From the BBC Ocean changes to cool Europe
In the eighties, the alarmists were warning of a coming ice age. Then in the nineties their cry became "Global Warming." Hedging their bets, their buzz word became "Climate Change" so that either way, they can tell the rest of us what to do.
While 8,000 people are in Montreal trying to get the US under control and in-step to mitigate the dreaded global warming, scientists in Britain are saying that currents in the Gulf Stream are weakening and the Politicians of Europe need to plan for a cooler future.
Call off the Montreal Summit. Thank them for their service and send all the delegates home.
Its a good thing we haven't made any progress against global warming. We'll be thankful we warmed up a bit before the deep freeze sets in.
It's just too unbelievable for words!
Wednesday, November 30, 2005
Is Science at War With God?
Fundamentalism is hampering global efforts to tackle climate change, according to Britain's top scientist.
From the BBC Science faces 'dangerous times' By Helen Briggs, BBC News science reporter.
We could counter with the argument that religion has been under serious threat from resurgent Evolutionists and hysterical Climatalogists also known in religious circles as the "World." Read the article. It is disturbing to see that Scientists perceive Bible believing Christians as a threat. This is not an isolated case of paranoia. These not so subtle attacks are occurring more frequently.
Science has attempted to supplant faith for many, many years. The term post-modern refers to the time when man turned to Science and away from religion in an effort to understand his origin. Science and religion have not always been at odds but it appears Darwinists have highjacked Science with disasterous results for our society.
The world has been at war with religion, particularly Judaism and Christianity since their beginnings. Actually, we should clarify that to say that the world has been at war with God since the beginning. I have said before that resurgent anti-semitism should be our canary in the mine. When we see it, we should heed the warning of bad things to come and not just for the Jews.
From the BBC Science faces 'dangerous times' By Helen Briggs, BBC News science reporter.
In his final speech as president of the Royal Society, Lord May of Oxford will say scientists must speak out against the climate change "denial lobby".
He will warn core scientific values are "under serious threat from resurgent fundamentalism, West and East".
We could counter with the argument that religion has been under serious threat from resurgent Evolutionists and hysterical Climatalogists also known in religious circles as the "World." Read the article. It is disturbing to see that Scientists perceive Bible believing Christians as a threat. This is not an isolated case of paranoia. These not so subtle attacks are occurring more frequently.
Another danger to the enlightenment of science came from the growing network of fundamentalist and lobby groups in the US that campaigned for creationism to be taught in science classes, he added.
"By their own writings, this group has a much wider agenda which is to replace scientific materialism by something more based on faith," he said.
Science has attempted to supplant faith for many, many years. The term post-modern refers to the time when man turned to Science and away from religion in an effort to understand his origin. Science and religion have not always been at odds but it appears Darwinists have highjacked Science with disasterous results for our society.
The world has been at war with religion, particularly Judaism and Christianity since their beginnings. Actually, we should clarify that to say that the world has been at war with God since the beginning. I have said before that resurgent anti-semitism should be our canary in the mine. When we see it, we should heed the warning of bad things to come and not just for the Jews.
We are known by the company we keep.
I think Colin Powell has some explaining to do.
From the Guardian UK:
Lawrence Wilkerson, who served as chief of staff to secretary of state Colin Powell from 2002 to 2005, singled out Mr Cheney in a wide-ranging political assault on the BBC's Today programme.
Mr Wilkerson said that in an internal administration debate over whether to abide by the Geneva conventions in the treatment of detainees, Mr Cheney led the argument "that essentially wanted to do away with all restrictions".
Asked whether the vice-president was guilty of a war crime, Mr Wilkerson replied: "Well, that's an interesting question - it was certainly a domestic crime to advocate terror and I would suspect that it is ... an international crime as well."
Colin Powell's Chief of Staff at the State Department has said that Vice-President is a war criminal; a terrorist. For good measure he throws in the following smear:
Mr Wilkerson, a former army colonel, also said he had seen increasing evidence that the White House had manipulated pre-war intelligence on Iraq to make its case for the invasion. He said: "You begin to wonder was this intelligence spun? Was it politicised? Was it cherry-picked? Did, in fact, the American people get fooled? I am beginning to have my concerns."
But wait, here is the coup-de-gras:
Mr Cheney has been under fire for his role in assembling evidence of weapons of mass destruction. Mr Wilkerson told the Associated Press that the vice-president must have sincerely believed Iraq could be a spawning ground for terrorism because "otherwise I have to declare him a moron, an idiot or a nefarious bastard".
Where has Mr. Powell been lately? I would certainly like to know what he thinks of his bud, Mr. Wilkerson? It's way past time to clean out the State Department.
From the Guardian UK:
Lawrence Wilkerson, who served as chief of staff to secretary of state Colin Powell from 2002 to 2005, singled out Mr Cheney in a wide-ranging political assault on the BBC's Today programme.
Mr Wilkerson said that in an internal administration debate over whether to abide by the Geneva conventions in the treatment of detainees, Mr Cheney led the argument "that essentially wanted to do away with all restrictions".
Asked whether the vice-president was guilty of a war crime, Mr Wilkerson replied: "Well, that's an interesting question - it was certainly a domestic crime to advocate terror and I would suspect that it is ... an international crime as well."
Colin Powell's Chief of Staff at the State Department has said that Vice-President is a war criminal; a terrorist. For good measure he throws in the following smear:
Mr Wilkerson, a former army colonel, also said he had seen increasing evidence that the White House had manipulated pre-war intelligence on Iraq to make its case for the invasion. He said: "You begin to wonder was this intelligence spun? Was it politicised? Was it cherry-picked? Did, in fact, the American people get fooled? I am beginning to have my concerns."
But wait, here is the coup-de-gras:
Mr Cheney has been under fire for his role in assembling evidence of weapons of mass destruction. Mr Wilkerson told the Associated Press that the vice-president must have sincerely believed Iraq could be a spawning ground for terrorism because "otherwise I have to declare him a moron, an idiot or a nefarious bastard".
Where has Mr. Powell been lately? I would certainly like to know what he thinks of his bud, Mr. Wilkerson? It's way past time to clean out the State Department.
Montreal Climate Summit - Day Two
From an AP article:
"U.S. under fire as Kyoto Protocol members hash out rules for global treaty to cut greenhouse gas emissions "
This 10 day America Bash is being attended by 8,000 environmentalists, scientists and government officials.
"U.S. comments that it would resist any binding commitment to curb global warming by capping industrial emissions infuriated environmentalists, who accused Washington of trying to derail the U.N. Climate Change Conference.
"When you walk around the conference hall here, delegates are saying there are lots of issues on the agenda, but there's only one real problem, and that's the United States," said Bill Hare of Greenpeace International."
So the environmentalists are infuriated because the US claims that:
1. It has reduced carbon emissions more than the Kyoto signatories.
2. In regard to the 2005 Hurricanes, there is a difference between climate and extreme weather.
Who elected these enviros to any office? Why must a soverign nation's energy policy be directed by a cabal of unknown watermelons?
"U.S. under fire as Kyoto Protocol members hash out rules for global treaty to cut greenhouse gas emissions "
This 10 day America Bash is being attended by 8,000 environmentalists, scientists and government officials.
"U.S. comments that it would resist any binding commitment to curb global warming by capping industrial emissions infuriated environmentalists, who accused Washington of trying to derail the U.N. Climate Change Conference.
"When you walk around the conference hall here, delegates are saying there are lots of issues on the agenda, but there's only one real problem, and that's the United States," said Bill Hare of Greenpeace International."
So the environmentalists are infuriated because the US claims that:
1. It has reduced carbon emissions more than the Kyoto signatories.
2. In regard to the 2005 Hurricanes, there is a difference between climate and extreme weather.
Who elected these enviros to any office? Why must a soverign nation's energy policy be directed by a cabal of unknown watermelons?
Tuesday, November 29, 2005
"We live in an age of outrageous credulity."
From an editorial in the London Telegraph entitled "God isn't big enough for some people", Umberto Eco writes that we are "religious animals" and needing to justify our existence, find values and deal with our mortality we turn to religion.
He writes that in post-Christian Europe/UK :
The "death of God", or at least the dying of the Christian God, has been accompanied by the birth of a plethora of new idols...
G K Chesterton is often credited with observing: "When a man ceases to believe in God, he doesn't believe in nothing. He believes in anything." Whoever said it - he was right. We are supposed to live in a sceptical age. In fact, we live in an age of outrageous credulity...
The existing religions just aren't big enough: we demand something more from God than the existing depictions in the Christian faith can provide. So we revert to the occult. The so-called occult sciences do not ever reveal any genuine secret: they only promise that there is something secret that explains and justifies everything. The great advantage of this is that it allows each person to fill up the empty secret "container" with his or her own fears and hopes.
He writes that in post-Christian Europe/UK :
The "death of God", or at least the dying of the Christian God, has been accompanied by the birth of a plethora of new idols...
G K Chesterton is often credited with observing: "When a man ceases to believe in God, he doesn't believe in nothing. He believes in anything." Whoever said it - he was right. We are supposed to live in a sceptical age. In fact, we live in an age of outrageous credulity...
The existing religions just aren't big enough: we demand something more from God than the existing depictions in the Christian faith can provide. So we revert to the occult. The so-called occult sciences do not ever reveal any genuine secret: they only promise that there is something secret that explains and justifies everything. The great advantage of this is that it allows each person to fill up the empty secret "container" with his or her own fears and hopes.
Why the Canadian Government collapsed.
Yesterday, the the Liberal Party was essentially kicked out of power and must stand for new elections right after the first of the year. They were brought down by a real corruption scandal committed as only Francophones can do it. Canadian taxpayers were bilked out tens of millions of dollars during Chretein's administration.
Canada's auditor general in 2004 determined that about $127 million from Chretien's national unity fund went to Liberal-friendly ad firms for little or no apparent work in return. The program was designed to promote national unity in Quebec following the narrow defeat of a separatist referendum in the French-speaking province.
Investigators also determined that the Liberal Party funneled millions of dollars from the slush fund into their own campaign accounts in Quebec, infuriating Canadians who have likened the "sponsorship scandal" as their own version of Watergate.
The Government is suing for the return of $49.7 million.
Note to rabid anti-Bush leftwingers ala Mick "Crocodile" Dundee:
"You call that a scandal? Now, this is a scandal."
BTW, The Clinton Administration had far more indictments handed down against them than Bush has. In fact, it was dozens for Clinton versus 1 for Bush. Do your homework before you hysterically claim that "this is the most corrupt administration in history."
Canada's auditor general in 2004 determined that about $127 million from Chretien's national unity fund went to Liberal-friendly ad firms for little or no apparent work in return. The program was designed to promote national unity in Quebec following the narrow defeat of a separatist referendum in the French-speaking province.
Investigators also determined that the Liberal Party funneled millions of dollars from the slush fund into their own campaign accounts in Quebec, infuriating Canadians who have likened the "sponsorship scandal" as their own version of Watergate.
The Government is suing for the return of $49.7 million.
Note to rabid anti-Bush leftwingers ala Mick "Crocodile" Dundee:
"You call that a scandal? Now, this is a scandal."
BTW, The Clinton Administration had far more indictments handed down against them than Bush has. In fact, it was dozens for Clinton versus 1 for Bush. Do your homework before you hysterically claim that "this is the most corrupt administration in history."
Montreal Climate Summit - Day One
From an AP story by Beth Duff-Brown.
Leading environmental groups spent the first hours of the conference blasting Washington for not signing the landmark 1997 agreement that sets targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions around the world.
Elizabeth May of the Sierra Club Canada, however, accused the world's biggest polluter of trying to derail the Kyoto accord, which has been ratified by 140 nations.
"We have a lot of positive, constructive American engagement here in Montreal _ and none of it's from the Bush administration, which represents the single biggest threat to global progress," May said.
Read what The BBC reported here. Evidently, they too felt the need to needle the US noting that environmentalists scoffed at the US claim to have reduced CO2 emissions by .8%
Maybe it's time to get the NGO's out of the process. As I suspected, It's more "Shame on the US, the biggest polluter." Not one word in the articles about France and Germany missing their Kyoto goals.
So far, we have heard from Green Peace and now the Sierra Club. If the MSM was worth a damn, we would know just who and what these organizations are all about. But that's not going to happen. They're more interested in looking at the political angle than they are in actually reporting a story.
For a different story on US efforts to curb emissions, see this website which claims that the US will be vindicated at Montreal with, “The rest of the developed world is now jumping on the bandwagon that the Bush Administration has been driving for more than three years,” Burnett said. “Welcome aboard!”
In addition, the U.S. has spent in excess of $6 billion per year, more than any other government, to create and promote technologies that will reduce emissions yet also promote economic growth. For example:
$700 million in tax credits to promote clean technologies
$3 billion in research into new clean technologies
$200 million to transfer clean technologies to developing countries
“Industry is on course to meet the Bush Administration’s goal of reducing annual emissions of greenhouse gases by 1.5 percent of gross domestic product, and that’s more than can be said for most Kyoto signatory nations,” Burnett added.
Leading environmental groups spent the first hours of the conference blasting Washington for not signing the landmark 1997 agreement that sets targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions around the world.
Elizabeth May of the Sierra Club Canada, however, accused the world's biggest polluter of trying to derail the Kyoto accord, which has been ratified by 140 nations.
"We have a lot of positive, constructive American engagement here in Montreal _ and none of it's from the Bush administration, which represents the single biggest threat to global progress," May said.
Read what The BBC reported here. Evidently, they too felt the need to needle the US noting that environmentalists scoffed at the US claim to have reduced CO2 emissions by .8%
Maybe it's time to get the NGO's out of the process. As I suspected, It's more "Shame on the US, the biggest polluter." Not one word in the articles about France and Germany missing their Kyoto goals.
So far, we have heard from Green Peace and now the Sierra Club. If the MSM was worth a damn, we would know just who and what these organizations are all about. But that's not going to happen. They're more interested in looking at the political angle than they are in actually reporting a story.
For a different story on US efforts to curb emissions, see this website which claims that the US will be vindicated at Montreal with, “The rest of the developed world is now jumping on the bandwagon that the Bush Administration has been driving for more than three years,” Burnett said. “Welcome aboard!”
In addition, the U.S. has spent in excess of $6 billion per year, more than any other government, to create and promote technologies that will reduce emissions yet also promote economic growth. For example:
$700 million in tax credits to promote clean technologies
$3 billion in research into new clean technologies
$200 million to transfer clean technologies to developing countries
“Industry is on course to meet the Bush Administration’s goal of reducing annual emissions of greenhouse gases by 1.5 percent of gross domestic product, and that’s more than can be said for most Kyoto signatory nations,” Burnett added.
Monday, November 28, 2005
United Nations Montreal Climate Summit
A climate summit will be held in Montreal in February. This is first U.N. climate conference to be held since Kyoto went into effect. Read the BBC story here.
"The one thing that we don't want to see, and cannot afford, is to allow this US administration to hold the rest of the world hostage, while they go on about voluntary this and voluntary that, which doesn't in the end produce anything." Steve Sawyer of Greenpeace.
To set the stage, Al Gore went to Kyoto and met with various NGO's like the Sierra Club, and Greenpeace although, I don't recall hearing anything about whether he met with the actual energy producers. He then negotiated the abomination known as Kyoto, which put a huge burden for carbon dioxide reduction on the developed nations and left China, India and Africa completely off the hook. The U.S. Senate recognizing that the US would pay an unfair burden, refused to ratify the Kyoto Protocol and President Clinton refused to promote it. Can you imagine that. The Vice President crafts the greatest environmental treaty of the 20th century and his President refuses to endorse it? The left wing media pretty much ignored that angle as Clinton and Gore were given a pass by the MSM. Instead, George Bush became the scapegoat and the Europeans and the NGO's have been blaming Bush ever since. Interestingly, the Euros have already failed to meet their Kyoto carbon dioxide reduction targets and have found that it will cost them a lot of money to do so. So now, someone wants to drag everyone back to the negotiating table, where the extremists can find a new way to bind the participants to mandated reductions.
We already know who one of the interested parties is: Greenpeace.
It will be interesting to find out who the other players are and what they have in mind.
"The one thing that we don't want to see, and cannot afford, is to allow this US administration to hold the rest of the world hostage, while they go on about voluntary this and voluntary that, which doesn't in the end produce anything." Steve Sawyer of Greenpeace.
To set the stage, Al Gore went to Kyoto and met with various NGO's like the Sierra Club, and Greenpeace although, I don't recall hearing anything about whether he met with the actual energy producers. He then negotiated the abomination known as Kyoto, which put a huge burden for carbon dioxide reduction on the developed nations and left China, India and Africa completely off the hook. The U.S. Senate recognizing that the US would pay an unfair burden, refused to ratify the Kyoto Protocol and President Clinton refused to promote it. Can you imagine that. The Vice President crafts the greatest environmental treaty of the 20th century and his President refuses to endorse it? The left wing media pretty much ignored that angle as Clinton and Gore were given a pass by the MSM. Instead, George Bush became the scapegoat and the Europeans and the NGO's have been blaming Bush ever since. Interestingly, the Euros have already failed to meet their Kyoto carbon dioxide reduction targets and have found that it will cost them a lot of money to do so. So now, someone wants to drag everyone back to the negotiating table, where the extremists can find a new way to bind the participants to mandated reductions.
We already know who one of the interested parties is: Greenpeace.
It will be interesting to find out who the other players are and what they have in mind.
Saturday, November 26, 2005
Friday, November 25, 2005
What Do Democrats Believe?
"Democrats believe that they should be governing the United States of America."
That's it. That's what they believe. In fact, they are obsessed with this belief.
This obsession drives them to do and say anything that will cast the Bush Administration in a negative light. Having been out of power (to one degree or another) since 1992, they are becoming more desperate as evidenced by their increasingly irrational rhetoric, tactics and antics.
In the 2000 election, they tried to masquerade Al Gore as a moderate but his bizarre behaviour and bombastic rhetoric reveal his true political identity.
In 2004, when it became apparent that the "unelectable" Howard Dean was on his way to the party nomination, the Democrate elites colluded with the MSM to annoint Vietnam Vet Kerry as the party standard bearer. The effort failed.
After these two failures, mainstream Democrats wrested control and Dr. Dean became the chairman of the now inscrutable party.
Trying to understand the Democrats is an exercise in futility. It's like trying to understand the irrationality of a megolamaniac. One only need to accept them for what they are. Pathologically desperate to have their way. One may as well expect honor and rationality from the Palestinians. They just don't give a damn about what they have said or done or previously agreed to. They are rabid for power and if they cannot govern absolutely, they will only obstruct.
Given their now pathological irrationality, there's no talking to them anymore. Like the Palestinians, they cannot be trusted and only believe in only one thing. That is: regaining power.
That must not be allowed to happen.
Tuesday, November 22, 2005
Florida is getting more bizarre
Bonita Springs man accidentally hit in genitals by Taser
The Associated Press
FORT MYERS BEACH, Fla. - A naked man was accidentally shocked in the genitals by a Taser after he was found breaking windows and asking women to touch him inappropriately, police said.
Read the whole story here.
The Associated Press
FORT MYERS BEACH, Fla. - A naked man was accidentally shocked in the genitals by a Taser after he was found breaking windows and asking women to touch him inappropriately, police said.
Read the whole story here.
Alawites are worried in Syria
From the BBC,
Syria's minority Alawites fear for future
By Kim Ghattas BBC News, Read here.
"Alawites worry they are the ones that are going to eat all the revenge and discrimination"
What the article didn't mention is that about 20 years ago there were widespread reports that Hafez al-Assad's regime killed 70,ooo - 80,000 people including up to 40,000 in the 1982 Hama massacre where people were killed by poison gas.
So yes, the Alawites should be worried and the fact that they are is good news. Change is in the wind in the Middle East. The question is - who will most affect that change? Salafists, Wahhabis, Iranians, or the West?
George Bush deserves a lot of credit for bringing a freedom movement to the Arab world. Because of politics he's not getting it. The invasion of Iraq and overthrow of Saddam Hussein have so far resulted in Libya's Muammar al-Qaddafi renouncing terror and giving up his nuclear arms program, The first election in Egypt and a growing freedom movement there, Syria's pullout from Lebanon, democratic elections in Iraq and a growing resistance movement in Iran.
Syria's minority Alawites fear for future
By Kim Ghattas BBC News, Read here.
"Alawites worry they are the ones that are going to eat all the revenge and discrimination"
What the article didn't mention is that about 20 years ago there were widespread reports that Hafez al-Assad's regime killed 70,ooo - 80,000 people including up to 40,000 in the 1982 Hama massacre where people were killed by poison gas.
So yes, the Alawites should be worried and the fact that they are is good news. Change is in the wind in the Middle East. The question is - who will most affect that change? Salafists, Wahhabis, Iranians, or the West?
George Bush deserves a lot of credit for bringing a freedom movement to the Arab world. Because of politics he's not getting it. The invasion of Iraq and overthrow of Saddam Hussein have so far resulted in Libya's Muammar al-Qaddafi renouncing terror and giving up his nuclear arms program, The first election in Egypt and a growing freedom movement there, Syria's pullout from Lebanon, democratic elections in Iraq and a growing resistance movement in Iran.
Monday, November 21, 2005
A 109 year old World War One Veteran has died in Scotland.
Alfred Anderson, the last surviving soldier to have heard the guns fall silent along the Western Front during the spontaneous "Christmas Truce" of World War I, died Monday at age 109. More than 80 years after the war, Anderson recalled the "eerie sound of silence" as shooting stopped and soldiers clambered from trenches to greet one another Dec. 25, 1914.
Read the story here.
Read the story here.
"Graham unwittingly destroys the "Bush lied" argument
Bob Graham former Democratic Senator from Florida and Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI) had an op-ed piece in the Sunday Washington Post. He said that Bush's claims that Senate Democrats had the same intelligence as the Whitehouse were "outrageous." He wrote that President Bush has "undermined trust" and is not trustworthy. He dredged up his previous claim that Tommy Franks told him in Feb 2002 that "the war was being compromised as specialized personnel and equipment were being shifted from Afghanistan to prepare for the war in Iraq -- a war more than a year away."
Tommy Franks has previously denied Graham's claim.
Graham claimed that in Sept 2002, he asked George Tenet for a National Intelligence Estimate which he received six weeks later. The gist of the piece was that the Bush administration was intent on invading Iraq even though the "Intelligence" did not support such a distraction from the war in Afghanistan.
Jed Babbin inThe American Spectator makes the case that "Graham unwittingly destroys the "Bush lied" argument more thoroughly than any Republican could." He says that since Graham claimed to know about the "defective intelligence," he and his fellow Democrats on the SSCI had an obligation to let the other Senate Democrat know about it. Babbin writes, "There are only two possibilities that arise from Graham's statements: either Graham and his fellow SSCI Dems didn't try to warn others that the administration's case for the war (and the evidence supporting it) was fallacious, or the other Dems simply didn't believe him. There's no third choice.
Bob Graham was in a position of power and responsibility from which he could have raised objections publicly, and warned both his colleagues and the American people that the case for war was a fraud if that is what he believed. He could have taken detailed classified objections to the president, the secretary of state and the secretary of defense, as well as the director of the CIA. But he didn't. Why? Because he didn't believe the case against the war? Or because he didn't believe then what he conveniently believes now. "
Tommy Franks has previously denied Graham's claim.
Graham claimed that in Sept 2002, he asked George Tenet for a National Intelligence Estimate which he received six weeks later. The gist of the piece was that the Bush administration was intent on invading Iraq even though the "Intelligence" did not support such a distraction from the war in Afghanistan.
Jed Babbin inThe American Spectator makes the case that "Graham unwittingly destroys the "Bush lied" argument more thoroughly than any Republican could." He says that since Graham claimed to know about the "defective intelligence," he and his fellow Democrats on the SSCI had an obligation to let the other Senate Democrat know about it. Babbin writes, "There are only two possibilities that arise from Graham's statements: either Graham and his fellow SSCI Dems didn't try to warn others that the administration's case for the war (and the evidence supporting it) was fallacious, or the other Dems simply didn't believe him. There's no third choice.
Bob Graham was in a position of power and responsibility from which he could have raised objections publicly, and warned both his colleagues and the American people that the case for war was a fraud if that is what he believed. He could have taken detailed classified objections to the president, the secretary of state and the secretary of defense, as well as the director of the CIA. But he didn't. Why? Because he didn't believe the case against the war? Or because he didn't believe then what he conveniently believes now. "
From Their Own Traitorist Mouths
A challenge to all Democrats - sit through all of this, if you can stomach it! - Tiger
http://media1.streamtoyou.com/rnc/111505.wmv
"A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself." —Marcus Tullius Cicero
http://media1.streamtoyou.com/rnc/111505.wmv
"A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself." —Marcus Tullius Cicero
On This Day in History
From the BBC News, On this day,
November 21, 1979.
U.S. Embassy in Islamabad, Pakistan was attacked by a mob in a five hour seige precipitated by the Iranian leader, Ayatollah Khomeini's claim that Americans were behind the occupation of Islam's holiest site, the Great Mosque in Mecca, Saudi Arabia, the day before.
A U.S. Marine standing on the roof of the embassy was shot dead.
The Saudi Arabian authorities stated the Mecca incident was the work of Muslim fundamentalists and no Westerners were involved.
It's very interesting thay 26 years later the same tactics are being used. Muslim fundamentalists, commit some atrocity or heinous act and other Muslims blame either the United States or the Jews or both.
November 21, 1979.
U.S. Embassy in Islamabad, Pakistan was attacked by a mob in a five hour seige precipitated by the Iranian leader, Ayatollah Khomeini's claim that Americans were behind the occupation of Islam's holiest site, the Great Mosque in Mecca, Saudi Arabia, the day before.
A U.S. Marine standing on the roof of the embassy was shot dead.
The Saudi Arabian authorities stated the Mecca incident was the work of Muslim fundamentalists and no Westerners were involved.
It's very interesting thay 26 years later the same tactics are being used. Muslim fundamentalists, commit some atrocity or heinous act and other Muslims blame either the United States or the Jews or both.
Sunday, November 20, 2005
Just imagine if Bush had done nothing...
From the Weekly Standard, Joel Engel's article "They Left Him No Choice" gives us a timely reminder of George Bush's post 9/11 dilemma.
Think about this from the president's point of view: Much of the country is calling for your head regarding your alleged failure to prevent 9/11 when no firm intelligence predicted such a thing. Do you really have any choice but to act on the overwhelming amount of clear evidence that says bad things are happening beneath hidden bunkers in Iraq? No. You have no other way out than to fight preemptively. If you don't, well, heaven forbid another attack is made on American soil--with grotesque weapons that came out of Iraq after sanctions were lifted and Saddam's WMD program was reconstituted (as the Duelfur Report later extrapolated).
At his impeachment trial, shortly before conviction, the president would have been made to endure a verbatim recitation of the many dire warnings about Iraq and Saddam Hussein uttered by Democrats Ted Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi, Al Gore, Bill Clinton, Sandy Berger, and Madeline Albright. "Iraq is a long way from [here]," Secretary of State Albright said on February 18, 1998, "but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Think about this from the president's point of view: Much of the country is calling for your head regarding your alleged failure to prevent 9/11 when no firm intelligence predicted such a thing. Do you really have any choice but to act on the overwhelming amount of clear evidence that says bad things are happening beneath hidden bunkers in Iraq? No. You have no other way out than to fight preemptively. If you don't, well, heaven forbid another attack is made on American soil--with grotesque weapons that came out of Iraq after sanctions were lifted and Saddam's WMD program was reconstituted (as the Duelfur Report later extrapolated).
At his impeachment trial, shortly before conviction, the president would have been made to endure a verbatim recitation of the many dire warnings about Iraq and Saddam Hussein uttered by Democrats Ted Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi, Al Gore, Bill Clinton, Sandy Berger, and Madeline Albright. "Iraq is a long way from [here]," Secretary of State Albright said on February 18, 1998, "but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
"Call them what they are -- TRAITORS"
Mark Alexander has a column at Townhall.com entitled
"Call them what they are -- TRAITORS"
He includes the following:
The Iraq Liberation Act: Passed by the U.S. Congress and signed by Bill Clinton in 1998, the Act stated,
"It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq, and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime."
He includes a number of Democrat quotes which they cannot run away from and they will not be able to blame Bush for misleading them. He also gives credit to the most honorable and principled of all the Senate Democrats - Senator Joe Liberman.
Read more here.
"Call them what they are -- TRAITORS"
He includes the following:
The Iraq Liberation Act: Passed by the U.S. Congress and signed by Bill Clinton in 1998, the Act stated,
"It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq, and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime."
He includes a number of Democrat quotes which they cannot run away from and they will not be able to blame Bush for misleading them. He also gives credit to the most honorable and principled of all the Senate Democrats - Senator Joe Liberman.
Read more here.
Friday, November 18, 2005
Okay Mr. Murtha, we'll raise you...
.... and call. Let's see 'em.
An AP report:
WASHINGTON - House Republicans, seeing an opportunity, maneuvered for a quick vote and swift rejection Friday of a Democratic lawmaker's call for an immediate troop withdrawal from Iraq.
"We want to make sure that we support our troops that are fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan," said Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill. "We will not retreat."
Murtha offered a resolution that would force the president to withdraw the nearly 160,000 troops in Iraq "at the earliest practicable date." It would establish a quick-reaction force and a nearby presence of Marines in the region.
House Republicans planned to put to a vote _ and reject _ their own resolution that simply says: "It is the sense of the House of Representatives that the deployment of United States forces in Iraq be terminated immediately."
Read more here.
It's time to stand up and be counted, Gentlemen.
Update: The vote was 403-3 against immediate withdrawal.
An AP report:
WASHINGTON - House Republicans, seeing an opportunity, maneuvered for a quick vote and swift rejection Friday of a Democratic lawmaker's call for an immediate troop withdrawal from Iraq.
"We want to make sure that we support our troops that are fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan," said Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill. "We will not retreat."
Murtha offered a resolution that would force the president to withdraw the nearly 160,000 troops in Iraq "at the earliest practicable date." It would establish a quick-reaction force and a nearby presence of Marines in the region.
House Republicans planned to put to a vote _ and reject _ their own resolution that simply says: "It is the sense of the House of Representatives that the deployment of United States forces in Iraq be terminated immediately."
Read more here.
It's time to stand up and be counted, Gentlemen.
Update: The vote was 403-3 against immediate withdrawal.
Former CIA Head calls Cheney "VP For Torture"
The Headline Reads 'Cheney is vice president for torture' Read here.
The war against the Bush administration continues on all fronts. A former CIA director, Admiral Stansfield Turner has claimed that torture is condoned and even approved by the Bush government and called Cheney "a vice president for torture," He thinks Bush is lying when he says that we do not torture people and that he is embarassed "the United States has a vice president for torture.
It sounds to me like another leftist American spouting off in Europe. I've noticed that they go over there and try to curry favor by being especially anti-American.
This is absolutely outrageous, irresponsible despicable behaviour even from a partisan hack like Stansfield Turner. It is unforgiveable. This drive to bring down Bush's polling numbers is more than that. When his popularity is so low, that not even Republicans will stand by him, they will impeach him. Also, look for many more calls for him to be tried as a war criminal.
The war against the Bush administration continues on all fronts. A former CIA director, Admiral Stansfield Turner has claimed that torture is condoned and even approved by the Bush government and called Cheney "a vice president for torture," He thinks Bush is lying when he says that we do not torture people and that he is embarassed "the United States has a vice president for torture.
It sounds to me like another leftist American spouting off in Europe. I've noticed that they go over there and try to curry favor by being especially anti-American.
This is absolutely outrageous, irresponsible despicable behaviour even from a partisan hack like Stansfield Turner. It is unforgiveable. This drive to bring down Bush's polling numbers is more than that. When his popularity is so low, that not even Republicans will stand by him, they will impeach him. Also, look for many more calls for him to be tried as a war criminal.
Thursday, November 17, 2005
In the Twlight Zone with Mary Mapes
Mary Mapes is the former CBS Sixty-Minutes producer responsible for dethroning her boss - broadcast legend Dan Rather. Like regrouped Baathist insurgents, she has been making the sympathetic talk-show rounds hawking her book about the short-lived, easily discredited hatchet job on the Bush re-election campaign. The gist of the story was that George W. Bush while serving in the Texas Air National Guard (read draft evader) was accorded favorable treatment due to his family connections. They claimed that Mr. Bush had missed mandatory flight physical evaluations and had failed to serve the full term of his enlistment. Bloggers shot down their proof as forgeries and the accusers went down in flames.
Why doesn't someone ask Ms. Mapes why she and Mr. Rather reserved their righteous indignation for one veteran but ignored the war record of the other Vietnam era veteran seeking the Office the Presidency of the United States of America. After all, John F. Kerry was a confessed war criminal and by his own words had engaged in and covered up atrocities against humanity. Furthermore, he had the audacity to run for the highest office in the land. How could they fail to stand for all that is "good and true" by not opposing such an outrage?
Be assured that if George W. Bush had John Kerry's war record, he would not be the President today.
While Ms. Mapes cries about the vast right-wing blogosphere conspiracy that tragically wronged her, Dan has been rather silent lately.
Why doesn't someone ask Ms. Mapes why she and Mr. Rather reserved their righteous indignation for one veteran but ignored the war record of the other Vietnam era veteran seeking the Office the Presidency of the United States of America. After all, John F. Kerry was a confessed war criminal and by his own words had engaged in and covered up atrocities against humanity. Furthermore, he had the audacity to run for the highest office in the land. How could they fail to stand for all that is "good and true" by not opposing such an outrage?
Be assured that if George W. Bush had John Kerry's war record, he would not be the President today.
While Ms. Mapes cries about the vast right-wing blogosphere conspiracy that tragically wronged her, Dan has been rather silent lately.
Wednesday, November 16, 2005
BBC Hopes to nail U.S. with something, anything.
In an effort to keep legs under the U.S. used chemical weapons in Falluja story, the lead headline on the BBC News website is: "Iraq probes US phosphorus weapons "
They describe the horrific effect of white phosporous burning flesh to the bone.
They reported that Italian anti-war demonstrators were enraged when they were told that the U.S. had used it in Falluja.
I guess they're hoping and praying that the outrage will spread.
A Harbinger of Evil
My dusty, old but good Webster's Unabridged defines the word "omen" as: "a thing or occurrence thought to portend good or evil; a sign or indication of some future event ...".
For many years now myself and others have made fun of, and laughed aloud at, the lunatic musings of the "one-world government" conspirators. It's easy to think ill of these folks when life seems so good in our present day. The chuckles subside rapidly as one delves into the reality of things.
The U.S. has once again staved off the U.N.'s oft attempted usurpation of the "World Wide Web" (see article). http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,175717,00.html This event is significant because of what the U.N has publically said it would do with "WWW" once it wrestles control from the archenemy, America ( http://www.un.org/english/ ). Like other worldwide "laws" the U.N. would create, confiscation of all guns from private citizens, for example, the U.N. has stated the following concerning the "WWW".
1. A tax on each email delivered.
2. A tax on all internet connections.
3. User fees (tax) on all public and private institutions accessing the "WWW".
4. Control over all content on the web and eradication of all material that fails to promote the "one-world ethic", devisive religious material, for example.
... the list goes on.
What would the U.N. do with this money? Why, support the U.N. and it's domination over world leaders, of course. Does a Republican really seem different than a Democrat where the U.N. is concerned? No, I don't think so... and, my apologies to all those one-world conspiracy folks. 'Cause, you are absolutely correct!
For many years now myself and others have made fun of, and laughed aloud at, the lunatic musings of the "one-world government" conspirators. It's easy to think ill of these folks when life seems so good in our present day. The chuckles subside rapidly as one delves into the reality of things.
The U.S. has once again staved off the U.N.'s oft attempted usurpation of the "World Wide Web" (see article). http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,175717,00.html This event is significant because of what the U.N has publically said it would do with "WWW" once it wrestles control from the archenemy, America ( http://www.un.org/english/ ). Like other worldwide "laws" the U.N. would create, confiscation of all guns from private citizens, for example, the U.N. has stated the following concerning the "WWW".
1. A tax on each email delivered.
2. A tax on all internet connections.
3. User fees (tax) on all public and private institutions accessing the "WWW".
4. Control over all content on the web and eradication of all material that fails to promote the "one-world ethic", devisive religious material, for example.
... the list goes on.
What would the U.N. do with this money? Why, support the U.N. and it's domination over world leaders, of course. Does a Republican really seem different than a Democrat where the U.N. is concerned? No, I don't think so... and, my apologies to all those one-world conspiracy folks. 'Cause, you are absolutely correct!
Relentless hyenas
The Presidents enemies, i.e. Democrats and Leftists, are in full throated attack. With moderates like John McCain and Lindsey Graham, the Senate passed a resolution calling for unneeded new laws which tie the hands of our military in getting information from terrorists. Also, in their Senatorial wisdom they have granted constitutional protections to enemy combatants as well as offering Gitmo detainees access to U.S. Courts for appeal of Military Tribunal sentencing.
The Democrats are playing a dangerously myopic game of politics. It is apparent that they will do or say anything to get back into power and the Republicans have no backbone to fight them. If the Democrats are successful and somehow regain control of Washington, they will have no credibility either domestically or internationally as they have demonstrated to the world that they have no principles.
I am increasingly disgusted with all of them.
The Democrats are playing a dangerously myopic game of politics. It is apparent that they will do or say anything to get back into power and the Republicans have no backbone to fight them. If the Democrats are successful and somehow regain control of Washington, they will have no credibility either domestically or internationally as they have demonstrated to the world that they have no principles.
I am increasingly disgusted with all of them.
Friday, November 11, 2005
And the critics howled
The Associated Press reported
Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada said Democrats would continue to press for a full airing of the facts about prewar intelligence and said asking tough questions was his party's way of standing with the troops. "Americans seek the truth about how the nation committed our troops to war because the decision to go to war is too serious to be entered into under faulty pretenses," Reid said.
Kerry accused the president of playing politics on a holiday set aside to honor veterans.
"This administration misled a nation into war by cherry-picking intelligence and stretching the truth beyond recognition. That's why Scooter Libby has been indicted. That's why a statement in the State of the Union Address was retracted," said Kerry, who voted in 2002 to give Bush the authority to wage war but later voted against additional funds for Iraq and Afghanistan reconstruction. "It's a dangerous day for our national security when an administration's word is no good," Kerry said.
Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., accused Bush of using Veterans Day as "a campaign-like attempt to rebuild his own credibility by tearing down those who seek the truth about the clear manipulation of intelligence in the run-up to the Iraq War."
The BBC reported
Harry Reid of Nevada said this week Americans deserved to "get the truth about why the White House cherry-picked and leaked intelligence to sell the war in Iraq".
"The president may think this matter can be swept under the rug or pardoned away, but Democrats know America can do better," he added.
Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada said Democrats would continue to press for a full airing of the facts about prewar intelligence and said asking tough questions was his party's way of standing with the troops. "Americans seek the truth about how the nation committed our troops to war because the decision to go to war is too serious to be entered into under faulty pretenses," Reid said.
Kerry accused the president of playing politics on a holiday set aside to honor veterans.
"This administration misled a nation into war by cherry-picking intelligence and stretching the truth beyond recognition. That's why Scooter Libby has been indicted. That's why a statement in the State of the Union Address was retracted," said Kerry, who voted in 2002 to give Bush the authority to wage war but later voted against additional funds for Iraq and Afghanistan reconstruction. "It's a dangerous day for our national security when an administration's word is no good," Kerry said.
Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., accused Bush of using Veterans Day as "a campaign-like attempt to rebuild his own credibility by tearing down those who seek the truth about the clear manipulation of intelligence in the run-up to the Iraq War."
The BBC reported
Harry Reid of Nevada said this week Americans deserved to "get the truth about why the White House cherry-picked and leaked intelligence to sell the war in Iraq".
"The president may think this matter can be swept under the rug or pardoned away, but Democrats know America can do better," he added.
President Bush's Veterans Day Speech
In a speech today, President Bush answered the clamoring chorus of anti-war critics.
Here is a good article which includes the speech.
In the speech he:
1. Identified the enemy.
"Some call this evil Islamic radicalism; others, militant Jihadism; and still others, Islamo-fascism...The terrorists are as brutal an enemy as we've ever faced, unconstrained by any notion of our common humanity or by the rules of warfare. No one should underestimate the difficulties ahead, nor should they overlook the advantages we bring to this fight."
2. Described their goals:
3. He explained how we are reacting to and countering the threat of global terrorism
Partnering with other government, reorganizing our government and intelligence community. We are also determined to "deny weapons of mass destruction to outlaw regimes, and to their terrorist allies who would use them without hesitation...we're determined to deny radical groups the support and sanctuary of outlaw regimes. State sponsors like Syria and Iran have a long history of collaboration with terrorists, and they deserve no patience from the victims of terror. The United States makes no distinction between those who commit acts of terror and those who support and harbor them, because they're equally guilty of murder."
4. He answered his critics:
"And our debate at home must also be fair-minded... When I made the decision to remove Saddam Hussein from power, Congress approved it with strong bipartisan support... While it's perfectly legitimate to criticize my decision or the conduct of the war, it is deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how that war began. Some Democrats and anti-war critics are now claiming we manipulated the intelligence and misled the American people about why we went to war. These critics are fully aware that a bipartisan Senate investigation found no evidence of political pressure to change the intelligence community's judgments related to Iraq's weapons programs.They also know that intelligence agencies from around the world agreed with our assessment of Saddam Hussein. They know the United Nations passed more than a dozen resolutions citing his development and possession of weapons of mass destruction. And many of these critics supported my opponent during the last election, who explained his position to support the resolution in the Congress this way: "When I vote to give the President of the United States the authority to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein, it is because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a threat, and a grave threat, to our security." That's why more than a hundred Democrats in the House and the Senate — who had access to the same intelligence — voted to support removing Saddam Hussein from power. The stakes in the global war on terror are too high, and the national interest is too important, for politicians to throw out false charges. These baseless attacks send the wrong signal to our troops and to an enemy that is questioning America's will. As our troops fight a ruthless enemy determined to destroy our way of life, they deserve to know that their elected leaders who voted to send them to war continue to stand behind them. Our troops deserve to know that this support will remain firm when the going gets tough. And our troops deserve to know that whatever our differences in Washington, our will is strong, our nation is united, and we will settle for nothing less than victory."
Here is a good article which includes the speech.
In the speech he:
1. Identified the enemy.
"Some call this evil Islamic radicalism; others, militant Jihadism; and still others, Islamo-fascism...The terrorists are as brutal an enemy as we've ever faced, unconstrained by any notion of our common humanity or by the rules of warfare. No one should underestimate the difficulties ahead, nor should they overlook the advantages we bring to this fight."
2. Described their goals:
First, these extremists want to end American and Western influence in the broader Middle East, because we stand for democracy and peace, and stand in the way of their ambitions. Al Qaeda's leader, Osama bin Laden, has called on Muslims to dedicate, their "resources, their sons and money to driving the infidels out of our lands." The tactics of al Qaeda and other Islamic extremists have been consistent for a quarter of a century: They hit us, and expect us to run.
Second, the militant network wants to use the vacuum created by an American retreat to gain control of a country — a base from which to launch attacks and conduct their war against non-radical Muslim governments.
Third, these militants believe that controlling one country will rally the Muslim masses, enabling them to overthrow all moderate governments in the region, and establish a radical Islamic empire that spans from Spain to Indonesia.3. He explained how we are reacting to and countering the threat of global terrorism
Partnering with other government, reorganizing our government and intelligence community. We are also determined to "deny weapons of mass destruction to outlaw regimes, and to their terrorist allies who would use them without hesitation...we're determined to deny radical groups the support and sanctuary of outlaw regimes. State sponsors like Syria and Iran have a long history of collaboration with terrorists, and they deserve no patience from the victims of terror. The United States makes no distinction between those who commit acts of terror and those who support and harbor them, because they're equally guilty of murder."
4. He answered his critics:
"And our debate at home must also be fair-minded... When I made the decision to remove Saddam Hussein from power, Congress approved it with strong bipartisan support... While it's perfectly legitimate to criticize my decision or the conduct of the war, it is deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how that war began. Some Democrats and anti-war critics are now claiming we manipulated the intelligence and misled the American people about why we went to war. These critics are fully aware that a bipartisan Senate investigation found no evidence of political pressure to change the intelligence community's judgments related to Iraq's weapons programs.They also know that intelligence agencies from around the world agreed with our assessment of Saddam Hussein. They know the United Nations passed more than a dozen resolutions citing his development and possession of weapons of mass destruction. And many of these critics supported my opponent during the last election, who explained his position to support the resolution in the Congress this way: "When I vote to give the President of the United States the authority to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein, it is because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a threat, and a grave threat, to our security." That's why more than a hundred Democrats in the House and the Senate — who had access to the same intelligence — voted to support removing Saddam Hussein from power. The stakes in the global war on terror are too high, and the national interest is too important, for politicians to throw out false charges. These baseless attacks send the wrong signal to our troops and to an enemy that is questioning America's will. As our troops fight a ruthless enemy determined to destroy our way of life, they deserve to know that their elected leaders who voted to send them to war continue to stand behind them. Our troops deserve to know that this support will remain firm when the going gets tough. And our troops deserve to know that whatever our differences in Washington, our will is strong, our nation is united, and we will settle for nothing less than victory."
The Weekly Treat from Victor Davis Hanson
Each week, I eagerly await Victor Davis Hanson's column at National Review On-Line . This week he has some exceptionally good advice for the Bush administration.
South America
During the recent 34-nation Summit of the Americas, President Bush was meet with hostile crowds and a critical press. In light of the current anti-Americanism promoted by Hugo Chavez with Venezuelan petro dollars, VDH thinks the following Presidential statement is in order:
Unfortunately at a time of trade imbalances, budget deficits, and security concerns, the United States regrets that it must consider first the interests of its own small businesses and workers. So sadly it must maintain or increase its protection of the domestic American market, restrict the remittances of illegal aliens back to Latin America, and close our borders to the entry of all illegal aliens from the south.
Spain
In regard to the Spanish High Court Judge Santiago Pedraz issuing international arrest warrants for three American soldiers charging them with murder in the accidental death of a Spanish cameraman at the Baghdad's Palestine Hotel on April 8, 2003. VDH asks would it not be be better if the Spanish government simply asked the United States to remove its thousands of soldiers from Spanish soil and
allow the defense of Spain to become a Spanish matter? Most Americans and Spanish alike would welcome the idea — perhaps the former far more than the latter.
Iran
...as its so-called president suggested, it might wish to wipe out Israel — either on the frightening premise it could survive such an Armageddon and Israel would not, or on the lunatic assumption that it was willing to go to a collective paradise, martyring itself to end once and for all the Zionist plague.
In response, perhaps the United States should declare something like the following:
Iran's nuclear ambitions are both an internal and regional matter that properly fall under the auspices of the U.N., EU, and Arab League. Our own strategies — missile defense and massive nuclear response to any attack — are designed to protect the United States and its allies; but we certainly would not wish to prejudice alternative avenues of national or global approaches undertaken by others, and most definitely do not wish to interfere in the internal affairs of Iran.
VDH has prescribed strong medicine, we need to take it. He goes on to say:
But for right now, the United States might benefit by not welcoming any additional free and unfair trade with South America, or spending billions on European defense, or taking on any more burdens in the Middle East.
In contrast, an India, Japan, and Australia are proud and confident nations. They don't indict our citizens and often appreciate an American global role, whether outsourcing jobs or patrolling regional waters. Unlike the U.N., the EU, and South America, they spare us the sanctimonious lectures and look forward rather than nurse wounds of the past.
The world is changing as we speak. The great untold story of our age is that others need to get a life and the United States needs to move on.
I hope someone is the Bush administration is reading Victor Davis Hanson's columns.
South America
During the recent 34-nation Summit of the Americas, President Bush was meet with hostile crowds and a critical press. In light of the current anti-Americanism promoted by Hugo Chavez with Venezuelan petro dollars, VDH thinks the following Presidential statement is in order:
Unfortunately at a time of trade imbalances, budget deficits, and security concerns, the United States regrets that it must consider first the interests of its own small businesses and workers. So sadly it must maintain or increase its protection of the domestic American market, restrict the remittances of illegal aliens back to Latin America, and close our borders to the entry of all illegal aliens from the south.
Spain
In regard to the Spanish High Court Judge Santiago Pedraz issuing international arrest warrants for three American soldiers charging them with murder in the accidental death of a Spanish cameraman at the Baghdad's Palestine Hotel on April 8, 2003. VDH asks would it not be be better if the Spanish government simply asked the United States to remove its thousands of soldiers from Spanish soil and
allow the defense of Spain to become a Spanish matter? Most Americans and Spanish alike would welcome the idea — perhaps the former far more than the latter.
Iran
...as its so-called president suggested, it might wish to wipe out Israel — either on the frightening premise it could survive such an Armageddon and Israel would not, or on the lunatic assumption that it was willing to go to a collective paradise, martyring itself to end once and for all the Zionist plague.
In response, perhaps the United States should declare something like the following:
Iran's nuclear ambitions are both an internal and regional matter that properly fall under the auspices of the U.N., EU, and Arab League. Our own strategies — missile defense and massive nuclear response to any attack — are designed to protect the United States and its allies; but we certainly would not wish to prejudice alternative avenues of national or global approaches undertaken by others, and most definitely do not wish to interfere in the internal affairs of Iran.
VDH has prescribed strong medicine, we need to take it. He goes on to say:
But for right now, the United States might benefit by not welcoming any additional free and unfair trade with South America, or spending billions on European defense, or taking on any more burdens in the Middle East.
In contrast, an India, Japan, and Australia are proud and confident nations. They don't indict our citizens and often appreciate an American global role, whether outsourcing jobs or patrolling regional waters. Unlike the U.N., the EU, and South America, they spare us the sanctimonious lectures and look forward rather than nurse wounds of the past.
The world is changing as we speak. The great untold story of our age is that others need to get a life and the United States needs to move on.
I hope someone is the Bush administration is reading Victor Davis Hanson's columns.
Saudi Arabia will join the WTO
From the Associated Press.
Effective December 11, 2005 they will become the 149th member. They must drop their boycott of Israel.
Under the terms of accession, foreign insurance companies will be permitted to open and operate direct branches in Saudi Arabia. International banks will be able to open up branches under national subsidiaries.
Question: Why would foreign insurance companies and banks wish to become easy targets for Al-Qaeda?
Effective December 11, 2005 they will become the 149th member. They must drop their boycott of Israel.
Under the terms of accession, foreign insurance companies will be permitted to open and operate direct branches in Saudi Arabia. International banks will be able to open up branches under national subsidiaries.
Question: Why would foreign insurance companies and banks wish to become easy targets for Al-Qaeda?
Veterans Day, 2005
It is in perilous times like these that we more keenly appreciate the risks and sacrifices that many of our fellow citizens were willing to make in the service of our country.
Observanda sincerely thanks all veterans who have served in the armed forces of the United States of America.
A special "Thank You" goes out to one of our own. Thank you, Tiger, you served when many would not.
Here's some excellent Veterans' Day reading.
Observanda sincerely thanks all veterans who have served in the armed forces of the United States of America.
A special "Thank You" goes out to one of our own. Thank you, Tiger, you served when many would not.
Here's some excellent Veterans' Day reading.
Canada - A News Snapshot in November 2005
Here's a November 2005 Associated Press snapshot of Canada.
Canada is a held up as a model 0f a "progressive" post-modern, secular society.
I wonder if they have any idea how ridiculous they look? The whole thing reads like a Saturday night live parody.
Healthcare (read here)
According to the articles:
Canada is a held up as a model 0f a "progressive" post-modern, secular society.
I wonder if they have any idea how ridiculous they look? The whole thing reads like a Saturday night live parody.
Healthcare (read here)
According to the articles:
- The state must determine and set benchmarks for waiting times.
- 'For-profit Health care' is seen as a growing threat by liberals who want "concrete steps...taken to combat it."
- Gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered people are more often drunks or druggies and have special health needs because of depression or HIV/Aids .
"Much of this is behavioral in nature and it does require a health care system that is responsive to needs, but it also requires community leadership..."Yes, "behavioral", that is what conservative Christians have been saying.
Immigration (read here)
Annual immigration goals into the country of 33 million people will be increased from 220,000 to 300,000. Temporary, part time workers (unemployed immigrants?) will be hired to process a backlog of 700,000 applications.
Canada is often criticized for attracting highly educated immigrants, who then complain that their professional credentials are not accepted. Many foreign doctors and engineers end up working as taxi drivers and waiters. Statistics Canada has found that recent immigrants earn less than their Canadian-born counterparts, despite higher levels of education
That sounds like good social policy. Lure in foreign professionals and then make them serve in menial jobs.
They can't bring in immigrants fast enough, they can't process them fast enough and on top of that, they going to bring in 37% more annually than previously.
Corruption Scandal (read here)
There's something in the Franco-phone world that just lends itself to corruption (ala Oil for Food.) Canada has a real corruption scandal. Unlike the hysterial, unsubstantiated charges spewed against the Bush administration, Canadian taxpayers were bilked out tens of millions of dollars during Chretein's administration.
Canada's auditor general in 2004 determined that about $127 million from Chretien's national unity fund went to Liberal-friendly ad firms for little or no apparent work in return. The program was designed to promote national unity in Quebec following the narrow defeat of a separatist referendum in the French-speaking province.
Investigators also determined that the Liberal Party funneled millions of dollars from the slush fund into their own campaign accounts in Quebec, infuriating Canadians who have likened the "sponsorship scandal" as their own version of Watergate.
The Government is suing for the return of 49.7 million dollars.
Wednesday, November 09, 2005
Socialist Charades, Potemkin Cites, and No-Go Zones
For years we have been pointed to the European model for how a caring, progressive, secular society treats its citizens. The socialist models of health care, housing, and public transportation have been extolled as examples for America to emulate and aspire to. Progressives have marched into a 21st century global village waving the banners of multi-culturalism and diversity. This was the way into a peaceful, prosperous new world order where poverty is eliminated, all needs are provided for by the state and all was fantastique! until a curious event occurred in November 2005. That is the date history will record as the "French Intifada" unless the uprising becomes more widespread, in which case it will be called the "European Intifada."
This Intifada has pulled back the curtain on their potemkin villages where their former North African colonials have been ensconced in “cites” (otherwise known as ghettos or projects) like animals in well-tended zoos. Apparently, the Euros have been living in a la-la dreamland, socialist utopia. Thousands of burning cars, trash cans, and buildings have illuminated Europe and we see that the cites in many cases are criminally controlled “no-go zones” where local law-enforcement and emergency services personnel have all but given up trying to maintain civil authority. Like France, civil authority has been also been challenged in Malmo, Sweden which has its own “no-go zone.”
But now is not the time to delight in the misery of others or to be deceived by a socialist or progressive charade.
Secular Muslim youth, spoiled by socialism, are beginning to reject the economically stagnant, post-modern European cultures in which they reside as unseen, un-employed, second-class citizens. We are beginning to understand the genesis for calls of Sharia in decadent western societies where governments have abdicated their responsibility for maintaining social structure. Who can blame the Imams and devout parents, appalled at the corruption of their youth, for trying to bring some sense of order and discipline where government has refused to do so? But a secular western society cannot allow Sharia to substitute for its own law. To do so is to encourage a more virulent strain of Islam to flourish and bend a moderate Islam to its fundamentalist will.
We have been warned. For years now, this social dynamic has been reported but ignored. Predictions of the dire consequences have fallen on deaf ears. Due to political correctness, or benign neglect, or indifference or arrogance, the problems were imported, allowed to smolder and are now erupting into a firestorm. French hubris and a penchant for appeasement may have led France into its own boiling pot. Perhaps too late, Chirac has declared that law and order must prevail. The French and European dilemma is how to reclaim control without further alienating the Muslim youth. This must be done quickly and Islamo-fascists must be prevented from radicalizing these young men if that hasn’t been done already.
We can no longer afford to abide by the politically correct ideas of “no-go” diversity. We now know that "no-go" means “no know” and in war you must know your enemy. That is not to say all Muslims are the enemy but we must know what is being preached in the Mosques and what is being said at the Ramadan dinners. Political correctness and progressive sensibilities be damned.
This Intifada has pulled back the curtain on their potemkin villages where their former North African colonials have been ensconced in “cites” (otherwise known as ghettos or projects) like animals in well-tended zoos. Apparently, the Euros have been living in a la-la dreamland, socialist utopia. Thousands of burning cars, trash cans, and buildings have illuminated Europe and we see that the cites in many cases are criminally controlled “no-go zones” where local law-enforcement and emergency services personnel have all but given up trying to maintain civil authority. Like France, civil authority has been also been challenged in Malmo, Sweden which has its own “no-go zone.”
But now is not the time to delight in the misery of others or to be deceived by a socialist or progressive charade.
Secular Muslim youth, spoiled by socialism, are beginning to reject the economically stagnant, post-modern European cultures in which they reside as unseen, un-employed, second-class citizens. We are beginning to understand the genesis for calls of Sharia in decadent western societies where governments have abdicated their responsibility for maintaining social structure. Who can blame the Imams and devout parents, appalled at the corruption of their youth, for trying to bring some sense of order and discipline where government has refused to do so? But a secular western society cannot allow Sharia to substitute for its own law. To do so is to encourage a more virulent strain of Islam to flourish and bend a moderate Islam to its fundamentalist will.
We have been warned. For years now, this social dynamic has been reported but ignored. Predictions of the dire consequences have fallen on deaf ears. Due to political correctness, or benign neglect, or indifference or arrogance, the problems were imported, allowed to smolder and are now erupting into a firestorm. French hubris and a penchant for appeasement may have led France into its own boiling pot. Perhaps too late, Chirac has declared that law and order must prevail. The French and European dilemma is how to reclaim control without further alienating the Muslim youth. This must be done quickly and Islamo-fascists must be prevented from radicalizing these young men if that hasn’t been done already.
We can no longer afford to abide by the politically correct ideas of “no-go” diversity. We now know that "no-go" means “no know” and in war you must know your enemy. That is not to say all Muslims are the enemy but we must know what is being preached in the Mosques and what is being said at the Ramadan dinners. Political correctness and progressive sensibilities be damned.
Tuesday, November 08, 2005
Comment on "Bolton"
I have a different take on this. Bolton seems to be a terrific guy, et al; regardless of how ugly his topee is! : ) But, I don't want the U.N fixed - I want it gone!
Comment on "French Intifada"...
Was listening to a local "talker" this morning, Pat Campbell (he's been on O'Reilly a couple of times). His guest was Richard Miniter, who's latest book is called, "Disinformation". It's about WMDs in Iraq and about how the "puking press" has covered up this fact. More too the subject; he's lived in France for almost a decade now, off and on (and the U.S.).
He stated that when an immigrant comes to France, no member of the family may work for a period of two years, they must go on government welfare, and must live in public housing. Also, the "homemaker" (wife, or any family member) cannot clean their own house! A unionized government worker has to do it. Miniter argues that this has created generations of lower class bums who have too much time on their hands. He also argues that these suburbian onclaves of government generated poverty are a breeding ground for terrorists! This means trouble for us too.
Way to go, France! (geez, we even allow our illegals to work!) Of course, this rioting can happen here, as well. "Hispanic" rioting for extension of the Mexican borders into the U.S., anyone?
He stated that when an immigrant comes to France, no member of the family may work for a period of two years, they must go on government welfare, and must live in public housing. Also, the "homemaker" (wife, or any family member) cannot clean their own house! A unionized government worker has to do it. Miniter argues that this has created generations of lower class bums who have too much time on their hands. He also argues that these suburbian onclaves of government generated poverty are a breeding ground for terrorists! This means trouble for us too.
Way to go, France! (geez, we even allow our illegals to work!) Of course, this rioting can happen here, as well. "Hispanic" rioting for extension of the Mexican borders into the U.S., anyone?
French Intifada?
What's happening in France and spreading to other parts of Europe has most frequently been referred to as rioting. I guess that's an appropriate use of the word but I'm not sure if it is the best description. From what I have seen, it looks to me like Intifada (uprising) is a better word. A riot is total chaos with indiscrimate murder and mayhem. Only one death has been attributed to the 12 nights of violence. It seems that mostly trashcans, cars and car dealerships are being burned. By now, large sections of the various urban landscapes could have been burned to the ground with much worse loss of life.
What is actually going on here? Is this a spontaneous uprising? Who might be hehind the scenes watching how the authorities react to a given provocation. Is someone testing lines of authority and communication. Are these relatively minor skirmishes meant to test picket lines and defenses?
We'll find out.
What is actually going on here? Is this a spontaneous uprising? Who might be hehind the scenes watching how the authorities react to a given provocation. Is someone testing lines of authority and communication. Are these relatively minor skirmishes meant to test picket lines and defenses?
We'll find out.
Italian Blood Libel
The Italian government has been a good ally but the Italian press seems to be as left wing as any. Now a documentary is being shown purportedly with American soldiers admit to use of "white phosphorous shells" in Falluja.
The BBC Headline reads 'US used chemical arms.'
The BBC Worldservice website shows it's true colors in its headlines. For instance, they have previoulsy run headlines saying 'Israelis Lied'. The story did not document proof for the headline but the purpose was served. Just as the purpose will be served with this headline.
Update: Sometime during the day BBC changed the headline to:
US 'uses incendiary arms' in Iraq
The BBC Headline reads 'US used chemical arms.'
The BBC Worldservice website shows it's true colors in its headlines. For instance, they have previoulsy run headlines saying 'Israelis Lied'. The story did not document proof for the headline but the purpose was served. Just as the purpose will be served with this headline.
Update: Sometime during the day BBC changed the headline to:
US 'uses incendiary arms' in Iraq
Monday, November 07, 2005
Pity the Fools.
Geez, things in France are much worse than we feared.
Here is a 2002 Theodore Dalrymple report from France which paints a picture of a country with huge problems brewing.
Mark Steyn chimes in on the French problem.
From a German newspaper, here's an English language article entitled "What's Wrong with Europe?"
Here is a 2002 Theodore Dalrymple report from France which paints a picture of a country with huge problems brewing.
Mark Steyn chimes in on the French problem.
From a German newspaper, here's an English language article entitled "What's Wrong with Europe?"
Sunday, November 06, 2005
Bolton turns up the heat on the U.N.
Read the Telegraph article here.
He's living up to expectations. He is the right man for the job and should be confirmed by the Senate.
He's living up to expectations. He is the right man for the job and should be confirmed by the Senate.
Second JDL activist dies in prison
JDL Member Imprisoned in Bomb Plot Killed
By ALEX VEIGA Associated Press Writer
LOS ANGELES (AP) -- A Jewish Defense League activist imprisoned for his role in a plot to bomb a California mosque and the office of a Lebanese-American congressman was killed at a federal prison in Phoenix, an FBI spokesman said Saturday.
This is an incomplete story and something about this bothers me.
By ALEX VEIGA Associated Press Writer
LOS ANGELES (AP) -- A Jewish Defense League activist imprisoned for his role in a plot to bomb a California mosque and the office of a Lebanese-American congressman was killed at a federal prison in Phoenix, an FBI spokesman said Saturday.
This is an incomplete story and something about this bothers me.
Thursday, November 03, 2005
If only we had listened to these voices....
DEM OFFICIALS HAVE WARNED ABOUT WMDs IN IRAQ FOR YEARS
Former President Bill Clinton:
President Clinton: "We Have To Defend Our Future From These Predators Of The 21st Century. They Feed On The Free Flow Of Information And Technology. They Actually Take Advantage Of The Freer Movement Of People, Information And Ideas. And They Will Be All The More Lethal If We Allow Them To Build Arsenals Of Nuclear, Chemical And Biological Weapons And The Missiles To Deliver Them. We Simply Cannot Allow That To Happen. There Is No More Clear Example Of This Threat Than Saddam Hussein's Iraq. His Regime Threatens The Safety Of His People, The Stability Of His Region And The Security Of All The Rest Of Us." (President Clinton, Remarks To Joint Chiefs Of Staff And Pentagon Staff, 2 /17/98)
President Clinton: "Earlier Today I Ordered America's Armed Forces To Strike Military And Security Targets In Iraq... Their Mission Is To Attack Iraq's Nuclear, Chemical And Biological Weapons Programs And Its Military Capacity To Threaten Its Neighbors ..." ("Text Of Clinton Statement On Iraq Attack," Agence France Presse, 12/17/98)
Former Vice President Al Gore:
Gore: "You Know, In 1991, I Was One Of Those Who Put Partisanship Completely Aside And Supported President Bush At That Time In Launching The Gulf War. And In That War, We Saw How Saddam Had Threatened His Neighbors And Was Trying To Get Nuclear Weapons, Chemical Weapons, And Biological Weapons. And We're Not Going To Allow Him To Succeed." (CNN's "Larry King Live," 12/16/98)
Gore: "[I]f You Allow Someone Like Saddam Hussein To Get Nuclear Weapons, Ballistic Missiles, Chemical Weapons, Biological Weapons, How Many People Is He Going To Kill With Such Weapons? He's Already Demonstrated A Willingness To Use These Weapons ..." (CNN's "Larry King Live," 12/16/98)
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY):
Sen. Clinton: "I Voted For The Iraqi Resolution. I Consider The Prospect Of A Nuclear-Armed Saddam Hussein Who Can Threaten Not Only His Neighbors, But The Stability Of The Region And The World, A Very Serious Threat To The United States." (Senator Hillary Clinton [D-NY], Press Conference, January 22, 2003)
Sen. Clinton: "In The Four Years Since The Inspectors, Intelligence Reports Show That Saddam Hussein Has Worked To Rebuild His Chemical And Biological Weapons Stock, His Missile Delivery Capability, And His Nuclear Program. ... It Is Clear, However, That If Left Unchecked, Saddam Hussein Will Continue To Increase His Capability To Wage Biological And Chemical Warfare And Will Keep Trying To Develop Nuclear Weapons." (Sen. Hillary Clinton, Congressional Record, 10/10/02, p. S10288)
Sen. John Kerry (D-MA):
Sen. Kerry: "The Crisis Is Even More Threatening By Virtue Of The Fact That Iraq Has Developed A Chemical Weapons Capability, And Is Pursuing A Nuclear Weapons Development Program." (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 10/2/90, p. S14332)
Sen. Kerry: "If You Don't Believe ... Saddam Hussein Is A Threat With Nuclear Weapons, Then You Shouldn't Vote For Me." (Ronald Brownstein, "On Iraq, Kerry Appears Either Torn Or Shrewd," Los Angeles Times, 1/31/03)
Former Sen. John Edwards (D-NC):
Sen. Edwards: "Serving On The Intelligence Committee And Seeing Day After Day, Week After Week, Briefings On Saddam's Weapons Of Mass Destruction And His Plans On Using Those Weapons, He Cannot Be Allowed To Have Nuclear Weapons, It's Just That Simple. The Whole World Changes If Saddam Ever Has Nuclear Weapons." (MSNBC's "Buchanan And Press," 1/7/03)
Sen. Edwards: "The Question Is Whether We're Going To Let This Man [Saddam] Who's Been Developing Weapons Of Mass Destruction Continue To Develop Weapons Of Mass Destruction, Get Nuclear Capability, And Get To The Place Where If We're Going To Stop Him, If He Invades A Country Around Him, It'll Cost Millions Of Lives As Opposed To Thousands Of Lives." (MSNBC's "Hardball," 2/6/03)
Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV):
Reid: "The Problem Is Not Nuclear Testing; It Is Nuclear Weapons ... The Number Of Third World Countries With Nuclear Capabilities Seems To Grow Daily. Saddam Hussein's Near Success With Developing A Nuclear Weapon Should Be An Eye-Opener For Us All." (Sen. Harry Reid, Congressional Record, 8/3/92, p. S11188)
Sen. Evan Bayh (D-IN):
Bayh: "In My Opinion - And I Do, As You Know, I'm Fairly Hawkish On Iraq. I'm Inclined To Support Going In There And Dealing With Saddam. But I Think That Case Needs To Be Made On A Separate Basis - His Possession Of Biological And Chemical Weapons, His Desire To Get Nuclear Weapons, His Proven Track Record Of Attacking His Neighbors And Others." (CNN's "Late Edition," 8/4/02)
Bayh: "The Question Is, Do You Want Saddam Hussein Having Chemical Weapons, Having Biological Weapons, Possibly One Day Having A Nuclear Weapon? Do You Want To Have To Deal With That? And If The Answer Is No, Then What Do You Do About It And When Do You Do Something About It?" (CNN's "Live Event/Special," 12/1/01)
Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE):
Biden: "First Of All, We Don't Know Exactly What He Has. ... We Know He Continues To Attempt To Gain Access To Additional Capability, Including Nuclear Capability. There Is A Real Debate How Far Off That Is, Whether It's A Matter Of Years Or Whether It's A Matter Of Less Than That, And So There's Much We Don't Know." (NBC's "Meet The Press," 8/4/02)
Gov. Bill Richardson (D-NM):
Richardson: "The Threat Of Nuclear Proliferation Is One Of The Big Challenges That We Have Now, Especially By States That Have Nuclear Weapons, Outlaw States Like Iraq." (ABC's "Good Morning America," 5/29/98)
Former Sen. Bob Graham (D-FL):
Sen. Graham: "I Don't Know If I've Seen All The Evidence, But I've Seen Enough To Be Satisfied That There Has Been A Continuing Effort By Saddam Hussein Since The End Of The Gulf War, Particularly Since 1998, To Re-Establish And Enhance Iraq's Capacity Of Weapons Of Mass Destruction, Chemical, Biological And Nuclear." (CBS' "Face The Nation," 12/8/02)
Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL):
Durbin: "One Of The Most Compelling Threats We In This Country Face Today Is The Proliferation Of Weapons Of Mass Destruction. Threat Assessments Regularly Warn Us Of The Possibility That North Korea, Iran, Iraq, Or Some Other Nation May Acquire Or Develop Nuclear Weapons." (Sen. Dick Durbin, Congressional Record, 9/30/99, p. S11673)
Sen. Russell Feingold (D-WI):
Feingold: "With Regard To Iraq, I Agree, Iraq Presents A Genuine Threat, Especially In The Form Of Weapons Of Mass Destruction, Chemical, Biological, And Potentially Nuclear Weapons. I Agree That Saddam Hussein Is Exceptionally Dangerous And Brutal, If Not Uniquely So, As The President Argues." (Sen. Russell Feingold [D-WI], Congressional Record, 10/9/05, p. S10147)
Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL):
Nelson: "And My Own Personal View Is, I Think Saddam Has Chemical And Biological Weapons, And I Expect That He Is Trying To Develop A Nuclear Weapon. So At Some Point, We Might Have To Act Precipitously." (CNN's "Late Edition," 8/25/02)
Nelson: "Well, I Believe He Has Chemical And Biological Weapons. I Think He's Trying To Develop Nuclear Weapons. And The Fact That He Might Use Those Is A Considerable Threat To Us." (CNBC, "Tim Russert," 9/14/02)
Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV):
Sen. Byrd: "The Last U.N. Weapons Inspectors Left Iraq In October Of 1998. We Are Confident That Saddam Hussein Retains Some Stockpiles Of Chemical And Biological Weapons, And That He Has Since Embarked On A Crash Course To Build Up His Chemical And Biological Warfare Capabilities. Intelligence Reports Indicate That He Is Seeking Nuclear Weapons ..." ("Threats And Responses," The New York Times, 10/4/02)
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA):
Pelosi: "Others Have Talked About This Threat That Is Posed By Saddam Hussein. Yes, He Has Chemical Weapons, He Has Biological Weapons, He Is Trying To Get Nuclear Weapons." (Rep. Nancy Pelosi, Congressional Record, 10/10/02, p. H7777)
Rep. Jane Harman (D-CA):
Harman: "I Certainly Think [Saddam's] Developing Nuclear Capability, Which, Fortunately, The Israelis Set Back 20 Years Ago With Their Preemptive Attack, Which, In Hindsight, Looks Pretty Darn Good." (Fox News' "The Big Story," 8/27/02)
Former Rep. Dick Gephardt (D-MO):
"Gephardt Said He's Seen 'A Large Body Of Intelligence Information Over A Long Time That He Is Working On And Has Weapons Of Mass Destruction. Before 1991, He Was Close To Having A Nuclear Device. Now, You'll Get A Debate About Whether It's One Year Away Or Five Or Six." (Morton M. Kondracke, "Gephardt Pushes Consensus Action Against Iraq Threat," Roll Call, 9/23/02)
Former Secretary Of State Madeline Albright:
Madeline Albright: "Iraq Is A Long Way From [Here], But What Happens There Matters A Great Deal Here, For The Risk That The Leaders Of A Rogue State Will Use Nuclear, Chemical Or Biological Weapons Against Us Or Our Allies Is The Greatest Security Threat We Face, And It Is A Threat Against Which We Must And Will Stand Firm." ("Secretary Of State Madeleine Albright, Secretary Of Defense William Cohen And National Security Adviser Sandy Berger Participate In Town Hall Meeting," Federal News Service, 2/18/98)
Former President Bill Clinton:
President Clinton: "We Have To Defend Our Future From These Predators Of The 21st Century. They Feed On The Free Flow Of Information And Technology. They Actually Take Advantage Of The Freer Movement Of People, Information And Ideas. And They Will Be All The More Lethal If We Allow Them To Build Arsenals Of Nuclear, Chemical And Biological Weapons And The Missiles To Deliver Them. We Simply Cannot Allow That To Happen. There Is No More Clear Example Of This Threat Than Saddam Hussein's Iraq. His Regime Threatens The Safety Of His People, The Stability Of His Region And The Security Of All The Rest Of Us." (President Clinton, Remarks To Joint Chiefs Of Staff And Pentagon Staff, 2 /17/98)
President Clinton: "Earlier Today I Ordered America's Armed Forces To Strike Military And Security Targets In Iraq... Their Mission Is To Attack Iraq's Nuclear, Chemical And Biological Weapons Programs And Its Military Capacity To Threaten Its Neighbors ..." ("Text Of Clinton Statement On Iraq Attack," Agence France Presse, 12/17/98)
Former Vice President Al Gore:
Gore: "You Know, In 1991, I Was One Of Those Who Put Partisanship Completely Aside And Supported President Bush At That Time In Launching The Gulf War. And In That War, We Saw How Saddam Had Threatened His Neighbors And Was Trying To Get Nuclear Weapons, Chemical Weapons, And Biological Weapons. And We're Not Going To Allow Him To Succeed." (CNN's "Larry King Live," 12/16/98)
Gore: "[I]f You Allow Someone Like Saddam Hussein To Get Nuclear Weapons, Ballistic Missiles, Chemical Weapons, Biological Weapons, How Many People Is He Going To Kill With Such Weapons? He's Already Demonstrated A Willingness To Use These Weapons ..." (CNN's "Larry King Live," 12/16/98)
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY):
Sen. Clinton: "I Voted For The Iraqi Resolution. I Consider The Prospect Of A Nuclear-Armed Saddam Hussein Who Can Threaten Not Only His Neighbors, But The Stability Of The Region And The World, A Very Serious Threat To The United States." (Senator Hillary Clinton [D-NY], Press Conference, January 22, 2003)
Sen. Clinton: "In The Four Years Since The Inspectors, Intelligence Reports Show That Saddam Hussein Has Worked To Rebuild His Chemical And Biological Weapons Stock, His Missile Delivery Capability, And His Nuclear Program. ... It Is Clear, However, That If Left Unchecked, Saddam Hussein Will Continue To Increase His Capability To Wage Biological And Chemical Warfare And Will Keep Trying To Develop Nuclear Weapons." (Sen. Hillary Clinton, Congressional Record, 10/10/02, p. S10288)
Sen. John Kerry (D-MA):
Sen. Kerry: "The Crisis Is Even More Threatening By Virtue Of The Fact That Iraq Has Developed A Chemical Weapons Capability, And Is Pursuing A Nuclear Weapons Development Program." (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 10/2/90, p. S14332)
Sen. Kerry: "If You Don't Believe ... Saddam Hussein Is A Threat With Nuclear Weapons, Then You Shouldn't Vote For Me." (Ronald Brownstein, "On Iraq, Kerry Appears Either Torn Or Shrewd," Los Angeles Times, 1/31/03)
Former Sen. John Edwards (D-NC):
Sen. Edwards: "Serving On The Intelligence Committee And Seeing Day After Day, Week After Week, Briefings On Saddam's Weapons Of Mass Destruction And His Plans On Using Those Weapons, He Cannot Be Allowed To Have Nuclear Weapons, It's Just That Simple. The Whole World Changes If Saddam Ever Has Nuclear Weapons." (MSNBC's "Buchanan And Press," 1/7/03)
Sen. Edwards: "The Question Is Whether We're Going To Let This Man [Saddam] Who's Been Developing Weapons Of Mass Destruction Continue To Develop Weapons Of Mass Destruction, Get Nuclear Capability, And Get To The Place Where If We're Going To Stop Him, If He Invades A Country Around Him, It'll Cost Millions Of Lives As Opposed To Thousands Of Lives." (MSNBC's "Hardball," 2/6/03)
Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV):
Reid: "The Problem Is Not Nuclear Testing; It Is Nuclear Weapons ... The Number Of Third World Countries With Nuclear Capabilities Seems To Grow Daily. Saddam Hussein's Near Success With Developing A Nuclear Weapon Should Be An Eye-Opener For Us All." (Sen. Harry Reid, Congressional Record, 8/3/92, p. S11188)
Sen. Evan Bayh (D-IN):
Bayh: "In My Opinion - And I Do, As You Know, I'm Fairly Hawkish On Iraq. I'm Inclined To Support Going In There And Dealing With Saddam. But I Think That Case Needs To Be Made On A Separate Basis - His Possession Of Biological And Chemical Weapons, His Desire To Get Nuclear Weapons, His Proven Track Record Of Attacking His Neighbors And Others." (CNN's "Late Edition," 8/4/02)
Bayh: "The Question Is, Do You Want Saddam Hussein Having Chemical Weapons, Having Biological Weapons, Possibly One Day Having A Nuclear Weapon? Do You Want To Have To Deal With That? And If The Answer Is No, Then What Do You Do About It And When Do You Do Something About It?" (CNN's "Live Event/Special," 12/1/01)
Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE):
Biden: "First Of All, We Don't Know Exactly What He Has. ... We Know He Continues To Attempt To Gain Access To Additional Capability, Including Nuclear Capability. There Is A Real Debate How Far Off That Is, Whether It's A Matter Of Years Or Whether It's A Matter Of Less Than That, And So There's Much We Don't Know." (NBC's "Meet The Press," 8/4/02)
Gov. Bill Richardson (D-NM):
Richardson: "The Threat Of Nuclear Proliferation Is One Of The Big Challenges That We Have Now, Especially By States That Have Nuclear Weapons, Outlaw States Like Iraq." (ABC's "Good Morning America," 5/29/98)
Former Sen. Bob Graham (D-FL):
Sen. Graham: "I Don't Know If I've Seen All The Evidence, But I've Seen Enough To Be Satisfied That There Has Been A Continuing Effort By Saddam Hussein Since The End Of The Gulf War, Particularly Since 1998, To Re-Establish And Enhance Iraq's Capacity Of Weapons Of Mass Destruction, Chemical, Biological And Nuclear." (CBS' "Face The Nation," 12/8/02)
Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL):
Durbin: "One Of The Most Compelling Threats We In This Country Face Today Is The Proliferation Of Weapons Of Mass Destruction. Threat Assessments Regularly Warn Us Of The Possibility That North Korea, Iran, Iraq, Or Some Other Nation May Acquire Or Develop Nuclear Weapons." (Sen. Dick Durbin, Congressional Record, 9/30/99, p. S11673)
Sen. Russell Feingold (D-WI):
Feingold: "With Regard To Iraq, I Agree, Iraq Presents A Genuine Threat, Especially In The Form Of Weapons Of Mass Destruction, Chemical, Biological, And Potentially Nuclear Weapons. I Agree That Saddam Hussein Is Exceptionally Dangerous And Brutal, If Not Uniquely So, As The President Argues." (Sen. Russell Feingold [D-WI], Congressional Record, 10/9/05, p. S10147)
Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL):
Nelson: "And My Own Personal View Is, I Think Saddam Has Chemical And Biological Weapons, And I Expect That He Is Trying To Develop A Nuclear Weapon. So At Some Point, We Might Have To Act Precipitously." (CNN's "Late Edition," 8/25/02)
Nelson: "Well, I Believe He Has Chemical And Biological Weapons. I Think He's Trying To Develop Nuclear Weapons. And The Fact That He Might Use Those Is A Considerable Threat To Us." (CNBC, "Tim Russert," 9/14/02)
Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV):
Sen. Byrd: "The Last U.N. Weapons Inspectors Left Iraq In October Of 1998. We Are Confident That Saddam Hussein Retains Some Stockpiles Of Chemical And Biological Weapons, And That He Has Since Embarked On A Crash Course To Build Up His Chemical And Biological Warfare Capabilities. Intelligence Reports Indicate That He Is Seeking Nuclear Weapons ..." ("Threats And Responses," The New York Times, 10/4/02)
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA):
Pelosi: "Others Have Talked About This Threat That Is Posed By Saddam Hussein. Yes, He Has Chemical Weapons, He Has Biological Weapons, He Is Trying To Get Nuclear Weapons." (Rep. Nancy Pelosi, Congressional Record, 10/10/02, p. H7777)
Rep. Jane Harman (D-CA):
Harman: "I Certainly Think [Saddam's] Developing Nuclear Capability, Which, Fortunately, The Israelis Set Back 20 Years Ago With Their Preemptive Attack, Which, In Hindsight, Looks Pretty Darn Good." (Fox News' "The Big Story," 8/27/02)
Former Rep. Dick Gephardt (D-MO):
"Gephardt Said He's Seen 'A Large Body Of Intelligence Information Over A Long Time That He Is Working On And Has Weapons Of Mass Destruction. Before 1991, He Was Close To Having A Nuclear Device. Now, You'll Get A Debate About Whether It's One Year Away Or Five Or Six." (Morton M. Kondracke, "Gephardt Pushes Consensus Action Against Iraq Threat," Roll Call, 9/23/02)
Former Secretary Of State Madeline Albright:
Madeline Albright: "Iraq Is A Long Way From [Here], But What Happens There Matters A Great Deal Here, For The Risk That The Leaders Of A Rogue State Will Use Nuclear, Chemical Or Biological Weapons Against Us Or Our Allies Is The Greatest Security Threat We Face, And It Is A Threat Against Which We Must And Will Stand Firm." ("Secretary Of State Madeleine Albright, Secretary Of Defense William Cohen And National Security Adviser Sandy Berger Participate In Town Hall Meeting," Federal News Service, 2/18/98)
A Profile of British Muslim Suicide Bomber
Here is a template, a profile of the domestic Muslim terrorist – the suicide bomber in a secular western society. The Suicide Bombers Among Us By Theodore Dalrymple, City-Journal.org November 3, 2005
Dalrymple is a physician and psychiatrist in England with much experience in general practice as well as prison practice.
His observations of British muslim youth are revealing and provide a profile which we would do well to study and adapt.
My immediate reaction is that Islam cannot coexist with a decadent, secular society. Islam is a “works” religion – that is you must struggle to obtain your eternal reward by your good works, your purity of character, your total submission to Allah as proscribed in the Koran. This struggle is known as Jihad which entails an internal, spiritual struggle to overcome one’s own sin and also the struggle to defend and spread the faith throughout the world.
Dalrymple writes about the ingredients that contribute to the development of the bomber.
In Britain, however, these two forms of jihad have coalesced in a most murderous fashion. Those who died in the London bombings were sacrificial victims to the need of four young men to resolve a conflict deep within themselves (and within many young Muslims), and they imagined they could do so only by the most extreme possible interpretation of their ancestral religion.
Young Muslim men in Britain—as in France and elsewhere in the West—have a problem of personal, cultural, and national identity. They are deeply secularized, with little religious faith, even if most will admit to a belief in God. Their interest in Islam is slight. They do not pray or keep Ramadan (except if it brings them some practical advantage, such as the postponement of a court appearance). Their tastes are for the most part those of non-Muslim lower-class young men. They dress indistinguishably from their white and black contemporaries, and affect the same hairstyles and mannerisms, including the vulpine lope of the slums. Gold chains, the heavier the better, and gold front teeth, without dental justification, are symbols of their success in the streets, which is to say of illicit enrichment.
Many young Muslims, unlike the sons of Hindus and Sikhs who immigrated into Britain at the same time as their parents, take drugs, including heroin. They drink, indulge in casual sex, and make nightclubs the focus of their lives. Work and careers are at best a painful necessity, a slow and inferior means of obtaining the money for their distractions.
But if in many respects their tastes and behavior are indistinguishable from those of underclass white males, there are nevertheless clear and important differences. Most obviously, whatever the similarity between them and their white counterparts in their taste for sex, drugs, and rock and roll, they nevertheless do not mix with young white men, even in the neighborhoods devoted to the satisfaction of their tastes. They are in parallel with the whites, rather than intersecting with them.
Dalrymple goes on to observe that even though they have embraced an immoral lifestyle for themselves, they retain the inherited male chauvinism in regard to their muslim women.
Even if for no other reason, then (and there are in fact other reasons), young Muslim males have a strong motive for maintaining an identity apart. And since people rarely like to admit low motives for their behavior, such as the wish to maintain a self-gratifying dominance, these young Muslims need a more elevated justification for their conduct toward women. They find it, of course, in a residual Islam: not the Islam of onerous duties, rituals, and prohibitions, which interferes so insistently in day-to-day life, but in an Islam of residual feeling, which allows them a sense of moral superiority to everything around them, including women, without in any way cramping their style.
Young Muslim men in Britain have embraced the “gangsta culture” of the secular society imbibing “rap music – full of inchoate rage, hatred and imtemperance.” They are underclass, undereducated and unprepared for life in a secular society. Like other underclasses, they have nothing but their “pride” and are prepared to defend themselves against the slightest “dissing.” They grow to hate the world. By the time these youths reach their mid-teens, they are ripe for recruitment and fanatical religious indoctrination.
To a hatred of the world, his conversion added a self-hatred.
Furthermore, fundamentalists must be sufficiently self-aware to know that they will never be willing to forgo the appurtenances of Western life: the taste for them is too deeply implanted in their souls, too deeply a part of what they are as human beings, ever to be eradicated. It is possible to reject isolated aspects of modernity but not modernity itself. Whether they like it or not, Muslim fundamentalists are modern men—modern men trying, impossibly, to be something else.
Muslims who reject the West are therefore engaged in a losing and impossible inner jihad, or struggle, to expunge everything that is not Muslim from their breasts. It can’t be done: for their technological and scientific dependence is necessarily also a cultural one. You can’t believe in a return to seventh-century Arabia as being all-sufficient for human requirements, and at the same time drive around in a brand-new red Mercedes, as one of the London bombers did shortly before his murderous suicide. An awareness of the contradiction must gnaw in even the dullest fundamentalist brain.
They therefore have at least a nagging intimation that their chosen utopia is not really a utopia at all: that deep within themselves there exists something that makes it unachievable and even undesirable. How to persuade themselves and others that their lack of faith, their vacillation, is really the strongest possible faith? What more convincing evidence of faith could there be than to die for its sake? How can a person be really attached or attracted to rap music and cricket and Mercedes cars if he is prepared to blow himself up as a means of destroying the society that produces them? Death will be the end of the illicit attachment that he cannot entirely eliminate from his heart.
The two forms of jihad, the inner and the outer, the greater and the lesser, thus coalesce in one apocalyptic action. By means of suicide bombing, the bombers overcome moral impurities and religious doubts within themselves and, supposedly, strike an external blow for the propagation of the faith.
I hope someone in Homeland Security has read this article.
Dalrymple is a physician and psychiatrist in England with much experience in general practice as well as prison practice.
His observations of British muslim youth are revealing and provide a profile which we would do well to study and adapt.
My immediate reaction is that Islam cannot coexist with a decadent, secular society. Islam is a “works” religion – that is you must struggle to obtain your eternal reward by your good works, your purity of character, your total submission to Allah as proscribed in the Koran. This struggle is known as Jihad which entails an internal, spiritual struggle to overcome one’s own sin and also the struggle to defend and spread the faith throughout the world.
Dalrymple writes about the ingredients that contribute to the development of the bomber.
In Britain, however, these two forms of jihad have coalesced in a most murderous fashion. Those who died in the London bombings were sacrificial victims to the need of four young men to resolve a conflict deep within themselves (and within many young Muslims), and they imagined they could do so only by the most extreme possible interpretation of their ancestral religion.
Young Muslim men in Britain—as in France and elsewhere in the West—have a problem of personal, cultural, and national identity. They are deeply secularized, with little religious faith, even if most will admit to a belief in God. Their interest in Islam is slight. They do not pray or keep Ramadan (except if it brings them some practical advantage, such as the postponement of a court appearance). Their tastes are for the most part those of non-Muslim lower-class young men. They dress indistinguishably from their white and black contemporaries, and affect the same hairstyles and mannerisms, including the vulpine lope of the slums. Gold chains, the heavier the better, and gold front teeth, without dental justification, are symbols of their success in the streets, which is to say of illicit enrichment.
Many young Muslims, unlike the sons of Hindus and Sikhs who immigrated into Britain at the same time as their parents, take drugs, including heroin. They drink, indulge in casual sex, and make nightclubs the focus of their lives. Work and careers are at best a painful necessity, a slow and inferior means of obtaining the money for their distractions.
But if in many respects their tastes and behavior are indistinguishable from those of underclass white males, there are nevertheless clear and important differences. Most obviously, whatever the similarity between them and their white counterparts in their taste for sex, drugs, and rock and roll, they nevertheless do not mix with young white men, even in the neighborhoods devoted to the satisfaction of their tastes. They are in parallel with the whites, rather than intersecting with them.
Dalrymple goes on to observe that even though they have embraced an immoral lifestyle for themselves, they retain the inherited male chauvinism in regard to their muslim women.
Even if for no other reason, then (and there are in fact other reasons), young Muslim males have a strong motive for maintaining an identity apart. And since people rarely like to admit low motives for their behavior, such as the wish to maintain a self-gratifying dominance, these young Muslims need a more elevated justification for their conduct toward women. They find it, of course, in a residual Islam: not the Islam of onerous duties, rituals, and prohibitions, which interferes so insistently in day-to-day life, but in an Islam of residual feeling, which allows them a sense of moral superiority to everything around them, including women, without in any way cramping their style.
Young Muslim men in Britain have embraced the “gangsta culture” of the secular society imbibing “rap music – full of inchoate rage, hatred and imtemperance.” They are underclass, undereducated and unprepared for life in a secular society. Like other underclasses, they have nothing but their “pride” and are prepared to defend themselves against the slightest “dissing.” They grow to hate the world. By the time these youths reach their mid-teens, they are ripe for recruitment and fanatical religious indoctrination.
To a hatred of the world, his conversion added a self-hatred.
Furthermore, fundamentalists must be sufficiently self-aware to know that they will never be willing to forgo the appurtenances of Western life: the taste for them is too deeply implanted in their souls, too deeply a part of what they are as human beings, ever to be eradicated. It is possible to reject isolated aspects of modernity but not modernity itself. Whether they like it or not, Muslim fundamentalists are modern men—modern men trying, impossibly, to be something else.
Muslims who reject the West are therefore engaged in a losing and impossible inner jihad, or struggle, to expunge everything that is not Muslim from their breasts. It can’t be done: for their technological and scientific dependence is necessarily also a cultural one. You can’t believe in a return to seventh-century Arabia as being all-sufficient for human requirements, and at the same time drive around in a brand-new red Mercedes, as one of the London bombers did shortly before his murderous suicide. An awareness of the contradiction must gnaw in even the dullest fundamentalist brain.
They therefore have at least a nagging intimation that their chosen utopia is not really a utopia at all: that deep within themselves there exists something that makes it unachievable and even undesirable. How to persuade themselves and others that their lack of faith, their vacillation, is really the strongest possible faith? What more convincing evidence of faith could there be than to die for its sake? How can a person be really attached or attracted to rap music and cricket and Mercedes cars if he is prepared to blow himself up as a means of destroying the society that produces them? Death will be the end of the illicit attachment that he cannot entirely eliminate from his heart.
The two forms of jihad, the inner and the outer, the greater and the lesser, thus coalesce in one apocalyptic action. By means of suicide bombing, the bombers overcome moral impurities and religious doubts within themselves and, supposedly, strike an external blow for the propagation of the faith.
I hope someone in Homeland Security has read this article.
Comment on "Violence in French ..."
Wow! What is indeed wrong with Europe! If this isn't an argument for immigration reform nothing is!
Tiger
Tiger
Wednesday, November 02, 2005
How to talk to a liberal
With apologies to Ann Coulter.
The next time you hear some idiot talking about how the white man stole this country from the Indians and committed genocide against them, remember this:
In our Declaration of Independence written July 4, 1776, the Founding Fathers included a list of greivances against the King. Among them is the following:
He has excited domestic insurrection amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
So, it was the poor "noble savages" who were committing the genocide.
The next time you hear some idiot talking about how the white man stole this country from the Indians and committed genocide against them, remember this:
In our Declaration of Independence written July 4, 1776, the Founding Fathers included a list of greivances against the King. Among them is the following:
He has excited domestic insurrection amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
So, it was the poor "noble savages" who were committing the genocide.
Iran - What are we going to do with them?
It's only a matter of time before we must confront them. Here is a disturbing article about what is happening in Iran today. We won't be able to ignore them for long. Eventually, just like England finally confronting Hitler, we will be forced into doing what we really don't want to do.
I hope the American people have the fortitude to endure the future.
I hope the American people have the fortitude to endure the future.
"Bush Lied" - Deja Vu
The latest Democrat smear campaign is the same one they tried two years ago - "BUSH LIED." Evidently, their Fitzmas was a huge disappointment and their fall back strategy is to dig up the Al Gore rant, "He betrayed this country." Breitbart.com has an AP report about the "venerial old man" of the party, Jimmy (Held Hostage for 400 days) Carter saying that the Bush administration's prewar claims of Iraqi WMD were "manipulated, at least."
As far back as 1998 under the Clinton Adminstration, every politician including Clinton, Gore, Albright, Kerry, and Kennedy were saying that Saddam had WMD and was a threat. But George W. Bush, using the same intelligence and after 14 futile months of working with the U.N. and Saddam Hussein, manipulated the intelligence and "lied" to lead the U.S. into war. These people are pathologically deranged. No amount of reason and rationale will work with them. They will readily admit and are quick to point out that our prewar intelligence was flawed but in their dementia, Bush somehow must have gotten "good intelligence" and concealed it so that he could invade Iraq. The Democratic leadership has truly come unhinged and are playing morally despicable, political games in order to destroy the Bush administration. In the words of one of their heroes, Dan Rather, FEA.
As far back as 1998 under the Clinton Adminstration, every politician including Clinton, Gore, Albright, Kerry, and Kennedy were saying that Saddam had WMD and was a threat. But George W. Bush, using the same intelligence and after 14 futile months of working with the U.N. and Saddam Hussein, manipulated the intelligence and "lied" to lead the U.S. into war. These people are pathologically deranged. No amount of reason and rationale will work with them. They will readily admit and are quick to point out that our prewar intelligence was flawed but in their dementia, Bush somehow must have gotten "good intelligence" and concealed it so that he could invade Iraq. The Democratic leadership has truly come unhinged and are playing morally despicable, political games in order to destroy the Bush administration. In the words of one of their heroes, Dan Rather, FEA.
"Violence in French Suburbs is a daily fact of Life"
According to French Interior Minister Nicholas Sarkozy as reported in the International Herald
Tribune which also reported "Since the start of the year, 9,000 police cars have been stoned and, each night, 20 to 40 cars are torched, Sarkozy said in an interview last week with the newspaper Le Monde. "
The papers have only been reporting on the disturbances for the last six nights. Hmm.
Tribune which also reported "Since the start of the year, 9,000 police cars have been stoned and, each night, 20 to 40 cars are torched, Sarkozy said in an interview last week with the newspaper Le Monde. "
The papers have only been reporting on the disturbances for the last six nights. Hmm.
Coming soon to a theatre near you
This is a sad commentary on Colorado and the article shows how hard it is to really get government spending under control. One of the real pitfalls for society is when too many people are dependent on the state such as government and university employees. Even when a state government is forced to operate under strict spending caps, the spenders will find a way to circumvent the rules. In this case, $8 million was spent was spent on the campaign, and by a 52% to 48%, the taxpayers decided to let the govt keep $3.7 billion over 5 years.
Tuesday, November 01, 2005
Tuesday Reading
Here's a long and interesting piece about the state of affairs regarding Mexico's efforts to circumvent and thwart U.S. immigration policy.
Dennis Prager has more on the "Culture War" particularly some observations on what he calls "American Exceptionalism" that is the belief that our Judeo Christian based society based is something to be proud of.
Mark Steyn, echoing some of my thoughts but of course articulating them so much better than I ever could. He's saying that this is the time to be confrontational. Always read him Tuesdays in the Telegrah.
Here's an offering from a common sense Lady from California writing about the irrational reactions to books being flushed or burned. Hint: flush certain books and people will die.
Dennis Prager has more on the "Culture War" particularly some observations on what he calls "American Exceptionalism" that is the belief that our Judeo Christian based society based is something to be proud of.
Mark Steyn, echoing some of my thoughts but of course articulating them so much better than I ever could. He's saying that this is the time to be confrontational. Always read him Tuesdays in the Telegrah.
Here's an offering from a common sense Lady from California writing about the irrational reactions to books being flushed or burned. Hint: flush certain books and people will die.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)