Wednesday, July 27, 2005

A Nutty Little Law

By Christopher Hitchens - Tuesday, July 26, 2005 - Slate

This is an excellent article that gives the background on the left and right switching roles (and sides) over politics. The background to this is the crazy belief that any issue can be turned to political advantage, even if it damages our nation. The CIA failed miserably on 9/11. However the CIA is a "great group" if you want to attack Karl Rove and it can be argued that he violated a law designed to protect the CIA ... even when it is wrong.

Now observe the operation of this law in practice. A fairly senior CIA female bureaucrat, not involved in risky activity in the field, proposes her own husband for a mission to Niger, on the very CIA-sounding grounds that he enjoys good relations with the highly venal government there, and in particular with its Ministry of Mines. This government, according to unrefuted intelligence-gathering from British and other European intelligence agencies, is covertly discussing sanctions-breaking sales of its uranium to a number of outlaw regimes, including that of Saddam Hussein. The husband, who has since falsely denied being recommended by his wife, revisits his "good contacts" in Niger for a brief trip and issues them a clean bill.

The CIA in general is institutionally committed against the policy of regime change in Iraq. It has also catastrophically failed the country in respect of defense against suicidal attack. ("I wonder," Tenet told former Sen. David Boren on the very first news of 9/11, "if it has anything to do with this guy taking pilot training." Wow, what a good guess, if a touch late. The CIA had failed entirely to act after the FBI detained Zacarias Moussaoui in Minnesota in August.)

Could it be that there is an element of politicization in all this?

The answer is yes. If this is allowed to stand it endangers America. How can a representative democracy survive when one group of people can criminalize the actions of their opponents if they tell the truth? Freedom of speech allows me to burn the flag, advocate murdering innocent children, argue for consensual sex with minors and publicly attempt to bring down a President, but if I say something that identifies a CIA agent who is active in this conspiracy, I am breaking the law and can go to jail.

As usual our courts are so mindlessly focused on trivia that we are not protected from an insane violation of our Constitution by enemies who have been proven to be lying. Joe Wilson is a proven liar. But in our "justice" system that is simply an irrelevant fact. He can still bring charges against those who were trying to prove he was lying and the charges are seriously investigated. What needs to change is a court system that is primarily based on extortion. The courts are corrupt.

Monday, July 25, 2005

Mugged by reality?

By Mark Steyn - July 25, 2005 - The Australian

WITH hindsight, the defining encounter of the age was not between Mohammed Atta's jet and the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001, but that between Mohammed Atta and Johnelle Bryant a year earlier.

Bryant is an official with the US Department of Agriculture in Florida, and the late Atta had gone to see her about getting a $US650,000 government loan to convert a plane into the world's largest crop-duster. A novel idea.

Political correctness has morphed into militant demands for multi-cultural empathy. The more they behead us, the more people on the left demand that we must "tolerate" them because of our guilt in the "root causes" of their beheading spree. It isn't that they are evil. It is what we have done to them.

After describing the convoluted reasoning of a British laywer named Kennedy defending the Islamofascists, Steyn explains his rationale as, "Kennedy appears to be arguing that our tolerance of our own tolerance is making us intolerant of other people's intolerance, which is intolerable."

I could not have said it better if I had a year to think someting up.

Friday, July 22, 2005

Mexican standoff?

By Dimitri Vassilaros - Friday, July 22nd, 2005 - Pittsburgh Tribune-Review

The only thing more disturbing than Jorge Castaneda's testimony about illegal immigration was the lack of outrage from the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations.

Mr. Castaneda had been the Mexican foreign minister in the current Vicente Fox administration. He now is a New York University professor and independent candidate for president of Mexico.

Opponents of illegal immigration are incensed because Castaneda said the United States cannot secure its southern border without Mexico's blessing. And that it will not have Mexico's blessing until America agrees to a series of almost non-negotiable demands.
Many here in North Carolina are equally lacking outrage. Before I moved back to North Carolina a year ago I would have been surprised at this attitude. I recognized that the intentional invasion of America by Mexicans was ignored by most people away from the West Coast. However I really did not understand the hostility that drives the attitude. Having returned after nearly 50 years, I find it surprising how many people here respond to the invasion with the attitude that they would just as soon California and Arizona be given back to Mexico.

The reaction to the planned reconquista of Aztlan (their name for the Southwestern U.S.) by Mexico seems of no concern to many here in North Carolina. Many actually don't think of California as a part of our nation and the people there as people they care about. They dislike the Californians more than they dislike Mexicans. This is extremely discouraging to me. The only reaction I have is to suggest we need to remember the famous poem by Martin Niemoller. It seems that America is ignoring history. There is no better lesson ... and we have forgotten.

"First they came for the Communists
.... but I was not a Communist so I did not speak out.
Then they came for the Gypsies and the Trade Unionists
.... but I was neither, so I did not speak out.
Then they came for the Jews
.... but I was not a Jew so I did not speak out.
And when they came for me
.... there was no one left to speak out for me."
-- Martin Niemoller --

If North Carolina does not care about California now, who will care about North Carolina when this nation is coming apart?

Australian High Court chief justice Harry Gibbs accurately described the problem with Mexicans, even though he was talking about Muslims: "While it would be grossly offensive to modern standards for a state to discriminate against any of its own citizens on the grounds of race, a state is entitled to prevent the immigration of persons whose culture is such that they are unlikely readily to integrate into society, or at least to ensure that persons of that kind do not enter the country in such numbers that they will be likely to form a distinct and alien section of society ....."

We are being invaded by people who plan that you will learn their language, Spanish, because they have no intention of learning ours. They plan that this nation will be ruled by their culture, because they have no intention of learning ours. Just as an explanation of how hostile they are to our nation, they call us gringos because they hate us. It is not a term of endearment.

They have laws that prevent any gringo from ever becoming a citizen of Mexico. Incredibly, you can marry a Mexican and your children cannot be Mexican. Only if the percentage of Mexican blood exceeds 50% can your children ever be citizens. No matter how many generations lived in their nation your children will never be citizens until they are predominantly hispanic. Mexico is more racist than Nazi Germany ever thought about being.

With the current unconcerned attitude of many about their fellow Americans I do not see how we will survive unless this ongoing invasion is halted. The starting point is re-learning the need to care about our fellow citizens and our own culture.

Monday, July 18, 2005

Spy Valerie And The Rogue CIA

by James Lewis - July 18th, 2005 - The American Thinker

Hold on to your hat. The plot is about to thicken.

Behind the scenes, the single most important reason for the Valerie Plame/Joe Wilson farce is that CIA Director
Porter Goss has finally started to clean house at Langley.

Goss's long-overdue shake-up is clearly backed by the White House, the top levels of the Pentagon and State Department, and the new National Director of Intelligence, John Negroponte.

Now this would be interesting and could well explain the attacks from Joe Wilson and, indirectly, from the CIA department his wife works for. James Lewis certainly make a persuasive case. Is it an accurate one? Considering how many lies Joe Wilson has told, there has to be some reason so many people are ignoring the lies and continuing to pound on Karl Rove. Are they threatening Bush with wholesale release of U.S. secrets to keep him from cleaning house?

Keep watching.

Sunday, July 17, 2005

Nuclear War Is Coming

Before this war with the Islamofascists ends there will be a nuclear weapon exploded in an American city. Though the odds are it will be New York or Washington there is no guarantee. It could be Los Angeles, Chicago or Raleigh! Don't forget, these terrorists like to do things where they are familiar with the local area. It has now been proved they have contacts and knowledge of both Raleigh and Hertford County (one of the earlier terrorists attended Chowan College).

Here is an article by Steyn that makes the case compellingly. It is time for those on the left to acknowledge this risk is real ..... or admit they don't care whether the attack comes as long as Democrats are in power.

Plame security breach? It just ain't so, Joe
By Mark Steyn - July 17, 2005 - Chicago Sun-Times
As I wrote in this space a year ago, an ambassador, in Sir Henry Wootton's famous dictum, is a good man sent abroad to lie for his country; this ambassador came home to lie to his. What we have here is, in effect, the old standby plot of lame Hollywood conspiracy thrillers: rogue elements within the CIA attempting to destabilize the elected government. If the left's view of the world is now so insanely upside-down that that's the side they want to be on, good for them. But ''leaking'' the name of Wilson's wife and promoter within the CIA didn't ''endanger her life'' or ''compromise her mission.'' Au contraire, exposing the nature of this fraudulent, compromised mission might conceivably prevent the American people having their lives endangered.

Can this really be a difference of opinion, or does political power mean so much to democrats they profess willfull ignorance of the danger because their political power is more important to them than our nation?

Friday, July 15, 2005

Support For The War In Iraq Comes Not Only From The Right

By Clifford D. May - July 15, 2005 - The New Hampshire Union Leader
Prime Minister Tony Blair, leader of Britain’s Labor Party, is the most obvious example. “A democratic Iraq,” he insisted earlier this year, “is not just a giant step forward for Iraq itself; it is a blow right at the heart of the global terrorism that seeks destruction not just in Iraq, but in Britain and every major country in the world.”

Blair may be a rare figure on the left — but he is hardly alone, as has now been demonstrated by Thomas Cushman, professor of sociology at Wellesley and editor-in-chief of the Journal of Human Rights. Cushman has edited “A Matter of Principle: Humanitarian Arguments for War in Iraq,” a collection of essays by two-dozen liberal/left thinkers, all of whom, Cushman writes, represent “what might be called a third view. The basic elements of this perspective are a strong liberal commitment to human rights, solidarity with the oppressed and a firm stand against fascism, totalitarianism and tyranny.”

Though it has a long and rather awkward title, this articles shows that some people are finally starting to notice what the main stream media (MSM) has tried to cover up. It is not people on the left who are opposed to the war in Iraq. It is people on the left who are enemies of America. That includes the MSM.

Monday, July 11, 2005

The New Republicans

By Joseph Evans - July 11, 2005 - The Washington Times
Journalists are creating public awareness of an emerging class of people called New Republicans. No longer operating under the proverbial radar screen, they are people who value family, limited government, self-help and responsibility, and an entrepreneurial spirit.

Partly, journalists may be interested in their enlarging presence because they are noticing an obvious socio political paradigm shift occurring in our country. Another reason may be that the New Republicans are African Americans and Hispanics.

This trend is the death knell for the socialist dominated democrat party. Democrats will become a meaningless minority until they return to a being party that cares about America and American values. They must abandon their infatuation with socialism. Local governments and state governments that stay democrat will have minimal influence in the public dialog and public debate. More and more they will be weaned from their natural inclination to "feed from the public trough". It is clear that the logic of Hayek explained in "The Road To Serfdom" is starting to influence rational thinking about government. Free enterprise is the future. It will not happen without a vicious fight though. If you think that the rhetoric that is coming from Howard Dean is extreme now, just wait!

Sunday, July 03, 2005

Public 'Interest' Shouldn't Mean Money

By Mark Steyn - July 3rd, 2005 - Chicago Sun Times

Do you know Nancy Pelosi? Her job is leading the Democratic Party in the House of Representatives. They should have asked for references. Here's her reaction to the Supreme Court's recent decision on "eminent domain": "It is a decision of the Supreme Court," said the minority leader. "So this is almost as if God has spoken."

That's not the way Abraham Lincoln saw it: "If the policy of the government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court . . . the people will have ceased to be their own rulers."

I am not sure why the Chicago Sun Times has suddenly become an activist publication for limitations on our courts. Maybe it has something to do with the court abandoning the protection for reporters having unfettered ability to use anonymous sources. The courts had even been permitting reporters to create anonymous sources to say things that damaged those who were not politically aligned with the reporter without fear of reprisal. Can't allow reporters to have limitations on their actions, now can we? That has now ended with the Supreme Court not interferring with sending a couple of reporters to jail. Newspapers were stunned, and maybe the new posture of the Sun Times is their way of retaliating.

Whatever the reason, for the second day in a row, the best article condemning the court's recent decisions has appeard in the Sun Times. In this article Steyn takes apart both the Ten Commandments ruling and the eminent domain ruling. It is an excellent article.

Saturday, July 02, 2005

How Radicals In Robes Seized The Judiciary

By Thomas Roeser - July 2, 2005 - Chicago Sun Times

At important periods in history the court has erred. In Dred Scott it ruled that blacks were not citizens based on the founders' original intent -- but President Lincoln correctly pointed out that when the constitution was written ''in five of the then 13 states, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey and North Carolina, free Negroes were voters and, in proportion to their numbers had the same part in making the Constitution that the white people had.''

It took a war to change things and since then, at certain times (including our own), the court has been a disruptive bully, as with eminent domain that sides with the rich against the poor, and torturously confused, as in the Ten Commandments cases.

This article is an excellent portrayal of the real battle that is shaping up over our Superme Court. It is the battle, not between conservatives and liberals but between those who believe that the courts cannot make law, and those who are willing to turn our country over to the tyrants in black robes. It is a critical battle. If the "make law" proponents win, the legislature becomes more useless than it is today and representatvie democracy is the loser.

Alberto Gonazlez says that he agrees with those who restrict the courts to interpreting law. However those who oppose affirmative action are unhappy with the fact that he therefore supports laws they do not think should have been passed and they oppose him as a result. He hasn't even been appointed and they are attacking him. This proves they are not unhappy with an activist court, they just want a court that is activist for their positions. This is a duplicity I will not support.

This is also the greatest risk of the current battle. Republicans must not let it become a battle over politics. If the unelected courts become our rulers, Kelo (the decision that government can take your house) has proved that only the rich and powerful win. Since twice as many rich support liberals and democrats (a truth democrats still don't want to accept), that leaves Repulicans the losers.

Friday, July 01, 2005

What's The Excuse For Inaction Now?

By Gary Bauer - 7/1/2005 - The American Spectator

Back in 2000, 70 percent of Nebraskans expressed the desire that marriage remain between one man and one woman. A single judge decided he knew better.

While this is not the first time a judge has sought to redefine marriage against the people's will, this is the first time a state constitutional amendment has been struck down. It was the supposed strength of these state amendments to which many politicians alluded when they falsely claimed that a federal marriage amendment was unnecessary.

Senator John McCain called an amendment un-Republican because it imposes a federal remedy for a problem that most states do not believe confronts them. Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid stressed that he "believe[s] in the sanctity of marriage" but that, "before we tinker with our most cherished rights, we should allow the states to deal with this issue..."

The Nebraska judge's decision is irrefutable proof that those who say marriage can be handled state by state are categorically wrong. Such assertions ignore the reality that federal judges have signaled unequivocally that they will not allow the people to decide for themselves.

Our courts are corrupt. The "rule of law" does not permit courts to make law. The "rule of law" does not permit courts to be conservative, moderate or liberal. Both of those are politics, not "rule of law". The "rule of law" assumes there is justice in our courts. However there can be no justice when the courts have become a law unto themselves. The courts have reached a point where they are unconcerned with the Constitution, the people or the legislature.

They have created a revolving door criminal justice system where citizens and victims of crime have no rights, and criminals who give lawyers fat legal fees can do just about anything they want.

They now allow government to seize any property that they want; assuring that rich developers can bring cases into court that previously needed local government to rule.

To expand their power to issues of immigration policy, they have granted the right to citizenship to the children of illegal aliens, even as the children of some legal aliens do not become citizens.

To allow judges to involve themselves in setting marriage policy, they have created a gay marriage right that 70% of the people oppose.

They claim all of these seized powers under the premise that we have a "living" Constitution. This premise has evolved to an assumption they can do whatever they want. The end result is that the Constitution has become meaningless. What they have given us is a "dead" Constitution, a Constitution which does not exist and to which they owe no fidelity. Judicial activism has really become judicial corruption.

The article listed above proposes that our federal legislature create a Constitutional Amendment defining marriage between a man and a woman. Since the recent rulings of the court, this is an ignorant proposal. If the Constitution is "dead", what difference can it possible make to put more words into the Constitution to be ignored by a corrupt judiciary?

Unless the legislature starts mass impeachments of justices who are themselves violating the constitution and their oath of office, they will soon be irrelevant. Passing useless amendments will not change that.