Friday, February 29, 2008

Fun & Frivolity: Pigs And A Drunk

A couple of light-hearted stories to pass along to send you off on your weekend...

First, in an effort to save England's pork industry, a couple dozen pig farmers gathered in London to record a song that they hope will raise money and awareness.  The words to the song?  Sung to Tammy Wynette's "Stand by Your Man":

"Stand by your ham," runs the chorus. "Sausages, pork and bacon/Help us stay in business/Because our pigs are worth it/Stand by your ham."

Second, here's a story about a guy who made the things a whole lot easier for police.  A 28-year old Canadian man had a bit too much to drink, so he pulled into the parking lot of a local police station and wandered inside, where officers took him into custody.  Constable Mark Scheck made the obvious understatement: "[I]t's pretty unusual."

Have a great weekend!

Quote: Decency In Civilized Cultures

"The natural instinct of civilized human beings is to protect those who are more vulnerable in the face of danger. Civilized cultures have placed women on a pedestal not because they are less capable but because we honor them and hold them in a special place in our society. Not so with radical Islamists. They treat women as chattel and they abuse children. Just as it is becoming increasingly incumbent upon the Iraqi people to take responsibility for their government and their future, it is increasingly imperative that responsible Muslims take a stand for human decency."

-- Oliver North --

Patriot Post

Environmentalist Craziness On Parade

Here are two stories that reveal the craziness of environmentalist wackos.

Marc Sheppard reports on the latest from the fringe greenies in Australia: not even a wholesale switch to hybrid cars and 'green' light bulbs will be enough to save the planet:

"Based on the latest science, the report warns that the world is speeding towards more dangerous levels of climate change than previously thought, levels that are a byproduct of increasing carbon dioxide emissions that are a consequence of unexpectedly high growth in the world economy, particularly China. This, [Garnaut] suggests, renders the Bali framework for tackling climate change inadequate and means that emission cuts will have to be deeper, and sooner. If nothing is done, it will be to the greater cost to Australia, and the world."

Never mind the fact that the latest science actually says:

Following a rapid rise between 1978 and 1998 corresponding to exceptionally high solar activity, global temperatures were flat between 1998 and 2006 and the planet has just experienced its coldest January in 15 years. China is suffering through its coldest winter in 100 years, the same winter which saw the first snow ever recorded falling on Baghdad.  Antarctic ice is currently at record levels.  New Englanders are digging out nonstop from record snowfall.  And similar signs of a cooling trend are being reported worldwide.

As I've said before, environmentalists don't appear to be willing to let facts derail their hysteria about man-made global warming.  No matter what we do, it won't be enough.  Take a look at what
Monash University Associate Professor Damon Honnery says:

"Our calculations show that not even the best combination of fuel efficiency, hybrid and electric cars, alternative fuels and car pooling could provide the reductions needed to meet the 2050 targets for avoiding dangerous climatic change."

That's right, you need to give up your Prius altogether.  Oh, and there's one more thing...
Dr. Patrick Moriarty, one of Honnery's colleagues, adds the following:

"An overseas trip might become a once-in-a-lifetime experience rather than an annual event."

Basically, you need to go back to living in the 1700s if you want to 'save' the planet.  How's that sound to you?

This next story is a perfect example of how global warming is not about the evidence.  John Fund writes at the Wall Street Journal about how Clinton, Obama, and McCain all have announced plans to implement ambitious global warming legislation when they get into the White House.  On top of that, lots of other groups (and the general public) has hopped on the bandwagon to 'fix' global warming.  Fund says:

You'd think this would be a rich time for debate on the issue of climate change. But it's precisely as sweeping change on climate policy is becoming likely that many people have decided the time for debate is over. One writer puts climate change skeptics "in a similar moral category to Holocaust denial," another envisions "war crimes trials" for the deniers. And during the tour for his film "An Inconvenient Truth," Al Gore himself belittled "global warming deniers" as unworthy of any attention.

The perfect example is the reaction to Danish statistician Bjorn Lomborg's latest book, "Cool It," which calls for a reasoned debate on global warming.  "[H]e has infuriated environmentalists by saying it is necessary to debate 'whether hysterical and head-long spending on extravagant CO2-cutting programs at an unprecedented price is the only possible response.'"

And Lomborg even begins the book by saying he believes in manmade global warming!

So, you have such a rabid belief in man-made global warming out there that these nuts will even turn on one of their own when he suggests simply looking at the evidence and holding an intelligent discussion about that evidence.  This is not science, it is pseudo-religion!

Next week, there is a gathering in New York of some big-time international scientists, economists and policy experts who dissent from the "consensus" that climate change requires radical measures.  The gathering will discuss the latest scientific, economic and political research on climate change.  Since it's a reasoned debate about evidence, and since it goes against the consensus, my bet is you won't hear a peep about it in the MSM.  Environmentalists should be excited about this legitimate forum in which to debate their ideas and proposals, but they have apparently black-listed it instead.

Proving once again that facts are pesky things, and they have no place in the global warming debate.

There's my two cents.

Legislative Update

Two quick updates on legislation.  First, the good news.

The additional stimulus package that the Democrats in the Senate wanted has been killed by Republicans.  The reality of this new stimulus was that it would fund the rabid racist, open borders, illegal alien advocacy group La Raza (which means 'the race') and ACORN, which is a 'civil rights' group that has been at the center of voter fraud lawsuits for several years.  We should thank these Senate Republicans for standing guard against this scam, and we should also remember who the Senate Democrats are trying to help.

Unfortunately, there's also some bad news.  I've long maintained that illegal immigration is hurting our country in many ways, one of which is swamping our health care system.  Right Truth brings us a story about a top-notch state-of-the-art hospital in New Jersey that has closed its doors because they have been treating so many uninsured illegal aliens.  This is happening all over the country, and we need to put a stop to it through measures like the SAVE Act, which would actually secure our borders and crack down on employers.  We've got to act before it's too late.

There's my two cents.

Election Quickie

Just a couple fast bits of news...

First, the polls say that Obama has opened up a small lead in Texas, and is very close to Clinton in Ohio.  The two states figure to be Hillary's last stand, and conventional wisdom says she needs to win both to stay viable.  Of course, the polls have been pretty shoddy so far this year, so it's still anyone's guess.  Hillary is playing every last card she has - now she says it's an unequal playing field because she's a woman.  Does anyone hear violins...?  The sad thing is that she'll probably get a small boost from women voters just out of sympathy, like she did when she teared up a few weeks ago.

Between the two of them, they raised well over $80 million in the month of February.  Um, I thought we were in a death-spiral recession...!  Apparently, things aren't as bad out there as the MSM and these Dems have been saying, or else people wouldn't be coughing up so much money for presidential campaigns.

John McCain, on the other hand, is stuck between a rock and a hard place with a loan he took earlier in the campaign season.  The short version:

Either McCain used the promise of public campaign funds as collateral for his loan, in which case he's locked himself into the public campaign finance system (and its strict spending limits) and is massively screwed until September. Or he didn't use potential public funds as collateral, which means he didn't have anything to offer as collateral, which means he received an improper loan.

We'll have to see how this plays out, but it could spell trouble for him either way.

There's your update!

Thursday, February 28, 2008

Snippets: 9/11 Memorial, Dems' True Colors, UMC/Israel, And Universal Health Care

I wanted to take a little bit deeper look than a Link Roundup at a couple of things without doing a full blog about each, so I'm going to do some quick snippets here.

9/11 Memorial
I have been extremely remiss in not bringing this to your attention before now.  In the wake of the 9/11 tragedies, it was proposed to create a memorial for the victims to honor and remember them.  In one of the most vile displays I've ever seen, there has been a steady and coordinated effort to subvert the memorial and turn it into a monument to the terrorists themselves.  I know it sounds unbelievable, but I kid you not.  You really need to go check out the details for yourself.  I promise I will be better about updating my blog with news of this topic in the future!

Democrats' True Colors
The Democrats are showing their true colors on two fronts in one move: earmarks and censorship.  In a move to hold accountable Democrats' promises to end earmarks, Republicans in the House posted a website to be a central hub of information about earmark reform.  It was approved several months ago, but that approval was suddenly revoked a few days ago after the website actually went up.  Minority leader John Boehner appealed the directive and issued a statement:

"[The] reversal comes just days after an independent report revealed that the freshman Democratic class in the House has been 'showered in pork' by the leaders of the current majority," he continued.  "[The] reversal comes just weeks after House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) – who as leader of the Democrat-controlled House has the power to shut down the earmark process in our chamber immediately – declined to join me and more than 150 other House members in supporting a total moratorium on all earmarks."

So, not only are the Democrats fighting against true earmark reform, but they are willing to censor Republican efforts to hold them accountable to their own promises!  This is inexcusable and shameful!

The UMC vs. Israel
I personally find this very disturbing, as I attend a United Methodist Church.  I'm aware that this is a very liberal denomination (yeah, I know, it's curious that I'm even a part of it, but that's another story...), but this really bothers me on a couple different levels.

Joseph Puder writes an extensive story at American Thinker that illustrates just how anti-Israel the UMC has become as a denomination.  He points out numerous officials and statements who have been distinctly critical of Israel, even to the point of saying Israel is illegally occupying Palestinian territory (despite the historical fact that there never has been such a thing) and divesting denominational holdings from companies that do business with Israel.  In truly vile fashion, "The UMC's General Board on Global Mission Women produced a Mission Study for 2007-2008, endorsed by the national church, which refers to Israel's creation as "original sin," and likens the birth of Israel to the Holocaust and Israeli practices to those of the Nazis."  This is almost unbelievable, especially coming from a Christian church!  Puder says:

This undisguised venom towards the Jewish State by the UMC leadership is reminiscent of the pre-Holocaust anti-Semitic replacement theology that rejected the covenant between God and the Jewish people -- replacing the Jews with the Church (or the Palestinians, as some liberal-leftist Protestant denominational leaders see it) and similarly denying the connection between the Jewish people and the land of Israel.

This is some scary stuff when one considers the historical impact of it!  One cannot deny the fact that no matter what Israel has given up, it has not resulted in peace of any sort, yet the UMC appears to be supporting terrorist thugs who seek the complete annihilation of Israel as a nation and as a people.  They claim this support is in the name of human rights and peace, but that is also a sign of immense hypocrisy in the UMC:

If the leadership of the UMC is sincere about bringing peace to the Arab (Palestinian)-Israeli conflict, it should decry and condemn the teaching of hate and the instigation of violence by the Palestinian religious and government authorities.  Dangerous and oppressive regimes like those of Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria and Egypt are beyond UMC scrutiny.  If the UMC leadership is concerned about human rights why have they not spoken out against the dreadful persecution of Egypt 's Coptic-Christians?  or the ethnic cleansing of Kurds in Syria by the Assad dictatorship? Where are the concerned voices of the UMC regarding the persecution of Kurds, Arabs, Baluchis, Azeris, Bahais, Christians and Jews by the Iranian theocratic dictatorship?  And why has the UMC not called for divestment from Egypt, Syria or Iran?

An excellent point!

If you're a regular reader of my blog, you know that I believe we're heading toward a war between Israel and a coalition of Arab nations led by Iran and Russia, and that the U.S. will not be a factor in that war.  It is signs like these -- the clear distancing of a mainstream Christian denomination from Israel -- that lend credence to that belief.  It saddens me that any Christian would fall so low as to look at Israel in such a way, and it bothers me that this war appears to be coming sooner rather than later.  I hope I'm wrong, but the fewer Israel supporters there are in the U.S., the more likely it seems to me that we'll turn our backs on our close ally altogether, racing even more rapidly toward the Biblical prophecy Joel Rosenberg talks about in Epicenter.

The Truth About Nationalized Health Care
Maggie Gallagher writes a terrific column about universal health care that you need to read.  It begins with Hillary poking holes in Obama's plan in their last debate.  Gallagher points out:

Obamacare can't possibly work, because it doesn't make sense to buy insurance when you are young and healthy if you are guaranteed access anyway when you are older and sicker.

And that's the problem.

The exchange between the two Democrats highlights the dirty little secret that not even Hillary will tell you about a universal government health insurance program. The problem with our current system that mandatory national health insurance will solve is not that people don't get health care -- it's that they don't pay for it.

This has always been one of the misunderstandings about universal health care - it has to be paid by someone.  She goes on:

But even The New York Times cannot admit the real "free rider" problem here. It's not that the health care needs of uninsured twentysomethings are bankrupting the system. It's that not enough twentysomethings are paying for the health care of fortysomethings and older. That's the only way insurance makes sense: We pay into it when we are young and healthy, and we get something out of it when we are older and more likely to get sick.

But wait, there's more:

Here's the other dirty little secret: National health insurance is going to cost Brandy and other taxpayers a whole lot more than either Hillary or Obama admits. Just ask Gov. Deval Patrick in Massachusetts, where just two years into operation, the state's mandatory health insurance plan is already costing $400 million more than budgeted.

Meanwhile we have a Medicare system that is going to go bankrupt.

Gallagher poses a very important question:

Here's a question neither Hillary nor Barack will answer: How can we justify spending billions to insure the [twentysomethings] of the world, when we haven't yet secured the health care financing for our existing promises to senior citizens?

That's an answer that universal health care supporters won't answer because they can't answer it.  They don't want you to focus on the actual implementation of the plan, they just want you to focus on the warm fuzzies of giving 'everyone' health insurance.  I hate to break it to you, but health care is not a right, it's a service that is purchased with your hard-earned dollars by choice!  Thinking health insurance is a 'right' is one of the worst manifestations of the entitlement mentality in this country, and it will lead us to health care ruin if we don't stop it.

Universal health care is not the answer to any of our health care problems.  It will only make things much, much worse.


There's my two cents.

Follow Up To Federal Vs. State Discussion

Some time ago I blogged about the different roles of federal and state government.  If you haven't read it, please do so now.  It is central to understanding what I'm about to discuss.

[...quietly humming the Jeopardy theme song while you go read the previous blog...]

Excellent!  Now that you've read that, here's proof of how the system was designed to work.  WorldNetDaily recently posted a story with the headline, "California Exodus Turns To Stampede" which illustrates my point perfectly [emphasis mine]:

California, which once lured Americans from near and far, is now driving out millions of the most productive residents – including high percentages of the most affluent.

"When California faced a Mount Everest-sized $14 billion deficit in 2003, one of the major causes for the red ink was the stampede of millionaire households from the state," says a report called "Rich States, Poor States" by economists Arthur Laffer and Stephen Moore. "Out of the 25,000 or so seven-figure-income families, more than 5,000 left in the early 2000s, and the loss of their tax payments accounted for about half the budget hole."

And it's not just the rich leaving.

Based on data from moving companies, California had the second-highest domestic population out-flow of any state in 2005, according to the report, "despite the beautiful weather, beaches, and mountains."

Former Governor Gray Davis was successfully recalled a few years ago because he had tanked the state's economy.  Schwarzenegger replaced him by running as a Republican who would be fiscally sound, but he has unfortunately implemented many liberal Democrat policies.  Now it's come back to bite him, and the state is in worse shape than it was under Davis.  There are some key points to consider here before addressing the fed vs. state question.

First, California has one of the highest tax burdens in the country.  High taxes never help the economy, they actually hinder it by discouraging success and profit.  Second, did you notice that the biggest group of people moving out of the state are the rich?  That's because taxes affect them the most (for an explanation of this, I refer you to yesterday's explanation of how taxes work against the rich more than anyone else).  If this doesn't illustrate that principle in real life, nothing will (especially the part about what happens when the rich don't show up).

Now, how does this story illustrate my point about federal vs. state government?  Because Californians are 'voting' with their feet.  They are leaving California in droves because they don't like the policies that the state has implemented.  This is the key result of our concept of government, and the precise problem with putting too much control at the federal level!  If the tax policies in California have resulted in a mass migration out of the state (especially by the state's most productive people), then they are clearly not good policies.  If the same bad tax policies applied to all states, where would people go?  They'd either be stuck with bad policies, or they'd leave the country.  Either way, it would hurt the country.

This is why the federal level should be as limited as possible - the states are microcosms of legislation, and can be used to test new ways of doing things without damaging the country at large.  If something doesn't work, people will go to a state where things work better.  If California wants people to come back, they'll have to fix their policies to attract people once again.

It's really quite simple, but I don't think most people understand the critical importance of this design.  It is all about the freedom to choose, and when the federal government issues a mandate, that freedom is gone.  I love this story for the reason that it illustrates the concept in the real world - there could not be a better example!  Just look at the numbers of a report published by the American Legislative Exchange Council
[emphasis mine]:

"States are in direct competition with each other for human capital and business investment. State governments that think they can attract jobs and people, and grow their economies, by taxing their citizens at a higher rate than their neighbors are sadly mistaken," said Democratic Arkansas state Sen. Steve Faris, ALEC's 2008 national chairman. "Legislators should take a close look at where their state ranks in this book and use it as a tool to help them improve."

The report provides economic competitiveness rankings for all 50 states based on 16 policy variables with a proven effect on the migration of people and investment capital in and out of states. States with the lowest tax, spending, and regulatory burdens win the competitiveness contest.

So, when you hear me talk about big government being a bad thing, this is precisely why.  A big federal government inherently removes freedom from the people, and there is far greater potential for bad policies or abuse of power because there's no way to get away.  I also have a hard time understanding why any American would accept any tax increase when it has been proven over and over and over that the way to accelerate the economy -- and overall prosperity -- is to do just the opposite.

There's my two cents.

Election Update

Not as much going on this time around.  The main thing is an exchange between McCain and Obama regarding Iraq.  I'm not going to bother sourcing this time since these quotes are all over the place; I'll just quickly sum it up for you.  In recent speeches, Obama was asked to clarify his previous statements that he'll pull out of Iraq immediately - would he send troops back in if Al Qaeda established a base there?  Obama said that as Commander-in-Chief (boy, that phrase sends a chill down my spine), he would reserve the right to send troops back in to take out the base and secure America's interests.  McCain, then, pointed out the rather obvious fact that Al Qaeda is already in Iraq (and that they're calling themselves "Al Qaeda in Iraq").  In response, Obama said -- to thunderous applause from his followers, for that's what they've become rather than supporters -- that they weren't there before Bush invaded.

This is a very disturbing turn of events.  Obama is either grossly uninformed about the fact that Al Qaeda had a major presence in Iraq long before 2003, or he is deliberately lying about it.  Either way, it's a problem that this is coming from a potential President!  Perhaps even more disturbing, though, is the reaction of Obama's supporters.  They are so wrapped up in his pithy style and clever wit that plain facts are not penetrating into their minds.  This is much more reminiscent of a religious movement than a political leader, and that's a whole different problem.  Only time will tell whether McCain can hold Obama down to facts and issues, where he is much weaker.  If the debate goes into rhetoric, McCain doesn't stand a chance.

Moving on, we have some other news that affects the election.  First, the New York Times strikes out at McCain again, questioning his legal eligibility to even run for President.  Basically, McCain was born on a military base at Panama Canal instead of inside the 50 states.  The Constitution maintains that Presidents must be 'natural-born' citizens, meaning they had to be born on American soil.  This is just another charge that McCain has already dealt with in the 2000 election.  Legal analysis and precedent says he is on solid footing, though the law has not been fully fleshed out on the matter in the court system.  In my opinion, this is just another slam attack to undermine McCain's credibility.  I doubt it will be the last.

In a major turnaround, superdelegate and civil rights leader John Lewis has switched his support from Hillary to Obama.  Hillary was already struggling with the black vote, and the loss of Lewis has to be a major blow to her support base.

DNC Chairman Howard Dean recently made the statement that while the Dem presidential candidates look 'like America', the Rep presidential field looked like 1950 and sounded like 1850.  That's clever enough, but he also seems to be forgetting that the keys to the kingdom of the Dem nomination are held by superdelegates, which are mostly...wait for it...old white guys.

Some other concerns have surfaced in consideration of an Obama presidency.  First, there are some suspected terrorist connections and rumors that Obama is a Muslim.  Whether or not they are true, I don't know, but they certainly bear some additional scrutiny, especially in the light of his consistent animosity toward Israel.  After all, this is our nation's highest office, and we need to understand the man who occupies it.  As Samuel Adams said, "The public cannot be too curious concerning the characters of public men."

Next, we have some rumors of death threats being reported among prominent black leaders if they don't vote for Obama.  I haven't seen this connected with Obama's campaign at all, but it is a rather ominous suggestion that there are thug tactics going on behind the scenes that are extremely disturbing.  Finally, the military has some reservations about an Obama presidency.  I'm not surprised - Clinton laid waste to the military through slashed budgets and social experimentation, and Obama has essentially the same views as Clinton.

The other scuffle going on right now is incredibly disappointing to me.  Apparently, the Republican party -- led by McCain himself -- is going to handle Obama with extremely sensitive kid gloves.  McCain was introduced by conservative talk show host Bill Cunningham at a recent appearance, and he strenuously chastised Cunningham's use of Obama's middle name, Hussein.  I can certainly understand the argument that using Hussein is a cheap tactic to make people think of Islamic ties, but the fact remains that 'Hussein' is his name!  In addition, the Republican National Committee chastised the Tennessee Rep Committee for doing the same thing.  It would be one thing if Obama downplayed the tactic, but he appears to be encouraging it.  Come on!  My concern is this: if Reps are afraid to even speak Obama's name, how in the world are they planning to attack his policies and positions?  Are they literally planning to lay down an die in the general election??

If the Reps don't grow a spine fast, the 2008 election is going to be an implosion of massive proportions!

There's my two cents.

Paranoia And Selective Amnesia In Democrat Foreign Policy

James Lewis writes a very illuminating piece about the rampant paranoia and selective amnesia in many Democrat leaders when it comes to foreign policy.

On top of the general and consistent attempts at securing a defeat for America in our current Middle Eastern actions, Lewis also points out several specific examples:

Zbigniew Brzezinski, Jimmy Carter's calamitous National Security chief, is suddenly flying to Damascus along with money man Hassan Nemazee from the Clinton campaign.  That follows Nancy Pelosi's trip to Bashir Assad in Damascus in April of 2007,  and Steny Hoyer's meeting with the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt at the same time.  
 The Muslim Bro's are the wellspring of Sunni terrorism; the Iranians are the folks behind Shiite suicide bombers.

That's an awful lot of Democrats suddenly chorusing kumbaya with the people who spend their lives chanting "Death to America!"  -- especially when none of the Democrats have a constitutional role in US foreign policy.

Lewis goes on to talk about some other recent actions that simply can't be reconciled with factual reality aside from selective amnesia.  Excerpts:

I remember Madeleine Albright as SecState for Bill Clinton -- with highlights like waltzing with brutal dictator Kim Jong Il for the TV cameras, while tens of thousands of his starving subjects marched by in the street below. It's just incomprehensible how a well-informed diplomat could literally dance for the world's cameras with the most evil little SOB in the world, and never notice anything amiss. She knew that little SOB was killing hundreds of thousands of his people that year by deliberate starvation. She knew he was going for nukes.  It was the precise moral equivalent of dancing in public with Hitler or Stalin, right in the middle of the Holocaust or the Gulag.

Like Clinton advisor Anthony Lake, now on Obama's team, who became a laughingstock when he said he didn't think Alger Hiss was guilty of spying -- even after the Soviet archives were opened up.  Lake was supposed to become SecState...  The Alger Hiss scandal was fifty years ago. Call it multi-generational denial on the foreign policy Left.

Zbigniew Brzezinski himself has been hotly denying the Carter Administration's plain responsibility for bringing the Mullahs to power in 1979 -- people who have been drilled from early childhood to hate us as corrupt infidels, and who were very, very clear about it to their followers before they ever came to power.  The Shah of Iran was a vigorous modernizer and pro-American; the Mullahs are throwbacks to the tribal cruelty and savagery of the 7th century. Carter and his team couldn't tell the difference.  As Andrew Young, then Jimmy Carter's UN Ambassador said at the time, they just thought the Ayatollah was some kind of gentle saint, the Mahatma Gandhi of the Mysterious East. Well, Khomeini went on to order the execution of thousands of his fellow revolutionaries belonging to the Mujahedeen Khalq, he established a torture regime, and he started his own Hitler Youth, the Basiji, who still specialize today in beating anti-regime demonstrators to a bloody pulp and in humiliating women for wearing un-Islamic dress. And hanging people by the neck off tow trucksOh, yes, and the Ayatollah got into a major war with Saddam Hussein, which killed a million people.

And yet, Calamity Jimmy Carter and Brzezinski still deny responsibility today, three decades later; and they still counsel patience, patience -- the regime is bound to become a liberal dream as soon as it gets nukes. Any day now.

Lewis' point is that today's Democrats lack the fundamental understanding of the Cold War liberals that Republicans aren't their biggest enemies.  He points to the 1968 timeframe as the time when reality-based liberals -- who thought their biggest enemies were China and the Soviet Union -- were purged from the party, just as Senator Joe Lieberman was purged just a couple years ago.  Madeleine Albright, the longest serving Democrat Secretary of State alive, recently gave a speech in which she said, "
America's enemy is not ... Islamic terrorism, for terrorism is by its nature un-Islamic."  Say what??  She also just released a book that claims Bush is the worst President in U.S. history.

For a former SecState to strike out at an American President in this fashion in an anti-American foreign-language newspaper is simply unprecedented. No American diplomat would have done that in Pravda or Iztvestiya during the Cold War.  But the lady is quoted by the Syrian press as writing that "... the war on (sic) Iraq was the biggest mistake in the history of  US foreign policy."  That will sure strengthen our troops who are in daily combat with child-murdering truck bombers in Iraq and Afghanistan. 

If a Democrat gets into the White House they will have no negotiating position left, because their highest-ranking expert, Ms. Albright, has just told the world what she will advise them to do: Surrender everything our soldiers have sacrificed to win.

Lewis also points out some startling examples of extreme paranoia:

"According to journalist Morton Kondracke, Albright was in the green room at Fox News Channel yesterday when "She said, 'Do you suppose that the Bush administration has Osama bin Laden hidden away somewhere and will bring him out before the election?' " Although Albright now says the remark was a "joke," Kondracke says that at the time, "she was not smiling," and other witnesses back him up:

"Two makeup artists who prep the guests before their appearances also reported that Albright did not ask her question in a joking manner," Fox reports."

And then there's Senator John Kerry, who came out with the very same idea after he lost the election in 2004. He said that Osama Bin Laden's videotaped sermon in October of 2004 cost him the election. According to Geraldo Rivera, Kerry said that he lost because of  "... that Usama tape - it scared them [the American people]."  

"In a withering critique of the Bush administration, former Vice President Al Gore on Sunday accused the president of betraying the country by using the Sept. 11 attacks as a justification for the invasion of Iraq.

"'He betrayed this country!' Mr. Gore shouted into the microphone at a rally of Tennessee Democrats here in a stuffy hotel ballroom. 'He played on our fears. He took America on an ill-conceived foreign adventure dangerous to our troops, an adventure preordained and planned before 9/11 ever took place.'" (emphases added)

For years, every explanation of their electoral failures has blamed Republican conspiracies and plots that simply didn't exist, relying on paranoia; they've fallen out of touch with reality.  And here's the problem: we Americans rely on our political leaders to be in touch with reality.  Lewis rightly points out that if Democrats gain the White House in November, they are very likely to fall for paranoia and conspiracy theory again and sell out all the gains that the American military has won through sacrifice on the battlefield.  After all, they don't view Islamic terrorists as their biggest enemies; that would be the Republicans.  Lewis' conclusion:

The trouble with paranoids is that they act out of their fantasies, not reality. If the Democrats are indeed sending Brzezinski to negotiate with Assad and Iran and their tame gangsters, they could be motivated by that same set of imagined fears --- that the GOP Meanies are planning another October Surprise, which worked so well for Reagan and Bush I & II. In their minds, back-door negotiations with America's enemies got three Republican presidents elected in four different elections.

That's crazy -- but if you believe it, why not try some backdoor tricks yourself? It's is a whole different road to Damascus, just to protect yourself against your real enemies, the Republicans.

This is just Lewis' opinion, of course, but it's very hard to deny when he backs it up with so many real examples, don't you think?  At the very least, it's thought-provoking, and seems to be yet another reason that Democrats should not be allowed to run our government.

There's my two cents.

Link Roundup

Here's the latest Thursday Link Roundup...

On the home front:
War on Terror:
Enjoy!

Mark Steyn On Multiculturalism

Mark Steyn speaks on the subject of multiculturalism in this clip, which is about 8 minutes long and well worth the time. Check it out:



Amen!

Wednesday, February 27, 2008

Clarifications On Clinton And Bin Laden

An anonymous reader suggested that I took a cheap shot at Bill Clinton in regard to Osama bin Laden, so I will gladly take this opportunity to clarify things a bit. Let's review some history and facts! [Anonymous's comments in red, mine in blue...]

Come on. I am no fan of Bill Clinton, but the game of hindsight leaves no one untouched.
First and foremost, the sole true responsibility for the attacks on 9/11 rests on the shoulders of Osama bin Laden and his minions. Period.

Now, in regard to those who could have had a hand in preventing those attacks, you're absolutely correct that it's easy for us to sit around and chat about it now, when things weren't nearly as clear back when these events happened. There is plenty of blame to go around - that's the nature of hindsight.

That being said, Clinton holds a special place in this failure for several reasons. First, it was the Clinton administration that ignored several attacks (WTC1, Blackhawk Down in Somalia, USS Cole, etc.) by bin Laden in the run-up to 9/11, prompting bin Laden to conduct bigger and bigger attacks without fear of reprisals from the U.S.

It was Clinton's decision to treat terrorism as a legal battle rather than a military one, and it was his Deputy Attorney General, Jamie Gorelick, who directed the efforts to create a wall of separation between the various intelligence and enforcement agencies that could have prevented these attacks. For example, by putting these prosecutions into courts, much of the testimony was sealed in grand juries rather than being shared from the intelligence community (CIA) to the enforcement community (FBI). The dots were there, but they couldn't be connected because Gorelick's wall ran solidly between them.
First, the 9/11 Commission found that there was no credible evidence that Bill Clinton explicitly turned down Bin Laden. I don't totally understand the dynamics, but there were problems with authority, indictments, etc.
The 9/11 Commission is hardly an authoritative source, with the very same Jamie Gorelick being one of the chairpersons. Do you honestly think she would condemn her own previous contributions in allowing the 9/11 attacks? Not a chance. The whole thing was a farce from day one. Now, regarding my assertion that Clinton turned down bin Laden, that is documented fact. I can find multiple sources to support my claim, including Clinton's own words...what do you have (other than the suspect 9/11 Commission report)?
Second, there are some who say that GOP stalling prior to the 1998 airstrikes against Sudan and Afghanistan may have allowed Bin Laden to slip away from one of the targets.
In regard to the GOP stall, I would ask for your sources. That's the first I've heard of it. From what I've read, the Republicans did everything they could to support Clinton during that time period, even at the risk of angering their own base.
Third, let's not forget how Bin Laden came to be. During which President's watch did he get weapons, etc. from the US? I'll give you a hint...it starts with R and rhymes with Beggin'. Maybe he's to blame for 9/11.
I'll grant you that in retrospect it was a bad idea to train and supply bin Laden. At the time, however, he was viewed as an ally against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. There may have been some indicators at the time that bin Laden would double cross us, but I don't have that information one way or another. I guess it comes down to making the best decision you can at the time with the information available to you. It turns out we were wrong on him.
Fourth, international politics is a complicated game, where seemingly beneficial relationships can turn sour (another fine example...Donald Rumsfeld happily shaking hands with Saddam Hussein in the 80s). Probably every president has made some mistakes.
You are correct that politics is complex, especially when relationships turn sour. They have all made mistakes - after all, they are human, too! I sure wouldn't want the job!
Now I'm not saying that Clinton is not to blame. I'm not saying he is. I'm not saying Reagan is to blame. I'm not saying he's not. The problem with your cheap shot (and that's what it was) is that it's hard to foresee and predict the consequences of certain actions on the world stage. Had Clinton known in the mid-1990s that Bin Laden would successfully orchestrate 9/11, I am 100% sure he would have held Bin Laden if he had the opportunity and even if he had no evidence and it would violate human rights, etc. (just like I think any president, and probably any person, would). The problem was he didn't know. Was it a mistake for him to underestimate the danger (if he even did that)? Perhaps. But no more so than any of the other 100s of people who contributed to the governtmental, intelligence, and bureaucratic failures that allowed al Qaeda to pull off 9/11.

The bottom line is the situation is way more complicated than "nasty ol' Bill Clinton let Osama go and do 9/11."
With all due respect, I don't believe I took a cheap shot. Obviously, it can be hard to see consequences down the road. But, let's review the timeline here. Osama bin Laden's rash of attacks began in the early 1990's, and by 1996, when Sudan pitched the offer to Clinton, bin Laden was already named as a co-conspirator in some of the attacks. Clinton already knew without a doubt that bin Laden was big trouble. The truth of the matter is that Clinton was afraid of the political fall-out of accepting the responsibility of taking in bin Laden, hoping that some other country would do the dirty work of killing him.
Yes, there were a lot of people who contributed to the failures that allowed the 9/11 attacks. But, I don't think it is at all unfair to say that many of those failures lay squarely at the feet of Bill Clinton.

There's my two cents.

Taxes And Tax Cuts

This is excellent, check it out (hat tip Kirsten B.):

Posted February 8th, 2008 by Sacramento_Jeff
This may be the single best explanation of how the tax system works in the US, and the problems with those that demagogue it.

Bar Stool Economics
Suppose that every day ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that's what they decided to do. The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. He said, "Since you are all such good customers, I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20. Drinks for the ten now cost just $80."
 
The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes, so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men -- the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his "fair share"? They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay! And so:

The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before, and the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.

"I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, "but he got $10!"

"Yeah, that's right,' exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I!"

"That's true!!"shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when I got only $2 ? The wealthy get all the breaks!"

"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up. The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up any more. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

Author unknown

For those who understand, no explanation is needed.
For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.

Pretty easy to understand now, huh?  I blogged about the ratio of income to taxes paid months ago (here and here), and this fun little example puts that information into real world terms perfectly.  So, now that you understand how tax cuts affect people of all income brackets, how do you feel about tax cuts for the 'rich'?

There's my two cents.

Pelosi Favors Jobs For Illegals

In a recent blast e-mail I received from Roy Beck, the President of NumbersUSA, more light is being shed on Democrat House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's attempts to kill a bipartisan bill that would secure the borders and crack down on employers hiring illegal aliens.  Excerpts:

Incredible as it may seem amidst talk of recessions, job cuts and stagnant wages, we are finding reports and signs everywhere that House Speaker Pelosi is negotiating to give millions of U.S. jobs to foreign workers.

Pelosi's backroom deals appear to be motivated by fear that a group of freshmen Democrats may get most Republicans to help them force a vote on the enforcement-only SAVE Act (Secure America with Verification Enforcement). That bill -- with 145 bi-partisan signers in the House and Senate -- primarily would drive millions of illegal aliens out of their jobs.

But Pelosi is trying to ensure that if the enforcement-only bill comes to a vote it will include huge increases in H-2B and H-1B visas for foreign workers of all kinds, and that it will include millions of legal work permits for all the illegal aliens currently holding a job.

I want every American to be aware of Speaker Pelosi's callous attitude toward the 23 million, less-educated working-age Americans who do not currently have a job.

This group of Americans without any college education and without a job increased by 2 million between 2000 and 2005 at the same time Congress was importing 1.5 million foreign workers of the same education level, according to research by the Center for Immigration Studies.

Nobody in Congress has a worse grade (F-minus) than Nancy Pelosi when it comes to protecting American jobs, American wages and American working conditions from the downward pressures of massive immigration.

As the head Democrat, she stands in stark contrast to most of the newly elected Democrats who are pledged to protecting American workers and fighting illegal immigration. Unfortunately, Pelosi, the most radical Member of Congress on the immigration issue, is using her power as Speaker of the House to try to wreak even more damage on the most vulnerable of American workers and legal immigrant workers in this country. I urge all concerned Americans to contact their Members of Congress and express opposition to Rep. Pelosi's outrageous push for more foreign work visas.

Call and e-mail your Rep, and call Pelosi's office, and demand that the SAVE Act be put to a vote as written by Rep. Shuler (without the 5-year amnesty or increase in foreign worker visas)!  Pelosi refuses to advocate for the American people, so it's up to us to force her hand.  It's great that so many other Congressmen are supporting the bill, but clearly the American public needs to
once again tip the balance.

There's my two cents.

Guns Save Lives

John Stossel writes another stellar column at RealClearPolitics.com on a subject that comes up after every suicidal rampage on a college campus: gun restrictions.  Read it:

It's all too predictable. A day after a gunman killed six people and wounded 18 others at Northern Illinois University, The New York Times criticized the U.S. Interior Department for preparing to rethink its ban on guns in national parks.

The editorial board wants "the 51 senators who like the thought of guns in the parks -- and everywhere else, it seems -- to realize that the innocence of Americans is better protected by carefully controlling guns than it is by arming everyone to the teeth."

As usual, the Times editors seem unaware of how silly their argument is. To them, the choice is between "carefully controlling guns" and "arming everyone to the teeth." But no one favors "arming everyone to the teeth" (whatever that means). Instead, gun advocates favor freedom, choice and self-responsibility. If someone wishes to be prepared to defend himself, he should be free to do so. No one has the right to deprive others of the means of effective self-defense, like a handgun.

As for the first option, "carefully controlling guns," how many shootings at schools or malls will it take before we understand that people who intend to kill are not deterred by gun laws? Last I checked, murder is against the law everywhere. No one intent on murder will be stopped by the prospect of committing a lesser crime like illegal possession of a firearm. The intellectuals and politicians who make pious declarations about controlling guns should explain how their gunless utopia is to be realized.

While they search for -- excuse me -- their magic bullet, innocent people are dying defenseless.

That's because laws that make it difficult or impossible to carry a concealed handgun do deter one group of people: law-abiding citizens who might have used a gun to stop crime. Gun laws are laws against self-defense.

Criminals have the initiative. They choose the time, place and manner of their crimes, and they tend to make choices that maximize their own, not their victims', success. So criminals don't attack people they know are armed, and anyone thinking of committing mass murder is likely to be attracted to a gun-free zone, such as schools and malls.

Government may promise to protect us from criminals, but it cannot deliver on that promise. This was neatly summed up in book title a few years ago: "Dial 911 and Die." If you are the target of a crime, only one other person besides the criminal is sure to be on the scene: you. There is no good substitute for self-responsibility.

How, then, does it make sense to create mandatory gun-free zones, which in reality are free-crime zones?

The usual suspects keep calling for more gun control laws. But this idea that gun control is crime control is just a myth. The National Academy of Sciences reviewed dozens of studies and could not find a single gun regulation that clearly led to reduced violent crime or murder. When Washington, D.C., passed its tough handgun ban years ago, gun violence rose.

The press ignores the fact that often guns save lives.

It's what happened in 2002 at the Appalachian School of Law. Hearing shots, two students went to their cars, got their guns and restrained the shooter until police arrested him.

Likewise, law professor Glenn Reynolds writes, "Pearl, Miss., school shooter Luke Woodham was stopped when the school's vice principal took a .45 from his truck and ran to the scene. In (last) February's Utah mall shooting, it was an off-duty police officer who happened to be on the scene and carrying a gun".

It's impossible to know exactly how often guns stop criminals. Would-be victims don't usually report crimes that don't happen. But people use guns in self-defense every day. The Cato Institute's Tom Palmer says just showing his gun to muggers once saved his life.

"It equalizes unequals," Palmer told "20/20". "If someone gets into your house, which would you rather have, a handgun or a telephone? You can call the police if you want, and they'll get there, and they'll take a picture of your dead body. But they can't get there in time to save your life. The first line of defense is you."

I view this issue as a reflection of the root philosophy difference between conservatives and liberals - liberals believe power and responsibility should be placed in the hands of the state, but conservatives believe it should be placed on individuals.  As Stossel says above, it is simply not possible for police to be everywhere you are all the time, and the only thing gun restrictions accomplish is disarming law-abiding citizens.  While gun control might sound noble and high-minded to some, does it really make sense to make crowded public places like malls and child-rich environments like schools into the most vulnerable targets for homicidal maniacs?  That's what this does, and it has tragic consequences every time.

There's my two cents.

Follow Ups To Recent Stories

Several follow ups to share with you on recent blog post topics.

More FISA Stalling

House Republicans tried again Tuesday to force a floor vote on Senate-passed legislation to overhaul the nation's electronic surveillance law.

But Democrats stood fast, insisting that negotiations continue between the House and Senate on a compromise version of the legislation.

"Congress needs to act immediately," said Rep. Pete Sessions, R-Texas. He said House Republicans will try every day to bring up the Senate-passed version, which also has the backing of 21 Blue Dog Democrats.

The bone of contention here is immunity for telephony companies who have cooperated with the government to identify terrorists.  A quick refresher...

The current FISA law was made in the 1970s, when telephone services pretty much ran within a country's borders.  Now, almost 40 years later, much of the global communications network passes through U.S. technology, even if both endpoints of the call are outside the U.S.  So, we have the ability to tap phone conversations between a suspected terrorist in Iraq and a suspected terrorist in Afghanistan - why would we NOT do that?  In my Link Roundup yesterday, there were a couple stories that told exactly why the Democrats don't want this to go through: trial lawyers.  That's right, the Dems are more concerned with one of their big constituencies, trial lawyers, who would instantly lose a whole bunch of cases against these telephony companies.  To protect those trial lawyers, the Dems are rolling the dice with national security.  There are already lawsuits lined up to take out those companies, and if this retroactive immunity isn't passed, we are likely to lose a critical tool in the intelligence fight against terrorism, simply because of a bunch of greedy lawyers.

More information on the illegal alien driver that killed 4 children
This woman had apparently run afoul of the law before.  It's too bad she lived in a sanctuary city, or she might have been questioned and deported after previous offenses.  If it weren't for the sanctuary policy, it is likely those four kids would still be alive today.

MSM stages more phobia
Whenever the MSM wants to portray Americans as horrible racist/sexist/homophobic bigots, they have a problem: most Americans aren't, so it's pretty hard to get video of it.  Naturally, their solution is to make it up.  The latest attempt is another shot at portraying Islamophobia in Texas.  Don't buy the manufactured hype...statistics show that hate crimes against Muslims plummeted in 2002 and haven't risen since.

Now you're up to date!

There's my two cents.