Information you won't see in the MSM regarding the democracy movements efforts in Cuba, via Stefania Lapenna of Town Hall.
If you want to know what real freedom fighters are all about, read the article.
Sunday, October 29, 2006
A few simple rules on how to be a good Liberal
A good friend of mine from an on-line community posted the following list, and I thought I'd share it with all of you.
A few simple rules on how to be a good Liberal
1. You have to be against capital punishment, but support abortion on demand.
2. You have to believe that businesses create oppression and governments create prosperity.
3. You have to believe that guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens are more of a threat than U.S. nuclear weapons technology in the hands of Chinese and North Korean communists.
4. You have to believe that there was no art before federal funding.
5. You have to believe that global temperatures are less affected by cyclical changes in the earth's climate and more affected by soccer moms driving SUVs.
6. You have to believe that gender roles are artificial, but being homosexual is natural.
7. You have to believe that the AIDS virus is spread by a lack of federal funding.
8. You have to believe that the same teacher who can't teach 4th-graders how to read is somehow qualified to teach those same kids about sex.
9. You have to believe that hunters don't care about nature, but PETA activists do.
10. You have to believe that self-esteem is more important than actually doing something to earn it.
11. You have to believe that Mel Gibson spent $25 million of his own money to make "The Passion of the Christ" for financial gain only.
12. You have to believe the NRA is bad because it supports certain parts of the Constitution, while the ACLU is good because it supports certain parts of the Constitution.
13. You have to believe that taxes are too low, but ATM fees are too high.
14. You have to believe that Margaret Sanger and Gloria Steinem are more important to American history than Thomas Jefferson, Gen. Robert E. Lee, and Thomas Edison.
15. You have to believe that standardized tests are racist, but racial quotas and set-asides are not.
16. You have to believe that the only reason socialism hasn't worked anywhere it's been tried is because the right people haven't been in charge.
17. You have to believe that homosexual parades displaying drag queens and transvestites should be constitutionally protected, and manger scenes at Christmas should be illegal.
18. You have to believe that this message is a part of a vast, right-wing conspiracy.
GOD BLESS AMERICA oops, can't do that either.
H/T Conservative67
A few simple rules on how to be a good Liberal
1. You have to be against capital punishment, but support abortion on demand.
2. You have to believe that businesses create oppression and governments create prosperity.
3. You have to believe that guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens are more of a threat than U.S. nuclear weapons technology in the hands of Chinese and North Korean communists.
4. You have to believe that there was no art before federal funding.
5. You have to believe that global temperatures are less affected by cyclical changes in the earth's climate and more affected by soccer moms driving SUVs.
6. You have to believe that gender roles are artificial, but being homosexual is natural.
7. You have to believe that the AIDS virus is spread by a lack of federal funding.
8. You have to believe that the same teacher who can't teach 4th-graders how to read is somehow qualified to teach those same kids about sex.
9. You have to believe that hunters don't care about nature, but PETA activists do.
10. You have to believe that self-esteem is more important than actually doing something to earn it.
11. You have to believe that Mel Gibson spent $25 million of his own money to make "The Passion of the Christ" for financial gain only.
12. You have to believe the NRA is bad because it supports certain parts of the Constitution, while the ACLU is good because it supports certain parts of the Constitution.
13. You have to believe that taxes are too low, but ATM fees are too high.
14. You have to believe that Margaret Sanger and Gloria Steinem are more important to American history than Thomas Jefferson, Gen. Robert E. Lee, and Thomas Edison.
15. You have to believe that standardized tests are racist, but racial quotas and set-asides are not.
16. You have to believe that the only reason socialism hasn't worked anywhere it's been tried is because the right people haven't been in charge.
17. You have to believe that homosexual parades displaying drag queens and transvestites should be constitutionally protected, and manger scenes at Christmas should be illegal.
18. You have to believe that this message is a part of a vast, right-wing conspiracy.
GOD BLESS AMERICA oops, can't do that either.
H/T Conservative67
Blabbermouths in play
Still undecided about who you're going to vote for in November? Want some clear, honest advice? Then, read this piece by Michelle Malkin.
Bush rallies base to 'just say no'
As reported here, President Bush yesterday yelled himself hoarse in his first public political rally of the 2006 election campaign, whipping thousands of supporters into chants of "USA!" as he criticized Democrats for being weak on national security and anxious to increase taxes.
Swooping into a Republican stronghold that on Election Day will be an early harbinger of whether Republicans hold control of Congress, Mr. Bush led the crowd in a chant that gave new meaning to an old Reagan-era slogan.
"The Democrats in Washington follow a simple philosophy: Just say no," the president said. "When it comes to listening in on the terrorists, what's the Democratic answer? Just say no. When it comes to detaining terrorists, what's the Democrat answer?" Mr. Bush asked.
"Just say no!" the crowd shouted.
"So when the Democrats ask for your vote on Nov. 7, what are you going to say?"
"Just say no!" the audience replied.
With just nine days to go before the midterm elections, the White House has settled on a simple strategy: Turn out the base.
This is good, and I support the President's efforts. The base of the Republican Party does need to turn out, if we want to retain a majority in Congress.
Swooping into a Republican stronghold that on Election Day will be an early harbinger of whether Republicans hold control of Congress, Mr. Bush led the crowd in a chant that gave new meaning to an old Reagan-era slogan.
"The Democrats in Washington follow a simple philosophy: Just say no," the president said. "When it comes to listening in on the terrorists, what's the Democratic answer? Just say no. When it comes to detaining terrorists, what's the Democrat answer?" Mr. Bush asked.
"Just say no!" the crowd shouted.
"So when the Democrats ask for your vote on Nov. 7, what are you going to say?"
"Just say no!" the audience replied.
With just nine days to go before the midterm elections, the White House has settled on a simple strategy: Turn out the base.
This is good, and I support the President's efforts. The base of the Republican Party does need to turn out, if we want to retain a majority in Congress.
Obama has one eye on White House
As reported here, Sen. Barack Obama acknowledged Sunday that he was considering a run for president in 2008, backing off previous statements that he would not do so.
In recent weeks, Obama's political stock has been rising as a potentially viable centrist candidate for president in 2008 after former Virginia Gov. Mark Warner announced earlier this month that he was bowing out of the race.
Frank Luntz, a Republican pollster who has done extensive focus-group research on all the Democrats and Republicans considering a White House race in 2008, said of Obama: "I saw how he lit up a crowd in Iowa with barely a B-plus speech -- and that's the worst I've seen him all year. Imagine how politically potent he is when he's on his game. He's got all the best qualities of John and Bobby Kennedy combined, and none of the worst."
Sen. Obama, who is relatively young at 45, is a rising star of the Democrat Party, and if he does decide to run, it could be problematic for Hillary. However, if he does decide to run, I don't think he'll get the nomination over Hillary, but you could see him paired with Hillary as the VP candidate, instead of at the head of the ticket.
I'll be keeping an eye on this.
In recent weeks, Obama's political stock has been rising as a potentially viable centrist candidate for president in 2008 after former Virginia Gov. Mark Warner announced earlier this month that he was bowing out of the race.
Frank Luntz, a Republican pollster who has done extensive focus-group research on all the Democrats and Republicans considering a White House race in 2008, said of Obama: "I saw how he lit up a crowd in Iowa with barely a B-plus speech -- and that's the worst I've seen him all year. Imagine how politically potent he is when he's on his game. He's got all the best qualities of John and Bobby Kennedy combined, and none of the worst."
Sen. Obama, who is relatively young at 45, is a rising star of the Democrat Party, and if he does decide to run, it could be problematic for Hillary. However, if he does decide to run, I don't think he'll get the nomination over Hillary, but you could see him paired with Hillary as the VP candidate, instead of at the head of the ticket.
I'll be keeping an eye on this.
Anti-abortion posters infuriate some students
As reported here, [a] small group of anti-abortion activists stood in the cold at the avowedly liberal University of Washington on Wednesday, bearing signs of dismembered, bloody fetuses. But despite the university's commitment to free speech, Show The Truth Washington had a hard time making its point.
Several dozen students supporting abortion rights encircled the sign-bearers, shouting pro-choice slogans into a bullhorn. Some tried to bar a photographer from access to the gruesome pictures.
The images were so gory and disturbing that campus officials had alerted students a week in advance. Because the university is a public institution, groups do not need formal permission to gather on its grounds, said Gus Kravas, who chairs the school's Use of Facilities Committee.
But students were incensed, nonetheless.
"I think it's absurd that they're here," said Grant Mandarino, 25, who is working on a graduate degree in comparative literature. "These people are not wanted. This is a pro-choice campus, and there isn't a place for them here."
So, Mr. Mandarino, you speak for everyone on campus? I think not. As for your statement that there isn't a place for them on campus, could you kindly show me in the US Constitution where it says that free speech is allowed everywhere except where you don't want to see or hear a view that is different from your own? I'm waiting ... oh, wait! You can't show me where that particular clause in the Constitution is, because there isn't one!
Let me remind you of something there, Sunshine. Free speech is guaranteed to every American citizen by the US Constitution, whether you agree with someone's point of view or not.
I don't happen to agree with your point of view regarding abortion (and possibly a whole range of other things as well). I also don't agree with the point of view espoused by that nutjob Fred Phelps, either. But you know what? Just because I don't happen to agree with either of the cited points of view does NOT give me the right to tell you, or Phelps, that you can't express those points of view.
Just as you, and your liberal PC adhering cohorts have no right to tell anyone, whether it's the "Show The Truth Washington" group, or me, what we can or cannot say, just because you disagree with what they, or I, are saying.
Let me say this one more time. Free speech is guaranteed to every American citizen by the US Constitution, whether you agree with someone's point of view or not.
Deal with it!
Several dozen students supporting abortion rights encircled the sign-bearers, shouting pro-choice slogans into a bullhorn. Some tried to bar a photographer from access to the gruesome pictures.
The images were so gory and disturbing that campus officials had alerted students a week in advance. Because the university is a public institution, groups do not need formal permission to gather on its grounds, said Gus Kravas, who chairs the school's Use of Facilities Committee.
But students were incensed, nonetheless.
"I think it's absurd that they're here," said Grant Mandarino, 25, who is working on a graduate degree in comparative literature. "These people are not wanted. This is a pro-choice campus, and there isn't a place for them here."
So, Mr. Mandarino, you speak for everyone on campus? I think not. As for your statement that there isn't a place for them on campus, could you kindly show me in the US Constitution where it says that free speech is allowed everywhere except where you don't want to see or hear a view that is different from your own? I'm waiting ... oh, wait! You can't show me where that particular clause in the Constitution is, because there isn't one!
Let me remind you of something there, Sunshine. Free speech is guaranteed to every American citizen by the US Constitution, whether you agree with someone's point of view or not.
I don't happen to agree with your point of view regarding abortion (and possibly a whole range of other things as well). I also don't agree with the point of view espoused by that nutjob Fred Phelps, either. But you know what? Just because I don't happen to agree with either of the cited points of view does NOT give me the right to tell you, or Phelps, that you can't express those points of view.
Just as you, and your liberal PC adhering cohorts have no right to tell anyone, whether it's the "Show The Truth Washington" group, or me, what we can or cannot say, just because you disagree with what they, or I, are saying.
Let me say this one more time. Free speech is guaranteed to every American citizen by the US Constitution, whether you agree with someone's point of view or not.
Deal with it!
State high court stands by gay marriage ban; Justices' decision is the final word in the case
As reported here, [t]he [Washington] state Supreme Court will stand by its endorsement of Washington's gay marriage ban, justices said Wednesday.
Gay and lesbian couples had asked the justices to reconsider their 5-4 ruling upholding the Defense of Marriage Act, a 1998 law limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples.
The court's denial, signed by Chief Justice Gerry Alexander, is the final word in the case. Further appeal is not possible because no federal legal issues were raised.
The high court rarely reconsiders its rulings. Few observers expected it to revisit a ruling that took nearly 18 months to craft.
"Having taken as long as they took to make up their minds, I thought it was unlikely that they would change them," said Assistant Attorney General Bill Collins, who defended the gay-marriage ban in court.
Gay marriage supporters said the ruling was particularly disheartening because it came on the same day New Jersey's Supreme Court ruled that same-sex couples are entitled to benefits heterosexual couples have.
Over 40 states have some sort of variation of our law on their books, with 20 states having amended their state constitutions, specifically defining marriage as being between a man and a woman, with the rational being to promote stable families. I'm glad that we can count Washington State among that group.
Listen. If you are a gay or lesbian that wants to see changes made to the laws, your best recourse for doing so is by going through your state legislature, and stop trying to get the courts to legislate from the bench, ok? Depending on where you live, you can either simply lobby your legislative representatives to ask them to either change current laws, or write new laws, or try to get an initiative or referendum on the ballot, and let the voters decide. That's how the process works.
Gay and lesbian couples had asked the justices to reconsider their 5-4 ruling upholding the Defense of Marriage Act, a 1998 law limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples.
The court's denial, signed by Chief Justice Gerry Alexander, is the final word in the case. Further appeal is not possible because no federal legal issues were raised.
The high court rarely reconsiders its rulings. Few observers expected it to revisit a ruling that took nearly 18 months to craft.
"Having taken as long as they took to make up their minds, I thought it was unlikely that they would change them," said Assistant Attorney General Bill Collins, who defended the gay-marriage ban in court.
Gay marriage supporters said the ruling was particularly disheartening because it came on the same day New Jersey's Supreme Court ruled that same-sex couples are entitled to benefits heterosexual couples have.
Over 40 states have some sort of variation of our law on their books, with 20 states having amended their state constitutions, specifically defining marriage as being between a man and a woman, with the rational being to promote stable families. I'm glad that we can count Washington State among that group.
Listen. If you are a gay or lesbian that wants to see changes made to the laws, your best recourse for doing so is by going through your state legislature, and stop trying to get the courts to legislate from the bench, ok? Depending on where you live, you can either simply lobby your legislative representatives to ask them to either change current laws, or write new laws, or try to get an initiative or referendum on the ballot, and let the voters decide. That's how the process works.
We are biased, admit the stars of BBC News
What bias? Oh, that bias!
Just as the BBC is full of liberals, so too is the majority of US newspapers and network news, which they steadfastly deny. Read the article. It's an eye opener.
H/T: Reality Hammer
Just as the BBC is full of liberals, so too is the majority of US newspapers and network news, which they steadfastly deny. Read the article. It's an eye opener.
H/T: Reality Hammer
Sunday, October 22, 2006
China sides with U.S. against North Korea
As reported here, [a]n exasperated China took a newly tough approach to communist ally North Korea on Friday, siding with the United States in saying the North must back away from nuclear confrontation, and moving to cut Pyongyang's vital supply of hard currency.
Chinese banks have stopped financial transfers to North Korea under government orders, bank employees said Friday. And at an appearance with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, China's foreign minister nudged the North to resume negotiations over its nuclear program and assured Washington that China would carry out United Nations sanctions on Pyongyang.
China losing patience with N. Korea and finally siding with the US is a start; cutting off money transfers with N. Korea will definitely hurt them, and may impel Kim to agree to return to the six nation talks, but what I think may really hurt is the cutting off of luxury goods, which go exclusively to the elites in the North, who won't like that at all, and I'm sure they will put pressure on Kim that will actually accomplish something.
Chinese banks have stopped financial transfers to North Korea under government orders, bank employees said Friday. And at an appearance with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, China's foreign minister nudged the North to resume negotiations over its nuclear program and assured Washington that China would carry out United Nations sanctions on Pyongyang.
China losing patience with N. Korea and finally siding with the US is a start; cutting off money transfers with N. Korea will definitely hurt them, and may impel Kim to agree to return to the six nation talks, but what I think may really hurt is the cutting off of luxury goods, which go exclusively to the elites in the North, who won't like that at all, and I'm sure they will put pressure on Kim that will actually accomplish something.
Bush signs law on terror suspects
As reported here, [s]ome of the most notorious names in the war on terror are headed toward prosecution after President Bush signed a law Tuesday authorizing military trials of terrorism suspects.
The legislation also eliminates some of the rights defendants are usually guaranteed under U.S. law, and it authorizes continued harsh interrogations of terror suspects.
"With the bill I'm about to sign, the men our intelligence officials believe orchestrated the murder of nearly 3,000 innocent people will face justice," Bush said in a White House ceremony.
This is a good thing in the fight against Islamofascist terrorists, yet there are some - most notably the ACLU, and Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis) - who would have us give more rights to those who perpetrate acts of terror, over the victims of their acts of terror.
Civil libertarians and leading Democrats decried the law as a violation of American values. The American Civil Liberties Union said it was "one of the worst civil liberties measures ever enacted in American history." Democratic Sen. Russ Feingold of Wisconsin said, "We will look back on this day as a stain on our nation's history."
What about the civil rights of those who died in New York City, at the Pentagon, and in a lonely field in Shanksville, PA? What about the civil rights of those who died on the USS Cole? What about the civil rights of those who died in the bombings of our two embassies in Africa? What about the civil rights of those who died in the Khobar Towers in Saudia Arabia? Don't their civil rights count? Oh, wait - they're dead, so they don't have any civil rights any more. Silly me.
As for this being "a stain on our nation's history.", this law goes hand in hand with the Patriot Act in giving us tools to bring those who commit acts of terror to justice, whether that justice is through military tribunes (which FDR also used during WWII, I'd like to point out), or the death of other terrorists from the information obtained from those terrorists already held. This law is far from being a stain. Rather, it is a welcome bright spot in this war we must win at all costs!
I'd like to ask the ACLU, and most Democrats one question, and that is - what part of they want to kill us all don't you understand?
The legislation also eliminates some of the rights defendants are usually guaranteed under U.S. law, and it authorizes continued harsh interrogations of terror suspects.
"With the bill I'm about to sign, the men our intelligence officials believe orchestrated the murder of nearly 3,000 innocent people will face justice," Bush said in a White House ceremony.
This is a good thing in the fight against Islamofascist terrorists, yet there are some - most notably the ACLU, and Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis) - who would have us give more rights to those who perpetrate acts of terror, over the victims of their acts of terror.
Civil libertarians and leading Democrats decried the law as a violation of American values. The American Civil Liberties Union said it was "one of the worst civil liberties measures ever enacted in American history." Democratic Sen. Russ Feingold of Wisconsin said, "We will look back on this day as a stain on our nation's history."
What about the civil rights of those who died in New York City, at the Pentagon, and in a lonely field in Shanksville, PA? What about the civil rights of those who died on the USS Cole? What about the civil rights of those who died in the bombings of our two embassies in Africa? What about the civil rights of those who died in the Khobar Towers in Saudia Arabia? Don't their civil rights count? Oh, wait - they're dead, so they don't have any civil rights any more. Silly me.
As for this being "a stain on our nation's history.", this law goes hand in hand with the Patriot Act in giving us tools to bring those who commit acts of terror to justice, whether that justice is through military tribunes (which FDR also used during WWII, I'd like to point out), or the death of other terrorists from the information obtained from those terrorists already held. This law is far from being a stain. Rather, it is a welcome bright spot in this war we must win at all costs!
I'd like to ask the ACLU, and most Democrats one question, and that is - what part of they want to kill us all don't you understand?
Democrat Staffer Linked to National Security Leaks
As briefly reported here, Chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Rep. Peter Hoekstra, announced last week that the committee has suspended a Democrat staffer for leaking classified information documents. The leaks involved an NIE (National Intelligence Estimate) report that was given to the New York Times.
On Sunday Fox News’ Weekend Live, Rep. Hoekstra told Bret Baier that there is “sufficient evidence to suspend the person’s access to classified documents. We can’t politicize this. We’re still a nation at risk.”
The staffer, Larry Hanauer, is employed by Rep Jane Harman (D-CA). Harman is also a member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.
It really doesn't matter to me what political party affiliation Mr. Hanauer claims. What does matter to me is that he is alleged to have leaked classified information, specifically cherry picked portions of the NIE, to a newspaper, which in this case just happens to be the New York Times.
What Mr. Hanauer allegedly did is a crime. The fact that he now no longer has access to classified information is good. However, an investigation - if there isn't one already - needs to be made into this incident, and all of the relevant facts must be made known to the American public. If the allegations prove to be true, then Mr. Hanauer needs to be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, and sent to prison. I would say the same thing if it was a Republican staffer.
The New York Post is equally outraged at this as I am, and gives a few more details here.
On Sunday Fox News’ Weekend Live, Rep. Hoekstra told Bret Baier that there is “sufficient evidence to suspend the person’s access to classified documents. We can’t politicize this. We’re still a nation at risk.”
The staffer, Larry Hanauer, is employed by Rep Jane Harman (D-CA). Harman is also a member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.
It really doesn't matter to me what political party affiliation Mr. Hanauer claims. What does matter to me is that he is alleged to have leaked classified information, specifically cherry picked portions of the NIE, to a newspaper, which in this case just happens to be the New York Times.
What Mr. Hanauer allegedly did is a crime. The fact that he now no longer has access to classified information is good. However, an investigation - if there isn't one already - needs to be made into this incident, and all of the relevant facts must be made known to the American public. If the allegations prove to be true, then Mr. Hanauer needs to be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, and sent to prison. I would say the same thing if it was a Republican staffer.
The New York Post is equally outraged at this as I am, and gives a few more details here.
New urgency on viaduct repairs
As reported here, [a] chunk of Seattle's Alaskan Way Viaduct is sinking -- again.
One section has settled deeper into the waterfront fill it sits on, the state said Wednesday, perhaps adding more pressure to begin much-debated repairs on the 53-year-old structure.
Vertical supports between Columbia Street and Yesler Way sank another quarter-inch into the ground since March, according to measurements taken during a semi-annual inspection last weekend, state officials said.
The structure, built in the 1950s, remains safe to drive on with current restrictions on trucks and buses, but will need repairs if the same supports sink another 1.25 inches.
"It continues to reinforce our assessment that this structure is at risk and that we need to really move ahead with (a) replacement," said state project manager Ron Paananen.
State officials think the settling was at least partly caused by the Nisqually Quake in February 2001. [This is misleading, in that State officials know that the settling was caused by the Nisqually earthquake. Apparently, Larry Lange hasn't been reading his own articles!]
Seattle city officials agree the structure needs to go and think a waterfront tunnel should replace it, but many others disagree. Gov. Chris Gregoire is expected to decide next month which option should be pursued.
The latest news prompted Mayor Greg Nickels to repeat that "time is running out on this deteriorating structure. ... The latest settling highlights the need to get moving on replacing the Alaskan Way Viaduct with the preferred option of the city -- a cut-and-cover tunnel."
This is one issue where I am in agreement with Mayor Nichols. The Alaskan Way Viaduct is a disaster waiting to happen, and we need to do something about it now. Not tomorrow, not next week, not next month - NOW! We've had enough studies on this; we know it is going to fail, whether that failure is caused by another earthquake, or just heavy rains which we get here from time to time, does not matter. IT IS GOING TO FAIL. PERIOD!
I just hope that we do something about this before an untold number of the approximately 110,000 vehicles with people in them, have to suffer the consequences of our inaction, if it fails before we "get around to it."
Christine, you need to move up your timetable for making a decision.
One section has settled deeper into the waterfront fill it sits on, the state said Wednesday, perhaps adding more pressure to begin much-debated repairs on the 53-year-old structure.
Vertical supports between Columbia Street and Yesler Way sank another quarter-inch into the ground since March, according to measurements taken during a semi-annual inspection last weekend, state officials said.
The structure, built in the 1950s, remains safe to drive on with current restrictions on trucks and buses, but will need repairs if the same supports sink another 1.25 inches.
"It continues to reinforce our assessment that this structure is at risk and that we need to really move ahead with (a) replacement," said state project manager Ron Paananen.
State officials think the settling was at least partly caused by the Nisqually Quake in February 2001. [This is misleading, in that State officials know that the settling was caused by the Nisqually earthquake. Apparently, Larry Lange hasn't been reading his own articles!]
Seattle city officials agree the structure needs to go and think a waterfront tunnel should replace it, but many others disagree. Gov. Chris Gregoire is expected to decide next month which option should be pursued.
The latest news prompted Mayor Greg Nickels to repeat that "time is running out on this deteriorating structure. ... The latest settling highlights the need to get moving on replacing the Alaskan Way Viaduct with the preferred option of the city -- a cut-and-cover tunnel."
This is one issue where I am in agreement with Mayor Nichols. The Alaskan Way Viaduct is a disaster waiting to happen, and we need to do something about it now. Not tomorrow, not next week, not next month - NOW! We've had enough studies on this; we know it is going to fail, whether that failure is caused by another earthquake, or just heavy rains which we get here from time to time, does not matter. IT IS GOING TO FAIL. PERIOD!
I just hope that we do something about this before an untold number of the approximately 110,000 vehicles with people in them, have to suffer the consequences of our inaction, if it fails before we "get around to it."
Christine, you need to move up your timetable for making a decision.
Sunday, October 15, 2006
U.N. imposes trade embargo on N. Korea
As reported here, [t]he U.N. Security Council voted unanimously yesterday to impose punishing sanctions on North Korea for reportedly carrying out a nuclear test, declaring that the test posed "a clear threat to international peace and security."
Of course, North Korea immediately rejected the resolution, and its U.N. ambassador walked out of the council chamber after accusing its members of a "gangsterlike" action that neglects the nuclear threat posed by the United States.
"The Democratic People's Republic of Korea is ready for talks, dialogue and confrontation," Ambassador Pak Gil-yon said, using the conventional long form of his country's name.
"If the United States increases pressure upon the Democratic People's Republic of Korea persistently, the DPRK will continue to take physical countermeasures, considering it as a declaration of war."
Walking out sure shows that you're willing for talks, doesn't it? Refusing to return to the six nation talks also sure shows that you're ready for dialogue, doesn't it?
As for declaring war against the US if the US continues to apply pressure goes ... well, that would be downright silly, considering that the US is the sole remaining super power, and with what forces we have in South Korea, Japan, and Okinawa, it wouldn't take much to overwhelm your little country's armed forces.
Am I advocating for war against North Korea? No, I am not. All I'm trying to point out is that if you are a 98 pound weakling, you don't go up to the biggest guy on the block and scuff his shoes, and not expect to suffer the consequences.
Meanwhile, in this related article, people in South Korea are fed up with their governments policy toward the North, as 78 percent of respondents thought South Korea should revise its policy, and 65 percent said South Korea should develop nuclear weapons to protect itself, from a poll taken recently by a JoongAng newspaper.
North Korea needs to get back to the six nation talks, and shut down their nuclear program to forestall the UN sanctions from going into effect, so the people of North Korea don't suffer even more hardships than they do now at the hands of their own government.
Sadly, I don't see that happening anytime soon.
Of course, North Korea immediately rejected the resolution, and its U.N. ambassador walked out of the council chamber after accusing its members of a "gangsterlike" action that neglects the nuclear threat posed by the United States.
"The Democratic People's Republic of Korea is ready for talks, dialogue and confrontation," Ambassador Pak Gil-yon said, using the conventional long form of his country's name.
"If the United States increases pressure upon the Democratic People's Republic of Korea persistently, the DPRK will continue to take physical countermeasures, considering it as a declaration of war."
Walking out sure shows that you're willing for talks, doesn't it? Refusing to return to the six nation talks also sure shows that you're ready for dialogue, doesn't it?
As for declaring war against the US if the US continues to apply pressure goes ... well, that would be downright silly, considering that the US is the sole remaining super power, and with what forces we have in South Korea, Japan, and Okinawa, it wouldn't take much to overwhelm your little country's armed forces.
Am I advocating for war against North Korea? No, I am not. All I'm trying to point out is that if you are a 98 pound weakling, you don't go up to the biggest guy on the block and scuff his shoes, and not expect to suffer the consequences.
Meanwhile, in this related article, people in South Korea are fed up with their governments policy toward the North, as 78 percent of respondents thought South Korea should revise its policy, and 65 percent said South Korea should develop nuclear weapons to protect itself, from a poll taken recently by a JoongAng newspaper.
North Korea needs to get back to the six nation talks, and shut down their nuclear program to forestall the UN sanctions from going into effect, so the people of North Korea don't suffer even more hardships than they do now at the hands of their own government.
Sadly, I don't see that happening anytime soon.
Students in Texas taught to fight gunman
As reported here, in the wake of school shootings from Colombine to the recent Amish incident [y]oungsters in a suburban Fort Worth school district are being taught not to sit there like good boys and girls with their hands folded if a gunman invades the classroom, but to rush him and hit him with everything they got -- books, pencils, legs and arms.
"Getting under desks and praying for rescue from professionals is not a recipe for success," said Robin Browne, a major in the British army reserve and an instructor for Response Options, the company providing the training to the Burleson schools.
That kind of fight-back advice is all but unheard of among schools, and some fear it will get children killed.
Well, it seems that getting under desks, and praying for rescue by professionals gets children killed. These "concerns" are being voiced by the same people who have advocated that women and girls scream, kick and scratch in attempted rape or child abduction situations, and yet, they want kids in school confronted by someone with a gun to just sit there passively? That makes absolutely no sense!
If I had a child in school, and someone came in with a gun, I certainly wouldn't want my child to just sit there passively, hoping that the gunman wouldn't decide that my child was a target!
I for one think that this is an entirely appropriate program, and should be expanded to every school in the country. Why?
It stands to reason that if someone who was planning to go to a school with a gun just might think twice about that if they knew that they would be confronted by those in the school, and that they may be the one who gets injured, and not their intended targets.
"Getting under desks and praying for rescue from professionals is not a recipe for success," said Robin Browne, a major in the British army reserve and an instructor for Response Options, the company providing the training to the Burleson schools.
That kind of fight-back advice is all but unheard of among schools, and some fear it will get children killed.
Well, it seems that getting under desks, and praying for rescue by professionals gets children killed. These "concerns" are being voiced by the same people who have advocated that women and girls scream, kick and scratch in attempted rape or child abduction situations, and yet, they want kids in school confronted by someone with a gun to just sit there passively? That makes absolutely no sense!
If I had a child in school, and someone came in with a gun, I certainly wouldn't want my child to just sit there passively, hoping that the gunman wouldn't decide that my child was a target!
I for one think that this is an entirely appropriate program, and should be expanded to every school in the country. Why?
It stands to reason that if someone who was planning to go to a school with a gun just might think twice about that if they knew that they would be confronted by those in the school, and that they may be the one who gets injured, and not their intended targets.
Road taxes could drive voters over the edge
As reported here, as we get closer to November, some politicians are beginning to worry that local voters will be 'fatigued' with all of the road tax proposals on this years ballot, with two other massive tax proposals coming in 2007. These are some of the things we face:
Traffic jams, crumbling streets, bridges so vulnerable they must be closed to cars during fairly routine windstorms, along with trying to find the resources to replace both the SR-99 Alaskan Way Viaduct and the Evergreen Point Floating Bridge, both of which are critical transportation conduits for the Metropolitan Seattle area.
Seattle got into this mess, politicians acknowledge, because those in charge gave the region's transportation network short shrift for decades.
Over those decades, it has been more about process and paralysis through over analysis, rather than actually doing anything about our road infrastructure, coupled with imprudent spending. Add to that the dot com bust of the late 1990's and the events of 9/11 with the resultant recession, resulting in jobs losses and reduced tax revenue, forcing cuts to most spending programs except entitlements, and you wind up with the mess we have today.
Now officials have a plan for breaking the logjam. More precisely, they have at least four proposals -- each with its own price tag, each headed to a ballot soon.
The projects could cost a typical Seattle household nearly $450 annually in coming years, plus any tolls, localized property tax surcharges, business taxes and developer fees official[s] tack on.
It's got some asking whether voters are being pushed too far. Some political insiders worry government is asking for too much, too late -- and all at once.
Let's see now ... a $1.6 billion dollar tax proposal from the Mayor of Seattle, and a sales tax increase proposal to "improve" transit from King County Executive Ron Sims for this years ballot at the tune of about $570 million dollars, and then two more massive regional tax proposals for 2007 costing close to an additional $17 billion dollars more, and "some" are asking if this is too much, too late, at all at once? You THINK?
Oh, and then there are others who think that the voters in both the city of Seattle and in the region will just give a blanket ok to all of these tax proposals without batting an eye, which smacks of arrogance to me.
Yes, our roads are a mess and do need to be fixed. The Viaduct is a disaster waiting to happen, as is the Evergreen Point Floating Bridge. Transit does need to be improved (I should know, since I take the bus to commute to work and back right now). All of these issues will take massive amounts of money to fix, but these issues should, and could, have been addressed in the previous decades, but weren't because of a lack of political back bone and vision.
Everything here is more about the process, rather than actually doing anything, so now we are faced with massive tax proposals in this years, and next years, elections.
To the tune of about $20 billion dollars.
Too much, too late, and all at once pretty much sums it up I think. I think it's time the voters in both the region and the city of Seattle take a very long, very hard look at our politicians, and make some needed changes to bring in some people who will actually get things done, and not just study something to death.
Traffic jams, crumbling streets, bridges so vulnerable they must be closed to cars during fairly routine windstorms, along with trying to find the resources to replace both the SR-99 Alaskan Way Viaduct and the Evergreen Point Floating Bridge, both of which are critical transportation conduits for the Metropolitan Seattle area.
Seattle got into this mess, politicians acknowledge, because those in charge gave the region's transportation network short shrift for decades.
Over those decades, it has been more about process and paralysis through over analysis, rather than actually doing anything about our road infrastructure, coupled with imprudent spending. Add to that the dot com bust of the late 1990's and the events of 9/11 with the resultant recession, resulting in jobs losses and reduced tax revenue, forcing cuts to most spending programs except entitlements, and you wind up with the mess we have today.
Now officials have a plan for breaking the logjam. More precisely, they have at least four proposals -- each with its own price tag, each headed to a ballot soon.
The projects could cost a typical Seattle household nearly $450 annually in coming years, plus any tolls, localized property tax surcharges, business taxes and developer fees official[s] tack on.
It's got some asking whether voters are being pushed too far. Some political insiders worry government is asking for too much, too late -- and all at once.
Let's see now ... a $1.6 billion dollar tax proposal from the Mayor of Seattle, and a sales tax increase proposal to "improve" transit from King County Executive Ron Sims for this years ballot at the tune of about $570 million dollars, and then two more massive regional tax proposals for 2007 costing close to an additional $17 billion dollars more, and "some" are asking if this is too much, too late, at all at once? You THINK?
Oh, and then there are others who think that the voters in both the city of Seattle and in the region will just give a blanket ok to all of these tax proposals without batting an eye, which smacks of arrogance to me.
Yes, our roads are a mess and do need to be fixed. The Viaduct is a disaster waiting to happen, as is the Evergreen Point Floating Bridge. Transit does need to be improved (I should know, since I take the bus to commute to work and back right now). All of these issues will take massive amounts of money to fix, but these issues should, and could, have been addressed in the previous decades, but weren't because of a lack of political back bone and vision.
Everything here is more about the process, rather than actually doing anything, so now we are faced with massive tax proposals in this years, and next years, elections.
To the tune of about $20 billion dollars.
Too much, too late, and all at once pretty much sums it up I think. I think it's time the voters in both the region and the city of Seattle take a very long, very hard look at our politicians, and make some needed changes to bring in some people who will actually get things done, and not just study something to death.
THE OUTING
In this excellent op-ed piece by David Reinhard, regarding The List, he excoriates those who have released The List. Don't know what The List is?
The List is a roster of gay Republican congressional staffers that has circulated around Washington, D.C., since former Rep. Mark Foley's exit. It includes chiefs of staff, press secretaries and communications directors who work for GOP lawmakers such as Bill Frist, George Allen, Mitch McConnell, Rick Santorum and Henry Hyde. List recipients include the social-conservative arm of the vast right-wing conspiracy: the Christian Coalition, the Southern Baptist Convention, Focus on the Family and so on.
The release of The List at this time, a mere few weeks before the mid-term elections, is intended solely to influence the elections, but it is being met with yawns instead of the intended gasps.
The List is a roster of gay Republican congressional staffers that has circulated around Washington, D.C., since former Rep. Mark Foley's exit. It includes chiefs of staff, press secretaries and communications directors who work for GOP lawmakers such as Bill Frist, George Allen, Mitch McConnell, Rick Santorum and Henry Hyde. List recipients include the social-conservative arm of the vast right-wing conspiracy: the Christian Coalition, the Southern Baptist Convention, Focus on the Family and so on.
The release of The List at this time, a mere few weeks before the mid-term elections, is intended solely to influence the elections, but it is being met with yawns instead of the intended gasps.
This is just another demonstration of the ideological bancruptcy of the extreme left.
H/T: Hollie-is-Right
Democrats Have Foleys Too
In this well written piece, R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr. points out the hypocrisy of the Democrat's in the Foley situation, and asks why the Republicans haven't pointed this out yet.
I'm kind of wondering the same thing.
I'm kind of wondering the same thing.
Inhofe correct on warming
In this excellent piece by David Deming, a geophysicist, an adjunct scholar with the National Center for Policy Analysis and associate professor of arts and sciences at the University of Oklahoma, he states, Sen. James Inhofe, Oklahoma Republican, has been taking a lot of heat lately for his skeptical stance on global warming. He's been called a "social dinosaur" for his failure to accept the politically correct view. Yet Mr. Inhofe is absolutely correct to be skeptical.
In case you missed it, what Mr. Deming is referring to is a speech given by Sen. Inhofe, which I posted about here, which includes a link to Sen. Inhofe's speech.
Both what Sen. Inhofe said, and what Mr. Deming added, need to be heard, to counter the environmental extremists and their enablers in the MSM.
In case you missed it, what Mr. Deming is referring to is a speech given by Sen. Inhofe, which I posted about here, which includes a link to Sen. Inhofe's speech.
Both what Sen. Inhofe said, and what Mr. Deming added, need to be heard, to counter the environmental extremists and their enablers in the MSM.
Downtown tractor rally tries to cultivate support for property rights
As reported here, [I]t was a clash of two worlds that rarely meet -- tractors, flatbed trucks and other farm machinery rolled slowly down the streets of downtown Seattle on Thursday afternoon, stopping traffic and causing pedestrians to turn their heads and stare.
Their invasion said one thing to the city slickers of Seattle: There's a whole lot more to Washington state than the urban Puget Sound area.
The farmers driving the vehicles were the foot soldiers in the battle over Initiative 933, a controversial property rights proposal on November's general election ballot.
Backed by the Washington State Farm Bureau, I-933 would require the government to compensate landowners when property restrictions damage the value of their land, or to modify the restrictions.
"We think this is a common-sense proposal," said farm bureau President Steve Appel, who watched the demonstration from the sidewalk. "It's not that extreme."
Mr. Appel is correct - it is not extreme to expect fairness from local governments, where it comes to what they allow on private property, although those who oppose I-933 would have you believe otherwise.
Television ads produced by the No on 933 coalition have focused on farmers who don't support the measure, but Appel shrugs the ads off with an appeal to logic: "Would the farm bureau sponsor something that's bad for farmers?"
Unfortunately, logic doesn't apply to those who oppose this initiative, who are trying to use fear in their ads against I-933.
The concern supporters of the initiative have with the way land-use regulations work now is that they sometimes prohibit use of certain parts of their land, which can lower the value of the property.
In addition to creating "pay or waive" method for claims filed about regulations, the initiative would bar the creation of new regulations that would prohibit uses of property that are legal now.
"Do you want the government to control everything or do you want to control something yourself?" asked David Card, a Kitsap County resident who came with his wife to Seattle to lend their support to the initiative. "You're never going to get to control it all."
As I've repeatedly said, I strongly believe that property owners know better what they can and shouldn't do with their own property than any government entity ever will, and it should be left up to the property owners what is done with their own property.
It's the fair thing to do.
Their invasion said one thing to the city slickers of Seattle: There's a whole lot more to Washington state than the urban Puget Sound area.
The farmers driving the vehicles were the foot soldiers in the battle over Initiative 933, a controversial property rights proposal on November's general election ballot.
Backed by the Washington State Farm Bureau, I-933 would require the government to compensate landowners when property restrictions damage the value of their land, or to modify the restrictions.
"We think this is a common-sense proposal," said farm bureau President Steve Appel, who watched the demonstration from the sidewalk. "It's not that extreme."
Mr. Appel is correct - it is not extreme to expect fairness from local governments, where it comes to what they allow on private property, although those who oppose I-933 would have you believe otherwise.
Television ads produced by the No on 933 coalition have focused on farmers who don't support the measure, but Appel shrugs the ads off with an appeal to logic: "Would the farm bureau sponsor something that's bad for farmers?"
Unfortunately, logic doesn't apply to those who oppose this initiative, who are trying to use fear in their ads against I-933.
The concern supporters of the initiative have with the way land-use regulations work now is that they sometimes prohibit use of certain parts of their land, which can lower the value of the property.
In addition to creating "pay or waive" method for claims filed about regulations, the initiative would bar the creation of new regulations that would prohibit uses of property that are legal now.
"Do you want the government to control everything or do you want to control something yourself?" asked David Card, a Kitsap County resident who came with his wife to Seattle to lend their support to the initiative. "You're never going to get to control it all."
As I've repeatedly said, I strongly believe that property owners know better what they can and shouldn't do with their own property than any government entity ever will, and it should be left up to the property owners what is done with their own property.
It's the fair thing to do.
Sunday, October 08, 2006
FBI Says Foley Internet Texts Heavily Altered
As reported here, the text of the e-mail's sent to the FBI by C.R.E.W., a George Soros funded outfit, were heavily redacted (edited and/or entirely rewritten), and the want C.R.E.W. to provide them with the originals, which C.R.E.W. is refusing to do (I think a court order would rectify that rather quickly).
This episode with former Congressman Foley is looking more and more like an "October Surprise" staged by Democrats, in an effort to influence the up coming mid-term elections.
Michelle Malkin has more on this here.
John Hinderaker at Power Line asks some pertinent questions here.
Michael Barone adds his voice here.
Macranger is doing a whole series on this topic, starting here.
Gateway Pundit also has a whole series, with tons of other links, here.
David Limbaugh weighs in here on the Dems hypocrisy.
The questions being asked the most are: Who knew what, and when did they know it, and if they knew about this for over a year (or longer), why did they sit on it until now?
What Foley is alleged to have done is despicable, but what others have done - releasing this information now - is at best highly suspect, and at worst another example of the Democrat creed of "Lie, Cheat, Steal" - do anything it takes to "win" an election.
This episode with former Congressman Foley is looking more and more like an "October Surprise" staged by Democrats, in an effort to influence the up coming mid-term elections.
Michelle Malkin has more on this here.
John Hinderaker at Power Line asks some pertinent questions here.
Michael Barone adds his voice here.
Macranger is doing a whole series on this topic, starting here.
Gateway Pundit also has a whole series, with tons of other links, here.
David Limbaugh weighs in here on the Dems hypocrisy.
The questions being asked the most are: Who knew what, and when did they know it, and if they knew about this for over a year (or longer), why did they sit on it until now?
What Foley is alleged to have done is despicable, but what others have done - releasing this information now - is at best highly suspect, and at worst another example of the Democrat creed of "Lie, Cheat, Steal" - do anything it takes to "win" an election.
“Hot & Cold Media Spin: A Challenge To Journalists Who Cover Global Warming”
Senator James Inhofe, Chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee recently gave a speech about the media hype and spin on "global warming", which is eye opening for those who may be confused about this subject. Although somewhat long, it's definitely a must read.
H/T - Reality Hammer
H/T - Reality Hammer
'United 93' used to support war
In a sneeringly cynical "article" by an unnamed AP reporter, about the Progress for America group running ads and sending e-mails out to supporters, the "reporter" says, A conservative group is blending ads, e-mails and the feature film "United 93" in an innovative campaign to convince voters that the war in Iraq is a crucial component in the struggle against terrorism.
You can sense the sarcasm just dripping from that last part. My question to the editorializing "reporter" is, what's wrong with that, since the on-going war in Iraq is a crucial component of the larger war on terror?
Progress for America began airing a new ad in the political battlegrounds of Missouri and Ohio and on national cable featuring David Beamer, whose son Todd was killed when United Flight 93 crashed on Sept. 11, 2001, in a field in southwestern Pennsylvania.
At the same time, the group is sending hundreds of thousands of e-mails across the country with an offer from Beamer to give away free copies of "United 93," the feature film about the passengers who joined Todd Beamer in thwarting the hijackers' plans to reach their Washington targets.
Though required to work independently from candidates and political parties, the Progress for America message dovetails with Republican efforts to link the war in Iraq with the war on terror.
And the problem with that is ...?
You can sense the sarcasm just dripping from that last part. My question to the editorializing "reporter" is, what's wrong with that, since the on-going war in Iraq is a crucial component of the larger war on terror?
Progress for America began airing a new ad in the political battlegrounds of Missouri and Ohio and on national cable featuring David Beamer, whose son Todd was killed when United Flight 93 crashed on Sept. 11, 2001, in a field in southwestern Pennsylvania.
At the same time, the group is sending hundreds of thousands of e-mails across the country with an offer from Beamer to give away free copies of "United 93," the feature film about the passengers who joined Todd Beamer in thwarting the hijackers' plans to reach their Washington targets.
Though required to work independently from candidates and political parties, the Progress for America message dovetails with Republican efforts to link the war in Iraq with the war on terror.
And the problem with that is ...?
6 nations to mull Iran sanctions
As reported here, Six world powers agreed Friday to pursue possible U.N. sanctions against Iran over its nuclear program, but left crucial questions about the scope and timing of any measures unresolved.
Top diplomats from the United States, Britain, France, Germany, China and Russia said in a joint statement after talks in London that they were "deeply disappointed" by Tehran's refusal to suspend uranium enrichment, a key step toward making nuclear weapons.
Reading the diplomats' joint statement, British Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett said Iran had two choices when the United Nations demanded it halt enrichment activities.
"We regret that Iran has not yet taken the positive one."
Beckett said the six powers "will now consult on measures under Article 41 of Chapter 7 of the U.N. Charter." Article 41 authorizes the Security Council to impose non-military sanctions such as completely or partially severing diplomatic and economic relations, transportation and communications links.
The fact that Iran has refused to comply with the UN demands to stop their nuclear enrichment program is no surprise, as they have repeatedly stated that they wouldn't. Although the envoys from the six nations (United States, Britain, France, Germany, China and Russia) have finally come to that realization, and have threatened to pursue sanctions against Iran, thereby putting more pressure on Iran, sanctions alone won't do much good unless the rest of the member nations also sign off on those sanctions.
I don't see that as being very likely, as there are a lot of nations that do business with Iran, and by abiding by any economic sanctions placed on Iran would hurt their own economies. Greed will over rule good sense, as it did in the Oil-For-Food sanctions against Saddam's Iraq regime, allowing Iran to continue to thumb their nose at the rest of the world.
Top diplomats from the United States, Britain, France, Germany, China and Russia said in a joint statement after talks in London that they were "deeply disappointed" by Tehran's refusal to suspend uranium enrichment, a key step toward making nuclear weapons.
Reading the diplomats' joint statement, British Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett said Iran had two choices when the United Nations demanded it halt enrichment activities.
"We regret that Iran has not yet taken the positive one."
Beckett said the six powers "will now consult on measures under Article 41 of Chapter 7 of the U.N. Charter." Article 41 authorizes the Security Council to impose non-military sanctions such as completely or partially severing diplomatic and economic relations, transportation and communications links.
The fact that Iran has refused to comply with the UN demands to stop their nuclear enrichment program is no surprise, as they have repeatedly stated that they wouldn't. Although the envoys from the six nations (United States, Britain, France, Germany, China and Russia) have finally come to that realization, and have threatened to pursue sanctions against Iran, thereby putting more pressure on Iran, sanctions alone won't do much good unless the rest of the member nations also sign off on those sanctions.
I don't see that as being very likely, as there are a lot of nations that do business with Iran, and by abiding by any economic sanctions placed on Iran would hurt their own economies. Greed will over rule good sense, as it did in the Oil-For-Food sanctions against Saddam's Iraq regime, allowing Iran to continue to thumb their nose at the rest of the world.
Monday, October 02, 2006
Gunman storms school, kills girls
Earlier today, an armed gunman stormed a one room Amish school, killing three girls and leaving eight others in critical condition, before killing himself.
No real motive is known at this time, other than he may have had some kind of general grudge against girls, nor is it known why he chose this particular school in rural Pennsylvania, other than it was close to his home.
My heart goes out to the Amish people, and to the family of the man who committed this heinous act.
UPDATE: Gunman at Amish school may have planned to molest girls. Police investigating this terrible incident now believe they may know why Roberts did what he did.
The death toll has also risen to five: Naomi Rose Ebersole, 7; Anna Mae Stoltzfus, 12; Marian Fisher, 13; Mary Liz Miller, 8; and her sister Lena Miller, 7.
Other victims range in age from 6 to 13, with three girls still in critical condition, and two in serious condition.
No real motive is known at this time, other than he may have had some kind of general grudge against girls, nor is it known why he chose this particular school in rural Pennsylvania, other than it was close to his home.
My heart goes out to the Amish people, and to the family of the man who committed this heinous act.
UPDATE: Gunman at Amish school may have planned to molest girls. Police investigating this terrible incident now believe they may know why Roberts did what he did.
The death toll has also risen to five: Naomi Rose Ebersole, 7; Anna Mae Stoltzfus, 12; Marian Fisher, 13; Mary Liz Miller, 8; and her sister Lena Miller, 7.
Other victims range in age from 6 to 13, with three girls still in critical condition, and two in serious condition.
Sunday, October 01, 2006
A Warning to Islamofascist Terrorists
Somehow I missed this, as this article was put out on August 31st of this year, but it is still timely, and well worth the read.
I wholeheartedly agree with Mssr. Jacques Dhervillez, and wish to add my two cents.
To the Islamofascists, I say - be afraid. Be very afraid. Those who choose to poke a sleeping tiger with a sharp stick, and pull its' tail, soon find themselves looking at the inside of it's powerful jaws. Keep provoking us with your atrocities, and you will soon reap the whirlwind, as we in the West fully unleash the dogs of war to hunt you down, until each and every one of you, and your relatives are dead. If that is your wish, at some point in the very near future, we will oblige you your wish in ways that you will find completely incomprehensible, as you take your last breath.
We are coming for you.
H/T: The Freedom Fighter, via specialrpt posting in quicknews
I wholeheartedly agree with Mssr. Jacques Dhervillez, and wish to add my two cents.
To the Islamofascists, I say - be afraid. Be very afraid. Those who choose to poke a sleeping tiger with a sharp stick, and pull its' tail, soon find themselves looking at the inside of it's powerful jaws. Keep provoking us with your atrocities, and you will soon reap the whirlwind, as we in the West fully unleash the dogs of war to hunt you down, until each and every one of you, and your relatives are dead. If that is your wish, at some point in the very near future, we will oblige you your wish in ways that you will find completely incomprehensible, as you take your last breath.
We are coming for you.
H/T: The Freedom Fighter, via specialrpt posting in quicknews
Top Democrats urge Bush to change his Iraq policy
As reported here, Top Democrats, citing a leaked National Intelligence Estimate that said the 42-month military occupation in Iraq has stoked Islamic terrorism, urged President Bush on Monday to change U.S. policy there.
Of course, they conveniently leave out the fact that the NIE also states that abandoning Iraq by withdrawing our troops now would be an unmitigated disaster, not only for Iraq, but for the overall war on terror. Cherry picking at its' finest, eh?
The New York Times reported Sunday that the National Intelligence Estimate prepared by the nation's 16 intelligence agencies last April concluded that U.S. operations in Iraq were aggravating the threat of terrorism.
Oh, please. As if anyone at the NY Times is an expert on how to fight terrorism. OBL declared war on the US, and whether we are in Iraq or not, or in Afghanistan or not, matters little to him. Let's say your child is experiencing problems with a bully at school. Do you think that by ignoring the problem, the bullying will stop? That would be a 'No, it won't.' situation. Ignoring the problem will only allow it to escalate. So too, ignoring the terrorists only escalates their abilities to commit further acts of terrorism, and fighting the terrorists in Iraq (while it is a tragedy that the Iraqi people must endure this) is far better than having to fight them in, say, the offices of the New York Times.
The report, the first governmentwide assessment of global terrorism since the Iraq war began in 2003, concluded that U.S. military operations were handing Islamic extremists a propaganda bonanza, helping recruit a new generation of terrorists and boosting the overall threat of terrorist attacks.
I say that the erroneous reporting, and flat out lies by the MSM is what is handing the Islamofascists a "propaganda bonanza", not our military operations in Iraq. What our military in Iraq is doing, is sending hundreds of Islamofascist terrorists to speak to Allah.
Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., the Senate Democratic leader, said the NIE showed that the war in Iraq was "doing more harm than good" in the U.S. campaign against terrorism. "After all this sacrifice, the intelligence community reports that this war has made us less safe."
Reid added in a later statement that the White House had "lost all credibility on matters of national security" because the U.S. intelligence community had "confirmed that America is losing the war on terror because of Bush failures in Iraq."
How is the war in Iraq "doing more harm than good"? How has this war made us less safe? Those questions are unanswerable by Sen. Reid, et al., as they are only talking points of those suffering from Bush Derangement Syndrome, who have cherry picked portions of the declassified parts of the latest NIE, to suit their political agenda.
Sen. Robert Dorgan, D-N.D., said U.S. operations in Iraq had contributed to "a substantial increase in terrorism."
Sen. Dorgan is delusional. Terrorist activity has increased because they want to try to kill more Americans and are finding Iraq and Afghanistan a more convenient place to try to do that, rather than North Dakota or Nevada.
Sen. Clinton, D-N.Y. also chimed in, urging the President to fully declassify the rest of the NIE, and release it to the public, which is mere foolish demagoguery on her part, in that, those portions that the Dems are conveniently disregarding would be more available to the public who would see the Dems efforts for what they are - simple minded Bush bashing. It is also foolish on her part to open her mouth to criticize President Bush's efforts in the war on terror after what her husband failed to do during their eight years in the White House.
People who live in glass houses should not throw stones. The Dems attempts to make themselves appear "tough on terrorism" are belied by their dismal past record in that regard.
Of course, they conveniently leave out the fact that the NIE also states that abandoning Iraq by withdrawing our troops now would be an unmitigated disaster, not only for Iraq, but for the overall war on terror. Cherry picking at its' finest, eh?
The New York Times reported Sunday that the National Intelligence Estimate prepared by the nation's 16 intelligence agencies last April concluded that U.S. operations in Iraq were aggravating the threat of terrorism.
Oh, please. As if anyone at the NY Times is an expert on how to fight terrorism. OBL declared war on the US, and whether we are in Iraq or not, or in Afghanistan or not, matters little to him. Let's say your child is experiencing problems with a bully at school. Do you think that by ignoring the problem, the bullying will stop? That would be a 'No, it won't.' situation. Ignoring the problem will only allow it to escalate. So too, ignoring the terrorists only escalates their abilities to commit further acts of terrorism, and fighting the terrorists in Iraq (while it is a tragedy that the Iraqi people must endure this) is far better than having to fight them in, say, the offices of the New York Times.
The report, the first governmentwide assessment of global terrorism since the Iraq war began in 2003, concluded that U.S. military operations were handing Islamic extremists a propaganda bonanza, helping recruit a new generation of terrorists and boosting the overall threat of terrorist attacks.
I say that the erroneous reporting, and flat out lies by the MSM is what is handing the Islamofascists a "propaganda bonanza", not our military operations in Iraq. What our military in Iraq is doing, is sending hundreds of Islamofascist terrorists to speak to Allah.
Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., the Senate Democratic leader, said the NIE showed that the war in Iraq was "doing more harm than good" in the U.S. campaign against terrorism. "After all this sacrifice, the intelligence community reports that this war has made us less safe."
Reid added in a later statement that the White House had "lost all credibility on matters of national security" because the U.S. intelligence community had "confirmed that America is losing the war on terror because of Bush failures in Iraq."
How is the war in Iraq "doing more harm than good"? How has this war made us less safe? Those questions are unanswerable by Sen. Reid, et al., as they are only talking points of those suffering from Bush Derangement Syndrome, who have cherry picked portions of the declassified parts of the latest NIE, to suit their political agenda.
Sen. Robert Dorgan, D-N.D., said U.S. operations in Iraq had contributed to "a substantial increase in terrorism."
Sen. Dorgan is delusional. Terrorist activity has increased because they want to try to kill more Americans and are finding Iraq and Afghanistan a more convenient place to try to do that, rather than North Dakota or Nevada.
Sen. Clinton, D-N.Y. also chimed in, urging the President to fully declassify the rest of the NIE, and release it to the public, which is mere foolish demagoguery on her part, in that, those portions that the Dems are conveniently disregarding would be more available to the public who would see the Dems efforts for what they are - simple minded Bush bashing. It is also foolish on her part to open her mouth to criticize President Bush's efforts in the war on terror after what her husband failed to do during their eight years in the White House.
People who live in glass houses should not throw stones. The Dems attempts to make themselves appear "tough on terrorism" are belied by their dismal past record in that regard.
Blair, Musharraf dismiss terrorism report
As reported here, PM Tony Blair and Pakistani President Musharraf dismiss a report from the BBC that states, falsely according to the British Ministry of Defense, that Pakistan's Directorate of Inter Services Intelligence is aiding terrorists, rather than fighting terrorists.
Just as we here in the US have various elements in the MSM - CNN, the New York Times, Washington Post, et. al. - working overtime to undermine our efforts to combat terrorism both here and abroad, so too the UK has it's own elements in the MSM, most notably the BBC - which used to be a bastion of truth - doing whatever it takes to undermine their efforts to combat terrorism.
Publishing, and misrepresenting, leaked government documents is not only despicable, it's also treasonous in my opinion. When are our governments going to take steps to plug the leaks, and go after the leakers, and when are the news editors going to stop committing treason?
Just as we here in the US have various elements in the MSM - CNN, the New York Times, Washington Post, et. al. - working overtime to undermine our efforts to combat terrorism both here and abroad, so too the UK has it's own elements in the MSM, most notably the BBC - which used to be a bastion of truth - doing whatever it takes to undermine their efforts to combat terrorism.
Publishing, and misrepresenting, leaked government documents is not only despicable, it's also treasonous in my opinion. When are our governments going to take steps to plug the leaks, and go after the leakers, and when are the news editors going to stop committing treason?
Mayor has plan to clear the air
As reported here, Saying Seattle must lead the world in battling the globe-warming gases that spew from our cars and furnaces and power plants, Mayor Greg Nickels today will unveil the most comprehensive plan to date to reduce Seattleites' impact on the climate.
The plan amounts to a call for everyone who lives here -- along with the city's businesses -- to change how they get around and how they heat and light their homes and offices. It could mean charging tolls for using certain roads, additional taxes on parking and other measures to encourage people to get out of their cars and use mass transit.
The 34-page list of actions Nickels is proposing range from the very specific -- spending $530,000 over the next two years to save natural gas in city buildings, for instance -- to aspirations whose outcome the city can't control, such as persuading the Legislature to follow California's lead and cap so-called "greenhouse gases."
The basic message: Seattle can do this. And so can the world.
"We can make a difference," Nickels said.
Boy, oh boy. Talk about your delusions of grandeur! While clean air is something desirable, most of the provisions put forth by the Mayor would cost tax payers more money through taxes, and clamp down on the business community through onerous regulations resulting in lost jobs, which in turn would lower tax revenue, which in turn would increase state cut backs in "essential services".
The Mayor goes on to talk about "the struggle with climate change", when in fact he meant "global warming" (a pet theme of his). As I've said before, and I'll say it again, climate change has always occurred, and will continue to do so, whether we take any steps "to halt global warming", or not.
Our Mayor is getting more delusional by the week!
The plan amounts to a call for everyone who lives here -- along with the city's businesses -- to change how they get around and how they heat and light their homes and offices. It could mean charging tolls for using certain roads, additional taxes on parking and other measures to encourage people to get out of their cars and use mass transit.
The 34-page list of actions Nickels is proposing range from the very specific -- spending $530,000 over the next two years to save natural gas in city buildings, for instance -- to aspirations whose outcome the city can't control, such as persuading the Legislature to follow California's lead and cap so-called "greenhouse gases."
The basic message: Seattle can do this. And so can the world.
"We can make a difference," Nickels said.
Boy, oh boy. Talk about your delusions of grandeur! While clean air is something desirable, most of the provisions put forth by the Mayor would cost tax payers more money through taxes, and clamp down on the business community through onerous regulations resulting in lost jobs, which in turn would lower tax revenue, which in turn would increase state cut backs in "essential services".
The Mayor goes on to talk about "the struggle with climate change", when in fact he meant "global warming" (a pet theme of his). As I've said before, and I'll say it again, climate change has always occurred, and will continue to do so, whether we take any steps "to halt global warming", or not.
Our Mayor is getting more delusional by the week!
Study puts I-933's cost in billions
As reported here, If voters pass the land-use measure Initiative 933 in November, it will cost taxpayers almost $8 billion during the next five years, a University of Washington study released Tuesday contends.
"The future of land use will change forever if the initiative passes," said Keith Dearborn, an environmental law and land-use lawyer who provided legal analysis for the study, which was conducted by a group of researchers at the UW's Northwest Center of Livable Communities.
But proponents of I-933 blasted as off-base the conclusions of the UW study, as well as the findings of a state report released last week that made similar dire predictions if the measure passes. Those in favor of the measure also said the UW study was biased because it was partially paid for by groups with ties to the opposition camp.
Initiative 933 had it's genesis in the Kelo decision by the Supreme Court, and by the Critical Areas Ordinance passed by King County, both actions limiting what a private property owner can do with their property. Simply put, I-933 is about fairness, as it seeks - if passed - to force local governments to compensate land owners for putting restrictions on the use of their property, or waive those restrictions.
If local governments don't want to pay compensation to private property owners for restrictions placed on the use of said private property, then they shouldn't pass laws and ordinances restricting the use of the land by the property owner, right?
Unfortunately, the simple logic in that is lost on those who only listen to the extremist conservationists, who would rather see us all living in Soviet-era style concrete block house apartments, instead of being able to use and enjoy our privately owned property.
"The future of land use will change forever if the initiative passes," said Keith Dearborn, an environmental law and land-use lawyer who provided legal analysis for the study, which was conducted by a group of researchers at the UW's Northwest Center of Livable Communities.
But proponents of I-933 blasted as off-base the conclusions of the UW study, as well as the findings of a state report released last week that made similar dire predictions if the measure passes. Those in favor of the measure also said the UW study was biased because it was partially paid for by groups with ties to the opposition camp.
Initiative 933 had it's genesis in the Kelo decision by the Supreme Court, and by the Critical Areas Ordinance passed by King County, both actions limiting what a private property owner can do with their property. Simply put, I-933 is about fairness, as it seeks - if passed - to force local governments to compensate land owners for putting restrictions on the use of their property, or waive those restrictions.
If local governments don't want to pay compensation to private property owners for restrictions placed on the use of said private property, then they shouldn't pass laws and ordinances restricting the use of the land by the property owner, right?
Unfortunately, the simple logic in that is lost on those who only listen to the extremist conservationists, who would rather see us all living in Soviet-era style concrete block house apartments, instead of being able to use and enjoy our privately owned property.
Union case goes to high court
As reported here, The Supreme Court agreed Tuesday to decide whether public employee unions must get special permission before spending some workers' dues on political causes.
Justices accepted an appeal from the state of Washington that involves fees paid to the Washington Education Association by teachers who decline to join the union.
Those workers still can be charged dues by the union to help pay for labor negotiations that affect them. But they can't be forced to pay for the union's political activism, under a string of Supreme Court rulings that reach back nearly 30 years.
At issue is whether the union needs teachers to say "yes" before the fees can be used for political causes or whether teachers must specifically object to having a portion of their fees spent for that purpose.
The court will hear arguments in the case, as well as a related lawsuit by five teachers to recover their fees, early next year.
State voters in 1992 adopted a campaign finance law that requires unions to get the consent of each worker before spending fees on political activity. The law also required the unions to refund the fee to teachers who did not agree with the political activity the union was proposing.
The Washington Supreme Court overturned the requirement that union officials get worker consent, saying the union's annual offer to reduce fees for any non-member who registers an objection to the political spending is sufficient.
The state court said that forcing the union to seek permission from each worker violated the union's free speech rights.
The three dissenters on the state Supreme Court, however, said the ruling "turned the First Amendment on its head," by valuing the rights of the union above those of individuals.
I'm happy that the USSC is going to hear this appeal of the WSSC, in effect, legislating from the bench in this case. The teachers union, the WEA, is about as liberal a union as there is, while not all teachers are. The current majority of the justices on the WSSC are also very liberal, and in declaring the 1992 state campaign finance law "unconstitutional" were showing their support for unions, rather than the people of the state of Washington as is their mandate (with the exception, of course, of the 3 dissenters).
In my opinion, unions should be prohibited from any political activity whatsoever, even if their entire membership ascribes to the political activity that the union wants to engage in. The primary role - which should be the only role of any union - is to represent their membership in the negotiation of wages and benefits with an employer. (Oh, and case you're wondering, yes I have been a union member - of three different unions - but I am not currently a union member.)
There are plenty of other outlets that allow people to be involved in the political activism of their choice. It's ludicrous that members of a union be forced to pay for political activities that they do not ascribe too, and the hope here is that the USSC will see it that way too.
Justices accepted an appeal from the state of Washington that involves fees paid to the Washington Education Association by teachers who decline to join the union.
Those workers still can be charged dues by the union to help pay for labor negotiations that affect them. But they can't be forced to pay for the union's political activism, under a string of Supreme Court rulings that reach back nearly 30 years.
At issue is whether the union needs teachers to say "yes" before the fees can be used for political causes or whether teachers must specifically object to having a portion of their fees spent for that purpose.
The court will hear arguments in the case, as well as a related lawsuit by five teachers to recover their fees, early next year.
State voters in 1992 adopted a campaign finance law that requires unions to get the consent of each worker before spending fees on political activity. The law also required the unions to refund the fee to teachers who did not agree with the political activity the union was proposing.
The Washington Supreme Court overturned the requirement that union officials get worker consent, saying the union's annual offer to reduce fees for any non-member who registers an objection to the political spending is sufficient.
The state court said that forcing the union to seek permission from each worker violated the union's free speech rights.
The three dissenters on the state Supreme Court, however, said the ruling "turned the First Amendment on its head," by valuing the rights of the union above those of individuals.
I'm happy that the USSC is going to hear this appeal of the WSSC, in effect, legislating from the bench in this case. The teachers union, the WEA, is about as liberal a union as there is, while not all teachers are. The current majority of the justices on the WSSC are also very liberal, and in declaring the 1992 state campaign finance law "unconstitutional" were showing their support for unions, rather than the people of the state of Washington as is their mandate (with the exception, of course, of the 3 dissenters).
In my opinion, unions should be prohibited from any political activity whatsoever, even if their entire membership ascribes to the political activity that the union wants to engage in. The primary role - which should be the only role of any union - is to represent their membership in the negotiation of wages and benefits with an employer. (Oh, and case you're wondering, yes I have been a union member - of three different unions - but I am not currently a union member.)
There are plenty of other outlets that allow people to be involved in the political activism of their choice. It's ludicrous that members of a union be forced to pay for political activities that they do not ascribe too, and the hope here is that the USSC will see it that way too.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)