As reported here, [t]he sudden flurry of digging seen in recent satellite photos of a mountainside in central Iran might have passed for ordinary road tunneling. But the site is the back yard of Iran's most ambitious and controversial nuclear facility, leading U.S. officials and independent experts to reach another conclusion: It appears to be the start of a major tunnel complex inside the mountain.
The question is, why? Worries have been stoked by the presence nearby of fortified buildings where uranium is being processed. Those structures in turn are now being connected by roads to Iran's nuclear site at Natanz, where the country recently started production of enriched uranium in defiance of international protests.
The answer to that question is fairly simple and straightforward, and I've posted about this many times before - Iran's leaders want Iran to become a nuclear power, possessing nuclear weapons, so they can pursue their dream of recreating the Caliphate with them at it's head, on a world-wide basis. They want to Islamicise the entire world - whether anyone else wants them to or not - and to do this they feel that they need to have nuclear weapons, regardless of how many times they deny that they desire a source of nuclear energy, "for peaceful purposes", and not nuclear weapons.
If they do manage to produce nuclear weapons (through their own means and the ineptitude of the rest of the world), they will first bully their neighbors in the region to bow to their will under threat of nuclear holocaust, and then once they have consolidated their hold over the Middle East, they will then turn their eyes north to Europe and Russia, and east to China. Once they have Europe, Russia, and China under their influence, they will then look to the US, using resources they will be able to obtain from Europe, Russia and China (i.e. ICBM's), to try to make us bend to their will as well.
Will the world sit back and simply allow Iran's leaders see their plans come to fruition? I don't see much happening that will stop Iran's leaders at the present time. Hopefully, those in power now and those who will be in power in the near future will wake up, before it's too late.
H/T specialrpt reporting in quicknews
Thursday, July 12, 2007
Wednesday, July 04, 2007
Happy Independence Day
On this day in 1776 brave men on these shores issued a declaration of independence from the most powerful nation on earth at the time, England, over abuses perpetrated by George III, that they felt had no other means of remedy.
They did so knowing that they were putting their liberty, and their very lives, at great risk, while at the same time not knowing if their venture would bear the fruits of success, since the Colonies had no friends, and few resources to match up against the formidable power and wealth of England.
But one thing they did know. They had to throw off the chains of servitude, in order to live the life of free men, governing themselves in a just and equitable manner.
Military defeat after military defeat ensued, but the resolve of those involved in the fight for freedom never wavered in the main, and eventually things began to turn around for the beleaguered colonists, until at long last, England was convinced that there was no possibility that they were going to be able to hold on to their former colonies, and the United States of America became a reality.
Without the perseverance and resolve of the Founding Fathers, without their belief in the rightness of their cause, where would we be today? The answer to that is unknowable, although this writer suspects that we would not be in the position of prominence that we enjoy today. I also suspect that we would enjoy the freedoms that we have today, in the form that we have them, and at least to me, that is unthinkable.
As we celebrate our nations birthday today, I ask that you take a moment to think on what it took to create this nation 231 years ago today, and be thankful.
Be safe, folks, and enjoy today! ;)
They did so knowing that they were putting their liberty, and their very lives, at great risk, while at the same time not knowing if their venture would bear the fruits of success, since the Colonies had no friends, and few resources to match up against the formidable power and wealth of England.
But one thing they did know. They had to throw off the chains of servitude, in order to live the life of free men, governing themselves in a just and equitable manner.
Military defeat after military defeat ensued, but the resolve of those involved in the fight for freedom never wavered in the main, and eventually things began to turn around for the beleaguered colonists, until at long last, England was convinced that there was no possibility that they were going to be able to hold on to their former colonies, and the United States of America became a reality.
Without the perseverance and resolve of the Founding Fathers, without their belief in the rightness of their cause, where would we be today? The answer to that is unknowable, although this writer suspects that we would not be in the position of prominence that we enjoy today. I also suspect that we would enjoy the freedoms that we have today, in the form that we have them, and at least to me, that is unthinkable.
As we celebrate our nations birthday today, I ask that you take a moment to think on what it took to create this nation 231 years ago today, and be thankful.
Be safe, folks, and enjoy today! ;)
Wednesday, May 30, 2007
We Are All in It Together, Clinton Says
As reported here, Presidential hopeful Hillary Rodham Clinton outlined a broad economic vision Tuesday, saying it's time to replace an "on your own" society with one based on shared responsibility and prosperity.
The Democratic senator said what the Bush administration touts as an ownership society really is an "on your own" society that has widened the gap between rich and poor.
"I prefer a 'we're all in it together' society," she said. "I believe our government can once again work for all Americans. It can promote the great American tradition of opportunity for all and special privileges for none."
Can you say Socialism, anybody? Redistribution of your wealth is Clinton's number one goal in life. She wants to turn America into one huge "collective", where no one is "better off" than anyone else, which actually means that we'll all be worse off!
America stands for freedom of the individual, no matter how repugnant that may be to Clinton and those who think like her. I, for one, prefer the fact that if I take it upon myself, get off my lazy duff and work hard, I will be able to enjoy the rewards inherent in that hard work.
I just have to wonder, if she succeeds in her "Socialist Utopia", how much of her wealth will get redistributed my way?
The Democratic senator said what the Bush administration touts as an ownership society really is an "on your own" society that has widened the gap between rich and poor.
"I prefer a 'we're all in it together' society," she said. "I believe our government can once again work for all Americans. It can promote the great American tradition of opportunity for all and special privileges for none."
Can you say Socialism, anybody? Redistribution of your wealth is Clinton's number one goal in life. She wants to turn America into one huge "collective", where no one is "better off" than anyone else, which actually means that we'll all be worse off!
America stands for freedom of the individual, no matter how repugnant that may be to Clinton and those who think like her. I, for one, prefer the fact that if I take it upon myself, get off my lazy duff and work hard, I will be able to enjoy the rewards inherent in that hard work.
I just have to wonder, if she succeeds in her "Socialist Utopia", how much of her wealth will get redistributed my way?
Tuesday, May 29, 2007
Vandals burn flags at two cemeteries
This past weekend, our country observed Memorial Day, honoring those who had given the ultimate sacrifice to protect our nation and the freedoms we hold so dear. Well, most of us did, anyway. There were apparently some who thought that observing Memorial Day properly, by honoring America's fallen veterans by placing American flags on their grave stones and maybe taking a moment to silently reflect on their sacrifice was, well, not the thing to do. They decided that, instead, the thing to do was to steal the flags and burn them, and replace them with hand drawn Nazi swastika's.
In two separate incidents, one in Orcas Island, WA and one in Natick, MA, vandals stole commemorative American flags, burned them, and in the incident in Orcas Island, replaced American flags with the Nazi swastika's. In both cases, no known motive for these outrageous acts of vandalism exists, and some are speculating that it may have been teenagers out on a lark.
Well, let me tell whoever it was that perpetrated these acts something. I'm a veteran of the US Navy (and one of the folks who are getting a H/T for the above links is a veteran of the US Air Force), and these despicable acts of vandalism, which you probably got all giggly about when you were doing them, has me extremely angry.
Those veterans who were being honored by those little flags, sacrificed much more than their life so that you could live in a country that is the most free country on this planet. They sacrificed their time, in many cases a happy home life with their family, and ultimately their lives, so that the rest of us could go to school, get a job, buy a house, read whatever books and magazines we want, listen to whatever type of music we want, watch whatever TV show or movies we want, shop for and wear whatever clothes we want, go to Starbucks whenever the mood strikes us, engage in speech freely, worship as we please (or not, if that pleases us). The list goes on and on and on. And yet, you felt it was the right thing to do to, to "diss" those veterans, and burn those flags and replace them with swastika's.
If this was merely a prank, it was the wrong thing to do, and I hope someone rats you out. If this was some type of political statement to show your "displeasure" with our current President and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, it was still the wrong thing to do, and again, I hope that someone rats you out.
All of you who did these despicable acts of vandalism deserve to go to jail, and my sincere wish is that when you are caught, that the presiding judges will throw the book at you.
You clueless morons disgust me!
H/T hollie-is-right and agtiger
In two separate incidents, one in Orcas Island, WA and one in Natick, MA, vandals stole commemorative American flags, burned them, and in the incident in Orcas Island, replaced American flags with the Nazi swastika's. In both cases, no known motive for these outrageous acts of vandalism exists, and some are speculating that it may have been teenagers out on a lark.
Well, let me tell whoever it was that perpetrated these acts something. I'm a veteran of the US Navy (and one of the folks who are getting a H/T for the above links is a veteran of the US Air Force), and these despicable acts of vandalism, which you probably got all giggly about when you were doing them, has me extremely angry.
Those veterans who were being honored by those little flags, sacrificed much more than their life so that you could live in a country that is the most free country on this planet. They sacrificed their time, in many cases a happy home life with their family, and ultimately their lives, so that the rest of us could go to school, get a job, buy a house, read whatever books and magazines we want, listen to whatever type of music we want, watch whatever TV show or movies we want, shop for and wear whatever clothes we want, go to Starbucks whenever the mood strikes us, engage in speech freely, worship as we please (or not, if that pleases us). The list goes on and on and on. And yet, you felt it was the right thing to do to, to "diss" those veterans, and burn those flags and replace them with swastika's.
If this was merely a prank, it was the wrong thing to do, and I hope someone rats you out. If this was some type of political statement to show your "displeasure" with our current President and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, it was still the wrong thing to do, and again, I hope that someone rats you out.
All of you who did these despicable acts of vandalism deserve to go to jail, and my sincere wish is that when you are caught, that the presiding judges will throw the book at you.
You clueless morons disgust me!
H/T hollie-is-right and agtiger
Monday, May 28, 2007
Memorial Day
Today is the day where we observe Memorial Day, a day set aside to honor those who have fallen in the service of our nation, protecting and advancing those ideals of liberty and freedom we hold so dear. We need to keep in mind that of those who have served, all gave some, and some gave all, which is the ultimate purpose for this day.
Today, I would like to honor all those who have fallen, to say thank you for your sacrifice, by honoring one specific individual. I never had the opportunity to meet the young man who is the subject of this piece, yet I think he exemplifies the attitudes, and the willingness to sacrifice, of those who serve.
The young man I would like to honor today is a recipient of the US Navy Medal of Honor, for actions on the battlefield in Iraq, which was presented posthumously to his parents. The young mans' name is Cpl. Jason L. Dunham, of Scio, NY. Cpl. Dunham was born on November 10th, 1981, and succumbed to the wounds he received in battle on April 22nd, 2004. Cpl. Dunham served with K Company, 3rd Battalion, 7th Marines, based in Twentynine Palms, Calif.
The citation of the Medal of Honor, which was presented by President George W. Bush to his parents on January 11th, 2007 can be found here.
To Cpl. Jason L. Dunham I say a heartfelt thank you for your dedication to, and sacrifice for, your country, your Corps, and those you served with.
Semper Fi.
Today, I would like to honor all those who have fallen, to say thank you for your sacrifice, by honoring one specific individual. I never had the opportunity to meet the young man who is the subject of this piece, yet I think he exemplifies the attitudes, and the willingness to sacrifice, of those who serve.
The young man I would like to honor today is a recipient of the US Navy Medal of Honor, for actions on the battlefield in Iraq, which was presented posthumously to his parents. The young mans' name is Cpl. Jason L. Dunham, of Scio, NY. Cpl. Dunham was born on November 10th, 1981, and succumbed to the wounds he received in battle on April 22nd, 2004. Cpl. Dunham served with K Company, 3rd Battalion, 7th Marines, based in Twentynine Palms, Calif.
The citation of the Medal of Honor, which was presented by President George W. Bush to his parents on January 11th, 2007 can be found here.
To Cpl. Jason L. Dunham I say a heartfelt thank you for your dedication to, and sacrifice for, your country, your Corps, and those you served with.
Semper Fi.
Leaked phone-call case could cost McDermott $1 million
As reported here, Rep. Jim McDermott has had the luxury of winning big and cheaply in recent elections, facing only token opposition.
But that fortunate history could pose a problem for McDermott if the Seattle Democrat is forced to pay more than $1 million in legal fees and penalties to settle his long-running legal battle with House Minority Leader John Boehner.
Unlike colleagues who have been able to tap into campaign funds for legal costs, McDermott doesn't have enough cash in his coffers to cover his bills.
The prospect that McDermott soon will be liable for a huge payout became a real possibility earlier this month after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled 5-4 against him. The defeat leaves him with one remaining legal recourse -- an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. McDermott and his lawyers have until July to decide, but legal observers say it's highly unlikely an appeal would be successful.
That would mean by midsummer, McDermott would have to ramp up a fundraising effort that has been gathering dust for nearly a decade. He must pay a court-ordered $60,000 fine and Boehner's legal fees, which attorneys estimate are $880,000 and counting. McDermott also would have to pay his own legal bills, which, after 10 years of fighting Boehner in federal court, are substantial.
Gee, that's just too bad, you know? To paraphrase an old rhyme, if you can't (or are unwilling) to pay the fine, don't do the crime.
How McDermott would settle the debt is unclear, and his aides say any talk about payment is premature.
"The most recent decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia seriously undermines the First Amendment protections guaranteed by the Constitution, and we continue to review the significant constitutional issues involved," McDermott said in a statement last week after Boehner's lawyers recommended that settlement talks begin.
Just a reminder, Jim - the First Amendment protects people from limiting actions on speech undertaken by the government. What you did was to turn over an illegally obtained conversation to two newspapers, violating Rep. Boehner's right to privacy (a right actually not specified in the Bill of Rights, but mandated by Liberal judges on the Supreme Court, said right being something the Democrat's trumpet loudly and often, not realizing that it could one day come back to bite one of their own in the rear).
McDermott's office would not comment on whether campaign funds would be used.
But if money must be raised, McDermott could rely on a moderate national profile. He gained widespread attention for his appearance in "Fahrenheit 9/11" and as president of Americans for Democratic Action he has a potential national network of donors.
Jim McDermott has a "moderate national profile"? That's news to me, and to everyone in Washington State that has two brain cells to rub together! The fact that he appeared in Moore's propaganda flick demonstrates the fallacy of that statement. But if that isn't enough to convince you, let me just say that McDermott goes out of his way to try to out-Liberal Ted Kennedy and John Kerry, two of the most liberal Senators we have by anyone's standards.
Jim, do the right thing. Pay the fine and the legal costs.
But that fortunate history could pose a problem for McDermott if the Seattle Democrat is forced to pay more than $1 million in legal fees and penalties to settle his long-running legal battle with House Minority Leader John Boehner.
Unlike colleagues who have been able to tap into campaign funds for legal costs, McDermott doesn't have enough cash in his coffers to cover his bills.
The prospect that McDermott soon will be liable for a huge payout became a real possibility earlier this month after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled 5-4 against him. The defeat leaves him with one remaining legal recourse -- an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. McDermott and his lawyers have until July to decide, but legal observers say it's highly unlikely an appeal would be successful.
That would mean by midsummer, McDermott would have to ramp up a fundraising effort that has been gathering dust for nearly a decade. He must pay a court-ordered $60,000 fine and Boehner's legal fees, which attorneys estimate are $880,000 and counting. McDermott also would have to pay his own legal bills, which, after 10 years of fighting Boehner in federal court, are substantial.
Gee, that's just too bad, you know? To paraphrase an old rhyme, if you can't (or are unwilling) to pay the fine, don't do the crime.
How McDermott would settle the debt is unclear, and his aides say any talk about payment is premature.
"The most recent decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia seriously undermines the First Amendment protections guaranteed by the Constitution, and we continue to review the significant constitutional issues involved," McDermott said in a statement last week after Boehner's lawyers recommended that settlement talks begin.
Just a reminder, Jim - the First Amendment protects people from limiting actions on speech undertaken by the government. What you did was to turn over an illegally obtained conversation to two newspapers, violating Rep. Boehner's right to privacy (a right actually not specified in the Bill of Rights, but mandated by Liberal judges on the Supreme Court, said right being something the Democrat's trumpet loudly and often, not realizing that it could one day come back to bite one of their own in the rear).
McDermott's office would not comment on whether campaign funds would be used.
But if money must be raised, McDermott could rely on a moderate national profile. He gained widespread attention for his appearance in "Fahrenheit 9/11" and as president of Americans for Democratic Action he has a potential national network of donors.
Jim McDermott has a "moderate national profile"? That's news to me, and to everyone in Washington State that has two brain cells to rub together! The fact that he appeared in Moore's propaganda flick demonstrates the fallacy of that statement. But if that isn't enough to convince you, let me just say that McDermott goes out of his way to try to out-Liberal Ted Kennedy and John Kerry, two of the most liberal Senators we have by anyone's standards.
Jim, do the right thing. Pay the fine and the legal costs.
Saturday, May 19, 2007
I don't know ...
... whether to be amused by this, or annoyed.
I recently found out from a well placed, very anonymous, source that access to this blog is blocked by a local area hospital.
The reason? "Extreme". Yet, anyone can access this site.
Now, I considered writing a letter demanding an explanation, citing constitutionally protected political free speech, defamation, and some other choice things, with the hint of litigation if access to this blog wasn't allowed. But, two things stopped me from doing that.
One is that the identity of my anonymous source could possibly be revealed, resulting in some unpleasant moments, shall we say, for my source. I don't want that to happen.
The other is that, the hospital is a private entity, and therefore has control over what their employees can, and cannot, see or hear, so First Amendment protections do not apply.
In all actuality, the fact that they have blocked access to this blog - because of being "extreme" - I find rather interesting, as it means that "someone" has taken notice of what I write and feels threatened enough by what I write to try to prevent others from reading my posts.
I wonder, though, why they may feel that way? Oh, wait! They must be afraid that I might "convert" someone! That's gotta be it! ;)
I recently found out from a well placed, very anonymous, source that access to this blog is blocked by a local area hospital.
The reason? "Extreme". Yet, anyone can access this site.
Now, I considered writing a letter demanding an explanation, citing constitutionally protected political free speech, defamation, and some other choice things, with the hint of litigation if access to this blog wasn't allowed. But, two things stopped me from doing that.
One is that the identity of my anonymous source could possibly be revealed, resulting in some unpleasant moments, shall we say, for my source. I don't want that to happen.
The other is that, the hospital is a private entity, and therefore has control over what their employees can, and cannot, see or hear, so First Amendment protections do not apply.
In all actuality, the fact that they have blocked access to this blog - because of being "extreme" - I find rather interesting, as it means that "someone" has taken notice of what I write and feels threatened enough by what I write to try to prevent others from reading my posts.
I wonder, though, why they may feel that way? Oh, wait! They must be afraid that I might "convert" someone! That's gotta be it! ;)
A personal note
It's been a couple of weeks since I last posted, and so to the three or four regular readers that stop by now and then, I apologize for the lack of fresh stuff lately.
I've had a lot of things going on in my real life, that have precluded me from being able to post more regularly. Hopefully, things will calm down, so I can continue to awe you all with my incredible insight and my dazzling wit on a more regular basis. ;)
Okay, now that I've removed my tongue from being planted firmly in my cheek, let me just say thanks to those who actually do stop by to read what I write for your patience. I appreciate your patronage.
I've had a lot of things going on in my real life, that have precluded me from being able to post more regularly. Hopefully, things will calm down, so I can continue to awe you all with my incredible insight and my dazzling wit on a more regular basis. ;)
Okay, now that I've removed my tongue from being planted firmly in my cheek, let me just say thanks to those who actually do stop by to read what I write for your patience. I appreciate your patronage.
A new link
I've added a new link to our blogroll, done by a friend of mine, called The Marching Camp. Go on over and check it out. You'll be glad you did.
While there, check out this moving video by Darryl Worley (H/T Zero Ponsdorf over at Another Voice). I think this song fits well with Armed Forces Day.
While there, check out this moving video by Darryl Worley (H/T Zero Ponsdorf over at Another Voice). I think this song fits well with Armed Forces Day.
Today is Armed Forces Day
Today is Armed Forces Day, a day established to honor those who serve our nation in both peace and war. As a veteran of the US Navy, I want to say thank you so very much for your service to our nation. Freedom isn't free, and the sacrifices that you, and your families, make on our behalf are deeply appreciated by this writer.
So, again, to those men and women serving in the US Navy, US Army, US Marine Corps, US Air Force, and the US Coast Guard, thank you. Your service and sacrifice mean more to me than you will ever know.
So, again, to those men and women serving in the US Navy, US Army, US Marine Corps, US Air Force, and the US Coast Guard, thank you. Your service and sacrifice mean more to me than you will ever know.
Carter Condemns Blair's Support for Bush
As reported here, the man who led this nation into double digit inflation, double digit unemployment, is a friend to terrorists and political thugs, let Americans languish in Iranian hands for 444 days, and still thinks he's politically relevant states that, Britain's support for the war in Iraq was a "major tragedy" for the world, former President Jimmy Carter said Saturday as he criticized Tony Blair's unwavering support for President Bush.
Asked how he would judge Blair's support of Bush, a Republican, the former Democratic president said: "Abominable. Loyal. Blind. Apparently subservient.", adding, "And I think the almost undeviating support by Great Britain for the ill-advised policies of President Bush in Iraq have been a major tragedy for the world," Carter told British Broadcasting Corp. radio.
No, Mr. Carter, the real major tragedy for the world was your embracing Yasser Arafat to the detriment of the Israeli's and American interests, and your abandonment of the Shah of Iran, allowing the thugs who currently rule Iran to not only over throw the Shah, but take American personnel prisoner, holding them for 444 days while you did nothing but wring your hands in defeat. Your so-called policies have directly led us to the place where we are regarding the Middle East, growing Islamofascism, and the continued problems faced by Israel posed by Fatah, Hamas, and Hezbollah, with the latter two (and probably all three) "organizations" receiving direct aid and support from Iran.
Tony Blair is more of a man of courage than you could ever hope to be, and for you to criticize him in such a shameful way takes a lot of gall.
Asked how he would judge Blair's support of Bush, a Republican, the former Democratic president said: "Abominable. Loyal. Blind. Apparently subservient.", adding, "And I think the almost undeviating support by Great Britain for the ill-advised policies of President Bush in Iraq have been a major tragedy for the world," Carter told British Broadcasting Corp. radio.
No, Mr. Carter, the real major tragedy for the world was your embracing Yasser Arafat to the detriment of the Israeli's and American interests, and your abandonment of the Shah of Iran, allowing the thugs who currently rule Iran to not only over throw the Shah, but take American personnel prisoner, holding them for 444 days while you did nothing but wring your hands in defeat. Your so-called policies have directly led us to the place where we are regarding the Middle East, growing Islamofascism, and the continued problems faced by Israel posed by Fatah, Hamas, and Hezbollah, with the latter two (and probably all three) "organizations" receiving direct aid and support from Iran.
Tony Blair is more of a man of courage than you could ever hope to be, and for you to criticize him in such a shameful way takes a lot of gall.
The Immigration Bill: Comprehensive or Incomprehensible?
Congress is set to vote on the latest attempt to grant amnesty to the estimated 12 to 20 million illegal immigrants here in the US at comprehensive immigration reform.
Fred Thompson expresses his view on this latest attempt by Congress at this.
Fred Thompson expresses his view on this latest attempt by Congress at this.
Sunday, April 29, 2007
Radio hosts exempt from campaign finance laws
As reported here, [a] unanimous state Supreme Court ruled Thursday that two radio talk-show hosts who used airtime to support a gas-tax rollback initiative they launched were not required to report their commentary as an in-kind political contribution.
The court also reinstated a countersuit filed by the No New Gas Tax campaign against the local governments that initially sued: San Juan County and the cities of Auburn, Kent and Seattle.
"This is a victory for free speech and a free press in Washington state," said William Maurer, executive director of the Institute for Justice Washington chapter, who argued the case before the high court.
The ruling overturns a 2005 ruling by Thurston County Superior Court Judge Chris Wickham that talk-show hosts John Carlson and Kirby Wilbur at Seattle radio station KVI-AM/570 were key organizers and promoters of Initiative 912. The ballot measure was aimed at heading off a four-step, 9.5-cent-a-gallon increase in the state gasoline tax.
The judge said the airtime amounted to an in-kind contribution to the campaign and required that the value be reported to the state Public Disclosure Commission.
State law says editorials, commentaries and other types of news reports are not considered contributions.
Wilbur, Carlson and the station argued their role with the initiative was within the normal bounds of radio fare, and the high court agreed.
The Washington State Supreme Court did the right thing by overturning the over reaching, blatant attempt to stifle political free speech by Wickham and the municipalities. Not only did they overturn it, they did it unanimously. This is a very welcome development in this case, which I previously posted about here and here.
The court also reinstated a countersuit filed by the No New Gas Tax campaign against the local governments that initially sued: San Juan County and the cities of Auburn, Kent and Seattle.
"This is a victory for free speech and a free press in Washington state," said William Maurer, executive director of the Institute for Justice Washington chapter, who argued the case before the high court.
The ruling overturns a 2005 ruling by Thurston County Superior Court Judge Chris Wickham that talk-show hosts John Carlson and Kirby Wilbur at Seattle radio station KVI-AM/570 were key organizers and promoters of Initiative 912. The ballot measure was aimed at heading off a four-step, 9.5-cent-a-gallon increase in the state gasoline tax.
The judge said the airtime amounted to an in-kind contribution to the campaign and required that the value be reported to the state Public Disclosure Commission.
State law says editorials, commentaries and other types of news reports are not considered contributions.
Wilbur, Carlson and the station argued their role with the initiative was within the normal bounds of radio fare, and the high court agreed.
The Washington State Supreme Court did the right thing by overturning the over reaching, blatant attempt to stifle political free speech by Wickham and the municipalities. Not only did they overturn it, they did it unanimously. This is a very welcome development in this case, which I previously posted about here and here.
Democrats turn to GOP on new Iraq bill
As reported here, Democratic leaders are turning to Republicans to help them pass a new Iraq war spending bill that President Bush won't veto - unlike the one Congress will send him [this] week with a timetable for withdrawing U.S. troops.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., has talked to Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., the minority leader, about how to move forward.
I could tell Reid how to do it, and hopefully McConnell told him the same thing as I have in mind, which is to not put any time tables for withdrawal in the bill, and don't load it up with "pork".
I mean, it really is that simple.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., has talked to Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., the minority leader, about how to move forward.
I could tell Reid how to do it, and hopefully McConnell told him the same thing as I have in mind, which is to not put any time tables for withdrawal in the bill, and don't load it up with "pork".
I mean, it really is that simple.
Senate OK sends Iraq bill to Bush
As reported here, [i]n a bold challenge to President Bush, the Democratic-controlled Congress cleared legislation Thursday to begin withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq by Oct. 1 with a goal of a complete pullout six months later.
A "bold challenge"? More like an abject surrender to various special interest groups on the left (Moveon.org., Code Pink, etc.) and the terrorists, if you ask me.
The White House dismissed the legislation as "dead before arrival."
President Bush has already stated that he will veto this bill as it stands right now, with the troop pull out time table and all of the non-war funding appropriations (read "pork") included, and the Democrats know - know! - that they do not have enough votes to overturn his veto.
The 51-46 Senate vote was largely along party lines, and like House passage a day earlier it underscored that the war's congressional opponents are far short of the two-thirds majority needed to override a Bush veto.
So why go ahead with this?
Democrats marked Thursday's final passage with a news conference during which they repeatedly urged Bush to reconsider his veto threat. "This bill for the first time gives the president of the United States an exit strategy" from Iraq, said Rep. David Obey of Wisconsin.
I think we already have an "exit strategy from Iraq", and that would be when the Iraqi's can deal with the sectarian killings, and the terrorists on their own. Until such time, they still need our help.
The legislation is "in keeping with what the American people want," added Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada.
Reid is delusional. Reid doesn't know what he's talking about when he states that the legislation is "in keeping with what the American people want.", in that, most people that I know - and I'll remind you that the majority of the people living here in Seattle are liberals - want us to finish the job we started, whether they agreed with going there in the first place or not.
Finishing the job does not entail setting a time table for leaving, allowing the terrorists to just sit back and wait until we're gone. It entails ridding Iraq of those terrorists.
But the Democrats don't see it like that, since they take their marching orders from the groups I mentioned above, who think that if we leave, things will get "back to normal". They couldn't be more wrong. They said the same thing in the late 1960's and early 1970's about Southeast Asia, and when we left, millions of people were killed and millions more were displaced in Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos.
If we leave Iraq prematurely, we will be leaving millions of Iraqi's to a similar fate.
A "bold challenge"? More like an abject surrender to various special interest groups on the left (Moveon.org., Code Pink, etc.) and the terrorists, if you ask me.
The White House dismissed the legislation as "dead before arrival."
President Bush has already stated that he will veto this bill as it stands right now, with the troop pull out time table and all of the non-war funding appropriations (read "pork") included, and the Democrats know - know! - that they do not have enough votes to overturn his veto.
The 51-46 Senate vote was largely along party lines, and like House passage a day earlier it underscored that the war's congressional opponents are far short of the two-thirds majority needed to override a Bush veto.
So why go ahead with this?
Democrats marked Thursday's final passage with a news conference during which they repeatedly urged Bush to reconsider his veto threat. "This bill for the first time gives the president of the United States an exit strategy" from Iraq, said Rep. David Obey of Wisconsin.
I think we already have an "exit strategy from Iraq", and that would be when the Iraqi's can deal with the sectarian killings, and the terrorists on their own. Until such time, they still need our help.
The legislation is "in keeping with what the American people want," added Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada.
Reid is delusional. Reid doesn't know what he's talking about when he states that the legislation is "in keeping with what the American people want.", in that, most people that I know - and I'll remind you that the majority of the people living here in Seattle are liberals - want us to finish the job we started, whether they agreed with going there in the first place or not.
Finishing the job does not entail setting a time table for leaving, allowing the terrorists to just sit back and wait until we're gone. It entails ridding Iraq of those terrorists.
But the Democrats don't see it like that, since they take their marching orders from the groups I mentioned above, who think that if we leave, things will get "back to normal". They couldn't be more wrong. They said the same thing in the late 1960's and early 1970's about Southeast Asia, and when we left, millions of people were killed and millions more were displaced in Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos.
If we leave Iraq prematurely, we will be leaving millions of Iraqi's to a similar fate.
Sunday, April 22, 2007
All in a Good Cause
Orson Scott Card, over at the The Ornery American, has written an excellent essay regarding the absolute hoax that "global warming" is, citing how climate data was manipulated by Michael Mann to fit his preconceived notions on what should be the results, rather than on the actual data, which produced the [in]famous "Hockey Stick" graph.
It's a very eye opening read, which you should take the time to check out.
H/T innermurk, via Reality Hammer
It's a very eye opening read, which you should take the time to check out.
H/T innermurk, via Reality Hammer
A matter of perspective
From time to time, friends will pop up with something that I feel needs to be passed along, and the following fits that bill. Please note - I did a tiny bit of editing to make this easier to read, but it essentially remains word for word the work of the original author.
Please read and don't think Republican or Democrat.
A Newsweek poll alleges that 67 percent of Americans are unhappy with the direction the country is headed and 69 percent of the country is unhappy with the performance of the president. In essence, two thirds of the citizenry just ain't happy and want a change.
So being the analytical thinker that I am, I started thinking,' what are we so unhappy about?' Is it that we have electricity and running water 24 hours a day, 7 days a week? Is our unhappiness the result of having air conditioning in the summer and heating in the winter? Could it be that 95.4 percent of these unhappy folks have a job?
Maybe it's the ability to walk into a grocery store at any time and see more food in moments than Darfur has seen in the last year? Maybe it's the ability to drive from the Pacific Ocean to the Atlantic Ocean without having to present identification papers as we move through each state? Or possibly the hundreds of clean, safe motels we would find along the way that can provide temporary shelter?
I guess having thousands of restaurants with varying cuisine from around the world is just not good enough. Or could it be that when we wreck our car, emergency workers show up and provide services to help all involved. Whether you are rich or poor they treat your wounds and even, if necessary, send a helicopter to take you to the hospital.
Perhaps you are one of the 70 percent of Americans who own a home. You may be upset with knowing that in the unfortunate case of a fire, a group of trained firefighters will appear in moments and use top notch equipment to extinguish the flames, thus saving you, your family and your belongings.
Or if, while at home watching one of your many flat screen TVs, a burglar or prowler intrudes, an officer equipped with a gun and a bullet-proof vest will come to defend you and your family against attack or loss. This all in the backdrop of a neighborhood free of bombs or militias raping and pillaging the residents. Neighborhoods where 90 percent of teenagers own cell phones and computers.
How about the complete religious, social and political freedoms we enjoy that are the envy of everyone in the world? Maybe that is what has 67 percent of us unhappy.
Fact is, we are the largest group of ungrateful, spoiled brats the world has ever seen. No wonder the world loves the U.S. , yet has a great disdain for its citizens. They see us for what we are. The most blessed people in the world, who do nothing but complain about what we don't have, and what we hate about the country, instead of being thankful we live here.
I know, I know. What about the president who took us into war and has no plan to get us out? The
president who has a measly 31 percent approval rating? Is this days after 9-11? The president that cut taxes to bring an economy out of recession? Could this be the same guy who has been called every name in the book for succeeding in keeping all the spoiled brats safe from terrorist attacks? The commander in chief of an all-volunteer army that is out there defending you and me?
Make no mistake about it. The troops in Iraq and Afghanistan have volunteered to serve, and in many cases may have died for your freedom. There is currently no draft in this country. They didn't have to go. They are able to refuse to go, and end up with either a ''general'' discharge, an
''other than honorable'' discharge or, worst case scenario, a ''dishonorable'' discharge after a few days in the brig.
So why then the flat-out discontentment in the minds of 69 percent of Americans? Say what you want but I blame it on the media. If it bleeds it leads, and they specialize in bad news. Everybody will watch a car crash with blood and guts. How many will watch kids selling lemonade at the
corner?
The media know this, and media outlets are for-profit corporations. They offer what sells, and when criticized, try to defend their actions by "justifying" them in one way or another. Just ask why they tried to allow a murderer like O.J. Simpson to write a book and do a TV special about how he didn't kill his wife. But if he did? Insane!
Stop buying the negative venom you are fed everyday by the corrupt evil media. Shut off the TV, burn Newsweek, and use the New York Times for the bottom of your bird cage. Then start being grateful for all we have as a country. There is exponentially more good than bad.
WE ARE THE MOST BLESSED PEOPLE ON EARTH. WE SHOULD THANK GOD SEVERAL TIMES EVERY DAY.
Amen to that!
H/T michaelmichael
Please read and don't think Republican or Democrat.
A Newsweek poll alleges that 67 percent of Americans are unhappy with the direction the country is headed and 69 percent of the country is unhappy with the performance of the president. In essence, two thirds of the citizenry just ain't happy and want a change.
So being the analytical thinker that I am, I started thinking,' what are we so unhappy about?' Is it that we have electricity and running water 24 hours a day, 7 days a week? Is our unhappiness the result of having air conditioning in the summer and heating in the winter? Could it be that 95.4 percent of these unhappy folks have a job?
Maybe it's the ability to walk into a grocery store at any time and see more food in moments than Darfur has seen in the last year? Maybe it's the ability to drive from the Pacific Ocean to the Atlantic Ocean without having to present identification papers as we move through each state? Or possibly the hundreds of clean, safe motels we would find along the way that can provide temporary shelter?
I guess having thousands of restaurants with varying cuisine from around the world is just not good enough. Or could it be that when we wreck our car, emergency workers show up and provide services to help all involved. Whether you are rich or poor they treat your wounds and even, if necessary, send a helicopter to take you to the hospital.
Perhaps you are one of the 70 percent of Americans who own a home. You may be upset with knowing that in the unfortunate case of a fire, a group of trained firefighters will appear in moments and use top notch equipment to extinguish the flames, thus saving you, your family and your belongings.
Or if, while at home watching one of your many flat screen TVs, a burglar or prowler intrudes, an officer equipped with a gun and a bullet-proof vest will come to defend you and your family against attack or loss. This all in the backdrop of a neighborhood free of bombs or militias raping and pillaging the residents. Neighborhoods where 90 percent of teenagers own cell phones and computers.
How about the complete religious, social and political freedoms we enjoy that are the envy of everyone in the world? Maybe that is what has 67 percent of us unhappy.
Fact is, we are the largest group of ungrateful, spoiled brats the world has ever seen. No wonder the world loves the U.S. , yet has a great disdain for its citizens. They see us for what we are. The most blessed people in the world, who do nothing but complain about what we don't have, and what we hate about the country, instead of being thankful we live here.
I know, I know. What about the president who took us into war and has no plan to get us out? The
president who has a measly 31 percent approval rating? Is this days after 9-11? The president that cut taxes to bring an economy out of recession? Could this be the same guy who has been called every name in the book for succeeding in keeping all the spoiled brats safe from terrorist attacks? The commander in chief of an all-volunteer army that is out there defending you and me?
Make no mistake about it. The troops in Iraq and Afghanistan have volunteered to serve, and in many cases may have died for your freedom. There is currently no draft in this country. They didn't have to go. They are able to refuse to go, and end up with either a ''general'' discharge, an
''other than honorable'' discharge or, worst case scenario, a ''dishonorable'' discharge after a few days in the brig.
So why then the flat-out discontentment in the minds of 69 percent of Americans? Say what you want but I blame it on the media. If it bleeds it leads, and they specialize in bad news. Everybody will watch a car crash with blood and guts. How many will watch kids selling lemonade at the
corner?
The media know this, and media outlets are for-profit corporations. They offer what sells, and when criticized, try to defend their actions by "justifying" them in one way or another. Just ask why they tried to allow a murderer like O.J. Simpson to write a book and do a TV special about how he didn't kill his wife. But if he did? Insane!
Stop buying the negative venom you are fed everyday by the corrupt evil media. Shut off the TV, burn Newsweek, and use the New York Times for the bottom of your bird cage. Then start being grateful for all we have as a country. There is exponentially more good than bad.
WE ARE THE MOST BLESSED PEOPLE ON EARTH. WE SHOULD THANK GOD SEVERAL TIMES EVERY DAY.
Amen to that!
H/T michaelmichael
Reid calls war 'lost,' angers Republicans
As reported here, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Thursday the war in Iraq is "lost," triggering an angry backlash by Republicans, who said the top Democrat had turned his back on the troops.
Reid said he told President Bush on Wednesday he thought the war could not be won through military force, although he said the U.S. could still pursue political, economic and diplomatic means to make peace.
"I believe myself that the secretary of state, secretary of defense and -- you have to make your own decisions as to what the president knows -- (know) this war is lost and the surge is not accomplishing anything as indicated by the extreme violence in Iraq yesterday," said Reid, D-Nev.
Don't you just love it when elected Democrat officials think they're the next incarnation of General George S. Patton? Reid is basing his assessment of the outcome of the war, and the effectiveness (or in his view, the lack thereof) of the surge on one day. One day! Imagine what he would have been saying on Dec. 7th, 1941!
Republicans pounced on the comment as evidence, they said, that Democrats do not support the troops.
"I can't begin to imagine how our troops in the field, who are risking their lives every day, are going to react when they get back to base and hear that the Democrat leader of the United States Senate has declared the war is lost," said Senate GOP leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky.
Democrats do not support the troops, and have been proving it time after time after time by rushing to declare the surge strategy - which they all clamored for! - "isn't working", so therefore, the "war is lost".
Senator, your "The sky is falling!" Chicken Little act has grown wearisome in the extreme. Stop it, already, will ya? Sheesh!
Reid said he told President Bush on Wednesday he thought the war could not be won through military force, although he said the U.S. could still pursue political, economic and diplomatic means to make peace.
"I believe myself that the secretary of state, secretary of defense and -- you have to make your own decisions as to what the president knows -- (know) this war is lost and the surge is not accomplishing anything as indicated by the extreme violence in Iraq yesterday," said Reid, D-Nev.
Don't you just love it when elected Democrat officials think they're the next incarnation of General George S. Patton? Reid is basing his assessment of the outcome of the war, and the effectiveness (or in his view, the lack thereof) of the surge on one day. One day! Imagine what he would have been saying on Dec. 7th, 1941!
Republicans pounced on the comment as evidence, they said, that Democrats do not support the troops.
"I can't begin to imagine how our troops in the field, who are risking their lives every day, are going to react when they get back to base and hear that the Democrat leader of the United States Senate has declared the war is lost," said Senate GOP leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky.
Democrats do not support the troops, and have been proving it time after time after time by rushing to declare the surge strategy - which they all clamored for! - "isn't working", so therefore, the "war is lost".
Senator, your "The sky is falling!" Chicken Little act has grown wearisome in the extreme. Stop it, already, will ya? Sheesh!
Former Clinton backers defect to Obama camp
As reported here, [a]s Sen. Hillary Clinton seeks to reassemble the Democratic money machine her husband built, some of its major fundraisers already have signed on with Sen. Barack Obama.
Among the biggest fundraisers for Obama's campaign are as many as a half-dozen former guests of the Clinton White House. At least two are close enough to the Clintons to have slept in the Lincoln bedroom.
At minimum, a dozen were major fundraisers for President Clinton. At least four worked in the administration, and one, James Rubin, is a son of a former Clinton Treasury secretary, Robert Rubin. About two dozen of the top Obama fundraisers have contributed to Hillary Clinton's Senate campaigns or political action committee, some as recently as a few months ago.
Don't mind me. I just found this to be amusing. ;)
Among the biggest fundraisers for Obama's campaign are as many as a half-dozen former guests of the Clinton White House. At least two are close enough to the Clintons to have slept in the Lincoln bedroom.
At minimum, a dozen were major fundraisers for President Clinton. At least four worked in the administration, and one, James Rubin, is a son of a former Clinton Treasury secretary, Robert Rubin. About two dozen of the top Obama fundraisers have contributed to Hillary Clinton's Senate campaigns or political action committee, some as recently as a few months ago.
Don't mind me. I just found this to be amusing. ;)
State lawmakers discuss ending war
As reported here, [t]he (Washington State) Senate was decked in red, white and blue with Democrats and Republicans braced for an emotional debate on the Iraq war that never materialized Thursday.
After Democrats failed to build consensus for an anti-war resolution, only three lawmakers spoke out.
They did so using points of personal privilege, which the Senate allows for issues such as well wishes for sick colleagues or their families. Though the resolution would have been non-binding, it would have allowed a full debate, but without it members were allowed brief statements to air their personal views.
Sen. Eric Oemig, D-Kirkland, has led the effort to discuss the possibility of presidential impeachment this year.
"We must end this war," Oemig said. "The commander in chief must be relieved of duty. The framers of our Constitution gave us the tools of impeachment and conviction. We must not be afraid to use these tools."
He explained why in his floor statement.
Democracy is easier to enjoy than it is to participate in and protect, he said, adding that a lot of mistakes have been made in the nation's history.
"It is with action that we fix our mistakes, and when people are honestly mistaken and they learn the truth, they either cease to be mistaken or they cease to be honest," he said. "If we do not act to correct our mistakes, our children will inherit them. We cannot restore the lives lost in Iraq or the lost limbs or the lives shattered, but we can act."
I'd like to ask State Senator Oemig some questions, which are as follows:
1. Since when has it ever - ever - been appropriate for a State Senator to stick his nose into something regarding the Federal Executive?
2. You are of the opinion that President Bush should be impeached. I'd like to know on what grounds? Mistakes made regarding Iraq? Since when do mistakes made regarding anything equate to High Crimes and Misdemeanors, Senator?
3. Have you ever made a mistake as a State Senator? If so, does that mean that you should be impeached?
Vietnam War veteran and Purple Heart recipient Sen. Dan Swecker, R-Rochester, said the floor of the state Senate was not the place for discussing war and peace and the possibility of impeaching the president.
"That's not what we were elected to do," he said.
State Senator Swecker is correct. No State Senator or Representative has ever been elected to discuss war and peace or impeaching a sitting President. That's not your job, Senator Oemig. Your job is to conduct the business of, and for, the People of Washington State, period.
Leave all that other stuff to the grown ups, ok?
After Democrats failed to build consensus for an anti-war resolution, only three lawmakers spoke out.
They did so using points of personal privilege, which the Senate allows for issues such as well wishes for sick colleagues or their families. Though the resolution would have been non-binding, it would have allowed a full debate, but without it members were allowed brief statements to air their personal views.
Sen. Eric Oemig, D-Kirkland, has led the effort to discuss the possibility of presidential impeachment this year.
"We must end this war," Oemig said. "The commander in chief must be relieved of duty. The framers of our Constitution gave us the tools of impeachment and conviction. We must not be afraid to use these tools."
He explained why in his floor statement.
Democracy is easier to enjoy than it is to participate in and protect, he said, adding that a lot of mistakes have been made in the nation's history.
"It is with action that we fix our mistakes, and when people are honestly mistaken and they learn the truth, they either cease to be mistaken or they cease to be honest," he said. "If we do not act to correct our mistakes, our children will inherit them. We cannot restore the lives lost in Iraq or the lost limbs or the lives shattered, but we can act."
I'd like to ask State Senator Oemig some questions, which are as follows:
1. Since when has it ever - ever - been appropriate for a State Senator to stick his nose into something regarding the Federal Executive?
2. You are of the opinion that President Bush should be impeached. I'd like to know on what grounds? Mistakes made regarding Iraq? Since when do mistakes made regarding anything equate to High Crimes and Misdemeanors, Senator?
3. Have you ever made a mistake as a State Senator? If so, does that mean that you should be impeached?
Vietnam War veteran and Purple Heart recipient Sen. Dan Swecker, R-Rochester, said the floor of the state Senate was not the place for discussing war and peace and the possibility of impeaching the president.
"That's not what we were elected to do," he said.
State Senator Swecker is correct. No State Senator or Representative has ever been elected to discuss war and peace or impeaching a sitting President. That's not your job, Senator Oemig. Your job is to conduct the business of, and for, the People of Washington State, period.
Leave all that other stuff to the grown ups, ok?
Monday, April 16, 2007
At least 33 dead in rampage on Virginia campus
As reported here, at least 33 people are dead in the worst mass shooting incident in US history, at Virginia Tech. The death toll includes the gunman who took his own life according to police. As of yet, no known motive for the shootings has been reported.
This is a horrible, horrible tragedy, and my heart goes out to the victims and their families.
UPDATE
As reported here, the gunman in the Virginia Tech shootings yesterday was a student of the school. There has still been no motive for this act released by authorities.
UPDATE II
As reported here, the gunman has been identified as a 23 year old resident alien from S. Korea, Cho Seung-Hui. Apparently Cho suffered from acute depression, and wrote dark, disturbing essays and plays. There has still been no motive for this act released by authorities, although from my previous sentence one can gather that Cho felt alienated from society for some unknown reason and wanted to lash out, which he did with tragic results.
Again, my heart goes out to all who have been affected by this tragedy.
This is a horrible, horrible tragedy, and my heart goes out to the victims and their families.
UPDATE
As reported here, the gunman in the Virginia Tech shootings yesterday was a student of the school. There has still been no motive for this act released by authorities.
UPDATE II
As reported here, the gunman has been identified as a 23 year old resident alien from S. Korea, Cho Seung-Hui. Apparently Cho suffered from acute depression, and wrote dark, disturbing essays and plays. There has still been no motive for this act released by authorities, although from my previous sentence one can gather that Cho felt alienated from society for some unknown reason and wanted to lash out, which he did with tragic results.
Again, my heart goes out to all who have been affected by this tragedy.
Monday, April 09, 2007
Pratfall in Damascus
As anyone who has either a TV or an internet connection knows, Rep. Pelosi (D-CA) has made another attempt at usurping powers granted by the Constitution solely to the President by trying to substitute her foreign policy for the President's when she went to the Middle East, and spoke to the Syrian thug Basher Assad.
Even the Washington Post is disgusted with her.
Even the Washington Post is disgusted with her.
Iran Nuclear Bomb Could Be Possible by 2009
As reported here, Iran has more than tripled its ability to produce enriched uranium in the last three months, adding some 1,000 centrifuges which are used to separate radioactive particles from the raw material.
The development means Iran could have enough material for a nuclear bomb by 2009, sources familiar with the dramatic upgrade tell ABC News.
These centrifuges, which are not as yet operational, are located at Natanz in a hardened facility, 70 feet underground. I've posted about this several times in the past, and I have one question for those who think Iran only wants to develop nuclear technology for "peaceful purposes".
Are you willing to bet, not your next paycheck, not your house, car or boat, but your life that Iran only wants to develop nuclear technology for "peaceful purposes"?
I'm not!
H/T specialrpt posting in quicknews
The development means Iran could have enough material for a nuclear bomb by 2009, sources familiar with the dramatic upgrade tell ABC News.
These centrifuges, which are not as yet operational, are located at Natanz in a hardened facility, 70 feet underground. I've posted about this several times in the past, and I have one question for those who think Iran only wants to develop nuclear technology for "peaceful purposes".
Are you willing to bet, not your next paycheck, not your house, car or boat, but your life that Iran only wants to develop nuclear technology for "peaceful purposes"?
I'm not!
H/T specialrpt posting in quicknews
Friday, March 23, 2007
So Long, Me-Maw
As reported here, [I]n New Orleans, they aren't shedding a tear over Louisiana Gov. Kathleen Blanco's decision not to seek a second term.
Julia Reed of Newsweek, resides in New Orleans, and relates what was contained in two e-mails she recently received. One had to do with some armed robbery crimes that were recently committed, a trend that is on the rise in the Crescent City (Hey, Nagin! What are you doing to fix that, huh? Sorry, I digress.), while the second had to do with the announcement that Governor Kathleen Blanco will not seek a second term. Some excerpts from Ms. Reed's article, with my thoughts occasionally thrown in:
As crimes go in the city with by far the highest murder rate in the nation (96 per every 100,000 people in 2006; more than 40 people overall have been killed so far in 2007), these could actually be viewed as good news-nobody was killed or even shot, after all. But the real good news came in my next e-mail: Gov. Kathleen Blanco announced that she would not seek re-election to a second term. [Emphasis mine]
Blanco, a former high-school business teacher-turned-public servant, elected in 2003 as the first woman governor of Louisiana, became one of the many not-so-happy public faces of Katrina, along with New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin and FEMA's Mike (Brownie) Brown. In the storm's immediate aftermath, she appeared so disoriented that one press account of her public appearances went so far as to suggest that she seemed "over-medicated." Times-Picayune columnist James Gill reported that "'Me-Maw's tranked' is the word on the street." (Blanco is sometimes nicknamed "Me-Maw" due to her grandmotherly affect.) That general perception was not helped when she was overheard by a CNN producer while still miked, admitting that she hadn't known it was the governor's responsibility to call out the National Guard.
She didn't know it was her responsibility to call out the National Guard? How did she even get elected to the office of Governor in the first place if she didn't know something as elementary as that? What kind of "assistants" does she have, anyway? Did anyone in her office think to give her a nudge, and whisper in her ear that she needed to call out the NG? It appears not, and those people who failed to properly advise her on something as important as this - something any first year civics student would have been able to tell her, if they still taught civics that is - should be fired immediately, and barred from holding any government job in the state.
But wait - there's more!
Indecision and failure to act have been the hallmarks of her administration. In neighboring Mississippi, Haley Barbour had convened two special sessions of the legislature before she called for her first one. Louisiana received the first half of the $7.5 billion earmarked for homeowners' reconstruction efforts in December of 2005, and the second chunk in June 2006. The so-called "Road Home" program offers owners of storm-damaged homes up to $150,000 in aid. But so far, bureaucratic hurdles put in place by the state have meant that only 3 percent of the 115,000 families who have applied for help have received it. Worse, the contractor handpicked by Blanco's administration to implement the process stands to make a jaw-dropping $765 million from the job, though it has further slowed progress with computer glitches and Keystone Kops-style mistakes. By contrast, 78 percent of Mississippi's applicants in a similar, but much less bureaucratic, program have received their checks.
Read that first sentence again - Indecision and failure to act have been the hallmarks of her administration. That was true before Hurricane Katrina hit, it was true in the immediate aftermath, and it's obvious it is still true today. For years, Mississippi was the unfortunate butt of a lot of jokes about ... well, about most things that went on in that state, and yet with proper leadership in the form of Gov. Haley Barbour making, and implementing, the hard decisions needed to help the state of Mississippi recover from Hurricane Katrina, 78% of applicants in a similar home recovery/rebuilding program to that in Louisiana have received money to help them rebuild, as opposed to a miniscule 3% of people in Louisiana having received help from the program there. That speaks volumes both for Gov. Barbour, and most loudly against Gov. Blanco. Now here's the kicker.
The irony is that when the program was finally launched last summer-with the official name "Governor Kathleen Blanco's Road Home Program"-critics cried foul, saying that she would get too much political credit for the payouts. Now, of course, she has been given all the blame for the lack thereof.
My question is, why did Blanco wait until last summer to launch this program? Is the legislature in Louisiana so inept that they couldn't get legislation pushed through to get this program off and running as soon as the first installment of federal funds was received? Or, is this just another example of Blanco's indecision and failure to act? Oh, and naming a program after yourself is just bilious, in my opinion, Gov. Blanco. After all, the money didn't come from you, it came from the federal government; you were simply supposed to properly allocate it. You rightly deserve all the blame for the lack of pay outs to those in need. Only 3% of the people eligible for the pay outs because of the hurdles placed in their way by your state government is beyond obscene!
A January poll showed her garnering only 24 percent of the votes in a race against U.S. Rep. Bobby Jindal, her 2003 opponent, who had 59 percent. Since then, she has dropped 8 more points, and last week in yet another embarrassing blow, HUD charged that the state was breaking federal law by requiring homeowners to wait for a series of reimbursements rather than giving them the option of taking a lump sum.
I must say that Blanco isn't entirely brain dead, as anyone in political office would realize that their re-election prospects with only 16 percent of the state vote are basically slim to none, especially after the state was charged with breaking federal law in making people take incremental payments, without giving them the option of taking a lump sum payment. The state agency responsible for making the pay outs quickly changed the rules, as we'll see in the next excerpt, to make HUD happy, but these missteps did not make the state Democrat Party happy - at all.
Though the State Recovery Authority agreed to change the program to address HUD's concerns, the feedback from the initial HUD announcement had been so negative that the state Democratic Party put strong pressure on Blanco to bow out sooner rather than later, so that it could field a better candidate.
As Ms. Reed goes on to state, no matter who decides to run from either side of the aisle, the prospects for the people of Louisiana are brighter now, than they have been in some time.
Now, if only "Mr. Chocolate" Ray Nagin would learn a lesson from all of this, maybe the prospects for the citizens of New Orleans would be brighter as well.
H/T Nealz Nuze, via Hollie-is-Right
Julia Reed of Newsweek, resides in New Orleans, and relates what was contained in two e-mails she recently received. One had to do with some armed robbery crimes that were recently committed, a trend that is on the rise in the Crescent City (Hey, Nagin! What are you doing to fix that, huh? Sorry, I digress.), while the second had to do with the announcement that Governor Kathleen Blanco will not seek a second term. Some excerpts from Ms. Reed's article, with my thoughts occasionally thrown in:
As crimes go in the city with by far the highest murder rate in the nation (96 per every 100,000 people in 2006; more than 40 people overall have been killed so far in 2007), these could actually be viewed as good news-nobody was killed or even shot, after all. But the real good news came in my next e-mail: Gov. Kathleen Blanco announced that she would not seek re-election to a second term. [Emphasis mine]
Blanco, a former high-school business teacher-turned-public servant, elected in 2003 as the first woman governor of Louisiana, became one of the many not-so-happy public faces of Katrina, along with New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin and FEMA's Mike (Brownie) Brown. In the storm's immediate aftermath, she appeared so disoriented that one press account of her public appearances went so far as to suggest that she seemed "over-medicated." Times-Picayune columnist James Gill reported that "'Me-Maw's tranked' is the word on the street." (Blanco is sometimes nicknamed "Me-Maw" due to her grandmotherly affect.) That general perception was not helped when she was overheard by a CNN producer while still miked, admitting that she hadn't known it was the governor's responsibility to call out the National Guard.
She didn't know it was her responsibility to call out the National Guard? How did she even get elected to the office of Governor in the first place if she didn't know something as elementary as that? What kind of "assistants" does she have, anyway? Did anyone in her office think to give her a nudge, and whisper in her ear that she needed to call out the NG? It appears not, and those people who failed to properly advise her on something as important as this - something any first year civics student would have been able to tell her, if they still taught civics that is - should be fired immediately, and barred from holding any government job in the state.
But wait - there's more!
Indecision and failure to act have been the hallmarks of her administration. In neighboring Mississippi, Haley Barbour had convened two special sessions of the legislature before she called for her first one. Louisiana received the first half of the $7.5 billion earmarked for homeowners' reconstruction efforts in December of 2005, and the second chunk in June 2006. The so-called "Road Home" program offers owners of storm-damaged homes up to $150,000 in aid. But so far, bureaucratic hurdles put in place by the state have meant that only 3 percent of the 115,000 families who have applied for help have received it. Worse, the contractor handpicked by Blanco's administration to implement the process stands to make a jaw-dropping $765 million from the job, though it has further slowed progress with computer glitches and Keystone Kops-style mistakes. By contrast, 78 percent of Mississippi's applicants in a similar, but much less bureaucratic, program have received their checks.
Read that first sentence again - Indecision and failure to act have been the hallmarks of her administration. That was true before Hurricane Katrina hit, it was true in the immediate aftermath, and it's obvious it is still true today. For years, Mississippi was the unfortunate butt of a lot of jokes about ... well, about most things that went on in that state, and yet with proper leadership in the form of Gov. Haley Barbour making, and implementing, the hard decisions needed to help the state of Mississippi recover from Hurricane Katrina, 78% of applicants in a similar home recovery/rebuilding program to that in Louisiana have received money to help them rebuild, as opposed to a miniscule 3% of people in Louisiana having received help from the program there. That speaks volumes both for Gov. Barbour, and most loudly against Gov. Blanco. Now here's the kicker.
The irony is that when the program was finally launched last summer-with the official name "Governor Kathleen Blanco's Road Home Program"-critics cried foul, saying that she would get too much political credit for the payouts. Now, of course, she has been given all the blame for the lack thereof.
My question is, why did Blanco wait until last summer to launch this program? Is the legislature in Louisiana so inept that they couldn't get legislation pushed through to get this program off and running as soon as the first installment of federal funds was received? Or, is this just another example of Blanco's indecision and failure to act? Oh, and naming a program after yourself is just bilious, in my opinion, Gov. Blanco. After all, the money didn't come from you, it came from the federal government; you were simply supposed to properly allocate it. You rightly deserve all the blame for the lack of pay outs to those in need. Only 3% of the people eligible for the pay outs because of the hurdles placed in their way by your state government is beyond obscene!
A January poll showed her garnering only 24 percent of the votes in a race against U.S. Rep. Bobby Jindal, her 2003 opponent, who had 59 percent. Since then, she has dropped 8 more points, and last week in yet another embarrassing blow, HUD charged that the state was breaking federal law by requiring homeowners to wait for a series of reimbursements rather than giving them the option of taking a lump sum.
I must say that Blanco isn't entirely brain dead, as anyone in political office would realize that their re-election prospects with only 16 percent of the state vote are basically slim to none, especially after the state was charged with breaking federal law in making people take incremental payments, without giving them the option of taking a lump sum payment. The state agency responsible for making the pay outs quickly changed the rules, as we'll see in the next excerpt, to make HUD happy, but these missteps did not make the state Democrat Party happy - at all.
Though the State Recovery Authority agreed to change the program to address HUD's concerns, the feedback from the initial HUD announcement had been so negative that the state Democratic Party put strong pressure on Blanco to bow out sooner rather than later, so that it could field a better candidate.
As Ms. Reed goes on to state, no matter who decides to run from either side of the aisle, the prospects for the people of Louisiana are brighter now, than they have been in some time.
Now, if only "Mr. Chocolate" Ray Nagin would learn a lesson from all of this, maybe the prospects for the citizens of New Orleans would be brighter as well.
H/T Nealz Nuze, via Hollie-is-Right
Muslims offer to help 'John Does' sued by imams
As reported here, [l]awyers and a Muslim group say they will defend at no cost airline passengers caught up in a lawsuit between a group of imams and U.S. Airways if the passengers are named as "John Does" and sued for reporting suspicious behavior that got the Muslim clerics booted from a November flight.
The six imams are suing the airline, Minneapolis-St. Paul Metropolitan Airports Commission, and the unnamed "John Does" to be named later, for discrimination, saying they were removed from the flight for praying in the airport.
Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser, a Phoenix-area physician and director of American Islamic Forum for Democracy -- a group founded in 2003 to promote moderate Muslim ideas through its Web site (www.aifdemocracy.org) -- told The Washington Times his group will raise money for legal fees for passengers if they are sued by the imams.
"It's so important that America know there are Muslims who understand who the victims are in air travel," said Dr. Jasser. "But I hope it doesn't get to that point because the backlash will be even greater when Americans see Islamists trying to punish innocent passengers reporting fears."
The American Islamic Forum for Democracy has also posted a press release regarding this on their web site, which can be found here.
As those of you who read my blog are aware, I've written many posts about the Islamofascist terrorists that are trying to take us all back to the 8th century as they attempt to recreate their coveted "Caliphate". It is very heartening to see that there are those who are Muslims who reject this way of thinking, and aren't afraid to speak up! (We need to gear from more of you folks.)
To Dr. Jasser and the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, I say thank you! Your efforts on behalf, and support, of those who may become targets of CAIR in this blatant attempt at intimidation are very much appreciated by this writer.
H/T Hollie is Right
The six imams are suing the airline, Minneapolis-St. Paul Metropolitan Airports Commission, and the unnamed "John Does" to be named later, for discrimination, saying they were removed from the flight for praying in the airport.
Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser, a Phoenix-area physician and director of American Islamic Forum for Democracy -- a group founded in 2003 to promote moderate Muslim ideas through its Web site (www.aifdemocracy.org) -- told The Washington Times his group will raise money for legal fees for passengers if they are sued by the imams.
"It's so important that America know there are Muslims who understand who the victims are in air travel," said Dr. Jasser. "But I hope it doesn't get to that point because the backlash will be even greater when Americans see Islamists trying to punish innocent passengers reporting fears."
The American Islamic Forum for Democracy has also posted a press release regarding this on their web site, which can be found here.
As those of you who read my blog are aware, I've written many posts about the Islamofascist terrorists that are trying to take us all back to the 8th century as they attempt to recreate their coveted "Caliphate". It is very heartening to see that there are those who are Muslims who reject this way of thinking, and aren't afraid to speak up! (We need to gear from more of you folks.)
To Dr. Jasser and the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, I say thank you! Your efforts on behalf, and support, of those who may become targets of CAIR in this blatant attempt at intimidation are very much appreciated by this writer.
H/T Hollie is Right
Sunday, March 18, 2007
Lights, Camera . . . Candidacy?
Fred Thompson is shaking up the GOP presidential field. And he's not even running yet.
So says John Fund of OpinionJournal in this piece, and I agree with Mr. Fund.
So says John Fund of OpinionJournal in this piece, and I agree with Mr. Fund.
Maliki Speaks Out
As reported here, IRAQI PRIME MINISTER NOURI AL-MALIKI, speaking at last week's international conference in Baghdad, reminded many who needed reminding exactly what is at stake in the war in Iraq. Unfortunately, few people in Europe seem to have heard the message.
The great enemy, Maliki warned, is the ideology of terrorism, which threatens not only Iraq but every decent and peace-loving nation on the planet. "The terrorism that today is trying to kill Iraqis in Baghdad, Hilla, Mosul, and Anbar," he said, "is the same as the terror that intimidated the population of Saudi Arabia, targeted the people of Egypt, attacked the twin towers of the World Trade Center in New York and hit underground trains in Madrid and London."
In other words, whatever one thinks of the decision to topple Saddam Hussein, Iraq has become another front in the war on radical Islam. This faith-based ideology assumes various shapes--Sunni suicide bombers, al Qaeda operatives--yet all pursue the same overriding objective: to turn Iraq into a haven for international terrorism, guided by a militant and murderous vision of Islam.
This is, of course, exactly the argument made by President George W. Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair--which probably explains why media outlets such as the BBC downplayed Maliki's blunt assessment.
The Iraqi prime minister can be faulted for his handling of security issues and failure to politically unite the country's religious factions. Yet he seems to understand the nature and difficulty of his task, a difficulty that is hard to overstate and greatly complicated by daily acts of barbarism. For a few moments last week--moments that surely offended the sensibilities of political and media sophisticates--Maliki reminded the world that America is not the problem in Iraq or in the Middle East. Terrorism is the problem. And it is the reason Iraq is fighting for its life.
We would do well to remember - and remind the Democrat politicians - that America is not the problem in Iraq, but that terrorism is. Fault Mr. Maliki all you want for his past reliance on Al-Sadr to keep him in power, but know this - he gets it, while the vast majority of Democrat politicians don't have a clue.
The great enemy, Maliki warned, is the ideology of terrorism, which threatens not only Iraq but every decent and peace-loving nation on the planet. "The terrorism that today is trying to kill Iraqis in Baghdad, Hilla, Mosul, and Anbar," he said, "is the same as the terror that intimidated the population of Saudi Arabia, targeted the people of Egypt, attacked the twin towers of the World Trade Center in New York and hit underground trains in Madrid and London."
In other words, whatever one thinks of the decision to topple Saddam Hussein, Iraq has become another front in the war on radical Islam. This faith-based ideology assumes various shapes--Sunni suicide bombers, al Qaeda operatives--yet all pursue the same overriding objective: to turn Iraq into a haven for international terrorism, guided by a militant and murderous vision of Islam.
This is, of course, exactly the argument made by President George W. Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair--which probably explains why media outlets such as the BBC downplayed Maliki's blunt assessment.
The Iraqi prime minister can be faulted for his handling of security issues and failure to politically unite the country's religious factions. Yet he seems to understand the nature and difficulty of his task, a difficulty that is hard to overstate and greatly complicated by daily acts of barbarism. For a few moments last week--moments that surely offended the sensibilities of political and media sophisticates--Maliki reminded the world that America is not the problem in Iraq or in the Middle East. Terrorism is the problem. And it is the reason Iraq is fighting for its life.
We would do well to remember - and remind the Democrat politicians - that America is not the problem in Iraq, but that terrorism is. Fault Mr. Maliki all you want for his past reliance on Al-Sadr to keep him in power, but know this - he gets it, while the vast majority of Democrat politicians don't have a clue.
Howard refuses withdrawal date
As reported here, AUSTRALIAN Prime Minister John Howard and his Iraqi counterpart Nuri al-Maliki today refused to set a timetable for the withdrawal of Australian troops, vowing they will stay in Iraq until "terrorists are defeated".
In a press conference with Mr Howard, Mr Maliki was first to admit he didn't want to see a timeline put on Australian troop withdrawal.
"There has been some progess but we still wish the Australians to remain until we have completely defeated the terrorists," Mr Maliki said.
Mr Howard immediately backed Mr Maliki's view, saying: "We have made progress but there is still work to be done."
"I told (Mr Maliki) that Australia will continue its presence in Iraq to assist in bringing about a situation where the Iraqi people are reasonably able to provide for their own future and for their own security.
"We both agreed that the future lies in collaboration between improved security and reconciliation in the political process."
Fortunately for the Iraqi's, Prime Minister Howard isn't hampered by a Democrat controlled Congress pushing for an early withdrawal of troops!
In a press conference with Mr Howard, Mr Maliki was first to admit he didn't want to see a timeline put on Australian troop withdrawal.
"There has been some progess but we still wish the Australians to remain until we have completely defeated the terrorists," Mr Maliki said.
Mr Howard immediately backed Mr Maliki's view, saying: "We have made progress but there is still work to be done."
"I told (Mr Maliki) that Australia will continue its presence in Iraq to assist in bringing about a situation where the Iraqi people are reasonably able to provide for their own future and for their own security.
"We both agreed that the future lies in collaboration between improved security and reconciliation in the political process."
Fortunately for the Iraqi's, Prime Minister Howard isn't hampered by a Democrat controlled Congress pushing for an early withdrawal of troops!
Wednesday, March 14, 2007
Bright sun, warm Earth. Coincidence?
Lorne Gunter of Canada.com, writing in this piece asks the very pertinent question - "Is it so hard to believe ... that the sun could be causing our current warming ... ?", in light of the fact that the sun is, and has been for about the past 150 years now, very active. Activity which has caused the polar ice caps of Mars to begin melting; a second giant red spot to develop on Jupiter; Triton, Neptune's moon, has experienced melting of it's frozen nitrogen surface, so that now it's atmosphere is becoming more dense; even Pluto has "warmed" from its' usual -233 degrees Celsius to a balmy -230 degrees Celsius.
Now, the last time I checked, the only thing all of these planets really have in common with Earth is that they all orbit around a huge yellow orb, which we call the Sun. There are no SUV's on Mars. There are no factories on Jupiter. There are no coal fired power generating plants on Triton. Other than on Earth, there aren't any people on any of those other planets and moons that are flying through space in orbit around the sun, and yet, according to the global warming alarmists, it is people who are contributing to the warming of planet Earth, through our "destructive activities".
But, if it is people causing the warming of Earth, what then accounts for the warming phenomena happening on the other planets and moons in our solar system? There aren't any people anywhere else, so what is causing it? There is only one possible answer to that question - heightened, and sustained, activity of the Sun.
To say otherwise is foolish beyond belief, as is saying that man's activities here on planet Earth is the sole, and overarching, reason why our climate is changing (which it is, as I have stated numerous times before; Earth's climate always changes - always has, always will - it has never been static).
Is Man having an adverse affect on Earth? In many way, yes. We pollute our air. We pollute our water. We cut down the trees in our rain forests which deplete wildlife habitat, and cause far too much land erosion. Population growth in some parts of our planet is unsustainable (while in other areas, populations are declining) from a resource availability standpoint. Could we do better? Of course we could, and we should.
But to say that Man is the sole cause of "global warming", without taking into consideration any other external factors such as heightened solar activity making a contribution, is not only foolish, but dogmatic in the extreme, Al Gore's opinions notwithstanding.
H/T michaelmichael
Now, the last time I checked, the only thing all of these planets really have in common with Earth is that they all orbit around a huge yellow orb, which we call the Sun. There are no SUV's on Mars. There are no factories on Jupiter. There are no coal fired power generating plants on Triton. Other than on Earth, there aren't any people on any of those other planets and moons that are flying through space in orbit around the sun, and yet, according to the global warming alarmists, it is people who are contributing to the warming of planet Earth, through our "destructive activities".
But, if it is people causing the warming of Earth, what then accounts for the warming phenomena happening on the other planets and moons in our solar system? There aren't any people anywhere else, so what is causing it? There is only one possible answer to that question - heightened, and sustained, activity of the Sun.
To say otherwise is foolish beyond belief, as is saying that man's activities here on planet Earth is the sole, and overarching, reason why our climate is changing (which it is, as I have stated numerous times before; Earth's climate always changes - always has, always will - it has never been static).
Is Man having an adverse affect on Earth? In many way, yes. We pollute our air. We pollute our water. We cut down the trees in our rain forests which deplete wildlife habitat, and cause far too much land erosion. Population growth in some parts of our planet is unsustainable (while in other areas, populations are declining) from a resource availability standpoint. Could we do better? Of course we could, and we should.
But to say that Man is the sole cause of "global warming", without taking into consideration any other external factors such as heightened solar activity making a contribution, is not only foolish, but dogmatic in the extreme, Al Gore's opinions notwithstanding.
H/T michaelmichael
Monday, March 12, 2007
The Great Global Warming Swindle
Via LGF, comes The Great Global Warming Swindle, from the UK's Channel 4. It's a rather long video (requires Adobe Flash Player), at over an hour and a quarter, but it is something worth investing the time in.
H/T Hollie-is-right
H/T Hollie-is-right
Sunday, March 11, 2007
TV Star, Former Senator Fred Thompson Considers '08 Presidential Bid
As reported here, "Law and Order" star and former Tennessee Republican Sen. Fred Thompson is weighing a bid for the White House in 2008, he told Chris Wallace on "FOX News Sunday."
"I'm going to wait and see what happens," Thompson said. "I want to see my colleagues on the campaign trial, what they say, what they emphasize, whether they can carry the ball next November."
Thompson, 64, who plays district attorney Arthur Branch on NBC's drama, said he was pondering a run after former Senate Majority Leader Howard Baker and other Tennessee Republicans began drumming up support for his possible Republican candidacy, citing his conservative credentials.
This is a man I would get behind very quickly. Fred Thompson would make an excellent candidate for the Republican Party - much better than that RINO McCain - as well as an excellent President.
This is an exciting prospect, and it's hoped here that Mr. Thompson does throw his hat in the ring.
"I'm going to wait and see what happens," Thompson said. "I want to see my colleagues on the campaign trial, what they say, what they emphasize, whether they can carry the ball next November."
Thompson, 64, who plays district attorney Arthur Branch on NBC's drama, said he was pondering a run after former Senate Majority Leader Howard Baker and other Tennessee Republicans began drumming up support for his possible Republican candidacy, citing his conservative credentials.
This is a man I would get behind very quickly. Fred Thompson would make an excellent candidate for the Republican Party - much better than that RINO McCain - as well as an excellent President.
This is an exciting prospect, and it's hoped here that Mr. Thompson does throw his hat in the ring.
Tuesday, March 06, 2007
Words of wisdom from a good friend
From time to time, some of my friends come up with some very interesting points to ponder, and what follows is a case in point. Many thanks, Bryan, for your kind permission in allowing me to re-post this here.
I have a LOT of thoughts on the subject of war and peace on Earth, but until now I couldn't quite figure out a way to articulate my driving sentiments on the matters at hand. Rather than waiting for some sort of Divine inspiration to help me along in my quest, I've decided to just throw out a few things in the hopes that something makes sense and starts a dialog.
As always, your mileage may vary...
* If a group of individuals attempt to break into my house and attack members of the household, I don't give a crap about motivations, historical context, what they look like, etc. I will use deadly force in whatever manner is afforded to me in order to defend property and personnel. I expect nothing less from the elected leaders of my country in the face of mortal dangers to our nation.
* Nobody alive was responsible for the Spanish Inquisition, the Crusades, or any other carnage or inhumanity prior to World War I. I would appreciate it if we can remember that in all future conversations about assigning blame and culpability for historic hatreds.
* Long after the initial conflicts have ended, American Forces are still in Europe, the Middle East, South Korea, and Japan. It took decades for most of those environments to stabilize to the thriving peaceful governments that they are today. For some reason though, the patience and tenacity to see things through in Iraq doesn't seem to exist. But that hasn't stopped some folks from demanding American intervention in Dafur, not unlike similar calls for action in Bosnia, Haiti, and Somalia. I think we all remember how those adventures turned out.
* The hatred of some for the United States Armed Forces (that originates from within this country) is probably linked to the lack of emotional equity in the troops due to the volunteer nature of the service. The folks in uniform are "poor, uneducated, misinformed, easily-manipulated, fascist-supporting, blood-thirsty, knuckle-dragging religious freaks" who probably get off killing brown-skinned people for pay, to hear those critics tell the tale. I don't know what the story would be if there were a mandatory two-year service commitment of all able-bodied citizens at age 21, but you can bet that there would be more political activity among the 18-26 year old crowd. That, and more entry visas to Canada and Europe.
* I want to see an end to "the politically correct war." They tend to last too long, cost too much money, and endanger too many lives of our own armed forces. If American diplomats show up at a foreign embassy and warn of "military consequences" if our words aren't taken seriously, I want those foreign leaders to shake in their boots and have buckets of floppy worry sweat drip from their bodies. Wars should be horrific moments of pure hell that all parties must be willing to avoid whenever possible. But such avoidance should NOT come at the cost of freedom and liberties as expressed in our most sacred documents, and certainly not at the expense of an unwilling group of sacrificial lambs.
* Over half of humanity are governed by oppressive rulers that most likely would not be in place if free and independent elections were held. That said, what obligation to said populations do those of us in the so-called "Free World" owe anyway? Do we say "Sucks to be you!" and move on? If the majority of a specific nation were to cry out for assistance in ousting their brutal leaders, would we intentionally turn a blind eye to them? Could anyone sleep at night with their blinders on and the cries of anguish muffled out by earplugs?
* How far are we willing to go to prosecute the war against Islamic Jihadists and other terrorist groups of international reach? Are nuclear strikes off of the table? When will we know that the conflict is over? Must it end in our lifetimes, or can we punt it down to our kidlings the way that the Cold War was passed on to most of us from the previous mid-century? And what matters more to us - our own noble extinction, or our victory and the ability to write the history books centuries from now? Just askin', folks.
* We can't get humanity into space fast enough, IMHO. The survival of our species depends on some seeds being scattered into earth-orbit colonies, lunar colonies, terra-formed planets, and beyond the solar system. At the moment, my cynical self believes that The Earth That Is won't make it past 2100 in anything that we would recognize today.
If you want to go directly to the source of this post, you can find it here, and if you want to get to know Bryan, you can go here. Tell him I sent you. ;)
I have a LOT of thoughts on the subject of war and peace on Earth, but until now I couldn't quite figure out a way to articulate my driving sentiments on the matters at hand. Rather than waiting for some sort of Divine inspiration to help me along in my quest, I've decided to just throw out a few things in the hopes that something makes sense and starts a dialog.
As always, your mileage may vary...
* If a group of individuals attempt to break into my house and attack members of the household, I don't give a crap about motivations, historical context, what they look like, etc. I will use deadly force in whatever manner is afforded to me in order to defend property and personnel. I expect nothing less from the elected leaders of my country in the face of mortal dangers to our nation.
* Nobody alive was responsible for the Spanish Inquisition, the Crusades, or any other carnage or inhumanity prior to World War I. I would appreciate it if we can remember that in all future conversations about assigning blame and culpability for historic hatreds.
* Long after the initial conflicts have ended, American Forces are still in Europe, the Middle East, South Korea, and Japan. It took decades for most of those environments to stabilize to the thriving peaceful governments that they are today. For some reason though, the patience and tenacity to see things through in Iraq doesn't seem to exist. But that hasn't stopped some folks from demanding American intervention in Dafur, not unlike similar calls for action in Bosnia, Haiti, and Somalia. I think we all remember how those adventures turned out.
* The hatred of some for the United States Armed Forces (that originates from within this country) is probably linked to the lack of emotional equity in the troops due to the volunteer nature of the service. The folks in uniform are "poor, uneducated, misinformed, easily-manipulated, fascist-supporting, blood-thirsty, knuckle-dragging religious freaks" who probably get off killing brown-skinned people for pay, to hear those critics tell the tale. I don't know what the story would be if there were a mandatory two-year service commitment of all able-bodied citizens at age 21, but you can bet that there would be more political activity among the 18-26 year old crowd. That, and more entry visas to Canada and Europe.
* I want to see an end to "the politically correct war." They tend to last too long, cost too much money, and endanger too many lives of our own armed forces. If American diplomats show up at a foreign embassy and warn of "military consequences" if our words aren't taken seriously, I want those foreign leaders to shake in their boots and have buckets of floppy worry sweat drip from their bodies. Wars should be horrific moments of pure hell that all parties must be willing to avoid whenever possible. But such avoidance should NOT come at the cost of freedom and liberties as expressed in our most sacred documents, and certainly not at the expense of an unwilling group of sacrificial lambs.
* Over half of humanity are governed by oppressive rulers that most likely would not be in place if free and independent elections were held. That said, what obligation to said populations do those of us in the so-called "Free World" owe anyway? Do we say "Sucks to be you!" and move on? If the majority of a specific nation were to cry out for assistance in ousting their brutal leaders, would we intentionally turn a blind eye to them? Could anyone sleep at night with their blinders on and the cries of anguish muffled out by earplugs?
* How far are we willing to go to prosecute the war against Islamic Jihadists and other terrorist groups of international reach? Are nuclear strikes off of the table? When will we know that the conflict is over? Must it end in our lifetimes, or can we punt it down to our kidlings the way that the Cold War was passed on to most of us from the previous mid-century? And what matters more to us - our own noble extinction, or our victory and the ability to write the history books centuries from now? Just askin', folks.
* We can't get humanity into space fast enough, IMHO. The survival of our species depends on some seeds being scattered into earth-orbit colonies, lunar colonies, terra-formed planets, and beyond the solar system. At the moment, my cynical self believes that The Earth That Is won't make it past 2100 in anything that we would recognize today.
If you want to go directly to the source of this post, you can find it here, and if you want to get to know Bryan, you can go here. Tell him I sent you. ;)
YouTube about to become politician friendly
As reported here, [p]oliticians have not cherished most of their YouTube moments, those snippets of candid camera video posted on the popular Internet site.
Now comes a friendlier YouTube politics.
Wednesday, the online video Web site announced the beginning of a voter education initiative that will be an information hub for political candidates to showcase their own videos.
Well, that's interesting. The only question I have is, are registered users of the site going to be able to flag the video's that are put up by the politicians (especially those by Republicans) as "inappropriate", so YouTube yanks them?
It will be interesting to find out, and it is hoped here that this doesn't happen. Guess we'll all find out soon enough, eh?
Now comes a friendlier YouTube politics.
Wednesday, the online video Web site announced the beginning of a voter education initiative that will be an information hub for political candidates to showcase their own videos.
Well, that's interesting. The only question I have is, are registered users of the site going to be able to flag the video's that are put up by the politicians (especially those by Republicans) as "inappropriate", so YouTube yanks them?
It will be interesting to find out, and it is hoped here that this doesn't happen. Guess we'll all find out soon enough, eh?
Baghdad security plan hinders death squads
As reported here, [t]he Baghdad security operation has been under way less than three weeks, but it has already registered a success: a sharp drop in the number of bullet-riddled bodies found in the streets -- victims of sectarian death squads.
The number of bodies found so far this month in Baghdad -- most of them shot and showing signs of torture -- has dropped by nearly 50 percent to 494 as of Monday night, compared with 954 in January and 1,222 in December, according to Associated Press figures.
"The intensive security measures have forced the gunmen to leave Baghdad and quit throwing bodies in the streets," said Kamil Abdul-Nour, a 42-year-old Sunni teacher. "Still, I am afraid that this phenomenon will appear again if the security measures end," he said.
The U.S. military has boosted the number of U.S. troops working with the police -- and Mahdi Army chief Muqtada al-Sadr pulled many of his fighters off the streets under pressure from Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, his political ally.
Well, well, well. Imagine that. The surge is actually working, with only one new brigade so far. Imagine what will happen when the other brigades arrive in Iraq.
Now, imagine this. What do you think will happen if the surge is stopped by the Democrats, and they somehow make the rest of our troops pull back to the fringes? Do you think the killing will stop? Do you think the Shiite death squads will stop killing Sunni's? Do you think the Sunni's will stop their reprisal killings? Do you think Al Qaida in Iraq will stop killing people in their attempt to destabilize the Iraqi government, and simply "go away"?
I'll tell you what will happen. The killings will continue, and at a pace that you've not seen up until now. The only difference will be that our troops will be less of a target, because they won't be there to stop the killing. Is that really what the Democrats want to see happen? It appears so.
Imagine that.
The number of bodies found so far this month in Baghdad -- most of them shot and showing signs of torture -- has dropped by nearly 50 percent to 494 as of Monday night, compared with 954 in January and 1,222 in December, according to Associated Press figures.
"The intensive security measures have forced the gunmen to leave Baghdad and quit throwing bodies in the streets," said Kamil Abdul-Nour, a 42-year-old Sunni teacher. "Still, I am afraid that this phenomenon will appear again if the security measures end," he said.
The U.S. military has boosted the number of U.S. troops working with the police -- and Mahdi Army chief Muqtada al-Sadr pulled many of his fighters off the streets under pressure from Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, his political ally.
Well, well, well. Imagine that. The surge is actually working, with only one new brigade so far. Imagine what will happen when the other brigades arrive in Iraq.
Now, imagine this. What do you think will happen if the surge is stopped by the Democrats, and they somehow make the rest of our troops pull back to the fringes? Do you think the killing will stop? Do you think the Shiite death squads will stop killing Sunni's? Do you think the Sunni's will stop their reprisal killings? Do you think Al Qaida in Iraq will stop killing people in their attempt to destabilize the Iraqi government, and simply "go away"?
I'll tell you what will happen. The killings will continue, and at a pace that you've not seen up until now. The only difference will be that our troops will be less of a target, because they won't be there to stop the killing. Is that really what the Democrats want to see happen? It appears so.
Imagine that.
Second court-martial set in Watada case
As briefly reported here, [a] second court-martial is scheduled to begin July 16 for 1st Lt. Ehren Watada, who refused to go to Iraq with his Fort Lewis-based Stryker Brigade and spoke out against the Bush administration. The first ended in a mistrial after three days when the judge said he didn't believe Watada fully understood a pretrial agreement he'd signed. If convicted, Watada could be sentenced to six years in prison and be dishonorably discharged. Pretrial motions have been set for May 20 and 21, with the court-martial scheduled to begin the week of July 16.
It is hoped here that things will go right with this trial. We really don't need another "circus" event, although I suspect that Watada's attorney will try to bring up the "illegality" of the war in Iraq again, even though there is nothing illegal about it whatsoever.
It is hoped here that things will go right with this trial. We really don't need another "circus" event, although I suspect that Watada's attorney will try to bring up the "illegality" of the war in Iraq again, even though there is nothing illegal about it whatsoever.
Sunday, February 25, 2007
Lieberman May Decide Fate of Iraq
As reported here, [t]he only pro-war senator to caucus with the Democrats may become a Republican.
That's what Joseph Lieberman, the independent from Connecticut who was defeated in a Democratic primary last summer, is hinting he will do if his old party fiddles with a bill to pay for the troop surge in Iraq.
If Sen. Lieberman does switch parties, that will create a 50 - 50 split, with Vice President Cheney having the deciding, tie-breaking vote. After being defeated in the Connecticut Democrat primary, simply because he supports President Bush where Iraq is concerned, and then winning re-election to the Senate as an Independent, the irony of this just oozes, you know?
Although Sen. Lieberman is a liberal at heart, and I disagree with most of the positions he takes on various issues, I still have a great deal of respect for him, as he stands by his principles, and isn't swayed by the latest poll numbers as so many of our elected officials on both sides of the aisle are.
Senator, if you do decide to switch to the Republican Party, I know that you will be greeted with open arms by many, including me.
That's what Joseph Lieberman, the independent from Connecticut who was defeated in a Democratic primary last summer, is hinting he will do if his old party fiddles with a bill to pay for the troop surge in Iraq.
If Sen. Lieberman does switch parties, that will create a 50 - 50 split, with Vice President Cheney having the deciding, tie-breaking vote. After being defeated in the Connecticut Democrat primary, simply because he supports President Bush where Iraq is concerned, and then winning re-election to the Senate as an Independent, the irony of this just oozes, you know?
Although Sen. Lieberman is a liberal at heart, and I disagree with most of the positions he takes on various issues, I still have a great deal of respect for him, as he stands by his principles, and isn't swayed by the latest poll numbers as so many of our elected officials on both sides of the aisle are.
Senator, if you do decide to switch to the Republican Party, I know that you will be greeted with open arms by many, including me.
The awakening
James G. Zumwalt, a Marine veteran of the Persian Gulf and Vietnam wars and son of former Admiral Elmo Zumwalt, states in this piece that [t]he new year so far has good news both for antiwar critics and supporters of our mission in Iraq.
For anti-war critics, the good news was House passage last week of a nonbinding resolution in opposition to President Bush's surge plan. Of course, the House vote was little more than a resolution with bark and no bite, offering no substantive solutions. Also, it runs contrary to the constitutional line between the legislative and executive branches drawn by our Founding Fathers concerning war-fighting powers.
Post-vote assessments by Democrats suggest the resolution represented "a historic victory for the American people." Republicans, meanwhile, suggested it was a defeatist act and a step backward in the war on terrorism. These assessments must be weighed against the good news that came out of Iraq last month but which was apparently ignored by those who supported the resolution.
He then states that (and this is information that you will never read in the NY Times or Washington Post, I might add) [t]he good news story for supporters of the U.S. mission in Iraq was first reported in this newspaper by Oliver North, who traveled to Anbar Province -- an area renowned for its violence. As Mr. North's story strongly suggests, we may, at last, be turning things around there.
Mr. North reported on a meeting of Sunni leaders last June, known as "the Awakening." The Sunnis recognized that not only had al Qaeda managed to take control of their province, but the group had turned its brutality against the tribes, some of whose leaders had been murdered. The meeting resulted in a condemnation of al Qaeda's actions, a declaration of the tribal leaders' solidarity with the coalition and preparation and issuance of a declaration of war against al Qaeda.
Prior to this meeting, only three of 21 tribes in Anbar Province were cooperating with U.S. coalition forces, six were neutral and 12 hostile. Today, the numbers are reversed, with 12 cooperating and only three hostile. This represents a major turnaround and underscores what is key to winning in Iraq -- the Iraqi people finally taking the initiative on their own to be responsible for their security.
Tribes have now sent thousands of young men to join the police. After training, they are immediately assigned to stations within their own tribe's neighborhood to give them a vested interest in maintaining that security. For the six months of July 2006 through January 2007, attacks in Anbar decreased by 38 percent and improvised explosive devices (IEDs) by 57 percent -- with 80 percent of IEDs discovered before they could be detonated. (This alone suggests the local population is playing a very active role in sharing intelligence with coalition forces.)
The increased security, in turn, has enabled millions of dollars worth of reconstruction projects to be undertaken, demonstrating to locals the benefits of such cooperation.
The House vote on a nonbinding resolution opposing President Bush's surge plan was ill-timed. It came just as significant progress is being made in Anbar, bringing some much needed law and order to what was once a lawless Dodge City. Last June, the Sunnis experienced an "Awakening," having come to fully understand the danger posed by al Qaeda and the need to make the commitment to defeat it in Iraq. When will our Congress undergo a similar epiphany?
Yes, indeed. When will our Congress undergo a similar epiphany? Surely not until they cease these politically motivated non-binding "resolutions" that affect our troops morale, and embolden the terrorists to simply wait us out as they watch our politicians resolve crumble.
For anti-war critics, the good news was House passage last week of a nonbinding resolution in opposition to President Bush's surge plan. Of course, the House vote was little more than a resolution with bark and no bite, offering no substantive solutions. Also, it runs contrary to the constitutional line between the legislative and executive branches drawn by our Founding Fathers concerning war-fighting powers.
Post-vote assessments by Democrats suggest the resolution represented "a historic victory for the American people." Republicans, meanwhile, suggested it was a defeatist act and a step backward in the war on terrorism. These assessments must be weighed against the good news that came out of Iraq last month but which was apparently ignored by those who supported the resolution.
He then states that (and this is information that you will never read in the NY Times or Washington Post, I might add) [t]he good news story for supporters of the U.S. mission in Iraq was first reported in this newspaper by Oliver North, who traveled to Anbar Province -- an area renowned for its violence. As Mr. North's story strongly suggests, we may, at last, be turning things around there.
Mr. North reported on a meeting of Sunni leaders last June, known as "the Awakening." The Sunnis recognized that not only had al Qaeda managed to take control of their province, but the group had turned its brutality against the tribes, some of whose leaders had been murdered. The meeting resulted in a condemnation of al Qaeda's actions, a declaration of the tribal leaders' solidarity with the coalition and preparation and issuance of a declaration of war against al Qaeda.
Prior to this meeting, only three of 21 tribes in Anbar Province were cooperating with U.S. coalition forces, six were neutral and 12 hostile. Today, the numbers are reversed, with 12 cooperating and only three hostile. This represents a major turnaround and underscores what is key to winning in Iraq -- the Iraqi people finally taking the initiative on their own to be responsible for their security.
Tribes have now sent thousands of young men to join the police. After training, they are immediately assigned to stations within their own tribe's neighborhood to give them a vested interest in maintaining that security. For the six months of July 2006 through January 2007, attacks in Anbar decreased by 38 percent and improvised explosive devices (IEDs) by 57 percent -- with 80 percent of IEDs discovered before they could be detonated. (This alone suggests the local population is playing a very active role in sharing intelligence with coalition forces.)
The increased security, in turn, has enabled millions of dollars worth of reconstruction projects to be undertaken, demonstrating to locals the benefits of such cooperation.
The House vote on a nonbinding resolution opposing President Bush's surge plan was ill-timed. It came just as significant progress is being made in Anbar, bringing some much needed law and order to what was once a lawless Dodge City. Last June, the Sunnis experienced an "Awakening," having come to fully understand the danger posed by al Qaeda and the need to make the commitment to defeat it in Iraq. When will our Congress undergo a similar epiphany?
Yes, indeed. When will our Congress undergo a similar epiphany? Surely not until they cease these politically motivated non-binding "resolutions" that affect our troops morale, and embolden the terrorists to simply wait us out as they watch our politicians resolve crumble.
Warming delirium
William Rusher states in this piece that [t]he media have recently been blaring what they depict (inaccurately, by the way) as the latest grim warning from the practically unanimous ranks of the world's climatologists concerning global warming. It is time to take two aspirin, lie down and consider the matter calmly.
Yes, indeed, please do, before your heads explode!
Yes, indeed, please do, before your heads explode!
Army refiles charges against Watada
As briefly reported here, the Army has refiled charges against Watada. No trial date has been set yet.
This is good and appropriate, no matter what Watada's lawyer thinks, in my opinion. Hopefully this time, nothing with interfere with the process.
This is good and appropriate, no matter what Watada's lawyer thinks, in my opinion. Hopefully this time, nothing with interfere with the process.
An experiment that hints we are wrong on climate change
As reported here, [w]hen politicians and journalists declare that the science of global warming is settled, they show a regrettable ignorance about how science works. We were treated to another dose of it recently when the experts of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issued the Summary for Policymakers that puts the political spin on an unfinished scientific dossier on climate change due for publication in a few months' time. They declared that most of the rise in temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to man-made greenhouse gases.
The small print explains "very likely" as meaning that the experts who made the judgment felt 90% sure about it. Older readers may recall a press conference at Harwell in 1958 when Sir John Cockcroft, Britain's top nuclear physicist, said he was 90% certain that his lads had achieved controlled nuclear fusion. It turned out that he was wrong. More positively, a 10% uncertainty in any theory is a wide open breach for any latterday Galileo or Einstein to storm through with a better idea. That is how science really works.
Twenty years ago, climate research became politicised in favour of one particular hypothesis, which redefined the subject as the study of the effect of greenhouse gases. As a result, the rebellious spirits essential for innovative and trustworthy science are greeted with impediments to their research careers. And while the media usually find mavericks at least entertaining, in this case they often imagine that anyone who doubts the hypothesis of man-made global warming must be in the pay of the oil companies. As a result, some key discoveries in climate research go almost unreported.
Some of the key discoveries in climate research that have gone almost unreported are here. Now, why do you suppose these key discoveries go unreported? Could it be that they don't "fit" the theories put forth by those who subscribe to "global warming is caused entirely by man's activities", and that these other factors go against the purported "consensus" that it is "all our fault"?
Seems likely to me, at any rate.
H/T kc-anathema
The small print explains "very likely" as meaning that the experts who made the judgment felt 90% sure about it. Older readers may recall a press conference at Harwell in 1958 when Sir John Cockcroft, Britain's top nuclear physicist, said he was 90% certain that his lads had achieved controlled nuclear fusion. It turned out that he was wrong. More positively, a 10% uncertainty in any theory is a wide open breach for any latterday Galileo or Einstein to storm through with a better idea. That is how science really works.
Twenty years ago, climate research became politicised in favour of one particular hypothesis, which redefined the subject as the study of the effect of greenhouse gases. As a result, the rebellious spirits essential for innovative and trustworthy science are greeted with impediments to their research careers. And while the media usually find mavericks at least entertaining, in this case they often imagine that anyone who doubts the hypothesis of man-made global warming must be in the pay of the oil companies. As a result, some key discoveries in climate research go almost unreported.
Some of the key discoveries in climate research that have gone almost unreported are here. Now, why do you suppose these key discoveries go unreported? Could it be that they don't "fit" the theories put forth by those who subscribe to "global warming is caused entirely by man's activities", and that these other factors go against the purported "consensus" that it is "all our fault"?
Seems likely to me, at any rate.
H/T kc-anathema
N. Korea agrees to nuclear disarmament
As reported here, North Korea on Friday asked the chief U.N. atomic inspector to visit four years after expelling his experts and dropping out of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty - an encouraging sign the reclusive regime is serious about dismantling its weapons program.
Mohamed ElBaradei, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, offered few details about his upcoming trip, which other agency officials said would likely occur in the second week of March.
Still, his announcement was significant because it signaled the North's willingness to subject its nuclear program to outside scrutiny for the first time since withdrawing from the Nonproliferation Treaty in January 2003, just weeks after ordering nuclear inspectors to leave.
I'm cautiously optimistic about this recent development, but at the same time I'm still wary, considering what the North Korean's have done in the past, which has been to say one thing while secretly doing another.
What was that phrase we used with the Soviets? Oh, yeah. Trust, but verify. If it were up to me, we would go light on the "trust" part, and heavy on the "verify" part.
Mohamed ElBaradei, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, offered few details about his upcoming trip, which other agency officials said would likely occur in the second week of March.
Still, his announcement was significant because it signaled the North's willingness to subject its nuclear program to outside scrutiny for the first time since withdrawing from the Nonproliferation Treaty in January 2003, just weeks after ordering nuclear inspectors to leave.
I'm cautiously optimistic about this recent development, but at the same time I'm still wary, considering what the North Korean's have done in the past, which has been to say one thing while secretly doing another.
What was that phrase we used with the Soviets? Oh, yeah. Trust, but verify. If it were up to me, we would go light on the "trust" part, and heavy on the "verify" part.
Reform group turned in 2,000 suspicious voter registrations
ACORN is at it again, this time in King County. As reported here, King County elections officials said Thursday that nearly 2,000 potentially fraudulent voter registration cards were submitted before the November election by a local branch of a group that's come under fire across the country.
The Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now -- or ACORN -- submitted the 1,829 cards by mail, but they arrived after the Oct. 7 deadline for mailing registration forms and were not processed before the election, King County elections spokeswoman Bobbie Egan told The Associated Press.
Egan said that once the box was opened, elections officials grew suspicious.
"Our staff quickly noticed where there were hundreds of forms where the signatures were similar," she said. "It appears they were fraudulently completed by a few individuals."
Egan said elections officials immediately contacted the King County Prosecutor's Office, which advised them to do a random sample of the registrations.
The King County Elections Office has had it's problems, detailed here and elsewhere, most notably in the 2004 election where there were multiple errors made, denying Dino Rossi the governorship. It seems that, at least in this case, the folks in the KCEO are on the ball, catching ACORN trying to commit voter registration fraud - again. This is an activity they have tried to do in other states, as well, being caught at this time after time after time. You would think they would have learned their lesson after the first time they tried this and were caught, but apparently not.
Kevin Whelan, spokesman for the New Orleans-based group, said it was eager to work with elections officials.
"If there was anyone working for us who turned in cards that were fake, we want to see them prosecuted," he said.
If you believe that, I have some ocean front property in Arizona available for sale, too. Obviously, that statement falls in the "CYA" category.
The Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now -- or ACORN -- submitted the 1,829 cards by mail, but they arrived after the Oct. 7 deadline for mailing registration forms and were not processed before the election, King County elections spokeswoman Bobbie Egan told The Associated Press.
Egan said that once the box was opened, elections officials grew suspicious.
"Our staff quickly noticed where there were hundreds of forms where the signatures were similar," she said. "It appears they were fraudulently completed by a few individuals."
Egan said elections officials immediately contacted the King County Prosecutor's Office, which advised them to do a random sample of the registrations.
The King County Elections Office has had it's problems, detailed here and elsewhere, most notably in the 2004 election where there were multiple errors made, denying Dino Rossi the governorship. It seems that, at least in this case, the folks in the KCEO are on the ball, catching ACORN trying to commit voter registration fraud - again. This is an activity they have tried to do in other states, as well, being caught at this time after time after time. You would think they would have learned their lesson after the first time they tried this and were caught, but apparently not.
Kevin Whelan, spokesman for the New Orleans-based group, said it was eager to work with elections officials.
"If there was anyone working for us who turned in cards that were fake, we want to see them prosecuted," he said.
If you believe that, I have some ocean front property in Arizona available for sale, too. Obviously, that statement falls in the "CYA" category.
Possible King County double voting case found
As reported here, [a]n inspection of voter records statewide has turned up a possible case of double voting in the November election in King County, the office of Secretary of State Sam Reed said Tuesday.
The case, which has been referred to King County Prosecuting Attorney Norm Maleng, could not be resolved by investigators from Reed's Data Integrity Program, an operation that was set up last month to review the statewide voter registration database for evidence of double voting, duplicate registrations or other problems.
Hopefully, charges will be filed. But, wait - there's more!
During 2006, scrubbing the statewide database removed more than 176,000 names from the roll. They included:
The case, which has been referred to King County Prosecuting Attorney Norm Maleng, could not be resolved by investigators from Reed's Data Integrity Program, an operation that was set up last month to review the statewide voter registration database for evidence of double voting, duplicate registrations or other problems.
Hopefully, charges will be filed. But, wait - there's more!
During 2006, scrubbing the statewide database removed more than 176,000 names from the roll. They included:
- 39,814 duplicate registrations, often created when a registered voter moves to a different county, registers to vote there and fails to cancel the old registration.
- 40,105 dead voters. The statewide database is cross-checked with records from the state Department of Health and the federal Social Security Administration.
- 4,500 illegal registrations of felons, who cannot vote until their rights are restored after they've completed their prison terms and probations. State officials cross-check voter lists with records from the Department of Corrections.
In their failed legal challenge to Chris Gregoire's narrow victory in the 2004 gubernatorial race, Republicans made a big issue of illegal voting by felons. (Although the presiding judge inexplicably didn't see things our way.)
- 91,954 inactive voter registrations (for voters who have not cast ballots in the previous four years) and registrations that voters asked to cancel.
I'd imagine that the local Dems aren't too pleased with these numbers, since that means 176,373 potential Democrat votes will not be cast in the 2008 election.
Oh, too bad.
Sunday, February 11, 2007
Obama invokes Lincoln for run
As reported here, Sen. Barack Obama officially announced his presidential candidacy yesterday before thousands of supporters eager to become part of his "new leadership" movement.
"This campaign can't only be about me. It must be about us -- it must be about what we can do together," Mr. Obama said, standing in front of the building where Abraham Lincoln served in the state General Assembly before he became president.
In a speech that invoked the memories of both Lincoln and Martin Luther King, the junior senator from Illinois acknowledged a "certain audacity" in his selection of the historic backdrop for his announcement and said he recognizes that his campaign is as much about the voters as it is about himself.
That's a mild understatement, as it does take a "certain audacity" for a Democrat to invoke Abraham Lincoln, a Republican, in his announcement speech, even if he was only drawing comparisons between his lack of experience and Lincoln's.
I will say one thing about Sen. Obama. Although he is your typical left leaning Democrat who believes in the government knowing how to run your life better than you do, he is a fresh face on the national political scene, who has eloquence and a certain vibrancy, and may give Hillary a run for her money in the race for the Democrat nominee. He's certainly a better alternative to all the tired retreads such as Clarke, Biden, Kerry, etc. (I know, I know - Kerry hasn't made up his mind yet, but as we all know, that means nothing)
Let the games begin!
"This campaign can't only be about me. It must be about us -- it must be about what we can do together," Mr. Obama said, standing in front of the building where Abraham Lincoln served in the state General Assembly before he became president.
In a speech that invoked the memories of both Lincoln and Martin Luther King, the junior senator from Illinois acknowledged a "certain audacity" in his selection of the historic backdrop for his announcement and said he recognizes that his campaign is as much about the voters as it is about himself.
That's a mild understatement, as it does take a "certain audacity" for a Democrat to invoke Abraham Lincoln, a Republican, in his announcement speech, even if he was only drawing comparisons between his lack of experience and Lincoln's.
I will say one thing about Sen. Obama. Although he is your typical left leaning Democrat who believes in the government knowing how to run your life better than you do, he is a fresh face on the national political scene, who has eloquence and a certain vibrancy, and may give Hillary a run for her money in the race for the Democrat nominee. He's certainly a better alternative to all the tired retreads such as Clarke, Biden, Kerry, etc. (I know, I know - Kerry hasn't made up his mind yet, but as we all know, that means nothing)
Let the games begin!
Here's another blog you may like
A new addition to our list of links, by Jon Pananas, called Laconic Blog, that he was kind enough to make me aware of. Jon has some very good insights as to what is going on in the world, and two of his posts that I really liked are here and here.
Check out his blog. You'll be glad you did.
Check out his blog. You'll be glad you did.
I'm back
After nearly a month and a half lay off from posting, I'm back.
Several personal issues (mainly related to my real life job) arose, and basically prevented me from devoting the time I feel is necessary to put up what I consider to be note worthy.
I hope to be back to my regular Sunday posting schedule, with more than one or two posts, starting next week, as things have begun to calm down for me of late.
For those folks who have been regular readers of this little blog, I want to say thanks for hanging in there and having patience with me. I will try to be worthy of that in my future posts.
Stay tuned!
Several personal issues (mainly related to my real life job) arose, and basically prevented me from devoting the time I feel is necessary to put up what I consider to be note worthy.
I hope to be back to my regular Sunday posting schedule, with more than one or two posts, starting next week, as things have begun to calm down for me of late.
For those folks who have been regular readers of this little blog, I want to say thanks for hanging in there and having patience with me. I will try to be worthy of that in my future posts.
Stay tuned!
Taxing Profits = Taxing People
Lawrence Kudlow, in this excellent piece, points out the error of Hillary's ways when she said, "The oil companies reported the highest profits in the history of the world. I want to take those profits and I want to put them in an alternative energy fund.", at the winter meeting of the Democratic National Committee.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)