As reported here, Gov. Mike Rounds has signed the legislation banning most forms of abortion in South Dakota, while Planned Parenthood vows to fight it. NARAL president Nancy Keenan also voiced her opinion on the law, which basically amounted to "the sky is falling!".
There will be many legal challenges to this law, which I hope fail. "Rounds said he agrees with legislative sponsors that the test of a civilization is how it treats its most vulnerable and helpless people, and that unborn children are the most vulnerable and helpless."
I agree.
Sunday, March 12, 2006
Sunday, March 05, 2006
Iranian says Tehran tricked EU on nukes
As reported here (and as I have posted about before), the Iranians want nuclear weapons, and have been deceiving the EU for at least two decades regarding their intentions. Former head of the Iranian negotiating team, Hassan Rowhani, boasted about it in a speech to leading Iranian clerics.
And the Iranians are still trying to deceive not only the EU, but the world as well. They say that their nuclear program is for "peaceful purposes", to generate electricity. As I posted before, why do they need nuclear energy, when they sit on top of vast reserves of both oil and natural gas, which can be used to efficiently and cleanly produce enough electricity, not only for Iran, but for neighboring countries in the region without diminishing their exports? The answer to that is quite simple - they don't need nuclear energy to produce electricity.
What they do need however, in their view, is nuclear weapons so they may fulfill their self-proclaimed mandate of dominating not only the Middle East - which would be bad enough - but the entire world - which would be even worse.
Once Iran has nuclear weapons, you can be sure that the next step they will take is to state that they are running out of room in Iran for their expanding population, and that they need a little "elbow room" (Sound familiar? Hitler said the same thing.). Which country would they look to first for that "elbow room"? Which neighboring country has a majority Shiite population, that now also has close ties to the US, which they decidedly do not like, and would dearly love to disrupt those close ties? Iraq.
After Iraq, where next, for surely you don't think Iran would be satisfied with just Iraq? Probably Jordan, which also has close ties to the US, and then possibly Lebanon who is at odds with Iran's close ally, Syria. Then, once they are in Jordan, guess who would be next? Yep, Israel.
But, what about the UN telling them "they can't do that"? Oh, please. The UN? The UN can't even control peace keepers from raping, looting, and pillaging the people they are supposed to be protecting from rape, looting and pillaging, or control their own staffers from looting funds, and you expect Iran to listen to them?
Okay, if not the UN, then what about the US stepping in? That's exactly what the lunatics in Iran want to have happen. Why? So that they can a) unleash whatever nuclear weapons they have, wherever they think will benefit them most, and b) unleash the "Great Jihad" against the West, with the ultimate goal of enslaving the world under the heel of Islam, with Iran as the ultimate theocratic government.
Of course, once Iran fired off whatever nuclear weapons it has, the US would then be forced to retaliate in kind, reducing Tehran to a molten poll of glass. This in turn would infuriate others, including possibly China who has it's own nukes, and definitely the vast Islamic population elsewhere in the world.
Am I insane, you ask? Iran wouldn't possibly want that to happen, could they? No, I'm not insane, and I'm not running around with my hair on fire, yelling that the sky is falling. I am, however, just stating my position on why I believe that Iran must not be allowed to develop nuclear weapons, for yes indeed, their current leadership would want to see the things that I have described above come to pass.
Otherwise, why would they deceive the EU about their nuclear intentions?
And the Iranians are still trying to deceive not only the EU, but the world as well. They say that their nuclear program is for "peaceful purposes", to generate electricity. As I posted before, why do they need nuclear energy, when they sit on top of vast reserves of both oil and natural gas, which can be used to efficiently and cleanly produce enough electricity, not only for Iran, but for neighboring countries in the region without diminishing their exports? The answer to that is quite simple - they don't need nuclear energy to produce electricity.
What they do need however, in their view, is nuclear weapons so they may fulfill their self-proclaimed mandate of dominating not only the Middle East - which would be bad enough - but the entire world - which would be even worse.
Once Iran has nuclear weapons, you can be sure that the next step they will take is to state that they are running out of room in Iran for their expanding population, and that they need a little "elbow room" (Sound familiar? Hitler said the same thing.). Which country would they look to first for that "elbow room"? Which neighboring country has a majority Shiite population, that now also has close ties to the US, which they decidedly do not like, and would dearly love to disrupt those close ties? Iraq.
After Iraq, where next, for surely you don't think Iran would be satisfied with just Iraq? Probably Jordan, which also has close ties to the US, and then possibly Lebanon who is at odds with Iran's close ally, Syria. Then, once they are in Jordan, guess who would be next? Yep, Israel.
But, what about the UN telling them "they can't do that"? Oh, please. The UN? The UN can't even control peace keepers from raping, looting, and pillaging the people they are supposed to be protecting from rape, looting and pillaging, or control their own staffers from looting funds, and you expect Iran to listen to them?
Okay, if not the UN, then what about the US stepping in? That's exactly what the lunatics in Iran want to have happen. Why? So that they can a) unleash whatever nuclear weapons they have, wherever they think will benefit them most, and b) unleash the "Great Jihad" against the West, with the ultimate goal of enslaving the world under the heel of Islam, with Iran as the ultimate theocratic government.
Of course, once Iran fired off whatever nuclear weapons it has, the US would then be forced to retaliate in kind, reducing Tehran to a molten poll of glass. This in turn would infuriate others, including possibly China who has it's own nukes, and definitely the vast Islamic population elsewhere in the world.
Am I insane, you ask? Iran wouldn't possibly want that to happen, could they? No, I'm not insane, and I'm not running around with my hair on fire, yelling that the sky is falling. I am, however, just stating my position on why I believe that Iran must not be allowed to develop nuclear weapons, for yes indeed, their current leadership would want to see the things that I have described above come to pass.
Otherwise, why would they deceive the EU about their nuclear intentions?
UN advocating for terrorist led "government"
In the convoluted view of the UN, Hamas - a known terrorist organization which has pledged the destruction of Israel - is "good", and therefore deserves money from the West to legitimize it as a "government", while the US and Israel are "bad", for threatening to cut of funds.
As reported here, UN Mid-East envoy Alvaro De Soto warned that bankrupting the Palestinian government could be seen as punishment for Hamas' election victory and could shake the already unstable peace process. The thinking (if you can call it that) is that by withholding funds, the PA will go bankrupt, and cause the Hamas-led "government" to collapse.
This is a bad thing?
As reported here, UN Mid-East envoy Alvaro De Soto warned that bankrupting the Palestinian government could be seen as punishment for Hamas' election victory and could shake the already unstable peace process. The thinking (if you can call it that) is that by withholding funds, the PA will go bankrupt, and cause the Hamas-led "government" to collapse.
This is a bad thing?
Report: Iran Aims to Expand Nuke Program
As reported here, a new report from the IAEA indicates that Iran is pushing ahead it's domestic nuclear enrichment program, even as "talks" between Iran and Russia to move Iran's enrichment program to Russian soil have "started".
Adam Ereli, the deputy U.S. State Department spokesman, described news of agreement as "more chaff being thrown up by the Iranians ahead of the Board of Governors meeting" next week.
"There's no deal, frankly, that I'm aware of," Ereli said.
Ereli is correct in his characterization of "talks" between Iran and Russia being "more chaff being thrown up by the Iranians ahead of the Board of Governors meeting" next week. The Iranians are merely giving lip service to these so-called "talks" with Russia, in a blatant attempt to blow smoke up the IAEA's rear end, to forestall referral to, and possible sanctions from, the UN Security Council.
As I've posted before, the only possible reason for that is that Iran wants to become a nuclear power. After all, their plainly stated objective is to dominate the world and create an Islamic world government. What better way to accomplish that, than by having nuclear weapons?
Hat tip: Supedujour
Adam Ereli, the deputy U.S. State Department spokesman, described news of agreement as "more chaff being thrown up by the Iranians ahead of the Board of Governors meeting" next week.
"There's no deal, frankly, that I'm aware of," Ereli said.
Ereli is correct in his characterization of "talks" between Iran and Russia being "more chaff being thrown up by the Iranians ahead of the Board of Governors meeting" next week. The Iranians are merely giving lip service to these so-called "talks" with Russia, in a blatant attempt to blow smoke up the IAEA's rear end, to forestall referral to, and possible sanctions from, the UN Security Council.
As I've posted before, the only possible reason for that is that Iran wants to become a nuclear power. After all, their plainly stated objective is to dominate the world and create an Islamic world government. What better way to accomplish that, than by having nuclear weapons?
Hat tip: Supedujour
Sen. Clinton says Rove obsesses about her
As reported here, Hillary says Karl Rove "spends a lot of time obsessing about me.", and that she thinks Rove, RNC Chairman Ken Mehlman and other Republicans are using her to divert attention from Republican problems as the 2006 congressional elections approach.
She also said, "What they're hoping is that all of their missteps, which are now numbering in the hundreds, are going to somehow be overlooked because people, instead of focusing on the '06 election, will jump ahead and think about the next one."
Missteps?
Oh, you mean a liberated Afghanistan and Iraq, where free elections have been held for the first time in decades, where millions of people previously denied the opportunity participated in those free elections?
Or, do you mean the NSA program that has helped prevent another terrorist attack on US soil?
Or is it the tax cuts, that were supposedly going to deprive the government of $27 billion dollars, but which has instead generated $26 billion dollars in tax revenue, a whopping $53 million dollar difference?
Or how about unemployment, which is at it's lowest level since Ronald Reagan was President?
Or how about all the new jobs that have been created, that you and your cronies pooh-pooh as not being "good jobs" (simply because you and your cronies did nothing to help get the economy going again after 9/11, and therefore can't take any of the credit)?
Karl Rove "obsessing" about you? No, I don't think Karl Rove is obsessing about you (Note to Hillary - it really isn't all about you, ok?). I think that the people obsessing are you and your Dem cronies over the fact that you don't control the US Senate, the US House of Representatives, or the White House, and that the Republicans do. Speaking of the White House, it is you and your Dem cronies who are obsessing about President George W. Bush.
I've always known that Senators tend to have big egos, but in that regard Hillary, you take the cake!
She also said, "What they're hoping is that all of their missteps, which are now numbering in the hundreds, are going to somehow be overlooked because people, instead of focusing on the '06 election, will jump ahead and think about the next one."
Missteps?
Oh, you mean a liberated Afghanistan and Iraq, where free elections have been held for the first time in decades, where millions of people previously denied the opportunity participated in those free elections?
Or, do you mean the NSA program that has helped prevent another terrorist attack on US soil?
Or is it the tax cuts, that were supposedly going to deprive the government of $27 billion dollars, but which has instead generated $26 billion dollars in tax revenue, a whopping $53 million dollar difference?
Or how about unemployment, which is at it's lowest level since Ronald Reagan was President?
Or how about all the new jobs that have been created, that you and your cronies pooh-pooh as not being "good jobs" (simply because you and your cronies did nothing to help get the economy going again after 9/11, and therefore can't take any of the credit)?
Karl Rove "obsessing" about you? No, I don't think Karl Rove is obsessing about you (Note to Hillary - it really isn't all about you, ok?). I think that the people obsessing are you and your Dem cronies over the fact that you don't control the US Senate, the US House of Representatives, or the White House, and that the Republicans do. Speaking of the White House, it is you and your Dem cronies who are obsessing about President George W. Bush.
I've always known that Senators tend to have big egos, but in that regard Hillary, you take the cake!
Sunday, February 26, 2006
American Lefties Rooting for Terrorists
Rabbi Aryeh Spero eloquently - and correctly - tells us that there are those in this country, born here and enjoying the riches available to them here, who wish to see harm come to this country.
Well said, Rabbi!
Well said, Rabbi!
South Dakota set to ban abortion
As reported here, the South Dakota House has passed the bill banning nearly all abortions, by a margin of 50 - 18; the Senate passed a similar bill earlier, 23 - 12.
Republican Governor Mike Rounds says that he will probably sign the bill into law, which would make it a crime for doctors to perform an abortion unless it was necessary to save the woman's life. The measure would make no exception in cases of rape or incest.
Both opponents to, and proponents of, abortion say that this will probably lead to the overturning of Roe v. Wade, by the Supreme Court.
Planned Parenthood, which operates the only abortion "clinic" in South Dakota, has vowed to sue if the measure is signed into law.
Republican Governor Mike Rounds says that he will probably sign the bill into law, which would make it a crime for doctors to perform an abortion unless it was necessary to save the woman's life. The measure would make no exception in cases of rape or incest.
Both opponents to, and proponents of, abortion say that this will probably lead to the overturning of Roe v. Wade, by the Supreme Court.
Planned Parenthood, which operates the only abortion "clinic" in South Dakota, has vowed to sue if the measure is signed into law.
Iran and Russia strike "basic" agreement
As reported here, Iran and Russia have come to a "basic" agreement regarding jointly enriching nuclear fuel, but there is no immediate indication that Iran won't continue enriching nuclear material in Iran. Both sides say that there are still "obstacles" to a full agreement, but that talks will continue.
The main stumbling block, of course, is that Iran insists on enriching nuclear material that it has mined from it's own soil, in Iran, regardless of what the rest of the world wants. And why would Iran want to do this? The answer is plainly obvious, as I've posted before - they want nuclear weapons.
This desire on their part resembles the actions of a spoiled brat bully, but with far greater implications than that of a child who throws a temper tantrum if he doesn't get his way. Iran having nuclear weapons simply cannot be allowed to happen, as that would only further de-stabilize a region that is hardly stable as things stand now.
The main stumbling block, of course, is that Iran insists on enriching nuclear material that it has mined from it's own soil, in Iran, regardless of what the rest of the world wants. And why would Iran want to do this? The answer is plainly obvious, as I've posted before - they want nuclear weapons.
This desire on their part resembles the actions of a spoiled brat bully, but with far greater implications than that of a child who throws a temper tantrum if he doesn't get his way. Iran having nuclear weapons simply cannot be allowed to happen, as that would only further de-stabilize a region that is hardly stable as things stand now.
City of Issaquah sex offender law is upheld
As reported here, the ordinance passed recently by the City of Issaquah restricting where convicted sex offenders could live (only in certain designated areas and no closer than 1000 feet to a school or day care), was upheld in King County Superior Court, after the Washington chapter of the ACLU sued to overturn the ordinance. Since Issaquah's ordinance was enacted, the City of Monroe also passed a similar ordinance, with other cities also considering similar measures. I first blogged about this here, and here.
This is good news for parents, although the ACLU will probably try to have the ordinance overturned on different legal grounds. Remember, the ACLU is the organization that has been fighting to allow child pornography, and man-boy sexual relationships, saying that "no harm" comes to children in these situations. They are also the organization that has been fighting to eliminate all mention of "God" - as applied to Christianity, that is - from anything remotely to do with government.
For more on the outrages perpetrated by the ACLU, see our friends at Stop the ACLU.
This is good news for parents, although the ACLU will probably try to have the ordinance overturned on different legal grounds. Remember, the ACLU is the organization that has been fighting to allow child pornography, and man-boy sexual relationships, saying that "no harm" comes to children in these situations. They are also the organization that has been fighting to eliminate all mention of "God" - as applied to Christianity, that is - from anything remotely to do with government.
For more on the outrages perpetrated by the ACLU, see our friends at Stop the ACLU.
This comes as no surprise
As reported here, Iran has pledged to financially support the new Hamas-led government in Palestine. The Iranians have been covertly supporting Hamas in their jihad against Israel for years, although they deny it.
The Israeli's say they will do what they can to prevent Iranian funds from reaching the PA, and Hamas, which they are right in doing, in that Hamas refuses to give up their goal of eradicating Israel.
I think the US should also get involved in stopping Iranian funds from getting to the terrorist organization masquerading as a "legitimate" government.
The Israeli's say they will do what they can to prevent Iranian funds from reaching the PA, and Hamas, which they are right in doing, in that Hamas refuses to give up their goal of eradicating Israel.
I think the US should also get involved in stopping Iranian funds from getting to the terrorist organization masquerading as a "legitimate" government.
I wonder if they sang Kumbaya?
As reported here, the local chapter of the liberal group MoveOn held a candlelight vigil in Westlake Square in downtown Seattle this past Wednesday and read excerpts from the Bill of Rights, as part of a "nation wide" protest against the NSA's "domestic spying" program, claiming that what President Bush has authorized is "illegal".
I wonder if these same people gathered to hold a candlelight vigil, read excerpts from the Bill of Rights, and sing a few songs back in the 1960's when Kennedy and Johnson had the FBI wire tap Martin Luther King, Jr., and in 1977 when Carter authorized warrantless wiretaps, or in the 1990's when Clinton authorized warrantless wiretaps? Probably not.
I also wonder if they held hands, and sang Kumbaya? Probably
I wonder if these same people gathered to hold a candlelight vigil, read excerpts from the Bill of Rights, and sing a few songs back in the 1960's when Kennedy and Johnson had the FBI wire tap Martin Luther King, Jr., and in 1977 when Carter authorized warrantless wiretaps, or in the 1990's when Clinton authorized warrantless wiretaps? Probably not.
I also wonder if they held hands, and sang Kumbaya? Probably
Saturday, February 25, 2006
Would you like to become a Muslim?
There are several problems going around right now, the cartoons printed in the Danish press, the rumors of the Quran being flushed down toilets, the destruction of holy sites in Iraq. The basic response to all of these (and there are more out there) has been violence. How can that be? I have heard the statements by several Muslim groups about the Religion of Peace, about how it "really is" all about "peace". Is the "religion of peace" really all about "submission" since that is what Islam really means? I mean, are Sunnis supposed to submit to Wahhibists or Shiites or is there some other order? I realize that us infidels are supposed to submit to any Muslim since we are "wrong" about Mohammed and Allah, but which group of Muslims is the primary one? All of the different groups say that they are the "true" followers of Allah, it makes me confused.
In my opinion, one of the main reasons that there are major problems in the middle east has to do with one of the "incontrovertible facts" of the Muslim religion, that is to say, being a Muslim and becoming a Muslim just happens to be the "natural way of progress" to "God". To be completely honest, I wouldn't become a Muslim at all, since I can't even believe that Allah is God, regardless of whatever his "prophet" might have "said" for someone else to record. I once told a Jehovah's Witness that I would rather be excluded from their idea of Paradise for eternity than believe in their convoluted theology. I feel the same way towards Islam regardless of whichever branch.
I also think that the violence towards anyone outside of Islam and inside Islam towards the "other" factions is solid evidence of their fear that they may be "wrong." Since they are "right" (at least in their own minds) there can be no tolerance for anyone's religion or lack of religion. That could easily be the reason for many in Islam to be contemptuous of our efforts to tolerate Islam. The violence may also be turning many away from Islam unless they really want to commit suicide and be greeted by 70 virgins in Paradise (presuming the supply of virgins hasn't run out).
In my opinion, one of the main reasons that there are major problems in the middle east has to do with one of the "incontrovertible facts" of the Muslim religion, that is to say, being a Muslim and becoming a Muslim just happens to be the "natural way of progress" to "God". To be completely honest, I wouldn't become a Muslim at all, since I can't even believe that Allah is God, regardless of whatever his "prophet" might have "said" for someone else to record. I once told a Jehovah's Witness that I would rather be excluded from their idea of Paradise for eternity than believe in their convoluted theology. I feel the same way towards Islam regardless of whichever branch.
I also think that the violence towards anyone outside of Islam and inside Islam towards the "other" factions is solid evidence of their fear that they may be "wrong." Since they are "right" (at least in their own minds) there can be no tolerance for anyone's religion or lack of religion. That could easily be the reason for many in Islam to be contemptuous of our efforts to tolerate Islam. The violence may also be turning many away from Islam unless they really want to commit suicide and be greeted by 70 virgins in Paradise (presuming the supply of virgins hasn't run out).
Sunday, February 19, 2006
Spoiled brat media
In this opinion piece, Thomas Sowell takes the national media to task over the shooting incident involving Vice President Dick Cheney.
It is long past time that the national media members grow up and act like responsible adults, rather than the spoiled brats that they are.
I wonder if the New York Times, who "inform[ed] us solemnly that, if Mr. Whittington dies, there will be a grand jury investigation.", is disappointed that Mr. Whittington not only survived being wounded and having a minor heart attack, but has now gone home.
As a cartoon making it's way around the internet says, I'd rather go hunting with Dick any day, than take a ride with Ted.
It is long past time that the national media members grow up and act like responsible adults, rather than the spoiled brats that they are.
I wonder if the New York Times, who "inform[ed] us solemnly that, if Mr. Whittington dies, there will be a grand jury investigation.", is disappointed that Mr. Whittington not only survived being wounded and having a minor heart attack, but has now gone home.
As a cartoon making it's way around the internet says, I'd rather go hunting with Dick any day, than take a ride with Ted.
Defiant Iran calls off talks, begins uranium enrichment
As reported here, Iran has put off indefinitely, talks with Russia about moving large scale enrichment from Iran to Russia because of the "new situation" - Iran being referred to the UN Security Council.
Iran claims that their nuclear program is solely for "peaceful purposes", and that they are not seeking to produce nuclear weapons. That, to be blunt, is pure hogwash! Iran has enough oil and gas reserves to cleanly produce electricity for decades, while still exporting oil and gas! Why do they even need nuclear reactors to produce electricity? The answer to that is that they don't.
Iran is an Islamic theocracy, run by radical mullahs, with a lunatic as a puppet "president". Iran exports terror to the rest of the world, and has their eyes on dominating the region. What better way to be able to bully their neighbors, and counter the influence of the US in the region, than to possess nuclear weapons? Their military does not have the strength to be dominant in the region without nuclear weapons, so in order to be dominant, they want them. It's just that simple.
Iran can deny that they desire nuclear weapons all they want, but even France (France!) knows that they want nuclear weapons!
Iran claims that their nuclear program is solely for "peaceful purposes", and that they are not seeking to produce nuclear weapons. That, to be blunt, is pure hogwash! Iran has enough oil and gas reserves to cleanly produce electricity for decades, while still exporting oil and gas! Why do they even need nuclear reactors to produce electricity? The answer to that is that they don't.
Iran is an Islamic theocracy, run by radical mullahs, with a lunatic as a puppet "president". Iran exports terror to the rest of the world, and has their eyes on dominating the region. What better way to be able to bully their neighbors, and counter the influence of the US in the region, than to possess nuclear weapons? Their military does not have the strength to be dominant in the region without nuclear weapons, so in order to be dominant, they want them. It's just that simple.
Iran can deny that they desire nuclear weapons all they want, but even France (France!) knows that they want nuclear weapons!
UN report charges abuse at Guantanamo
As reported here, "experts" from the UN Human Rights Commission (that group that has included Syria and Libya, for crying out loud!) - who refused to go look in person - have issued a report alleging "torture" and "abuse" of detainees at the prison in Guantanamo Bay, basing their report on news accounts (and we all know how "unbiased" the MSM is, right?), and notes made by attorneys for the detainees (and we all know how honest and ethical lawyers are, too, right?).
Among the allegations of "torture" and "abuse" are such horrific things as force feeding detainees who were on a hunger strike, and prolonged solitary confinement. Oh, my. Let's all wring our hands and sit in a circle and sing Kumbaya over these "horrific" examples of "torture" and "abuse".
I have one question for the UN. Where were you during the 1960's and 1970's, when US POW's were really being tortured in the "Hanoi Hilton", at the hands of the North Vietnamese? When our guys were being beaten on a daily basis; arms tied at the elbows behind their backs, and then hoisted off the ground until their shoulders became dislocated; when electrodes, connected to either hand operated generators or car batteries, were attached to various portions of their anatomy, sending electrical current through their bodies; when they were only given a small portion of rice once (if that!) a day; when medical treatment of broken bones, open wounds and diseases was denied. Where were you?!
U.S. officials rejected the draft report, saying the experts who wrote it made many errors and treated statements from detainees' lawyers as fact.
State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said the United States would not address many of the claims until the final report is released, but defended U.S. practices generally. He focused on the experts' refusal to go to Guantanamo.
"When people hear these press reports about these outcomes and when they actually view the final report, I would urge them to look at it in the context of the fact that nobody who wrote this report actually went to Guantanamo," McCormack said.
The UN "experts" also dismissed U.S. claims that the war on terror constitutes an armed conflict, and said they would not classify the detainees as "enemy combatants." If this isn't an armed conflict, then what is it? A "police matter"? That's how the previous administration viewed it, and the result of that head in the sand naiveté was the attacks carried out on 9/11!
I have news for the UN. This IS an armed conflict, the detainees ARE enemy combatants, and as such are NOT due the protections of the Geneva Convention, no matter what the UN says, or wishes, otherwise!
Among the allegations of "torture" and "abuse" are such horrific things as force feeding detainees who were on a hunger strike, and prolonged solitary confinement. Oh, my. Let's all wring our hands and sit in a circle and sing Kumbaya over these "horrific" examples of "torture" and "abuse".
I have one question for the UN. Where were you during the 1960's and 1970's, when US POW's were really being tortured in the "Hanoi Hilton", at the hands of the North Vietnamese? When our guys were being beaten on a daily basis; arms tied at the elbows behind their backs, and then hoisted off the ground until their shoulders became dislocated; when electrodes, connected to either hand operated generators or car batteries, were attached to various portions of their anatomy, sending electrical current through their bodies; when they were only given a small portion of rice once (if that!) a day; when medical treatment of broken bones, open wounds and diseases was denied. Where were you?!
U.S. officials rejected the draft report, saying the experts who wrote it made many errors and treated statements from detainees' lawyers as fact.
State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said the United States would not address many of the claims until the final report is released, but defended U.S. practices generally. He focused on the experts' refusal to go to Guantanamo.
"When people hear these press reports about these outcomes and when they actually view the final report, I would urge them to look at it in the context of the fact that nobody who wrote this report actually went to Guantanamo," McCormack said.
The UN "experts" also dismissed U.S. claims that the war on terror constitutes an armed conflict, and said they would not classify the detainees as "enemy combatants." If this isn't an armed conflict, then what is it? A "police matter"? That's how the previous administration viewed it, and the result of that head in the sand naiveté was the attacks carried out on 9/11!
I have news for the UN. This IS an armed conflict, the detainees ARE enemy combatants, and as such are NOT due the protections of the Geneva Convention, no matter what the UN says, or wishes, otherwise!
Karzai provides records tracing terrorists to Pakistan
As reported here, Afghan President Hamid Karzai has provided Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf with documents detailing how suicide bombers who attack targets in Afghanistan are being recruited, trained and equipped in Pakistan.
Karzai wants Musharraf to get tough on the terrorists who are in Pakistan and are making attacks on Afghan soil, and I think he's right in doing so. However, because of the general feeling of a large number of Pakistani's toward the West - hatred - and their support for the Taliban and OBL, Musharraf is walking a very difficult line.
Musharraf has to consider how he came to power - through a military coup - and the fact that if he takes a more hard line approach to dealing with certain elements in certain areas of Pakistan that border on Afghanistan, he may suffer the same fate as his predecessor. He also has to consider that if that does happen, and his successor decides that cooperation with the West is not "in the best interests of Pakistan", Pakistan would lose all of the economic and military aid it now receives from the US. And then there is India to consider, Pakistan's bitter rival, which is also an ally of the US. If Musharraf is deposed, and Pakistan turns away from the West, India may be encouraged to do "something about the Pakistan/Kashmir issue" - i.e; invade - something that India has made noises about for decades now.
I believe that Musharraf is a Pakistani patriot who wants good things for his country, a part of which is continued good relations with the West in general, and the US in particular (if for no other reason than to keep India in check), but would really like to see the terrorist problem simply "go away" with little effort on his part - which won't happen, of course - and realizes that he is a position of weakness as far as what his military and police forces can (or are willing to) do about the terrorists operating in the border regions.
Karzai, however, is operating from a position of strength. Not only are there coalition troops operating in Afghanistan providing security, with his own nation's army and police forces growing in size and capability, but he enjoys the support of the majority of the Afghan people.
Karzai is right in pressuring Musharraf to do more to stem the terrorist activity originating in Pakistan, and taking place in Afghanistan. The question now is, will Musharraf be willing and able to do anything about this situation?
Karzai wants Musharraf to get tough on the terrorists who are in Pakistan and are making attacks on Afghan soil, and I think he's right in doing so. However, because of the general feeling of a large number of Pakistani's toward the West - hatred - and their support for the Taliban and OBL, Musharraf is walking a very difficult line.
Musharraf has to consider how he came to power - through a military coup - and the fact that if he takes a more hard line approach to dealing with certain elements in certain areas of Pakistan that border on Afghanistan, he may suffer the same fate as his predecessor. He also has to consider that if that does happen, and his successor decides that cooperation with the West is not "in the best interests of Pakistan", Pakistan would lose all of the economic and military aid it now receives from the US. And then there is India to consider, Pakistan's bitter rival, which is also an ally of the US. If Musharraf is deposed, and Pakistan turns away from the West, India may be encouraged to do "something about the Pakistan/Kashmir issue" - i.e; invade - something that India has made noises about for decades now.
I believe that Musharraf is a Pakistani patriot who wants good things for his country, a part of which is continued good relations with the West in general, and the US in particular (if for no other reason than to keep India in check), but would really like to see the terrorist problem simply "go away" with little effort on his part - which won't happen, of course - and realizes that he is a position of weakness as far as what his military and police forces can (or are willing to) do about the terrorists operating in the border regions.
Karzai, however, is operating from a position of strength. Not only are there coalition troops operating in Afghanistan providing security, with his own nation's army and police forces growing in size and capability, but he enjoys the support of the majority of the Afghan people.
Karzai is right in pressuring Musharraf to do more to stem the terrorist activity originating in Pakistan, and taking place in Afghanistan. The question now is, will Musharraf be willing and able to do anything about this situation?
Gregoire troubled by fervor for tax breaks
As reported here, Gregoire is beginning to panic over proposed tax breaks that the State House and Senate are mulling over, saying that she expects the economy to slow down as the housing market cools down, and has threatened to veto tax breaks she doesn't like. Ironically, enough, most of the tax break bills are from those in her own party.
Some of these tax breaks would benefit the semi-conductor, aerospace, farming and movie industries, all of which have been hard hit, and could use the boost. The biggest fear, of course, is that by decreasing taxes, that revenue generation would slow, but that goes against established fact. The more money you leave in tax payers pockets, the more they spend, generating more tax revenue, not less. The flip side of that coin is that the more money you take from tax payers pockets, the less they have to spend, which decreases tax revenue as people put off discretionary spending, to buy necessities instead.
Note to Chris: You need to pay more attention to what the national economy is doing since the Bush tax cuts went into effect. It is growing at an unprecedented rate. Don't you think the state economy would similarly grow? That's a no brainer!
Some of these tax breaks would benefit the semi-conductor, aerospace, farming and movie industries, all of which have been hard hit, and could use the boost. The biggest fear, of course, is that by decreasing taxes, that revenue generation would slow, but that goes against established fact. The more money you leave in tax payers pockets, the more they spend, generating more tax revenue, not less. The flip side of that coin is that the more money you take from tax payers pockets, the less they have to spend, which decreases tax revenue as people put off discretionary spending, to buy necessities instead.
Note to Chris: You need to pay more attention to what the national economy is doing since the Bush tax cuts went into effect. It is growing at an unprecedented rate. Don't you think the state economy would similarly grow? That's a no brainer!
Sunday, February 12, 2006
Is it time to abolish FISA?
In this opinion piece, The Opinion Journal points out that Congress is trying to give the FISA court unconstitutional powers by "strengthening FISA", which would therefore restrict the President in what he can do in time of war to protect the US, and by doing so, is passing the buck.
Is it time to abolish FISA? The Opinion Journal thinks so, and I agree.
Is it time to abolish FISA? The Opinion Journal thinks so, and I agree.
All mail in voting in King County set for 2007
As reported here, King County is gearing up to go to all mail in voting by 2007. The vast majority of voters in not only KC, but in the state, vote by mail now, so I guess it was inevitable. But, there are some problems with this.
First and foremost is the claim by Dean Logan that the machinery for tabulating the all mail in votes does not yet exist (then how do the other counties - all 38 of them - do it, Dean?) in KC. Another is that doing the voting this way will not really save any money (not to mention that 4000 people will lose their part time jobs), over the way it's done now. (That figures!)
But the biggest problem, in my opinion, is that it not only opens the door to more - not less - voter fraud, but this knocks the door right of its hinges!
Here's Stefan Sharkansky's take on this, from Sound Politics.
First and foremost is the claim by Dean Logan that the machinery for tabulating the all mail in votes does not yet exist (then how do the other counties - all 38 of them - do it, Dean?) in KC. Another is that doing the voting this way will not really save any money (not to mention that 4000 people will lose their part time jobs), over the way it's done now. (That figures!)
But the biggest problem, in my opinion, is that it not only opens the door to more - not less - voter fraud, but this knocks the door right of its hinges!
Here's Stefan Sharkansky's take on this, from Sound Politics.
Washington State Farm Bureau files property rights initiative
As reported here, the Farm Bureau has filed the initiative that they have been working on, which would require governments to compensate landowners who suffer a financial loss through lowered property values, or are restricted in the use of their property through regulation.
"Our ... initiative would require government to understand the impact that its laws and regulations have on landowners, both financial and personal," said Steve Appel, a Whitman County wheat grower and state Farm Bureau president. "Who can argue with that?"
In Seattle and other urban areas, the initiative could force cities to pay for stricter environmental protections, such as rules preventing landowners from building a garage close to sensitive wetlands or developing landslide-prone slopes.
"We think it's wrong," said Seattle Deputy Mayor Tim Ceis. "The real impact would be on the environmental side -- if you're increasing buffers along the shoreline, which we're doing, that probably would be something that people would seek damages or compensation for."
And the problem with that is, Tim? As I've posted before, here, here, here, and here, I think that property owners are very conscious of the environment, and what would and would not be good use of their own property, and do not need the government telling them what to do with their own property.
This initiative, if it does get on the ballot, is all about addressing the fairness to property owners issue. Enacting laws, ordinances and regulations, without regard to the people who it will have the most impact on, and without proper recompense, is not only not fair, but just plain wrong.
"Our ... initiative would require government to understand the impact that its laws and regulations have on landowners, both financial and personal," said Steve Appel, a Whitman County wheat grower and state Farm Bureau president. "Who can argue with that?"
In Seattle and other urban areas, the initiative could force cities to pay for stricter environmental protections, such as rules preventing landowners from building a garage close to sensitive wetlands or developing landslide-prone slopes.
"We think it's wrong," said Seattle Deputy Mayor Tim Ceis. "The real impact would be on the environmental side -- if you're increasing buffers along the shoreline, which we're doing, that probably would be something that people would seek damages or compensation for."
And the problem with that is, Tim? As I've posted before, here, here, here, and here, I think that property owners are very conscious of the environment, and what would and would not be good use of their own property, and do not need the government telling them what to do with their own property.
This initiative, if it does get on the ballot, is all about addressing the fairness to property owners issue. Enacting laws, ordinances and regulations, without regard to the people who it will have the most impact on, and without proper recompense, is not only not fair, but just plain wrong.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)