Immigration Thoughts

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

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

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

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

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?

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...

...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

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...

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


2. President pushing for massive expansion of powers? Check.


3. 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.


4. 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

1. 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.


2. 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.


3. 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.


4. 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.


5. 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.


6. 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.


7. 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.


8. 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.


9. 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.


10. 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.


11. 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.


12. 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!'

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

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

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!

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

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.