As originally reported by Canada.com (but which has since been removed from their web site), "Human rights groups are raising alarms over a new law passed by the Iranian parliament that would require the country's Jews and Christians to wear coloured badges to identify them and other religious minorities as non-Muslims."
The law, which must still be approved by Iran's "Supreme Guide" Ali Khamenehi before being put into effect, also establishes special insignia to be worn by non-Muslims.
Iran's roughly 25,000 Jews would have to sew a yellow strip of cloth on the front of their clothes, while Christians would wear red badges and Zoroastrians would be forced to wear blue cloth."
If this report is true, it is outrageous and reminiscent of Nazi Germany, but not surprising after all of the previous anti-Semitic comments made by the lunatic running Iran. What is surprising to me, is that the yellow strips that Jews will be required to wear if and when this law passes won't be in the shape of the Star of David, as was the requirement under the Nazi's. Of course, that could become a requirement.
Hat tip: LittleBee55
BREAKING NEWS. As reported here, there is a scramble by various world governments to attempt to verify this report, accompanied by denunciations of the reported legislation if it is true.
More breaking news. Free Republic has the original report reproduced here, and if you want more information regarding this, go here - tons of links!
Sunday, May 21, 2006
People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones
As this years mid-term elections draw ever closer, Democrats have been screeching for some time now about the 'Republican culture of corruption', yet somehow, they remain silent about allegations against members of their own party, such as Jefferson and Mollohan.
The finger pointing began during the investigation into lobbyist Jack Abramoff, with the screeching coming into full voice with the admission by, and conviction of, former Republican Rep. Randy 'Duke' Cunningham, with the Democrats attempting to take the 'moral high ground' by portraying themselves as being 'pure'.
However, as reported here, with investigations against Jefferson and Mollohan (as well as Republican Ney), that 'card' won't be as effective as Democrats once hoped. Republicans aren't the only ones who have engaged in corrupt activities, or had links to Abramoff, which you can see for yourself here. I also remember some prominent Democrats from the past who were involved in corruption, such as the first Mayor Daley of Chicago, and Huey Long of Louisiana, not to mention all of the Union heads who have predominantly been Democrats, who were convicted of corruption and sent to prison.
Perhaps I'm being cynical here, but in my opinion, politics in general is conducive to corruption. If you are in politics, and are greedy by nature, you will become involved in corruption, no matter what party you are affiliated with, so the Democrats attempt at portraying themselves as being above the temptation to succumb to corruption is baseless, hypocritical, and insulting to the intelligence of the American people.
All I can say to the Democrats is, people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, and those who are involved in corruption - from either side of the political aisle - need to be caught and punished.
The finger pointing began during the investigation into lobbyist Jack Abramoff, with the screeching coming into full voice with the admission by, and conviction of, former Republican Rep. Randy 'Duke' Cunningham, with the Democrats attempting to take the 'moral high ground' by portraying themselves as being 'pure'.
However, as reported here, with investigations against Jefferson and Mollohan (as well as Republican Ney), that 'card' won't be as effective as Democrats once hoped. Republicans aren't the only ones who have engaged in corrupt activities, or had links to Abramoff, which you can see for yourself here. I also remember some prominent Democrats from the past who were involved in corruption, such as the first Mayor Daley of Chicago, and Huey Long of Louisiana, not to mention all of the Union heads who have predominantly been Democrats, who were convicted of corruption and sent to prison.
Perhaps I'm being cynical here, but in my opinion, politics in general is conducive to corruption. If you are in politics, and are greedy by nature, you will become involved in corruption, no matter what party you are affiliated with, so the Democrats attempt at portraying themselves as being above the temptation to succumb to corruption is baseless, hypocritical, and insulting to the intelligence of the American people.
All I can say to the Democrats is, people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, and those who are involved in corruption - from either side of the political aisle - need to be caught and punished.
Mexicans see insult, danger in border plan
As reported here, Mexicans feel "insulted" that we want to protect our borders, and stem the tide of illegal immigration.
Well, isn't that just too bad.
"Alfredo Martinez, 56, a tomato seller at an open-air market, shook his head when asked about Bush's plan to send 6,000 National Guard troops to help police the 2,000-mile-long U.S.-Mexico border.
His 22-year-old son crossed the border illegally last year and now sends money home every month from his job in a New York City deli. "I don't think he'll be able to come back and visit for a while," Martinez said. "It's a shame. There should be a way to recognize the work we do up north, a way to see us as laborers and not delinquents.""
There is a way, Mr. Martinez. It's called entering the country legally. When people enter the country legally, we do recognize the work they do, and do not consider them 'delinquents'. However, when people enter the country illegally, they are then criminals (although not prosecuted for that crime, simply deported when caught, through the "catch-and-release" "plan"), just like the illegals who enter your country, Mr. Martinez.
""I don't understand why the United States must take such a repressive attitude toward us," said Agustin Melgar, 45, who works in the same open-air market as Martinez near Chapultepec Park in the city center. "It's insulting. We all know there's a mutual demand: The gringos need our cheap labor, and we want better pay.""
Well, pardon us for insulting you, Mr. Melgar, for being so 'repressive' in our attitude about you people entering our country illegally. You want 'repressive'? Look at what your own country does with the illegals that they catch. Does the Mexican Government do the "catch-and-release" thing, like ours does? Oh, heck no. It is a FELONY to be in Mexico illegally (it's in their Constitution!), so if you are caught, you go to jail! And you say that the "catch-and-release" method of stemming the illegal alien tide is 'repressive'?
Oh, please!
"Ruben Aguilar, a spokesman for Mexican President Vicente Fox, said Monday that a security-first policy at the border would not solve the problems created by illegal immigration."
Maybe not, but it would certainly do more than what we are doing now!
"Fox has said he prefers a plan that would offer some form of legal status for all undocumented Mexicans now in the USA."
But of course, as that would solve a lot of his problems, such as over-population and a stagnant economy that is producing virtually zero new jobs, and make him look like Zapata getting over on the gringo's.
"The government began to change its message on Tuesday. Foreign Secretary Luis Ernesto Derbez warned that the United States might face lawsuits if the increased troop presence on the border resulted in human rights abuses. "If we see the National Guard starting to directly participate in detaining people ... we would immediately start filing lawsuits through our consulates," he told Radio Red, a Mexico City radio station."
Oh, really? What about the direct involvement of your own military and police forces in the smuggling of both people and drugs into our country, Secretary Derbez? What about that, hmmm?
And just where would you be filing those law suits, Secretary Derbez? At the "World Court"? Go ahead. We don't recognize that court as having jurisdiction over the US, so that would be about as effective as trying to empty the Pacific Ocean with a teaspoon.
"Andrés Manuel Lpez Obrador, a former Mexico City mayor who is running for president in July elections, said Tuesday that Fox's government is "mostly responsible. ... There are no jobs in Mexico, so people need to emigrate.""
Well, it's nice to see that at least someone (on either side of the border) gets it! I think I like this guy.
"Felipe de Jess Caldern Hinojosa, the presidential candidate of Fox's party, said Monday that he understands the U.S. government's desire to protect its borders, but adding troops there will only "increase the social and human costs for immigrants.""
I have a real easy solution to that 'increase in social and human costs', Mr. Hinojosa. Keep the "immigrants" at home! While you're at it, do something about your own economy, so people will have jobs at home, so they will be less inclined to come up here, wreaking havoc on our economy!
""We realize that the discussion over how to manage the border has now turned into a win-lose game between the Republicans and Democrats," said Humberto Garza, an expert on Mexican foreign relations at the College of Mexico. "But it's an insult to Mexicans. This discussion clearly lacks foresight. It ignores the fact that no matter how tight you make the border, people will still find a way to cross.""
Trying to protect our borders from illegals entering our country is an insult, while your country has made it a FELONY to enter your country illegally, and when you catch an illegal "immigrant", your courts prosecute them to the fullest extent of your laws, Mr. Garza? An insult? Don't you think it is insulting to those of us who pay taxes in our country when we have to pay billions of dollars for the health and education of those from your country who have entered our country illegally? People that could, and should, be taken care of at home, if only your country would get its' act together, and straighten out your economy.
The last time I checked, the US government - and by implication, the people of the US - respects the sovereign borders of the nation of Mexico. Is it too much to ask that the Mexican government - and again by implication, the people of Mexico - respect our sovereign borders as well?
The fact that our sovereign borders are not respected by the government of Mexico is the real insult here, not our desire to protect our sovereign borders.
Well, isn't that just too bad.
"Alfredo Martinez, 56, a tomato seller at an open-air market, shook his head when asked about Bush's plan to send 6,000 National Guard troops to help police the 2,000-mile-long U.S.-Mexico border.
His 22-year-old son crossed the border illegally last year and now sends money home every month from his job in a New York City deli. "I don't think he'll be able to come back and visit for a while," Martinez said. "It's a shame. There should be a way to recognize the work we do up north, a way to see us as laborers and not delinquents.""
There is a way, Mr. Martinez. It's called entering the country legally. When people enter the country legally, we do recognize the work they do, and do not consider them 'delinquents'. However, when people enter the country illegally, they are then criminals (although not prosecuted for that crime, simply deported when caught, through the "catch-and-release" "plan"), just like the illegals who enter your country, Mr. Martinez.
""I don't understand why the United States must take such a repressive attitude toward us," said Agustin Melgar, 45, who works in the same open-air market as Martinez near Chapultepec Park in the city center. "It's insulting. We all know there's a mutual demand: The gringos need our cheap labor, and we want better pay.""
Well, pardon us for insulting you, Mr. Melgar, for being so 'repressive' in our attitude about you people entering our country illegally. You want 'repressive'? Look at what your own country does with the illegals that they catch. Does the Mexican Government do the "catch-and-release" thing, like ours does? Oh, heck no. It is a FELONY to be in Mexico illegally (it's in their Constitution!), so if you are caught, you go to jail! And you say that the "catch-and-release" method of stemming the illegal alien tide is 'repressive'?
Oh, please!
"Ruben Aguilar, a spokesman for Mexican President Vicente Fox, said Monday that a security-first policy at the border would not solve the problems created by illegal immigration."
Maybe not, but it would certainly do more than what we are doing now!
"Fox has said he prefers a plan that would offer some form of legal status for all undocumented Mexicans now in the USA."
But of course, as that would solve a lot of his problems, such as over-population and a stagnant economy that is producing virtually zero new jobs, and make him look like Zapata getting over on the gringo's.
"The government began to change its message on Tuesday. Foreign Secretary Luis Ernesto Derbez warned that the United States might face lawsuits if the increased troop presence on the border resulted in human rights abuses. "If we see the National Guard starting to directly participate in detaining people ... we would immediately start filing lawsuits through our consulates," he told Radio Red, a Mexico City radio station."
Oh, really? What about the direct involvement of your own military and police forces in the smuggling of both people and drugs into our country, Secretary Derbez? What about that, hmmm?
And just where would you be filing those law suits, Secretary Derbez? At the "World Court"? Go ahead. We don't recognize that court as having jurisdiction over the US, so that would be about as effective as trying to empty the Pacific Ocean with a teaspoon.
"Andrés Manuel Lpez Obrador, a former Mexico City mayor who is running for president in July elections, said Tuesday that Fox's government is "mostly responsible. ... There are no jobs in Mexico, so people need to emigrate.""
Well, it's nice to see that at least someone (on either side of the border) gets it! I think I like this guy.
"Felipe de Jess Caldern Hinojosa, the presidential candidate of Fox's party, said Monday that he understands the U.S. government's desire to protect its borders, but adding troops there will only "increase the social and human costs for immigrants.""
I have a real easy solution to that 'increase in social and human costs', Mr. Hinojosa. Keep the "immigrants" at home! While you're at it, do something about your own economy, so people will have jobs at home, so they will be less inclined to come up here, wreaking havoc on our economy!
""We realize that the discussion over how to manage the border has now turned into a win-lose game between the Republicans and Democrats," said Humberto Garza, an expert on Mexican foreign relations at the College of Mexico. "But it's an insult to Mexicans. This discussion clearly lacks foresight. It ignores the fact that no matter how tight you make the border, people will still find a way to cross.""
Trying to protect our borders from illegals entering our country is an insult, while your country has made it a FELONY to enter your country illegally, and when you catch an illegal "immigrant", your courts prosecute them to the fullest extent of your laws, Mr. Garza? An insult? Don't you think it is insulting to those of us who pay taxes in our country when we have to pay billions of dollars for the health and education of those from your country who have entered our country illegally? People that could, and should, be taken care of at home, if only your country would get its' act together, and straighten out your economy.
The last time I checked, the US government - and by implication, the people of the US - respects the sovereign borders of the nation of Mexico. Is it too much to ask that the Mexican government - and again by implication, the people of Mexico - respect our sovereign borders as well?
The fact that our sovereign borders are not respected by the government of Mexico is the real insult here, not our desire to protect our sovereign borders.
Put Saddam back in power?
Kevin Dooley, a student at the University of Massachusetts wrote an amateurish excuse for a column/essay, posted here, in which he advocates the restoration of Saddam Hussein to power, as the only way to restore order and stability to Iraq. In Mr. Dooley's essay, he makes several false assertions, probably due to the fact that he apparently did no research other than to read an article in the New York Times, and the Sunday Times of London, articles which he provides no links to, even though he essay was posted on line.
Mr. Dooley, in the future, please provide links to articles that form the basis of your essays, so that those of us who read your essays may check your sources and make up our minds as to the veracity of your assertions. Not providing links is both rude, and shows a certain amount of laziness on your part, in my opinion. But, I digress, as I believe that I know the reason(s) why Mr. Dooley did not provide any links. Read on.
Put Saddam Hussein back in power
[by] Kevin Dooley
Posted: 5/17/06
In an article in the United Kingdom's Sunday Times, it was reported that Saddam Hussein told one of his defense lawyers that he was ready to die."I am not scared of execution," said the former brutal dictator of Iraq. While Saddam Hussein awaits the almost certain guilty verdict to be handed down in his ongoing trial, which resumed this week, he has taken up writing some of his own poetry. Here's a sample of his work from FoxNews.com:From "Ode to Iraq""My spirit is still standing firm and will not fall,And in my body runs the blood of the great.Oh Iraq you are crowned in the heartAnd on the tongue you are the poem of the poets.Oh Iraq misfortune has shaken your sword, so stand tallAnd gather your strength without bearing a grudge."Even though Saddam may have all the time in the world now to write poetry (at least until he is publicly hanged), Saddam is needed somewhere else. And it's not as a writing instructor in a creative writing class here at the University of Massachusetts. Instead, Saddam Hussein needs to be put back in power as president/dictator of Iraq immediately.
Mr. Dooley starts out ok in his little essay, correctly identifying Saddam as a 'brutal dictator', and stating that Saddam will surely hang at the conclusion of his trial, but then he veers off into fantasy-land by stating that Saddam needs to be re-installed into power, and 'immediately', at that, as if that will end the killing. Nothing could be further from the truth, as evidenced by the current charges against Saddam. Saddam is on trial for ordering the revenge killing of Shiites after the failed assassination attempt. Does Mr. Dooley really think Saddam would suddenly become an 'enlightened leader', if released from his trial and re-installed in power? If so, then Mr. Dooley is woefully naive. But wait, there's more.
Ever since Saddam Hussein was ousted from power in 2003, Iraq has been nothing short of a disaster area.
As 'reported', in a biased and distorted manner, by the MSM. The 'disaster area' as Mr. Dooley calls it, is limited to a very small portion of the country, a fact which is never mentioned by the MSM, due to the fact that most 'reporters' never even venture out of the Green Zone. What also isn't being reported, of course, are the numbers of schools, hospitals, water purification plants, and other infrastructure being built, that had either languished under Saddam's rule (because that would have benefited Shiite area's), or had been damaged or destroyed in the war; the number of children now enrolled in school; the number of new businesses that have sprung up as the Iraqi economy is growing by leaps and bounds. Most of this information could have been found at Arthur Chrenkoff's (now defunct, but still available) blog, among others.
The once secular nation has seen the rise of sectarian violence, mainly involving the Shiite and Sunni Muslims in their ongoing attempt to seize power in the chaotic political landscape. Some have said the way to solve the problem of sectarian violence in Iraq is to just simply split the country into three separate nations. After all, Iraq has only been an independent nation since 1932.
Long before Britain granted the country independence, the region was divided into three separate provinces under the Ottoman Empire. The problem with this plan, as Anthony Cordesman writes in his New York Times article "Three Iraq's would be one big problem," is that Iraq is not divided along a neat set of sectarian lines. As a result, the effort to divide Iraq along sectarian lines would result in massive "relocations." In addition, there would be fights over the control of oil in Iraq. According to Cordesman's article, "90 percent of Iraq's government revenues come from oil exports."
So if dividing the country along sectarian lines is not the solution to creating regional stability, what is? Like I said earlier, all you have to do is tell Saddam Hussein he is back in power. Say what you want about the guy, and yes, I know he is a brutal dictator who is responsible for countless lives being lost, but he was the only one it seems that was able to keep the Shiite and Sunni Muslims from going at each other's throats. When Saddam Hussein was ousted from power, it created a political vacuum which the majority of Iraqis filled by democratically electing a Shiite government. However, this election has only alienated the Sunni Muslims in Iraq, and was one of the factors in the Shiite mosque being blown up a few months ago. The solution to this entire mess is to put Saddam back in power.
Mr. Dooley at least (possibly) did some research, it appears, as he does put forth some factual history about Iraq, but then once again, he veers off into fantasy-land, stating that the 'only way' to restore 'regional stability' is to re-install Saddam to power, because Saddam was the 'only one' that could keep the Shiites and Sunnis from fighting among themselves. That was because Saddam made sure that the Shiites didn't have guns, and that also presupposes that there is no one else in Iraq that is capable of effective leadership. Saying that there is (apparently) no one else in Iraq who is capable of being an effective leader, is akin to the astronomers in the last century stating that there was absolutely no possibility that other planets existed around other stars, which has since been proven to be a false assertion. Mr. Dooley's assertion that Saddam is the 'only one' that can stop the in-fighting between the Shiites and the Sunnis is equally false.
Like many people have said before, Saddam Hussein was absolutely no threat to the United States. The Bush administration blatantly lied to us when they said Saddam Hussein had ties to the terrorist organization Al-Qaida.
Mr. Dooley again presents a false assertion here, saying that Saddam was 'no threat' to the US, and that the Bush administration 'blatantly lied' to us about Saddam' ties to Al-Qaida. As more and more of the millions of captured Iraqi documents are being translated, we are seeing that, yes indeed, Saddam's regime did in fact have ties to OBL and Al-Qaida, the fact of which has apparently totally escaped Mr. Dooley's attention. Mr. Dooley would have known that his assertion was false had he done just a little research into this by going to this web site. The fact is that, Saddam was a direct threat to not only the US, but to the region and the rest of the world, through his direct links to OBL and Al-Qaida.
As a result of the U.S. invasion, however, Iraq has become a recruiting dream for Al-Qaida. Sadly, Iraqis didn't dance and throw roses at our troops when they arrived on the scene. Instead, Iraqis grew bitter and desperate as they saw their country stampeded by American troops under the orders of President Bush. The desperation has led many Iraqis to turn towards Islamic Fundamentalism as a way to fight back against the imperialistic United States. Without any doubt, Iran will soon be looking to extend their extreme Islamic teachings to desperate Iraqis who are looking for anything to cling onto as they watch their country be torn apart.
So, Mr. Dooley, would you prefer we fight Al-Qaida on the streets of, say Cambridge, or Boston perhaps, rather than the streets of Ramadi or Baghdad? Where would you like us to fight Al-Qaida, for Al-Qaida recruits radical Muslims from all over the world, not just in Iraq?
As for people being resentful of, and becoming desperate because of the so-called 'imperialistic Americans stampeding' through their country, most Iraqi's actually did rejoice at the toppling of Saddam's regime. You must not have been watching CNN at that time. Those Iraqi's who you say have turned to Islamic fundamentalism were already there in the first place, or if not, were leaning towards that way of thinking anyway. And let us not forget that the vast majority of those who are engaged in fighting against the Coalition and Iraqi forces are primarily made up of Sunni Muslims, and Islamo-fascist terrorists from other countries.
And let us not forget the claim by the Bush administration that Saddam Hussein had an arsenal of weapons of mass destruction. Now, you would think that our government would be able to easily tell our troops where to find these weapons, since it was the United States who sold Saddam Hussein these lethal weapons when Iraq was at war with Iran. Back in the 1980s, Saddam was in fact a friend of the United States when they were at war with the "dangerous" Iranian nation, which was then under an extreme Islamic fundamentalist leadership (and still is) that had grown hostile towards the United States.
The Bush administration was not the only government that stated that Saddam had an arsenal of WMD's. The Europeans also made that claim, as well as the Clinton administration, and both of the Senators from Massachusetts, but those facts are inconvenient to your essay, which is obviously why you decided to omit them. As for the lack of discovered stockpiles of WMD's? According to the Israeli Mossad and other intelligence services, they were transported to both Syria and Iran just prior to the invasion.
Mr. Dooley, why did you enclose the word 'dangerous' in quote marks when you referred to Iran, implying that Iran was not dangerous? After the fall of the Shah, when the extremists came to power in Iran, one of their first priorities was to establish terrorist groups, or ties to existing terrorist groups, in Lebanon and the so-called 'occupied territories'. You don't consider that dangerous? Oh, and let's not forget that the Iranians stormed the US Embassy in Teheran - which is a blatant act of war - and held Americans hostage for 444 days, ok?
And calling Saddam a 'friend' is only true in the sense of "any enemy of my enemies is my friend". Saddam needed money and weapons to pursue his act of aggression against the Iranians, an act which I'll grant we did encourage, for the reasons stated above.
So, in my opinion, the only way that we can bring home our troops immediately and at the same time bring back some regional stability to Iraq before we invaded is to have Saddam Hussein regain power. Despite the fact that this is the same man who during the Gulf War I thought was going to steal all my presents under the Christmas tree. It's sobering to know that the only person who can bring back order to a chaotic nation is one of the most brutal dictators in history, but it is necessary in order to bring home our troops and to make sure Al-Qaida and Iran do not gain more influence in Iraq than they already have as a result of the invasion.
Mr. Dooley's opinion is that the only way to 'bring our troops home immediately' is to restore one of the most brutal dictators in history to power, which would bring 'stability back to the region', and to ensure that Al-Qaida and Iran do not gain more influence in Iraq. Again, Mr. Dooley makes the false assertion that Saddam is the 'only one' who can 'restore order' in Iraq. Mr. Dooley does not know, or least makes no statements regarding, any of the other people in Iraq that are involved, or may become involved, in the political process in Iraq, so in stating that Saddam is the 'only one' that is capable shows a glaring ignorance on the part of Mr. Dooley. Considering that Mr. Dooley is a student at an institution of higher learning, his obvious ignorance, and his total disregard of honest research, is breathtakingly astonishing. Mr. Dooley is, however, entitled to his opinion, but as the saying goes, "It is better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool, than to open it and remove all doubt.".
Restoring Saddam to power would be a disaster of untold magnitude, which even the Arab neighbors of Iraq know. Withdrawing our troops immediately would also be a disaster, which again, even the Arab neighbors of Iraq know, but apparently those two facts escape Mr. Dooley.
Restore Saddam to power? An absolutely ludicrous concept.
Kevin Dooley is a Collegian columnist.
Note to The Collegian – do you allow all of your columnists to do such sloppy work, or just Mr. Dooley?
Hat tip: Reality Hammer
Mr. Dooley, in the future, please provide links to articles that form the basis of your essays, so that those of us who read your essays may check your sources and make up our minds as to the veracity of your assertions. Not providing links is both rude, and shows a certain amount of laziness on your part, in my opinion. But, I digress, as I believe that I know the reason(s) why Mr. Dooley did not provide any links. Read on.
Put Saddam Hussein back in power
[by] Kevin Dooley
Posted: 5/17/06
In an article in the United Kingdom's Sunday Times, it was reported that Saddam Hussein told one of his defense lawyers that he was ready to die."I am not scared of execution," said the former brutal dictator of Iraq. While Saddam Hussein awaits the almost certain guilty verdict to be handed down in his ongoing trial, which resumed this week, he has taken up writing some of his own poetry. Here's a sample of his work from FoxNews.com:From "Ode to Iraq""My spirit is still standing firm and will not fall,And in my body runs the blood of the great.Oh Iraq you are crowned in the heartAnd on the tongue you are the poem of the poets.Oh Iraq misfortune has shaken your sword, so stand tallAnd gather your strength without bearing a grudge."Even though Saddam may have all the time in the world now to write poetry (at least until he is publicly hanged), Saddam is needed somewhere else. And it's not as a writing instructor in a creative writing class here at the University of Massachusetts. Instead, Saddam Hussein needs to be put back in power as president/dictator of Iraq immediately.
Mr. Dooley starts out ok in his little essay, correctly identifying Saddam as a 'brutal dictator', and stating that Saddam will surely hang at the conclusion of his trial, but then he veers off into fantasy-land by stating that Saddam needs to be re-installed into power, and 'immediately', at that, as if that will end the killing. Nothing could be further from the truth, as evidenced by the current charges against Saddam. Saddam is on trial for ordering the revenge killing of Shiites after the failed assassination attempt. Does Mr. Dooley really think Saddam would suddenly become an 'enlightened leader', if released from his trial and re-installed in power? If so, then Mr. Dooley is woefully naive. But wait, there's more.
Ever since Saddam Hussein was ousted from power in 2003, Iraq has been nothing short of a disaster area.
As 'reported', in a biased and distorted manner, by the MSM. The 'disaster area' as Mr. Dooley calls it, is limited to a very small portion of the country, a fact which is never mentioned by the MSM, due to the fact that most 'reporters' never even venture out of the Green Zone. What also isn't being reported, of course, are the numbers of schools, hospitals, water purification plants, and other infrastructure being built, that had either languished under Saddam's rule (because that would have benefited Shiite area's), or had been damaged or destroyed in the war; the number of children now enrolled in school; the number of new businesses that have sprung up as the Iraqi economy is growing by leaps and bounds. Most of this information could have been found at Arthur Chrenkoff's (now defunct, but still available) blog, among others.
The once secular nation has seen the rise of sectarian violence, mainly involving the Shiite and Sunni Muslims in their ongoing attempt to seize power in the chaotic political landscape. Some have said the way to solve the problem of sectarian violence in Iraq is to just simply split the country into three separate nations. After all, Iraq has only been an independent nation since 1932.
Long before Britain granted the country independence, the region was divided into three separate provinces under the Ottoman Empire. The problem with this plan, as Anthony Cordesman writes in his New York Times article "Three Iraq's would be one big problem," is that Iraq is not divided along a neat set of sectarian lines. As a result, the effort to divide Iraq along sectarian lines would result in massive "relocations." In addition, there would be fights over the control of oil in Iraq. According to Cordesman's article, "90 percent of Iraq's government revenues come from oil exports."
So if dividing the country along sectarian lines is not the solution to creating regional stability, what is? Like I said earlier, all you have to do is tell Saddam Hussein he is back in power. Say what you want about the guy, and yes, I know he is a brutal dictator who is responsible for countless lives being lost, but he was the only one it seems that was able to keep the Shiite and Sunni Muslims from going at each other's throats. When Saddam Hussein was ousted from power, it created a political vacuum which the majority of Iraqis filled by democratically electing a Shiite government. However, this election has only alienated the Sunni Muslims in Iraq, and was one of the factors in the Shiite mosque being blown up a few months ago. The solution to this entire mess is to put Saddam back in power.
Mr. Dooley at least (possibly) did some research, it appears, as he does put forth some factual history about Iraq, but then once again, he veers off into fantasy-land, stating that the 'only way' to restore 'regional stability' is to re-install Saddam to power, because Saddam was the 'only one' that could keep the Shiites and Sunnis from fighting among themselves. That was because Saddam made sure that the Shiites didn't have guns, and that also presupposes that there is no one else in Iraq that is capable of effective leadership. Saying that there is (apparently) no one else in Iraq who is capable of being an effective leader, is akin to the astronomers in the last century stating that there was absolutely no possibility that other planets existed around other stars, which has since been proven to be a false assertion. Mr. Dooley's assertion that Saddam is the 'only one' that can stop the in-fighting between the Shiites and the Sunnis is equally false.
Like many people have said before, Saddam Hussein was absolutely no threat to the United States. The Bush administration blatantly lied to us when they said Saddam Hussein had ties to the terrorist organization Al-Qaida.
Mr. Dooley again presents a false assertion here, saying that Saddam was 'no threat' to the US, and that the Bush administration 'blatantly lied' to us about Saddam' ties to Al-Qaida. As more and more of the millions of captured Iraqi documents are being translated, we are seeing that, yes indeed, Saddam's regime did in fact have ties to OBL and Al-Qaida, the fact of which has apparently totally escaped Mr. Dooley's attention. Mr. Dooley would have known that his assertion was false had he done just a little research into this by going to this web site. The fact is that, Saddam was a direct threat to not only the US, but to the region and the rest of the world, through his direct links to OBL and Al-Qaida.
As a result of the U.S. invasion, however, Iraq has become a recruiting dream for Al-Qaida. Sadly, Iraqis didn't dance and throw roses at our troops when they arrived on the scene. Instead, Iraqis grew bitter and desperate as they saw their country stampeded by American troops under the orders of President Bush. The desperation has led many Iraqis to turn towards Islamic Fundamentalism as a way to fight back against the imperialistic United States. Without any doubt, Iran will soon be looking to extend their extreme Islamic teachings to desperate Iraqis who are looking for anything to cling onto as they watch their country be torn apart.
So, Mr. Dooley, would you prefer we fight Al-Qaida on the streets of, say Cambridge, or Boston perhaps, rather than the streets of Ramadi or Baghdad? Where would you like us to fight Al-Qaida, for Al-Qaida recruits radical Muslims from all over the world, not just in Iraq?
As for people being resentful of, and becoming desperate because of the so-called 'imperialistic Americans stampeding' through their country, most Iraqi's actually did rejoice at the toppling of Saddam's regime. You must not have been watching CNN at that time. Those Iraqi's who you say have turned to Islamic fundamentalism were already there in the first place, or if not, were leaning towards that way of thinking anyway. And let us not forget that the vast majority of those who are engaged in fighting against the Coalition and Iraqi forces are primarily made up of Sunni Muslims, and Islamo-fascist terrorists from other countries.
And let us not forget the claim by the Bush administration that Saddam Hussein had an arsenal of weapons of mass destruction. Now, you would think that our government would be able to easily tell our troops where to find these weapons, since it was the United States who sold Saddam Hussein these lethal weapons when Iraq was at war with Iran. Back in the 1980s, Saddam was in fact a friend of the United States when they were at war with the "dangerous" Iranian nation, which was then under an extreme Islamic fundamentalist leadership (and still is) that had grown hostile towards the United States.
The Bush administration was not the only government that stated that Saddam had an arsenal of WMD's. The Europeans also made that claim, as well as the Clinton administration, and both of the Senators from Massachusetts, but those facts are inconvenient to your essay, which is obviously why you decided to omit them. As for the lack of discovered stockpiles of WMD's? According to the Israeli Mossad and other intelligence services, they were transported to both Syria and Iran just prior to the invasion.
Mr. Dooley, why did you enclose the word 'dangerous' in quote marks when you referred to Iran, implying that Iran was not dangerous? After the fall of the Shah, when the extremists came to power in Iran, one of their first priorities was to establish terrorist groups, or ties to existing terrorist groups, in Lebanon and the so-called 'occupied territories'. You don't consider that dangerous? Oh, and let's not forget that the Iranians stormed the US Embassy in Teheran - which is a blatant act of war - and held Americans hostage for 444 days, ok?
And calling Saddam a 'friend' is only true in the sense of "any enemy of my enemies is my friend". Saddam needed money and weapons to pursue his act of aggression against the Iranians, an act which I'll grant we did encourage, for the reasons stated above.
So, in my opinion, the only way that we can bring home our troops immediately and at the same time bring back some regional stability to Iraq before we invaded is to have Saddam Hussein regain power. Despite the fact that this is the same man who during the Gulf War I thought was going to steal all my presents under the Christmas tree. It's sobering to know that the only person who can bring back order to a chaotic nation is one of the most brutal dictators in history, but it is necessary in order to bring home our troops and to make sure Al-Qaida and Iran do not gain more influence in Iraq than they already have as a result of the invasion.
Mr. Dooley's opinion is that the only way to 'bring our troops home immediately' is to restore one of the most brutal dictators in history to power, which would bring 'stability back to the region', and to ensure that Al-Qaida and Iran do not gain more influence in Iraq. Again, Mr. Dooley makes the false assertion that Saddam is the 'only one' who can 'restore order' in Iraq. Mr. Dooley does not know, or least makes no statements regarding, any of the other people in Iraq that are involved, or may become involved, in the political process in Iraq, so in stating that Saddam is the 'only one' that is capable shows a glaring ignorance on the part of Mr. Dooley. Considering that Mr. Dooley is a student at an institution of higher learning, his obvious ignorance, and his total disregard of honest research, is breathtakingly astonishing. Mr. Dooley is, however, entitled to his opinion, but as the saying goes, "It is better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool, than to open it and remove all doubt.".
Restoring Saddam to power would be a disaster of untold magnitude, which even the Arab neighbors of Iraq know. Withdrawing our troops immediately would also be a disaster, which again, even the Arab neighbors of Iraq know, but apparently those two facts escape Mr. Dooley.
Restore Saddam to power? An absolutely ludicrous concept.
Kevin Dooley is a Collegian columnist.
Note to The Collegian – do you allow all of your columnists to do such sloppy work, or just Mr. Dooley?
Hat tip: Reality Hammer
Four good ideas regarding Iran
Here are four good ideas on what to do regarding Iran and their pursuit of nuclear weapons that would not require the US to fire a single shot, that definitely need a long and hard look.
I'm wondering if anyone in the White House reads the WSJ's OpinionJournal?
Hat tip: QuickNews
I'm wondering if anyone in the White House reads the WSJ's OpinionJournal?
Hat tip: QuickNews
More paralysis through analysis
As reported here, the SR-99 Viaduct 'retrofit' idea is going to get another look see, as the people pushing for a retrofit have come up with a different idea. Their idea would not require the Viaduct to be shut down during the work they propose, but, their idea would only last an estimated 30 years, instead of the 70 to 100 years estimated for a replacement, whether that replacement in a new elevated structure or a tunnel.
The Viaduct was severely damaged in the Nisqually earthquake of 2001, requiring extensive 'band-aid' repairs while the powers that be wrangle over what to do about the problem. It is now 2006, and the powers that be don't expect any work to begin for another two years.
The powers that be are making an assumption that 'Mother Nature' will lay dormant during this time, hoping that another earthquake won't occur before they finally get around to doing something about this disaster waiting to happen, and we all should know what happens when you assume, right?
An earthquake could happen today, and if it did, a lot of the estimated 110,000 vehicles that use the road on a daily basis would be in for a nasty surprise, similar to what happened to the elevated freeway in California that had a catastrophic collapse during one of their earthquakes.
It is not a question of IF there will be another earthquake, but WHEN. We need a solution to this situation NOW that will last for more than 30 years, not more studies.
Note to the powers that be: it is beyond time to fish or cut bait. Doing another study does not get us closer to a solution.
The Viaduct was severely damaged in the Nisqually earthquake of 2001, requiring extensive 'band-aid' repairs while the powers that be wrangle over what to do about the problem. It is now 2006, and the powers that be don't expect any work to begin for another two years.
The powers that be are making an assumption that 'Mother Nature' will lay dormant during this time, hoping that another earthquake won't occur before they finally get around to doing something about this disaster waiting to happen, and we all should know what happens when you assume, right?
An earthquake could happen today, and if it did, a lot of the estimated 110,000 vehicles that use the road on a daily basis would be in for a nasty surprise, similar to what happened to the elevated freeway in California that had a catastrophic collapse during one of their earthquakes.
It is not a question of IF there will be another earthquake, but WHEN. We need a solution to this situation NOW that will last for more than 30 years, not more studies.
Note to the powers that be: it is beyond time to fish or cut bait. Doing another study does not get us closer to a solution.
Sunday, May 14, 2006
Prof quits to protest Rice invite
As reported here, Boston College adjunct professor of English Steve Almond, in an open letter to Boston College President William Leahy that was published in the Boston Globe newspaper, has resigned his position to protest Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice being chosen as the commencement speaker at the Jesuit institution, calling Rice 'a liar'.
Almond bases his accusations against Sec. Rice on this document (PDF format), prepared by Dem staffers for Henry Waxman, asserting in his letter that "... during the build-up to the war, Rice "made 29 false or misleading public statements concerning Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and links to al-Qaida ..."", quoting directly from the document as 'proof' that she is a liar.
I don't know Sec. Rice personally (but wish I did), but from my observations of her during her time as National Security Advisor, and now as the Secretary of State, I highly doubt that Sec. Rice could even remotely be considered to be 'a liar'. From what I have observed, she is eminently qualified for her current position due to her high moral integrity, honesty, and forthrightness, which also makes her eminently qualified to be commencement speaker at Boston College.
Mr. Almond, on the other hand ... well, suffice it to say that I am personally glad that I do not know him (and I don't want to, either), and that he is no longer in a position of influence over impressionable minds.
Almond bases his accusations against Sec. Rice on this document (PDF format), prepared by Dem staffers for Henry Waxman, asserting in his letter that "... during the build-up to the war, Rice "made 29 false or misleading public statements concerning Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and links to al-Qaida ..."", quoting directly from the document as 'proof' that she is a liar.
I don't know Sec. Rice personally (but wish I did), but from my observations of her during her time as National Security Advisor, and now as the Secretary of State, I highly doubt that Sec. Rice could even remotely be considered to be 'a liar'. From what I have observed, she is eminently qualified for her current position due to her high moral integrity, honesty, and forthrightness, which also makes her eminently qualified to be commencement speaker at Boston College.
Mr. Almond, on the other hand ... well, suffice it to say that I am personally glad that I do not know him (and I don't want to, either), and that he is no longer in a position of influence over impressionable minds.
New Traces of Weapons-Grade Uranium Found in Iran
As reported here, inspectors from the IAEA have found new traces of highly enriched uranium at a facility linked to the Iranian military. Although they say that the tests are preliminary, and that more tests need to be done, the initial results show that the uranium has been enriched to, and possibly beyond, that needed for a nuclear weapon.
I've said it before, and I'll keep saying it: Iran does not need to develop nuclear facilities to generate electricity, considering their vast oil and natural gas resources! Despite what they claim to the contrary, their ultimate goal in developing nuclear technology is to possess nuclear weapons.
And then we have this ludicrous statement coming from the head of the IAEA himself, Mohamed ElBaradei, saying "Friday that the world should be more worried about nuclear weapons falling into the hands of terrorists than about Iran's nuclear program.
Mohamed ElBaradei, director of the International Atomic Energy Agency, said there is no military solution to the standoff with Iran over its determination to continue its uranium enrichment program.
But ElBaradei said the risk terrorists could acquire a nuclear weapon was of greater concern.
"Terrorists are a different thing," he told a Dutch television program. "The fear of terrorists acquiring nuclear weapons is much more, in my view ... than a country acquiring nuclear weapons right now.""
Mr. ElBaradei, just who do you think is the greatest state sponsor of terrorists? Malta, perhaps? NO, you imbecilic idiot! It's IRAN! Don't you think that once the Iranians possess nuclear weapons that they would happily hand off a small nuclear device to one of their cohorts to use in a terrorist attack against, say, the US?
Geez, Louise, get your head out of your ... the sand.
I've said it before, and I'll keep saying it: Iran does not need to develop nuclear facilities to generate electricity, considering their vast oil and natural gas resources! Despite what they claim to the contrary, their ultimate goal in developing nuclear technology is to possess nuclear weapons.
And then we have this ludicrous statement coming from the head of the IAEA himself, Mohamed ElBaradei, saying "Friday that the world should be more worried about nuclear weapons falling into the hands of terrorists than about Iran's nuclear program.
Mohamed ElBaradei, director of the International Atomic Energy Agency, said there is no military solution to the standoff with Iran over its determination to continue its uranium enrichment program.
But ElBaradei said the risk terrorists could acquire a nuclear weapon was of greater concern.
"Terrorists are a different thing," he told a Dutch television program. "The fear of terrorists acquiring nuclear weapons is much more, in my view ... than a country acquiring nuclear weapons right now.""
Mr. ElBaradei, just who do you think is the greatest state sponsor of terrorists? Malta, perhaps? NO, you imbecilic idiot! It's IRAN! Don't you think that once the Iranians possess nuclear weapons that they would happily hand off a small nuclear device to one of their cohorts to use in a terrorist attack against, say, the US?
Geez, Louise, get your head out of your ... the sand.
State culls 55,000 names from voter database
As reported here, "About 55,000 voter registrations have been scrubbed from the state's new elections database after investigators found duplicate entries and dead voters on the rolls, Secretary of State Sam Reed said Friday.
The purge of illegal registrations is the result of months of work by county and state elections officials, who began combing the new statewide voter database after its launch in January."
This is a start, which is encouraging, but it isn't enough in my opinion. For one thing, they aren't culling the names of felons who have not had their voting rights restored, as they are waiting on the appeal by AG McKenna to the ludicrous ruling handed down by a judge saying that felons can't be denied their 'right' to vote, simply because they haven't paid all of their fines and fees, which I posted about here, and here.
The purge of illegal registrations is the result of months of work by county and state elections officials, who began combing the new statewide voter database after its launch in January."
This is a start, which is encouraging, but it isn't enough in my opinion. For one thing, they aren't culling the names of felons who have not had their voting rights restored, as they are waiting on the appeal by AG McKenna to the ludicrous ruling handed down by a judge saying that felons can't be denied their 'right' to vote, simply because they haven't paid all of their fines and fees, which I posted about here, and here.
Moussaoui Begins Serving Life Sentence
As reported here, convicted terrorist Zacarias Moussaoui was transferred from a detention facility in Virginia to the 'Supermax' prison in Colorado, to begin serving his life, without the possibility of parole, sentence.
Welcome to Colorado, you swine. I hope you like snow.
Welcome to Colorado, you swine. I hope you like snow.
NSA telephone call database "deeply disturbing"
In this opinion piece in the New York Sun regarding the NSA database of telephone calls, they make mention that Sen. H.R. Clinton (D-NY) is 'deeply disturbed' by this 'revelation'.
Why are the Dems all up in arms about this, when then-President Bill Clinton signed into law the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act of 1994. Apparently the Dems, who were in control of the House, Senate and White House, thought it was a prudent measure to enact this law, but now that they are the minority party in both the House and Senate, and do not control the White House, it is not prudent for President Bush to use this law to actually protect America from its' enemies. And why isn't it prudent for President Bush to use this law to protect America? Because he's not a Dem.
Sen. Clinton needs to talk to her husband, and ask him why he signed that bill into law, so that she isn't so 'deeply disturbed'.
Why are the Dems all up in arms about this, when then-President Bill Clinton signed into law the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act of 1994. Apparently the Dems, who were in control of the House, Senate and White House, thought it was a prudent measure to enact this law, but now that they are the minority party in both the House and Senate, and do not control the White House, it is not prudent for President Bush to use this law to actually protect America from its' enemies. And why isn't it prudent for President Bush to use this law to protect America? Because he's not a Dem.
Sen. Clinton needs to talk to her husband, and ask him why he signed that bill into law, so that she isn't so 'deeply disturbed'.
Sunday, May 07, 2006
Iran Threatens to Quit Nuclear Treaty
As reported here, the Iranian parliament has threatened to withdraw from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty if pressure by the US on Iran to stop nuclear enrichment doesn't stop.
Big deal. They have already decided to not follow the NPT anyway, including, and especially the Additional Protocol to the NPT, which allows countries to bar surprise inspections by the IAEA, which they have discontinued allowing since January.
"Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi insisted Sunday that there was nothing the international community could do to force Iran to suspend uranium enrichment, declaring that "intervention by the Security Council in this issue is completely illegal."
"Intervention by the U.N. Security Council would change the path of cooperation to confrontation. We recommend they do not do this," Asefi said."
What cooperation? The Iranian government has been involved in lies and obfuscation for decades regarding their nuclear ambitions, and they have already bragged about it, and continue to this day! If they want to avoid confrontation, they need to come clean on this issue, stop the confrontational rhetoric, and stop enriching uranium.
But it's obvious that they won't stop the confrontational rhetoric, or the lies, or the enriching of uranium, as they want nuclear weapons, and a confrontation with the West so they can use those weapons, to show how big and tough they are. Well, I have news for the lunatic "in charge" of Iran - you aren't the biggest dog in the yard.
I think it's beyond time that they be reminded of that.
Big deal. They have already decided to not follow the NPT anyway, including, and especially the Additional Protocol to the NPT, which allows countries to bar surprise inspections by the IAEA, which they have discontinued allowing since January.
"Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi insisted Sunday that there was nothing the international community could do to force Iran to suspend uranium enrichment, declaring that "intervention by the Security Council in this issue is completely illegal."
"Intervention by the U.N. Security Council would change the path of cooperation to confrontation. We recommend they do not do this," Asefi said."
What cooperation? The Iranian government has been involved in lies and obfuscation for decades regarding their nuclear ambitions, and they have already bragged about it, and continue to this day! If they want to avoid confrontation, they need to come clean on this issue, stop the confrontational rhetoric, and stop enriching uranium.
But it's obvious that they won't stop the confrontational rhetoric, or the lies, or the enriching of uranium, as they want nuclear weapons, and a confrontation with the West so they can use those weapons, to show how big and tough they are. Well, I have news for the lunatic "in charge" of Iran - you aren't the biggest dog in the yard.
I think it's beyond time that they be reminded of that.
Arab distrust of Iran gains momentum
As reported here, Gulf Arabs are becoming more anxious about what the lunatic in Iran is doing regarding the enrichment of uranium, fearing pollution and radioactive fallout should there be a nuclear meltdown.
Even some editorialists are getting anxious enough, as "... the unease showed itself in a front-page editorial this week in Kuwait's Al-Siyassah daily. Iran, it said, was engaged in a "boyish politics." The newspaper further declared that the Americans have the right to "guarantee the security of the (region's) oil fields... and oil's export routes."". This is in response to Iran's "Interior Minister Mostafa Pourmohammadi warn[ing that] his nation had "control over the biggest and most sensitive energy route of the world.""
It's heartening to know that even Arabs are becoming distressed over what the Iranians are doing, but as the silence remains from the Arab world in the greater war on global terrorism, as Abdul Khaleq Abdullah, of Emirates University, asks, ""Where is Gulf diplomacy? Why are they shying away?""
Why, indeed?
Even some editorialists are getting anxious enough, as "... the unease showed itself in a front-page editorial this week in Kuwait's Al-Siyassah daily. Iran, it said, was engaged in a "boyish politics." The newspaper further declared that the Americans have the right to "guarantee the security of the (region's) oil fields... and oil's export routes."". This is in response to Iran's "Interior Minister Mostafa Pourmohammadi warn[ing that] his nation had "control over the biggest and most sensitive energy route of the world.""
It's heartening to know that even Arabs are becoming distressed over what the Iranians are doing, but as the silence remains from the Arab world in the greater war on global terrorism, as Abdul Khaleq Abdullah, of Emirates University, asks, ""Where is Gulf diplomacy? Why are they shying away?""
Why, indeed?
Howard Dean to Fight Voter ID Statute
As reported here, DNC Chairman Howard Dean is joining with the Indiana Democratic Party in a fight against Indiana's law requiring people have a photo ID before they can vote, saying that the law will prevent some people from voting, while "Indiana Democratic Party executive director Mike Edmonson says it's important to appeal the ruling to make sure every voter gets a chance to cast a ballot."
How ludicrous! What is so hard about getting a photo ID? If someone wants to vote badly enough, if they care about the political process enough, they will find a way to obtain valid photo ID. It's just that simple. But the Dems don't want people to be made to prove who they really are, as they know that the vast majority of those who want to commit voter fraud, vote for them, and they know they need all the votes they can get, whether those votes are legitimate or not.
I don't know how they do things in Indiana, but in Washington State, you can obtain valid state photo ID in two ways. Either you can apply, and pass the tests, for a drivers license, or, you can pay a nominal fee to have a state photo ID card (after providing proof of who you are). It isn't hard to get either of those two forms of valid, state recognized, photo IDs here, and unless the state of Indiana has enormously difficult laws in place preventing some people from obtaining valid, state recognized, photo Ids, I simply don't understand what the problem with this law is.
As "supporters of the new law, including Indiana Republican Party Chairman Murray Clark, say the state's voter identification law will help secure elections in Indiana." What's wrong with that?
Oh, wait. Silly me. What was I thinking? A clean election does not favor the Dems.
How ludicrous! What is so hard about getting a photo ID? If someone wants to vote badly enough, if they care about the political process enough, they will find a way to obtain valid photo ID. It's just that simple. But the Dems don't want people to be made to prove who they really are, as they know that the vast majority of those who want to commit voter fraud, vote for them, and they know they need all the votes they can get, whether those votes are legitimate or not.
I don't know how they do things in Indiana, but in Washington State, you can obtain valid state photo ID in two ways. Either you can apply, and pass the tests, for a drivers license, or, you can pay a nominal fee to have a state photo ID card (after providing proof of who you are). It isn't hard to get either of those two forms of valid, state recognized, photo IDs here, and unless the state of Indiana has enormously difficult laws in place preventing some people from obtaining valid, state recognized, photo Ids, I simply don't understand what the problem with this law is.
As "supporters of the new law, including Indiana Republican Party Chairman Murray Clark, say the state's voter identification law will help secure elections in Indiana." What's wrong with that?
Oh, wait. Silly me. What was I thinking? A clean election does not favor the Dems.
Executive Pleads Guilty to Bribing Congressman's Family
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"?
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"?
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".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)