Illegal immigrants packing up and leaving Arizona

As reported here, [I]llegal immigrants in Arizona, frustrated with a flagging economy and tough new legislation cracking down on their employers, are returning to their home countries or trying their luck in other states.

For months, [illegal] immigrants have taken a wait-and-see attitude toward the state's new employer-sanctions law, which takes effect January 1. The voter-approved legislation is an attempt to lessen the economic incentive for illegal immigrants in Arizona, the busiest crossing point along the U.S.-Mexico border.

And by all appearances, it's starting to work.

This is extremely good news for the legal citizens of Arizona, as their tax burden to support the illegal's living in their midst will be lessened. Lower costs to cover fewer emergency room visits due to fewer illegal's using the emergency rooms for their medical needs. Lower costs for education due to fewer children of illegal's taking up classroom space. Lower costs for traffic enforcement due to fewer people on the roads, which in turn lessens congestion, which in turn means goods and people are able to travel more efficiently, cutting down on fuel consumption and pollution.

Note to the author of this AP story - when writing a story about illegal's, don't forget to include that word, as you did above. I fixed that for you. By dropping the word illegal, you have implied that ALL immigrants are being affected, which is patently false. Just wanted to point that out, just in case anyone got confused.

"People are calling me telling me about their friend, their cousin, their neighbors -- they're moving back to Mexico," said Magdalena Schwartz, an immigrant-rights activist and pastor at a Mesa church. "They don't want to live in fear, in terror."

In terror?! In terror of what, exactly? That if they get arrested for being here illegally, they'll be treated with dignity and respect by law enforcement officials and the courts? That when incarcerated they'll be housed in a fairly clean and warm environment and fed three times a day, and won't be harassed or beaten, or possibly killed, unlike in their home countries, where people being in their country illegally is taken a little more seriously? If they hadn't come here illegally, they wouldn't have to worry about all that, now would they?

Martin Herrera, a 40-year-old illegal immigrant and masonry worker who lives in Camp Verde, 70 miles north of Phoenix, said he is planning to return to Mexico as soon as he ties up loose ends after living here for four years.

"I don't want to live here because of the new law and the oppressive environment," he said. "I'll be better in my country."

Good! See ya! Have a nice life - in your own country! Oh, and if you want to return, try doing it the right way, and ask permission first, ok?

He called the employer-sanctions law "absurd."

Actually, what is absurd is the fact that you've been here illegally for the past four years, and nothing has been done up to this point to get you to leave!

"Everybody here, legally or illegally, we are part of a motor that makes this country run," Herrera said. "Once we leave, the motor is going to start to slow down."

That's a false assertion, saying that the "motor is going to slow down". As stated above, without the illegal's tapping the cash cow provided by the law abiding citizens of Arizona, the state legislature will be able to cut taxes (if they're smart), which will translate into more money in people's pockets, which will lead to them being able to spend more, which will lead to a growth in the local state economy - not a slow down.

There's no way to know how many illegal immigrants are leaving Arizona, especially now with many returning home for normal holiday visits. But economists, immigration lawyers and people who work in the immigrant community agree it's happening.

State Rep. Russell Pearce of Mesa, the author of the employer sanctions law, said his intent was to drive illegal immigrants out of Arizona.

"I'm hoping they will self-deport," Pearce said. "They broke the law. They're criminals."

Rep. Pearce is correct in stating that they broke the law. Hopefully, most if not all of those returning home for the holidays will decide to stay home.

Under the employer sanctions law, businesses found to have knowingly hired illegal workers will be subject to sanctions from probation to a 10-day suspension of their business licenses. A second violation would bring permanent revocation of the license.

Nancy-Jo Merritt, an immigration lawyer who primarily represents employers, said her clients already have started to fire workers who can't prove they are in the country legally.
"Workers are being fired, of course," she said. "Nobody wants to find out later on that they've got somebody working for them who's not here legally."

Good! Outstanding! More jobs for legal citizens!

When immigrants don't have jobs, they don't stick around, said Dawn McLaren, a research economist at Arizona State University who specializes in illegal immigration.

She said the flagging economy, particularly in the construction industry, also is contributing to an immigrant exodus.

"As the jobs dwindle and the environment becomes more unpleasant in more ways than one, you then decide what to do, and perhaps leaving looks like a good idea," she said. "And certainly that creates a problem, because as people leave, they take the jobs they created with them."

When I read the last part of the above paragraph, it made me have a "Geico Caveman" moment, as in, what?! Since when do workers create jobs? Employers create jobs, workers fill jobs. Oh, and when workers leave, they don't take the jobs they filled. They create job openings which others, who are here legally, can fill. What an asinine statement, especially coming from someone who works at a university!

Pearce disagreed that the Arizona economy will suffer after illegal immigrants leave, saying there will be less crime, lower taxes, less congestion, smaller classroom sizes and shorter lines in emergency rooms.

"We have a free market. It'll adjust," he said. "Americans will be much better off."
He said he's not surprised illegal immigrants are leaving the state and predicts that more will go once the employer-sanctions law takes effect next month.

"It's attrition by enforcement," he said. "As you make this an unfriendly state for lawbreakers, I'm hoping they will pick up and leave."

I want everyone to know that I am not against immigrants. This country was established and built by immigrants. This country is populated by recent immigrants, and the children and grandchildren of immigrants who came here in years past. Heck, even the so-called "Native Americans" are the children of immigrants! I'm the grandchild of immigrants, who came here legally. If you want to immigrate to this country, by all means do so, but do it legally.

What I am against, is those who come here illegally, without proper permission. Illegal immigrant's are not a "boon" to our economy by filling "jobs Americans don't want". Rather, they are a drain on our economy. By working "under the table", they allow employers to pay them below living wages, which in turn forces them to use public resources in disproportionate numbers. By coming here illegally they have committed a crime, and oftentimes (but not always, I will grant) commit further crimes, and when they are incarcerated for those other crimes, use up more public resources.

It is hoped here that with the example Arizona is showing with this law and the resultant self-deportation that is occurring, that the other border states will also enact similar laws, which will go a long, long way to, if not solving, then at least mitigating the problems with people being here illegally.

H/T Pistos.

Christmas is coming...

Once again we are rapidly approaching a holiday that holds many types of memories for us. I find that my memories have become more muddled as I have accumulated more memories, sigh, aging is a crummy thing to have happen to you. For the most part, my early memories were of visiting both sets of grandparents and trying to be excited about the practical gifts I received, pants and shirts and sweaters or a jacket. These were usually good things for me since living in the central part of the country as a kid, we needed as many layers of clothes as we could put on to keep us warm in the winter. (No, I am NOT going to talk about how cold it was or how much snow was on the ground in the winter, just to let you know that some fun was had walking out onto the crusty snow and breaking through it or watching it fall from the roofs when the temperatures would warm somewhat.) As I have gotten older and my kids have moved away and gotten married and had kids I find that the memories that I have the most joy about concern the younger ones and not my own stuff. My wife heard about a question, "What was your favorite present that you received last Christmas?" and finding out how many people didn't even remember what it was... I don't remember, but I do remember how my family came over and how we had good food and conversation, a little TV and a little reflection on life and how much those things make me anticipate Christmas every year. When we think about the most important parts of Christmas or Hanachah's past, we can put it all into perspective by what we share with the important people in our lives. How sad it is for those whose remembrances are not of happy times and so therefore cringe at the coming of Christmas. One of the best parts of Christmas is trying to find ways to do for others and that can change someones viewpoint when Christmas is coming.

Subtle ways for increasing tax revenues...

A time ago, I don't know how long, Seattle started putting out the "pay at the parking kiosk" for time to park on the city streets in many areas. This was to replace the parking meters, ostensibly to reduce costs to the city. I think that it was a subtle way (maybe not too subtle) to increase the revenue the city collects. "How?", you might ask, or you might not care but, I'm going to tell you my idea anyway. When the parking meter was fed, one might use all the time on the meter or leave a little early or late (and get a ticket), those that left early didn't get a refund on their time but the next person to park in that spot didn't have to pay as much for their time. I liked it both ways, leaving early and giving someone else some free time and getting a little free time from someone else. (What? You say that that was unfair to those who never found those few minutes... Life is unfair.) Now, if you use the kiosk, you not only do not get a refund for paying for more time than you used, the next person to use that spot doesn't get any benefit from someone else's early leaving. Hummmmmmmm..... If you purchase two hours worth of time and use 90 minutes you have just increased the city's coffers by 30 minutes rental of the parking space that you didn't use and no one else could use it either. The next person to use the spot had to pay for their estimate of how long they would stay and if they were incorrect in their estimate and stayed less time... ka-ching!!!!! I wonder how often this happens at the controlled parking spots around the city... A double whammy for the city, lower costs for collections of parking fees and higher income from inaccurate estimations of duration. Don't you just love it?

McDermott loses appeal, and must pay lawmaker

As reported here, [t]he U.S. Supreme Court Monday ended Rep. Jim McDermott's long-running legal battle with a leading House Republican, when it let stand a lower court ruling that could cost McDermott more than $600,000 in damages and attorneys' fees.

The high court declined to review a federal appeals court ruling from May that McDermott, D-Wash., was liable for civil damages for leaking to reporters a tape recording of a cell-phone call between Rep. John Boehner, R-Ohio, and other Republican leaders discussing a House Ethics Committee investigation of former House Speaker Newt Gingrich.

How ironic that one of the Democrats most cherished so-called "Constitutional rights" - the "right to privacy", which is not written anywhere in the Constitution - comes back to bite one of their own!

Hey, Jim! Pay the man, and be thankful you aren't going to prison for breaking the law.

Belated wishes

Due to circumstances beyond my control (otherwise called "Life"), I was not able to make a couple of posts this weekend that I wanted to.

First of all, November 10th was the birthday of the United States Marine Corps, and I want to wish all Marines a (belated) Happy Birthday! I'm a Navy vet, and although I've indulged in the usual teasing of the Navy's sister service - and got back as good as I gave (and sometimes better, I'll admit) - I have the deepest respect for the men and women of our Corps. Many times they are the first to go into harm's way, and they do so unhesitatingly, to protect the freedoms we hold so dear, as well as to put themselves between innocents of other nations and those who wish to do them harm. If you ask them why they do that, more often than not you'll get the response back of, "It's what we do!". For that, I will always be deeply grateful.

To the men and women of the United States Marine Corps - Semper Fi! May we who you protect be as faithful to you, as you are to us.

Secondly, November 11th was Veteran's Day. Originally known as Armistice Day, to commemorate the ending - on the 11th hour, of the 11th day, of the 11th month - of the "War to end all wars", now known to us as WWI. We all know that it wasn't "the war to end all wars", and because of that, the name was changed to Veteran's Day, in order to honor those who served in the military.

As I stated above, I'm a Navy vet, and my brother (Dither) is an Army vet. Neither of us run around yelling out that fact, demanding that people kowtow to us because of our "status". We aren't like that. We go about our daily lives trying to do the right thing while keeping a "low profile", lending a hand when we see a need without asking for, or expecting, "public adulation". Nope, not gonna happen.

Most other vets (there are always the attention hogs in every group) I know of are the same way. Quiet, humble, normal people, who just happened to have put on our nation's uniform for a spell, and then went back to civilian life, trying to be good citizens. If you happen to know any veteran's, surprise them by saying thanks, and watch their reaction. Some will get all flustered by the attention. Some will quietly say, "You're welcome.", while others will get contemplative, thinking back on the time they spent in the service and what that truly means.

And just what does that mean? It means sacrifice (something that a vast majority just don't get anymore, unfortunately).

The sacrifice of time away from family and friends, often in another country.
The sacrifice of being able to earn more money working in a civilian job.
The sacrifice of comfort, spending time in "the field", away from warm beds, hot showers, and hot meals. No Starbucks latte's, no Nintendo or Xbox360, no internet, no McDonalds, etc.
The sacrifice of not being in a place where you aren't scared that you're going to get hurt - badly - or worse.
Which brings us to the Ultimate Sacrifice - the giving of your life to protect an ideal, a cause, or simply just your buddies.

That's what sacrifice means, and those men and women who willingly put on the various uniforms of our nations Armed Forces know what they are sacrificing, and that they may be called upon to make the Ultimate Sacrifice, so that we may live in freedom and enjoy all those things they give up.

To all the men and women who have ever worn the uniforms of our nations Armed Forces, I say a very humble THANK YOU! Your sacrifices mean more to me than you will ever know.

Liberty outraged over grave desecration

As reported here, [t]o Jeremy Burris the word "liberty" was more than the name of his hometown. It was something worth fighting for.

An all-American kid from a little all-American town, the 22-year-old Marine lance corporal died heroically in Iraq. More than a thousand people turned out Wednesday as a white hearse carried his body to burial in the historic 1800s Cooke Memorial Cemetery.

Within hours, the grave was desecrated. About 30 sprays of flowers were ripped apart, petals strewn over the loose earth. Flags decorating the gravesite were also torn down and sentimental notes and posters shredded.

Fortunately, Allison Funeral Service employees already restored it.

I'm angered by this. I mean, Jeremy Burris fought for this country, died for this country, defending the rights we have as citizens of this nation (including the right to protest something you don't like), and this is how he is repaid for his sacrifice? This is total disrespect.

To the persons responsible for this outrage. If you don't like the military, don't like the fact that our troops are over in Iraq fighting those who would like nothing better than to kill you, that's fine. That's your right. A right that Jeremy stood up to protect., whether you like that or not. The fact that you probably don't like the military or the war in Iraq, DOES NOT give you the right to do what you did.

I hope you get stupid and brag about what you did, and that someone who you brag to rats you out. You deserve to spend a long time in jail.

To the family of LCpl Burris - my heart goes out to you both for the loss of your son, and for what happened to his grave. As a veteran of the US Navy, I also want to thank you for the sacrifice that Jeremy made.

Semper Fi!

H/T dogmaticus

Never Forget

Today, September 11, 2007 marks the sixth anniversary of the attack, not only on our nation, but on our very way of life by “people” bound and determined to enslave not only us, but the entire world.

These “people” want to return us to the time where they controlled vast swaths of the world, imposing their will, and their so-called “Religion of Peace”, through the sword. This is something that we cannot, must not, allow to happen. If a modern, free society, is to survive, we must fight these “people” at every turn, and never surrender. For if we surrender, we shall die.

Yet, there are those in our society who think that these “people” can be appeased, and that, if appeased, they will stop the violence that they inflict upon the world. This is a fallacy, born of a “head in the sand” wishful thinking.

Neville Chamberlain found that out in 1939, when he attempted to appease one of the vilest monsters that has ever walked this earth, Adolph Hitler, when he proclaimed upon his return to London, “Peace in our time!”. Because of Chamberlain’s ill-fated attempt at appeasing Hitler, countless millions were soon subjugated under the jack boots of the Nazi regime, resulting in the deaths of countless millions more, as the world convulsed in total war.

Just as Adolph Hitler wanted the power to dominate the world, imposing his will, so these “people” want to dominate the world, so they may impose their will upon everyone. Whether you realize it or not, the truth of the matter is that we are once again embroiled in a world war, one that we must win, whatever the cost, if our society, our very way of life is to survive.

On this sixth anniversary, take a moment to reflect on what is at stake, for much is at stake. Do not take the freedoms that we enjoy for granted, for if we lose this war, we will lose those freedoms, which is the ultimate goal of those “people”.

I would rather stand and fight as a free man, and risk the possibility of death, rather than surrender and guarantee my death as a slave.

Never forget.

Thompson to announce candidacy on Thursday

As reported here, Republican Fred Thompson will officially launch his presidential bid Sept. 6 in a Webcast on his campaign site [www.imwithfred.com], followed by a five-day tour of early primary states.

"I believe that there are millions of Americans who know that our security and prosperity are at risk if we don't address the challenges of our time: the global threat of terrorism, taxes and spending that will bankrupt future generations, and a government that can't seem to get the most basic responsibilities right for its citizens," the former Tennessee senator and "Law & Order" actor said in a news release Thursday that laid out themes of his campaign.

This is welcome news! Why? Because I believe that Fred Thompson gives us the best chance of retaining the White House for another four years. There are too many issues with the remaining candidates on the Republican side to bring cohesion back to the Republican Party, to enable us to retain the White House.

So, I'm going on the record here to publicly endorse Fred D. Thompson for the Republican nomination, and for President of the United States in the 2008 election - regardless of what the FEC may say or do as a result of my endorsement, through the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Act, which in my opinion, regarding the part about weblogs, is unconstitutional. Here is the text of the First Amendment :

"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." [Emphasis mine]

Note that it does not say, "except political speech". The part that says "... abridging the freedom of speech ..." is pretty much all encompassing, and that is what gives me (and everyone else) the right to endorse whomever I want, for whatever political office, I choose to, Senators McCain and Feingold notwithstanding, and I will fight for my rights all the way to the US Supreme Court if necessary.

Bridge collapses in Minneapolis

My heart goes out to all those involved in the bridge collapse tragedy in Minneapolis. I'm really stunned by this ... I'm almost at a loss for words.

This tragedy hits kind of close to home in a couple of ways. First of all, I've driven across that bridge, although it has been 27 years now that I did so, and when I heard the news, I got that cold, hard knot feeling in my stomach as the memory of crossing that bridge those many long years ago came rushing back to me.

The other way is that we have a couple of bridges here in Seattle that are in danger of catastrophic failure if the conditions are right, which I have posted about in the past - the Evergreen Point floating bridge, which is a major connection between the communities on the east side of Lake Washington and Seattle, and the Alaskan Way Viaduct, which is a major north - south arterial located on the Seattle waterfront.

Both bridges carry vast numbers of cars on a daily basis, even though it is a known fact that either (or both) could collapse in another major earthquake or huge wind storm, yet our local government officials are dithering about what to do about both, and how to pay for it, wasting both time and money on "study" after "study", and accomplishing virtually nothing in the process.

In light of this tragedy that happened in Minneapolis, I think it is time for our local politicians, from the governor and state legislature down to the various city councils and mayors to come together and find common ground to a solution for these two bridges in our area before we have a similar tragedy befall us.

Again, my heart goes out to all those who have been affected by this tragedy.

Tunneling Near Iranian Nuclear Site Stirs Worry

As reported here, [t]he sudden flurry of digging seen in recent satellite photos of a mountainside in central Iran might have passed for ordinary road tunneling. But the site is the back yard of Iran's most ambitious and controversial nuclear facility, leading U.S. officials and independent experts to reach another conclusion: It appears to be the start of a major tunnel complex inside the mountain.

The question is, why? Worries have been stoked by the presence nearby of fortified buildings where uranium is being processed. Those structures in turn are now being connected by roads to Iran's nuclear site at Natanz, where the country recently started production of enriched uranium in defiance of international protests.

The answer to that question is fairly simple and straightforward, and I've posted about this many times before - Iran's leaders want Iran to become a nuclear power, possessing nuclear weapons, so they can pursue their dream of recreating the Caliphate with them at it's head, on a world-wide basis. They want to Islamicise the entire world - whether anyone else wants them to or not - and to do this they feel that they need to have nuclear weapons, regardless of how many times they deny that they desire a source of nuclear energy, "for peaceful purposes", and not nuclear weapons.

If they do manage to produce nuclear weapons (through their own means and the ineptitude of the rest of the world), they will first bully their neighbors in the region to bow to their will under threat of nuclear holocaust, and then once they have consolidated their hold over the Middle East, they will then turn their eyes north to Europe and Russia, and east to China. Once they have Europe, Russia, and China under their influence, they will then look to the US, using resources they will be able to obtain from Europe, Russia and China (i.e. ICBM's), to try to make us bend to their will as well.

Will the world sit back and simply allow Iran's leaders see their plans come to fruition? I don't see much happening that will stop Iran's leaders at the present time. Hopefully, those in power now and those who will be in power in the near future will wake up, before it's too late.

H/T specialrpt reporting in quicknews

Happy Independence Day

On this day in 1776 brave men on these shores issued a declaration of independence from the most powerful nation on earth at the time, England, over abuses perpetrated by George III, that they felt had no other means of remedy.

They did so knowing that they were putting their liberty, and their very lives, at great risk, while at the same time not knowing if their venture would bear the fruits of success, since the Colonies had no friends, and few resources to match up against the formidable power and wealth of England.

But one thing they did know. They had to throw off the chains of servitude, in order to live the life of free men, governing themselves in a just and equitable manner.

Military defeat after military defeat ensued, but the resolve of those involved in the fight for freedom never wavered in the main, and eventually things began to turn around for the beleaguered colonists, until at long last, England was convinced that there was no possibility that they were going to be able to hold on to their former colonies, and the United States of America became a reality.

Without the perseverance and resolve of the Founding Fathers, without their belief in the rightness of their cause, where would we be today? The answer to that is unknowable, although this writer suspects that we would not be in the position of prominence that we enjoy today. I also suspect that we would enjoy the freedoms that we have today, in the form that we have them, and at least to me, that is unthinkable.

As we celebrate our nations birthday today, I ask that you take a moment to think on what it took to create this nation 231 years ago today, and be thankful.

Be safe, folks, and enjoy today! ;)

We Are All in It Together, Clinton Says

As reported here, Presidential hopeful Hillary Rodham Clinton outlined a broad economic vision Tuesday, saying it's time to replace an "on your own" society with one based on shared responsibility and prosperity.

The Democratic senator said what the Bush administration touts as an ownership society really is an "on your own" society that has widened the gap between rich and poor.

"I prefer a 'we're all in it together' society," she said. "I believe our government can once again work for all Americans. It can promote the great American tradition of opportunity for all and special privileges for none."

Can you say Socialism, anybody? Redistribution of your wealth is Clinton's number one goal in life. She wants to turn America into one huge "collective", where no one is "better off" than anyone else, which actually means that we'll all be worse off!

America stands for freedom of the individual, no matter how repugnant that may be to Clinton and those who think like her. I, for one, prefer the fact that if I take it upon myself, get off my lazy duff and work hard, I will be able to enjoy the rewards inherent in that hard work.

I just have to wonder, if she succeeds in her "Socialist Utopia", how much of her wealth will get redistributed my way?

Vandals burn flags at two cemeteries

This past weekend, our country observed Memorial Day, honoring those who had given the ultimate sacrifice to protect our nation and the freedoms we hold so dear. Well, most of us did, anyway. There were apparently some who thought that observing Memorial Day properly, by honoring America's fallen veterans by placing American flags on their grave stones and maybe taking a moment to silently reflect on their sacrifice was, well, not the thing to do. They decided that, instead, the thing to do was to steal the flags and burn them, and replace them with hand drawn Nazi swastika's.

In two separate incidents, one in Orcas Island, WA and one in Natick, MA, vandals stole commemorative American flags, burned them, and in the incident in Orcas Island, replaced American flags with the Nazi swastika's. In both cases, no known motive for these outrageous acts of vandalism exists, and some are speculating that it may have been teenagers out on a lark.

Well, let me tell whoever it was that perpetrated these acts something. I'm a veteran of the US Navy (and one of the folks who are getting a H/T for the above links is a veteran of the US Air Force), and these despicable acts of vandalism, which you probably got all giggly about when you were doing them, has me extremely angry.

Those veterans who were being honored by those little flags, sacrificed much more than their life so that you could live in a country that is the most free country on this planet. They sacrificed their time, in many cases a happy home life with their family, and ultimately their lives, so that the rest of us could go to school, get a job, buy a house, read whatever books and magazines we want, listen to whatever type of music we want, watch whatever TV show or movies we want, shop for and wear whatever clothes we want, go to Starbucks whenever the mood strikes us, engage in speech freely, worship as we please (or not, if that pleases us). The list goes on and on and on. And yet, you felt it was the right thing to do to, to "diss" those veterans, and burn those flags and replace them with swastika's.

If this was merely a prank, it was the wrong thing to do, and I hope someone rats you out. If this was some type of political statement to show your "displeasure" with our current President and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, it was still the wrong thing to do, and again, I hope that someone rats you out.

All of you who did these despicable acts of vandalism deserve to go to jail, and my sincere wish is that when you are caught, that the presiding judges will throw the book at you.

You clueless morons disgust me!

H/T hollie-is-right and agtiger

Memorial Day

Today is the day where we observe Memorial Day, a day set aside to honor those who have fallen in the service of our nation, protecting and advancing those ideals of liberty and freedom we hold so dear. We need to keep in mind that of those who have served, all gave some, and some gave all, which is the ultimate purpose for this day.

Today, I would like to honor all those who have fallen, to say thank you for your sacrifice, by honoring one specific individual. I never had the opportunity to meet the young man who is the subject of this piece, yet I think he exemplifies the attitudes, and the willingness to sacrifice, of those who serve.

The young man I would like to honor today is a recipient of the US Navy Medal of Honor, for actions on the battlefield in Iraq, which was presented posthumously to his parents. The young mans' name is Cpl. Jason L. Dunham, of Scio, NY. Cpl. Dunham was born on November 10th, 1981, and succumbed to the wounds he received in battle on April 22nd, 2004. Cpl. Dunham served with K Company, 3rd Battalion, 7th Marines, based in Twentynine Palms, Calif.

The citation of the Medal of Honor, which was presented by President George W. Bush to his parents on January 11th, 2007 can be found here.

To Cpl. Jason L. Dunham I say a heartfelt thank you for your dedication to, and sacrifice for, your country, your Corps, and those you served with.

Semper Fi.

Leaked phone-call case could cost McDermott $1 million

As reported here, Rep. Jim McDermott has had the luxury of winning big and cheaply in recent elections, facing only token opposition.

But that fortunate history could pose a problem for McDermott if the Seattle Democrat is forced to pay more than $1 million in legal fees and penalties to settle his long-running legal battle with House Minority Leader John Boehner.

Unlike colleagues who have been able to tap into campaign funds for legal costs, McDermott doesn't have enough cash in his coffers to cover his bills.

The prospect that McDermott soon will be liable for a huge payout became a real possibility earlier this month after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled 5-4 against him. The defeat leaves him with one remaining legal recourse -- an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. McDermott and his lawyers have until July to decide, but legal observers say it's highly unlikely an appeal would be successful.

That would mean by midsummer, McDermott would have to ramp up a fundraising effort that has been gathering dust for nearly a decade. He must pay a court-ordered $60,000 fine and Boehner's legal fees, which attorneys estimate are $880,000 and counting. McDermott also would have to pay his own legal bills, which, after 10 years of fighting Boehner in federal court, are substantial.

Gee, that's just too bad, you know? To paraphrase an old rhyme, if you can't (or are unwilling) to pay the fine, don't do the crime.

How McDermott would settle the debt is unclear, and his aides say any talk about payment is premature.

"The most recent decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia seriously undermines the First Amendment protections guaranteed by the Constitution, and we continue to review the significant constitutional issues involved," McDermott said in a statement last week after Boehner's lawyers recommended that settlement talks begin.

Just a reminder, Jim - the First Amendment protects people from limiting actions on speech undertaken by the government. What you did was to turn over an illegally obtained conversation to two newspapers, violating Rep. Boehner's right to privacy (a right actually not specified in the Bill of Rights, but mandated by Liberal judges on the Supreme Court, said right being something the Democrat's trumpet loudly and often, not realizing that it could one day come back to bite one of their own in the rear).

McDermott's office would not comment on whether campaign funds would be used.

But if money must be raised, McDermott could rely on a moderate national profile. He gained widespread attention for his appearance in "Fahrenheit 9/11" and as president of Americans for Democratic Action he has a potential national network of donors.

Jim McDermott has a "moderate national profile"? That's news to me, and to everyone in Washington State that has two brain cells to rub together! The fact that he appeared in Moore's propaganda flick demonstrates the fallacy of that statement. But if that isn't enough to convince you, let me just say that McDermott goes out of his way to try to out-Liberal Ted Kennedy and John Kerry, two of the most liberal Senators we have by anyone's standards.

Jim, do the right thing. Pay the fine and the legal costs.

I don't know ...

... whether to be amused by this, or annoyed.

I recently found out from a well placed, very anonymous, source that access to this blog is blocked by a local area hospital.

The reason? "Extreme". Yet, anyone can access this site.

Now, I considered writing a letter demanding an explanation, citing constitutionally protected political free speech, defamation, and some other choice things, with the hint of litigation if access to this blog wasn't allowed. But, two things stopped me from doing that.

One is that the identity of my anonymous source could possibly be revealed, resulting in some unpleasant moments, shall we say, for my source. I don't want that to happen.

The other is that, the hospital is a private entity, and therefore has control over what their employees can, and cannot, see or hear, so First Amendment protections do not apply.

In all actuality, the fact that they have blocked access to this blog - because of being "extreme" - I find rather interesting, as it means that "someone" has taken notice of what I write and feels threatened enough by what I write to try to prevent others from reading my posts.

I wonder, though, why they may feel that way? Oh, wait! They must be afraid that I might "convert" someone! That's gotta be it! ;)

A personal note

It's been a couple of weeks since I last posted, and so to the three or four regular readers that stop by now and then, I apologize for the lack of fresh stuff lately.

I've had a lot of things going on in my real life, that have precluded me from being able to post more regularly. Hopefully, things will calm down, so I can continue to awe you all with my incredible insight and my dazzling wit on a more regular basis. ;)

Okay, now that I've removed my tongue from being planted firmly in my cheek, let me just say thanks to those who actually do stop by to read what I write for your patience. I appreciate your patronage.

A new link

I've added a new link to our blogroll, done by a friend of mine, called The Marching Camp. Go on over and check it out. You'll be glad you did.

While there, check out this moving video by Darryl Worley (H/T Zero Ponsdorf over at Another Voice). I think this song fits well with Armed Forces Day.

Today is Armed Forces Day

Today is Armed Forces Day, a day established to honor those who serve our nation in both peace and war. As a veteran of the US Navy, I want to say thank you so very much for your service to our nation. Freedom isn't free, and the sacrifices that you, and your families, make on our behalf are deeply appreciated by this writer.

So, again, to those men and women serving in the US Navy, US Army, US Marine Corps, US Air Force, and the US Coast Guard, thank you. Your service and sacrifice mean more to me than you will ever know.

Carter Condemns Blair's Support for Bush

As reported here, the man who led this nation into double digit inflation, double digit unemployment, is a friend to terrorists and political thugs, let Americans languish in Iranian hands for 444 days, and still thinks he's politically relevant states that, Britain's support for the war in Iraq was a "major tragedy" for the world, former President Jimmy Carter said Saturday as he criticized Tony Blair's unwavering support for President Bush.

Asked how he would judge Blair's support of Bush, a Republican, the former Democratic president said: "Abominable. Loyal. Blind. Apparently subservient.", adding, "And I think the almost undeviating support by Great Britain for the ill-advised policies of President Bush in Iraq have been a major tragedy for the world," Carter told British Broadcasting Corp. radio.

No, Mr. Carter, the real major tragedy for the world was your embracing Yasser Arafat to the detriment of the Israeli's and American interests, and your abandonment of the Shah of Iran, allowing the thugs who currently rule Iran to not only over throw the Shah, but take American personnel prisoner, holding them for 444 days while you did nothing but wring your hands in defeat. Your so-called policies have directly led us to the place where we are regarding the Middle East, growing Islamofascism, and the continued problems faced by Israel posed by Fatah, Hamas, and Hezbollah, with the latter two (and probably all three) "organizations" receiving direct aid and support from Iran.

Tony Blair is more of a man of courage than you could ever hope to be, and for you to criticize him in such a shameful way takes a lot of gall.

The Immigration Bill: Comprehensive or Incomprehensible?

Congress is set to vote on the latest attempt to grant amnesty to the estimated 12 to 20 million illegal immigrants here in the US at comprehensive immigration reform.

Fred Thompson expresses his view on this latest attempt by Congress at this.

Radio hosts exempt from campaign finance laws

As reported here, [a] unanimous state Supreme Court ruled Thursday that two radio talk-show hosts who used airtime to support a gas-tax rollback initiative they launched were not required to report their commentary as an in-kind political contribution.

The court also reinstated a countersuit filed by the No New Gas Tax campaign against the local governments that initially sued: San Juan County and the cities of Auburn, Kent and Seattle.

"This is a victory for free speech and a free press in Washington state," said William Maurer, executive director of the Institute for Justice Washington chapter, who argued the case before the high court.

The ruling overturns a 2005 ruling by Thurston County Superior Court Judge Chris Wickham that talk-show hosts John Carlson and Kirby Wilbur at Seattle radio station KVI-AM/570 were key organizers and promoters of Initiative 912. The ballot measure was aimed at heading off a four-step, 9.5-cent-a-gallon increase in the state gasoline tax.

The judge said the airtime amounted to an in-kind contribution to the campaign and required that the value be reported to the state Public Disclosure Commission.

State law says editorials, commentaries and other types of news reports are not considered contributions.

Wilbur, Carlson and the station argued their role with the initiative was within the normal bounds of radio fare, and the high court agreed.

The Washington State Supreme Court did the right thing by overturning the over reaching, blatant attempt to stifle political free speech by Wickham and the municipalities. Not only did they overturn it, they did it unanimously. This is a very welcome development in this case, which I previously posted about here and here.

Democrats turn to GOP on new Iraq bill

As reported here, Democratic leaders are turning to Republicans to help them pass a new Iraq war spending bill that President Bush won't veto - unlike the one Congress will send him [this] week with a timetable for withdrawing U.S. troops.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., has talked to Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., the minority leader, about how to move forward.

I could tell Reid how to do it, and hopefully McConnell told him the same thing as I have in mind, which is to not put any time tables for withdrawal in the bill, and don't load it up with "pork".

I mean, it really is that simple.

Senate OK sends Iraq bill to Bush

As reported here, [i]n a bold challenge to President Bush, the Democratic-controlled Congress cleared legislation Thursday to begin withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq by Oct. 1 with a goal of a complete pullout six months later.

A "bold challenge"? More like an abject surrender to various special interest groups on the left (Moveon.org., Code Pink, etc.) and the terrorists, if you ask me.

The White House dismissed the legislation as "dead before arrival."

President Bush has already stated that he will veto this bill as it stands right now, with the troop pull out time table and all of the non-war funding appropriations (read "pork") included, and the Democrats know - know! - that they do not have enough votes to overturn his veto.

The 51-46 Senate vote was largely along party lines, and like House passage a day earlier it underscored that the war's congressional opponents are far short of the two-thirds majority needed to override a Bush veto.

So why go ahead with this?

Democrats marked Thursday's final passage with a news conference during which they repeatedly urged Bush to reconsider his veto threat. "This bill for the first time gives the president of the United States an exit strategy" from Iraq, said Rep. David Obey of Wisconsin.

I think we already have an "exit strategy from Iraq", and that would be when the Iraqi's can deal with the sectarian killings, and the terrorists on their own. Until such time, they still need our help.

The legislation is "in keeping with what the American people want," added Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada.

Reid is delusional. Reid doesn't know what he's talking about when he states that the legislation is "in keeping with what the American people want.", in that, most people that I know - and I'll remind you that the majority of the people living here in Seattle are liberals - want us to finish the job we started, whether they agreed with going there in the first place or not.

Finishing the job does not entail setting a time table for leaving, allowing the terrorists to just sit back and wait until we're gone. It entails ridding Iraq of those terrorists.

But the Democrats don't see it like that, since they take their marching orders from the groups I mentioned above, who think that if we leave, things will get "back to normal". They couldn't be more wrong. They said the same thing in the late 1960's and early 1970's about Southeast Asia, and when we left, millions of people were killed and millions more were displaced in Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos.

If we leave Iraq prematurely, we will be leaving millions of Iraqi's to a similar fate.

All in a Good Cause

Orson Scott Card, over at the The Ornery American, has written an excellent essay regarding the absolute hoax that "global warming" is, citing how climate data was manipulated by Michael Mann to fit his preconceived notions on what should be the results, rather than on the actual data, which produced the [in]famous "Hockey Stick" graph.

It's a very eye opening read, which you should take the time to check out.

H/T innermurk, via Reality Hammer

A matter of perspective

From time to time, friends will pop up with something that I feel needs to be passed along, and the following fits that bill. Please note - I did a tiny bit of editing to make this easier to read, but it essentially remains word for word the work of the original author.

Please read and don't think Republican or Democrat.

A Newsweek poll alleges that 67 percent of Americans are unhappy with the direction the country is headed and 69 percent of the country is unhappy with the performance of the president. In essence, two thirds of the citizenry just ain't happy and want a change.

So being the analytical thinker that I am, I started thinking,' what are we so unhappy about?' Is it that we have electricity and running water 24 hours a day, 7 days a week? Is our unhappiness the result of having air conditioning in the summer and heating in the winter? Could it be that 95.4 percent of these unhappy folks have a job?

Maybe it's the ability to walk into a grocery store at any time and see more food in moments than Darfur has seen in the last year? Maybe it's the ability to drive from the Pacific Ocean to the Atlantic Ocean without having to present identification papers as we move through each state? Or possibly the hundreds of clean, safe motels we would find along the way that can provide temporary shelter?

I guess having thousands of restaurants with varying cuisine from around the world is just not good enough. Or could it be that when we wreck our car, emergency workers show up and provide services to help all involved. Whether you are rich or poor they treat your wounds and even, if necessary, send a helicopter to take you to the hospital.

Perhaps you are one of the 70 percent of Americans who own a home. You may be upset with knowing that in the unfortunate case of a fire, a group of trained firefighters will appear in moments and use top notch equipment to extinguish the flames, thus saving you, your family and your belongings.

Or if, while at home watching one of your many flat screen TVs, a burglar or prowler intrudes, an officer equipped with a gun and a bullet-proof vest will come to defend you and your family against attack or loss. This all in the backdrop of a neighborhood free of bombs or militias raping and pillaging the residents. Neighborhoods where 90 percent of teenagers own cell phones and computers.

How about the complete religious, social and political freedoms we enjoy that are the envy of everyone in the world? Maybe that is what has 67 percent of us unhappy.

Fact is, we are the largest group of ungrateful, spoiled brats the world has ever seen. No wonder the world loves the U.S. , yet has a great disdain for its citizens. They see us for what we are. The most blessed people in the world, who do nothing but complain about what we don't have, and what we hate about the country, instead of being thankful we live here.

I know, I know. What about the president who took us into war and has no plan to get us out? The
president who has a measly 31 percent approval rating? Is this days after 9-11? The president that cut taxes to bring an economy out of recession? Could this be the same guy who has been called every name in the book for succeeding in keeping all the spoiled brats safe from terrorist attacks? The commander in chief of an all-volunteer army that is out there defending you and me?

Make no mistake about it. The troops in Iraq and Afghanistan have volunteered to serve, and in many cases may have died for your freedom. There is currently no draft in this country. They didn't have to go. They are able to refuse to go, and end up with either a ''general'' discharge, an
''other than honorable'' discharge or, worst case scenario, a ''dishonorable'' discharge after a few days in the brig.

So why then the flat-out discontentment in the minds of 69 percent of Americans? Say what you want but I blame it on the media. If it bleeds it leads, and they specialize in bad news. Everybody will watch a car crash with blood and guts. How many will watch kids selling lemonade at the
corner?

The media know this, and media outlets are for-profit corporations. They offer what sells, and when criticized, try to defend their actions by "justifying" them in one way or another. Just ask why they tried to allow a murderer like O.J. Simpson to write a book and do a TV special about how he didn't kill his wife. But if he did? Insane!

Stop buying the negative venom you are fed everyday by the corrupt evil media. Shut off the TV, burn Newsweek, and use the New York Times for the bottom of your bird cage. Then start being grateful for all we have as a country. There is exponentially more good than bad.

WE ARE THE MOST BLESSED PEOPLE ON EARTH. WE SHOULD THANK GOD SEVERAL TIMES EVERY DAY.

Amen to that!

H/T michaelmichael

Reid calls war 'lost,' angers Republicans

As reported here, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Thursday the war in Iraq is "lost," triggering an angry backlash by Republicans, who said the top Democrat had turned his back on the troops.

Reid said he told President Bush on Wednesday he thought the war could not be won through military force, although he said the U.S. could still pursue political, economic and diplomatic means to make peace.

"I believe myself that the secretary of state, secretary of defense and -- you have to make your own decisions as to what the president knows -- (know) this war is lost and the surge is not accomplishing anything as indicated by the extreme violence in Iraq yesterday," said Reid, D-Nev.

Don't you just love it when elected Democrat officials think they're the next incarnation of General George S. Patton? Reid is basing his assessment of the outcome of the war, and the effectiveness (or in his view, the lack thereof) of the surge on one day. One day! Imagine what he would have been saying on Dec. 7th, 1941!

Republicans pounced on the comment as evidence, they said, that Democrats do not support the troops.

"I can't begin to imagine how our troops in the field, who are risking their lives every day, are going to react when they get back to base and hear that the Democrat leader of the United States Senate has declared the war is lost," said Senate GOP leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky.

Democrats do not support the troops, and have been proving it time after time after time by rushing to declare the surge strategy - which they all clamored for! - "isn't working", so therefore, the "war is lost".

Senator, your "The sky is falling!" Chicken Little act has grown wearisome in the extreme. Stop it, already, will ya? Sheesh!

Former Clinton backers defect to Obama camp

As reported here, [a]s Sen. Hillary Clinton seeks to reassemble the Democratic money machine her husband built, some of its major fundraisers already have signed on with Sen. Barack Obama.

Among the biggest fundraisers for Obama's campaign are as many as a half-dozen former guests of the Clinton White House. At least two are close enough to the Clintons to have slept in the Lincoln bedroom.

At minimum, a dozen were major fundraisers for President Clinton. At least four worked in the administration, and one, James Rubin, is a son of a former Clinton Treasury secretary, Robert Rubin. About two dozen of the top Obama fundraisers have contributed to Hillary Clinton's Senate campaigns or political action committee, some as recently as a few months ago.

Don't mind me. I just found this to be amusing. ;)

State lawmakers discuss ending war

As reported here, [t]he (Washington State) Senate was decked in red, white and blue with Democrats and Republicans braced for an emotional debate on the Iraq war that never materialized Thursday.

After Democrats failed to build consensus for an anti-war resolution, only three lawmakers spoke out.

They did so using points of personal privilege, which the Senate allows for issues such as well wishes for sick colleagues or their families. Though the resolution would have been non-binding, it would have allowed a full debate, but without it members were allowed brief statements to air their personal views.

Sen. Eric Oemig, D-Kirkland, has led the effort to discuss the possibility of presidential impeachment this year.

"We must end this war," Oemig said. "The commander in chief must be relieved of duty. The framers of our Constitution gave us the tools of impeachment and conviction. We must not be afraid to use these tools."

He explained why in his floor statement.

Democracy is easier to enjoy than it is to participate in and protect, he said, adding that a lot of mistakes have been made in the nation's history.

"It is with action that we fix our mistakes, and when people are honestly mistaken and they learn the truth, they either cease to be mistaken or they cease to be honest," he said. "If we do not act to correct our mistakes, our children will inherit them. We cannot restore the lives lost in Iraq or the lost limbs or the lives shattered, but we can act."

I'd like to ask State Senator Oemig some questions, which are as follows:

1. Since when has it ever - ever - been appropriate for a State Senator to stick his nose into something regarding the Federal Executive?

2. You are of the opinion that President Bush should be impeached. I'd like to know on what grounds? Mistakes made regarding Iraq? Since when do mistakes made regarding anything equate to High Crimes and Misdemeanors, Senator?

3. Have you ever made a mistake as a State Senator? If so, does that mean that you should be impeached?

Vietnam War veteran and Purple Heart recipient Sen. Dan Swecker, R-Rochester, said the floor of the state Senate was not the place for discussing war and peace and the possibility of impeaching the president.

"That's not what we were elected to do," he said.

State Senator Swecker is correct. No State Senator or Representative has ever been elected to discuss war and peace or impeaching a sitting President. That's not your job, Senator Oemig. Your job is to conduct the business of, and for, the People of Washington State, period.

Leave all that other stuff to the grown ups, ok?

At least 33 dead in rampage on Virginia campus

As reported here, at least 33 people are dead in the worst mass shooting incident in US history, at Virginia Tech. The death toll includes the gunman who took his own life according to police. As of yet, no known motive for the shootings has been reported.

This is a horrible, horrible tragedy, and my heart goes out to the victims and their families.


UPDATE

As reported here, the gunman in the Virginia Tech shootings yesterday was a student of the school. There has still been no motive for this act released by authorities.

UPDATE II

As reported here, the gunman has been identified as a 23 year old resident alien from S. Korea, Cho Seung-Hui. Apparently Cho suffered from acute depression, and wrote dark, disturbing essays and plays. There has still been no motive for this act released by authorities, although from my previous sentence one can gather that Cho felt alienated from society for some unknown reason and wanted to lash out, which he did with tragic results.

Again, my heart goes out to all who have been affected by this tragedy.

Pratfall in Damascus

As anyone who has either a TV or an internet connection knows, Rep. Pelosi (D-CA) has made another attempt at usurping powers granted by the Constitution solely to the President by trying to substitute her foreign policy for the President's when she went to the Middle East, and spoke to the Syrian thug Basher Assad.

Even the Washington Post is disgusted with her.

Iran Nuclear Bomb Could Be Possible by 2009

As reported here, Iran has more than tripled its ability to produce enriched uranium in the last three months, adding some 1,000 centrifuges which are used to separate radioactive particles from the raw material.

The development means Iran could have enough material for a nuclear bomb by 2009, sources familiar with the dramatic upgrade tell ABC News.

These centrifuges, which are not as yet operational, are located at Natanz in a hardened facility, 70 feet underground. I've posted about this several times in the past, and I have one question for those who think Iran only wants to develop nuclear technology for "peaceful purposes".

Are you willing to bet, not your next paycheck, not your house, car or boat, but your life that Iran only wants to develop nuclear technology for "peaceful purposes"?

I'm not!

H/T specialrpt posting in quicknews

So Long, Me-Maw

As reported here, [I]n New Orleans, they aren't shedding a tear over Louisiana Gov. Kathleen Blanco's decision not to seek a second term.

Julia Reed of Newsweek, resides in New Orleans, and relates what was contained in two e-mails she recently received. One had to do with some armed robbery crimes that were recently committed, a trend that is on the rise in the Crescent City (Hey, Nagin! What are you doing to fix that, huh? Sorry, I digress.), while the second had to do with the announcement that Governor Kathleen Blanco will not seek a second term. Some excerpts from Ms. Reed's article, with my thoughts occasionally thrown in:

As crimes go in the city with by far the highest murder rate in the nation (96 per every 100,000 people in 2006; more than 40 people overall have been killed so far in 2007), these could actually be viewed as good news-nobody was killed or even shot, after all. But the real good news came in my next e-mail: Gov. Kathleen Blanco announced that she would not seek re-election to a second term. [Emphasis mine]

Blanco, a former high-school business teacher-turned-public servant, elected in 2003 as the first woman governor of Louisiana, became one of the many not-so-happy public faces of Katrina, along with New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin and FEMA's Mike (Brownie) Brown. In the storm's immediate aftermath, she appeared so disoriented that one press account of her public appearances went so far as to suggest that she seemed "over-medicated." Times-Picayune columnist James Gill reported that "'Me-Maw's tranked' is the word on the street." (Blanco is sometimes nicknamed "Me-Maw" due to her grandmotherly affect.) That general perception was not helped when she was overheard by a CNN producer while still miked, admitting that she hadn't known it was the governor's responsibility to call out the National Guard.

She didn't know it was her responsibility to call out the National Guard? How did she even get elected to the office of Governor in the first place if she didn't know something as elementary as that? What kind of "assistants" does she have, anyway? Did anyone in her office think to give her a nudge, and whisper in her ear that she needed to call out the NG? It appears not, and those people who failed to properly advise her on something as important as this - something any first year civics student would have been able to tell her, if they still taught civics that is - should be fired immediately, and barred from holding any government job in the state.

But wait - there's more!

Indecision and failure to act have been the hallmarks of her administration. In neighboring Mississippi, Haley Barbour had convened two special sessions of the legislature before she called for her first one. Louisiana received the first half of the $7.5 billion earmarked for homeowners' reconstruction efforts in December of 2005, and the second chunk in June 2006. The so-called "Road Home" program offers owners of storm-damaged homes up to $150,000 in aid. But so far, bureaucratic hurdles put in place by the state have meant that only 3 percent of the 115,000 families who have applied for help have received it. Worse, the contractor handpicked by Blanco's administration to implement the process stands to make a jaw-dropping $765 million from the job, though it has further slowed progress with computer glitches and Keystone Kops-style mistakes. By contrast, 78 percent of Mississippi's applicants in a similar, but much less bureaucratic, program have received their checks.

Read that first sentence again - Indecision and failure to act have been the hallmarks of her administration. That was true before Hurricane Katrina hit, it was true in the immediate aftermath, and it's obvious it is still true today. For years, Mississippi was the unfortunate butt of a lot of jokes about ... well, about most things that went on in that state, and yet with proper leadership in the form of Gov. Haley Barbour making, and implementing, the hard decisions needed to help the state of Mississippi recover from Hurricane Katrina, 78% of applicants in a similar home recovery/rebuilding program to that in Louisiana have received money to help them rebuild, as opposed to a miniscule 3% of people in Louisiana having received help from the program there. That speaks volumes both for Gov. Barbour, and most loudly against Gov. Blanco. Now here's the kicker.

The irony is that when the program was finally launched last summer-with the official name "Governor Kathleen Blanco's Road Home Program"-critics cried foul, saying that she would get too much political credit for the payouts. Now, of course, she has been given all the blame for the lack thereof.

My question is, why did Blanco wait until last summer to launch this program? Is the legislature in Louisiana so inept that they couldn't get legislation pushed through to get this program off and running as soon as the first installment of federal funds was received? Or, is this just another example of Blanco's indecision and failure to act? Oh, and naming a program after yourself is just bilious, in my opinion, Gov. Blanco. After all, the money didn't come from you, it came from the federal government; you were simply supposed to properly allocate it. You rightly deserve all the blame for the lack of pay outs to those in need. Only 3% of the people eligible for the pay outs because of the hurdles placed in their way by your state government is beyond obscene!

A January poll showed her garnering only 24 percent of the votes in a race against U.S. Rep. Bobby Jindal, her 2003 opponent, who had 59 percent. Since then, she has dropped 8 more points, and last week in yet another embarrassing blow, HUD charged that the state was breaking federal law by requiring homeowners to wait for a series of reimbursements rather than giving them the option of taking a lump sum.

I must say that Blanco isn't entirely brain dead, as anyone in political office would realize that their re-election prospects with only 16 percent of the state vote are basically slim to none, especially after the state was charged with breaking federal law in making people take incremental payments, without giving them the option of taking a lump sum payment. The state agency responsible for making the pay outs quickly changed the rules, as we'll see in the next excerpt, to make HUD happy, but these missteps did not make the state Democrat Party happy - at all.

Though the State Recovery Authority agreed to change the program to address HUD's concerns, the feedback from the initial HUD announcement had been so negative that the state Democratic Party put strong pressure on Blanco to bow out sooner rather than later, so that it could field a better candidate.

As Ms. Reed goes on to state, no matter who decides to run from either side of the aisle, the prospects for the people of Louisiana are brighter now, than they have been in some time.

Now, if only "Mr. Chocolate" Ray Nagin would learn a lesson from all of this, maybe the prospects for the citizens of New Orleans would be brighter as well.

H/T Nealz Nuze, via Hollie-is-Right

Muslims offer to help 'John Does' sued by imams

As reported here, [l]awyers and a Muslim group say they will defend at no cost airline passengers caught up in a lawsuit between a group of imams and U.S. Airways if the passengers are named as "John Does" and sued for reporting suspicious behavior that got the Muslim clerics booted from a November flight.

The six imams are suing the airline, Minneapolis-St. Paul Metropolitan Airports Commission, and the unnamed "John Does" to be named later, for discrimination, saying they were removed from the flight for praying in the airport.

Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser, a Phoenix-area physician and director of American Islamic Forum for Democracy -- a group founded in 2003 to promote moderate Muslim ideas through its Web site (www.aifdemocracy.org) -- told The Washington Times his group will raise money for legal fees for passengers if they are sued by the imams.

"It's so important that America know there are Muslims who understand who the victims are in air travel," said Dr. Jasser. "But I hope it doesn't get to that point because the backlash will be even greater when Americans see Islamists trying to punish innocent passengers reporting fears."

The American Islamic Forum for Democracy has also posted a press release regarding this on their web site, which can be found here.

As those of you who read my blog are aware, I've written many posts about the Islamofascist terrorists that are trying to take us all back to the 8th century as they attempt to recreate their coveted "Caliphate". It is very heartening to see that there are those who are Muslims who reject this way of thinking, and aren't afraid to speak up! (We need to gear from more of you folks.)

To Dr. Jasser and the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, I say thank you! Your efforts on behalf, and support, of those who may become targets of CAIR in this blatant attempt at intimidation are very much appreciated by this writer.

H/T Hollie is Right

Lights, Camera . . . Candidacy?

Fred Thompson is shaking up the GOP presidential field. And he's not even running yet.

So says John Fund of OpinionJournal in this piece, and I agree with Mr. Fund.

Maliki Speaks Out

As reported here, IRAQI PRIME MINISTER NOURI AL-MALIKI, speaking at last week's international conference in Baghdad, reminded many who needed reminding exactly what is at stake in the war in Iraq. Unfortunately, few people in Europe seem to have heard the message.

The great enemy, Maliki warned, is the ideology of terrorism, which threatens not only Iraq but every decent and peace-loving nation on the planet. "The terrorism that today is trying to kill Iraqis in Baghdad, Hilla, Mosul, and Anbar," he said, "is the same as the terror that intimidated the population of Saudi Arabia, targeted the people of Egypt, attacked the twin towers of the World Trade Center in New York and hit underground trains in Madrid and London."

In other words, whatever one thinks of the decision to topple Saddam Hussein, Iraq has become another front in the war on radical Islam. This faith-based ideology assumes various shapes--Sunni suicide bombers, al Qaeda operatives--yet all pursue the same overriding objective: to turn Iraq into a haven for international terrorism, guided by a militant and murderous vision of Islam.

This is, of course, exactly the argument made by President George W. Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair--which probably explains why media outlets such as the BBC downplayed Maliki's blunt assessment.

The Iraqi prime minister can be faulted for his handling of security issues and failure to politically unite the country's religious factions. Yet he seems to understand the nature and difficulty of his task, a difficulty that is hard to overstate and greatly complicated by daily acts of barbarism. For a few moments last week--moments that surely offended the sensibilities of political and media sophisticates--Maliki reminded the world that America is not the problem in Iraq or in the Middle East. Terrorism is the problem. And it is the reason Iraq is fighting for its life.

We would do well to remember - and remind the Democrat politicians - that America is not the problem in Iraq, but that terrorism is. Fault Mr. Maliki all you want for his past reliance on Al-Sadr to keep him in power, but know this - he gets it, while the vast majority of Democrat politicians don't have a clue.

Howard refuses withdrawal date

As reported here, AUSTRALIAN Prime Minister John Howard and his Iraqi counterpart Nuri al-Maliki today refused to set a timetable for the withdrawal of Australian troops, vowing they will stay in Iraq until "terrorists are defeated".

In a press conference with Mr Howard, Mr Maliki was first to admit he didn't want to see a timeline put on Australian troop withdrawal.

"There has been some progess but we still wish the Australians to remain until we have completely defeated the terrorists," Mr Maliki said.

Mr Howard immediately backed Mr Maliki's view, saying: "We have made progress but there is still work to be done."

"I told (Mr Maliki) that Australia will continue its presence in Iraq to assist in bringing about a situation where the Iraqi people are reasonably able to provide for their own future and for their own security.

"We both agreed that the future lies in collaboration between improved security and reconciliation in the political process."

Fortunately for the Iraqi's, Prime Minister Howard isn't hampered by a Democrat controlled Congress pushing for an early withdrawal of troops!

Bright sun, warm Earth. Coincidence?

Lorne Gunter of Canada.com, writing in this piece asks the very pertinent question - "Is it so hard to believe ... that the sun could be causing our current warming ... ?", in light of the fact that the sun is, and has been for about the past 150 years now, very active. Activity which has caused the polar ice caps of Mars to begin melting; a second giant red spot to develop on Jupiter; Triton, Neptune's moon, has experienced melting of it's frozen nitrogen surface, so that now it's atmosphere is becoming more dense; even Pluto has "warmed" from its' usual -233 degrees Celsius to a balmy -230 degrees Celsius.

Now, the last time I checked, the only thing all of these planets really have in common with Earth is that they all orbit around a huge yellow orb, which we call the Sun. There are no SUV's on Mars. There are no factories on Jupiter. There are no coal fired power generating plants on Triton. Other than on Earth, there aren't any people on any of those other planets and moons that are flying through space in orbit around the sun, and yet, according to the global warming alarmists, it is people who are contributing to the warming of planet Earth, through our "destructive activities".

But, if it is people causing the warming of Earth, what then accounts for the warming phenomena happening on the other planets and moons in our solar system? There aren't any people anywhere else, so what is causing it? There is only one possible answer to that question - heightened, and sustained, activity of the Sun.

To say otherwise is foolish beyond belief, as is saying that man's activities here on planet Earth is the sole, and overarching, reason why our climate is changing (which it is, as I have stated numerous times before; Earth's climate always changes - always has, always will - it has never been static).

Is Man having an adverse affect on Earth? In many way, yes. We pollute our air. We pollute our water. We cut down the trees in our rain forests which deplete wildlife habitat, and cause far too much land erosion. Population growth in some parts of our planet is unsustainable (while in other areas, populations are declining) from a resource availability standpoint. Could we do better? Of course we could, and we should.

But to say that Man is the sole cause of "global warming", without taking into consideration any other external factors such as heightened solar activity making a contribution, is not only foolish, but dogmatic in the extreme, Al Gore's opinions notwithstanding.

H/T michaelmichael

The Great Global Warming Swindle

Via LGF, comes The Great Global Warming Swindle, from the UK's Channel 4. It's a rather long video (requires Adobe Flash Player), at over an hour and a quarter, but it is something worth investing the time in.

H/T Hollie-is-right

TV Star, Former Senator Fred Thompson Considers '08 Presidential Bid

As reported here, "Law and Order" star and former Tennessee Republican Sen. Fred Thompson is weighing a bid for the White House in 2008, he told Chris Wallace on "FOX News Sunday."

"I'm going to wait and see what happens," Thompson said. "I want to see my colleagues on the campaign trial, what they say, what they emphasize, whether they can carry the ball next November."

Thompson, 64, who plays district attorney Arthur Branch on NBC's drama, said he was pondering a run after former Senate Majority Leader Howard Baker and other Tennessee Republicans began drumming up support for his possible Republican candidacy, citing his conservative credentials.

This is a man I would get behind very quickly. Fred Thompson would make an excellent candidate for the Republican Party - much better than that RINO McCain - as well as an excellent President.

This is an exciting prospect, and it's hoped here that Mr. Thompson does throw his hat in the ring.