Friday, June 30, 2006
School Sued Over Jesus Portrait
This is a perfect example of several current psychoses running through the seedy underbelly of our culture today. This one story reveals the selfishness, stupidity, and hypocrisy of the anti-religious as well as utter lack of knowledge about our nation's history and form of government.
A school board in West Virginia is being sued by two "civil liberties" groups -- read that to mean groups promoting just THEIR point of view, the rest of you be damned -- because the school happened to have a portrait of Jesus displayed in the hallway.
Did I mention it has been there for thirty years? So it isn't just something someone threw up recently.
So, the ACLU and Americans United for the Separation of Church and State have decided that, thirty years after the fact, this whole Jesus thing is all evil and stuff! Imagine the "harm" that has been done lo these many years to children for three decades??
Oh, the humanities!
Now here is the selfishness of the report. This suit was filed by the two "civil liberties" groups on behalf of Harold Sklar and Jacqueline McKenzie, "whose children attended or will attend the school", as the report makes clear. To recap, one parent has kids gone from the school and no longer under the evil glare of that Jesus picture and the other doesn't even have kids IN the school at all!
So, what is preventing the parent whose children WILL attend the school from sending them to a private school that holds better to her atheist line of thinking? Who says she can't move to another school district, one that doesn't have that bad guy pictured on its walls? Maybe this parent might find a school that has a picture of Marx or someone that might hew closer to their anti-religious views?
Still, how is it a support of "civil liberties" to take away a portrait of Jesus to satisfy two people when that portrait obviously didn't offend hundreds if not thousands of others? Are these two people's sensibilities, sensibilities that can be assuaged in a myriad of other ways, more important than that of perhaps thousands of others?
Apparently the Communist founded ACLU and the illogically founded AUSC&S think it perfectly sensible to promote the "feelings" of two people over that of thousands of others.
Bishop announces what the gay agenda is
At the Episcopal Church Convention earlier this month, Bishop Gene Robinson said something astounding. He declared, "The gay agenda is Jesus Christ."
I'm not surprised the first openly homosexual bishop in the church would say something like that. If the man weren't looking for attention, we wouldn't know he's the first openly homosexual bishop in the church. To me though, the contention is meaningless, something akin to the currently trendy "speaking truth to power."
The unexpected part is that for years we've been told that there's no such thing as a gay agenda. It was just something made up by conservatives to encourage homophobia..................................
Click HERE To Read On
Thursday, June 29, 2006
Howard Dean: Get U.S. Back to Turbulent 60's
Showing once again the bankruptcy of ideas in the Democratic Party, Party Chairman, Howard Dean, said that he thinks the U.S. is about to return to the era of the 1960's. "We're about to enter the '60s again," he wistfully told a religious conference in Washington D.C. on June 27th.
Of course, he tried to back track almost as soon as he said it warning that, as he weakly tried to explain it, he didn't mean a return to the race riots and anti-war demonstrations that typified the era. No, he said he meant that we are moving toward an "age of enlightenment led by religious figures who want to greet Americans with a moral, uplifting vision."
I'm wondering what 60's he was in? Perhaps, to Howie Dean, people like Abbie Hoffman and Timothy Leary WERE "religious figures"? But, I am hard pressed to remember what representative figure, besides Martin Luther King, Jr., was religious in the 60's?
Dean waxed warmly about the day when everybody was "in it together," and says we need to emulate the 60's so that we can "... know that no one person can succeed unless everybody else succeeds."
Yeah ... all in it together. Now what did the free lovers and potheads in the 60's say about how we are all "in it together" again? Ah, yes. I remember now. "Don't trust anyone over 30." That was how we were all "in it together" according to the yippies and hippies of those heady 1960's.
The much ballyhooed "counter-culture" of the 60's certainly whined about the "man" and complained about the "establishment" but they offered nothing with which to replace it but some nebulous ideas about "freedom" and "love". The counter-culturists offered no real ideas, no full-fledged philosophies, no programs or processes that have stood the test of time.
All we ever got out of those espousing the hippie line was childish, half-formed, utopianism that not only attempted to ignore history but were filled with ideas that had no basis in an understanding of human nature. In fact, human nature became one of the counter-culture's worst enemies as evinced by that aforementioned agitator and "Chicago 8" member, Abbie Hoffman. You know, the one who attempted to Blackmail the promoters of Woodstock, the famed 1969 concert in New York, telling them that he would keep protesters away for a fee in a classic Mafia styled protectionist scam. THAT Abbie Hoffman?
So much for how we were all "in it together" in the 1960's.
So, it shouldn't be a surprise that about all of lasting impact that stayed with us from the 60's was hatred of government, hatred of the U.S. military, hatred of capitalism, and an unexamined but self-assured assumption that the U.S. is the most evil influence in the world.
My most remembered memory of the 1960's was the fear of wondering if my Policeman Father would come home alive to us during the many race riots in the big city in which we then lived.
And that is what Chairman Dean wants to bring us back to?
Dean also fondly recalled those grand 60's for its ideas of all those socialist welfare programs that about bankrupted the country by the 1980's, programs that had to be materially altered in the 1990's under the careful guidance of Newt's boys in Congress lest those programs ruin us all.
Dean, to his credit, offered that the new Democratic Party emphasizes the value of work, though.
How progressive of ya, Howie.
Dean even took a swipe at past Democratic Party mainstays such as LBJ's Great Society. "...we did give things away for free, and that's a huge mistake because that does create a culture of dependence, and that's not good for anybody, either," Dean confided.
After lambasting an overspending Republican Congress today, calling it "the biggest 'big government' government we've ever had," and claiming that LBJ's Great Society ideas were overreach, he paradoxically went on to propose, in typical Democratic Party double speak, that government stay as involved as ever.
"in America, you need the opportunity to work hard, and that means some level of support from government -- no handouts, but some level of support so that you really do have a genuine opportunity to contribute to the country."
Howie, what does that mean? Do you even know?
Of course, what would a visit by a Democrat to a religious conference be without some pandering to the floor? Dean closed his little talk with a "heart felt" thank you to the folks in attendance as he follows the new Democrat policy to convert the religious to liberalism.
"I came in the wrong door when I first got here, I came in the back, and everybody was talking about praising the Lord, and I thought, 'I am home. Finally, a group of people who want to praise the Lord and help their fellow man just like Jesus did and just like Jesus taught.' Thank you so much for doing that for me."
He came in the "wrong door" alright.
Contrast this with what Barack Obama said in a recent interview: (Reuters)
"Nothing is more transparent than inauthentic expressions of faith -- the politician who shows up at a black church around election time and claps -- off rhythm -- to the gospel choir,"
If anyone can be off rhythm it can be Howlin' Howie Dean, one of the Republican's best operatives.
Demotivation As Motivation (Smiley Faces With Bullet Holes)
I wonder at times how many of us have stopped to consider that everything we do is an act of war in one way or another. When I take or buy something I have diminished the available quantity by whatever number I have taken. To some that could be considered an act of war. Usually however it doesn't turn into war unless I perform some obnoxious act, such as lock the doors to the store on the way out or threaten everyone in the vicinity should they consider also diminishing the available quantity. War occurs when people fail to be diplomatic and as has been said many times, diplomacy is the art of saying 'nice doggy' while you're looking for a bigger stick. But it really drives me nuts when I see there are so many people that just don't seem to be able to grasp the true nature of our world. It's as though they feel this deep-seated need or desire to slap a happy face on everything they can find.
I'm certain that this desire/need comes from viewing all of those stupid motivational posters in the workplace. I suspect that those posters as well as corporate sponsored classes cause harm not only to the psyche of those that are required to attend the classes, but also to the families of those attending the classes. I can't help but wonder if it isn't this one industry that is causing our inability to deal with things rationally. We can't even articulate unpleasantness anymore: Not as well as we used to be able to do it. It is as though we've become sterile, 'personality-challenged' individuals because of these posters and this industry...............................
Click HERE To Read On
Wednesday, June 28, 2006
ABC - TV Show ‘24’, Derided as ‘Conservative Love-Fest’
ABC’s Jake Tapper had an interesting -- if not entirely dismissive -- take on the recent panel discussion of the Fox TV series, 24 hosted by Radio’s Rush Limbaugh.
Calling it a “love-fest”, Tapper was in the audience at the Heritage Foundation’s 24 discussion panel and wrote about it on his ABC blog as well as doing an on-air report on Nightline (June 23rd) and an ABC News “webcast” report.
He seemed amazed at the interest the show has generated, but he was not as surprised by the general public’s reaction to the show as to that of a specific segment of that fan base.
“The oddity of it all? It was the GOP power structure hosting the love-in.”
What is this supposed to mean, anyway? Should the “GOP power structure” not be allowed to like a TV show? Should they not be allowed to be a “fan” of something like “normal” people might?
Tapper asks the actress that plays Chloe O’Brien, Mary Lynn Rajskub, a question that further explores how “odd” Tapper feels it is that conservatives like the show.
“Is the fact that Washington D.C., that the power structure of this country so embraced your show disconcerting at all?”
Being a good little Hollywood denizen, Rajskub says it is (She said it was “very, very strange”), but what would one expect her to say? She doesn’t want to be thrown out of the Hollyweird club, after all!
His bemusement aside, the most outrageous thing that Tapper said in his on-air report revealed more of the typical “journalist” bias against conservatives.
“At a time when conservatives are struggling to get the message out, the show beats their drum”
“Struggling to get the message out”, Mr. Tapper? Was 9/11 just some slick special effect from a TV show being used to pull the wool over the eyes of the public? What about the London bombing? Madrid? Kobar Towers, the first WTC attack … even the U.S.S. Cole attack?? Are these all just “messages” that need to “get out”?
Tapper acts as if Conservatives are merely selling this “message” of terrorism as one might a tube of toothpaste during a commercial break on 24. And, of course, we all realize he probably IS saying that this terrorism “thing” is an overblown, demagoguery of the issues just to empower those evil Conservatives.
Does Tapper think terrorism is all smoke and mirrors? By his snide aside on TV, it would sure seem so.
Take a Ride on the John Kerry WayBack Machine
After making a wrong turn in the lobby of a Washington hotel a few weeks ago, I found myself having to edge my way out of a conference room filled with glassy-eyed liberals, standing in rapt adulation while Senator John Kerry (D-MA) stood on stage, publicly purging himself of his 2002 vote for the Iraqi war resolution. My good friend, Professor Maroon was with me. "I was afraid this might happen," he said. "We're in the middle of the 'Take Back America' conference. Last time I saw a group of liberals look this catatonic was when Al Gore was in town. I almost feel bad for them, poor devils."
"Forget them, Prof. Did you hear what Kerry just said? I thought he voted for intervention in Iraq? Now he says he was wrong. Now I'm confused."
"Well son, I'm still working out some of the kinks, but let's head up to my room and step into my John Kerry WayBack Machine and look at some of Long John's earlier statements about Iraq."
"Here we go. Put the 'Do Not Disturb' sign on the door knob. C'mon. Step in and don't be afraid...but hold on. This could get bumpy!"......................
Click HERE To Read On
Tuesday, June 27, 2006
Why Does the New York Times hate Us?
-By Warner Todd Huston
Michael Barone has penned a great Op Ed today, and he couldn't be more right.
Why DOES the New York Times seem to want to go out of its way to inform terror networks of what it is our security services are doing to apprehend them or what our government is doing otherwise put a stop to the terrorist's nefarious plans? Why does the NYT want Americans to die?
Barone asks these questions and more.
Why do they hate us? ...No, the "they" I'm referring to are the editors of The New York Times. And do they hate us? Well, that may be stretching it. But at the least they have gotten into the habit of acting in reckless disregard of our safety.
Like most on the Anti-American left spawned by Europhiles from the era of McGovern, they hate the GOP in general and George W. Bush in specific so badly that they excuse their own treasonous actions as long as those actions defeat the enemies of leftism. And they feel that those enemies are not Islamofascists, but their fellow Americans, those who vote for the Party of Abraham Lincoln.
While Conservatives and Republicans are trying to rid the world of the hatemongers of radical Islam, people who want to kill homosexuals, oppress women, destroy freedom of expression, the press and religion, the Left is trying to rid the world of Republicans and Conservatives. Which seems the better target? Islamofascism or Americans?
The left agrees with the Islamofascists that America is the problem and should be destroyed.
Why do they hate us? Why does the Times print stories that put America more at risk of attack? They say that these surveillance programs are subject to abuse, but give no reason to believe that this concern is anything but theoretical. We have a press that is at war with an administration, while our country is at war against merciless enemies. The Times is acting like an adolescent kicking the shins of its parents, hoping to make them hurt while confident of remaining safe under their roof. But how safe will we remain when our protection depends on the Times?
Good questions, all and a great Op Ed by Barone.
For a whole lot of links and stories to the NYT treasonous actions, go to the Hugh Hewitt website where he has been blogging about it since last week. www.hughhewitt.com.
Then go to your Congressman and Senator's websites and send them a letter urging to prosecute the New York Times for its reckless abandon and treasonous actions.
Rift Develops Between Evangelical Homeschoolers & Constitutional Individualists
Homeschool guru Kevin Swanson has decided to cast aspersions on Alex Jones of Inforwars.com and PrisonPlanet.com.
Swanson commenced his attack on the 6/2/06 broadcast of his program Generations Radio because Jones posted a story daring to suggest that FEMA operatives were training pastors to manipulate their congregations into accepting world government and the related institutions of the New World Order.
Instead of considering the allegations, Swanson burst into a tirade about Jones not having enough about God on his website and condemned him as a "Randian" individualist possessing an incorrect worldview.
Just because God is not explicitly mentioned on a website in every story does not mean by definition that it is necessarily anti-God. Jones might simply have a purpose that transcends that of Swanson's more niche mission........................
Click HERE To Read On
Monday, June 26, 2006
Union Oppresses Member, Violates Law
-By Warner Todd Huston
In another chapter of we-know-better-than-you, a leftist Union has decided that it can violate the law and decide what is best for one of its members.
A Federal law states that employees who object to union membership on the basis of religious belief can divert their dues to a charity in order to accommodate their religious objections. Consequently, in Washington state, a teacher named Susan Wiggs has been trying to get her dues diverted to a charity of her choice for the last two years. But the Vancouver Education Association has been refusing to follow the law and accede to her requests.
Teacher Wiggs has been trying to get her money diverted to a charity whose aim is to eradicate sex trafficking and slavery of women and children, but her Union has steadfastly refused to allow it claiming the charity is "not acceptable". Shared Hope International is a charity founded by former Congresswoman, Linda Smith (R, Washington State), and geared to fight the oppression and abuse of women and children, but apparently this Union does not support such goals.
It shouldn't be surprising that this particular Union is violating the law, unfortunately. A few years ago this same Union had to settle a case brought by another Union member. Part of this settlement prompted the Union to observe a religious objector policy which states, "...the goal is to respect the objector's choice of charities, so long as the designated recipient is lawful and charitable."
Wiggs has repeatedly proven to the Union that Shared Hope International is a legal, legitimate charity, but to no avail. The Union refuses to follow the Federal law proscribing that they relinquish Wiggs' dues money to her designated charity.
I'll hazard a guess as to why. Shared Hope International was started by a Republican. And, regardless of the legitimacy of the charity, this Union refuses to allow any money that it claims as its own to go to the efforts of a person who is a Republican. It appears to be just that simple. Pure partisan hatred.
It has to be that simple. After all, does this foolish Union want to be thought of as being FOR forcing women and children into sexual slavery?
China’s Coming Collapse A Danger To Us All
It is no exaggeration to say that we won the Cold War by forcing the U.S.S.R. to spend itself into despair. They did so to gain power and expansion was the means to that power yet, the U.S.A. stood square in the path of that expansion. Consequently, the U.S.S.R. continued to put good money after bad into its military to the detriment of every other aspect of Soviet life.
One of the things that added to the collapse of the Soviet Union, though, was internal corruption, something that the U.S.A. had nothing to do with. The long lines that Soviet citizens stood in daily just to find necessities like bread and toilet paper should never be forgotten. Yet, as the lines lengthened, Party bigwigs spent their days idling away the hours at seaside resorts and gouging themselves on caviar and fine wines while the rest starved and did without. This was an intolerable situation in a society that claimed total “equality”. Apparently, some were more “equal” than others in the “worker’s paradise”.
Corruption, bribery, and chronic inefficiency all added to the collapse of the Soviets. But Soviet corruption was bush league compared to the level that Chinese corruption has reached. And that corruption will lead to China’s implosion.
But, will that implosion occur before China launches a war against the US? That is the question that is difficult to answer. But one thing is sure, China cannot advance, China will never join the rest of the world with democratic inspired government, nor will China be a healthy nation for its endemic corruption.
Conservatives today seem to have two prevailing concepts about how to treat the communist colossus, China. 1) Trade with them enough and those close ties and their subsequent commitment to capitalism will ruin China’s communist system, or at least moderate it to meaninglessness and, 2) stop dealing with them and implement an encirclement and containment strategy making friends with those countries surrounding China.
No single, simple policy will work, of course and for sure following only one of these two will never work as both must be employed. But, just as surely following only the first policy is doomed to failure. The reason that capitalism will never drag Communist China into a western style system is its internal corruption. The massive corruption that exists in China will swallow every social or economic advance occurring that might be traced to its dabbling in capitalist ventures.
FAILING ITS PEOPLE
The main benefit of capitalism, of course, is the fact that its pursuit improves the standard of living of the citizenry, usually even of its most poor members. But this cannot occur if government is so corrupt that such benefits never trickle down, to use that much benighted phrase, to the people. And that logjam is precisely the situation in which China stands.
One of the most important aspects of the government of a capitalist society is its role as “protector” of the people, whether from external threat utilizing military means or internal threats via regulation and health codes.
For instance, in the USA we have the Federal Drug Administration one of whose many roles is to assure the safety of new drugs and medical treatments. Certainly this organization has its flaws, but it is successful in its quest to safeguard the public’s health, for the most part. In fact, it is often too zealous in its duties. We also have so many environmental laws that even places once thought polluted beyond recovery have long since become revitalized. Not to mention the many construction regulations and work place safety rules put into place that adds to the safety and health of the people.
China, on the other hand, repeatedly fails to safeguard public health in a myriad of ways. For instance, recently, a snake-oil beauty treatment that is supposed to enlarge women’s breasts has been causing havoc among China’s women. A product called “Amazing Gel”, one that the government has claimed to have outlawed due to the danger it poses, has been causing thousands of Chinese women to suffer double mastectomies after its injection. But, due to rampant bribery this product has been allowed to proliferate among an uninformed public.
According to the report cited, this putatively illegal product is everywhere.
Beijing Union Hospital plastic surgeon Dr. Qiao Qun said she performs 12 operations a week to remove Amazing Gel implants -- many of which also require breast removal.
She also criticized China's system that allowed quick -- and some have claimed illegal -- approval of the product. She also objected to beauticians lacking medical training selling and injecting the product.
"In no other country in the world is there a problem like this on such a scale," Qiao told the Times. "The numbers of people who may have medical problems are simply enormous."
Worse still, China’s pollution problem is fast becoming one affecting the entire world and not just the people that live in China.
The superheated growth that China has experienced in industry has far outstripped any attempts to safeguard the environment. China is claimed to be the second biggest polluter after the U.S.A. This fact, though, is entirely misleading as the U.S.A. also cleans up after itself at a rate that far outshines China’s poor -- nearly non-existent -- attempts to do so.
In 2002, for instance, China reported that its pollution output was only 3.2 tons per person to America’s 19.4 tons making it a distant 2nd place by that reading. But, this ignores the fact that China had 1,276 million inhabitants on the mainland whereas the U.S. had just over 281 million. This makes the average amount of pollution per person in China nearly the same as that of the USA. Then add the fact that China has almost no enforcement of laws that support a clean environment and you get a recipe for disaster, a recipe that is causing the environmental stew for the rest of the world to boil.
Researchers and climate watchers are seeing the results of China’s heavy usage of coal and its subsequent lack of environmental measures, for instance. A huge cloud of coal pollutants is drifting across the globe and governments the world over are becoming alarmed. It has even reached the United States.
Researchers in California, Oregon and Washington noticed specks of sulfur compounds, carbon and other byproducts of coal combustion coating the silvery surfaces of their mountaintop detectors. These microscopic particles can work their way deep into the lungs, contributing to respiratory damage, heart disease and cancer.
Again, this is due to China’s lack of concern about anything other than powering her growth.
Careless coal mining is also destroying great swaths of China’s landscape. As New York Times writer, David Barboza reports, whole villages are being destroyed by this unsafe mining and the pollution resulting from the mines is reaching dangerous proportions.
While Shanxi provides the fuel that powers China's economy, thousands of hectares of land are sinking because of the ravages of coal mining. Moreover, coal fires are burning uncontrollably below ground here and through much of northern China, adding to global warming by releasing huge amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.
Each year, scientists say, about 200 million tons of coal - more than was burned in all of Japan last year - is consumed by raging underground fires that are sometimes started by lightning and sometimes ignited by mining accidents.
As a result, China creates twice the sulfur dioxide as America does and some scientists say this will soon more than double.
According to Nathan Nankivell, Senior Researcher at the Office of the Special Advisor Policy, Maritime Forces Pacific Headquarters, Canadian Department of National Defense, China is quickly spiraling out of control.
China now boasts five of the ten most polluted cities in the world; 70% of the water that flows through China's urban areas is unfit for drinking or fishing; and severely degraded land or desert, which now claims 1/4 of China's land, is advancing at a rate of 1300 sq. miles per year.
According to USA Today:
China's pollution problems cost the country more than $200 billion a year, a top official said Monday as he called for better legal protection for grassroots groups so they can help clean up the environment.
Damage to China's environment is costing the government roughly 10% of the country's gross domestic product, estimated Zhu Guangyao, deputy chief of the State Environmental Protection Agency. China's GDP for 2005 was $2.26 trillion.
Despite the efforts of half a million environmental officials in his agency and other organizations, China's environmental picture is worsening and "allows for no optimism," he said as he released a report that described China's environmental situation as "grave."
"Water, land and soil pollution is serious," the report said. "The Chinese government will mobilize all forces available to solve the pollution problems that are causing serious harm to people's health."
Again, most of this is due to corruption that ranges from top Party officials to local Party bosses. Bribery and personal enrichment is the system that China has followed for thousands of years. The onset of Communism did not alter this traditional practice. In fact, it made it easier.
CHINA, PAYING LIP SERVICE TO REFORM
Trials and executions for corruption are becoming commonplace in China today, but these show trials are only for western consumption, to show that the government is “doing something”, as no efforts have yet been made to materially demolish the ages old practice of bribery that has characterized Chinese life for generations.
Any quick perusal of an internet search engine can turn up reports of these corruption trials. Here are just a very few examples spanning the decade so far:
Merrill, Lynch Today -- China: Corruption and the Economy
Corruption has rarely been worse in modern China, or reached higher. A Vice Chairman of Congress is under investigation for what China calls economic crimes. The Minister of land has been fired and investigation of a $10 billion smuggling racket has implicated the wife of Beijing's party chief, a man close to President Jiang Zemin. And that's only senior levels. Further down, the money may not be as great, but the graft cuts all across society.
CNN -- Seven sentenced to die in China corruption case --China has executed scores of officials in its fight to end graft
China has sentenced seven people to death for tax fraud in connection with what could be the biggest corruption case of the Communist era.
New York Times -- China: Corruption Arrests
The head of the asset management department at Shanghai's state-owned Jinjiang Group has been charged with corruption, company officials said. Chen Yanning, 46, the son of a senior military officer in the Sichuan-Chengdu Military Region, is being held in a case that has already led to the detention of Chen Bangke, a patron of the arts and opera producer.
Times On-Line, UK -- Chinese bank aims to be global giant
Chinese banks are still not investments for widows and orphans. The list of frauds, fugitive managers and brazen corruption — of which ICBC has had its share — would stretch from one end of the Great Wall to the other.
Fitch Ratings, in its most recent assessment, had this to say: “All Chinese banks, to varying degrees, continue to demonstrate thin profit margins, relatively low capital, weak asset quality and underdeveloped risk-management systems.”
It is so common that tourist attractions are being created over them…
CNN -- China turns corruption into tourist attraction
Tour guides were scrambling for tickets to a government-sponsored exhibition in Xiamen that opened Monday displaying evidence of the "Yuanhua smuggling scandal", according to China's state media.
The scandal involved Xiamen Yuanhua Group, accused of smuggling $6 billion worth of cars, oil, luxury goods and cigarettes.
Seven senior local communist officials, including a former deputy mayor and a former police chief were executed earlier this year for their involvement in the case. About a hundred people were tried on fraud and embezzlement charges.
Of course, China’s sloppy and unprofitable banking industry is another danger for the economies of western nations as too many investors clamor to place money there imagining that China is a good investment. Due to the rosy reports of its growth without a subsequent and sober assessment of its unsuitable infrastructure and true profitability, China seems an attractive investment.
So, what is the upshot of all this? Can China overcome this systemic corruption, a way of life that has always bedeviled the Chinese people for as long as anyone can remember?
I say it cannot. It cannot because there is no incentive and no internal mechanics to address it. This corruption will continue to grow until the economy collapses upon itself.
After all, China is not a democracy and it has never made a priority of serving its people so the benefits of its capitalistic ventures will not lift up the common people nearly as easily as it does in western nations. It is a totalitarian system that cannot exist without top down control. And with no local input to address the trials and tribulations of common life, corruption is the only way to get anything done.
People know there is no trusting government to address problems, so they take matters into their own hands. And, since the government claims ownership of most everything, bribery is the best way to assure a future nest egg for retirement.
This leaves the poor in a no win situation for they have nothing with which to bargain. And this fact lends itself to the ever-greater numbers of protests that we are seeing hit China today.
CHINA’S REACTION -- THE DANGER
The reaction of China’s government to the growing unrest is tighter control and more militant enforcement. A benchmark of this enforcement is the growth in the number of state sponsored executions.
Last year, China executed more than four times the number of convicts executed by any other country with nearly 2,000 Chinese were executed. By contrast, the US executed only about 60. Amnesty International -- admittedly an organization prone to sometimes absurd exaggerations -- claims that the number could be as high as 8,000. The actual number, though, is unknown as it is deemed a state secret and is not publicized.
To process this horrid number of state executions, the Chinese government has actually created a fleet of execution vans invented specially to roam about the country carrying out the sentence on a daily basis.
There are also suspicions that prisoner’s organs are being harvested for sale on the black market adding to the inhumanity of the practice.
In any case, it is obvious that China feels it needs to eliminate as many problematic citizens as it can to keep tight control over a populace of over a billion souls. And this leads to a further problem.
How long can the communist dictatorship continue to control this mass of unhappy and agitated people? Can it rely on the traditional meekness to government that characterizes the Chinese mentality for too much longer? And, if these protests continue to grow what will the government do to keep control and power?
Will China turn its face to the west, raising the boogy man of western aggression to give its restless populace an outside enemy upon which to focus their anger? And will they be able to present this boogy man to the public early enough to forestall their loss of control and collapse?
I have no direct answer for that. Suffice to say, it is something that we must take into account as a distinct possibility. We cannot blithely sit by and assume that our business ties will prevent them from these measures, that those ties will stop a Chinese government flailing blindly to keep its power from lashing out at the US, its best customer.
We cannot turn a blind eye to China’s impending collapse and imagine it cannot affect us. China is the most dangerous threat the US and the west faces in the long term. No concept of MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) will suffice to stop China if it sees war as a last ditch effort to stay in control of its own, vast population.
And if we are to take China’s military establishment for granted, it plans to do just that.
Sunday, June 25, 2006
Barack to the future: Is there any there there?
Illinois Senator Barack Obama has a brilliant future. The media, Democratic activists, fat cat donors and many John and Jane Q. Publics see something special in him. Described adoringly as a superstar, he does nothing to damper speculation that his sights are on the White House.
Undoubtedly he has a solidly liberal voting record. Yet when he's speechifying and raising money – as he has in 25 states so far – he’s very short on particulars.
That could be because he's an empty suit, but it's not likely. The man is indisputably bright. Bright enough to be in Congress, anyway.................................
Click HERE To Read On
TOXIC GAS ATTACK AND THREATENED MISSILE LAUNCH
Al Qaeda, North Korea, and THE Commercial
It was a weekend of big news stories. The Hippy Press was forced to report on the 2003 planned gas attack on New York's subway system that was abandoned after Osama's right hand man Ayman al-Zawahiri decided that it just wouldn't kill enough innocent people. I'm sure it was all that the NY Times could take just to write the words that might indicate that the War on Terror is positively justified, especially when it was revealed that the cyanide gas they were intending to use was hauntingly reminiscent of the gas Hitler used to get rid of 6 million Jews and 5 million others. NY Times must be praying--oops, strike that--must be pacing back and forth in the hope that others don't make the eerie connection between the two, and come to the conclusion that it was NO coincidence. If your goal is to "wipe Israel from the map,"--and, of course, the nation that aided and abetted in the restoration of the state of Israel.--it is best to take your lessons from the only man in history who actually came close.
Talk about your "little Eichmans."..............
Click HERE To Read On
Saturday, June 24, 2006
Daily Show Destroys Democracy?
For the laugher of the week, Richard Morin of the Washington Post has revealed the evil machinations of a destroyer of political participation among our youth. He asks, is Jon Stewart an Enemy of Democracy?
This is not funny: Jon Stewart and his hit Comedy Central cable show may be poisoning democracy.
Two political scientists found that young people who watch Stewart's faux news program, "The Daily Show," develop cynical views about politics and politicians that could lead them to just say no to voting.
I say, I sure hope so.
I am not one of those who fall all over themselves to appeal to those under 25 to get themselves to the polls to vote. Aristotle once said that no one under 50 should study philosophy, presumably because they just would not be learned enough or saturated with enough life experiences to have a chance to fully grasp the delicate reasonings of the philosopher's art, and I feel that voting should be treated in a similar light -- though 50 is a bit long in the tooth to begin voting, it should be said.
With few exceptions, those under 25 are neither experienced nor knowledgeable enough to understand the issues that must guide their vote. Kids of this age just haven't the sense of history, breadth of policy awareness, nor the ability to understand interactions with other people to make an informed vote. And our votes are too important to be left to the uninformed.
So, if Jon Stewart is keeping uninformed, half literate, historically ignorant, pop culture steeped, non-entities like most of those who are under the age of 25 from the polls.... then I say he is doing a service to the country.
After all, don't forget what Churchill said... "If you're not a liberal at 25, you have no heart. If you aren't a conservative at 40 you have no brain." (Well, OK. He didn't say it, but everyone SAYS he did.)
Harsh, you say? Well, my position certainly is one that many whiners would call "ageist". But, I stand by it. It was a huge mistake to lower the voting age form 21 to 18 years ago. It was just another blatant attempt by the liberals to glom onto a voting block. After all, they assumed that all those under 21 would be on their side being bleeding heart youngsters and all.
Besides, few under 25 take advantage of the opportunity to vote anyway, so why bother?
And, since we no longer teach people what it even MEANS to vote, what their civic duties are, even what the Constitution means, we are relying on ever less informed youngsters to go to the polls to cast an uninformed vote.
So, let's encourage Jon Stewart to keep these stupid voters from the polls.
Jon Stewart, "You GO, boy!"
(Count down to the youngsters whipping up a caterwauling...5...4...3...2...1...)
We Told You So --The UN Takes One More Step Toward Global Government
For years, Conservatives have been trying to alert Americans and all freedom loving people in the world about the dangers the United Nations poses to individual liberty and democracy. Whether it was "Agenda 21," the United Nations' plan for global sustainable development that would void your private property rights, force you to give up your car in lieu of a bicycle, and reserve almost half of the United States as no human zones to facilitate habitat for migratory animals, or the United Nations' plan to wrest control of the Internet away from the United States and place it under the "unbiased" control of China, Sudan, and Cuba, or NRA President Wayne LaPierre's warning that the UN's "Small Arms Review Conference" was nothing more than a thinly veiled attempt to destroy the 2nd Amendment, Conservatives have always seen the UN as the anti-American organization it is. And, categorically, we have been ridiculed and called insane by the left as a result.
The left is so consumed in their anti-Americanism that they tend to gravitate toward and support anyone who is opposed to the United States, even to the point of becoming apologists for terrorists, and in this case, a dysfunctional and corrupt international organization. When a liberal is defending the UN, the arguments are generally based on some perceived notion that just because the majority of petty juntas, Communist dictatorships, and radical theocracies of the world have an opinion about something, then that opinion is, by default, granted the coveted Liberal mantle of "international moral authority." .....................
Click HERE To Read On
Friday, June 23, 2006
Bush's Order Against Taking Private Property
President Bush has issued an Executive Order Protecting the Property Rights of the American People.
It is a good leadership position to take, of course, and it should be applauded for that fact. But, it should also be remembered that the problem has not been that the Feds are going around taking people's homes to build shopping malls, but that the states are doing so.
Unfortunately, this order will have no direct or binding effect on those out-of-control states from stealing people's property.
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, and to strengthen the rights of the American people against the taking of their private property, it is hereby ordered as follows:
Section 1. Policy. It is the policy of the United States to protect the rights of Americans to their private property, including by limiting the taking of private property by the Federal Government to situations in which the taking is for public use, with just compensation, and for the purpose of benefiting the general public and not merely for the purpose of advancing the economic interest of private parties to be given ownership or use of the property taken.
I agree with your sentiment, Mr. Bush. Unfortunately, too many states do not.
The dollar signs are in their eyes and no executive order will stop them.
This is the kind of thing that the Founders would have armed themselves over. In the 1770's to the 1790's, any government official who dared approach a citizen's home with the thought of stealing that property without cause would have found himself tarred, feathered and run out of town.
I say, warm up the tar and pluck some chickens.
Attack of the Bloggers
There was a time in America when the most effective way for the average Joe to make his voice heard in the political process was in the confines of the voting booth. Once in a while--if he were lucky--he might even get a letter to the editor published in the local newspaper. But, other than that, it was unlikely that politicians would pay much attention to what he had to say--especially if he lived somewhere between the liberal Coasts--the great American fly-over zone.
But the Internet has changed everything. Joe Six-Pack can now hook up his computer and his DSL account and blog away his nights. And the entire world can see his thoughts and e-mail comments back to him.
As a result, political nobodies from nowhere are now emerging on the national Cyberspace stage, opining on everything from the war in Iraq to, well, the strength of other blogs......................
Click HERE To Read On
Thursday, June 22, 2006
Huffington Post Blogger Victim of Fraud
Usually, I do not do too much Blogger news because this site is more for news and commentary on the important issues of the day as opposed to a "fan" site about blogging, but this story is too delicious to pass up.
Some of you may recall the dust-up between Arrianna Huffington and actor George Clooney when a blog entry on the Huffington Post was posted making it appear that Clooney had actually written and posted it himself when he did no such thing? It turned out an HP staffer had written the thing by compositing several Clooney interviews. So, it was what Clooney had said in the past, but it was not an original piece by Cloony himself though pretending to be.
Very messy and embarrassing for the Huffy Post, that.
Well, now we have a new bit of fraud exposed on the Huffy Post to report. It appears that one of the contributing Bloggers (all of whom are invited and approved as well as moderated by the Huffy Post Staff), a Dr Peter Rost, a former vice-president of drug company Pfizer, had himself a "troll" problem. A heckler who was dogging the good Doctor's posts in the comments section was making life miserable for him.
Turns out, that heckler was one of the Huffy Post's administrative technicians and not just a fan of the website as he pretended. Worse, that technician manipulated the system to get his heckling of the Drs. posts spotlighted as a "readers' favourite comment" within half an hour after being posted.
Then, after a bit of on-line investigation, when Rost brought this fact to the attention of the Huffy Post staff, his Blogging column was unceremoniously terminated.
They dumped the poor feller!
Rost said of the incident, "This is a sad day for online journalism. I was terminated without any investigation of the statements in my blog post, all of which were referenced using independent sources."
The Huffy Post folks tried to make amends and reinstate him after all became public, but putting a bandaid on a compound fracture never has been good medicine.
Ah, the hypocrisy of the left strikes again!
A List of the Cut and Run Senators
Who voted to Cut and Run from Iraq today in the Senate?
I suppose it should be no surprise that, with only two exceptions, it was mostly Democrats. And, sadly, it should be no surprise to any veteran Watcher of the 109th Congress which two "other than" Senators voted to support Francois Kerry's idea to run home with our tails between our legs, ala Vietnam(this time voting on the Carl Levin amendment).
Of course, one of those Senators was "Jumpin' Jim" Jeffords of Vermont. He of pretending to be an "Independent", but who was always more of a Democrat Party supporter than anything else. Yes, "Jumpin' Jim" voted to show the yellow feather.
And, predictably is that Party traitor, that whiner that no one will support him consequently, that supreme RINO, Lincoln "But what about me?" Chafee, of Rogue's Island... uh, I meant Rhode Island.
So, there you have it. The one "Republican" that the Democrats can always count on to support their every move has, once again, supplicated his country's interests to the anti-American left.
Lincoln "I never met a tax I didn't want to raise" Chafee has slithered up to the Michael Moore wing of the Democratic Party and offered his support for their campaign of self-loathing and immolation.
THIS man is why none of us should give money to the GOP directly. Give, instead, to the candidates you support instead of the GOP itself. Washington understands cash. If they find their usually free donating members suddenly holding back because of RINOS like Chafee, maybe they will take hold of some of these leftists in Patriot's clothing and either dump them or conform them to the ideas a real American should sponsor?
Chafee must be defeated. And, in his case, I would rather have a Democrat in his chair than a putative Republican that never, ever supports his Party in anything whatsoever.
Here is the full list of those who wish to replicate our humiliation during Vietnam with their vote to cut and run...
109th Roll Cal Vote
Question: On the Amendment (Levin Amdt. No. 4320 )
Vote Number: 182
Vote Date: June 22, 2006, 11:44 AM
Required For Majority: 1/2
Vote Result: Amendment Rejected
Akaka (D-HI), Baucus (D-MT), Bayh (D-IN), Biden (D-DE), Bingaman (D-NM), Boxer (D-CA), Byrd (D-WV), Cantwell (D-WA), Carper (D-DE), Chafee (R-RI), Clinton (D-NY), Conrad (D-ND), Dodd (D-CT), Dorgan (D-ND), Durbin (D-IL), Feingold (D-WI), Feinstein (D-CA), Harkin (D-IA), Inouye (D-HI), Jeffords (I-VT), Johnson (D-SD), Kennedy (D-MA), Kerry (D-MA), Kohl (D-WI), Lautenberg (D-NJ), Leahy (D-VT), Levin (D-MI), Lincoln (D-AR), Menendez (D-NJ), Mikulski (D-MD), Murray (D-WA), Obama (D-IL), Reed (D-RI), Reid (D-NV), Salazar (D-CO), Sarbanes (D-MD), Schumer (D-NY) ,Stabenow (D-MI), Wyden (D-OR)
John Kerry has a PLAN...
As Above So Below (Equilibrium Equals Gridlock)
Let me begin this by saying that gridlock is a wonderful thing. I really do miss it but not enough to vote for it. By the time I'm done you'll understand why. First let's take a look at our universe as some of us understand it. I’ll of course look to Stephen Hawking's view of the universe as he explains the nature of matter and antimatter and what it means to all of us; "It is said that there's no such thing as a free lunch. But the universe is the ultimate free lunch."
He is discussing quantum theory when he makes this claim, referring to the view that matter is made up of positive energy and antimatter is made up of negative energy. These are both made at the same time, because through the creation of one the opposite also comes into existence. The two of them can't be allowed to touch each other because they will cease to exist. (Politicians need to remember this critical fact by the way.)
One might be inclined to wonder how all of these things can be created out of nothing. The answer is rather simple and obvious. What do you get when you add them together? You get a great big zero. He says "Now twice zero is also zero. Thus the universe can double the amount of positive matter and also double the negative gravitational energy without violation of the conservation of energy." This may well be the reason why there is an almost limitless abundance of ideology added to the level of political stupidity on both sides of the spectrum that still adds up to nothing. Regarding gravity he also said that two pieces of matter that are close together have less energy than two pieces that are far apart. (Clearly another universal warning against correcting gridlock.)..............................
Click HERE To Read On
Wednesday, June 21, 2006
High School Quashes Free Speech
-By Warner Todd Huston
U.S. Constitution, Bill of Rights, Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
I am not one to fall all over myself for the "rights" of children to say or do whatever they want in our schools. I usually come down on the side of decorum and order when considering how much "freedom" to give our students. I am for a dress code, for instance, and I don't think kids should be told that they can say anything they want to say to their teachers and administrators in the general course of the day.
However, a little common sense on behalf of those same teachers and administrators is called for, too. After all, they are the ones that are supposed to be the adults. And this story is a story where the school administrators were definitely in the wrong with their efforts to stop a valedictorian from being able to give her commencement address as written. And it is another example of an attempt to eradicate religion in America.
Brittany McComb, valedictorian for Foothill High School, Clark County, Nevada, had her microphone cut off by school administrators before she could finish her speech this year in a blatant example of an attempt by the school's administration to eliminate religious allusions being heard that day. (Las Vegas Review-Journal)
McComb, graduating with a 4.7 GPA, dutifully submitted her speech to the administration ahead of time. In the original 750-word speech, she made two references to the lord, nine mentions of God and one of Christ.
The school was not amused.
In the version approved by school officials, six of those words were omitted along with two biblical references. Also deleted from her speech was a reference to God's love being so great that he gave his only son to suffer an excruciated death in order to cover everyone's shortcomings and forge a path to heaven.
Allen Lichtenstein, general counsel for the ACLU of Nevada, had read the unedited version of McComb's speech and said district officials did the right thing by cutting McComb's speech short because her commentary promoted religion.
"There should be no controversy here," Lichtenstein said. "It's important for people to understand that a student was given a school-sponsored forum by a school and therefore, in essence, it was a school-sponsored speech."
Certainly "there should be no controversy" if one is an ACLU miscreant dead set on subverting the actual wording of the Constitution and trying replace it with your warped desire to destroy any vestige of the Christianity that this country has always known.
The rest of us beg to differ.
One does not need to be a Constitutional scholar to merely read BOTH of the clauses dealing with religion in the First Amendment to the Bill of Rights (excerpted at the start of this piece) to see that McComb's rights were violated by the school's administration.
There is no legitimate way to read the phrase "...or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" to mean that any mention of God, Christ or religious terminology should be mercilessly squashed by the power of authority.
No one in that gathering listening to McComb's speech imagined that she spoke FOR the state OR even the school. Nor did anyone imagine that the school would be forcibly imposing religious observance on McComb's audience merely because they allowed her to mention Christ in her speech.
It is a simple-minded demagogue that would misconstrue the Constitution to say that all religious sentiment should be eliminated from the public square and that this is the true meaning of the Constitution when religion has been a part of America's Public life for nearly the first 200 of our Nation's existence.
But, simple-minded demagogues are all too common in our Public schools, not to mention the membership of the ACLU.
A heartwarming sign occurred, though, that surely must have driven the members of the ACLU and the school's administration mad with anger. When McComb's mic was cut the action drew jeers from the graduates and their families. It is reported that it went on for several minutes, too.
If the school and the ACLU are not serving the people, at least those people weren't too afraid to show their distaste for the cowards and anti-Constitutionalists who cut McComb's microphone.
McComb, soon to take up studies at Biola University in La Mirada, California, said to the Las Vegas Review-Journal, "People aren't stupid and they know we have freedom of speech and the district wasn't advocating my ideas."
Smart woman. Expect great things from her. Too bad the Clark County School administrators aren't as intelligent as she.
Myths (and Truths) of the Illegal Immigration Invasion
Now that the Mexican flags have once again been neatly folded and tucked away in the sock drawer, and civilization has successfully weathered a 'Day without Immigrants', maybe the time has come for us to actually have a rational dialogue on illegal immigration. Preferably in English if you don't mind.
A variety of myths and misconceptions have been purposefully propagated by those who would like us to see illegal aliens as mere 'undocumented workers' who have every right to the privileges once reserved for actual citizens of the United States. Immigration 'activists' use bumper sticker slogans and simplistic sound bites repeated over and over in an attempt to win the hearts and minds of the American people. We are all descended from immigrants one way or another, but to muddy the stream of thought with the assertion that there is little difference between an illegal and a legal immigrant is a smart tactical, if dishonest, move and one that sows confusion in those attempting to make sense of this national debate.
I'd like to address just a few of the myths that have been spread about illegal immigration:...........
Click HERE To Read On
Tuesday, June 20, 2006
The Democrat’s Cut and Run Day
Thursday, June 15th, was Democratic Party Cut and Run day in the House. Led by the increasingly senile Rep. Jack Murtha (D, PA) 149 Democrats voted to tuck our tails between our legs and run, run, run. Following their Party's Vietnam "victory" (That of defeating the USA) these 149 Democrats sent the clear signal to any and all terrorists that anything they do against us will work. That we are truly the “paper tiger” that Ossama bin Ladden claimed we were so many years ago after he witnessed the weakness of Clinton’s responses to terrorist outrages against us.
On the floor of the House these weaklings spouted one lie and misconstruction after another in their efforts to "prove" how Bush and our military are failures. One of the worst of all is the aforementioned former Marine, Jack Murtha.
Before I go on with an example of his dissembling, I should say that past military experience does not equate to automatic correctness in matters of policy. A veteran can be just as wrong on the issues as anyone else. After all both Tim McVeigh of Oklahoma bombing infamy and Lee Harvey Oswald of JFK assassination fame were both US military vets. I don't think too many would give either of them a pass merely because of their past service.
Now, to some of the lies spewed in the House. (These transcripts courtesy of Radioblogger.com)
Murtha said the following:
All of us want to find a way to prevail in Iraq. This is a civil war, and we're caught in this civil war. There's less than a thousand al Qaeda in Iraq. They've diminished al Qaeda. But we're caught in this civil war between 100,000 Shiias, and 20,000 Sunnis fighting with each other.
No, Mr. Murtha. You don't want to "prevail in Iraq" you just want to run home to Mommy like the kid that got hit too hard in the neighborhood football game. Further more, you know full well that these numbers you just used are not confirmable at all. You made them up out of your rear end, like you do most of your "facts". Furthermore, it was interesting how you seemed to tie the diminishing of Al Qaeda to the Iraqis. It is the US military, Mr. Murtha, that has diminished Al Qaeda, not the Iraqis involved in your mythical civil war. It is only the last 5 months that the Iraqi forces have become proficient enough to begin taking up their duties, allowing US forces to take a step back in many areas.
Another Democratic Party leader in the House, Rep. Jane Harmon (D, CA) who is the Democratic chair of the Intelligence Committee tried her hand at the smoke and mirrors game, as well.
We were all wrong. Overriding the advice of intelligence professionals, administration officials put stock in bogus sources like Curveball, and self-promoters like Ahmad Chalabi. But simply calling Iraq an intelligence failure ignores the larger policy failures that created the false momentum toward war. The administration cherrypicked intelligence, and hyped the threat. They talked in ominous tones about mushroom clouds, even though many questioned evidence suggesting Saddam had nuclear weapons capability. They made a mantra of the claim that 9/11 hijacker Mohammad Atta met with Iraqi agents in Prague, a claim that has been thoroughly discredited.
Mrs. Harmon, the intelligence that Bush used as a prelude to entering Iraq was the same intelligence believed by every nation on the planet that had interests or information on the subject. That includes other Middle Eastern nations who advised the US that Saddam surely had WMDs and was prepared to use them. So, there was no "cherrypicking" of intelligence if every OTHER nation thought the same things about Saddam's Iraq as did we.
Also, there is no reason to call Iraq an "intelligence failure". Perhaps some of what we thought we knew about Iraq previously was incorrect, but a few incorrect assumptions do not equal a total failure. And, if we were truly mired in a time of “failed intelligence”, why did we find a communiqué in the possession of Al Qaeda members in Iraq that said, "time is now beginning to be of service to the American forces and harmful to the resistance." Seems to me like we are finding useful enough intelligence and have acted upon it quickly enough to deal Al Qaeda a severe blow, to put it mildly.
Now for her outright lie, no one talked in "ominous tones about mushroom clouds" in the run up to invasion. Bush talked about preventing Saddam even getting the capability to further threaten the world with his aggression, but no one said he was going to nuke anyone.
By the way, the Prague claim is still believed by some foreign intelligence services. Besides, there is plenty of other evidence of an Iraq connection to terror groups so we don’t have to rely on the admittedly shaky grounds of the Prague claim (not that it was thought shaky then). Zarqawi is known to have been in Iraq before we entered that country, as is his putative replacement, Abu Hamza al-Muhajir. Not to mention the thousands of dollars that Saddam paid to families of suicide bombers in the Palestinian Authority. Saddam was not in any way innocent of supporting terrorism, the kind that threatens not only the US but every other country as well.
It should also be noted that we would never have killed Zarqawi, a man responsible for so many murders and terror attacks that it is impossible to count, if we had pulled out of Iraq and ran home like the Democrats wanted us to do so many years ago. And, since he was already IN Iraq before we got there it simply cannot be said that we somehow “created” him.
Last I will excerpt some of Representative Ike Skelton's (D, MO) comments.
There are two ongoing wars. The war against terror, which has genesis in Afghanistan, and we did the right thing going in there. We're still chasing bin Laden, and someday we'll get him. We toppled the Taliban. And then of course, we went into Iraq, based upon the threat of weapons of mass destruction, and we're there. ... We have an insurgency there, which is different and distinct from terrorists. The insurgency is composed of Baathists, Fedayeen, Sunni who were basically in charge under Saddam Hussein. This is their attempt to knock down the government that is there, and to establish their own, far from being the terrorists that we went after in Afghanistan.
Wow, is that one filled with nonsense.
How is terrorism localized solely in Afghanistan? Has Skelton not heard of the attacks in Indonesia, England, Spain, Egypt and so many other Nations. Perhaps he missed that little thing we like to call “9/11”? No, Mr. Skelton, terrorism is not a product of Afghanistan, but one of a worldwide ideology that has been threatening and killing since the 1990’s.
Again, this mantra of having gone into Iraq “based upon the threat of weapons of mass destruction”. This is not now, nor was it ever the sole basis for going into Iraq. It was only one of many reasons.
And this claim that the insurgency is “different and distinct from terrorists” is also a half-truth. There certainly are old Ba’athist holdovers that are using terror tactics to attempt to regain power, but saying that all these insurgents are somehow distinct from terrorists is absurd when many of them are funded by Iran and Syria, two of the biggest state sponsors of terrorism in the world.
Still, what does it matter if we have in one group Wahhabist terrorists under Al Qaeda and another being supported by Sunni terrorists from Iran? BOTH are terrorists groups, BOTH have declared war on the USA and BOTH are dangerous to the entire world. Why attack one but not the other, especially when they often share goals and work together even if loosely or infrequently?
This mindless focus on only Al Qaeda is the sort of foolishness that proves that Democrats don’t understand how complicated this entire issue even is. It shows us that they have no clue how many goals coincide between these groups and how intertwined they are in many ways.
This along with their opposition to the president’s intelligence gathering with the NSA (the inaptly named “Domestic spying” program) shows that Democrats do not want to beat the forces aligned against us, that they want to wrap the USA in a cocoon of isolationism, and that they don’t care about what is good for the USA but only what will defeat George W. Bush.
It should be noted that the NSA surveillance program has been proven as the reason that Al Qaeda dropped their plans to gas attack the New York subways that was just revealed in the last few days. So, the Democrats were wrong in opposing that plan as well.
Democrats are weak on defense, against the US military, and want to retreat from the world. Every political move they make proves this conclusion correct.
The History of Life
On the first day God created the dog God said, "Sit all day by the door of your house and bark at anyone who comes in or walks past. I will give you a life span of twenty years."
The dog said, "That's too long to be barking. Give me ten years and I'll give you back the other ten." So God agreed.
On the second day God created the monkey. God said, "Entertain people, do monkey tricks, make them laugh. I'll give you a twenty-year life span."
The monkey said, "How boring, monkey tricks for twenty years? I don't think so. Dog gave you back ten, so that's what I'll do too, okay?" And God agreed.
On the third day God created the cow. God said, "You must go to the field with the farmer all day long and suffer under the sun, have calves and give milk to support the farmer. I will give you a life span of sixty years."
The cow said, "That's kind of a tough life you want me to live fifty or sixty years. Let me have twenty and I'll give back the other forty." And God agreed again.
On the forth day God created man. God said, "Eat, sleep, play, marry and enjoy your life. I'll give you twenty years."
Man said, "What? Only twenty years! Tell you what, I'll take my twenty, and the forty the cow gave back and the ten the monkey gave back and the ten the dog gave back, that makes eighty, okay?"
"Okay," said God, "You've got a deal."
So that is why the first twenty years we eat, sleep, play, and enjoy ourselves.
For the next forty years we slave in the sun to support our family.
For the next ten years we do monkey tricks to entertain the grandchildren.
And for the last ten years we sit on the front porch and bark at everyone.
Life has now been explained to you.
Monday, June 19, 2006
Reuters- UN's 'New Chapter in HumanRights' -- Yet, No Mention of Members
Reuters is falling all over itself to ballyhoo Kofi Annan's announcement of a new UN council for Human Rights.
Unlike the 53-state commission, where members were nominated by regional blocs, the council's 47 members were elected by the U.N. General Assembly, a change which proponents say makes it more difficult for rights violators to win a seat.
Sounds better than the previous UN Human Rights watchdog, right?
Unfortunately, the story doesn't mention the fact that several members of this "new" Council are some of the worst human rights abusers in the world today.
Such members as China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Venezuela sit on this council in stark refutation of the seriousness of a human rights council.
Looks like politics is still the goal of yet another UN debacle, instead of any attempt to better the human rights of some of the most oppressed peoples of the world.
Thanks, Reuters, for uselessly getting our hopes up!
Great Quote of the Day - Michael Barone
worldwide economic growth and at a low point in armed conflict
in the world. Yet Americans are in a sour mood, a mood that may
be explained by the lack of a sense of history. The military
struggle in Iraq (2,473 U.S. military deaths) is spoken of in as
dire terms as Vietnam (58,219), Korea (54,246) or World War II
(405,399). We bemoan the cruel injustice of $3 a gallon for gas
in a country where three quarters of people classified as poor
have air conditioning and microwave ovens. We complain about a
tide of immigration that is, per U.S. resident, running at one
third the rate of 99 years ago." ---Michael Barone
Who Are The Vigilantes?: Sides Mischaracterized By Elites In Immigration Debate
Liberal propagandists have conditioned the American people to believe that the Minutemen Project consists of vigilantes out to undermine the law, compromise good social order, and the sense of fairness essential to the character of the United States. Even President George W. Bush, who usually makes a big hoopla how Americans should contribute to the war on terror by participating in efforts such as neighborhood watch programs, flip flops from the administration’s philosophy of near-total surveillance and insists average, patriotic Americans such as Veterans and other dedicated retirees are not good enough to do for the benefit of the United States as a neighborhood as a whole what the Communitarians claim these seniors ought to be doing in our own hometowns.
However, those so worried about the taking of law into private hands ought to be more concerned about the so-called progressive interests claiming to stand for the rule of law and the dignity of all people. For the observant will discover which side of this debate actually honors these principles basic to what makes Western civilization the pinnacle of human social development.......................
Click HERE To Read On
Sunday, June 18, 2006
BBC- Marine Sanctuary Good But Bush STILL Bad
-By Warner Todd Huston
This story got almost no coverage in the US press (and that because they cannot bring themselves to say a good word about a Bush environmental success), but on June 15th, president Bush signed an order that placed 140,000 square miles of Hawaiian Island waters off limits to fishing and other intrusions.
The BBC report dutifully reveals how happy environmentalists are over Bush's decision to bypass the years long process to negotiate this deal and simply sign an order protecting these waters. Bush has the authority under the 1906 National Antiquities Act to sign a law that protects such sites instantly, bypassing further machinations.
Naturally, they don't seem all worried over THIS exercise of executive power!
But, just as naturally, the BBC couldn't just let a story go all positive for Bush. After 16 mostly laudatory paragraphs where even environmentalists were on Bush's side, the BEEB had to end the story with the following:
Although environmental groups welcomed the news, many remain strongly opposed to other Republican policies on the environment, including a push to open up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska to oil and gas exploration.
Yep, the BEEB had to say, in effect; Bush was a good boy this time... but we STILL hate him and so does everyone else!
Happy Father's Day - 2006
Local Home Depot Employee Foments Linguistic Subversion
Though no doubt irritated by the practice, most Americans pretty much put up with the number of businesses and public utilities providing services in both English and Spanish, often with the interloping tongue regularly showcased as the primary mode of speech offered.
However, as speakers of English let the good manners and propriety, for which the land their own language originated from is renowned, to take precedence and keep their mouths shut, there will come a day when the advocates of the invading culture will seize predominance and refuse to grant the same degree of verbal acceptance those now being conquered have been duped into extending.
A caller to the June 9, 2006 broadcast of The Chris Core Show on 630 AM WMAL in Washington, DC contacted the program to relay an experience he had in a Metropolitan Area Home Depot......................
Click HERE To Read On
Saturday, June 17, 2006
Smart Marketing Heralds Great Iraq Article
For those of you interested in the growth and development of the Internet or new trends thereon, I just got something that seems somewhat new as a way to advertise a journalist's latest article. Well, it may not be entirely "new" but it is something not seen to date from the higher profile journalists to my knowledge.
Michael Fumento, writer for the Weekly Standard, has written a rip-roaring piece on his experience in Ramadi, Iraq. This is an article not to be missed. Fumento was in the thick of it and saw some intense action during his visit with the 101st Airborne, the unit famously dubbed "the Band of Brothers" by historian Stephen Ambrose for its service in WWII.
Before I get any further into Fumento's experiences, though, I'd like to give him kudos for realizing the power and reach of the Internet in this day and age.
Logging in to my email service, I found an email coming from a Michael Fumento. I knew the name, but wasn't immediately connecting it to the nationally know writer. After all, we don't exactly run in the same circles. He hangs out with famous Washington notables and I hang out waiting for my 10 year-old to get out of grade school.
After reading it and realizing that it did, indeed, purport to come from the writer, I emailed him to ascertain if it was really from him or if it was from some spammer trying to get my address identified. He quickly responded to say that it really WAS from him. He explained that he had emailed a few bloggers in an attempt to "Pitch" (his word) his Ramadi story. I think this is a good idea. Certainly I have seen writers and bloggers a tad lower on the journalism food chain than Fumento send out such emails, but I have never seen a writer who has had as much national exposure as Fumento doing so.
I think he recognizes how important bloggers and Internet writers are becoming and he sees an important avenue to get his work to more people.
Good on you, Mr. Fumento! Good on you for not pretending you are better than those lowly bloggers at whom so many other journalists turn up their nose. Fumento gets the nod for smart marketing in this electronic age.
And, let's face it; writing is not a profession where people will usually beat down your door trying to enlist you for the service of your pen. All writers spend time in self-promotion, even as it seems a bit "unseemly" in the doing. For that matter, all artists -- painters, singers, sculptors, et al -- are on a constant trail of self-promotion. It is just the way of life whether we who attempt to create like it or not.
So, I give Fumento props for perhaps swallowing a bit of pride and sending out these emails. Ya can't say it didn't work... he got ME to the keyboard!
In any case, smart writers will emulate Fumento's efforts to get the word out!
Now, to the Ramadi piece:
What an amazing stay Fumento had in Ramadi. This article reads so fast that one finds himself surprised that it filled 8 full pages in the current Weekly Standard.
The men of the 101 are heroes in the fullest definition of the word. Doing things that even a large portion of the rest of our troops in Iraq are not asked to do, and doing it with fewer resources and backup to boot.
Ramadi is truly one of the most dangerous parts of Iraq and our boys there are daily under fire. On every patrol they expend ammunition, and every day they receive fire from the terrorist insurgents surrounding their base.
One of the most important parts of Fumento's piece is where he briefly illuminates why our boys are there. As Fumento rolls on with his description of the intense violence in Ramadi, one wonders (as did Fumento) why we don't just launch a Falluja style, overwhelming attack to wipe out the terrorists in Ramadi.
This would be a bad idea, however. Fumento explains:
"...remember that it was the Falluja fight that made Ramadi what it is today. Do we want to draw in jihadists (into Ramadi) and gradually kill them or simply scatter them again and let them take up residence elsewhere in the Anbar desert?"
I wish Fumento had spent a tad more time on this point. It is very, very important to understand. Still, he had a great tale to tell and policy issues were not really the point of the piece.
As Fumento mentions, most journalists stay rather safe and sound near the Green Zone in Baghdad, rarely emerging from their comfortable hotel rooms there. Their practice to get the story of the day is to send Iraqi citizens, called "stringers", to go out and get the story. American journalists then slap their name upon the gathered “facts” for that all-important "from Baghdad" by line. With this practice, they could be here in the states filing their stories because they don't really do much reporting from the site of the real story.
By the way, if you'll research it, the bulk of journalists killed in Iraq -- and the number is considerable -- have NOT been American journalists. The distinction here is that other journalists are taking more chances than American journalists do, making most American journalists work based far less on first hand observations than their foreign colleagues'. Fumento busted that practice, for sure.
So, go to the Weekly Standard website – or better yet, buy a copy at the newsstand – and read this piece. It comes recommended, at least from this reader.
Dippy Chimps STILL Whining
Well, the Dixie Chicks are still whining about how "badly" they were treated after they came out and said how "ashamed" they are of being Americans, and in a foreign country at that.
Well, now they are whining to London's Daily Telegraph about it some more.
Most of the article is boring but this line was amusing to me...
The Chicks can't hide their disgust at the lack of support they received from other country performers. "A lot of artists cashed in on being against what we said or what we stood for because that was promoting their career, which was a horrible thing to do," says Robison.
"A lot of pandering started going on, and you'd see soldiers and the American flag in every video. It became a sickening display of ultra-patriotism."
So, the Dippy Chimps are the ONLY ones sticking up for what they believe? Apparently, they are the ONLY ones interested in freedom of speech... according to them, anyway. Yet, anyone who speaks against them are just "pandering".
No, none of the artists that scolded them for their lack of patriotism could POSSIBLY have REALLY meant what they were saying in response to the Dippy Chimps self-loathing! Why all those other patriotic Americnas just MUST be liars!
Just ask the Dippy Chimps... they'll tell ya. But, if you do, be prepared to hear endless whining about how everyone is against them, though.
Talk about hypocrites!
The TerrorIsts at Home
Well, that tears it! We have officially lost the "War on Terror"! Mark this day down, the so called argument “Fighting them over there, in order to protect us here” is done. And, you can thank the major four drug (link) companies for not only identifying the terrorist among us, but also finding a cure for them and terrorism a well. Hey, take these two pills and call your psychiatrist in the morning.
And, who said big pharmaceuticals companies don't have compassion for their fellow man. The proof is in the pudding—yes? Essentially, a study clarifies by way of surveying over 9000 US adults on road rage, and as a result a new mental disorder: Intermittent Explosive Disorder and may effect as much as 7.3 percent of American adults (see June 8th Mayo Clinic online).
Hmm? We have IED's in America! That tears it! It is time to kick all the bums out of office in charge of Homeland Security. To let such roadside terror to infiltrate the country, to terrorize Americans and to find "we fought the enemy and they are us!"
While the troops in Iraq blaze by the IED's (Improvise Explosive Devices) on the highways of Baghdad, which are mechanical in nature, the citizenry of American highways are in danger by our IED's; a seeing red, enraged, (mostly) male adult "blowing up" at us in our cars.
Huh, that certainly explains Jake Plumber, who recently had his IED moment here in Denver.
I can see defense attorneys throughout America already lining up to co-opt this latest mental disorder to protect their wayward "clients."—hmph!
Whatever, happened to personal responsibility; and, being accountable for your own actions? Oh, yeah we gave up it to socialists, Godless nannyists, communists on the Left and the God fearing, authoritarian fascists, Neocons on the Right. Oh well, it is just another day in paradise and we now have our own IED's to make it complete.
The ultimate epithet in the liberal lexicon
Ann Coulter drives liberals nuts. The late Abu Musab al-Zarqawi didn't qualify for rhetoric as harsh as that directed at the blond, but certainly never bland, pundit.
What unleashed the current fury was Miss Coulter's criticism of four 9/11 widows who've used their status to lobby for a Democratic agenda. Even Mrs. Clinton, who often leaves such mundane duties to flunkies, personally jumped in:
"Perhaps her (Coulter's) book should have been called 'Heartless,'" said the senator from New York who never lived there until she decided to be crowned senator................................
Click HERE To Read On
Friday, June 16, 2006
Nancy Pelosi’s Quandary
Ladies and gentlemen, Rep. William Jefferson (D-LA) has left the building!
Well, not really, but House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) has managed to set up the removal of Jefferson from the powerful Ways & Means Committee with a 99-58 vote from the House Democratic Caucus. The action still needs to move to the House floor and be ratified before Jefferson gets the proverbial boot.
The Louisiana Representative was recently caught on video by an F.B.I. sting taking $100,000 in bribe money, $90,000 of it recovered from the Congressman’s freezer in his Washington home.
Jefferson’s “situation” has put Democrats, especially Pelosi, in a political quandary. The Democrats have been pushing the idea that Republicans are wallowing in corruption, highlighting lobbyist Jack Abramoff’s connections to Republican congressmen while ignoring his ties to leading Democrats such as Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV).
Representative Tom DeLay (R-TX), who has been charged with money laundering, recently resigned from the House under the cloud of an indictment. But Jefferson, not indicted, but caught on video accepting a bribe, has so far refused to step down. A former aid to the congressman and a businessman who admitted paying bribes to the lawmaker, have already pleaded guilty in the ongoing bribery probe, which adds to the Democrats’ embarrassment.
To further Rep. Pelosi’s problems with her crumbling “culture of corruption” attack on Republicans is the defensive posture now taken by the 43 members of the Congressional Black Caucus – all Democrats -- and their insistence that Jefferson be treated with a presumption of innocence. But in the political arena of Washington, public perception is more important than Congressional protocol, forcing the House Minority Leader to take a stand against the political leaders of the all-important African-American vote, a Democratic mainstay.
It’s always interesting when Democrats eat their own. Stay tuned.
Trent Lott/William Jefferson – A Double Standard
House of Reps Boots Democrat from Committee
It’s about time that bribe taker and thief, William Jefferson, Democrat Louisiana, was booted off his committee assignments in the House of Reps.
Now, obviously we should not ask him to resign until the investigation is complete, but it is perfectly sensible to tell him to vacate his position on any committees where he can influence legislation.
The House stripped Democratic Rep. William Jefferson of his committee seat on Friday in an unprecedented action against a lawmaker ensnared in scandal, but not under indictment.
Interesting that they feel they have to say how “unprecedented” this “action” is, though. In fact the whole article is couched in the flavor of how badly kindly ‘ol Mr. Jefferson is being treated by all those mean folks in the House.
But, here is the question I have… The offices of William Jefferson were entered on May 20th and it was then that it was revealed the huge amounts of cash, cash identified as marked FBI money, that he had hidden in a freezer proving his bribe taking. Yet, we are only now seeing him forced to step down on June 16th.
That is nearly a month of time passed.
Now, though it is the other body -- the Senate, Let’s go back to the Trent Lott situation a few years ago to see an interesting double standard.
Trent Lott made a comment that had the Democrats falling all over themselves clamoring for his resignation in 2003. And, remember, this was just a comment, NOT a freezer full of bribes to the tune of $90,000!
At a December 5th birthday party for soon to retire Senator Strom Thurmond, Lott said of the famous Southron that, “When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We're proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years, either,"
The Dems wanted Lott ruined for this supposedly racist comment. He apologized on the floor of the Senate for the comment by the next Tuesday (Dec. 10th) and was out as Majority Leader by December 20th.
For those taking notes, that is a mere 15 days. Lott was taken out as majority leader in a mere 15 days.
Yet, William Jefferson went nearly a month before he was gone from his position of importance. And, the entire time, few voices were calling for his stepping down. Certainly none in the media called for Jefferson’s head on a platter. And only a few people in his own Party called for him to vacate his committee position.
Can anyone tell me where all the outrage in the press is over William Jefferson holding his position on the House Ways and Means Committee, the most powerful committee in the House? Can we compare this to the uproar the press spun up when Trent Lott made his silly little comment?
Isn’t it amazing the difference?
Democrats Hypocritical on Marriage
It's become the common refrain in numerous news reports around the country--Republicans are simply using the Marriage Amendment as an election-year ploy to get voters to back GOP candidates in the fall.
After all, state initiatives to ban same-sex marriage had people flocking to the polls in a previous election cycle.
But, in the interests of fairness, isn't it reasonable to question the political posturing from the "other side of the aisle" in the marriage debate? After all, if Republicans could, theoretically, use the marriage issue to shore up their base, couldn't Democrats, too? .....................
Click HERE To Read On
Thursday, June 15, 2006
Civil War Actor Kicked out of Park Over Slave Comment
In another example of PC stupidity gone wild, a Civil War re-enactor portraying a Confederate officer was kicked out of Historic Crossroads Village Park, near Flint, Michigan this past weekend, for saying that a young black child would probably have been a slave in 1860's Georgia.
Civil War re-enactor Tim VanRaemdonck said he was just staying in character when he wrote "slave" as the occupation of black children on fictitious enlistment papers during Civil War Days at Crossroads Village.
Word reached Crossroads Village manager Garry Pringle, who had two conversations with VanRaemdonck and asked him to leave.
Gosh! Imagine that! A black person being assumed a slave in 1860's Georgia?
What's next, assuming a Japanese man might have been in the Imperial Army circa 1930? Maybe an English soldier being thought a Cursader in the 14th century? Maybe it would be wrong to generalize that a North Vietnamese man would be a Communist in 1965?
Darn that history stuff anyway!
Not to be outdone by the stupidity of Village manager, Garry Pringle, Parks Director Amy M. McMillan said the following to the Media:
McMillan believes there were better choices than labeling the young boy a "slave" - even if the label was designed to share history.
"There were also free people of color in the southern states during this time period," she wrote in an e-mail to The Flint Journal. "More appropriate answers could have included occupations such as farmer, blacksmith, or other occupations typical of that time period.
"It would have been equally inappropriate to respond 'slave owner' to a Caucasian child who had asked such a question. Had any re-enactor provided such a response, he/she would have also been asked to leave the village."
Um, no Mz. McMillan. You are wrong on all counts proving you know next to nothing about American history. But, also proving you are a swell practitioner of the dark arts of PCism.
For some REAL history, Mz. McMillan, the total number of free blacks in Georgia as noted in the 1860 census was only 3,500. By contrast, the total number of slaves in Georgia in 1860 amounted to 462,198! So, NO, Mz. McMillan, it would NOT have made much sense to assume that, on average, a black person in Georgia would have been a free man. There was nothing "more appropriate" to have said to the child but that he would probably have been a slave, Mz. McMillan.
Now, to clear up your other garbled historical claim, Mz. McMillan; The number of white slave owners in 1860 Georgia was 41,084 out of a total white population of 591,550. So, while it would not have been an automatic assumption that a white person in Georgia in 1860 was a slave owner it was far, far more likely to assume that a white person might own slaves in 1860 Georgia than to assume a black person was a free man in the same place and time period. The statistics do not lie, Mz. McMillan.
The reenactor was right and the staff of the Crossroads Village is wrong to have removed him from the Park for telling history like it is.
Another member of the group to which the unduly accosted reenactor belongs told the Flint paper:
"If we don't discuss it, children don't learn."
"Learning" is NOT what the putrid purveyors of PCsim want. They want whitewashed, cleansed history free of anything that might "upset" or cause certain people to have any "low self-esteem". They don't want people to actually understand the history of this country at all. They just want to label all white people as evil and let that "lesson" go unexamined, kept as a vague notion never investigated and never spoken of directly.
I hope that Civil War reenactors in Michigan stop participating at the "Historic" Crossroads Village Park and stop helping them make all that money off a public whom the Village refuses to help learn about our history. Sadly, the "Historic" part of their charge is to be ignored.