will leave California, thus raising the price of eggs. I expect this to pass, but it seems a waste of time and something that will ultimately do nothing to improve the lives of captive chickens. Vote No on Proposition 2.

Proposition 3: Children's Hospital bond. This specifies over 800 million in bonds for children's hospitals. Of course, many if not all of these are actually private hospitals that were just recently given taxpayer money back in 2004 (Proposition 61). Almost half of that money is not yet spent. in addition, the same groups that pushed through Prop 61 are sponsoring Prop 3. Why are we giving these same groups even more taxpayer money? Vote No on Proposition 3.

Proposition 4: Abortion parental notification. Requires parental or guardian notification before abortions can be performed. I think that all of use agree that parents are responsible for minors. And why parents should be left un-notified before their offspring undergoes a medical procedure of this seriousness is unfathomable. Vote Yes on Proposition 4.

Proposition 5: Drug Rehab Essentially eliminates drug crimes from punishment. if you think that drug sellers and users are not criminals, you will probably vote yes. I think that users should be treated the same as drunk drivers, and so I do not think that this is a good idea. Vote No on Proposition 5.

Proposition 6: Crime Prevention Basically strengthens the penalites for crime and also requires California to spend money from the general fund to pay for the increased penalties. From a fiscal standpoint, it is a bad thing when California is so broke, but on the other hand, crime needs to be reined in. On balance, I think this is probably a better idea than spending money on things politicians want. Vote Yes on Proposition 6.

Proposition 7: Clean Power Requires all California utilites to procure 25 percent of their energy from so-called 'clean' sources by 2025- and requires providers such as PG&E and Edison to have 20 percent by 2010. Not only is this virtually impossible, the bill also cuts most current providers out (causing loss of perhaps 60 percent of our current suppliers), creates massive bureaucracy, has hidden costs, will almost certainly raise utilities fees through the roof and has no way to fix any problems. This is yet another clean energy boondoggle. Vote No on Proposition 7.

Proposition 8: Gay marriage. Amends California Constitution to make marriage for an adult man and woman only. Judges are not allowed to legislate, but that is exactly what the California Supreme Court did when they over-ruled California's voters. Additionally, if gays want to decide what society can and cannot do, then they need to make their argument at the ballot box- not in court.Vote Yes on Proposition 8.

Proposition 9: Victims' Rights This proposition essentially appears to reinforce victims' rights and also makes it much harder for criminals to get early release. It makes a lot of sense to me- anything that increases victim rights and decreases criminal rights cannot be a bad thing. in addition, it's opponents have no strong arguments against it other than they apparently believe that criminals should be released as quickly as possible. this is about as close to a no-brainer as is on the ballot. Vote Yes on Proposition 9.

Proposition 10: Alternative Fuels This is mainly proposed and funded by Texas billionaire T. Boone Pickens and would authorize 5 billion dollars to fund alternative energy sources, including wind power- something that both Pickens and Speaker Nancy Pelosi have heavily invested in. I think the best argument is that when California is already so badly in debt, this is NOT the time to be authorizing more spending without any source for that money. Let's tackle more urgent issues first, then talk about Califronia subsidizing alternative energy companies. Vote No on Proposition 10.

Proposition 11: Election reform. This is a difficult measure to determine. It proposes to take redistricting out of the hands of the Legislature and put it into a supposedly bipartisan commission. This does have the potential of becoming an unaccountable bureaucracy, and there is a legitimate danger inherent in it. However, since it is opposed by both the California Democratic Party (which controls the Legislature and most State offices) and both Senator Barbara Boxer and Speaker Nancy Pelosi (two of the silliest and most partisan members of the US Congress), I decided that it cannot be worse than the gerrymandering the Democrat-controlled Legislature has inflicted upon us. Vote Yes on Proposition 11.

Proposition 12: Veterans' assistance. This allocates bonds to be sold to create a fund to assist veterans. However, the bond also is unique in this election in that the funds it disburses are not gifts- they are loans that will be paid back by the veterans themselves. This makes it the only bond measure i can endorse. Vote Yes on Proposition 12.

Don't forget to vote on Election Day!

Gwen Ifill: 'I'm Objective!'

2008-10-02T11:31:00.000-07:00

PBS news anchor Gwen Ifill- who will be moderating tonight's Vice-Presidential candidate debate between Democrat and Republican Sarah Palin, has a book scheduled to be released on Inauguration Day. The title? The Breakthrough: Politics and Race in the Age of Obama. Yet despite this, Ifill claims that she will be an objective arbiter of the debate. According to the Associated Press story, Ifill also did not inform the supposedly bipartisan Commission on Presidential Debates- the body that chooses debate moderators- of the upcoming book.

Newsbusters has been all over this story, though of course Ifill seems oblivious to any problem. In fact, Ifill has been dismissing criticism by accusing her critics of racism. According to the AP story, Ifill,

... questions why people assume that her book will be favorable toward Obama.

"Do you think they made the same assumptions about Lou Cannon (who is white) when he wrote his book about Reagan?" said Ifill, who is black. Asked if there were racial motives at play, she said, "I don't know what it is. I find it curious."

Well, considering that the title of Ifill's book is "The Breakthrough: Politics and Race in the Age of Obama", it is pretty plain that Ifill is not exactly a critic of the Obama camnpaign. In addition, the very title clues in the potential reader that Ifill is expecting (and presumable hoping for, since that would increase her sales) an Obama victory in November. I cannot imagine any conservative host who would be allowed by the Democrats to host their debates if said host had a book extolling the virtues of McCain scheduled for publication on Inauguration Day. in addition, the fact that Ifill did not inform the Commission on Presidential Debates that she was planning this book is a big red flag. Journalists, who are responsible for accurately informing the public of the events of the day, have an ethical mandate to reveal conflicts of interest. They are certainly vociferous in exposing any such conflicts in business.

In addition, Ifill's excuse- that the book is posted on the publisher's web site, so people knew about it- does not hold water. I don't think most people check publishers' websites on a regular basis and in any event, it is Ifill's responsibility to come clean about her potential conflict of interest BEFORE accepting the invitation to moderate the debate. And her claim that 'people did not question Lou Cannon's book on REagan' also is a red herring. Cannon was no asked to moderate any Presidential debates, nor did he try to hide his work. As the Power Line crew accurately analyze,

The conflict of interest doesn't arise from her view of Obama; if she favors Obama, she is like countless other journalists including (I suspect) at least some of the whites who will moderate other debates. The conflict arises from Ifill's stake, given the book, in an Obama victory.

Ifill has exposed herself as one more of the army of media types who are desperately hoping for an Obama win in November- and doing everything they can to make that eventuality a reality. She should immediately remove herself from the debate as moderator, if she has any professional ethics. But that would require a conscience- something that few media types seem to have.

Tsar Rehabilitated- A Little Late

2008-10-01T16:09:00.000-07:00

According to Yahoo! News, a Russian court has ruled that the last Russian Emperor, Nicholas II and his family were "victims of political repression" and should be rehabilitated. It seems a little late, in my opinion. I suspect that anyone who learned the tragic story of the last Russian Tsar already knew that they were victims of political repression- it is difficult to make any other judgment when a repressive, totalitarian government lines up a hemophiliac child, his teenage sisters and their parents and cold-bloodedly shoots and stabs them to death. And then rapes and burns their mutilated bodies. For a primer on the events of 1918, see the incredible book Nicholas and Alexandria and its follow-up The Romanovs: The Final Chapter by renowned historian Robert K. Massie.

I think that this court could have spent its presumedly valuable time on matters of real consequence? But then it seems that the judiciary in many countries, not just in the United States, has time to spend on this type of case. However, I supposed that this is a case of better late than never. Not that there has ever been any serious question of whether or not the Tsar and his family were victims of 'political repression'.

A more important question, at least in my opinion, is to ask where the voices that are so loud when a single Islamic terrorist is killed by United States soldiers were on this one? The answer, sadly, is that the media, as usual, was too busy getting in bed with the Stalinist government (think Walter Duranty) and the elites were too busy trying on Communism and betraying their own country (the Rosenbergs). And of course throughout the Cold War, the situation was similar- the so-called elites were too busy trying to make the United States into a copy of the Soviet Union, and the media were too busy demonizing the few courageous voices who were trying to protect their country and their principles.

Thoughts on The Bailout

2008-09-30T10:06:00.000-07:00

I have delayed commenting on the recently defeated bailout plan supported by most of the Republican and Democratic leadership. And I initially supported it as I believe that this was probably the best deal we were likely to get with a Democratic majority in the House and Senate. However, reports that began coming out yesterday are causing me to take a fresh look at the entire bailout and also the votes of the Representatives- both Democrat and Republican- that defeated it.

Firstly, I am disgusted with Nancy Pelosi's 'leadership' on this bill. According to quotes from House Majority Whip Jim Clymer, as reported by Power Line,

As of yesterday, the Democrats' House whip, Jim Clyburn said that he hadn't even begun "whipping" Democratic representatives, and wouldn't do so unless and until he got orders from Nancy Pelosi. Today, Democratic Congressman Peter DeFazio told NPR that he never was "whipped" on the bill. So Pelosi evidently left Democrats to vote their consciences--which is to say, vote against the bill if they thought it was politically necessary--while counting on Republicans to put the bill over the top.

So in other words, Pelosi counted on Republicans to vote for this bill despite their constituents' feelings running heavily against it. All the while allowing her own Democrats- and let us remember that Pelosi did not need any Republican votes to pass this since Democrats control the House- to cast politically safe votes. This is not leadership- this is partisan politics at its worst.

Then before the vote occurred, Pelosi proceeded to launch a highly partisan attack on the Republicans we have seen in some time, falsely accusing President Bush and the Republicans of creating this crisis. Pelosi said,

$700 billion. A staggering number, but only a part of the cost of the failed Bush economic policies to our country. Policies that were built on budget recklessness when Pres. Bush took office, he inherited Pres. Clinton’s surpluses - four years in a row budget surpluses on a trajectory of $5.6 trillion in surplus. And with his reckless economic policies, within two years, he had turned it around. And now 8 years later, the foundation of that fiscal irresponsibility, combined with an “anything goes” economic policy, has taken us to where we are today.

This is completely untrue- it was in fact Democrats who caused the structural imbalances that led to the meltdown- particularly in regards to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac- government-sponsored enterprises that were allowed to do borderline-legal deals and extend loans to people who never should have been eligible. In addition, the senior executives of both Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, including Franklin Raines- are highly placed Democrats. Even the media once realized that there might be a problem- a Washington Post story from 2004 admits that the Bush Administration in fact was pushing for tighter reins on these entities- regulations that were defeated by the Democrats in Congress, even while the Freddie mac and Fannie Mae executives were pulling in huge bonuses. Where is the condemnation for these people as there was for Ken Lay of Enron? I see little difference between them- save for their party affiliation. Yet the Democrats and their shills in the mainstream media are doing their best to put the blame on the Republicans.

Secondly, the media got into the game by falsely portraying the actual bill itself. Let us recall that in it's first iteration, this bill contained a large sum of money for the corrupt organization ACORN. The Power Line guys described the Republican efforts as follows:

So, what did the Republicans achieve? They put strings on the availability of funds beyond $250 billion, requiring fresh Congressional action for the last $350 billion. They added a requirement that Treasury establish an insurance program which would be funded by participating companies. This may be a big deal; I'm not sure exactly how it is intended to operate or how much, in the end, it will reduce the exposure to the taxpayer. They established a bipartisan oversight committee, rather than a committee run only by the Democrats, as Dodd and Frank had proposed. They took out special interest boondoggles for unions and for ACORN, the voter fraud organization. They removed a provision that would have allowed bankruptcy judges to arbitrarily reduce mortgages, an ill-conceived measure that would have aggravated a central cause of the current crisis, the difficulty of evaluating mortgage-backed securities. And they mandated a GAO study on the impact of the mark-to-market accounting rule, implicitly encouraging regulatory agencies to revise or abandon that principle, which is a key reason why banks that have little to do with the origins of the crisis are currently threatened.

Of course, none of this was reported in the mainstream media, leaving many voters with the impression that not only were the Republicans being obstructive, but that somehow it was the Republicans- the minority party who (in the House at least) have no ability to block the majority- who were responsible for the bill's delay and subsequent defeat. In fact, 95 Democrats also voted against the bill- 40 percent of the majority. Had even half of them voted Aye, then this would have passed. Had all of them voted 'Aye', then Pelosi needed no Republican support at all. So why didn't they? Perhaps because constituent feeling was running strongly against the bill, and Pelosi wanted to put all the blame on the Republicans.

Ultimately, there are some excellent questions as to whether a No vote on this bill is a good idea or not. Since the Republicans did manage to get some good provisions into the bill, it is questionable- especially with this disgraceful Speaker- whether we can get a better bill. However, since the bill did not address the structural issues that actually caused the crisis- particularly Freddie and Fannie- then i questions whether this is any more than a political stopgap. There are good reasons on both sides for voting yay or nay. Ultimately, it will depend on what the markets do. However, I think that this episode has demonstrated yet again that government should have no role in business- why do we even HAVE GSEs like Fannie and Freddie? And this also demonstrates how little leadership our politicians really have. Now are you SURE you want the same people who created this mess in charge of your health care too?

McCain Wins On Looks, Too!

2008-09-15T09:17:00.000-07:00

Since the mainstream media is focused on doing their best to drag the undeserving Obama ticket across the finish line in November, it is unlikely that they would actually report anything that makes McCain/Palin appear in a positive light. However, this focus on serving as Democratic Party lapdogs does free up the blogosphere to actually do their job for them. In the vein, Captain Capitalism decided to do a little objective comparison of the physical appeal of John McCain versus Barack Obama on the site Hot or Not. As the Captain writes,

To prove who was the better looking I took two pictures; one of John McCain in his prime and one of Barack Obama in his prime. I faced the problem that if the pictures were too easily identifiable then the screeners at Hot or Not would reject them.

The methodology was as fair as the Captain could make it. He found pictures of both McCain and Obama in their youthful prime (done from an Internet search for 'young McCain' and 'young Obama'). The resulting pictures were posted on Hot of Not under suitable aliases and the Captain then sat back to await results.

Surprise! It turns out that McCain was rated as a 9.9 out of 10, whereas Obama was a pedestrian 7.2 out of 10. McCain also seemed to be more attractive- his profile was reported to have received requests for meetings from members of the opposite sex and also was invited to be the site's Person of the Week- something that the Obama profile did not receive.

As Captain Capitalism concludes,

Of course, looks are irrelevant when it comes to selecting the president of the United States and this was done largely out of humor and jest. However, while you may not be able to date John McCain, you can vote for him. For while he may beat Barack 9.9 to 7.2 in looks (adjusting for prime), I would surmise he equally, if not, more than trounces him in experience.

Agreed. Now if only the mainstream media would perform their jobs with even a small amount of the professionalism displayed by Captain Capitalism, we MIGHT actually have an informed electorate. of course, if that occurred, the Democratic Party would probably never win another election.

British Publisher Stands Up to Muslims

2008-09-04T10:28:00.001-07:00

Islam is well-known for using threats of violence to silence its adversaries. However, at least one company had the strength of will to stand up to said threats. Alas, that company is not US-owned, but rather is a British company.

According to Breitbart.com,

A novel about the Prophet Mohammed and his child bride, which has already caused controversy in the United States and Serbia, will be released in Britain next month, its publisher said Wednesday.

Publishing house Gibson Square, known for having sold other controversial books, such as Alexander Litvinenko's "Blowing Up Russia", said it was "imperative" that "The Jewel of Medina" by American author Sherry Jones be available to the public.

Now, the book itself may well be (and I regret to say probably is) unmitigated rubbish- many romance books are. However, it is the principle at stake here. No group should be able to threaten us into submission. Muslims in particular are very adept (with the willing participation or the world's media) in threatening violence in response to things they do not like.

However, we in the West are not Muslim (yet). There is no reason for Christians, Hindis, Jews, Buddhists or any other non-Islamic religion or culture to pay any attention to what Muslims do or do not like. Christians certainly are not fond of images of Jesus Christ in piss water, but that is one of the many things that they must bear. So books or images that do not portray Muhammad or members of his family in a positive light are also things that Muslims ought to get used to.

Media Piles on LPGA

2008-08-29T09:39:00.000-07:00

As was to be expected, once the Ladies Professional Golf Association (LPGA) announced its new requirements that all Tour players be proficient in English, the media erupted in protest. A representative attack came from FoxSports' Mark Kriegel, who wrote,

Lawyers can debate whether the LPGA's edict is unconstitutional. But I know this much: It's un-American. It represents a potential assault on the idea of merit, and an insult, not just to golfers, but to all athletes. Eleven years after Tiger Woods won his first major, the golf establishment still reveals its exclusionary heart with alarming regularity. Somewhere, Hootie Johnson is beaming with pride.

I have news for Mr. Kriegel, if he cares to get outside of his little media cocoon. Go to Japan, Mr. Kriegel and try communicating in English on the Japan Pro Golf Tour. Or try communicating in English on the Korean pro golf tour, or the Japan Pro Baseball League. You might find that *gasp* you need to be able to speak the local language. If those leagues require members to be able to speak the local language, what is so wrong about an American league requiring its members to speak the local language?

Now we both know that superstars who are recruited by foreign leagues are provided with translators, but there is a subtle difference. When a star is recruited to go play overseas, it is usually the foreign league who recruits the player. However, the LPGA is in fact an American tour. No one if forcing the foreign players to come and play on said tour. If they do not or cannot speak English, then they can go back and play in their respective countries' tours.

However, any country has the right to enforce a local language requirement. Trying to say that the US tours are not allowed to do that because "As for that gem — the American tour bit — the fact is it's not so American, and hasn't been for a while." is simply untrue. The LPGA is an American tour. American owned, American run and American sponsored. As are the NFL, the NBA and Major League Baseball. All of these leagues are the American pro sports leagues. They are not based in France, or Korea or anywhere else. They are in the United States- ownership is in the United States and therefore it is irrelevant whether the players are or are not. If players wish to participate on the tour, then it is up to them to meet the Tour's requirements.

Mr. Kriegel and his ilk would have us believe that it is OK for Korea to force all players on the Korean golf tours to speak Korean, but it is somehow not OK for United States sports leagues to have a similar requirement. There is this little thing called national sovereignty, Mr. Kriegel. You probably do not understand the concept, but this is the United States. Not Korea. And our national language is English. Therefore, it seems entirely logical that a US sports tour would want its members to be able to communicate with the sponsors. If we were in Korea, I would expect players to be able to communicate in Korean. But we are not- we are in the United States.

If I were send a word of advice to the media, I would recommend they worry more about their own profession's lack of accountability, lack of objectivity and plummeting ratings than I would be about the LPGA's attempt to help their members communicate to the (mostly American) sponsors.

It's........Palin!

2008-08-29T09:09:00.000-07:00

Republican Presidential candiadte John McCain selected Alaska governor Sarah Palin as his running mate today. According to the announcement sent out by the McCain campaign,

Governor Palin is a tough executive who has demonstrated during her time in office that she is ready to be president. She has brought Republicans and Democrats together within her Administration and has a record of delivering on the change and reform that we need in Washington.

Governor Palin has challenged the influence of the big oil companies while fighting for the development of new energy resources. She leads a state that matters to every one of us -- Alaska has significant energy resources and she has been a leader in the fight to make America energy independent.

In Alaska, Governor Palin challenged a corrupt system and passed a landmark ethics reform bill. She has actually used her veto and cut budgetary spending. She put a stop to the "bridge to nowhere" that would have cost taxpayers $400 million dollars.

As the head of Alaska's National Guard and as the mother of a soldier herself, Governor Palin understands what it takes to lead our nation and she understands the importance of supporting our troops.

I think this is an excellent choice on many levels. First, Governor Palin has the executive experience that both Biden and Obama (and McCain himself, to be honest) so conspicuously lack. Secondly, as the youngest member of either ticket, she is able to challenge Obama's youth-based celebrity (she was herself a beauty contestant in her younger days). And she, like McCain, is a maverick- she has consistently fought the special interests and corruption in her own party and defeated several Establishment candidates to win her current position. She is someone who can bring a voice of reason to the energy debate, as she is Governor of the state with American's largest oil reserves. Finally, as a working mom, she can connect to women on a level that neither Biden nor Obama can, and McCain's choice shows once again that he is the real agent for change and is willing to take risks- in short, as Pajamas Media's Jennifer Rubin so aptly put it "he thinks he can win".

Palin is solidly conservative. As governor, she reduced spending, exposed corruption and worked to make Alaska independent of federal money. She has a long record of fighting corruption and is not close to either of Alaka's corrupt Congressmen- Senator Stevens or Representative Young. She is also a hunter, a lifelong member of the NRA and she is a confirmed pro-life candidate- she chose to have her latest child even though doctors told her that the child had Downs Syndrome. Her oldest son is in the Army, and is preparing to deploy to Iraq.

The risk here is that Palin's experience is limited. Before being elected governor, she was a member of the city council and later mayor of Wasilla, a small town of only 5400 residents in Alaska. However, both her mayoral and her gubernatorial experience trump either Biden or Obama- neither has any executive experience at all. And she, like McCain, has a long record of reformism- in fact, her reformer credentials are even more solid than McCain's- she was never involved with the Keating Five.

In conclusion, Palin may be weak on the experience bit, having less than ten years in elected office. But she has executive experience as both a mayor and as a governor- no one else on either ticket can make that claim. And she is as much the outsider as McCain- in contrast to the Chicago machine politician Obama and the ultimate Washington insider Biden. And she also brings intangibles that neither Biden nor even Obama himself can- she is a woman, and with the Hillary supporters still unhappy with the way their candidate was treated, she may be able to siphon off some of the female support Obama desperately needs in order to win.

LPGA to Members- Speak English!

2008-08-26T10:28:00.000-07:00

The Ladies Professional Golf Association (LPGA) has figured out a basic truth that seems to have eluded our elected leaders (and much if not most of the American media)- if you want to work in the United States, you need to be able to speak English. According to a story posted today on Fox Sports, the LPGA is requiring all members who have been on the tour for at least two years to pass an English proficiency examination. If they do not, their membership will be suspended.

According to the story,written by Beth Ann Baldry of Golfweek.com,

For the past several years, the LPGA has impressed upon its membership the importance of communicating effectively in English. As the game's dominance shifts to the East, the LPGA has strengthened its stance. Learning English no longer is a tour suggestion; it's a requirement.

At a mandatory South Korean player meeting Aug. 20 at the Safeway Classic, the tour informed its largest international contingent that beginning in 2009, all players who have been on tour for two years must pass an oral evaluation of their English skills. Failure would result in a suspended membership.

However, the best quote in the story comes toward the end, when the writer quotes Kate Peters, who is the executive director of the LPGA State Farm Classic tournament. She said upon hearing the news,

"This is an American tour. It is important for sponsors to be able to interact with players and have a positive experience."

Imagine that. If you want to participate in an American-hosted event, you need to be able to communicate in English. If the LPGA can understand that basic fact, why is it so difficult for our politicians and our media? The United States of America is a country built on the English language, and with a core of English- based institutions.

When I visit Japan (which I do on a fairly regular basis) I do not expect Japanese officials, or my Japanese friends to speak to me in English. When I go to the store, I certainly do not expect to ask for help from the clerks in English. And if I visit the local government offices, i don't expect to see English documents. I am in Japan- the language is Japanese.

The same is true of my visits to Mexico. While Mexico is not one of my favorite places to visit (the corrupt 'police' and government place it fairly low on my list of Places To See), I do not expect to speak English in Mexico, nor do I expect to be addressed in that language. They speak Spanish- a debased form of Spanish to be true, but still Spanish.

So why do we bend over backward in this county to allow foreigners to speak any language that suits them in their dealings with officialdom? Why do we offer ballots in languages other than English? why do i see signs in Spanish when i visit the Department of Motor Vehicles? This is absurd. If you are a foreigner to the United States, it behooves you to l;earn English if you want to get by in our society. If you cannot or will not learn the language, then do not expect much sympathy from me- you can always go back to your home country. No one is forcing you to be in this country.

My wife came from Japan. When we first met, her English was essentially non-existent. However, she has worked hard and now is working as a registered nurse in a US hospital- a position that requires a very high degree of English competency. The United States used to operate this way as a matter of course- foreigners needed to learn our language and culture. That is common sense.

The LPGA is to be commended for their courageous and entirely commonsensical stance on the matter of English competency. I can only hope that before the United States joins other cultures on the landfill of history that our elected leaders and our Press comes to the same realization as the leadership of the LPGA. If you wish to live/work/study in the United States of America, then you need to speak English. Period.

UPDATE: I actually scooped the awesome Michelle Malkin on this story? Cool!

USA Today Targets McCain in Hillary Article

2008-08-25T10:58:00.000-07:00

Just in time for the Democratic Convention in Denver this week, is the national press doing their best once again to tilt the playing field in favor of Senator Barack Obama? It would seem that that is indeed the case.

Case in point is an article in the USAToday online edition headlined Poll: More than half of Clinton backers still not sold on Obama. However, once the story passes it's purported main point of listing the challenges faced by Obama in uniting a Democratic Party thoroughly fractured by the rough campaign season, the story manages to include points that are designed to be negative for the Republican candidate, Arizona Senator John McCain.

the writer, one Susan Page, admits that many Clinton supporters are ambivalent at best about Obama, and also does include the fact that many Americans have concerns over Obama's lack of experience, but she then includes several points that are unhelpful to McCain, writing,

A majority say his policies as president would mostly benefit the wealthy. Four in 10 worry McCain is too old to be president — he'll turn 72 on Friday — and 66% say they're concerned he'll pursue President Bush's course. That includes 64% of independents and 35% of Republicans.

McCain also gets more blame for the campaign's negative tone. Nearly half of respondents, 48%, say McCain has attacked Obama unfairly, compared with 30% who say Obama has unfairly attacked McCain.

I wonder what the polls would say if the mainstream media- yes, this includes you, Miss Page- had actually covered the campaigns from an objective point of view? if the media had not relentlessly written misleading stories on the economy (hint- it isn't as bad as they would like us to think) and on McCain's supposedly negative campaigning.

Is it negative to point out one's rivals flaws, faux pases and mis-steps? Is it negative to point out one's rival's many mis-statements and apparent lack of knowledge? And I notice that the real negative comments from the Obama campaign about McCain somehow seem to be entirely acceptable to the MSM. His age, his 28-year old marital affairs and his wealth seem to be acceptable targets, yet any comparable comments about Obama seem to be unacceptable. How is this possible?

in any event, we already know that the mainstream media are in the tank for Obama. this article, though innocuous on the surface, is merely one more shot from a media that desperately wants to prove it can get its man into the White House after failing to give the past two elections to their favored candidates.

Cross-posted on NewsBusters

My New Automotive Drool-Inducer

2008-08-21T11:42:00.001-07:00

...is the awesome Chevrolet Corvette ZR1. Now, if I only had an extra hundred thousand dollars lying around (and if only I could persuade Mrs. Gankomon to let me spend said cash on this gorgeous piece of engineering...)

Somehow I don't think driving this speed demon will persuade too many people to support Heath Shuler's plan to bring back the 55-mph speed limit. It might persuade more folks to jump on the bandwagon for Donald Sensing's suggestion for higher speed limits, however.

The Case for Speed

2008-08-18T09:46:00.000-07:00

House of Representatives member Heath Shuler (D- N.C.) is agitating for the return of the 55-mph speed limit. I remember that infamous speed limit- no one followed it and all it did was to irritate drivers. In other words, it was about as successful as Jimmy Carter's plan to wear more sweaters instead of actually developing American energy reserves. However, according to Donald Sensing over at his blog Sense of Events, instead of decreasing the speed limit, now would actually be a good time to increase it- he suggests at least 100 miles an hour or more on the freeways.

To illustrate his idea, Sensing compares the time necessary to take a trip from Nashville to Memphis both by air and by car. He finds that,

Nashville to Memphis, 200 ground miles, flying Northwest Airlines flt. 457. Depart Nashville (BNA) at 0612, arrive Memphis (MEM) at 0715. Cool, just an hour, right? Of course not. You must arrive at the airport no fewer than 90 minutes earlier than flight departure (they say two hours, but let's assume you check no baggage). And you have to drive to the airport, call that 30 minutes. So you leave home at 0412. Three hours later you arrive at the Memphis airport and have to spend another 30 minutes, minimum, getting to your place of business for the day. Use more time if you checked baggage.

So you spend 3 1/2 hours getting to your destination in Memphis from your Nashville home.

If you drive, Google Maps says it would take 3 1/2 hours just to drive from BNA to MEM. Of course, you wouldn't start from BNA or end at MEM, so shave a half-hour. Still, many business travelers would consider the extra half-hour spent flying to be worth it, especially if they can use the down time to work.

So let's raise the speed limit to 100 mph. Using the same route, BNA - MEM, uses 205 interstate miles. Some of this is too congested to permit high-speed driving, probably about 20 miles. Heck, to make it easy let's say 25 miles. So you cover 180 miles in 1 hour, 48 minutes and the other 25 miles in as many minutes. That leaves 16 miscellaneous miles left, which might take you another 25 minutes. Total time, 2 hours, 38 minutes. You save, basically, an hour.

Sensing also examines the other delays built into air travel these days- the TSA security checks, the baggage-checks, the check-in lines and of course the waiting in the plane on the runway. Since airlines over-schedule, the odds of a true on-time departure are extremely low) and the airlines and the FAA manipulate things so that even if the plane officially makes an 'on-time' departure, you still won't be in the ari anywhere near your scheduled departure time.

I find a lot of sense in what Mr. Sensing suggests. For foreign trips, of course, air travel remains the only real alternative, as sea travel is too slow. However, for much domestic travel, driving actually is quicker, and less stressful than air. And if the speed limits were raised, the time involved would drop as well. Read the whole thing and see what you think- I like the idea. Not that there is much chance of our elected officials implementing it, but we proved with the 55-mile speed limit that if we push long enough, even Congress might eventually pay some attention...

Hat tip to Glenn Reynolds.

An Important Birthday

2008-08-15T09:29:00.000-07:00

Napoleon Bonaparte, French general, Emperor and master military genius, was born on this day in 1867. Why is this important? Because it was Bonaparte's imperialist dreams that caused the French-English wars between the 1790s and the Waterloo campaign of 1815, led to Britain's Royal Navy becoming the world's premier fighting force and set up the beginnings of the European order that was finally overthrown in 1918.

Napoleon was born on the island of Corsica, but entered the French army at a young age and rose rapidly, becoming a general at age 20. When France was plunged into the darkness of the French Revolution, it was Bonaparte who, with the support of the Army, eventually took control of the French government, being named First Consul in 1799 in what can only be called a coup de etat. After consolidating his power, he declared himself Emperor.

As a side note, it was Bonaparte's expedition to Egypt in 1798 that resulted in the discovery of one of the most important artifacts of all time- the Rosetta Stone. A stone that has the same text written in hieroglyphs, Demotic script and Greek, it was this that finally provided the key for cracking the Egyptian hieroglyphic writing system.

Once he had firm control of France, Bonaparte attacked and conquered virtually ever nation in Europe save for England alone (though Scotland and Ireland also remained unconquered it was mostly due to English naval power, not through any efforts of their own). English naval commanders, such as George Rodney, Sir John Jervis and of course Horatio Nelson created new tactics for the Royal Navy and the superior seamanship of the British, coupled with their new tactics, forced the French from the seas, thus effectively frustrating Napoleon's plans for invading his most resolute foe. The Royal Navy's need for men in their ships and their practice of impressing (forcibly taking men for use in their Navy from neutral ships) also led to the War of 1812 between the US and Great Britain- a war that while it led to some fantastic single-ship victories, was a disastrous one for the United States.

Unlike later tyrants such as Stalin, Mao and Hitler, Napoleon did make many positive contributions to French society, laying the seeds for the modern French nation in his policies. Although his foreign policy ended in disaster for France, his domestic achievements included centralizing the French government departments, setting up a system of higher education, creating a law code, a central ban and road and sewer systems. He also made some positive contributions to Europe as a whole. By reorganizing the old Holy Roman empire, he laid the foundations for the later emergence of the state of Germany, and his Napoleonic Code is part of many modern civil codes, including in the US state of Louisiana.

Historically, Napoleon is one of the few tyrants who probably could not have been stopped by an early response to his aggression, as his victories depended on his mastery of tactics and strategy- not on numbers or on technology. However, the sturdy resolve of the British Empire to oppose Napoleon did eventually lead to his ultimate defeat, as Britain kept resistance going for over twenty years, despite losing virtually every land engagement.

Napoleon was a man of mixed heritage- he was not entirely bad for the world, as he did have some positive effects. However, the balance of his reign led to death, destruction and a constant state of war for over twenty years, thus he must be placed in the same category as all other would-be conquerers. The moral is that when a State or a leader looks high, there is a long way to fall, if the objects of that desire have the will to protect themselves.

More on Alternative Power

2008-08-12T08:21:00.000-07:00

I wrote a few weeks ago on Texas oilman T. Boone Pickens' bold plan to make the United States independent of foreign oil via wind power. On Sunday, Dr. Robert Zubrin of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies wrote a response to Pickens on Pajamas Media.

While Dr. Zubrin gave credit to Pickens for at least trying to develop alternative energy sources, he states that pickens' plan of using wind power to free up compressed natural gas for automobile power is not a long-term solution to the American energy crisis. Writes Dr. Zubrin,

So hats off to Mr. Pickens. That said, the plan he is advancing for dealing with the crisis — build windmills to release natural gas from electricity generation so it can be used to power compressed natural gas (CNG)-driven cars, displacing gasoline in the process — is technically flawed and needs to be revised.

According to Dr. Zubrin, the United States cannot replace the energy currently provided by natural gas unless wind power somehow can generate at least thirty times what it currently provides. This is extremely unlikely, as wind power is notoriously fickle and is entirely dependent on weather conditions to function at all. In addition, Dr. Zubrin states that at the united States' current rate of natural gas usage, there is approximately ten years' worth of supply. Thus it is not a reliable long-term solution.

Instead of natural gas and wind power, Dr. Zubrin recommends forcing automobile manufacturers to make all future vehicles flex-fuel capable. As Dr. Zubrin explains,

The key is for Congress to pass a bill, such as the current Open Fuel Standards Act (S.3303, HR.6559) requiring that all new cars sold in the U.S. be fully flex-fueled — that is, capable of running equally well on gasoline, ethanol, and methanol. Such technology is currently available and only adds about $100 to the cost of a car (in contrast to CNG capability, which adds about $2,000). The reason why establishing a full flex-fuel standard is the answer is that methanol — a very safe and practical liquid vehicle fuel — can be made from a vast array of feedstocks, including not only natural gas, but also coal, recycled urban trash, and any kind of biomass without exception.

Thus making automobiles flex-fuel capable would free Americans (and the rest of the world as well, as an American requirement for flex-fuel would probably carry over to the rest of the world) from having to rely on any single power source. Flex-fuel means that cars could be powered by methanol, gasoline and ethanol. This is especially important since methanol can be made from a variety of sources, including refuse. And Dr. Zubrin says that the United States has enough source material to last for centuries. He concludes,

By creating such a true free open-source fuel market, we can make it possible for every nation to contribute to the world’s fuel supply, breaking the monopoly power of the oil cartel, everywhere and forever.

This last is the money quote. Why are we paying countries that are dedicated to our eventual destruction? By cutting off the supply of oil money, we can reduce the Middle East to the position of irrevelevance it richly deserves. And we can finally free ourselves from energy dependence. I am not certain that this alone will work- I would recommend nuclear power plants to generate most of our domestic, non-transportation energy as well, but this is certainly a start. And anything that reduces the amount of money we pay to the unstable oil producing countries is a benefit. Faster, please.....

Hat tip to Glenn Reynolds.

Home-schooling IS Acceptable After All

2008-08-11T10:04:00.001-07:00

Some readers may recall the February 28 decision by the Los Angeles Second District Court that essentially would have forced home-schooling parents to hodl a teaching credential in order to teach their own children. I wrote at the time that based on my reading of the law in question, the Court simply upheld the existing law. However, I also said that I believ that parents absolutely should have the right to teach their own children at home, provided they are competent adults.

Today, the same court that handed down the original decision reversed themselves, stating that California law did allow parents to home-school without the necessity of obtaining a teaching credential. And the story in the San Francisco Chronicle provides a startling insight into the mind of the teachers' union, stating,

"Parents do not have an unfettered right to dictate the terms of their children's education," a lawyer for the union said in written arguments. Unregulated, unsupervised homeschooling, the lawyer said, is an invitation to "educational anarchy."

Parents do not have an unfettered right to dictate the terms of their childrens's education? Really? And why should some 'teacher' have that right? Especially when I am well aware that in most areas of study, I hold higher certifications than virtually any public school teacher? This mindset by the union is shocking and one of the many reasons why my child(ren) will never be taught in a public school setting if I can avoid it.

This is good news, although I continue to think that the Court acted in a strict constructionist manner throughout- both upholding the original law, and subsequently interpreting it based on the Legislature's apparent wishes. In other words, they did their jobs, which is to interpret the law- not make the law. In his re-interpretation, Judge Walter Croskey wrote,

"Recent statutes indicate that the Legislature is aware that some parents in California homeschool their children by declaring their homes to be private schools," Justice H. Walter Croskey, author of the earlier ruling, wrote Friday.

Croskey said one of those laws, a 1998 measure exempting parents from fingerprinting requirements imposed on private school employees, indicated "a legislative approval of homeschooling." A 1991 law requires the state school superintendent to compile information on all private schools except those with five or fewer students, an exemption that was probably created for homeschools, Croskey said.

In a rare statement from the judiciary - which usually considers itself the ultimate authority on the meaning of the law - Croskey said the 1953 decision that applied compulsory education without exceptions has been effectively overruled in the real world.

I applaud Judge Croskey for recognizing that while the original law does indeed make education compulsory, the Legislature has itself recognized that home-schooling exists and has made accommodations for those who wish to home-school their children. Too many judges have forgotten that subtle difference between the job description of a judge and that of a legislator. Hat tip to Michelle Malkin.

China's Moment of Glory

2008-08-11T09:17:00.000-07:00

China is currently putting on the world's largest propaganda show over in Beijing, following in the footsteps of the Nazi Party's 1936 Olympics, and the many Soviet-era productions. Most, if not all, of the world's media and glitterati are convinced that this is China's coming-out party, that China will soon overtake the United States in all the important categories of world dominance. And, since China is an authoritarian, one-party state built on government oppression of its people, these same glitterati are falling all over them selves to become China's friends.

But how realistic is the assumption of China's someday dominance? According to former Beijing bureau chief John Pomfret, the answer is not very. Pomfret penned an opinion piece in the Washington Post on Sunday that itemized some of his doubts about China as a long-term colossus. Writes Pomfret in his introductory paragraph,

Nikita Khrushchev said the Soviet Union would bury us, but these days, everybody seems to think that China is the one wielding the shovel. The People's Republic is on the march -- economically, militarily, even ideologically. Economists expect its GDP to surpass America's by 2025; its submarine fleet is reportedly growing five times faster than Washington's; even its capitalist authoritarianism is called a real alternative to the West's liberal democracy. China, the drumbeat goes, is poised to become the 800-pound gorilla of the international system, ready to dominate the 21st century the way the United States dominated the 20th.

Except that it's not.

Pomfret lists some of the many areas in which China, far from dominating, is in fact far behind the West. These include demographics, the vaunted economy, the horrendous state of the environment and most of all the rigid government. Pomfret says that far from dominating the 21st century he way the United States dominated much of the Twentieth Century, China has some significant hurdles to overcome before it can really be considered a superpower. And the largest of these hurdles lies in China's inability to produce inventiveness- a problem that the United States does not have. Pomfret uses the recent release of 'Kung Fu Panda' to illustrate this issue. His money quote can be found in the conclusion of his opinion piece, where he writes,

But consider the case of the high-kicking panda who uses ancient Chinese teachings to turn himself into a kung fu warrior. That recent Hollywood smash broke Chinese box-office records -- and caused no end of hand-wringing among the country's glitterati. "The film's protagonist is China's national treasure, and all the elements are Chinese, but why didn't we make such a film?" Wu Jiang, president of the China National Peking Opera Company, told the official New China News Agency.

The content may be Chinese, but the irreverence and creativity of "Kung Fu Panda" are 100 percent American. That highlights another weakness in the argument about China's inevitable rise: The place remains an authoritarian state run by a party that limits the free flow of information, stifles ingenuity and doesn't understand how to self-correct. Blockbusters don't grow out of the barrel of a gun. Neither do superpowers in the age of globalization.

To me, this is very familiar. Remember the myth of Japanese superiority that was peddled by so many in the 1980s and 1990s? Remember how the United States was told ad infinitum in the pages of the Press that we must adopt Japanese methods in order to survive? This is not to say that there are certain aspects of Japanese business that could be leveraged by U.S. business. But Japan has been mired in recession (at least partly due to the incestuous relationship between government and business) for some time. Only recently has Japan been showing signs of recovering from the decade-long slowdown. I don't see too many articles in the papers these days on the superiority of Japanese business techniques. Instead, the Press is convinced that China is the new model we ought to emulate.

However, as Pomfret clearly shows, China has a long way to go before they really ought to be considered as a true equal to the United States. Militarily, they are certainly a country that bears close scrutiny, but economically, environmentally and demographically, China has some huge issues. And that is without even discussing the problems that the many differing ethnic and religious groups in China bring to the table.

So, I would certainly keep an eye on China- they are large, belligerent and convinced of their own superiority (let us not forget that China's name, in their own language translates to the Middle Kingdom- ie. the center of the world). But I would caution the Press, our politicians and our business class to remember that China, as every other country, has flaws and problems. Just because they are currently pulling out all the stops to convince the world they are Number One, does not mean that the reality matches the illusion. Until China has reached the stage where they remove the guns from the backs of their own citizens, I would count China as no more of a superpower than the old Soviet Union was. Communist regimes are all about promoting the style to naive reporters while hiding the grim substance of everyday life. And these Olympics, regardless of China's final medal count, are simply more of the same.

Hat tip to the crew over at Power Line.

Media Names Party- for Republicans

2008-07-29T11:41:00.000-07:00

Does the media treat Democrats and Republicans differently when stories of their various peccadillos reach the Press? Well, in actuality, the question is essentially a moot point. There are stories today on the NewsBusters front page testifying to said bias. However, in Yahoo! News' choice of front-page stories today, we can see yet another example of this bias.

It seems that Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska has been indicted on seven counts of making false statements. And where did Associated Press writer Lara Jakes Jordan place the senator's political affiliation? in the very first paragraph, of course. According to the story,

Sen. Ted Stevens, the longest-serving Republican senator and a figure in Alaska politics since before statehood, was indicted Tuesday on seven counts of failing to disclose thousands of dollars in services he received from a company that helped renovate his home.

Of course, this appears to be insufficient for Jordan. She goes on to tar Stevens' fellow Alaskan representative with the same brush, writing,

The investigation has upended Alaska state politics and cast scrutiny on Stevens — who is running for re-election this year — and on his congressional colleague, Rep. Don Young of Alaska, who is also under investigation.

Hmmm. When Congressman William Jefferson of Louisiana was caught with bushels of money stuffed in a freezer, I do not recall Jordan or anyone else writing about the negative prospects for Jefferson's fellow congressmen- some of whom were also under investigation. And I certainly do not recall that the Associated Press was particularly interested in following lobbyist Tony Rezko's money trail when it appeared to be getting close to Obama.

I have no sympathy for Stevens. if he did what he is accused of, he deserves to pay the price. It is things like this that dampen American enthusiasm for politicians. However, I don't recall a similar hue and cry from the AP about serial defaulter Laura Richardson and her sweetheart deal, nor any interest in following the sweetheart deals for California Senator Dianne Feinstein's husband.

If only the Associated Press was as industrious in following up cases like this as they are when the target has an 'R' after his or her name. but that of course would require both objectivity and professionalism- something the AP has proven time and again that they sadly lack. Cross-posted on NewsBusters.

Return of Nuclear Power

2008-07-22T12:55:00.000-07:00

Nuclear power has been one of the environmentalists' main enemies for as long as there has been a modern environmental movement. The infamous movie The China Syndrome by uber-activist Jane Fonda was a dramatization intended to sway the American people (and as much of the world as they could) into an hard opposition to anything nuclear. And it worked in the United States, where no new nuclear plant has been built in over thirty years.

But the same is not true in Europe. Because in western Europe, nuclear power has long been used to create energy and there has been not so much as a single mishap. But in the United States, the environmental activists have been able to use the courts and their ignorant friends in the media to shut down plant after plant, forcing us to rely ever more on imported oil. Europe long ago figured out that nuclear power was a help much more than a hindrance. Could that view finally be coming about in the United States as well?

In an article published in the Wall Street Journal online edition on July 21, William Tucker argues that the American public's attitudes toward nuclear power may be shifting, and that for nuclear power to succeed in the US as it has in Europe, such a shift is vital, since in this country, government does not invest in such things- they are all done by private development. Writes Tucker about the future of nuclear power,

All over the world, nuclear power is making a comeback. British Prime Minister Gordon Brown has just commissioned eight new reactors, and says there's "no upper limit" to the number Britain will build in the future. German Chancellor Angela Merkel has challenged her country's program to phase out 17 nuclear reactors by 2020, saying it will be impossible to deal with climate change without them. China and India are building nuclear power plants; France and Russia, both of whom have embraced the technology, are fiercely competing to sell them the hardware.

And just last month John McCain called for the construction of 45 new reactors by 2030. Barack Obama is less enthusiastic about nuclear energy, but he seems to be moving toward tacit approval.

In the U.S. at present, 104 nuclear plants generate about 21% of our electric power. Last November, NRG Energy, of Princeton, N.J., became the first company to file for a license to build a new nuclear plant since the 1970s. Almost a dozen more applications have now also been filed.

But the United States has a unique difficulty in moving forward in the pursuit of nuclear power- the question of cost. As Tucker points out, most developed countries that use nuclear power- the French, the Brit8ish, the Japanese- all rely on investment and development from their respective governments. As a result, the environmentalists cannot stop them from pursuing as the government has a great deal more power to carry out its directives- and judges are not nearly as independent.

None of this is true in the United States. Government neither invests nor directs power projects, and the judiciary is frequently at odds both with the best interests of the nation and with the objectives of the elected government. Therefore most of the heavy lifting has to be carried out by corporate entities- and they are vulnerable both to legal challenges and local government obstacles. So if nuclear power is to succeed in this country, argues Tucker, then the people must be brought around to believe that nuclear power is not an evil, but rather a force for good. On the positive side, the current high price of oil, coupled with the fact that a great deal of it resides in the hands of declared enemies to the United States, has provided a boost for alternate energy sources. And there is no single source that can match the potential of nuclear energy.

But what about safety? Americans still remember the Three Mile Island incident, which although there were absolutely no casualties- no one was even injured or diagnosed with radiation poisoning- still has an effect on how Americans view nuclear power. This despite the fact that the US NAvy, which operates one of the most extensive collection of nuclear-powered facilities in the world has virtually spotless safety receord when comes to handling nuclear power. And no American nucelar pwoer plant has ever been built along the lines of the deadly Chernobyl plant in the former Soviet Union. Even at Three Mile Island, where the plant experienced a partial core meltdown, the entire damage was contained within the reactor, and no one was injured.

But reality has always had a hard time competing with the meme favored by the media of the time. And for a long time, the media was one of the biggest enemies of any new nuclear power plant. Recall how the media did their best to encourage the forces trying to shut down Diablo Canyon in California. However, as Tucker writes, this is finally beginning to change. In the past year, there were "almost a dozen" applications to build new nuclear plants filed in the United States.

I believe that nuclear power is the best solution for all of us. Most alternative power sources are too costly to be efficient and few of them are as reliable and robust as nuclear power plants. Wind is dependent on the atmospheric conditions, as is solar. And both can be easily disrupted and require enormous amounts of real estate. Nuclear on the other hand, currently generates roughly 75 percent of France's electricity, according to Tucker. He writes, "With a fully developed nuclear cycle, the French now store all the waste from 30 years of producing 75% of its electricity beneath the floor of one room at La Hague in Normandy." So much for the waste problem.

If nuclear power is indeed on the way back, we will finally have the trump card in our oil dependency problem. If we can generate most of our electricity from nuclear, we can put our public transport on electricity as they do in Japan and Europe and release ourselves from our need for foreign oil. And for us to be truly safe (and to devalue the Middle East once again into the backwater it richly deserves to be relegated) we desperately need to find an answer to our energy problem. Perhaps we may have finally found that answer- an answer that was before us the entire time.

Hillary Prepares for 2012

2008-07-14T23:01:00.001-07:00

Hillary Clinton apparently is not ready to go quietly into the night. On the contrary, it appears that she is already thinking about 2012. According to a story in the New York Observer online edition, Clinton is asking donors to her 2008 Presidential run to allow her to roll their contributions over into her 2012 Senatorial election fund. According to the Observer,

Hillary Clinton's campaign is sending out letters to donors asking permission to roll a $2,300 contribution to Clinton's 2008 general election coffers to her 2012 senate election fund instead of offering a refund.

Pardon me for being slightly suspicious, but how many of us actually believe that Clinton is really saving up merely for her 2012 Senatorial election? I may be incorrect, but it is much more likely that Hillary is stockpiling for another run at the Presidency. If Obama wins, of course, she will not be able to run in 2012, but if John McCain should manage to win- not an impossibility, by any means- then Hillary will almost certainly run for the PResidency again in 2012. Of course, if Obama loses this time around, it is almost certain that he too will run again in 2012, and if both run again, they will in all probability be facing another bitter grudge match, as both are well-funded and extremely ambitious. So Hillary will need every dollar she can squeeze out of her donors, since she is likely to be the underdog in a rematch with Obama.

However, unfortunately for Hillary, not all of her donors are willing to allow her to hang on to their money until 2012. As the Observer reports of its anonymous source,

This donor, at least, had no intention of signing. "Of course I'm going to get my money back," the donor told me.

So it may be difficult for Hillary to hang on to her cash. And once she loses her war-chest, she will be even more an underdog. Her campaign this time around was not well-run, and she demonstrated many times the political weaknesses that I for one suspected might doom her. She is a very weak candidate, without much real experience (other than being married to a President) and a well-documented habit of mendacity. If Hillary does run again in 2012, she will face an uphill battle, as she iwll no longer be the Establishment candidate.

My own feeling is that Hillary's chances of becoming President probably are gone. 2008 was practically tailor-made for her, and all the signs seem to indicate that this is probably going to be a Democratic year, despite the Democratic Congress' bungling. However, she not even able to grasp the nomination from Barack Obama. And if Obama wins in 2008, she cannot run again until 2016, and she is no longer very young. And unlike Ronald Reagan and John McCain, Hillary has neither a executive experience nor a reputation for bipartisanship. But most of all, she lacks Reagan's communication skills. So her age will be a much bigger stumbling-block than it was for Reagan and remains for McCain. I guess the Clintons may indeed be pinning their hopes on Chelsea at this point

College Sports Corruption?

2008-07-09T10:29:00.000-07:00

Jason Whitlock, of the Kansas City Star newspaper is one of the few sports journalists for whom I hold respect. Most so-called sports reporters are on the level of ESPN's appalling Stephen A. Smith- loud, obnoxious and with little actual understanding of that which they are bound to report on. Whitlock, however, is both independent and doesn't play the race card without reason. He is therefore always worth reading, whether one agrees with him or not. As an aside, he was one of the few sports journalists not to get caught up on the wrong side of the infamous Duke Rape Hoax.

He has a column today on the NCAA and college basketball and football student-athletes. The column was occasioned by a University of Arizona basketball recruit, one Brandon Jennings, choosing to play overseas as opposed to attempt to meet the UNiversity of Arizona's admission requirements. Whitlock argues that this should be an opportunity for the NCAA to overhaul it's rules and admit that many of these athletes are not students and never will be. He writes,

1. Acknowledge that college basketball and football players are entertainer-athletes, not student-athletes. Bring them on campus, pay them, free them of academic responsibility and let them entertain students, alums, boosters and fans while auditioning for a pro career.

2. Form an alliance with the NFL and NBA and invest in education/athletic academies for talented young basketball and football players (of all colors) beginning in eighth and ninth grade.

The NCAA pays its basketball and football players with a currency (education) many of them aren't prepared to spend or value. That has to change, and it's incumbent on the NCAA to be a big part of the change.

I had a discussion about this very point with a colleague who like me is a huge college sports fan. As I see it, there are two separate issues here- first is that not everyone is entitled or even needs a college education. If an athlete cannot meet the entrance standards for an educational institute, then he or she should definitely have the option of playing professionally, whether it be in Europe or in some minor league in the United States. Baseball players do precisely that all the time.

The second issue is the fact that many of these athletes are not prepared for the rigors of a college education. This is a failing of the schools that supposedly prepared them- the primary and secondary school systems, and that needs to be corrected as well. However, I have to disagree with Mr. Whitlock as far as having the NBA and the NFL create academies. They are in the business of presenting a professional product, not educating kids. However, if the universities went back to their core mission, then both the NFL and the NBA should in fact focus on minor leagues, as baseball has. The NBA does have the NBDL, and the NFL should create something similar for those who aren't ready for the prime-time.

As I see it, the universities should go back to the basics- being educators, not minor leagues for the professionals. If an athlete cannot meet the academic standards, then he or she should not gain admission. Period. Student-athletes should be precisely that- students first and athletes second. Athletes who cannot gain admission should be prepared to go overseas or play in the minor leagues to hone their skills. But the money involved in college basketball and football is so immense that schools seem to have forgotten their own basic mission while wallowing in the cash generated by these sports.

It is time to re-focus. Schools should be schools, not minor leagues for the NBA or NFL. While football contains a large number of athletes for whom it is not an end-all, basketball is much more problematic, especially as it has been taken over by the hip-hop generation that does not appeal as much to mainstream fans, and by definition, many of these guys are not scholars.

However, Mr. Whitlock is absolutely correct on at least one point- the current system is a disgrace and needs overhaul. The coaches, the administrators and above all the athletes are being forced to live a lie in most cases and it is time to clean up the system once and for all.

Is Wind Power the Answer?

2008-07-09T09:07:00.000-07:00

Texas billionaire and oilman T. Boone Pickens thinks that answer is a resounding yes. On his site today, he writes an impassioned call for the United States to develop facilities to capture wind power across the United States. Regarding the potential of wind power, Pickens writes,

Studies from around the world show that the Great Plains states are home to the greatest wind energy potential in the world — by far.

The Department of Energy reports that 20% of America's electricity can come from wind. North Dakota alone has the potential to provide power for more than a quarter of the country.

And Pickens pulls no punches in describing the amount of money that importing foreign oil costs the United States every year. He writes,

As imports grow and world prices rise, the amount of money we send to foreign nations every year is soaring. At current oil prices, we will send $700 billion dollars out of the country this year alone — that's four times the annual cost of the Iraq war.

Projected over the next 10 years the cost will be $10 trillion — it will be the greatest transfer of wealth in the history of mankind.

In contrast, he concedes that creating the facilities to capture wind power would require a large amount of start-up capital, but he argues that the overall cost would be quite small when compared to the constant expenditures we require now for our energy supplies.

Mr. Pickens has some excellent points. However, I am not entirely sold on wind power as being The Answer for America's energy needs. While I certainly agree that wind power could help, I do not believe that it is reliable enough- I have been becalmed too many times at sea. However, there is no question that the United States needs to break its dependency on foreign oil- for us to be giving our sworn enemies millions of dollars is worse than insane- it's simply suicidal.

Personally, I believe that the only real long-term answer is nuclear power, coupled with a nation-wide network for electric cars. However, if wind power can assist in producing some of the power necessary, I am certainly not against it, as it is both cleaner and safer than nuclear plants. So Mr. Pickens' plan is something I would definitely support.

Unfortunately, the Democratic Party is in power, and their answer to the energy problem seems to be the same as it was during Jimmy Carter's Administration- drive smaller cars and wear more sweaters. And allow the government to tell us how and when we are allowed to use energy, of course. More government power is the Democrats' answer to everything- just one more reason not to vote for them, at least in my books.

UPDATE: Forgot to include the link to Mr. Pickens' plan. Fixed. In addition, as was pointed out by commentator Juan, neither the Democrats nor the Republicans have adequately dealt with our energy issues. However, I believe that as the Democrats have been more recalcitrant in refusing to tap our own energy reserves and are currently in power, they are slightly more culpable, thus my specific reference to them in the post.

Congress Ratings Fall Even Lower

2008-07-08T14:37:00.000-07:00

Proving once again that most Americans are sublimely indifferent to substance as opposed to style, a new Rasmussen poll shows that Congress' approval rating has fallen into single digits, for the first time in history. However, despite the fact that Democrats can blame only themselves for their abject failure to do anything that they promised when they took control in 2006, the poll also shows Democrats enjoying a substantial lead in the Generic Congressional Poll. So either most voters don't care that Democrats have proven to be even worse at keeping promises and actually governing responsibly than the republicans, or they aren't aware of just how badly Congress is performing. Since Congress' approval ratings consistently come in well below those of the President, it must be the former, although the media's relentless effort to cover up Democratic excesses and failures does not help in exposing just how badly they are doing.

As reported on Rasmussen's website, the new poll find that,

This month, just 9% say Congress is doing a good or excellent job. Most voters (52%) say Congress is doing a poor job, which ties the record high in that dubious category.

In addition, the poll also found that most voters believe that Congressmen are out for Number One. According to the Rasmussen website,

Most voters (72%) think most members of Congress are more interested in furthering their own political careers. Just 14% believe members are genuinely interested in helping people.

Considering members like Louisiana's William Jefferson (he of the freezer filled with cash), and califronia's Laura Richardson (she of the multiple home defaults and expensive car leases), it is easy to agree with the voters. However, until the Press actually does its job in fairly reporting on the peccadillos of Democrats with the fervor it pursues members of the Republican Party, and until voters vote on the actual performance of the parties as opposed to the media's presentation of that performance, I doubt we will see any change.

But may God help the American people if the voters give the Democrats enough of a majority to actually carry out their wishes. I for one do not wish to live in a nanny state where the government has total control over the people's lives. But I fear that it iwll take another four years of Jimmy Carter-like disaster to make the American people realize just how badly Democrats govern. And who knows if we will even have an American nation left by that time, as the judges a Democratic President will appoint will undoubtedly overrule Heller, reinforce Boumediene, disarm our military and grant Sharia law, as is already happening in Britain.

It is no wonder that Osama bin Laden, Hamas and most other of our enemies are working so hard to elect Barack Obama. They know that he will hand victory to them without them needing to fire a shot.

Remembering Marco Polo (Bridge)

2008-07-07T13:56:00.000-07:00

It is instructive that so close to the anniversary of American independence is another anniversary much more somber in nature. To be specific, today is the seventieth anniversary of the battle at Marco Polo bridge in Beijing. This incident was the final straw in the long history of Sino-Japanese irritants, and led to open warfare between the Empire of Japan and the forces of Revolutionary China (led by Chiang Kai-shek's Kuomintang Party, or KMT).
As a result of the battle, China and Japan were engaged in full-scale war, as opposed to the mostly diplomatic battles they had engaged in since the end of the previous war in 1931. This war continued until Japan surrendered to the United States and the remainder of the Allies in 1945.

One side effect of the war was to allow Mao Tse-tung's Communists to grow strong as the Nationalist Party (KMT) focused its energies on fighting the Japanese. The Chinese Communists and Chiang Kai-shek's KMT were deadly enemies, and in the years leading up to the battle at Marco Polo Bridge the KMT had forced the Communists to retreat in the famous Long March, greatly weakening them. Chiang intended to destroy the COmmunists before taking aim at the Japanese. However, this policy was not shared by all of his supporters. In fact, Chiang Kai-shek was actually kidnapped by Marshal Zhang Xueliang in order to force him to agree to put resistance to the Japanese as his first priority.

Chiang did agree to focus on defeating the Japanese, but at the cost of allowing the Communists (who did virtually nothing against the Japanese) to grow strong. In fact, they grew strong enough that at the end of World War II, they were quickly able to defeat the KMT and seize control of China, although it ought to be noted that they were aided by the corruption and elitism that was prevalent in the KMT as well. Had Chiang been willing to consider land reform, he might have managed to defeat the Communists despite their strength. So in one aspect, the battle at Marco Polo Bridge was an important step on the road to China's submission to the bloody hands of the Communists under Mao Tse-tung.

Happy Independence Day!

2008-07-04T00:47:00.000-07:00

Today is the anniversary of the fledgling United States' declaration of Independence from the imperial domination of England and the beginning of the Great Experiment- and experiment that has actually succeeded beyond anyone's wildest expectations. Despite the best efforts of the Marxists in Congress who call them selves the Democrat Party, and their miniions in the PRess and on the judicial bench, we are still a freer society than any other and God willing we will continue in that vein.

Today is a day to reflect on the sacrifices of those- especially soldiers and sailors- who gave their lives for this country, and to remember the countless heroes, such as John Paul Jones, Stephen Decatur, Francis Marion, Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, Douglas Macarthur, John McCain and David Petraeus who continue to guarantee that we are able to enjoy the liberties to which we have become accustomed.

Please remember to salute Old Glory today and while you are reciting the Pledge of Allegiance, think on what that Pledge has cost over the years. We fought the greatest military power in the world to gain our independence. We fought Muslim barbarians in the Barbary States to save our citizens from the Islamic slave trade. We fought our own brothers to eliminate slavery in this country. We fought a atrocities of Nazism and stamped out the racist designs of the Japanese Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere, we contained and then brought down the Soviet empire in Russia. Today we face an old threat reborn in a new and savage guise, but if we stand together and remember that we are all Americans, we can persevere.

Posting will be light for the remainder of this week and weekend as I will be busy with music and family business. Have a very happy Independence Day and God bless the United States of America.