As reported here, the Washington House has passed tougher sexual predator laws, mandating a minimum 25 years sentence; the bills now go to the State Senate.
"But not everybody was happy. As he promised, victims advocate Jim Hines, a Gig Harbor candy salesman, visited the Secretary of State's Office an hour later to file a citizens initiative for tougher sentencing guidelines. "I'm done down here. I'm going to take this to the people," said Hines, who has been working with the Legislature on tougher sentencing laws the past few years.
Hines wants to make someone convicted of rape of a child older (sic - younger, not older) than 14 ineligible for the Special Sex Offender Sentencing Alternative. He also wants to tighten the definition of family to exclude close acquaintances, such as boyfriends or other non-relatives who have spent substantial time with the victim, from qualifying for an alternative sentence.
The sentencing alternative is generally reserved for family members and other perpetrators who know their victims, are first-time offenders or whose crimes are non-violent. The bill passed Wednesday would cut out SSOSA eligibility for coaches, teachers, pastors and other authority figures.
Hines and Republicans have argued since the beginning of the session that SSOSA is overused by prosecutors and judges, resulting in sentences for dangerous predators that are counted in months, rather than years."
While the 25 year mandatory sentence for strangers who perpetrate sexual assault is good, I think that stiffer penalties should be in place for close acquaintances, and especially for family members - the people you should be able to trust! - such as life, without the possibility of parole, even if it is a first time offense, as those are the very people who commit the vast majority of sexual assaults.
As for the "non-violent" aspect of sexual assault goes, someone doesn't know what they are talking about. Any form of sexual assault is violent, whether physical abuse (such as being beaten or tortured) occurs or not. The very nature of the term "sexual assault" carries the connotation of violence, whether the assault involved penetration or not. If you don't believe me, just ask any victim of sexual assault.
Sunday, February 05, 2006
Voting rights of felons still at issue
As reported here, long after illegal votes by felons in this state possibly gave Gregoire her slim victory in the 2004 election, voting rights of felons is still an "issue".
Many felons, who had not had their rights to vote restored, voted in the 2004 election (in Washington State, a convicted felon must serve their time, and pay all fines and compensation handed down by the courts, and then petition the courts to have their voting rights restored, before they can register to vote), and now there is a bill in Olympia that would make it easier for felons to vote. There is also a lawsuit pending in King County, that is challenging the state laws restricting felons from voting, which is being supported by the ACLU. The claim is that, even though a felon has completed their sentence and any probation, but cannot pay their fines, are being denied their civil rights by not being able to vote.
That argument is specious in my opinion. Felons committed a crime, and for that, should have their rights curtailed until such time as they have dotted all of the "I's", and crossed all of the "T's" put forth by the courts. After all, they violated the civil rights of their victim, did they not? As the old saying goes, "If you can't do the time (or pay the fine), don't do the crime!".
It is this writers position that, if you are convicted of a felony, you should not be able to vote - period!
Many felons, who had not had their rights to vote restored, voted in the 2004 election (in Washington State, a convicted felon must serve their time, and pay all fines and compensation handed down by the courts, and then petition the courts to have their voting rights restored, before they can register to vote), and now there is a bill in Olympia that would make it easier for felons to vote. There is also a lawsuit pending in King County, that is challenging the state laws restricting felons from voting, which is being supported by the ACLU. The claim is that, even though a felon has completed their sentence and any probation, but cannot pay their fines, are being denied their civil rights by not being able to vote.
That argument is specious in my opinion. Felons committed a crime, and for that, should have their rights curtailed until such time as they have dotted all of the "I's", and crossed all of the "T's" put forth by the courts. After all, they violated the civil rights of their victim, did they not? As the old saying goes, "If you can't do the time (or pay the fine), don't do the crime!".
It is this writers position that, if you are convicted of a felony, you should not be able to vote - period!
Governor and State Legislature trying to head off land use initiative
As reported here, there are some bills being floated to try to head off the land use initiative that the Farm Bureau has been putting together, that I blogged about here, so as to not allow an Oregon Measure 37 type of thing to happen here. Oregon's Measure 37, which was passed overwhelmingly, requires governments to compensate land owners for lowered property values due to regulatory restrictions, or allow the property owners to develop their property.
The fear in Olympia is, if the Farm Bureau's initiative gets on the ballot and passes, that the state's growth management act would effectively be done away with, leading to unrestricted growth. They also don't want to have to compensate land owners for lower property values through land use restrictions. Of course, the various conservation groups active in the state are also against the proposed Farm Bureau initiative - in whatever form it eventually takes - making the claim that "sensitive areas" would be destroyed by "out of control development".
The state Growth Management Act, while based on "good intentions", has usurped the rights of land owners in having a say in what they can do with their own property. The recently passed King County Critical Areas Ordinance went even farther, by restricting what land owners can do with their property, by putting up to 65% of their property "off limits" to development of any kind - even making your lawn bigger - without any form of compensation to the affected land owner, whatsoever! That's like telling someone who owns a car that they can only use it on Tuesday's, Thursday's, and part of Saturday, but the rest of the week, they can't even get in it let alone drive it, while still having to pay for full coverage insurance, as well as the loan on the car itself!
It comes down to a matter of trust, with the state and local governments saying that they don't trust the property owners to do what is right with their property, and that only the government knows what's right. Well, I have a lot more trust in the individual property owners sense of what they should, or shouldn't, do with their own property, than I do in the governments ability to know what is right.
As for the conservation groups over the top fears go, I also have a lot more trust in the sense of property owners knowing what would be proper use of their property. I don't own property myself at the moment (but I do plan on it at some point), but I do know several people that do own property, and I can vouch for their sensibility when it comes to knowing what is good - and bad - use of their property. Not one of them wants to turn their property into an eyesore, or into something that is detrimental to their neighbors or the environment, yet the conservation groups all want the ability of the property owners to determine what they can, and cannot, do with their own land to be controlled not by the property owners themselves, but by the "nanny state" government, so that the big, bad, property owners won't be tempted into "out of control development".
The fear in Olympia is, if the Farm Bureau's initiative gets on the ballot and passes, that the state's growth management act would effectively be done away with, leading to unrestricted growth. They also don't want to have to compensate land owners for lower property values through land use restrictions. Of course, the various conservation groups active in the state are also against the proposed Farm Bureau initiative - in whatever form it eventually takes - making the claim that "sensitive areas" would be destroyed by "out of control development".
The state Growth Management Act, while based on "good intentions", has usurped the rights of land owners in having a say in what they can do with their own property. The recently passed King County Critical Areas Ordinance went even farther, by restricting what land owners can do with their property, by putting up to 65% of their property "off limits" to development of any kind - even making your lawn bigger - without any form of compensation to the affected land owner, whatsoever! That's like telling someone who owns a car that they can only use it on Tuesday's, Thursday's, and part of Saturday, but the rest of the week, they can't even get in it let alone drive it, while still having to pay for full coverage insurance, as well as the loan on the car itself!
It comes down to a matter of trust, with the state and local governments saying that they don't trust the property owners to do what is right with their property, and that only the government knows what's right. Well, I have a lot more trust in the individual property owners sense of what they should, or shouldn't, do with their own property, than I do in the governments ability to know what is right.
As for the conservation groups over the top fears go, I also have a lot more trust in the sense of property owners knowing what would be proper use of their property. I don't own property myself at the moment (but I do plan on it at some point), but I do know several people that do own property, and I can vouch for their sensibility when it comes to knowing what is good - and bad - use of their property. Not one of them wants to turn their property into an eyesore, or into something that is detrimental to their neighbors or the environment, yet the conservation groups all want the ability of the property owners to determine what they can, and cannot, do with their own land to be controlled not by the property owners themselves, but by the "nanny state" government, so that the big, bad, property owners won't be tempted into "out of control development".
IAEA Reports Iran to U.N. Security Council
As reported here, the UN "atomic watchdog" agency, the International Atomic Energy Agency recently held an emergency meeting of it's 35 members, regarding the "Iran issue" - Iran's desire to fully enrich uranium, which can be used to produce nuclear weapons - agreeing on a resolution referring Iran to the UN Security Council for possible economic and/or political sanctions. Iran immediately "retaliated" by stating that enrichment would be started at their main facility in Natanz, where they had previously removed some IAEA seals.
This is a good first step. However, China and Russia pegged their support for referral on the precondition that the Security Council not actions on the "Iran issue" until at least March of this year. Which means that, "Meanwhile, back at the ranch", so to speak, Iran will be free to do whatever it wants as far as producing as much highly enriched uranium as it can during that time, with no oversight whatsoever by the IAEA.
Another development in this, is that a part of the resolution calls for the creation of a "nuclear-free zone" in the Middle East. How this is going to affect Israel is anyone's guess at the moment, but I don't think it will be positive. It is this authors opinion that Israel is nuclear capable as far as their military is concerned, which I do not have a problem with. However, if the "nuclear-free zone" portion of the resolution forces Israel to demobilize their nuclear arsenal (which the neither confirm nor deny having), without verifiable reciprocity on the part of Iran (which is highly unlikely as of this writing), there is grave potential for the region to become even more destabilized than it already is. Letting Iran become nuclear capable, now that I do have a problem with!
This is a good first step. However, China and Russia pegged their support for referral on the precondition that the Security Council not actions on the "Iran issue" until at least March of this year. Which means that, "Meanwhile, back at the ranch", so to speak, Iran will be free to do whatever it wants as far as producing as much highly enriched uranium as it can during that time, with no oversight whatsoever by the IAEA.
Another development in this, is that a part of the resolution calls for the creation of a "nuclear-free zone" in the Middle East. How this is going to affect Israel is anyone's guess at the moment, but I don't think it will be positive. It is this authors opinion that Israel is nuclear capable as far as their military is concerned, which I do not have a problem with. However, if the "nuclear-free zone" portion of the resolution forces Israel to demobilize their nuclear arsenal (which the neither confirm nor deny having), without verifiable reciprocity on the part of Iran (which is highly unlikely as of this writing), there is grave potential for the region to become even more destabilized than it already is. Letting Iran become nuclear capable, now that I do have a problem with!
Renew the Patriot Act
Debra Burlingame, writing in the OpinionJournal, says that Al Qaeda, not the FBI, is the greater threat to America.
She's right. Al Qaeda is the greatest threat facing the US, and our way of life. We need the protection of the Patriot Act!
Oh, and by the way. Ever hear the phrase "moral authority"? I'm sure you have. Ms. Burlingame has moral authority - in spades - for what she writes. She just happens to be the sister of Charles F. "Chic" Burlingame III, the pilot of American Airlines flight 77, which was crashed into the Pentagon on Sept. 11, 2001.
Hat tip: mightyrighty, via pizzapants.
She's right. Al Qaeda is the greatest threat facing the US, and our way of life. We need the protection of the Patriot Act!
Oh, and by the way. Ever hear the phrase "moral authority"? I'm sure you have. Ms. Burlingame has moral authority - in spades - for what she writes. She just happens to be the sister of Charles F. "Chic" Burlingame III, the pilot of American Airlines flight 77, which was crashed into the Pentagon on Sept. 11, 2001.
Hat tip: mightyrighty, via pizzapants.
Sunday, January 29, 2006
The Plot to Shush Rush and O’Reilly (and bloggers)
In this excellent piece by Brian C. Anderson, we find out just how extensive the push is by the Left to stifle free political speech, which I've posted about before here, and here. This is a very real threat to, not only bloggers, but to the First Amendment to the Constitution, and must be opposed vigorously by all Americans who value their freedoms.
(Before reading the piece, I might suggest getting a refill of your favorite beverage, and perhaps a snack or two as well, due to it's length. But don't let that deter you from reading it!)
Hat tip: mightyrighty
(Before reading the piece, I might suggest getting a refill of your favorite beverage, and perhaps a snack or two as well, due to it's length. But don't let that deter you from reading it!)
Hat tip: mightyrighty
Prepare yourself for the unthinkable: war against Iran may be a necessity
In this opinion piece by Gerard Baker of The Times, Mr. Baker advises us that preparing for a war with Iran may be a necessity, due to Iran's nuclear ambitions, and the statements made by their current president of wanting to "wipe Israel from the map."
While 53% of respondents think that the war in Iraq has been a mistake, according to a recent LA Times/Bloomberg poll, 57% of respondents favor a military intervention against Iran, should they continue their attempts at gaining nuclear weapons capabilities.
The current president of Iran is a lunatic who is bent on achieving the following:
- The eradication of Israel;
- Full nuclear weapons capability for his nation, leading to domination of the Middle East;
- After achieving domination of the Middle East, he wants to set up a world wide Muslim State.
War with Iran looks to me to be more of a probability with each passing day. Are you prepared for that?
It's a question of fairness
As reported here, The Washington (state) Farm Bureau is gearing up to put an initiative before the people that will protect land owners from government regulations restricting use of their property.
Of course, environmental groups are also gearing up to fight any initiative such as this, saying that it would be a give away to developers and others who want to skirt land-use rules protecting natural habitats and rural communities.
I don't think so.
The Critical Areas Ordinance passed by King County last year is unfair, in that it restricts property owners in how they can use their own property, putting aside as much as 65% of their land as being "off limits" to development, without any kind of recompense whatsoever to the property owner. In other words, King County has told property owners that a) they don't know what the proper use of their property is, but that King County does, and b) King County now basically "owns" up to 65% of the property - free. It's a government land grab, if ever there was one, no matter how you frame the language.
We need this initiative, because it's a question of fairness.
Of course, environmental groups are also gearing up to fight any initiative such as this, saying that it would be a give away to developers and others who want to skirt land-use rules protecting natural habitats and rural communities.
I don't think so.
The Critical Areas Ordinance passed by King County last year is unfair, in that it restricts property owners in how they can use their own property, putting aside as much as 65% of their land as being "off limits" to development, without any kind of recompense whatsoever to the property owner. In other words, King County has told property owners that a) they don't know what the proper use of their property is, but that King County does, and b) King County now basically "owns" up to 65% of the property - free. It's a government land grab, if ever there was one, no matter how you frame the language.
We need this initiative, because it's a question of fairness.
"King" Sims does it again
As reported here, "King" Ron Sims has come to the rescue of another individual who was ousted, giving him a job on his staff. Scott White, forced out of his job as King County Council chief of staff for taking sides in the recent County Council election, was given a job on Sims staff to "work on a variety of high-profile projects."
Well, isn't that nice? Lose a council seat (voters reduced the number of county council seats from thirteen to nine), and Sims creates jobs out of thin air for you. Get ousted as county council chief of staff? No problem! "King" Ronny will give you a job, so no worries!
If this happened in the private sector, I can almost guarantee that there would be a "worker revolt". But in the political world of "King" Sims, it's a standard practice. All you need to be is a political sycophant to the "King", and you're assured of having a job, even if one has to be created out of thin air.
Well, isn't that nice? Lose a council seat (voters reduced the number of county council seats from thirteen to nine), and Sims creates jobs out of thin air for you. Get ousted as county council chief of staff? No problem! "King" Ronny will give you a job, so no worries!
If this happened in the private sector, I can almost guarantee that there would be a "worker revolt". But in the political world of "King" Sims, it's a standard practice. All you need to be is a political sycophant to the "King", and you're assured of having a job, even if one has to be created out of thin air.
President Bush says to take Osama bin Laden seriously
As reported here, during a tour of the NSA facilities, President Bush says that we should take OBL seriously when he says he is planning further attacks on the US. President Bush say that he takes OBL seriously, and that is the main reason for the "controversial" NSA surveillance program.
I certainly take OBL seriously (and you should, too!), and I'm certainly glad that President Bush has the NSA monitoring communications between people here in the US with those linked to Al Qaeda. I personally think that it would be totally irresponsible of the President to not have the NSA doing the monitoring that they are, and if he didn't have the NSA on the job, I would want to know why not!
All of the hyperbolic theatrics that the Dems are going through over this NSA program is nothing but smoke and mirrors, designed to cast President Bush in the worst possible light for their own political gains. Both President Carter and Clinton authorized warrantless searches and monitoring through Presidential Executive Orders (as President Bush has done) with each getting legal opinions on those actions saying that they were perfectly within their capacity as President to do so.
The only difference between then and now is that both Carter and Clinton are Dems (which makes it ok in the eyes of the Dems), and Bush is not (therefore making it not ok in the eyes of the Dems). Oh, and not to mention the fact that the Dems have a pathological hatred of Bush, and will do anything to "demonize" him.
I certainly take OBL seriously (and you should, too!), and I'm certainly glad that President Bush has the NSA monitoring communications between people here in the US with those linked to Al Qaeda. I personally think that it would be totally irresponsible of the President to not have the NSA doing the monitoring that they are, and if he didn't have the NSA on the job, I would want to know why not!
All of the hyperbolic theatrics that the Dems are going through over this NSA program is nothing but smoke and mirrors, designed to cast President Bush in the worst possible light for their own political gains. Both President Carter and Clinton authorized warrantless searches and monitoring through Presidential Executive Orders (as President Bush has done) with each getting legal opinions on those actions saying that they were perfectly within their capacity as President to do so.
The only difference between then and now is that both Carter and Clinton are Dems (which makes it ok in the eyes of the Dems), and Bush is not (therefore making it not ok in the eyes of the Dems). Oh, and not to mention the fact that the Dems have a pathological hatred of Bush, and will do anything to "demonize" him.
It takes a lot of gall!
As reported here, Dan Rather was in Seattle recently to give a little speech. Prior to the speech he also granted an interview.
Among the "gems" from the speech and the interview:
In an address to a packed house at McCaw Hall, Rather said that journalists -- buffeted in recent years by scandal and a declining consumer base -- needed to do several things to win back the trust of the country's citizens. Yeah. like tell the truth without injecting personal political bias.
"What many of us need is a spine transplant," Rather said. "Whether it's City Hall, the Statehouse or the White House, part of our job is to speak truth to power." Like I said above, report the truth, not a perception of what you would like the truth to be.
Remember, this is from the man who tried to do a smear on President Bush by using forged documents (not, as stated in the article "allegedly forged", but proven to be really forged)!
It takes a lot of gall, you know?
Among the "gems" from the speech and the interview:
In an address to a packed house at McCaw Hall, Rather said that journalists -- buffeted in recent years by scandal and a declining consumer base -- needed to do several things to win back the trust of the country's citizens. Yeah. like tell the truth without injecting personal political bias.
"What many of us need is a spine transplant," Rather said. "Whether it's City Hall, the Statehouse or the White House, part of our job is to speak truth to power." Like I said above, report the truth, not a perception of what you would like the truth to be.
Remember, this is from the man who tried to do a smear on President Bush by using forged documents (not, as stated in the article "allegedly forged", but proven to be really forged)!
It takes a lot of gall, you know?
Monday, January 23, 2006
Superbowl bound!
In my previous post, I speculated on who would be going to the Superbowl, and ended up only being half right. So much for my football prognosticating prowess (better keep my day job, eh?).
In the AFC, the Pittsburgh Steelers out played the Denver Broncos, by a score of 34 - 17, which was a pleasant surprise. Jake Plummer looked dazed and confused for much of the game, and "Big Ben" and "The Bus", along with the Steelers defense took care of business.
In the NFC, the Seattle Seahawks simply dominated the Carolina Panthers from the get go, winning 34 - 14 (interesting how both winning teams scored 34 points). This is something that I have been waiting for, for 30 years, as the 'Hawks are going to their first ever Superbowl! I'm still having to pinch myself!
So, on to the Superbowl in Detroit, on Feb. 5th. Go 'Hawks!
In the AFC, the Pittsburgh Steelers out played the Denver Broncos, by a score of 34 - 17, which was a pleasant surprise. Jake Plummer looked dazed and confused for much of the game, and "Big Ben" and "The Bus", along with the Steelers defense took care of business.
In the NFC, the Seattle Seahawks simply dominated the Carolina Panthers from the get go, winning 34 - 14 (interesting how both winning teams scored 34 points). This is something that I have been waiting for, for 30 years, as the 'Hawks are going to their first ever Superbowl! I'm still having to pinch myself!
So, on to the Superbowl in Detroit, on Feb. 5th. Go 'Hawks!
Sunday, January 22, 2006
Who will be Superbowl bound?
Today are the two conference championship games in the NFL, to determine who will advance to the Superbowl, Feb. 5th, in Detroit.
In the AFC game, the Pittsburgh Steelers are in Denver to play the Broncos, while in the NFC game, the Carolina Panthers are here in Seattle to play against the Seahawks. In both games, the home team is favored, with both Denver and Seattle having gone 9 - 0 at home. But, both the Steelers and Panthers, being Wild Card teams, have won games on the road to advance to the championship games.
Both games are intriguing for various reasons. Will the Steelers defense be able to contain Jake "The Snake" Plummer? Will Jerome "The Bus" Bettis be able to carry his team past the Broncos defense in possibly his last game?
Will Julius Peppers and Shaun Alexander be able to play the entire game, and do so up to their regular season abilities? Both are coming off of injuries, with Peppers having a sore shoulder, and Alexander coming off of a concussion. Will Steve Smith turn in another performance against the Seahawks secondary, as he did against Chicago? Will Nick Goings be able to run against the 'Hawks? Will Matt Hasselback be able to find D-Jack in the end zone? Will Walter Jones, Steve Hutchinson, and Mack Strong be able to pave the way for Alexander to finally have a break out playoff game? All of these questions will be answered as the day unfolds, of course.
What do I think the outcomes will be? Although I like Pittsburgh as a team more than I like Denver, and would be very happy to see Pittsburgh advance to Detroit, I just don't think that will happen, as I predict Denver will win in a shootout.
As for the game here in Seattle, with the "Twelfth Man" in full throat, the multi-dimensional offense of the 'Hawks, and the swarming 'Hawks defense pitted against the one-dimensional offense of the Panthers (Goings, if you'll pardon the expression, ain't goin' anywhere against the 'Hawks run defense), I predict that Seattle will win in a close, defensive game.
With that said, here's another bit of interest, at least for my brother and I. If the two games turn out with my predicted winners, it will pit two former members of the AFC West against each other in the Super Bowl, the Denver Broncos against the Seattle Seahawks. There is still an intense rivalry between the two teams, which could make for an intense grudge match in Detroit, which if that does happen, I see Seattle winning.
Now that would be sweet!
In the AFC game, the Pittsburgh Steelers are in Denver to play the Broncos, while in the NFC game, the Carolina Panthers are here in Seattle to play against the Seahawks. In both games, the home team is favored, with both Denver and Seattle having gone 9 - 0 at home. But, both the Steelers and Panthers, being Wild Card teams, have won games on the road to advance to the championship games.
Both games are intriguing for various reasons. Will the Steelers defense be able to contain Jake "The Snake" Plummer? Will Jerome "The Bus" Bettis be able to carry his team past the Broncos defense in possibly his last game?
Will Julius Peppers and Shaun Alexander be able to play the entire game, and do so up to their regular season abilities? Both are coming off of injuries, with Peppers having a sore shoulder, and Alexander coming off of a concussion. Will Steve Smith turn in another performance against the Seahawks secondary, as he did against Chicago? Will Nick Goings be able to run against the 'Hawks? Will Matt Hasselback be able to find D-Jack in the end zone? Will Walter Jones, Steve Hutchinson, and Mack Strong be able to pave the way for Alexander to finally have a break out playoff game? All of these questions will be answered as the day unfolds, of course.
What do I think the outcomes will be? Although I like Pittsburgh as a team more than I like Denver, and would be very happy to see Pittsburgh advance to Detroit, I just don't think that will happen, as I predict Denver will win in a shootout.
As for the game here in Seattle, with the "Twelfth Man" in full throat, the multi-dimensional offense of the 'Hawks, and the swarming 'Hawks defense pitted against the one-dimensional offense of the Panthers (Goings, if you'll pardon the expression, ain't goin' anywhere against the 'Hawks run defense), I predict that Seattle will win in a close, defensive game.
With that said, here's another bit of interest, at least for my brother and I. If the two games turn out with my predicted winners, it will pit two former members of the AFC West against each other in the Super Bowl, the Denver Broncos against the Seattle Seahawks. There is still an intense rivalry between the two teams, which could make for an intense grudge match in Detroit, which if that does happen, I see Seattle winning.
Now that would be sweet!
The burning question Dems won't answer
From the Opinion Journal of the WSJ, Victoria Toensing, former chief council for the Senate Intelligence Committee and Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Reagan Administration asks, "Do Al Gore and other Democrats really want to keep the government from finding al Qaeda agents in the U.S.?"
From all of the false outrage spouted by Dems over the NSA surveillance program on terrorism related communications that originate in the US, it would appear to be so. If the Dems do want the government to capture terrorists on US soil, why all of the caterwauling about the NSA monitoring? After all, the Dem leadership has been kept apprised of the NSA activities since 9/11, right?
Could it be that the Dems really don't want the government to be able to capture terrorists on US soil, so that the terrorists can carry out an act of terrorism here, just so that President Bush "looks bad", and the Dems can use that for political advantage? They wouldn't do that!
Or would they?
From all of the false outrage spouted by Dems over the NSA surveillance program on terrorism related communications that originate in the US, it would appear to be so. If the Dems do want the government to capture terrorists on US soil, why all of the caterwauling about the NSA monitoring? After all, the Dem leadership has been kept apprised of the NSA activities since 9/11, right?
Could it be that the Dems really don't want the government to be able to capture terrorists on US soil, so that the terrorists can carry out an act of terrorism here, just so that President Bush "looks bad", and the Dems can use that for political advantage? They wouldn't do that!
Or would they?
Act of revenge, or plain and simple justice?
As reported here, Logan Darrow Clements is planning a rally in front of Supreme Court Justice David Souter's home today, in protest of the Court's decision in the Kelo v. New London, Ct. eminent domain case, in which Justice Souter sided with the city of New London, allowing the city to claim eminent domain over a large piece of property for a developer to build a hotel, convention center, and other commercial buildings, ousting several people from their homes.
Mr. Clements gathered enough signatures to put his plans of having the small town of Weare, NH claim eminent domain over Souter's property so that he can build the "Lost Liberty" Hotel.
State Rep. Neal Kurk, a Weare resident who is sponsoring two pieces of eminent domain legislation in New Hampshire, said he expects the group's proposal to be defeated overwhelmingly.
"Most people here see this as an act of revenge and an improper attack on the judicial system," Kurk said. "You don't go after a judge personally because you disagree with his judgments."
I don't see this as an act of revenge. More that of plain and simple justice over the arrogance of government acts against the rights of property owners.
Mr. Clements gathered enough signatures to put his plans of having the small town of Weare, NH claim eminent domain over Souter's property so that he can build the "Lost Liberty" Hotel.
State Rep. Neal Kurk, a Weare resident who is sponsoring two pieces of eminent domain legislation in New Hampshire, said he expects the group's proposal to be defeated overwhelmingly.
"Most people here see this as an act of revenge and an improper attack on the judicial system," Kurk said. "You don't go after a judge personally because you disagree with his judgments."
I don't see this as an act of revenge. More that of plain and simple justice over the arrogance of government acts against the rights of property owners.
It's about time!
As reported here, both Russia and China have stepped up to put pressure on Iran to stop their nuclear activities and return to the negotiating table, after both nations have become frustrated with Iran's insistence on continuing with it's enrichment program.
Negotiations, held in good faith, are far better than conflict, but it remains to be seen whether the Iranians will actually negotiate in good faith or not, considering their history of, as Britain's Foreign Minister Jack Straw said, " ... concealment and deception."
Of course, events in real life have made what was reported in the article slightly dated now. Both Russia and China have backed off of their strong words, hedging their bets, in the hope that the US and other members of the Security Council won't push for Iran to be "referred" for possible political and/or economic sanctions.
It remains to be seen just what Russia and China will agree to, regarding the "Iran question". Hopefully, they will realize that it really is in their best interests to help rein in this rogue regime.
Negotiations, held in good faith, are far better than conflict, but it remains to be seen whether the Iranians will actually negotiate in good faith or not, considering their history of, as Britain's Foreign Minister Jack Straw said, " ... concealment and deception."
Of course, events in real life have made what was reported in the article slightly dated now. Both Russia and China have backed off of their strong words, hedging their bets, in the hope that the US and other members of the Security Council won't push for Iran to be "referred" for possible political and/or economic sanctions.
It remains to be seen just what Russia and China will agree to, regarding the "Iran question". Hopefully, they will realize that it really is in their best interests to help rein in this rogue regime.
Sunday, January 15, 2006
Iran to hold "conference" on Holocaust
As reported here, the Iranian Foreign Ministry will be holding a "conference" on the Holocaust. Well isn't that nice of them. As yet, the time and place have not been specified, but I can guess the purpose. As I see it, this "conference" would do nothing but give "credence" to the denials that the Holocaust ever happened.
"On Saturday, Ahmadinejad urged the West to be open-minded enough to allow a free international debate on the real aspects of the Holocaust."
The real aspects? The real aspects are this. The Nazi regime intended to fully exterminate all Jews (along with others such as Gypsy's, those deemed mentally or physically "deficient", people of Slavic descent, etc.) that they could get their hands on, succeeding in slaughtering approximately six million Jews (the number of the others slaughtered will never fully be known). Those are the "real aspects", Mr. Ahmadinejad, no matter how much you, and others like you, want to deny what the "real aspects" of the Holocaust were!
The Holocaust was real. It happened, and no amount of denials, or "conferences" to find the "real aspects" of it, will ever change that fact.
"On Saturday, Ahmadinejad urged the West to be open-minded enough to allow a free international debate on the real aspects of the Holocaust."
The real aspects? The real aspects are this. The Nazi regime intended to fully exterminate all Jews (along with others such as Gypsy's, those deemed mentally or physically "deficient", people of Slavic descent, etc.) that they could get their hands on, succeeding in slaughtering approximately six million Jews (the number of the others slaughtered will never fully be known). Those are the "real aspects", Mr. Ahmadinejad, no matter how much you, and others like you, want to deny what the "real aspects" of the Holocaust were!
The Holocaust was real. It happened, and no amount of denials, or "conferences" to find the "real aspects" of it, will ever change that fact.
Mark Lunsford is on a mission
As reported here, Mark Lunsford, the father of Jessica Lunsford, is here in Washington State to push our legislature to pass "Jessica's Law" (HB2476/SB6314) which would stiffen penalties for child sex abuse from the ridiculously low levels the penalties are currently at, to a mandatory 25 years to life.
Jessica Lunsford is the Florida girl who was abducted, repeatedly raped, and then buried alive, and then left to die, by a released sex offender. If the various state legislature's had had any back bone, any moral fiber, that released sex offender would not have been released, and Jessica would be alive today.
But there are some who say that a mandatory sentence of 25 years to life may make some victims family members reluctant to testify in a case of a relative being the abuser, as they may want the perpetrator to be punished, but not for that length of time. In many cases currently, where a relative is the abuser, they get a 6 month sentence and "treatment". To those who say that the stiffer penalties are too harsh, I say HOGWASH! A sex offender is a sex offender, whether they are a relative or a stranger. If you do not apply the mandatory sentence that "Jessica's Law" calls for in the case of a relative as the abuser, the you set a double standard, and open the way for sentences to be thrown out in cases of abuse by a stranger. I can guarantee you that the ACLU would be right there to file appeals in that kind of a situation, which we do not need, as the ACLU has done enough damage in sexual abuse cases as it is. Passage of this law would also preclude such sentences as the 60 day sentence recently handed down by a lunatic Vermont Judge, which I posted about here.
This law must be made the law of the land! I urge everyone, of whatever political stripe, to press your legislators to pass this law.
Jessica Lunsford is the Florida girl who was abducted, repeatedly raped, and then buried alive, and then left to die, by a released sex offender. If the various state legislature's had had any back bone, any moral fiber, that released sex offender would not have been released, and Jessica would be alive today.
But there are some who say that a mandatory sentence of 25 years to life may make some victims family members reluctant to testify in a case of a relative being the abuser, as they may want the perpetrator to be punished, but not for that length of time. In many cases currently, where a relative is the abuser, they get a 6 month sentence and "treatment". To those who say that the stiffer penalties are too harsh, I say HOGWASH! A sex offender is a sex offender, whether they are a relative or a stranger. If you do not apply the mandatory sentence that "Jessica's Law" calls for in the case of a relative as the abuser, the you set a double standard, and open the way for sentences to be thrown out in cases of abuse by a stranger. I can guarantee you that the ACLU would be right there to file appeals in that kind of a situation, which we do not need, as the ACLU has done enough damage in sexual abuse cases as it is. Passage of this law would also preclude such sentences as the 60 day sentence recently handed down by a lunatic Vermont Judge, which I posted about here.
This law must be made the law of the land! I urge everyone, of whatever political stripe, to press your legislators to pass this law.
Iranian "Law and Order"
As reported here, a young woman in Iran has been sentenced to death by hanging for defending herself and her niece from being raped, by unintentionally killing one of her attackers by stabbing him in the chest. There are two other instances cited in the article of young women also being sentenced to die by hanging, with one sentence having already been carried out - in public, no less.
Folks, this stems from Sharia "law", the dogmatically extreme form of "law" found in the "Religion of Peace", Islam. The lesson here is, don't be born female, as no matter what the circumstances, if you are raped, or even seem to appear to not be "chaste", you can, and will be sentenced to death.
If we in the West are not careful and vigilant, this form of "law" will soon come to a town near you. Just ask the Canadians about that.
Folks, this stems from Sharia "law", the dogmatically extreme form of "law" found in the "Religion of Peace", Islam. The lesson here is, don't be born female, as no matter what the circumstances, if you are raped, or even seem to appear to not be "chaste", you can, and will be sentenced to death.
If we in the West are not careful and vigilant, this form of "law" will soon come to a town near you. Just ask the Canadians about that.
Sunday, January 08, 2006
Still think Saddam had no links to Al-Qaeda?
Guess again. Stephen F. Hayes has come up with a block buster of a story linking Saddam and Al-Qaeda in this piece from the Weekly Standard. In it they detail how Iraqi security forces helped train approximately 2000 terrorists over a period of four years, at three different camps. That's approximately 8000 terrorists that were trained during Saddam's reign that we know of, folks. This is based on information from unclassified documents that the government has translated - about 50,000 out of roughly 2 million documents, videos, and other types of media - that they are currently discussing releasing to the general public.
Many in the so-called "Mainstream Media" were quick to seize on the carefully worded summary statement issued by the 9/11 commission, that said in part, that the commission had found no evidence "indicating that Iraq cooperated with al Qaeda in developing or carrying out any attacks against the United States" and ran blaring headlines like the one on the June 17, 2004, front page of the New York Times: "Panel Finds No Qaeda-Iraq Tie."
However, Mr. Hayes and Thomas Joscelyn in this other article state that "this was woefully imprecise. It assumed, not unreasonably, that the 9/11 Commission's conclusion was based on a firm foundation of intelligence reporting, that the intelligence community had the type of human intelligence and other reporting that would allow senior-level analysts to draw reasonable conclusions. We know now that was not the case." [Emphasis mine. GW]
Still think Saddam had no links to Al-Qaeda?
Many in the so-called "Mainstream Media" were quick to seize on the carefully worded summary statement issued by the 9/11 commission, that said in part, that the commission had found no evidence "indicating that Iraq cooperated with al Qaeda in developing or carrying out any attacks against the United States" and ran blaring headlines like the one on the June 17, 2004, front page of the New York Times: "Panel Finds No Qaeda-Iraq Tie."
However, Mr. Hayes and Thomas Joscelyn in this other article state that "this was woefully imprecise. It assumed, not unreasonably, that the 9/11 Commission's conclusion was based on a firm foundation of intelligence reporting, that the intelligence community had the type of human intelligence and other reporting that would allow senior-level analysts to draw reasonable conclusions. We know now that was not the case." [Emphasis mine. GW]
Still think Saddam had no links to Al-Qaeda?
Press elected officials for better decisions in 2006
Seattle P-I editorialist Ted Van Dyk says in this piece that we need to press our elected officials for better fiscal decisions in 2006, or we risk having a status quo situation that will leave certain things irreversible. I agree with Mr. Van Dyk on this. We do need to press our elected officials for better fiscal decisions in 2006!
Although his piece addresses local issues here in Washington State - such as our under funded state pension plan, regional transportation issues, etc. - it should also apply where you live as well. We all need to press our local, state, and federal elected officials to spend money more wisely on all publicly funded programs and infrastructure.
After all, it's our money they're spending, right?
Although his piece addresses local issues here in Washington State - such as our under funded state pension plan, regional transportation issues, etc. - it should also apply where you live as well. We all need to press our local, state, and federal elected officials to spend money more wisely on all publicly funded programs and infrastructure.
After all, it's our money they're spending, right?
Lunatic sentence handed down by Vermont judge
As reported here, a 34 year old man who was convicted of repeated sexual assault on a girl, starting when she was SEVEN YEARS OLD and ending when she was TEN YEARS OLD, has been sentenced to 60 days in jail, after which he must complete a sex offenders course or face life in prison.
Sixty DAYS? For putting a little girl through Hell for THREE YEARS? Judge Edward Cashman said that, in handing down the 60 day sentence, that he doesn't believe, after 25 years on the bench, in punishment anymore, that he believes in "rehabilitation". Well isn't that just fine and dandy? This Vermont judge has the unmitigated gall to impose his morality on THIS CASE? He had to pick THIS case? A case where a little girl was repeatedly raped by an adult male, from the time she was SEVEN YEARS OLD to when she turned TEN YEARS OLD? He couldn't have picked say, a simple burglary case, or a jay walking ticket to try out his "I hate punishment" theory on sentencing?
This is just so appallingly outrageous! This judge needs to be removed from the bench immediately, and stripped of his legal credentials. The State of Vermont needs to do whatever it legally can to re-sentence this individual to an appropriate period behind bars, as well.
Sixty DAYS? For putting a little girl through Hell for THREE YEARS? Judge Edward Cashman said that, in handing down the 60 day sentence, that he doesn't believe, after 25 years on the bench, in punishment anymore, that he believes in "rehabilitation". Well isn't that just fine and dandy? This Vermont judge has the unmitigated gall to impose his morality on THIS CASE? He had to pick THIS case? A case where a little girl was repeatedly raped by an adult male, from the time she was SEVEN YEARS OLD to when she turned TEN YEARS OLD? He couldn't have picked say, a simple burglary case, or a jay walking ticket to try out his "I hate punishment" theory on sentencing?
This is just so appallingly outrageous! This judge needs to be removed from the bench immediately, and stripped of his legal credentials. The State of Vermont needs to do whatever it legally can to re-sentence this individual to an appropriate period behind bars, as well.
Another thought just occurred to me. This little girl has to have male relatives that must be ever more outraged at this lunacy than I am (and I'm pretty outraged, if you couldn't tell). What's to prevent them from being at the door of the prison at the end of the 60 day sentence, waiting to "greet" this individual upon his release?
If anyone from Vermont who has any information on what the State can do to reverse this judge's lunatic decision would please let me know what action the state can take, I'd appreciate it.
Iran shakes "Nuclear Stick" - Again
As reported here, Iran sent a letter to the IAEA - the UN Nuclear "watch dog" (who seems to take a lot of naps, instead of doing any "watching) - stating that they were going to restart research in uranium enrichment, which is a pre-cursor to making a bomb.
The US response to this was to issue a warning that implies that if Iran does pursue this, that sanctions may be applied. That's all well and good when applied to nations that take those types of warnings seriously, but we're talking about Iran here. Iran seems to be bound and determined to become a nuclear power, and vague warnings will not deter them from this course.
No, what is needed here is a similar response carried out by the Israeli's against Iraq's nuclear reactor, not more words that Iran will simply ignore. Power mad regimes, such as the one currently in power in Iran, only understand bullets and bombs, not words.
The US response to this was to issue a warning that implies that if Iran does pursue this, that sanctions may be applied. That's all well and good when applied to nations that take those types of warnings seriously, but we're talking about Iran here. Iran seems to be bound and determined to become a nuclear power, and vague warnings will not deter them from this course.
No, what is needed here is a similar response carried out by the Israeli's against Iraq's nuclear reactor, not more words that Iran will simply ignore. Power mad regimes, such as the one currently in power in Iran, only understand bullets and bombs, not words.
Sunday, January 01, 2006
Happy New Year!
As 2005 has faded into the history books, and 2006 has started, I want to wish everyone a Happy New Year. May this year bring you happiness in your life, and more freedom throughout the world.
God bless, and take care.
God bless, and take care.
Is the NY Times guilty of treason?
The New York Times sat on a story for an entire year about the NSA monitoring electronic communications between people suspected of having ties to Al-Qaida, and then released the story, to the detriment of our governments abilities to prevent future 9/11 style attacks by terrorists.
The revelation that the NSA was doing this - legally, I might add - has been decried far and wide by Dems and the leftist defeatists as 1) a trampling on the civil liberties of US citizens, and 2) a scandal of the highest order because of the supposed trampling of the civil liberties of US citizens, and 3) violations of FISA. (For an excellent recap of FISA, and Presidential authority under FISA, see this article on this same subject by Ed Morrissey, aka The Captain of Captain's Quarters blog.)
First of all, #1 and #3 are linked here, in that, no US citizens were targeted by the activities of the NSA without obtaining the proper warrants from proper authorities, so the "trampling of civil liberties" never happened.
Second, those persons targeted for which no warrants were obtained are not US citizens, or lawful alien residents (US persons), and therefore the protections of FISA do not apply.
Third, because what the NSA did was properly authorized by President Bush, there is nothing scandalous involved with the NSA. However, the real scandal, in my opinion, rests with the NY Times printing this story, giving information to the enemies to our country and way of life, allowing them to know that they are being monitored, and allowing them to change their method of communications, making it more difficult for anti-terrorism forces to ferret them out. I believe that this action by the NY Times constitutes treason of the highest order, and those responsible need to be held accountable.
The revelation that the NSA was doing this - legally, I might add - has been decried far and wide by Dems and the leftist defeatists as 1) a trampling on the civil liberties of US citizens, and 2) a scandal of the highest order because of the supposed trampling of the civil liberties of US citizens, and 3) violations of FISA. (For an excellent recap of FISA, and Presidential authority under FISA, see this article on this same subject by Ed Morrissey, aka The Captain of Captain's Quarters blog.)
First of all, #1 and #3 are linked here, in that, no US citizens were targeted by the activities of the NSA without obtaining the proper warrants from proper authorities, so the "trampling of civil liberties" never happened.
Second, those persons targeted for which no warrants were obtained are not US citizens, or lawful alien residents (US persons), and therefore the protections of FISA do not apply.
Third, because what the NSA did was properly authorized by President Bush, there is nothing scandalous involved with the NSA. However, the real scandal, in my opinion, rests with the NY Times printing this story, giving information to the enemies to our country and way of life, allowing them to know that they are being monitored, and allowing them to change their method of communications, making it more difficult for anti-terrorism forces to ferret them out. I believe that this action by the NY Times constitutes treason of the highest order, and those responsible need to be held accountable.
Dems Want Records on Possible GOP 2008 Contenders
As reported here, the DNC has requested personal records of Gov. Mitt Romney, along with up to 10 other potential GOP candidates for office in the 2008 races. Not only that, but in filing for the release of these records, they asked that the fees involved be waived, potentially costing tax payers thousands of dollars.
The only possible reason that I can see for the Dems to do this is to see if they can dig up any "dirt" on any of the people targeted in these information disclosure requests. Rather than rely on proposing new ways of doing things, and then trying to convince the voters that they have a better idea, they are going to continue to lie, cheat, and try to steal elections - in other words, business as usual.
Apparently the Dems feel that they have to do this, as they apparently don't have better ideas on how to do things, and already know that they can't convince the voters to vote for them because of the lack of better ideas, so they have to resort to something like this.
2006 has barely started, and obviously the Dems are already feeling desperation over their dismal chances in 2008!
The only possible reason that I can see for the Dems to do this is to see if they can dig up any "dirt" on any of the people targeted in these information disclosure requests. Rather than rely on proposing new ways of doing things, and then trying to convince the voters that they have a better idea, they are going to continue to lie, cheat, and try to steal elections - in other words, business as usual.
Apparently the Dems feel that they have to do this, as they apparently don't have better ideas on how to do things, and already know that they can't convince the voters to vote for them because of the lack of better ideas, so they have to resort to something like this.
2006 has barely started, and obviously the Dems are already feeling desperation over their dismal chances in 2008!
New voter registration data base to go on line in 2006
As reported here, the State is set to begin using the new state-wide voter registration data base starting in 2006, as mandated by the Feds. It won't correct all of the problems, but it is a start.
One problem that Assistant Secretary of State Steve Excell says won't be completely corrected is the use of self storage and mail box store addresses for a home address, as the state has to rely on the counties to do the "leg work" to check addresses to see if indeed they truly are a residential address. But this could easily be done, by checking building permits for self storage units and mail box stores to see if those buildings contain any residential units, because they have to be listed in the permit application. Checking building use permits would identify any and all such addresses that do have a residential use permit, and those that don't! If this simple solution can occur to me, why hasn't it occurred to the powers that be?
One problem that Assistant Secretary of State Steve Excell says won't be completely corrected is the use of self storage and mail box store addresses for a home address, as the state has to rely on the counties to do the "leg work" to check addresses to see if indeed they truly are a residential address. But this could easily be done, by checking building permits for self storage units and mail box stores to see if those buildings contain any residential units, because they have to be listed in the permit application. Checking building use permits would identify any and all such addresses that do have a residential use permit, and those that don't! If this simple solution can occur to me, why hasn't it occurred to the powers that be?
Gun violence on the rise in Toronto - Martin blames US
As reported here, the 52nd death by guns this year happened in Toronto, when a girl who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time was hit by a stray bullet, as two groups of youths got into an argument and began shooting at each other.
Of course, Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin, and Toronto Mayor David Miller immediately pointed their fingers at the US, saying that it was illegal guns smuggled into Canada from the US that was reason this girl died. However, John Thompson, a security analyst with the Toronto-based Mackenzie Institute, disagreed, saying that Canada has a gang problem, not a gun problem, and that the remarks made by Martin and Miller were a "cop out" in that they were addressing a symptom rather than the whole disease.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again. A gun is a tool - nothing more, nothing less. It is not an animate object with a mind of it's own. The person who wields it is completely responsible for how it is used. It was not the guns fault this girl was killed - and her death is a tragedy - it was the fault of the person who had the gun, and decided that he was going to pull the trigger to "settle" an argument.
Mr. Martin and Mr. Miller are both using this as an opportunity to lay blame for their country's problems on the US, instead of addressing the issues that have given rise to the increase in gun violence. Mr. Martin, if you want to blame anyone for this problem, I suggest you look in the mirror first!
Of course, Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin, and Toronto Mayor David Miller immediately pointed their fingers at the US, saying that it was illegal guns smuggled into Canada from the US that was reason this girl died. However, John Thompson, a security analyst with the Toronto-based Mackenzie Institute, disagreed, saying that Canada has a gang problem, not a gun problem, and that the remarks made by Martin and Miller were a "cop out" in that they were addressing a symptom rather than the whole disease.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again. A gun is a tool - nothing more, nothing less. It is not an animate object with a mind of it's own. The person who wields it is completely responsible for how it is used. It was not the guns fault this girl was killed - and her death is a tragedy - it was the fault of the person who had the gun, and decided that he was going to pull the trigger to "settle" an argument.
Mr. Martin and Mr. Miller are both using this as an opportunity to lay blame for their country's problems on the US, instead of addressing the issues that have given rise to the increase in gun violence. Mr. Martin, if you want to blame anyone for this problem, I suggest you look in the mirror first!
Wednesday, December 28, 2005
Using the State surplus.....
Last week I heard an incredible (maybe not so incredible considering the party of "spend it all, worry about how to pay for everything later") statement on the news by the governor, she didn't want the entire surplus used, just hang on to $500 million of it. Shades of government "budget cuts". (Increase the budget by 6% and then reduce the increase to 4% and call it a cut.) We have had a new tax rammed down our throats to pay for road projects (like the bike lane on some roads in King County) and others for which there are NO plans as yet in place and these clowns want to SPEND the surplus. The economy is in good enough shape to have a surplus in the state treasury and the state house and senate are gleefully making plans to spend the entire amount for their pet projects without even a backward glance at previous deficits in the budget. (I seem to recall that a "large deficit" was one of the many problems that Gary Locke had to try to solve in the last budget. Something that without the work of the (not)elected governor, Senator D. Rossi, the budget would not have been balanced.) (Isn't this a hoot, we have a "selected" governor...?) One of the Republicans was trying to point the way to fiscal responsibilty in his statement, but the impression that I got was he was only on for appearances sake. The more that the generally greedy group wants to spend the more I want to scream.
Income vs Sales Taxes....
My brother and I agree on most things with mostly genuine respect for each other's opinions where there is disagreement. One of those areas is in the arena of taxes. He is more in favor of an income tax than a sales tax and I tend to be more the other direction. Before anyone gets the idea that I like the current tax structure in this state, let me categorically state that most of the people of the state of Washington are taxed way beyond what is necessary. I really don't think that either sales taxes or income taxes really would ever go down, especially with the Dems in charge of the two houses and the governor all seeming to think that raising taxes even when there is a surplus is a good idea, ie; the gas tax. I refuse to believe that the government really needs to know what I earn, and that is my second biggest reason that I don't want an income tax in this state. (What is it with these gov types that as soon as they get elected they decide that the surplus really ought to be used to expand spending and then when there is no surplus they decide that the way to pay for the many new programs is to institute more ways of taxing people?) The primary reason I don't want an income tax in Washington has to do with the incredibly insatiable black-hole(ish) demand for the government to want MORE. The thing that bothers me is that even when the VOTERS try to put restraints on government spending, the ones who have been elected and the ones in the bureauracracy work extra hard on finding ways around the restrictions. The standard seems to be, in order for us to govern you poor simpletons who really don't know how to spend your own money in the way we believe you need to spend your money, we can't possibly consider spending less, reducing the size of the bureaus, finding less intrusive ways accomplish what needs to be done or any of the ideas that have to do with using less. I stand against the income tax in this state simply because those in power would have new ways to make my life a lot poorer and the size of government a lot bigger. Wait a minute, I just had an idea, why don't we all go to work for the State of Washington, then we could pay our taxes with the money we earn from the state? NAH!
Sunday, December 25, 2005
Merry Christmas!
I want to wish one and all a very, Merry Christmas today.
As you go about your day, please stay safe, and think upon the Reason why we are celebrating today. As the saying goes, Jesus is the reason for the season.
May God shine His blessings on you this, and every, day.
See you next week!
As you go about your day, please stay safe, and think upon the Reason why we are celebrating today. As the saying goes, Jesus is the reason for the season.
May God shine His blessings on you this, and every, day.
See you next week!
Sunday, December 18, 2005
Sunni's want ties to Americans now
As reported here, major Sunni "insurgent" groups recognize that it is now in their best interests to cooperate with US forces against what they term "outside influences".
Just as the average Iraqi Sunni's figured out that it was better to vote this past Thursday, so that they could have a voice in the new government, so it appears as if the major groups that have fought against the US have figured out that this is a losing proposition, and have decided to join with the US instead.
Note to Dem "leadership": This is NOT the time to cry "Retreat"!
Just as the average Iraqi Sunni's figured out that it was better to vote this past Thursday, so that they could have a voice in the new government, so it appears as if the major groups that have fought against the US have figured out that this is a losing proposition, and have decided to join with the US instead.
Note to Dem "leadership": This is NOT the time to cry "Retreat"!
Kerry calls for Bush impeachment
As reported here, the junior Senator from Massachusetts is calling for the impeachment of President Bush, on the grounds that "he misled the country into war.". Later, in kind of a reprise of his "I voted for the $87 billion, before I voted against it.", Kerry said he was "just kidding". I don't think so.
This from the man who lied to Congress in the 1970's about his involvement, and what he supposedly witnessed, in the Vietnam War, remarks which led to even more aggressive torture of American POW's at the hands of the North Vietnamese; this from the man who claimed to have been in Cambodia in Christmas, 1968 at the orders of President Nixon - who didn't take office until 1969 - saying that the memories were "Seared - seared!" in his mind; the man who with RINO Sen. John McCain, closed out any further attempts to find out if there were any more POWs/MIAs still being held in Vietnam; this from the man who still refuses to sign Form 180, to release ALL of his military records to public scrutiny, and yet claims that he has released all of them, which is categorically false.
This from the man who first voted for the war in Iraq, but who now says that it was a mistake, and says that he supports our troops, but that our military forces are "terrorizing innocent women and children" in Iraq. You call that supporting the troops? This from the man demanding, along with all the other defeatist leftists in our government, that our troops be brought home immediately, leaving the recently voted on Iraqi government to it's fate, much as he advocated for the government of South Vietnam 30 years ago.
I call on Sen. Kerry to issue a statement saying that not only does he not advocate the impeachment of President Bush, but that he would oppose any such efforts brought forward.
Although that would be the ethical thing to do, based on Kerry's "ethical" record, I won't be holding my breath waiting for him to do that.
This from the man who lied to Congress in the 1970's about his involvement, and what he supposedly witnessed, in the Vietnam War, remarks which led to even more aggressive torture of American POW's at the hands of the North Vietnamese; this from the man who claimed to have been in Cambodia in Christmas, 1968 at the orders of President Nixon - who didn't take office until 1969 - saying that the memories were "Seared - seared!" in his mind; the man who with RINO Sen. John McCain, closed out any further attempts to find out if there were any more POWs/MIAs still being held in Vietnam; this from the man who still refuses to sign Form 180, to release ALL of his military records to public scrutiny, and yet claims that he has released all of them, which is categorically false.
This from the man who first voted for the war in Iraq, but who now says that it was a mistake, and says that he supports our troops, but that our military forces are "terrorizing innocent women and children" in Iraq. You call that supporting the troops? This from the man demanding, along with all the other defeatist leftists in our government, that our troops be brought home immediately, leaving the recently voted on Iraqi government to it's fate, much as he advocated for the government of South Vietnam 30 years ago.
I call on Sen. Kerry to issue a statement saying that not only does he not advocate the impeachment of President Bush, but that he would oppose any such efforts brought forward.
Although that would be the ethical thing to do, based on Kerry's "ethical" record, I won't be holding my breath waiting for him to do that.
Media Bias Is Real, Finds UCLA Political Scientist
As reported here, the media really is biased, according to a study performed by Tim Groseclose, a UCLA political scientist and the study's lead author.
Now, as many of you know, I have taken the time to document the obviously left leaning tendencies of the MSM, and most notably the Associated Press, who seem to have a serious problem with the fact that George W. Bush is the President of the United States and go out of their way to cast him, and other members of the Administration in the worst possible light. So, the basic premise of the study does not come as a surprise to me at all.
What does come as a surprise, however is the following:
- The study group did not ask for, nor did they receive any funding from outside groups;
- The study group bent over backwards to put aside personal biases, in order to come up with as objective a study as they possibly could (and it appears that they succeeded;
- Some of their results made me go, 'Hmmmm!', as I was surprised at their conclusion. Which results? Go read the article to find out. You may be surprised yourself.
Hat tip: Hollie_is_right
Iran's President at it again
As reported here, the President of Iran once again made outrageous statements denying that the Holocaust ever took place, then contradicts himself and says that if it did take place, then the Europeans should create a new state for Israel in Europe to make up for the Holocaust that didn't happen. This is the second time he has denied the Holocaust happened, and is on top of the "wipe Israel from the map" remarks he made earlier; these remarks have sparked outrage across Europe, the US and Israel, and may pose problems for the Iranians when nuclear talks reconvene later this month.
This man is certifiably insane. He totally disregards established fact, in that the Holocaust did happen, and then calls for Europe to establish a place for the State of Israel in Europe, to make up for something that didn't happen? That is absurd nonsense.
Then, in other remarks, he blames the US for a plane crashing into a building in Tehran because we won't sell Iran any spare parts? Aren't there any factories in Iran? Aren't there any engineers in Iran who can design the tools necessary for those factories to make the spare parts needed? Blaming the crash of an airplane into a building because your country hasn't figured out how to make your own spare parts, is like the Dems blaming President Bush for the hurricanes hitting the Gulf Region of the US. Both are totally absurd nonsense!
Not only is this man certifiably insane, he represents a clear and present danger, not only to the Middle East, but to the entire world. He needs to be dealt with, and soon.
This man is certifiably insane. He totally disregards established fact, in that the Holocaust did happen, and then calls for Europe to establish a place for the State of Israel in Europe, to make up for something that didn't happen? That is absurd nonsense.
Then, in other remarks, he blames the US for a plane crashing into a building in Tehran because we won't sell Iran any spare parts? Aren't there any factories in Iran? Aren't there any engineers in Iran who can design the tools necessary for those factories to make the spare parts needed? Blaming the crash of an airplane into a building because your country hasn't figured out how to make your own spare parts, is like the Dems blaming President Bush for the hurricanes hitting the Gulf Region of the US. Both are totally absurd nonsense!
Not only is this man certifiably insane, he represents a clear and present danger, not only to the Middle East, but to the entire world. He needs to be dealt with, and soon.
Lawyers for convicted terrorist want part of conviction overturned
As reported here, defense attorneys for Ahmed Ressam, the 'millennium bomber', are appealing part of his 22 year sentence, on the grounds that instructions to the jury regarding one count were flawed. If the appeal is successful, his 22 year sentence could be reduced by 10 years. Which court was the appeal filed in? Why that paragon of non-sensical bunch of legislating from the bench crowd at the US 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, of course.
But, before you get too excited about that, the government also plans to appeal Ressam's sentence - as being too short. We'll see who wins this legal wrestling match.
Stay tuned.
But, before you get too excited about that, the government also plans to appeal Ressam's sentence - as being too short. We'll see who wins this legal wrestling match.
Stay tuned.
Monday, December 12, 2005
Withdrawal vs. Redeployment
Amanda B. Carpenter of Human Events asks some prominent Dems about their take on remarks made by Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md), that withdrawal of American forces from Iraq would be a disaster, leading to civil war there, and creating a haven for terrorists. Read as House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Ca), Rep. James Clyburn (D-SC), and Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Tex) all dance around the issue of "withdrawal" vs. "redeployment", with dear Nancy sounding rather incoherent on the entire subject (not to mention being rather long winded in her verbal "dance" around the issue).
What is the difference between the two concepts? In this particular context, none. If we "redeploy" our forces from Iraq, we will essentially be withdrawing our forces! As a matter of fact, let me provide you with a definition of the word "withdrawal".
From Dictionary.com, we find that "withdrawal" means
1. The act or process of withdrawing, as:
a. A retreat or retirement.
b. Retreat of a military force in the face of enemy attack or after a defeat. [Emphasis mine]
On the other hand, "redeployment" usually (but not always) infers the transfer of military forces from one combat zone to another combat zone. Surely, they aren't suggesting that we "redeploy" our forces from Iraq to Afghanistan (which is currently the only other active combat zone in the region)? I think not. No, they are merely playing the semantics game, to make themselves sound less like the defeatists they truly are, using the word "redeployment" instead of what they really want to say - "retreat" - so they look "good" to their constituents. Their semantic game playing is dishonest, and their dishonesty is shameful.
What is the difference between the two concepts? In this particular context, none. If we "redeploy" our forces from Iraq, we will essentially be withdrawing our forces! As a matter of fact, let me provide you with a definition of the word "withdrawal".
From Dictionary.com, we find that "withdrawal" means
1. The act or process of withdrawing, as:
a. A retreat or retirement.
b. Retreat of a military force in the face of enemy attack or after a defeat. [Emphasis mine]
On the other hand, "redeployment" usually (but not always) infers the transfer of military forces from one combat zone to another combat zone. Surely, they aren't suggesting that we "redeploy" our forces from Iraq to Afghanistan (which is currently the only other active combat zone in the region)? I think not. No, they are merely playing the semantics game, to make themselves sound less like the defeatists they truly are, using the word "redeployment" instead of what they really want to say - "retreat" - so they look "good" to their constituents. Their semantic game playing is dishonest, and their dishonesty is shameful.
Howard Dean: Just Plain Wrong (Again)
Recently, DNC Chairman Howard Dean made the ridiculous assertion that the Iraq war was "unwinnable", and that anyone who thought differently was just plain wrong. No, Howard. What you said is just plain wrong, and I'm not the only one who thinks that, as ND Rep. Earl Pomeroy (D), also thinks that you're just plain wrong, and that you should shut up.
What I find somewhat amusing is that, towards the end of the linked article, Howard says that his just plain wrong remarks "were taken out of context." Taken out of context?
Just plain wrong again, Howard.
What I find somewhat amusing is that, towards the end of the linked article, Howard says that his just plain wrong remarks "were taken out of context." Taken out of context?
Just plain wrong again, Howard.
Giving tree demonized
As reported here, an elementary school principal has knuckled under to some PC minded parent who objected to a Christmas Giving Tree, because it has "religious overtones". The Giving Tree has now gone away, replaced by a "Giving Counter". Giving Counter? Oh, please.
Okay, first off, show me in the Bible where Christmas trees are mentioned. Anyone able to quote me chapter and verse? I didn't think so. In reality, Christmas trees originated in paganism, not Christianity, but to get the pagans to convert to Christianity, early Church officials "absorbed" the symbol, and merged the celebration of Christs birth, into the pagans winter solstice celebration. Kind of an early form of PCism.
I'm not the only one up in arms about this, either. Although I don't often agree with uber-liberal Ken Schramm, in this particular case, I agree with him 100%. (See, Ken? You can find common ground with a member of the VRWC, after all.)
Okay, first off, show me in the Bible where Christmas trees are mentioned. Anyone able to quote me chapter and verse? I didn't think so. In reality, Christmas trees originated in paganism, not Christianity, but to get the pagans to convert to Christianity, early Church officials "absorbed" the symbol, and merged the celebration of Christs birth, into the pagans winter solstice celebration. Kind of an early form of PCism.
I'm not the only one up in arms about this, either. Although I don't often agree with uber-liberal Ken Schramm, in this particular case, I agree with him 100%. (See, Ken? You can find common ground with a member of the VRWC, after all.)
The strongest economy you've never heard of.
Pejman Yousefzadeh, over at TechCentralStation, writes in this excellent piece about the US economy, saying in effect, that it's the strongest economy you've never heard of.
I'm no economist by anyone's wildest imaginings (I rely on Quicken to keep my checking account balanced), but even so, I knew, deep down, that our economy is strong, and getting stronger.Three areas hit extremely hard by the bursting of the dot.com bubble were San Jose, CA., Portland, OR., and Seattle, WA. I can't speak for conditions in San Jose or Portland, but I will tell you this. Washington State's economy, and quite noticably here in Seattle, is rebounding quite nicely (in spite of the anti-business tax laws here), fueled in part by the housing industry, and renewed sales of Boeing aircraft. Now, I said all that to say this. I didn't need an article to tell me the economy is strong - I could just tell by how people around here are acting - but I certainly do appreciate the article, since it just affirms what I've been sensing for some time now.
Hat tip: Hollie_is_Right, via Banner
I'm no economist by anyone's wildest imaginings (I rely on Quicken to keep my checking account balanced), but even so, I knew, deep down, that our economy is strong, and getting stronger.Three areas hit extremely hard by the bursting of the dot.com bubble were San Jose, CA., Portland, OR., and Seattle, WA. I can't speak for conditions in San Jose or Portland, but I will tell you this. Washington State's economy, and quite noticably here in Seattle, is rebounding quite nicely (in spite of the anti-business tax laws here), fueled in part by the housing industry, and renewed sales of Boeing aircraft. Now, I said all that to say this. I didn't need an article to tell me the economy is strong - I could just tell by how people around here are acting - but I certainly do appreciate the article, since it just affirms what I've been sensing for some time now.
Hat tip: Hollie_is_Right, via Banner
Former Greenpeace co-founder praises US for rejecting Kyoto Protocol
As reported here, Patrick Moore, who helped found Greenpeace and then later, Greenpeace International, but left when he felt the group had become too radical, praised the US for rejecting the Kyoto Protocol. The Kyoto Protocol is an international treaty that seeks to reduce so-called greenhouse gas emmisions to 5.2% below 1990 levels by the year 2012.
Mr. Moore, who is attending the UN conference on climate change being held in Montreal, noted that Canada now emits more so-called greenhouse gases than the US does (according to the UN, up 24% since 2004), which means they aren't doing very well at meeting the Protocol. Other industrialized nations struggling to meet the Protocol are Japan, and 11 of 15 European Union member states. Prime Minister Tony Blair of the UK recently stated that it's highly unlikely that Britain will ever meet the Protocol.
Some in attendance at the conference say the Protocol is dead, while others dispute that notion.
What's obvious here, is this. The Protocols, based on alarmist, junk-science, established criteria that was immediately impossible to meet, if you wanted to sustain economic growth and boost employment. The technology does not yet exist to accomplish the dubious goals set out by the Kyoto Protocol!
Does this mean I'm all for unregulated expansion of industry, regardless of the damage to the environment? Of course not! I like clean air and water just as much as the next person does, and I try to do my part to keep my city clean by disposing of things properly, and trying to keep my water use to the necessities. Heck, I even use mass transit to commute to work!
But what we do not need, is a set of criteria based on pseudo-science, to tell us how to care for the environment! Could we do better at what we're doing? Certainly. Could we do more? Possibly, but we need to find a balance between protecting the environment and protecting economic growth. Being unemployed, while prices of goods and services continue to rise, is not my idea of a good time.
Mr. Moore, who is attending the UN conference on climate change being held in Montreal, noted that Canada now emits more so-called greenhouse gases than the US does (according to the UN, up 24% since 2004), which means they aren't doing very well at meeting the Protocol. Other industrialized nations struggling to meet the Protocol are Japan, and 11 of 15 European Union member states. Prime Minister Tony Blair of the UK recently stated that it's highly unlikely that Britain will ever meet the Protocol.
Some in attendance at the conference say the Protocol is dead, while others dispute that notion.
What's obvious here, is this. The Protocols, based on alarmist, junk-science, established criteria that was immediately impossible to meet, if you wanted to sustain economic growth and boost employment. The technology does not yet exist to accomplish the dubious goals set out by the Kyoto Protocol!
Does this mean I'm all for unregulated expansion of industry, regardless of the damage to the environment? Of course not! I like clean air and water just as much as the next person does, and I try to do my part to keep my city clean by disposing of things properly, and trying to keep my water use to the necessities. Heck, I even use mass transit to commute to work!
But what we do not need, is a set of criteria based on pseudo-science, to tell us how to care for the environment! Could we do better at what we're doing? Certainly. Could we do more? Possibly, but we need to find a balance between protecting the environment and protecting economic growth. Being unemployed, while prices of goods and services continue to rise, is not my idea of a good time.
A personal note
I just though I'd let everyone know that I'm a little "under the weather" here right now, hence the lack of posts on what is my usual day for posting (Sundays, usually).
But, I'm feeling a little bit better than I have over the past several days (little being the operative word here), so in between the odd coughing and sneezing fits, I'll see what I can post for you today.
Man I hate getting a cold/the flu ...
But, I'm feeling a little bit better than I have over the past several days (little being the operative word here), so in between the odd coughing and sneezing fits, I'll see what I can post for you today.
Man I hate getting a cold/the flu ...
Sunday, December 04, 2005
Well said, Senator!
Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-Conn) recently wrote a piece for OpionionJournal, in which he stated that an early withdrawal from Iraq would be disastrous for both Iraq and the US, and laid out some suggestions for how we could be doing things better.
Two things about this.
One, I'll be honest and say that I was against Sen. Lieberman and his running mate, in their bid for national office, mainly because that he is a Democrat and I'm not. However, Sen. Lieberman embodies the meaning of the term 'loyal opposition', in that, his focus in national affairs is the health and well being of the Republic, and as Patrick Devenny says in this piece, " ...always putting national security above fleeting partisan advantage."
Two, Sen. Lieberman's hopes for the White House are surely doomed (if indeed he still harbored any), if the invective he is receiving from the fringe elements of his party are any indication. Sen. Lieberman, in my opinion, is to be applauded for what is truly a courageous stand by submitting his piece, as I'm certain he knew in advance how others in his party would view his position. Sen. Lieberman, also in my opinion, is cast from the same molds as the likes of the late Sen. Henry M. "Scoop" Jackson, and former Sen. Zell Miller. It really is too bad that there aren't more like him - on both sides of the political aisle!
Two things about this.
One, I'll be honest and say that I was against Sen. Lieberman and his running mate, in their bid for national office, mainly because that he is a Democrat and I'm not. However, Sen. Lieberman embodies the meaning of the term 'loyal opposition', in that, his focus in national affairs is the health and well being of the Republic, and as Patrick Devenny says in this piece, " ...always putting national security above fleeting partisan advantage."
Two, Sen. Lieberman's hopes for the White House are surely doomed (if indeed he still harbored any), if the invective he is receiving from the fringe elements of his party are any indication. Sen. Lieberman, in my opinion, is to be applauded for what is truly a courageous stand by submitting his piece, as I'm certain he knew in advance how others in his party would view his position. Sen. Lieberman, also in my opinion, is cast from the same molds as the likes of the late Sen. Henry M. "Scoop" Jackson, and former Sen. Zell Miller. It really is too bad that there aren't more like him - on both sides of the political aisle!
A moral war
Victor Davis Hanson says that the moral onus in the war in Iraq should be placed where it belongs - in the laps of the critics and naysayers.
Key al-Qaida "Associate" Killed in Pakistan
As reported here, a key al-Qaida "associate" (their word, not mine) was killed by Pakistani forces, with help from the US, in an area of Pakistan that is reportedly used as a hide out by members of the terrorist group, as well as Taliban fugitives. There are somewhat conflicting reports on just what happened, but the key thing here is that, through cooperation, Pakistan and the US struck a major blow to the planning hierarchy of al-Qaida, as the man killed - Hamza Rabia - was the number 5 man in the terrorist organization, primarily responsible for planning international acts of terror.
One more down, and the hunt for the rest continues.
One more down, and the hunt for the rest continues.
Plot to attack Saddam trial thwarted
As reported here, Iraqi security forces uncovered a plot by the Sunni "1920 Revolution Brigades" to attack the trial of Saddam with rockets, when it resumes on Monday. There is no mention whether anyone was arrested, but the assumption here is that there were.
One question in my mind, however is this - presumably, the rockets that were going to be used are unguided rockets (unguided beyond the initial aiming, that is), so what would have happened if the rockets had taken out Saddam, along with the others that were obvious targets? Presumably, this attack was designed to kill as many of the prosecutorial side as possible, but with the use of unguided munitions, there is always "collateral damage" - in essence, other people die, too - which in this case would have been nearly everyone else in attendance, including Saddam, which makes no sense whatsoever in my mind.
But then again, not much of what the terrorists are doing in Iraq truly makes any real sense, now does it?
One question in my mind, however is this - presumably, the rockets that were going to be used are unguided rockets (unguided beyond the initial aiming, that is), so what would have happened if the rockets had taken out Saddam, along with the others that were obvious targets? Presumably, this attack was designed to kill as many of the prosecutorial side as possible, but with the use of unguided munitions, there is always "collateral damage" - in essence, other people die, too - which in this case would have been nearly everyone else in attendance, including Saddam, which makes no sense whatsoever in my mind.
But then again, not much of what the terrorists are doing in Iraq truly makes any real sense, now does it?
Torture vs. Interrogation
As reported here, after tens years of not being allowed to investigate allegations of torture in China, Manfred Nowak, UN Torture Investigator was allowed to meet with 30 detainees held in China, Tibet and the Muslim-majority region of Xinjiang. He also met with families of those held, and will be issuing a report on his findings in 2006. Many of those he interviewed asked him not to reveal their names for fear of reprisals against their families by the Chinese government. China instituted a ban on torture that leaves permanent scars in 1996, and Mr. Nowak says that incidents of torture are declining, but haven't stopped yet.
Now what China still does to it's own people, and what has been alleged that US has done to terrorist detainees in Iraq and Gitmo are two totally different things. China persists in acts of actual torture, perpetrating physical abuse resulting in actual harm to those who have been detained, and has been doing so for centuries. What has been done to the terrorist detainees that even remotely resembles what the Chinese do? Nothing. Yet, our forces are vilified by the loony Left - most notably Sen. Kennedy, who in my opinion is guilty of manslaughter, but has never been brought up on charges (remember Mary Jo?) - for engaging in proper interrogation techniques, which have nevertheless been characterized as torture.
Were there abuses at Abu Ghraib? Yes. Were those responsible held accountable? Most of them. Was what they did out and out torture? No. Humiliating, yes. But torture? Absolutely not. While China has engaged in outright torture of it's own people, you hear little to nothing about it, and yet the MSM and the loony Left goes absolutely ape over what happened at Abu Ghraib, citing the protections of the Geneva Convention - which in the case of the detainees in Iraq and Gitmo do not apply, which they don't seem to understand!
Where is the moral outrage over the outright, verifiable, torture being conducted in China from the MSM and the loony Left? Nowhere to be found. Want to know why? Because President George W. Bush isn't Chinese.
Now what China still does to it's own people, and what has been alleged that US has done to terrorist detainees in Iraq and Gitmo are two totally different things. China persists in acts of actual torture, perpetrating physical abuse resulting in actual harm to those who have been detained, and has been doing so for centuries. What has been done to the terrorist detainees that even remotely resembles what the Chinese do? Nothing. Yet, our forces are vilified by the loony Left - most notably Sen. Kennedy, who in my opinion is guilty of manslaughter, but has never been brought up on charges (remember Mary Jo?) - for engaging in proper interrogation techniques, which have nevertheless been characterized as torture.
Were there abuses at Abu Ghraib? Yes. Were those responsible held accountable? Most of them. Was what they did out and out torture? No. Humiliating, yes. But torture? Absolutely not. While China has engaged in outright torture of it's own people, you hear little to nothing about it, and yet the MSM and the loony Left goes absolutely ape over what happened at Abu Ghraib, citing the protections of the Geneva Convention - which in the case of the detainees in Iraq and Gitmo do not apply, which they don't seem to understand!
Where is the moral outrage over the outright, verifiable, torture being conducted in China from the MSM and the loony Left? Nowhere to be found. Want to know why? Because President George W. Bush isn't Chinese.
County Executive Order seems to bar hire by Sims
As reported here, an Executive Order, signed by former KC Executive Gary Locke bars hires of former county elected officials for two years after they leave office, something "King" Sims apparently "wasn't aware of". Now that he is, does this mean that the two positions created for outgoing council members Carolyn Edmonds (D) and Steven Hammond (R) will now not be created, or will they be opened to competition? Time will tell as to the answer to that.
You would think that, as one of the first orders of business upon assuming an executive position, that a review would be done to find out what your predecessors had ordered, so as to avoid any "Oops!" situations such as this. "King" Sims has been in office long enough now that you would think that he would have had something like this done, but no.
I thought you were supposed to be a smart guy, Ron. Guess that really isn't the case, though, huh?
You would think that, as one of the first orders of business upon assuming an executive position, that a review would be done to find out what your predecessors had ordered, so as to avoid any "Oops!" situations such as this. "King" Sims has been in office long enough now that you would think that he would have had something like this done, but no.
I thought you were supposed to be a smart guy, Ron. Guess that really isn't the case, though, huh?
Sunday, November 27, 2005
Clifford D. May sends a memo to Rep. Murtha
This country was founded on, among many other things, the principal of free speech. It's guaranteed in the Constitution, and as I write this, I am exercising my right to freely express myself. I served in the US Navy during part of the Cold War, helping to maintain that right for all Americans.
The right to express one's views freely is not partisan. It matters not one whit which political ideology you adhere to, or even if you don't adhere to any political ideology - you are guaranteed the right to freely express your views, whatever those views may be!
Recently, Rep. Murtha, a veteran of the Vietnam War, expressed his views on the current Iraq War, stating that it was "unwinnable", and that we need to bring the troops home now. Although I do not agree with his views at all, he still has the right to express those views. Clifford D. Mays also disagrees with those views, and asks some pointed questions of the Honorable Mr. Murtha.
Questions that I, as a fellow veteran, would really like to see addressed by you, Rep. Murtha.
The right to express one's views freely is not partisan. It matters not one whit which political ideology you adhere to, or even if you don't adhere to any political ideology - you are guaranteed the right to freely express your views, whatever those views may be!
Recently, Rep. Murtha, a veteran of the Vietnam War, expressed his views on the current Iraq War, stating that it was "unwinnable", and that we need to bring the troops home now. Although I do not agree with his views at all, he still has the right to express those views. Clifford D. Mays also disagrees with those views, and asks some pointed questions of the Honorable Mr. Murtha.
Questions that I, as a fellow veteran, would really like to see addressed by you, Rep. Murtha.
The Internet to remain in US control - for now
As reported here, the recently completed UN summit in Tunisia left control of the Internet in the hands of the US and ICANN, the California based not-for-profit organization. But, the UN isn't finished with it's desire to wrest control of the Internet from the US, as they set up the Internet Governance Forum to explore ways to accomplish that goal.
Amazingly enough, US legislators understand the importance of maintaining US control over the Internet, as the House unanimously passed a resolution regarding this issue, with the Senate also having a resolution before it, sponsored by Sen. Ron Coleman (R-Minn).
I posted about this issue earlier here, and here.
Amazingly enough, US legislators understand the importance of maintaining US control over the Internet, as the House unanimously passed a resolution regarding this issue, with the Senate also having a resolution before it, sponsored by Sen. Ron Coleman (R-Minn).
I posted about this issue earlier here, and here.
A new tax on hybrid autos coming?
As reported here, a new transportation study commissioned by the US Chamber of Commerce suggests that taxing hybrid and other fuel efficient autos may be on the horizon, to make up for a projected shortfall in the national transportation budget.
Okay, let me get this straight. Everyone wants our dependency on foreign oil dealt with, and the auto makers have created various types of new fuel efficient vehicles, including the hybrids, as a short term answer to that problem, with the government encouraging people to buy these new vehicles to use less fuel, right? Well, people are buying these vehicles, and in high enough volumes that some auto makers are having problems keeping up with the demand. So now, with more of these fuel efficient vehicles on the road using less gas, that means that the feds are getting less money from the federal gas tax, right? What to do, what to do? Oh, I know! Create a new tax on the hybrid, and other fuel efficient cars! That's the ticket! Yeah!
Yes, impose a new tax on those vehicles. Go ahead. See what happens. Remember the luxury tax on new boats, and the result of that tax? Many boat manufacturers went out of business, resulting in many, many lost jobs. Sales volumes of the fuel efficient vehicles will go down as well, as people won't buy them to avoid having to pay the new tax on them, and will instead buy less fuel efficient vehicles that don't have this new tax, thereby maintaining the status quo on our dependency on foreign oil.
Yep. Sounds like a plan to me.
Okay, let me get this straight. Everyone wants our dependency on foreign oil dealt with, and the auto makers have created various types of new fuel efficient vehicles, including the hybrids, as a short term answer to that problem, with the government encouraging people to buy these new vehicles to use less fuel, right? Well, people are buying these vehicles, and in high enough volumes that some auto makers are having problems keeping up with the demand. So now, with more of these fuel efficient vehicles on the road using less gas, that means that the feds are getting less money from the federal gas tax, right? What to do, what to do? Oh, I know! Create a new tax on the hybrid, and other fuel efficient cars! That's the ticket! Yeah!
Yes, impose a new tax on those vehicles. Go ahead. See what happens. Remember the luxury tax on new boats, and the result of that tax? Many boat manufacturers went out of business, resulting in many, many lost jobs. Sales volumes of the fuel efficient vehicles will go down as well, as people won't buy them to avoid having to pay the new tax on them, and will instead buy less fuel efficient vehicles that don't have this new tax, thereby maintaining the status quo on our dependency on foreign oil.
Yep. Sounds like a plan to me.
New conservative PAC formed
As reported here (in almost a panic, I might add), a new conservative PAC - the Constitutional Law PAC - has been formed to back conservative judicial candidates for both the State Supreme Court, and the State Appeals Court. This of course, has the activist libs in a near panic, with predictions of doom and gloom, as they fear that "partisanship" will over rule the so-called "independence" of the courts.
I welcome the new PAC. The State Supreme Court has been in the hands of activist judges who have been legislating from the bench for far too long, and changes are warranted there. The new PAC aims to place people on the bench who are dedicated to adjudicating cases according to existing laws and the State Constitution, rather than creating new laws out of whole cloth, as has been the norm.
I welcome the new PAC. The State Supreme Court has been in the hands of activist judges who have been legislating from the bench for far too long, and changes are warranted there. The new PAC aims to place people on the bench who are dedicated to adjudicating cases according to existing laws and the State Constitution, rather than creating new laws out of whole cloth, as has been the norm.
Jordanian King urges war on militancy
As reported here, King Abdullah II sent a letter to newly appointed Prime Minister Marouf al-Bakhit, urging war on militants in Jordan in the wake of the recent triple bombings carried out by Zarqawi's Al-Qaida in Iraq.
I'll be watching developments in Jordan closely, to see if indeed the triple bombings there prove to be a tipping point in the war on terrorism in the Middle East.
I'll be watching developments in Jordan closely, to see if indeed the triple bombings there prove to be a tipping point in the war on terrorism in the Middle East.
Lose a KC Council seat, get a job
As reported here, buried in the 2006 King County budget, are not just one, but two newly created jobs for two Council members who lost their seats in the September primary - Carolyn Edmonds (D), who lost to Bob Ferguson (D), and (surprise!), Steve Hammond (R), who lost to Reagan Dunn (R). Both jobs would pay in excess of $80,000.00 per year, and the job descriptions are just a little vague.
Hmmm. I'm not sure what to make of this, exactly, but I guess if you want a high paying job (with little to do) with King County, run for the Council and lose.
Hmmm. I'm not sure what to make of this, exactly, but I guess if you want a high paying job (with little to do) with King County, run for the Council and lose.
Friday, November 25, 2005
Truth AND Consequences
A while ago I talked a little about a TV program called Truth OR Consequences. (The MC of that show just recently died at the age of 92.) I have been thinking along those lines again after being in the presence of some young people who rant about the truthfulness of the President and his administration. I have to admit that trying to show the facts of things and supporting various ideas and concepts with information seem to be ignored with the basic sentiment that "that doesn't feel right so I don't believe it." Actions have consequences. Try dropping a stone into a quiet pond without producing some sort of ripples. (Shucks, try picking up a rotten piece of formerly edible vegetable material without getting the yuck squished out on you.) Words and ideas have consequences as well. One of the most effective ways to lie is to tell only the part of the truth that you want to tell without adding the rest. I was amazed at how effective this type of approach seemed to be for the re-election of Ron I-never-met-a-tax-increase-I-didn't-like Sims. One of his ads spoke of how the Republican candidate was going to take money away from Metro as if that were a horrendous idea. Another thought in that same ad spoke of how more roads would be put in by his opponent with a freeway going into a very scenic area that he was standing in. The consequences of continuing to divert money from roads and highways to Metro are evident in the continually lengthened commute times around the Puget Sound area. One of the ideas that is basically behind less roads is that more people will ride the bus and the light rail. Could it be that Ron and his cronies haven't seen the reality of how few commuters use the bus system by choice? The consequences of trying to force people into certain types of transportation choices had made the commute in Seattle a stopping factor in having the Super Bowl here. Ten years ago the main problem was insufficient hotel rooms and a somewhat less than ideal stadium. We have the hotel space now and a beautiful stadium but the transportation problem has gotten worse without the addition of more roads to carry the commuters. The truth is, we need more roads NOT more busses. I still see the double busses carrying less than half the number of passengers that they could at all hours of the day. How many other consequences will become evident in the years to come with the refusal to put money into roads and instead putting money into mass transit schemes that will require ever increasing subsidies to maintain the minimal transport capabilities?
Wednesday, November 23, 2005
The shenanigans of the Left continue
No links in this post, folks. You want proof of what I'm saying, go look it up on Google or Yahoo.
As the post title says, the shenanigans of the Left continue. First came the attacks on the intelligence of President Bush, with liberals claiming, in effect, that he was as dumb as a stump. Then they changed tactics saying he was more devious than even Machiavelli, then they switched back to saying he was as dumb as a stump. Can't have it both ways.
Then the 2000 election was "stolen" somehow, because people were disenfranchised somehow, which was somehow Bush's fault. The actual fact of the matter there, was incompetence on the part of the elections departments in the Florida counties on providing adequate instructions on how to properly fill out a ballot (the majority of the problems which happened occured in Democrat controlled precincts, somehow), as well as on the part of the voters themselves for not being able to figure out how to properly punch a hole in a piece of paper! How much intelligence does that take?
Then it was the seven minute delay on 9/11, which was explained in a perfectly logical manner. Did the Left accept the explanation? Of course not! Why not? Because it didn't fit in their peculiar little ideogram of the evil Bush.
It's only been getting worse, lately. Remember RatherGate? "Fake, but accurate" documents? Now it's "LeakGate", the case where the Dems are frothing at the mouth to have someone charged with a crime for the "outing" of Valerie Plame - who outed herself years before all this stuff with Robert Novak started.
Recently we got to see an obviously digitally enhanced photograph of a note that President Bush was writing, which purportedly was to Dr. Rice, asking about a bathroom break. When that attempt at embarrassing the President fell flat, yet another digitally enhanced picture was released, this time of Dr. Rice, where the shape of her eyes were altered to make her look almost demonic.
And now, the big black "X" superimposed over the face of Vice President Cheney by a supposed "technological error" at CNN during a recent speech. What's next? A revealing picture of the First Lady, Laura Bush in a compromising position, perhaps? (Digitally enhanced, of course, to show her good side.)
The left is determined to play shenanigans, and quite frankly it has become beyond tiresome. Some people need to grow up and become functional adults, and quit acting like spoiled children who are having a temper tantrum when they don't get their way.
I pose a challenge to anyone - anyone! - from the Left who can cite shenanigans such as these perpetrated by a Republican against a sitting Democrat President. I highly doubt that there will be even one instance that anyone can provide. You see, I've been around for awhile, and things like these despicable acts have a tendency to stick in my memory, and I certainly can't recall anything as these despicable acts being done by any Republicans since Watergate!
These despicable shenanigans being perpetrated by the Left against a sitting President must stop!
Aren't there any responsible adults left out there?
As the post title says, the shenanigans of the Left continue. First came the attacks on the intelligence of President Bush, with liberals claiming, in effect, that he was as dumb as a stump. Then they changed tactics saying he was more devious than even Machiavelli, then they switched back to saying he was as dumb as a stump. Can't have it both ways.
Then the 2000 election was "stolen" somehow, because people were disenfranchised somehow, which was somehow Bush's fault. The actual fact of the matter there, was incompetence on the part of the elections departments in the Florida counties on providing adequate instructions on how to properly fill out a ballot (the majority of the problems which happened occured in Democrat controlled precincts, somehow), as well as on the part of the voters themselves for not being able to figure out how to properly punch a hole in a piece of paper! How much intelligence does that take?
Then it was the seven minute delay on 9/11, which was explained in a perfectly logical manner. Did the Left accept the explanation? Of course not! Why not? Because it didn't fit in their peculiar little ideogram of the evil Bush.
It's only been getting worse, lately. Remember RatherGate? "Fake, but accurate" documents? Now it's "LeakGate", the case where the Dems are frothing at the mouth to have someone charged with a crime for the "outing" of Valerie Plame - who outed herself years before all this stuff with Robert Novak started.
Recently we got to see an obviously digitally enhanced photograph of a note that President Bush was writing, which purportedly was to Dr. Rice, asking about a bathroom break. When that attempt at embarrassing the President fell flat, yet another digitally enhanced picture was released, this time of Dr. Rice, where the shape of her eyes were altered to make her look almost demonic.
And now, the big black "X" superimposed over the face of Vice President Cheney by a supposed "technological error" at CNN during a recent speech. What's next? A revealing picture of the First Lady, Laura Bush in a compromising position, perhaps? (Digitally enhanced, of course, to show her good side.)
The left is determined to play shenanigans, and quite frankly it has become beyond tiresome. Some people need to grow up and become functional adults, and quit acting like spoiled children who are having a temper tantrum when they don't get their way.
I pose a challenge to anyone - anyone! - from the Left who can cite shenanigans such as these perpetrated by a Republican against a sitting Democrat President. I highly doubt that there will be even one instance that anyone can provide. You see, I've been around for awhile, and things like these despicable acts have a tendency to stick in my memory, and I certainly can't recall anything as these despicable acts being done by any Republicans since Watergate!
These despicable shenanigans being perpetrated by the Left against a sitting President must stop!
Aren't there any responsible adults left out there?
Sunday, November 20, 2005
Islam: A definition
A good friend of mine (who shall remain anonymous at his request), offers up this excellent definition of what Islam really is.
Def: Islam. Grievance developed into hatred enacted as genocidal intolerance.
It all began with grievance over Isaac and Ishmael. The Jews maintain that Abraham's spiritual inheritor was Isaac, the Arabs maintain it was Ishmael. That this is not so, is apparent from what the two sides have developed as an idea of what is spiritual. Who would buy Islam as a religion? Few, except those led by force; whereas the Jews won't give it away.
This slumbering grievance was an accident waiting to happen, and the accident was Mohammed, whose demonic ravings found favour with few, until military force was brought to play by those few. Fertile soil in the Arab consciousness was then found, because it gave them an opportunity to develop a superiority complex in respect of the Isaac/Ishmael issue. However its roots in force, and adoption by force, are the very reason that it neither gains acceptance voluntarily, in the main, and that it is administered by force.
Islam and totalitarianism have become indivisible because over 1500 years they have had no alternative models. Christianity has been taken over by force based models in the past, and remains potentially subject to them in part, but when that happens it is a corruption of religion by the nature of a forceful society. Compare the effect of Christianity on Rome; moderating a violent society into something entirely different. However when we look at the effect of Rome (worldly power) on Christianity, we see that it corrupts and twists it. Christianity does not take secular power without ceasing to be Christianity. Islam does not reject secular power without ceasing to be Islam.
Thus Islam has been continued as hatred of the Jews - and then, because they had a conflict of interest with Christians over Jerusalem, with Christians also - for over a thousand years. Today it is genocidal hatred passed off with a series of 'reasons' which are nothing other than grievances, and those grievances ultimately have no foundation. They are truly jealousy, backed up by lies, formulated into a system of self-justification. There is nothing in Islam of value, rather the glorification of these sins as a modus operandi.
What better example than: two young vandals get killed by entering an electrical sub station. The police have not been around for half an hour. The police are then 'blamed' for chasing them into the sub-station when they were not even there. That they could ever be blamed, is because the Moslem thinks himself above the constraints of other societies, since they deem that the witness of others is of less value in court than their own, and every week in mosques they proclaim the rest of the world to be inferior. Accordingly any attempt to apply the same standard of justice to Moslems as anyone else is met with rage and intolerance; it is 'wrong' because they say it is wrong, and they say it is wrong, because they do not have any value for others. This is the behaviour of those with an unfounded grievance developed into a superiority complex - see above.
They really have no hope of change at all but to utterly believe the nonsense and hatred they are fed on until they try to act it out, and then find themselves crushingly defeated; until their myth of superiority is exposed as so horribly wrong that no one could support it. For this to occur, there must be conflict. That is what is happening today; the inevitable confrontation of delusion with reality, brought on by Moslems themselves, resulting in more and more extreme acts, taking them further and further away from the right to be considered a philosophy or a religion, every day; they are sounding their own death knell. But who confronts reality with delusion, will always do so.
This does not mean that everyone who identifies themselves as a Moslem is utterly evil. Rather, that the influence of Islam on the individual is evil where it diverts from comparable systems of thought and religion. It retains points of contact with Judaism and Christianity. It is where it diverges that the trouble arises. It is a series of self-serving lies grafted onto existing truth. Some buy the lies, some buy the truth; but they are denied its fullness. Others remain inside the appearance of that faith, because they know what will be done to them if they leave; the Koran requires death. But once the illusion is shattered by force, Islam, and not the individual Moslem, will die.
Any questions?
Def: Islam. Grievance developed into hatred enacted as genocidal intolerance.
It all began with grievance over Isaac and Ishmael. The Jews maintain that Abraham's spiritual inheritor was Isaac, the Arabs maintain it was Ishmael. That this is not so, is apparent from what the two sides have developed as an idea of what is spiritual. Who would buy Islam as a religion? Few, except those led by force; whereas the Jews won't give it away.
This slumbering grievance was an accident waiting to happen, and the accident was Mohammed, whose demonic ravings found favour with few, until military force was brought to play by those few. Fertile soil in the Arab consciousness was then found, because it gave them an opportunity to develop a superiority complex in respect of the Isaac/Ishmael issue. However its roots in force, and adoption by force, are the very reason that it neither gains acceptance voluntarily, in the main, and that it is administered by force.
Islam and totalitarianism have become indivisible because over 1500 years they have had no alternative models. Christianity has been taken over by force based models in the past, and remains potentially subject to them in part, but when that happens it is a corruption of religion by the nature of a forceful society. Compare the effect of Christianity on Rome; moderating a violent society into something entirely different. However when we look at the effect of Rome (worldly power) on Christianity, we see that it corrupts and twists it. Christianity does not take secular power without ceasing to be Christianity. Islam does not reject secular power without ceasing to be Islam.
Thus Islam has been continued as hatred of the Jews - and then, because they had a conflict of interest with Christians over Jerusalem, with Christians also - for over a thousand years. Today it is genocidal hatred passed off with a series of 'reasons' which are nothing other than grievances, and those grievances ultimately have no foundation. They are truly jealousy, backed up by lies, formulated into a system of self-justification. There is nothing in Islam of value, rather the glorification of these sins as a modus operandi.
What better example than: two young vandals get killed by entering an electrical sub station. The police have not been around for half an hour. The police are then 'blamed' for chasing them into the sub-station when they were not even there. That they could ever be blamed, is because the Moslem thinks himself above the constraints of other societies, since they deem that the witness of others is of less value in court than their own, and every week in mosques they proclaim the rest of the world to be inferior. Accordingly any attempt to apply the same standard of justice to Moslems as anyone else is met with rage and intolerance; it is 'wrong' because they say it is wrong, and they say it is wrong, because they do not have any value for others. This is the behaviour of those with an unfounded grievance developed into a superiority complex - see above.
They really have no hope of change at all but to utterly believe the nonsense and hatred they are fed on until they try to act it out, and then find themselves crushingly defeated; until their myth of superiority is exposed as so horribly wrong that no one could support it. For this to occur, there must be conflict. That is what is happening today; the inevitable confrontation of delusion with reality, brought on by Moslems themselves, resulting in more and more extreme acts, taking them further and further away from the right to be considered a philosophy or a religion, every day; they are sounding their own death knell. But who confronts reality with delusion, will always do so.
This does not mean that everyone who identifies themselves as a Moslem is utterly evil. Rather, that the influence of Islam on the individual is evil where it diverts from comparable systems of thought and religion. It retains points of contact with Judaism and Christianity. It is where it diverges that the trouble arises. It is a series of self-serving lies grafted onto existing truth. Some buy the lies, some buy the truth; but they are denied its fullness. Others remain inside the appearance of that faith, because they know what will be done to them if they leave; the Koran requires death. But once the illusion is shattered by force, Islam, and not the individual Moslem, will die.
Any questions?
Will Dems filibuster Alito?
As reported here, Sen. Biden is questioning Alito's opinion on the Warren Courts decision on reapportionment, that he (Alito) had over twenty years ago, saying that Alito has some explaining to do regarding that opinion.
That's fine. Question him all you want on that, Sen. Biden. That's your job as a Senator. But, let me ask you some questions, Senator, as I feel that's my job as a tax paying citizen of this country, who also just hapens to be a blogger.
Is there a difference, in your mind, between an opinion and a conviction?
Is it even remotely possible, Sir, that Judge Alito may have changed his opinion on reapportionment during the ensuing two decades?
Have you ever changed an opinion on something that you felt strongly about, as you (hopefully) gained some wisdom with age?
I won't hold my breath waiting for a reply, as I highly doubt Senator Biden will ever read this, but maybe I can provide an answer or two to the questions I've asked.
Is it even remotely possible that someone may have changed his opinion on reapportionment during the ensuing two decades?
The answer to that is, of course it's possible. We won't know whether Judge Alito actually has changed his opinion on this until January, however.
Have you, Senator, ever changed an opinion on something that you felt strongly about, as you (hopefully) gained some wisdom with age?
The answer to that is, yes, you probably have, although I can't say for certain (but I'd be willing to bet on it). If that is the case, that you have changed your opinion on something, wouldn't it be fair to say that Judge Alito may have changed his opinion as well?
That's fine. Question him all you want on that, Sen. Biden. That's your job as a Senator. But, let me ask you some questions, Senator, as I feel that's my job as a tax paying citizen of this country, who also just hapens to be a blogger.
Is there a difference, in your mind, between an opinion and a conviction?
Is it even remotely possible, Sir, that Judge Alito may have changed his opinion on reapportionment during the ensuing two decades?
Have you ever changed an opinion on something that you felt strongly about, as you (hopefully) gained some wisdom with age?
I won't hold my breath waiting for a reply, as I highly doubt Senator Biden will ever read this, but maybe I can provide an answer or two to the questions I've asked.
Is it even remotely possible that someone may have changed his opinion on reapportionment during the ensuing two decades?
The answer to that is, of course it's possible. We won't know whether Judge Alito actually has changed his opinion on this until January, however.
Have you, Senator, ever changed an opinion on something that you felt strongly about, as you (hopefully) gained some wisdom with age?
The answer to that is, yes, you probably have, although I can't say for certain (but I'd be willing to bet on it). If that is the case, that you have changed your opinion on something, wouldn't it be fair to say that Judge Alito may have changed his opinion as well?
Death threat issued against King of Jordan
As reported here, Zarqawi has issued a death threat against King Abdullah II of Jordan, in an attempt to regain support among the people of Jordan.
Although the message has yet to be verified as actually coming from Zarqawi, the rhetoric is typical of the terrorist, including getting facts of the bombings wrong. At the same time that the message was released, hundreds of thousands of Jordanians were marching in Amman, protesting Zarqawi's actions, and calling him a terrorist and a coward.
As I posted here, I really do think that the attacks are a tipping point - at least in Jordan - with the protests by the Jordanians against Zarqawi bolstering that belief. Only time - and subsequent actions by the terrorists - will tell whether this will become a tipping point in other areas in the region as well.
Although the message has yet to be verified as actually coming from Zarqawi, the rhetoric is typical of the terrorist, including getting facts of the bombings wrong. At the same time that the message was released, hundreds of thousands of Jordanians were marching in Amman, protesting Zarqawi's actions, and calling him a terrorist and a coward.
As I posted here, I really do think that the attacks are a tipping point - at least in Jordan - with the protests by the Jordanians against Zarqawi bolstering that belief. Only time - and subsequent actions by the terrorists - will tell whether this will become a tipping point in other areas in the region as well.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)