As reported here, "The chief executive of a high-tech company in Kentucky pleaded guilty Wednesday to paying more than $400,000 in bribes to the family of Rep. William J. Jefferson (D-La.), a prominent Africa trade expert in the House who remains under investigation for allegedly taking the payoffs.", and if this scheme hadn't been discovered, that sum could have been much, much higher.
Although Rep. Jefferson has not been indicted yet, and we presume someone is innocent until proven guilty in this country, this does not look good for Rep. Jefferson, at all as, "Federal law enforcement officials said Jefferson could be indicted as early as next month, and that others were likely to be snared in the investigation." A former aide to Rep. Jefferson has already pled guilty in this scheme.
Now, just what was it the Dems were saying about a "culture of corruption"?
Sunday, May 07, 2006
Iranian leader plans to spread wealth
As reported here, the lunatic running Iran may be pushing his country into economic ruin, as he proposes spending billions "to help the poor", as critics of his proposed budget worry that the budget relies too heavily on oil profits.
"Signs that some see as troubling have already emerged. After Ahmadinejad lowered interest rates this month in a bid to decrease inflation, Iranians pulled their money from banks, rushing to buy gold coins. And while he is offering loans to encourage small business ventures in the hope of creating jobs, investor confidence seems to be wobbling, which could lead to a reluctance to invest in local industries.
Last summer, after news that Iran had resumed nuclear work prompted international concern, investors withdrew from the market and stock prices plummeted. They have rebounded only slightly since reaching their lowest levels to date in October, and persistent inflation and unemployment have fanned domestic discontent.
"The government has reached the conclusion that it needs to spend large sums of money immediately to keep its allies and the masses of people happy," Muhammad Sadeq Jannansefat, an economic analyst, wrote in the reformist daily Shargh last month as Parliament battled over the budget. He suggested that Ahmadinejad, who came to power in June on a populist mandate, was using the oil money to placate his supporters.
The government, Jannansefat wrote, "wants to distribute money and create jobs, no matter what the consequences are or what kind of jobs it is creating."
Ismail Jabarzadeh, an opposition member of Parliament, predicted that Ahmadinejad's policies could lead to an inflation rate of 20 percent in a country where inflation stands at about 14 percent, according to estimates by the International Monetary Fund. "But political upheavals, such as the pressures on our nuclear program, can increase the 20 percent," he said in a recent interview.
Ahmadinejad defended his economic performance at a news conference this week, saying that his government had started to distribute "justice shares" of government industries among the poor in four provinces. Years of mismanagement, however, have left most state-run industries in disarray, and the shares were of little value.
The president also said unemployment has fallen in the eight months since he took office, but a report by the International Monetary Fund in March stated that the figure has continued to hover at around 11 percent."
So, the lunatic is doling out funds that his country cannot afford, to placate the masses, and has begun to distribute worthless "justice shares" in government run industries to the poor.
That sure looks like Soviet-style policies to me, and we all know what happened to the Soviet Union, don't we?
All I can say to the lunatic is, keep it up. Your days in power will dwindle, the more you do this this, as the common people of Iran will eventually tire of the high inflation and unemployment rates, and (hopefully) will take matters into their own hands.
"Signs that some see as troubling have already emerged. After Ahmadinejad lowered interest rates this month in a bid to decrease inflation, Iranians pulled their money from banks, rushing to buy gold coins. And while he is offering loans to encourage small business ventures in the hope of creating jobs, investor confidence seems to be wobbling, which could lead to a reluctance to invest in local industries.
Last summer, after news that Iran had resumed nuclear work prompted international concern, investors withdrew from the market and stock prices plummeted. They have rebounded only slightly since reaching their lowest levels to date in October, and persistent inflation and unemployment have fanned domestic discontent.
"The government has reached the conclusion that it needs to spend large sums of money immediately to keep its allies and the masses of people happy," Muhammad Sadeq Jannansefat, an economic analyst, wrote in the reformist daily Shargh last month as Parliament battled over the budget. He suggested that Ahmadinejad, who came to power in June on a populist mandate, was using the oil money to placate his supporters.
The government, Jannansefat wrote, "wants to distribute money and create jobs, no matter what the consequences are or what kind of jobs it is creating."
Ismail Jabarzadeh, an opposition member of Parliament, predicted that Ahmadinejad's policies could lead to an inflation rate of 20 percent in a country where inflation stands at about 14 percent, according to estimates by the International Monetary Fund. "But political upheavals, such as the pressures on our nuclear program, can increase the 20 percent," he said in a recent interview.
Ahmadinejad defended his economic performance at a news conference this week, saying that his government had started to distribute "justice shares" of government industries among the poor in four provinces. Years of mismanagement, however, have left most state-run industries in disarray, and the shares were of little value.
The president also said unemployment has fallen in the eight months since he took office, but a report by the International Monetary Fund in March stated that the figure has continued to hover at around 11 percent."
So, the lunatic is doling out funds that his country cannot afford, to placate the masses, and has begun to distribute worthless "justice shares" in government run industries to the poor.
That sure looks like Soviet-style policies to me, and we all know what happened to the Soviet Union, don't we?
All I can say to the lunatic is, keep it up. Your days in power will dwindle, the more you do this this, as the common people of Iran will eventually tire of the high inflation and unemployment rates, and (hopefully) will take matters into their own hands.
Sunday, April 30, 2006
Negative American views about Islam ‘worrying’
As reported here, "[a]n Assistant Professor of Arab Politics at the Centre for Contemporary Arab Studies in the Edmund A Walsh School of Foreign Service (SFS) at Georgetown University, Washington DC, Dr Shehata" says that, "[a]ttitudes towards Arabs, Muslims and Islam in the US are troubling and have not been improving over the last few years ... quoting results of a number of opinion polls conducted in the US. “A high percentage of Americans hold negative attitudes toward Islam, and many Americans believe that Islam - more than other religions - encourages violence,” he told Gulf Times."
Dr. Shehata went on to say, "Americans are generally more willing to impose extra security measures on Arab and Muslim-Americans and limit Arab and Muslim immigration into the US,”" and then pointed out that "although survey data about American attitudes towards Arabs, Muslims and Islam before September 11, 2001, is not readily available, one could reasonably assume that there has been a significant increase in negative feelings toward these groups and religion since 9/11."
There could be very good reasons for the way most Americans feel toward Islam, and think that Islam promotes violence, Dr. Shehata. How about the fact that the majority of terror attacks are carried out by Islamic fanatics, and that a large number of Imams are calling for jihad against the infidels, exhorting their mosque members to kill people, hmmm? Don't believe me that most terror attacks are carried out by Islamic fanatics? Check this out, then.
The fact that Dr. Shehata seems almost nonplussed by the attitude held by most Americans that Islam promotes violence, is almost breathtaking! Every night we are bombarded by the MSM with bombings, shootings, abductions, etc., etc., etc., carried out by Islamic fanatics against American, and Coalition troops, in both Iraq and Afghanistan; against tourist centers in Egypt; against innocent civilians in Israel, Madrid, London, Bali - the list goes on and on. And you are surprised and worried that we hold the opinion that Islam promotes violence, Doctor?
Dr. Shehata is either very naïve, or is simply being dishonest. The adherents of Islam have been violently promoting their so-called "religion of peace" for centuries. Therefore, why should it be surprising or worrying that we view Islam as violent? It is violent!
Hat tip: Mightyrighty
Dr. Shehata went on to say, "Americans are generally more willing to impose extra security measures on Arab and Muslim-Americans and limit Arab and Muslim immigration into the US,”" and then pointed out that "although survey data about American attitudes towards Arabs, Muslims and Islam before September 11, 2001, is not readily available, one could reasonably assume that there has been a significant increase in negative feelings toward these groups and religion since 9/11."
There could be very good reasons for the way most Americans feel toward Islam, and think that Islam promotes violence, Dr. Shehata. How about the fact that the majority of terror attacks are carried out by Islamic fanatics, and that a large number of Imams are calling for jihad against the infidels, exhorting their mosque members to kill people, hmmm? Don't believe me that most terror attacks are carried out by Islamic fanatics? Check this out, then.
The fact that Dr. Shehata seems almost nonplussed by the attitude held by most Americans that Islam promotes violence, is almost breathtaking! Every night we are bombarded by the MSM with bombings, shootings, abductions, etc., etc., etc., carried out by Islamic fanatics against American, and Coalition troops, in both Iraq and Afghanistan; against tourist centers in Egypt; against innocent civilians in Israel, Madrid, London, Bali - the list goes on and on. And you are surprised and worried that we hold the opinion that Islam promotes violence, Doctor?
Dr. Shehata is either very naïve, or is simply being dishonest. The adherents of Islam have been violently promoting their so-called "religion of peace" for centuries. Therefore, why should it be surprising or worrying that we view Islam as violent? It is violent!
Hat tip: Mightyrighty
Our Orphaned Middle East Policy
Victor Davis Hanson writes that just as our Middle East Policy is beginning to bear fruit (with examples), there are those who are ready to jump ship.
Jumping ship now is a mistake, which the left is eager to make, as VDH amply points out.
Jumping ship now is a mistake, which the left is eager to make, as VDH amply points out.
IAEA: Iran Defying Call to Stop Enrichment
As expected, and reported here, Iran remains defiant (in their quest to develop nuclear weapons), by refusing to halt uranium enrichment as demanded by the IAEA.
The IAEA report has been forwarded to the UN Security Council, and as I expected, the Chinese are still reluctant to do anything about Iran, while Russia said that they will examine the document "very carefully". With China and Russia - who as permanent members of the UN Security Council wield veto power over any resolutions the UNSC may deliberate - remaining obstinate in their reluctance to do anything meaningful about Iran, I see nothing useful coming from any meetings of the UNSC.
However, things may change to make China and Russia come in line with the rest of the civilized world, but I won't be holding my breath.
The editorial board at the Chicago Tribune appears to agree with me.
The IAEA report has been forwarded to the UN Security Council, and as I expected, the Chinese are still reluctant to do anything about Iran, while Russia said that they will examine the document "very carefully". With China and Russia - who as permanent members of the UN Security Council wield veto power over any resolutions the UNSC may deliberate - remaining obstinate in their reluctance to do anything meaningful about Iran, I see nothing useful coming from any meetings of the UNSC.
However, things may change to make China and Russia come in line with the rest of the civilized world, but I won't be holding my breath.
The editorial board at the Chicago Tribune appears to agree with me.
The Mike Adams action figure
Mike Adams, writing over at Town Hall, has come up with another hilarious piece - but if you're easily offended, don't read this! Reading this could lead to severe emotional trauma, and I don't want you to be traumatized.
If, on the other hand, you are possessed with an intellect and the ability to think for yourself, I encourage you to read it. You'll be glad you did.
Hat tip (accompanied by a good chuckle): Mightyrighty
If, on the other hand, you are possessed with an intellect and the ability to think for yourself, I encourage you to read it. You'll be glad you did.
Hat tip (accompanied by a good chuckle): Mightyrighty
McDermott appeals ruling on taped call
As expected, Rep. Jim McDermott (D-WA) - nicknamed around here "Congressman-for-life" - has appealed the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals 2-1 decision that said that he does indeed owe Rep. John Boehner (R-OH) damages and legal fees, from his leaking an illegally obtained telephone conversation between Boehner and then House speaker Newt Gingrich.
McDermott says that the March 28th ruling is " "both unsound in principle and unworkable in practice," adding that it "will chill the disclosure of truthful information on matters of public concern. Clear and authoritative legal guidance here is imperative, especially for the media, which routinely receive information in all sorts of ways from all sorts of sources." ", and that his case is a First Amendment issue.
Jim, I have news for you. The issue here isn't a First Amendment issue at all. The issue here is that the telephone conversation you leaked to the press was illegally obtained - in essence, it was a warrantless wiretap, something you and your cronies are all in a tizzy about regarding the NSA surveillance program, which is a legal undertaking. The people who recorded that conversation broke the law, and then you essentially conspired with them when you leaked the taped conversation to the press.
"Kevin Madden, a spokesman for Boehner, said McDermott "has a chronically defective legal argument, based on a reprehensible political argument. Everyone expects political adversaries to disagree, but unfortunately Jim McDermott took it a step too far, and he broke federal law in pursuit of his political opponents." [Emphasis mine]
That statement about sums it up, Jim.
McDermott says that the March 28th ruling is " "both unsound in principle and unworkable in practice," adding that it "will chill the disclosure of truthful information on matters of public concern. Clear and authoritative legal guidance here is imperative, especially for the media, which routinely receive information in all sorts of ways from all sorts of sources." ", and that his case is a First Amendment issue.
Jim, I have news for you. The issue here isn't a First Amendment issue at all. The issue here is that the telephone conversation you leaked to the press was illegally obtained - in essence, it was a warrantless wiretap, something you and your cronies are all in a tizzy about regarding the NSA surveillance program, which is a legal undertaking. The people who recorded that conversation broke the law, and then you essentially conspired with them when you leaked the taped conversation to the press.
"Kevin Madden, a spokesman for Boehner, said McDermott "has a chronically defective legal argument, based on a reprehensible political argument. Everyone expects political adversaries to disagree, but unfortunately Jim McDermott took it a step too far, and he broke federal law in pursuit of his political opponents." [Emphasis mine]
That statement about sums it up, Jim.
The personal attacks have begun
As reported here, Washington State Dem Party chief Dwight Pelz has filed a complaint with the FEC over what the Dems describe as Senate hopeful Mike McGavik's "golden parachute" he received from his former employer, Safeco Insurance.
They allege that McGaviks "golden parachute" amounts to a campaign contribution from Safeco Insurance, which if it were true, would be illegal, and both McGavik and Safeco would then need to be held accountable.
But, contrary to what Pelz alleges, this isn't a direct campaign contribution from Safeco to McGavik, which the FEC will likely rule. It looks like this more of a "wishful thinking" attack by the state Dems against a strong candidate for "Can't-do-well's" Senate seat to me.
What's the matter, Dwight? Jealous?
They allege that McGaviks "golden parachute" amounts to a campaign contribution from Safeco Insurance, which if it were true, would be illegal, and both McGavik and Safeco would then need to be held accountable.
But, contrary to what Pelz alleges, this isn't a direct campaign contribution from Safeco to McGavik, which the FEC will likely rule. It looks like this more of a "wishful thinking" attack by the state Dems against a strong candidate for "Can't-do-well's" Senate seat to me.
What's the matter, Dwight? Jealous?
Wednesday, April 26, 2006
There they go again, the death penalty is cruel and ...
I was out on the road listening to the news between hearing Rush when I heard that there were some judges who were talking about the lethal injection formula being used in some states to execute condemned prisoners, was one that would not even be used on animals to put them to sleep because it "could" cause severe pain. Why is it more important to value the "rights" of the condemned than the rights of the victims? I sometimes get the feeling that the ones who value the perpetrators believe the victims deserve whatever happened to them. Capital punishment is the end of the line for the convicted. The methods used by the various states have been getting closer and closer to terminating the guilty by "kindness". Since most of the guilty chose to ignore "kindness" in their methods of killing others, I find a lot of anger inside against the guilty and the numbskulls that have completely forgotten the reasons for the guilty being convicted. I would think that some other countries methods might come to mind for offenses, such as beheading, which I am positive causes severe pain. Do I want to see that here, NO! What I think needs to happen is for those who side with the guilty come to a realization that perhaps the punishment should fit the crime.
Sunday, April 23, 2006
Scientists cool outlook on global warming
As reported here, "Global warming may not be as dramatic as some scientists have predicted. ". That first sentence should have said "most", not "some", but I digress.
Duke University scientists of the Duke University Nicholas School of the Environment and Earth Sciences have concluded that the dire predictions of most of the scientific community regarding so-called global warming are just a tad over-blown, citing a study they conducted recently, using temperature readings from the past 100 years, 1,000 computer simulations and the evidence left in ancient tree rings.
What their study found out is that the earth's temperatures fluctuate over time, with temperatures both rising and falling, and that the predicted steep increase of 16 degrees in this century because of an increase in so-called green house gases isn't very likely. As a matter of fact, "The Duke estimates show the chances that the planet's temperature will rise even by 11 degrees is only 5 percent, which falls in line with previous, less-alarming predictions that meteorologists made almost three decades ago." [Emphasis mine]
Let me repeat that folks. The chances of temperatures rising by even 11 degrees is only FIVE PERCENT! That means that there is a NINETY FIVE PERCENT chance that temperatures won't rise by even 11 degrees, let alone 16 degrees. Think about that for a minute. The chances of temperatures rising by even 11 degrees is only 5 percent. "Chances" does not equate to probability. "Chances" means that it might happen, not that it will happen. And the chances of it happening are only 5 percent!
Here's a few other nuggets of note from the article:
"In recent years, much academic research has indicated otherwise, often in colorful terms and citing the United States as the biggest contributor to global warming." Ah, yes - blame America for everything wrong in the world. Why, it's even our fault that China's air pollution is so bad that they have recently been forced to consider enacting pollution control laws modeled on those in force in the US. Imagine that.
"This month, a University of Toronto scientist predicted that a quarter of the planet's plants and animals would be extinct by 2050 because of rising temperatures." Well, darn. There go my plans for a garden, I guess. Actually, I'd be interested to know how he came up with that prediction. What are his sources? Did he consult the "magic eight ball", by any chance?
"On Wednesday, two geophysics professors at the University of Chicago warned those who eat red meat that their increased flatulence contributes to greenhouse gases." This one made me laugh out loud. So ... I take it we all better become vegetarians then? I wonder if their "research" was funded by the folks who make the product "Beano"? You know, the pill you take to keep you from getting gas from eating beans? How ludicrous. (Note - I don't think their "research" was funded by the fine folks who make "Beano". I was just trying to make a point, ok?)
"Last year, Oregon State University research linked future "societal disruptions" with global warming ..." Um, guys? I think future "societal disruptions" will be caused more from terrorists blowing people up (and that would include eco-terrorists like ELF and ALF)!
"[T]he Carnegie Institution reported that the insulating influence of northern forests alone would raise the Earth's temperature by 6 degrees." So, northern forests are going to make the earth warmer, huh? How about how much warmer it is (supposedly) in places like South America along the Amazon, and in Africa, where tress are being cut down willy-nilly, hmmm? Which is it, folks? You can't have it both ways. Nope, sorry, can't happen.
"In 2004, Harvard University scientists informed Congress that warming had doomed the planet to climatic "shocks and surprises."" Yes, we're all doomed - DOOMED! - I tell you! Actually, I think the Harvard scientists are DOOMED to have some "shocks and surprises" of their own after reading the data from this Duke University study.
"The topic of global warming, meanwhile, will be framed dramatically in "An Inconvenient Truth," a 94-minute documentary featuring former Vice President Al Gore, who has deemed rising temperatures "a planetary emergency." The Hollywood production will be released to theaters in May and is billed by producer Davis Guggenheim as "the most terrifying film you will ever see."" Any Hollywood movie featuring Al "Chicken Little" Gore telling more lies (such as the one where he said, "I invented the Internet!") - and in dramatic fashion no less! - will very likely be terrifying! But, I think the one's who will be even more terrified will be the financiers of this "documentary", when they see their investment go down the tubes when people don't flock to see it. Hmmmm, I wonder if it's going to be released straight to DVD?
Okay, the climate is changing, that much is obvious to anyone who has any functional gray matter between the ears, I'll admit. But is it due to an increase in so-called greenhouse gases, or is it just the natural cycle of the earth heating and cooling, as it has done in the past, moving into the heating stage? The Director of Duke University Nicholas School of the Environment and Earth Sciences, Gabriele Hegerl, "... discounts dire predictions of skyrocketing temperatures. The probability that the climate's "sensitivity" to greenhouse-gas levels would result in drastically higher temperatures is "substantially" reduced ...", and I tend to believe someone like her, over extremists like Al "Chicken Little" Gore.
Anyone with any amount of functional gray matter between the ears will, too.
Hat tip: mightyrighty
Update: Mark Steyn has something to say on this subject as well.
Duke University scientists of the Duke University Nicholas School of the Environment and Earth Sciences have concluded that the dire predictions of most of the scientific community regarding so-called global warming are just a tad over-blown, citing a study they conducted recently, using temperature readings from the past 100 years, 1,000 computer simulations and the evidence left in ancient tree rings.
What their study found out is that the earth's temperatures fluctuate over time, with temperatures both rising and falling, and that the predicted steep increase of 16 degrees in this century because of an increase in so-called green house gases isn't very likely. As a matter of fact, "The Duke estimates show the chances that the planet's temperature will rise even by 11 degrees is only 5 percent, which falls in line with previous, less-alarming predictions that meteorologists made almost three decades ago." [Emphasis mine]
Let me repeat that folks. The chances of temperatures rising by even 11 degrees is only FIVE PERCENT! That means that there is a NINETY FIVE PERCENT chance that temperatures won't rise by even 11 degrees, let alone 16 degrees. Think about that for a minute. The chances of temperatures rising by even 11 degrees is only 5 percent. "Chances" does not equate to probability. "Chances" means that it might happen, not that it will happen. And the chances of it happening are only 5 percent!
Here's a few other nuggets of note from the article:
"In recent years, much academic research has indicated otherwise, often in colorful terms and citing the United States as the biggest contributor to global warming." Ah, yes - blame America for everything wrong in the world. Why, it's even our fault that China's air pollution is so bad that they have recently been forced to consider enacting pollution control laws modeled on those in force in the US. Imagine that.
"This month, a University of Toronto scientist predicted that a quarter of the planet's plants and animals would be extinct by 2050 because of rising temperatures." Well, darn. There go my plans for a garden, I guess. Actually, I'd be interested to know how he came up with that prediction. What are his sources? Did he consult the "magic eight ball", by any chance?
"On Wednesday, two geophysics professors at the University of Chicago warned those who eat red meat that their increased flatulence contributes to greenhouse gases." This one made me laugh out loud. So ... I take it we all better become vegetarians then? I wonder if their "research" was funded by the folks who make the product "Beano"? You know, the pill you take to keep you from getting gas from eating beans? How ludicrous. (Note - I don't think their "research" was funded by the fine folks who make "Beano". I was just trying to make a point, ok?)
"Last year, Oregon State University research linked future "societal disruptions" with global warming ..." Um, guys? I think future "societal disruptions" will be caused more from terrorists blowing people up (and that would include eco-terrorists like ELF and ALF)!
"[T]he Carnegie Institution reported that the insulating influence of northern forests alone would raise the Earth's temperature by 6 degrees." So, northern forests are going to make the earth warmer, huh? How about how much warmer it is (supposedly) in places like South America along the Amazon, and in Africa, where tress are being cut down willy-nilly, hmmm? Which is it, folks? You can't have it both ways. Nope, sorry, can't happen.
"In 2004, Harvard University scientists informed Congress that warming had doomed the planet to climatic "shocks and surprises."" Yes, we're all doomed - DOOMED! - I tell you! Actually, I think the Harvard scientists are DOOMED to have some "shocks and surprises" of their own after reading the data from this Duke University study.
"The topic of global warming, meanwhile, will be framed dramatically in "An Inconvenient Truth," a 94-minute documentary featuring former Vice President Al Gore, who has deemed rising temperatures "a planetary emergency." The Hollywood production will be released to theaters in May and is billed by producer Davis Guggenheim as "the most terrifying film you will ever see."" Any Hollywood movie featuring Al "Chicken Little" Gore telling more lies (such as the one where he said, "I invented the Internet!") - and in dramatic fashion no less! - will very likely be terrifying! But, I think the one's who will be even more terrified will be the financiers of this "documentary", when they see their investment go down the tubes when people don't flock to see it. Hmmmm, I wonder if it's going to be released straight to DVD?
Okay, the climate is changing, that much is obvious to anyone who has any functional gray matter between the ears, I'll admit. But is it due to an increase in so-called greenhouse gases, or is it just the natural cycle of the earth heating and cooling, as it has done in the past, moving into the heating stage? The Director of Duke University Nicholas School of the Environment and Earth Sciences, Gabriele Hegerl, "... discounts dire predictions of skyrocketing temperatures. The probability that the climate's "sensitivity" to greenhouse-gas levels would result in drastically higher temperatures is "substantially" reduced ...", and I tend to believe someone like her, over extremists like Al "Chicken Little" Gore.
Anyone with any amount of functional gray matter between the ears will, too.
Hat tip: mightyrighty
Update: Mark Steyn has something to say on this subject as well.
Michelle Malkin targeted by Leftist thugs
Recently, after "student activists" at UCSC had forced military recruiters to leave the bi-annual job fair at UCSC, fellow blogger Michelle Malkin did a few posts about this, and as a result of posting some public contact information about the "student activists" in one of her posts - information that they had made public, by the way - some cowardly leftist thugs then posted to the web personal information about Michelle, including her home address (with satellite photos!) and telephone number, in an apparent attempt to incite someone to harass her, at the very least, or even to possibly cause her harm.
This is outrageously reprehensible! The Constitution guarantees the right of anyone to voice their opinion, as well as guaranteeing you the right to disagree with that opinion. However, just because you happen to disagree with someone's opinion does not give you the right to try to shut them up through intimidation, or outright threats to their personal safety.
Several other fellow bloggers have come to Michelle's side in this, and Michelle also has something to say, too, with links to her posts that caused such a cowardly reaction. You can see what others have been saying by going here, here (pretty funny), here, and here (caution - very strong language!).
A personal note to Michelle - I salute your bravery in the face of these cowardly attempts to try to intimidate you into silence. Know that there is a whole army of folks out here that are ready, able, and willing to come to your defense.
And last but not least, a personal note to the "anonymous" cowards out there who posted all that private personal information about Michelle to the web - nothing on the web is ever truly, completely "anonymous". Someone else with the expertise and time will ferret you out, and make YOUR private personal information public, and I know without a doubt that you won't like that.
This is outrageously reprehensible! The Constitution guarantees the right of anyone to voice their opinion, as well as guaranteeing you the right to disagree with that opinion. However, just because you happen to disagree with someone's opinion does not give you the right to try to shut them up through intimidation, or outright threats to their personal safety.
Several other fellow bloggers have come to Michelle's side in this, and Michelle also has something to say, too, with links to her posts that caused such a cowardly reaction. You can see what others have been saying by going here, here (pretty funny), here, and here (caution - very strong language!).
A personal note to Michelle - I salute your bravery in the face of these cowardly attempts to try to intimidate you into silence. Know that there is a whole army of folks out here that are ready, able, and willing to come to your defense.
And last but not least, a personal note to the "anonymous" cowards out there who posted all that private personal information about Michelle to the web - nothing on the web is ever truly, completely "anonymous". Someone else with the expertise and time will ferret you out, and make YOUR private personal information public, and I know without a doubt that you won't like that.
Friday, April 21, 2006
Sims wants to boost county sales tax
As reported here, King County executive Ron "King" Sims wants to boost the county sales tax by one tenth of one percent to pay for improvements in bus transportation, raising the sales tax on goods and services from 8.8% to 8.9% in King County.
Improved bus service is all well and good, but I have some problems with this idea.
The first problem I have with this is, of course, raising a current tax above its' current level to pay for something, when absolutely no effort has been expended in making the system that this additional source of funds is for, more efficient in its' operation. But then again, we are talking about a government agency here, so the "natural thing to do" is to look for more money coming in, rather than looking for better ways to spend what they already receive.
The other problem I have is that a higher sales tax on goods and services harms those who can least afford to pay this, and this in turn, is bad for our economy. Those who are already lining up to say this is a "good idea" say that a one tenth of one percent increase in the sales tax would only have a "marginal impact" on the average household, but I beg to differ with that premise. In this day and age, with personal debt escalating out of control, rising energy and food costs, and astronomical housing costs, the "average household" is already cash strapped, and any increase in any tax - no matter how small - will have a direct, and definite impact on the budget of the "average household" (if they actually have a budget, that is). Much as I hate to admit this, this increase in the county sales tax rate will probably sail through the county council, however ill advised it may be, much to the detriment of the "average household".
Efficient bus service is not something high on the "to do" list of Ron Sims, while increasing taxes apparently is.
Improved bus service is all well and good, but I have some problems with this idea.
The first problem I have with this is, of course, raising a current tax above its' current level to pay for something, when absolutely no effort has been expended in making the system that this additional source of funds is for, more efficient in its' operation. But then again, we are talking about a government agency here, so the "natural thing to do" is to look for more money coming in, rather than looking for better ways to spend what they already receive.
The other problem I have is that a higher sales tax on goods and services harms those who can least afford to pay this, and this in turn, is bad for our economy. Those who are already lining up to say this is a "good idea" say that a one tenth of one percent increase in the sales tax would only have a "marginal impact" on the average household, but I beg to differ with that premise. In this day and age, with personal debt escalating out of control, rising energy and food costs, and astronomical housing costs, the "average household" is already cash strapped, and any increase in any tax - no matter how small - will have a direct, and definite impact on the budget of the "average household" (if they actually have a budget, that is). Much as I hate to admit this, this increase in the county sales tax rate will probably sail through the county council, however ill advised it may be, much to the detriment of the "average household".
Efficient bus service is not something high on the "to do" list of Ron Sims, while increasing taxes apparently is.
Iran: A clear and present danger
The editorial writer at the OpinionJournal states that "Iran is threat that can't be outsourced any longer."
I couldn't agree more.
I couldn't agree more.
Democrats: No Single Message Sums Us Up
In an AP article, several Dems were asked to sum up their party's message, but found it difficult to do so. Probably because they have no "message".
"Ask Democratic leaders to identify their party's election-year message and you get everything but consensus." It's because they have no "message".
"Ahead in polls, Democrats are divided over whether they already have _ or even need _ a national theme that tells voters exactly where the party stands." Polls heavily slanted to asking the opinions of Dems, of course.
"One message? Hmmm. I don't know. Let me think about it," Alvaro Cifuentes said after a long pause. Several minutes later, the head of the Democratic National Committee's Hispanic Caucus said, "You can't try to simplify your politics with a slogan. You can't." You could if you tried hard enough.
"It's not that we don't stand for anything, it's that sometimes we stand for everything," said Barry Rubin, executive director of the Nebraska Democratic Party. Rubin said the stand-for-everything approach invites GOP criticism." Standing for "everything"? And you people are still wondering why you are no longer the party in power?
"Hoping to make their election-year message clear to voters, Democrats leaders have launched a series of six policy statements. "Honest Leadership & Open Government" and "Real Security" came first, soon to be followed by positions on energy, the economy, health care and retirement." "Honest Leadership & Open Government"? Go here to see how "honest" and "open" the Dems are, and here to see what their "Real Security" "plan" is.
"Democrats say their message is not as muddled as it sometimes sounds." Oh, really? Their message seems as clear as mud to me!
"We may talk about it in different ways but there's still the same goal," DNC spokeswoman Karen Finney said." The only goal I have seen of the Dems is to discredit President Bush in any way possible - a "goal" they have had since 2000 - including the use of lies and innuendo, and the usual demagoguery.
"We offer an alternative to the corruption that has been blatant in Washington. We offer an alternative to tax cuts for the rich," said Melissa Schroeder, a DNC member from Wisconsin." Conveniently ignoring their own problems.
"Linda Chavez-Thompson, the AFL-CIO's executive vice president, said one Democratic message will come together. "We're formulating it now, and that is, we are going to change things in Washington and the Democratic Party has the answer," she said." And that will be when, exactly?
"Janice Brunson, a DNC member from Arizona, said the Democratic Party has a clear message for 2006, but she struggled to explain it. "The problem is we don't have a two- or three-word slogan that pops out," she said." The reason Ms. Brunson struggled to explain it is that the Dems simply do not have a "clear message" other than "Bush is bad/America is bad." You won't get as many people to vote for you as you want by staying on that message.
"In recent years, the Democratic Party has struggled to explain what it stands for in clear, succinct language that is repeated often enough to resonate with voters. Strategists in both parties agree that Republicans are better at political "branding."" The reasons for that, of course, as this article clearly points out, is that the Dems don't have a clue what the American people really want, while the Reps have a better grasp on that (for the most part, anyway).
"In his 2004 re-election campaign, President Bush's message was strong and principled leadership.", while Sen. Kerry's message was ... was ... gee, I can't remember what Sen. Kerry's message was exactly ... oh, wait! I remember now! It was, "I have a plan!". Yeah, that's it! A "plan"! What the "plan" was, however, was never - not one time - ever revealed to the American voters. And Sen. Kerry still wonders why President Bush was re-elected? (Oh, and Sen. Kerry is "seriously" thinking about running again in 2008. Got a "plan" that you're willing to share with the rest of us yet, pal? If not, I hope you do get nominated again, and keep spouting off about some vague "plan" - without letting us in on it, again - as that will virtually gaurantee that you'll lose - again.)
"A decade earlier, the GOP's Contract with America, a set of unifying GOP policy initiatives, was credited with helping Republicans win congressional seats _ although some Democrats say the sour mood of the country had more to do with the power change." Ten years ago, the Reps articulated what was on the minds of the American voters, and pushed through reforms that we wanted. The "sour mood" of the country was caused by the party that was in power at the time, which had stopped listening to the people who had elected them to do the people's business. And the party in power at that time was? I'll give you three guesses, and the first two don't count. I'll even give you a hint - the minority party at the time was not the Dems.
"Democrats hold a wide lead over Republicans when voters are asked which party they want to control Congress." Of course, it helps your "poll" come up with what you want it to by having the majority of respondents be Dems.
"Some Democrats said emphasizing GOP woes will be enough to win on Election Day." Dream on. Emphasizing "GOP woes", without articulating "a plan" is what got you to minority status in the first place. Go ahead - keep it up. Make my day.
"If your opponent is self-destructing, let them do it," said Mike Edmondson, executive director of the Indiana Democratic Party." This sounds like a case of the kettle calling the pot black. The Dems have been self-destructing for years now, and I don't see that stopping anytime soon.
"Others said the party must do more." Gee, you think?
"Judy Olson Duhamel, chairwoman of the South Dakota Democratic Party: "We are obligated to work hard and really work on message and information," she said. If Democrats don't do so, she said, "we don't deserve to win."" Yes, Judy, you are obligated to work hard, but during all of your hard work, at least try to put the truth in your message, ok? To do anything less than speak the truth, and let the American voter decide ... well, you won't deserve to win this year, either.
November is only six and half months away, and the Dems have not been able to have a coherent message in years - at least not one that is the truth - and time is running out on them.
"Ask Democratic leaders to identify their party's election-year message and you get everything but consensus." It's because they have no "message".
"Ahead in polls, Democrats are divided over whether they already have _ or even need _ a national theme that tells voters exactly where the party stands." Polls heavily slanted to asking the opinions of Dems, of course.
"One message? Hmmm. I don't know. Let me think about it," Alvaro Cifuentes said after a long pause. Several minutes later, the head of the Democratic National Committee's Hispanic Caucus said, "You can't try to simplify your politics with a slogan. You can't." You could if you tried hard enough.
"It's not that we don't stand for anything, it's that sometimes we stand for everything," said Barry Rubin, executive director of the Nebraska Democratic Party. Rubin said the stand-for-everything approach invites GOP criticism." Standing for "everything"? And you people are still wondering why you are no longer the party in power?
"Hoping to make their election-year message clear to voters, Democrats leaders have launched a series of six policy statements. "Honest Leadership & Open Government" and "Real Security" came first, soon to be followed by positions on energy, the economy, health care and retirement." "Honest Leadership & Open Government"? Go here to see how "honest" and "open" the Dems are, and here to see what their "Real Security" "plan" is.
"Democrats say their message is not as muddled as it sometimes sounds." Oh, really? Their message seems as clear as mud to me!
"We may talk about it in different ways but there's still the same goal," DNC spokeswoman Karen Finney said." The only goal I have seen of the Dems is to discredit President Bush in any way possible - a "goal" they have had since 2000 - including the use of lies and innuendo, and the usual demagoguery.
"We offer an alternative to the corruption that has been blatant in Washington. We offer an alternative to tax cuts for the rich," said Melissa Schroeder, a DNC member from Wisconsin." Conveniently ignoring their own problems.
"Linda Chavez-Thompson, the AFL-CIO's executive vice president, said one Democratic message will come together. "We're formulating it now, and that is, we are going to change things in Washington and the Democratic Party has the answer," she said." And that will be when, exactly?
"Janice Brunson, a DNC member from Arizona, said the Democratic Party has a clear message for 2006, but she struggled to explain it. "The problem is we don't have a two- or three-word slogan that pops out," she said." The reason Ms. Brunson struggled to explain it is that the Dems simply do not have a "clear message" other than "Bush is bad/America is bad." You won't get as many people to vote for you as you want by staying on that message.
"In recent years, the Democratic Party has struggled to explain what it stands for in clear, succinct language that is repeated often enough to resonate with voters. Strategists in both parties agree that Republicans are better at political "branding."" The reasons for that, of course, as this article clearly points out, is that the Dems don't have a clue what the American people really want, while the Reps have a better grasp on that (for the most part, anyway).
"In his 2004 re-election campaign, President Bush's message was strong and principled leadership.", while Sen. Kerry's message was ... was ... gee, I can't remember what Sen. Kerry's message was exactly ... oh, wait! I remember now! It was, "I have a plan!". Yeah, that's it! A "plan"! What the "plan" was, however, was never - not one time - ever revealed to the American voters. And Sen. Kerry still wonders why President Bush was re-elected? (Oh, and Sen. Kerry is "seriously" thinking about running again in 2008. Got a "plan" that you're willing to share with the rest of us yet, pal? If not, I hope you do get nominated again, and keep spouting off about some vague "plan" - without letting us in on it, again - as that will virtually gaurantee that you'll lose - again.)
"A decade earlier, the GOP's Contract with America, a set of unifying GOP policy initiatives, was credited with helping Republicans win congressional seats _ although some Democrats say the sour mood of the country had more to do with the power change." Ten years ago, the Reps articulated what was on the minds of the American voters, and pushed through reforms that we wanted. The "sour mood" of the country was caused by the party that was in power at the time, which had stopped listening to the people who had elected them to do the people's business. And the party in power at that time was? I'll give you three guesses, and the first two don't count. I'll even give you a hint - the minority party at the time was not the Dems.
"Democrats hold a wide lead over Republicans when voters are asked which party they want to control Congress." Of course, it helps your "poll" come up with what you want it to by having the majority of respondents be Dems.
"Some Democrats said emphasizing GOP woes will be enough to win on Election Day." Dream on. Emphasizing "GOP woes", without articulating "a plan" is what got you to minority status in the first place. Go ahead - keep it up. Make my day.
"If your opponent is self-destructing, let them do it," said Mike Edmondson, executive director of the Indiana Democratic Party." This sounds like a case of the kettle calling the pot black. The Dems have been self-destructing for years now, and I don't see that stopping anytime soon.
"Others said the party must do more." Gee, you think?
"Judy Olson Duhamel, chairwoman of the South Dakota Democratic Party: "We are obligated to work hard and really work on message and information," she said. If Democrats don't do so, she said, "we don't deserve to win."" Yes, Judy, you are obligated to work hard, but during all of your hard work, at least try to put the truth in your message, ok? To do anything less than speak the truth, and let the American voter decide ... well, you won't deserve to win this year, either.
November is only six and half months away, and the Dems have not been able to have a coherent message in years - at least not one that is the truth - and time is running out on them.
Mail-only balloting closer in King County
As reported here, King County may soon join most of the other counties in Washington State, and have all mail-in voting by 2007.
I have some reservations about this:
All mail-in voting makes voter fraud easier (giving Dems more of an advantage);
I don't see any provisions where voter registration will be tightened up to prevent the same problems as occurred in 2004 from happening again (giving Dems more of an advantage);
King County election staffers will be the people in charge of implementing the change over, the very same people who caused most of the problems in 2004 (giving Dems more of an advantage).
I would be more comfortable with this if all eligible voters were required to re-register, providing valid residential addresses, and proof of eligibility to vote, eliminating post office box, self-storage facilities, and other such "residences", as well as felons and dead people from the voter registration rolls, which I don't see being required, Secretary of State Sam Reed's, and King County Executive Ron Sim's assurances that "all will be well" notwithstanding.
I have some reservations about this:
All mail-in voting makes voter fraud easier (giving Dems more of an advantage);
I don't see any provisions where voter registration will be tightened up to prevent the same problems as occurred in 2004 from happening again (giving Dems more of an advantage);
King County election staffers will be the people in charge of implementing the change over, the very same people who caused most of the problems in 2004 (giving Dems more of an advantage).
I would be more comfortable with this if all eligible voters were required to re-register, providing valid residential addresses, and proof of eligibility to vote, eliminating post office box, self-storage facilities, and other such "residences", as well as felons and dead people from the voter registration rolls, which I don't see being required, Secretary of State Sam Reed's, and King County Executive Ron Sim's assurances that "all will be well" notwithstanding.
Iranian leader's nuclear remark a surprise
As reported here, statements made by the lunatic in Iran about working to develop the more sophisticated P-2 centrifuge have come as a "surprise" to many "experts". The P-2 centrifuge would enable Iran to more quickly develop its' nuclear capabilities, and as I have stated over and over again, since it is the goal of the lunatic to develop nuclear weapons, this supposedly "new development" should not have come as a surprise.
IAEA officials in Vienna, and inspectors in Iran, will be pressuring the Iranians to either confirm or deny what the lunatic said in regards to them working to build P-2 centrifuges. As Robert Joseph, the undersecretary of state for arms control and international security said, "[Iran] has never come clean on this program, and now its president is talking about it.", do you really think they are going to "come clean" now?
Hardly.
IAEA officials in Vienna, and inspectors in Iran, will be pressuring the Iranians to either confirm or deny what the lunatic said in regards to them working to build P-2 centrifuges. As Robert Joseph, the undersecretary of state for arms control and international security said, "[Iran] has never come clean on this program, and now its president is talking about it.", do you really think they are going to "come clean" now?
Hardly.
Sunday, April 16, 2006
Student Sculpts With Conservative Firepower
Rally Round the Criminals
I had been working on a bit about the (illegal) immigration issue, using an analogy to express what I feel on this, but Don Feder, in this opinion piece, pretty much sums up my (and I suspect millions of others) feelings regarding the (illegal) immigration issue, so I'll just point you to his piece, instead.
A General Misunderstanding
Retired Marine Lt. Gen. Michael DeLong, the No. 2 general at United States Central Command from the Sept. 11 attacks through the Iraq war, comes to the defense of SecDef Rumsfeld in this eloquent piece, saying in conclusion that " ... for distinguished officers to step forward and, in retrospect, pin blame on one person is wrong. And when they do so in a time of war, the rest of the world watches."
I couldn't agree more. The statements made by former military officers, calling for SecDef Rumsfeld to step down are totally uncalled for, and imprudent to say the least.
I couldn't agree more. The statements made by former military officers, calling for SecDef Rumsfeld to step down are totally uncalled for, and imprudent to say the least.
The Pelosi Doctrine for Darfur
In this opinion piece from OpinionJournal, it is reported that Rep. Nancy Pelosi recently expounded on her solution for the genocide being perpetrated in Darfur, Sudan, which is to send a "Special Envoy" to pressure the Sudanese government into stopping the killing through negotiation, something that didn't work in the Balkans, and won't work in Sudan, either.
Is Rep. Pelosi simply naïve, or delusional?
Is Rep. Pelosi simply naïve, or delusional?
"Tomorrow" is not a rational national policy
Mark Steyn weighs in on what he sees as a waste of time in the West's dealings with Iran and its' stated national goals of obtaining nuclear capabilities.
The hunt for the real McCain
Jonathan Chait, a liberal columnist for the (very) liberal LA Times and I - a conservative blogger - agree on at least one thing (imagine that!). Sen. John McCain is not really a conservative, and although Mr. Chait didn't come right out and call McCain a RINO in this piece, that is the only conclusion anyone who reads this will be able to come to.
Iran Leader: Israel Will Be Annihilated
As reported here, the lunatic in Iran is making more threats to our friends, Israel, saying that Israel is "heading toward annihilation," and that "Israel [is] a "permanent threat" to the Middle East that will "soon" be liberated." He also stated that the existence of Israel offends the "dignity" of all Muslim nations. This comes on top of their recent announcement that they were successful in enriching uranium, while rejecting the demand of the UN that they freeze all enrichment efforts by April 28th.
I've said it before, and I'll keep saying it - the lunatic "in charge" in Iran only wants to enrich uranium for one thing, and that is for the purpose of developing nuclear weapons. The intelligence services of the US, Israel, Britain, Germany and even France all agree that Iran is working towards developing nuclear weapons, and I have a tendency to believe what those folks say, rather than the spurious claims of the people working for the lunatic when they say they only intend "peaceful purposes" for enriching uranium.
The statements by the lunatic belie those claims of "peaceful purposes", don't you think?
Hat tip: imperceptible1
I've said it before, and I'll keep saying it - the lunatic "in charge" in Iran only wants to enrich uranium for one thing, and that is for the purpose of developing nuclear weapons. The intelligence services of the US, Israel, Britain, Germany and even France all agree that Iran is working towards developing nuclear weapons, and I have a tendency to believe what those folks say, rather than the spurious claims of the people working for the lunatic when they say they only intend "peaceful purposes" for enriching uranium.
The statements by the lunatic belie those claims of "peaceful purposes", don't you think?
Hat tip: imperceptible1
Analysts downplay Iranian nuclear goals
As reported here, certain analysts are downplaying recent goals stated by the Iranians, after they had linked 164 centrifuges to enrich uranium, saying that it would take the Iranians at least until 2015 to 2020 to be able to produce enough enriched uranium to produce nuclear weapons.
That's what analysts said about the old Soviet Union, as well - that it would take years for them to develop a bomb - and everyone was taken by surprise when the Soviets tested their first atomic weapon in a much shorter time than was estimated. It would be disastrous if the same mistake of underestimating the abilities and desires of the Iranians were made, as was made in regards to the Soviet Union 50 years ago.
That's what analysts said about the old Soviet Union, as well - that it would take years for them to develop a bomb - and everyone was taken by surprise when the Soviets tested their first atomic weapon in a much shorter time than was estimated. It would be disastrous if the same mistake of underestimating the abilities and desires of the Iranians were made, as was made in regards to the Soviet Union 50 years ago.
Sunday, April 09, 2006
Has Ahmadinejad Miscalculated?
Victor Davis Hanson offers up his take on the lunatic running the insane asylum called Iran, asking if he has miscalculated with his ravings in this piece.
Gore in full "Chicken Little" mode - again
As reported here, Al Gore - he of, "I invented the Internet!", fame (or is that infamy?), is once again bloviating on "global warming", in effect quoting Chicken Little by saying that the sky will fall, "... predicting the end of all human life on the Planet Earth if Washington doesn't do something to stop Americans from causing global warming."
Meanwhile, "Canada's new Conservative prime minister, Stephen Harper, has been urged by more than 60 leading international climate change experts to review the global warming policies he inherited from his centre-Left predecessor.", in an open letter praising the Canadian Prime Minister for his commitment to reassess Canada's position on the Kyoto Protocol.
Al Gore is no more qualified to speak of scientific matters related to climate change - which scientists cannot come to agreement over - than he is regarding what the US should do on the Global War on Terror (which, in case you missed it, is to surrender)!
Meanwhile, "Canada's new Conservative prime minister, Stephen Harper, has been urged by more than 60 leading international climate change experts to review the global warming policies he inherited from his centre-Left predecessor.", in an open letter praising the Canadian Prime Minister for his commitment to reassess Canada's position on the Kyoto Protocol.
Al Gore is no more qualified to speak of scientific matters related to climate change - which scientists cannot come to agreement over - than he is regarding what the US should do on the Global War on Terror (which, in case you missed it, is to surrender)!
Iranian missiles nuclear capable?
Recently, the Iranians have been conducting military exercises, during which they successfully tested a new anti-ship/anti-submarine missile, as well as a new ballistic missile, the Shahab-3 which, according to this article, they have modified to be able to carry a nuclear warhead.
As I have posted about several times recently, Iran is determined to have nuclear weapons, and modifying a missile that has a nominal range of 800 miles (which can now reach Israel) to one of 2000 miles, as well as modifying the configuration of its warhead to be able to carry a nuclear weapon, in my opinion, only confirms their determination to develop nuclear weapons, proving that their claims of "peaceful intentions" is totally false.
As I have posted about several times recently, Iran is determined to have nuclear weapons, and modifying a missile that has a nominal range of 800 miles (which can now reach Israel) to one of 2000 miles, as well as modifying the configuration of its warhead to be able to carry a nuclear weapon, in my opinion, only confirms their determination to develop nuclear weapons, proving that their claims of "peaceful intentions" is totally false.
Terrorism - just a "demonstration"?
According to Professor Ron Geaves in the UK, the London bombings (as well as the Madrid bombings and the 9/11 attacks in the US, presumably) were just a "demonstration", and not terrorism. Professor Geaves would have us believe that using the term 'terrorist' demonizes people, and would rather we call those who kill innocent civilians "demonstrators" instead. His remarks were made during a lecture at the University of Chester to dignitaries and members of the Muslim community in the North West.
His remarks have elicited sharp rebukes from both Andrew Dismore, who described Prof. Geaves claims as "absolutely barking.", adding "What happened on July 7, 2005, fits with every international definition of terrorism. If any of the men behind the attacks had survived the incident they would have quite rightly been tried under the anti-terror laws. I don't think it's helpful that we have a mealy-mouthed academic trying to justify deaths of innocent people. It is ludicrous.", and from Sir Iqbal Sacranie, the secretary general of the Muslim Council of Britain, who said that the London bombings were acts of "criminality" and "terrorism", adding "For me, the definition of terrorism is when an innocent human life is lost. These bombings were an act of criminality and terrorism because that loss occurred. No motive can justify an act of terrorism."
Later, Prof. Geaves also made this ludicrous statement, "Terrorism is a political word which always seems to be used to demonise people."
No, professor. Terrorism is an act perpetrated by terrorists, solely for the intent of killing as many innocent people as possible to induce terror in the population against whom the act was carried out. Terrorism is not merely a "demonstration". To claim otherwise is the height of elitist irresponsibility.
His remarks have elicited sharp rebukes from both Andrew Dismore, who described Prof. Geaves claims as "absolutely barking.", adding "What happened on July 7, 2005, fits with every international definition of terrorism. If any of the men behind the attacks had survived the incident they would have quite rightly been tried under the anti-terror laws. I don't think it's helpful that we have a mealy-mouthed academic trying to justify deaths of innocent people. It is ludicrous.", and from Sir Iqbal Sacranie, the secretary general of the Muslim Council of Britain, who said that the London bombings were acts of "criminality" and "terrorism", adding "For me, the definition of terrorism is when an innocent human life is lost. These bombings were an act of criminality and terrorism because that loss occurred. No motive can justify an act of terrorism."
Later, Prof. Geaves also made this ludicrous statement, "Terrorism is a political word which always seems to be used to demonise people."
No, professor. Terrorism is an act perpetrated by terrorists, solely for the intent of killing as many innocent people as possible to induce terror in the population against whom the act was carried out. Terrorism is not merely a "demonstration". To claim otherwise is the height of elitist irresponsibility.
Sunday, April 02, 2006
Jill Carroll is home again
Jill Carroll is home again. As reported here, journalist Jill Carroll has arrived home safe and sound after her ordeal of being held hostage in Iraq by Islamo-fascist terrorists.
Jill is very happy to be home, saying that her freedom is wonderful, and many (including me) around the world are rejoicing that she was rescued unharmed.
Now, contrast her reaction to her freedom, to that of the two (of the three) ungrateful wretches of the CPT, who were also recently rescued from captivity in Iraq.
Jill is very happy to be home, saying that her freedom is wonderful, and many (including me) around the world are rejoicing that she was rescued unharmed.
Now, contrast her reaction to her freedom, to that of the two (of the three) ungrateful wretches of the CPT, who were also recently rescued from captivity in Iraq.
Court rebuffs McDermott
As reported here, Washington State Rep. Jim McDermott lost in court again. The case he lost stems from his receiving, and then passing on to the New York Times and the Atlanta Journal-Constitution newspapers, an illegally obtained recording of a telephone conversation between then-House Speaker Newt Gingrich and his top lieutenants, one of whom was Rep. John Boehner (R-OH), who is now House Majority Leader, who brought a civil suit against McDermott. With this latest legal setback, McDermott is one step closer to having to pay Boehner more than $700,000.00 in damages and legal fees.
McDermott still laughably insists that he didn't know that the secretly recorded tape was obtained illegally, and that the First Amendment protected his actions, while McDermott's attorney, Frank Cicero, stated that the ruling would "jeopardize and chill traditional newsgathering and likely encourage an increasing variety of efforts by the government and private citizens to punish the publication of truthful information on matters of public importance."
"The appeals court, however, rejected that position, concluding that McDermott understood the conversation was improperly obtained and therefore not protected.
"It is the difference between someone who discovers a bag containing a diamond ring on the sidewalk and someone who accepts the same bag from a thief, knowing the ring inside to have been stolen," Judge Raymond Randolph wrote for the majority.
"The former has committed no offense; the latter is guilty of receiving stolen property, even if the ring was intended only as a gift." "
Note to Rep. McDermott: The First Amendment to the Constitution protects your ability to make silly statements, not commit criminal acts. It is time for you to pay the piper, which in this case is Rep. Boehner.
McDermott still laughably insists that he didn't know that the secretly recorded tape was obtained illegally, and that the First Amendment protected his actions, while McDermott's attorney, Frank Cicero, stated that the ruling would "jeopardize and chill traditional newsgathering and likely encourage an increasing variety of efforts by the government and private citizens to punish the publication of truthful information on matters of public importance."
"The appeals court, however, rejected that position, concluding that McDermott understood the conversation was improperly obtained and therefore not protected.
"It is the difference between someone who discovers a bag containing a diamond ring on the sidewalk and someone who accepts the same bag from a thief, knowing the ring inside to have been stolen," Judge Raymond Randolph wrote for the majority.
"The former has committed no offense; the latter is guilty of receiving stolen property, even if the ring was intended only as a gift." "
Note to Rep. McDermott: The First Amendment to the Constitution protects your ability to make silly statements, not commit criminal acts. It is time for you to pay the piper, which in this case is Rep. Boehner.
"Real Security" or just plain real hypocrisy?
As reported here, the Democrats have launched an agenda that they call 'Real Security', in which they vaguely "detail" what they want to do if they regain political power this year. The funny thing is, is that it sounds an awful lot like what the Republicans are already doing ... well, except for those things that the Democrats have been obstructing.
Texas Republican Senator John Cornyn calls the Democrat "plan" "Real Insecurity", pointing out the hypocrisy of the Democrats. In his opinion piece, Sen. Cornyn accuses Democrats - and rightly so - of offering criticism instead of solutions, and obstruction instead of ideas. Remember that, these people are the same ones who fought reauthorization of the Patriot Act, as well as criticizing the critical intelligence gathering efforts of the NSA as authorized by President Bush.
In launching their so-called 'Real Security' agenda, the Democrats have shown themselves to be the plain hypocrites they really are.
Texas Republican Senator John Cornyn calls the Democrat "plan" "Real Insecurity", pointing out the hypocrisy of the Democrats. In his opinion piece, Sen. Cornyn accuses Democrats - and rightly so - of offering criticism instead of solutions, and obstruction instead of ideas. Remember that, these people are the same ones who fought reauthorization of the Patriot Act, as well as criticizing the critical intelligence gathering efforts of the NSA as authorized by President Bush.
In launching their so-called 'Real Security' agenda, the Democrats have shown themselves to be the plain hypocrites they really are.
Iran rejects calls to end its uranium enrichment
As reported here, Iran again stubbornly refuses to bend to the will of the rest of the world, rejecting UN demands that they freeze their nuclear enrichment program.
Ali Asghar Soltanieh, Tehran's chief representative to the International Atomic Energy Agency, the U.N. nuclear watchdog, said "it is impossible to go back" to suspension.
"This enrichment matter is not reversible," he said in a telephone call from Vienna, Austria.
I disagree with that statement if, as Iran claims, their intent on developing nuclear technology is for "peaceful purposes". The only conceivable reason their enrichment program would not be "reversible" is if they are trying to develop nuclear weapons in as short a span of time as they possibly can.
Also, once again, Russia and China are obstructing actions by the UN Security Council in this matter by not agreeing to a resolution by the UNSC until strong language was stripped from the resolution.
I am getting rather tired of how the UN representatives from the US, Britain and Germany are tip-toeing around Russia and China, allowing those two nations to be enablers of Iranian intents to develop nuclear weapons. This has to stop before Iran succeeds in gaining a "fait accompli".
Ali Asghar Soltanieh, Tehran's chief representative to the International Atomic Energy Agency, the U.N. nuclear watchdog, said "it is impossible to go back" to suspension.
"This enrichment matter is not reversible," he said in a telephone call from Vienna, Austria.
I disagree with that statement if, as Iran claims, their intent on developing nuclear technology is for "peaceful purposes". The only conceivable reason their enrichment program would not be "reversible" is if they are trying to develop nuclear weapons in as short a span of time as they possibly can.
Also, once again, Russia and China are obstructing actions by the UN Security Council in this matter by not agreeing to a resolution by the UNSC until strong language was stripped from the resolution.
I am getting rather tired of how the UN representatives from the US, Britain and Germany are tip-toeing around Russia and China, allowing those two nations to be enablers of Iranian intents to develop nuclear weapons. This has to stop before Iran succeeds in gaining a "fait accompli".
Thursday, March 30, 2006
Abdul Rahman granted asylum in Italy
As reported here, Abdul Rahman, the Afghani who converted from Islam to Christianity and was subsequently charged with a capital crime for that, has arrived safe and sound in Italy where he was granted asylum.
Mr. Rahman was released from prison earlier this week, when the court said that there was not enough evidence to obtain a conviction, and then it was reported later that they had also determined that he was "mentally incompetent" to stand trial, which I think was a way for the Afghan court to "save face".
I'll take it, and I'm thankful that the court found a way to get themselves out of the mess they found themselves in, sparing the life of an innocent man. As I wrote earlier, I hope this prompts the Afghans into looking at their laws, to make some needed changes.
Mr. Rahman was released from prison earlier this week, when the court said that there was not enough evidence to obtain a conviction, and then it was reported later that they had also determined that he was "mentally incompetent" to stand trial, which I think was a way for the Afghan court to "save face".
I'll take it, and I'm thankful that the court found a way to get themselves out of the mess they found themselves in, sparing the life of an innocent man. As I wrote earlier, I hope this prompts the Afghans into looking at their laws, to make some needed changes.
State AG to appeal felon voting ruling
In an update of my previous post, as reported here and here, Washington State Attorney General Rob McKenna is doing the right thing by appealing the ludicrous ruling by KC Superior Court Judge Michael Spearman.
I will try to stay on top of this and post updates to this situation, so stay tuned.
I will try to stay on top of this and post updates to this situation, so stay tuned.
Tuesday, March 28, 2006
Another judge "legislating from the bench"
In another case of a judge legislating from the bench at the instigation of the local state chapter of the ACLU, King County Superior Court Judge Michael Spearman ruled that, "[c]onvicted felons who have served their time but owe court-imposed fines cannot be denied the right to vote[.]"
Yes, they can be denied the right to vote, Judge. It is Washington State law. The Washington State Constitution states:
SECTION 3 WHO DISQUALIFIED. All persons convicted of infamous crime unless restored to their civil rights and all persons while they are judicially declared mentally incompetent are excluded from the elective franchise. [AMENDMENT 83, 1988 House Joint Resolution No. 4231, p 1553. Approved November 8, 1988.] [Emphasis mine]
SECTION 7 REGISTRATION. The legislature shall enact a registration law, and shall require a compliance with such law before any elector shall be allowed to vote; Provided, that this provision is not compulsory upon the legislature except as to cities and towns having a population of over five hundred inhabitants. In all other cases the legislature may or may not require registration as a pre-requisite to the right to vote, and the same system of registration need not be adopted for both classes. [Emphasis mine]
So, the Washington State Constitution states that a convicted felon must first have their voting rights restored before they are eligible to vote, and that it is the State Legislature - not a county Superior Court judge - who will enact the laws regulating who can vote.
The law in question, that the judge summarily pre-empted by judicial fiat, is:
RCW 29A.08.520
Felony conviction — Restoration of voting rights. (Effective January 1, 2006.)
(1) Upon receiving official notice of a person's conviction of a felony in either state or federal court, if the convicted person is a registered voter in the county, the county auditor shall cancel the defendant's voter registration. Additionally, the secretary of state in conjunction with the department of corrections, the Washington state patrol, the office of the administrator for the courts, and other appropriate state agencies shall arrange for a quarterly comparison of a list of known felons with the statewide voter registration list. If a person is found on a felon list and the statewide voter registration list, the secretary of state or county auditor shall confirm the match through a date of birth comparison and suspend the voter registration from the official state voter registration list. The canceling authority shall send to the person at his or her last known voter registration address a notice of the proposed cancellation and an explanation of the requirements for restoring the right to vote once all terms of sentencing have been completed. If the person does not respond within thirty days, the registration must be canceled.
(2) The right to vote may be restored by, for each felony conviction, one of the following:
(a) A certificate of discharge issued by the sentencing court, as provided in RCW 9.94A.637;
(b) A court order restoring the right, as provided in RCW 9.92.066;
(c) A final order of discharge issued by the indeterminate sentence review board, as provided in RCW 9.96.050; or
(d) A certificate of restoration issued by the governor, as provided in RCW 9.96.020.
[2005 c 246 § 15; 2004 c 267 § 126; 2003 c 111 § 233. Prior: 1994 c 57 § 42. Formerly RCW 29.10.097.]
In the case in which Judge Spearman ruled, the local chapter of the ACLU sued on behalf of three people who had been convicted of crimes, but who had not had their voting rights restored due to outstanding debt, which they are making payments on - commendable on their part, since they are listed in the article as being indigent - the judge, as authorized by the above law, could simply have restored their individual voting rights by court order. But no, Judge Spearman in his "infinite judicial wisdom" decided that the above law is invalid, and therefore null and void.
Since when did Judge Spearman get elected to the State Legislature? I didn't see him listed anywhere as being either a State Representative, or a State Senator, so the obvious answer to this is never.
Since when have judges been allowed to "legislate from the bench"? Apparently for too long around here, since Judge Spearman thinks he can do just that.
State Attorney General Ron McKenna hasn't said whether or not he will appeal this decision, but he should! Judges have been, for too long now, allowed to "legislate from the bench", and this needs to stop now! McKenna must appeal this decision to the State Supreme Court, and they need to put Spearman in his place - which is a judge, not a legislator!
Yes, they can be denied the right to vote, Judge. It is Washington State law. The Washington State Constitution states:
SECTION 3 WHO DISQUALIFIED. All persons convicted of infamous crime unless restored to their civil rights and all persons while they are judicially declared mentally incompetent are excluded from the elective franchise. [AMENDMENT 83, 1988 House Joint Resolution No. 4231, p 1553. Approved November 8, 1988.] [Emphasis mine]
SECTION 7 REGISTRATION. The legislature shall enact a registration law, and shall require a compliance with such law before any elector shall be allowed to vote; Provided, that this provision is not compulsory upon the legislature except as to cities and towns having a population of over five hundred inhabitants. In all other cases the legislature may or may not require registration as a pre-requisite to the right to vote, and the same system of registration need not be adopted for both classes. [Emphasis mine]
So, the Washington State Constitution states that a convicted felon must first have their voting rights restored before they are eligible to vote, and that it is the State Legislature - not a county Superior Court judge - who will enact the laws regulating who can vote.
The law in question, that the judge summarily pre-empted by judicial fiat, is:
RCW 29A.08.520
Felony conviction — Restoration of voting rights. (Effective January 1, 2006.)
(1) Upon receiving official notice of a person's conviction of a felony in either state or federal court, if the convicted person is a registered voter in the county, the county auditor shall cancel the defendant's voter registration. Additionally, the secretary of state in conjunction with the department of corrections, the Washington state patrol, the office of the administrator for the courts, and other appropriate state agencies shall arrange for a quarterly comparison of a list of known felons with the statewide voter registration list. If a person is found on a felon list and the statewide voter registration list, the secretary of state or county auditor shall confirm the match through a date of birth comparison and suspend the voter registration from the official state voter registration list. The canceling authority shall send to the person at his or her last known voter registration address a notice of the proposed cancellation and an explanation of the requirements for restoring the right to vote once all terms of sentencing have been completed. If the person does not respond within thirty days, the registration must be canceled.
(2) The right to vote may be restored by, for each felony conviction, one of the following:
(a) A certificate of discharge issued by the sentencing court, as provided in RCW 9.94A.637;
(b) A court order restoring the right, as provided in RCW 9.92.066;
(c) A final order of discharge issued by the indeterminate sentence review board, as provided in RCW 9.96.050; or
(d) A certificate of restoration issued by the governor, as provided in RCW 9.96.020.
[2005 c 246 § 15; 2004 c 267 § 126; 2003 c 111 § 233. Prior: 1994 c 57 § 42. Formerly RCW 29.10.097.]
In the case in which Judge Spearman ruled, the local chapter of the ACLU sued on behalf of three people who had been convicted of crimes, but who had not had their voting rights restored due to outstanding debt, which they are making payments on - commendable on their part, since they are listed in the article as being indigent - the judge, as authorized by the above law, could simply have restored their individual voting rights by court order. But no, Judge Spearman in his "infinite judicial wisdom" decided that the above law is invalid, and therefore null and void.
Since when did Judge Spearman get elected to the State Legislature? I didn't see him listed anywhere as being either a State Representative, or a State Senator, so the obvious answer to this is never.
Since when have judges been allowed to "legislate from the bench"? Apparently for too long around here, since Judge Spearman thinks he can do just that.
State Attorney General Ron McKenna hasn't said whether or not he will appeal this decision, but he should! Judges have been, for too long now, allowed to "legislate from the bench", and this needs to stop now! McKenna must appeal this decision to the State Supreme Court, and they need to put Spearman in his place - which is a judge, not a legislator!
Monday, March 27, 2006
Abdul Rahman seeks asylum
As reported here, Abdul Rahman, the Afghan Christian has made a request for asylum to the UN.
"U.N. spokesman Adrian Edwards said the world body was working with the Afghan government to meet the request by Abdul Rahman, 41."
Hopefully, Mr. Rahman will be granted his request quickly by another country, so that the death penalty threat won't be looming in the future.
When I learn anything new in this, I will let you all know.
Hat tip: Hollie-is-right
"U.N. spokesman Adrian Edwards said the world body was working with the Afghan government to meet the request by Abdul Rahman, 41."
Hopefully, Mr. Rahman will be granted his request quickly by another country, so that the death penalty threat won't be looming in the future.
When I learn anything new in this, I will let you all know.
Hat tip: Hollie-is-right
Sunday, March 26, 2006
New document proves Saddam did have ties to OBL
As reported here, former 9/11 Commissioner Bob Kerrey, Nebraska Dem, states that Saddam was a bona fide threat to the US, as a recently released Iraqi document from 1995 shows. In the document, Saddam authorized Iraqi Intelligence Service agents to conduct "joint operations" with OBL against the US.
While the document doesn't directly implicate Saddam with the 9/11 attacks on the US, Kerrey says that "It does tie him into a circle that meant to damage the United States."
As more and more documents are released to the American public, will this mean that the MSM will have to rethink it's current position on Iraq? Chris Wallace of Fox News thinks that the facts will force them to. (That would be nice if they did rethink their position on Iraq, Chris, but since when did facts become relevant to the MSM?)
Fellow blogger Reality Hammer has some things to say about this as well.
While the document doesn't directly implicate Saddam with the 9/11 attacks on the US, Kerrey says that "It does tie him into a circle that meant to damage the United States."
As more and more documents are released to the American public, will this mean that the MSM will have to rethink it's current position on Iraq? Chris Wallace of Fox News thinks that the facts will force them to. (That would be nice if they did rethink their position on Iraq, Chris, but since when did facts become relevant to the MSM?)
Fellow blogger Reality Hammer has some things to say about this as well.
Charges against Afghan Christian dropped
As reported here (and elsewhere), the charges against Abdul Rahman have been dropped for "a lack of evidence", and he may be released from jail as soon as tomorrow.
In case you haven't heard about Abdul Rahman, he is an Afghani who converted to Christianity from Islam several years ago after working for a Christian relief organization in Pakistan. In Afghanistan, it is a capitol offense for someone to renounce Islam to convert to any other religion (not just Christianity), and after being 'outed', Rahman was arrested. If he had gone to trial and been convicted, his only penalty would have been death by hanging.
There has been a huge international outcry against the jailing, and probable death sentence, and it appears that the Afghan court is bowing to the pressure being brought to bear in this case, although the clerics on the court deny this to be the case, that the main reason that the charges have been dropped is a "lack of evidence", along with allegations that Rahman may not be mentally competent to stand trial.
Whatever the reason(s), for the charges being dropped, this writer welcomes the outcome, with the hope that certain laws in Afghanistan are looked at for revision as a result of the international attention this case has received.
In case you haven't heard about Abdul Rahman, he is an Afghani who converted to Christianity from Islam several years ago after working for a Christian relief organization in Pakistan. In Afghanistan, it is a capitol offense for someone to renounce Islam to convert to any other religion (not just Christianity), and after being 'outed', Rahman was arrested. If he had gone to trial and been convicted, his only penalty would have been death by hanging.
There has been a huge international outcry against the jailing, and probable death sentence, and it appears that the Afghan court is bowing to the pressure being brought to bear in this case, although the clerics on the court deny this to be the case, that the main reason that the charges have been dropped is a "lack of evidence", along with allegations that Rahman may not be mentally competent to stand trial.
Whatever the reason(s), for the charges being dropped, this writer welcomes the outcome, with the hope that certain laws in Afghanistan are looked at for revision as a result of the international attention this case has received.
Who should Congress really censure?
If Congress really wants to censure someone, rather than censuring our currently sitting President - especially in a time of war - as Sen. Feingold (D-Wis) has advocated, Melanie Morgan of the conservative organization, Move America Forward, has a better suggestion - censure former President Jimmy Carter.
Former President Carter needs to be censured for his attempts to undermine American policy at nearly every turn, and for embracing and advocating for known terrorists such as Arafat, Hamas, Castro and Chavez, which you can read about here. There is also a petition regarding this that you can sign here.
If you find the deeds and words of former President Jimmy Carter to be as offensive as I do, I encourage you to do what I did, and sign the petition.
Former President Carter needs to be censured for his attempts to undermine American policy at nearly every turn, and for embracing and advocating for known terrorists such as Arafat, Hamas, Castro and Chavez, which you can read about here. There is also a petition regarding this that you can sign here.
If you find the deeds and words of former President Jimmy Carter to be as offensive as I do, I encourage you to do what I did, and sign the petition.
Thousands Across America Rally for Immigrants' Rights
As reported here, an estimated 500,000 people in Los Angeles staged a peaceful protest against proposed legislation aimed at immigration reform. What was being protested are the provisions that would make it a felony if you are in the US illegally, impose new penalties on employers that hire illegals, and erect fences along 700 miles of the border between Mexico and the US.
One person quoted in the article said that they are not criminals. I beg to differ, in the sense that, if you enter this country illegally, then yes you are a criminal. Don't get me wrong, as I have no problems with immigrants who enter the US legally. The US was founded by immigrants who came to these shores to escape religious or political persecution, poverty, famine and disease. My paternal grandfather immigrated here from Germany.
What I do have a problem with, however, are those who seek to enter this country illegally. They are a drain on social services which we cannot afford, not to mention the possibility of terrorists slipping into the country to do harm. Am I saying that all illegals are coming here to do harm? Certainly not. The vast majority of the estimated 12 million illegals that are already here have come here to work, striving to make a better life for themselves, which in a certain way is commendable on their part, and I don't have a problem with that aspiration. But they need to do it right, and enter this country legally.
Do I have the answers to the problem of illegal immigration? No, but I wish that I did.
One person quoted in the article said that they are not criminals. I beg to differ, in the sense that, if you enter this country illegally, then yes you are a criminal. Don't get me wrong, as I have no problems with immigrants who enter the US legally. The US was founded by immigrants who came to these shores to escape religious or political persecution, poverty, famine and disease. My paternal grandfather immigrated here from Germany.
What I do have a problem with, however, are those who seek to enter this country illegally. They are a drain on social services which we cannot afford, not to mention the possibility of terrorists slipping into the country to do harm. Am I saying that all illegals are coming here to do harm? Certainly not. The vast majority of the estimated 12 million illegals that are already here have come here to work, striving to make a better life for themselves, which in a certain way is commendable on their part, and I don't have a problem with that aspiration. But they need to do it right, and enter this country legally.
Do I have the answers to the problem of illegal immigration? No, but I wish that I did.
Sunday, March 19, 2006
The Power of Choice
In many aspects of life, we humans have a tendency to take things for granted. For example, the use of our hands, or to be more specific, our fingers.
Recently, at work, I was tasked to do a special project, and in the process of preparing what I needed for this project, I injured the tip of my right ring finger. I have a rather nasty blood blister, and a rather painful bruise. As I have gone about my daily activities since I injured myself, I have been reminded of this injury whenever I have bumped into the injured area of my finger. I have also come to realize that I have taken the use of my finger for granted, not really realizing, until now, just how much I use that particular finger.
Each time I have been made (painfully) aware of just how much I do use that particular finger, I have also been made aware that I have taken it’s use and utility for granted, which has caused me to begin to wonder what else have I been taking for granted.
One thing that has popped into my head, that I have been guilty of taking for granted, is the freedom, or power if you will, of choice. We all have the power of choice in everything that we do. We either choose to do something, or not.
William Shakespeare wrote his famous soliloquy for his character Hamlet, in which he asked the famous question, “To be, or not to be.”, which in essence was Hamlet asking himself whether he wanted to continue to live, or not. As we go about our daily lives, we each make choices as to what we will do in any given situation, whether any particular situation dwells in the realm of the sublime (such as listening to classical music, for example), or the ridiculous (such as watching Barney, for example).
We make the choice of whether to get up when the alarm goes off, or not. If we do choose to get up when the alarm goes off, we then choose whether to eat breakfast, or not. Next is the choice of bathing, or not, then what to wear, whether to leave for work, or school, or not, and at what time. Do we do this task first, or that task first? What is the priority of the moment? As our day goes by, we make choices, often times unconsciously, other times with the full realization of the choice we must make at any given time.
But, how many of the choices that we do make, do we take for granted? For example, when we go shopping for food, we (usually) have the choice of purchasing brand name foods, store label foods, or generic label foods. Whatever label we choose to purchase, we do so without much conscious thought, taking for granted that what we want will be there. Others are not so fortunate.
Another choice we make, is where we will live. Part of that equation is our economic standing. Can we afford to live where we want to live? Will we live on the “right side” or “wrong side” of the tracks? Another part of that equation is whether or not there is the opportunity of employment in the field of our choice, whether that field is ditch digging or astrophysics. Another part we must consider, if we have school aged children is, what is the quality of education that is available for our children? Choices we make in this area will have an effect on our “quality of life”. Are we taking the ability to choose where we will live for granted?
Here in America, in general, we have the freedom to choose how we will live, and yet many of us are guilty of taking that freedom to choose for granted. I must admit that for many years, I have been guilty of taking my freedom of choice for granted, and it has really only been recently that I have made the choice to savor my ability to freely choose, within reasonable bounds, what I will do with my life.
I have the choice to be happy, or not.
I have the choice to participate in the life of my community, or not.
I have the choice to voice my opinion on various topics, or not.
I have the choice to stand up for freedom, and to savor that freedom, or not.
I have the power of choice, and I choose to not take it for granted.
You, too, have the power of choice.
What will you choose to do with that power today?
Will you choose to savor that power, or take it for granted?
Your choice.
Recently, at work, I was tasked to do a special project, and in the process of preparing what I needed for this project, I injured the tip of my right ring finger. I have a rather nasty blood blister, and a rather painful bruise. As I have gone about my daily activities since I injured myself, I have been reminded of this injury whenever I have bumped into the injured area of my finger. I have also come to realize that I have taken the use of my finger for granted, not really realizing, until now, just how much I use that particular finger.
Each time I have been made (painfully) aware of just how much I do use that particular finger, I have also been made aware that I have taken it’s use and utility for granted, which has caused me to begin to wonder what else have I been taking for granted.
One thing that has popped into my head, that I have been guilty of taking for granted, is the freedom, or power if you will, of choice. We all have the power of choice in everything that we do. We either choose to do something, or not.
William Shakespeare wrote his famous soliloquy for his character Hamlet, in which he asked the famous question, “To be, or not to be.”, which in essence was Hamlet asking himself whether he wanted to continue to live, or not. As we go about our daily lives, we each make choices as to what we will do in any given situation, whether any particular situation dwells in the realm of the sublime (such as listening to classical music, for example), or the ridiculous (such as watching Barney, for example).
We make the choice of whether to get up when the alarm goes off, or not. If we do choose to get up when the alarm goes off, we then choose whether to eat breakfast, or not. Next is the choice of bathing, or not, then what to wear, whether to leave for work, or school, or not, and at what time. Do we do this task first, or that task first? What is the priority of the moment? As our day goes by, we make choices, often times unconsciously, other times with the full realization of the choice we must make at any given time.
But, how many of the choices that we do make, do we take for granted? For example, when we go shopping for food, we (usually) have the choice of purchasing brand name foods, store label foods, or generic label foods. Whatever label we choose to purchase, we do so without much conscious thought, taking for granted that what we want will be there. Others are not so fortunate.
Another choice we make, is where we will live. Part of that equation is our economic standing. Can we afford to live where we want to live? Will we live on the “right side” or “wrong side” of the tracks? Another part of that equation is whether or not there is the opportunity of employment in the field of our choice, whether that field is ditch digging or astrophysics. Another part we must consider, if we have school aged children is, what is the quality of education that is available for our children? Choices we make in this area will have an effect on our “quality of life”. Are we taking the ability to choose where we will live for granted?
Here in America, in general, we have the freedom to choose how we will live, and yet many of us are guilty of taking that freedom to choose for granted. I must admit that for many years, I have been guilty of taking my freedom of choice for granted, and it has really only been recently that I have made the choice to savor my ability to freely choose, within reasonable bounds, what I will do with my life.
I have the choice to be happy, or not.
I have the choice to participate in the life of my community, or not.
I have the choice to voice my opinion on various topics, or not.
I have the choice to stand up for freedom, and to savor that freedom, or not.
I have the power of choice, and I choose to not take it for granted.
You, too, have the power of choice.
What will you choose to do with that power today?
Will you choose to savor that power, or take it for granted?
Your choice.
Judge invokes new law in dismissing lawsuit
In another gun related issue, a federal judge in California (of all places!) dismissed a "public nuisance" lawsuit against a gun manufacturer and a gun distributor on Monday, invoking a new federal law intended to protect the gun industry from politically motivated lawsuits.
The new federal law that was invoked in dismissing the frivolous "public nuisance" lawsuit is the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, signed into law by President Bush in October of 2005, designed to protect gun manufacturers and distributors from such frivolous lawsuits.
The NRA said that this is the first time the PLCA Act has been invoked to dismiss a case against a gun manufacturer and/or gun dealer, but you can be sure it won't be the last.
The new federal law that was invoked in dismissing the frivolous "public nuisance" lawsuit is the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, signed into law by President Bush in October of 2005, designed to protect gun manufacturers and distributors from such frivolous lawsuits.
The NRA said that this is the first time the PLCA Act has been invoked to dismiss a case against a gun manufacturer and/or gun dealer, but you can be sure it won't be the last.
Chicago Mayor 'Delusional' for Seeking Gun Ban, Group Says
As reported here, after two girls were tragically slain in Chicago's Englewood neighborhood, Chicago's Mayor Richard Daley has called for all of the approximately 1.5 million registered gun owners to come before him, and explain and justify their gun ownership.
Richard Pearson, executive director of the Illinois State Rifle Association (ISRA), nevertheless said [in the wake of the two tragic shooting deaths] that the mayor's outburst "suggests strongly that it's time to pad the walls" of his office with rubber.
"I have a message for you, Mr. Mayor," Pearson added. "The Revolutionary War was not fought so that we could unseat King George and install King Richard. The Bill of Rights is not a stick of salami that you can slice and dice at your whim.
"You may have succeeded in suspending the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th and 9th amendments" to the U.S. Constitution "in Chicago, but the people of Illinois are not going to let you extend your tyranny beyond the city limits," he stated.
"And no, we have no obligation to come to Chicago, kneel before your throne and beg to freely exercise the rights that so many before us have died for," Pearson said. "To be honest, Mr. Mayor, I think Chicago would be a much better place if you spent less time in front of the cameras and more time behind your desk."
I agree with Mr. Pearson. Who does Mayor Daley think he is, anyway?
Richard Pearson, executive director of the Illinois State Rifle Association (ISRA), nevertheless said [in the wake of the two tragic shooting deaths] that the mayor's outburst "suggests strongly that it's time to pad the walls" of his office with rubber.
"I have a message for you, Mr. Mayor," Pearson added. "The Revolutionary War was not fought so that we could unseat King George and install King Richard. The Bill of Rights is not a stick of salami that you can slice and dice at your whim.
"You may have succeeded in suspending the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th and 9th amendments" to the U.S. Constitution "in Chicago, but the people of Illinois are not going to let you extend your tyranny beyond the city limits," he stated.
"And no, we have no obligation to come to Chicago, kneel before your throne and beg to freely exercise the rights that so many before us have died for," Pearson said. "To be honest, Mr. Mayor, I think Chicago would be a much better place if you spent less time in front of the cameras and more time behind your desk."
I agree with Mr. Pearson. Who does Mayor Daley think he is, anyway?
Did Iran hold talks with Iraqi "Insurgents"?
According to this article in the Telegraph, both Moqtadr Al Sadr, a leading Iraqi cleric with a rather large "army", and Hassan Nasrallah, the chief of the armed Shia group Hizbollah in Lebanon, have held separate meetings with Iranian officials only days before Iranian nuclear officials promised "harm and pain" to the US.
Why would Al Sadr and Nasrallah be meeting with the Iranians? Could it be that they are trying to get funding for their part in the on-going sectarian strife in Iraq (something that Iran continues to deny that they are doing)?
The disingenuousness of the Iranians is almost breathtaking, in that, not only are they meeting with an Iraqi who is the leader of an armed militia group, but with a known terrorist, but they are also calling for talks between Iran and the US on the situation in Iraq at the same time!
Hat tip: Little Green Footballs
Why would Al Sadr and Nasrallah be meeting with the Iranians? Could it be that they are trying to get funding for their part in the on-going sectarian strife in Iraq (something that Iran continues to deny that they are doing)?
The disingenuousness of the Iranians is almost breathtaking, in that, not only are they meeting with an Iraqi who is the leader of an armed militia group, but with a known terrorist, but they are also calling for talks between Iran and the US on the situation in Iraq at the same time!
Hat tip: Little Green Footballs
Iraqi document's now available on line
Stephen F. Hayes of The Weekly Standard, among others, has been doggedly pursuing the release of captured Iraqi documents, and he reports that there is now a web site set up for viewing those documents that have been released to the public.
There are literally millions of documents that still need to be translated and verified for validity, and Mr. Hayes asks some probing questions as to what the documents will reveal, and the processes that are being, or will be used, to determine which documents are released.
The very fact that the documents are being released is encouraging, and it is hoped here that much will be revealed in the way of links between the former Iraqi regime and terrorism sponsorship.
Hat tip: Captain's Quarters
There are literally millions of documents that still need to be translated and verified for validity, and Mr. Hayes asks some probing questions as to what the documents will reveal, and the processes that are being, or will be used, to determine which documents are released.
The very fact that the documents are being released is encouraging, and it is hoped here that much will be revealed in the way of links between the former Iraqi regime and terrorism sponsorship.
Hat tip: Captain's Quarters
Sunday, March 12, 2006
Iran raises oil as weapon in nukes standoff
As reported here, Iran is making more threats if they are referred to the UN Security Council for their nuclear activities, this time explicitly stating that they will use their vast resources of oil and natural gas, and their location on the Strait of Hormuz, to retaliate if they are referred.
Iranian Interior Minister Mostafa Pourmohammadi raised the possibility of using Iran's oil and natural-gas supplies as a weapon in the international standoff and also noted Iran's strategic location at a choke point for a vital Persian Gulf oil route.
"If [they] politicize our nuclear case, we will use any means. We are rich in energy resources. We have control over the biggest and the most sensitive energy route of the world," Mr. Pourmohammadi was quoted as saying by the official Islamic Republic News Agency.
Note that he said, "We are rich in energy resources". As I have stated before, if Iran is so rich in energy resources, then why do they need nuclear reactors to produce electricity? The answer of course, is that they do not need nuclear reactors to produce electricity, since they are so rich in energy resources. They do, however, need nuclear reactors to produce weapons grade nuclear material in order to produce their own nuclear WMD.
I think what the Iranian Interior Minister said makes the case against Iran's claim of "peaceful intentions" for the nuclear capability they so desperately crave, don't you?
I certainly do.
Iranian Interior Minister Mostafa Pourmohammadi raised the possibility of using Iran's oil and natural-gas supplies as a weapon in the international standoff and also noted Iran's strategic location at a choke point for a vital Persian Gulf oil route.
"If [they] politicize our nuclear case, we will use any means. We are rich in energy resources. We have control over the biggest and the most sensitive energy route of the world," Mr. Pourmohammadi was quoted as saying by the official Islamic Republic News Agency.
Note that he said, "We are rich in energy resources". As I have stated before, if Iran is so rich in energy resources, then why do they need nuclear reactors to produce electricity? The answer of course, is that they do not need nuclear reactors to produce electricity, since they are so rich in energy resources. They do, however, need nuclear reactors to produce weapons grade nuclear material in order to produce their own nuclear WMD.
I think what the Iranian Interior Minister said makes the case against Iran's claim of "peaceful intentions" for the nuclear capability they so desperately crave, don't you?
I certainly do.
Dixon says he's no 'spoiler'
As reported here, Aaron Dixon - as expected - announced his candidacy for US Senate under the Green Party banner, saying that he isn't a 'spoiler' candidate as he runs against "Can't-do-well", but that he's the anti-war candidate, offering Washington voters a choice over both "Can't-do-well" and McGavik, both of whom Dixon characterized as being "pro-war". (That's a problem?)
Dixon is a popular figure in the left-leaning circles here in Seattle, having been an activist for many years, and the Dems here should be getting nervous that he will siphon off enough votes from "Can't-do-well" to hand McGavik the election. We can probably expect a two-pronged attack campaign from "Can't-do-well" against both McGavik and Dixon, as we head into this years election.
Will Dixon prove to be a 'spoiler'? Only time, and the mobilization of the radical anti-war left in favor of Dixon over "Can't-do-well", will tell.
Dixon is a popular figure in the left-leaning circles here in Seattle, having been an activist for many years, and the Dems here should be getting nervous that he will siphon off enough votes from "Can't-do-well" to hand McGavik the election. We can probably expect a two-pronged attack campaign from "Can't-do-well" against both McGavik and Dixon, as we head into this years election.
Will Dixon prove to be a 'spoiler'? Only time, and the mobilization of the radical anti-war left in favor of Dixon over "Can't-do-well", will tell.
Cantwell may have a problem
As reported here, local activist Aaron Dixon is reportedly going to announce his candidacy under the Green Party banner, running against Can't-do-well and McGavik for the US Senate.
Dixon founded the first chapter of the Black Panthers outside of California back in 1968, and is reportedly very popular with the Left here in Seattle, and could potentially siphon off enough votes from Can't-do-well to hand McGavik the election.
With Dixon throwing his hat in the ring, things could get very interesting here come November. Stay tuned.
Dixon founded the first chapter of the Black Panthers outside of California back in 1968, and is reportedly very popular with the Left here in Seattle, and could potentially siphon off enough votes from Can't-do-well to hand McGavik the election.
With Dixon throwing his hat in the ring, things could get very interesting here come November. Stay tuned.
South Dakota abortion ban law signed by Governor
As reported here, Gov. Mike Rounds has signed the legislation banning most forms of abortion in South Dakota, while Planned Parenthood vows to fight it. NARAL president Nancy Keenan also voiced her opinion on the law, which basically amounted to "the sky is falling!".
There will be many legal challenges to this law, which I hope fail. "Rounds said he agrees with legislative sponsors that the test of a civilization is how it treats its most vulnerable and helpless people, and that unborn children are the most vulnerable and helpless."
I agree.
There will be many legal challenges to this law, which I hope fail. "Rounds said he agrees with legislative sponsors that the test of a civilization is how it treats its most vulnerable and helpless people, and that unborn children are the most vulnerable and helpless."
I agree.
Sunday, March 05, 2006
Iranian says Tehran tricked EU on nukes
As reported here (and as I have posted about before), the Iranians want nuclear weapons, and have been deceiving the EU for at least two decades regarding their intentions. Former head of the Iranian negotiating team, Hassan Rowhani, boasted about it in a speech to leading Iranian clerics.
And the Iranians are still trying to deceive not only the EU, but the world as well. They say that their nuclear program is for "peaceful purposes", to generate electricity. As I posted before, why do they need nuclear energy, when they sit on top of vast reserves of both oil and natural gas, which can be used to efficiently and cleanly produce enough electricity, not only for Iran, but for neighboring countries in the region without diminishing their exports? The answer to that is quite simple - they don't need nuclear energy to produce electricity.
What they do need however, in their view, is nuclear weapons so they may fulfill their self-proclaimed mandate of dominating not only the Middle East - which would be bad enough - but the entire world - which would be even worse.
Once Iran has nuclear weapons, you can be sure that the next step they will take is to state that they are running out of room in Iran for their expanding population, and that they need a little "elbow room" (Sound familiar? Hitler said the same thing.). Which country would they look to first for that "elbow room"? Which neighboring country has a majority Shiite population, that now also has close ties to the US, which they decidedly do not like, and would dearly love to disrupt those close ties? Iraq.
After Iraq, where next, for surely you don't think Iran would be satisfied with just Iraq? Probably Jordan, which also has close ties to the US, and then possibly Lebanon who is at odds with Iran's close ally, Syria. Then, once they are in Jordan, guess who would be next? Yep, Israel.
But, what about the UN telling them "they can't do that"? Oh, please. The UN? The UN can't even control peace keepers from raping, looting, and pillaging the people they are supposed to be protecting from rape, looting and pillaging, or control their own staffers from looting funds, and you expect Iran to listen to them?
Okay, if not the UN, then what about the US stepping in? That's exactly what the lunatics in Iran want to have happen. Why? So that they can a) unleash whatever nuclear weapons they have, wherever they think will benefit them most, and b) unleash the "Great Jihad" against the West, with the ultimate goal of enslaving the world under the heel of Islam, with Iran as the ultimate theocratic government.
Of course, once Iran fired off whatever nuclear weapons it has, the US would then be forced to retaliate in kind, reducing Tehran to a molten poll of glass. This in turn would infuriate others, including possibly China who has it's own nukes, and definitely the vast Islamic population elsewhere in the world.
Am I insane, you ask? Iran wouldn't possibly want that to happen, could they? No, I'm not insane, and I'm not running around with my hair on fire, yelling that the sky is falling. I am, however, just stating my position on why I believe that Iran must not be allowed to develop nuclear weapons, for yes indeed, their current leadership would want to see the things that I have described above come to pass.
Otherwise, why would they deceive the EU about their nuclear intentions?
And the Iranians are still trying to deceive not only the EU, but the world as well. They say that their nuclear program is for "peaceful purposes", to generate electricity. As I posted before, why do they need nuclear energy, when they sit on top of vast reserves of both oil and natural gas, which can be used to efficiently and cleanly produce enough electricity, not only for Iran, but for neighboring countries in the region without diminishing their exports? The answer to that is quite simple - they don't need nuclear energy to produce electricity.
What they do need however, in their view, is nuclear weapons so they may fulfill their self-proclaimed mandate of dominating not only the Middle East - which would be bad enough - but the entire world - which would be even worse.
Once Iran has nuclear weapons, you can be sure that the next step they will take is to state that they are running out of room in Iran for their expanding population, and that they need a little "elbow room" (Sound familiar? Hitler said the same thing.). Which country would they look to first for that "elbow room"? Which neighboring country has a majority Shiite population, that now also has close ties to the US, which they decidedly do not like, and would dearly love to disrupt those close ties? Iraq.
After Iraq, where next, for surely you don't think Iran would be satisfied with just Iraq? Probably Jordan, which also has close ties to the US, and then possibly Lebanon who is at odds with Iran's close ally, Syria. Then, once they are in Jordan, guess who would be next? Yep, Israel.
But, what about the UN telling them "they can't do that"? Oh, please. The UN? The UN can't even control peace keepers from raping, looting, and pillaging the people they are supposed to be protecting from rape, looting and pillaging, or control their own staffers from looting funds, and you expect Iran to listen to them?
Okay, if not the UN, then what about the US stepping in? That's exactly what the lunatics in Iran want to have happen. Why? So that they can a) unleash whatever nuclear weapons they have, wherever they think will benefit them most, and b) unleash the "Great Jihad" against the West, with the ultimate goal of enslaving the world under the heel of Islam, with Iran as the ultimate theocratic government.
Of course, once Iran fired off whatever nuclear weapons it has, the US would then be forced to retaliate in kind, reducing Tehran to a molten poll of glass. This in turn would infuriate others, including possibly China who has it's own nukes, and definitely the vast Islamic population elsewhere in the world.
Am I insane, you ask? Iran wouldn't possibly want that to happen, could they? No, I'm not insane, and I'm not running around with my hair on fire, yelling that the sky is falling. I am, however, just stating my position on why I believe that Iran must not be allowed to develop nuclear weapons, for yes indeed, their current leadership would want to see the things that I have described above come to pass.
Otherwise, why would they deceive the EU about their nuclear intentions?
UN advocating for terrorist led "government"
In the convoluted view of the UN, Hamas - a known terrorist organization which has pledged the destruction of Israel - is "good", and therefore deserves money from the West to legitimize it as a "government", while the US and Israel are "bad", for threatening to cut of funds.
As reported here, UN Mid-East envoy Alvaro De Soto warned that bankrupting the Palestinian government could be seen as punishment for Hamas' election victory and could shake the already unstable peace process. The thinking (if you can call it that) is that by withholding funds, the PA will go bankrupt, and cause the Hamas-led "government" to collapse.
This is a bad thing?
As reported here, UN Mid-East envoy Alvaro De Soto warned that bankrupting the Palestinian government could be seen as punishment for Hamas' election victory and could shake the already unstable peace process. The thinking (if you can call it that) is that by withholding funds, the PA will go bankrupt, and cause the Hamas-led "government" to collapse.
This is a bad thing?
Report: Iran Aims to Expand Nuke Program
As reported here, a new report from the IAEA indicates that Iran is pushing ahead it's domestic nuclear enrichment program, even as "talks" between Iran and Russia to move Iran's enrichment program to Russian soil have "started".
Adam Ereli, the deputy U.S. State Department spokesman, described news of agreement as "more chaff being thrown up by the Iranians ahead of the Board of Governors meeting" next week.
"There's no deal, frankly, that I'm aware of," Ereli said.
Ereli is correct in his characterization of "talks" between Iran and Russia being "more chaff being thrown up by the Iranians ahead of the Board of Governors meeting" next week. The Iranians are merely giving lip service to these so-called "talks" with Russia, in a blatant attempt to blow smoke up the IAEA's rear end, to forestall referral to, and possible sanctions from, the UN Security Council.
As I've posted before, the only possible reason for that is that Iran wants to become a nuclear power. After all, their plainly stated objective is to dominate the world and create an Islamic world government. What better way to accomplish that, than by having nuclear weapons?
Hat tip: Supedujour
Adam Ereli, the deputy U.S. State Department spokesman, described news of agreement as "more chaff being thrown up by the Iranians ahead of the Board of Governors meeting" next week.
"There's no deal, frankly, that I'm aware of," Ereli said.
Ereli is correct in his characterization of "talks" between Iran and Russia being "more chaff being thrown up by the Iranians ahead of the Board of Governors meeting" next week. The Iranians are merely giving lip service to these so-called "talks" with Russia, in a blatant attempt to blow smoke up the IAEA's rear end, to forestall referral to, and possible sanctions from, the UN Security Council.
As I've posted before, the only possible reason for that is that Iran wants to become a nuclear power. After all, their plainly stated objective is to dominate the world and create an Islamic world government. What better way to accomplish that, than by having nuclear weapons?
Hat tip: Supedujour
Sen. Clinton says Rove obsesses about her
As reported here, Hillary says Karl Rove "spends a lot of time obsessing about me.", and that she thinks Rove, RNC Chairman Ken Mehlman and other Republicans are using her to divert attention from Republican problems as the 2006 congressional elections approach.
She also said, "What they're hoping is that all of their missteps, which are now numbering in the hundreds, are going to somehow be overlooked because people, instead of focusing on the '06 election, will jump ahead and think about the next one."
Missteps?
Oh, you mean a liberated Afghanistan and Iraq, where free elections have been held for the first time in decades, where millions of people previously denied the opportunity participated in those free elections?
Or, do you mean the NSA program that has helped prevent another terrorist attack on US soil?
Or is it the tax cuts, that were supposedly going to deprive the government of $27 billion dollars, but which has instead generated $26 billion dollars in tax revenue, a whopping $53 million dollar difference?
Or how about unemployment, which is at it's lowest level since Ronald Reagan was President?
Or how about all the new jobs that have been created, that you and your cronies pooh-pooh as not being "good jobs" (simply because you and your cronies did nothing to help get the economy going again after 9/11, and therefore can't take any of the credit)?
Karl Rove "obsessing" about you? No, I don't think Karl Rove is obsessing about you (Note to Hillary - it really isn't all about you, ok?). I think that the people obsessing are you and your Dem cronies over the fact that you don't control the US Senate, the US House of Representatives, or the White House, and that the Republicans do. Speaking of the White House, it is you and your Dem cronies who are obsessing about President George W. Bush.
I've always known that Senators tend to have big egos, but in that regard Hillary, you take the cake!
She also said, "What they're hoping is that all of their missteps, which are now numbering in the hundreds, are going to somehow be overlooked because people, instead of focusing on the '06 election, will jump ahead and think about the next one."
Missteps?
Oh, you mean a liberated Afghanistan and Iraq, where free elections have been held for the first time in decades, where millions of people previously denied the opportunity participated in those free elections?
Or, do you mean the NSA program that has helped prevent another terrorist attack on US soil?
Or is it the tax cuts, that were supposedly going to deprive the government of $27 billion dollars, but which has instead generated $26 billion dollars in tax revenue, a whopping $53 million dollar difference?
Or how about unemployment, which is at it's lowest level since Ronald Reagan was President?
Or how about all the new jobs that have been created, that you and your cronies pooh-pooh as not being "good jobs" (simply because you and your cronies did nothing to help get the economy going again after 9/11, and therefore can't take any of the credit)?
Karl Rove "obsessing" about you? No, I don't think Karl Rove is obsessing about you (Note to Hillary - it really isn't all about you, ok?). I think that the people obsessing are you and your Dem cronies over the fact that you don't control the US Senate, the US House of Representatives, or the White House, and that the Republicans do. Speaking of the White House, it is you and your Dem cronies who are obsessing about President George W. Bush.
I've always known that Senators tend to have big egos, but in that regard Hillary, you take the cake!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)