Tuesday, February 28, 2006

The Making Of A 9/11 Republican

Cinnamon Stillwell - Thursday, February 24, 2005 - San Francisco Chronicle (sfgate.com)

Having been indoctrinated in the postcolonialist, self-loathing school of multiculturalism, I thought America was the root of all evil in the world. Its democratic form of government and capitalist economic system was nothing more than a machine in which citizens were forced to be cogs. I put aside the nagging question of why so many people all over the world risk their lives to come to the United States. Freedom of speech, religious freedom, women's rights, gay rights (yes, even without same-sex marriage), social and economic mobility, relative racial harmony and democracy itself were all taken for granted in my narrow, insulated world view.

So, what happened to change all that? In a nutshell, 9/11.

The process by which former advocates of the left make their way to the right is an interesting study in logic. As a former Jimmy Carter volunteer coordinator, I too went through a period in which I felt comfortable with philosophies on the left. My transformation was driven by the hideously high interest rates under Carter back in the 70s. While rethinking so many of my previously accepted world views, I ultimately wound up on the right (though closer to the center than some on the right would like!). From this experience I acquired a determined resistance to anything that smacks of socialism or government control.

This article sums up the logic for one of the newest groups to move to the right. From Christopher Hitchens to Cinnamon Stillwell we welcome the enlightenment of those on the left who were shaken by 9/11. As you go through the process of rethinking your world view, please understand that many of us have been through a similar experience. We know what you are going through and we welcome you with the Reagan belief that we don't have to agree on everything as long as we agree on the basics, love of country and freedom from government control.

Monday, February 27, 2006

Socialism Is Not Dead

Reposted as history. Originally posted in February of 2005.

This may be a first, my commenting on an article in the New York Times! The Times does not usually contribute meaningfully to the public dialog. I am actually commenting on two articles about disparate subjects that have a common philosophical thread today. The first is the article in the Times.

Winston Churchill, Neocon?
By Jacob Heilbrunn - Published: February 27, 2005 - The New York Times

Just as Churchill began the fight against Bolshevism, his admirers contend, so Reagan prosecuted the war to its finish with the fall of the Berlin Wall. Like Churchill, Reagan, the argument goes, was dismissed as a crackpot by the regnant liberal establishment, but proved a prophet.
Heilbrunn uses an interview with Douglas Feith (member of the Defense Department under Rumsfeld, and one of the foremost advocates of the neocon philosophy) to tie together the liberals disdain for Churchill and their disdain for neocons. Churchill and the neocons are linked ultimately by a common opposition to fascism, communism and socialism.

What Heilbrunn (an advocate of the socialist position) only alludes to in the end of the article is his belief that the neocons are misguided and that their allegiance to Churchill falls apart on other issues. The irony is the difference between the left and the right in today's world. As Reagan repeatedly argued, if you agree with someone 80%, why is that person not your friend? The politically correct ideology of the left requires complete agreement. Heilbrunn esentially measures the dissimilarities of Churchill and the neocons and decides they don't agree enough. Doesn't it seem ironic he would find insufficient similarities since he is opposed to both?

The second article on essentially the same subject is about American public-nonprofit unions. The two articles are related because the major opposition to the neocons comes from these unions as advocates of the socialist position.

The Real Engine of Blue America
Steven Malanga - Winter 2005 (essentially undated) - City Journal (Manhattan Institute)
There’s really no such thing as a Blue state—only Blue metropolitan regions. Indeed, the electoral maps of some states that went for John Kerry in 2004 consist mostly of Red suburban and rural counties surrounding deep Blue cities. What makes these cities so Blue is a multifaceted liberal coalition that ranges from old-style industrial unionists and culturally liberal intellectuals, journalists, and entertainers to tort lawyers, feminists, and even politically correct financiers.

Malanga makes a powerful case for his premise that public-nonprofit unions are the "engine" of the left's opposition to restrictions on socialism in America. In the process he gives new urgency to the need to resist their growing encroachment on local political power, and subsequent imposition of socialism, outside of their current urban base.

What I do not support is Malanga's apparent attempt to disassociate these unions from the socialist beliefs of others. I cannot agree that raw growth of the public-nonprofit unions is divorced from socialism in any meaningful way.

Sunday, February 26, 2006

Rule Of (International) Law

Reposted as history. Originally posted in February of 2005.

Editorial - Saturday February 26, 2005 - wsj.com Opinion Journal
Can foreign courts tell American ones how to do their job?

One of the more dangerous fads in Supreme Court jurisprudence of late is something called "international law," in which American laws are measured not just against the Constitution but against the laws of foreign countries. The purpose is to put the U.S. law in what supporters delicately call a "global context." What they really mean is that they can't persuade enough Americans of their views to change U.S. law so they want to persuade judges to do it for them.

Global law is the goal of the still active socialist movement. Americans are sometimes astonished to find there are gullible people who do not accept what a horrible system socialism is. These gullible people are still actively working for its implementation here. Its repeated failures do not discourage the true believers. As they see popular opinion turning against socialism here in America, they increasingly seek to have "international law" simply inflict socialism on us.

Total War: Inside The New Al-Qaeda

Editorial - February 26, 2006 - The London Times
Bin Laden also explained his long-term anti-American strategy. He told me he knew he would never be able to defeat America on its own soil using conventional weapons. He had another plan, one that would take years to reach fruition.

“We want to bring the Americans to fight us on Muslim land,” he said as we walked through the woods in the high mountains at Tora Bora. “If we can fight them on our own territory we will beat them, because the battle will be on our terms in a land they neither know nor understand.”

We are witnessing part of that plan now, in the battlefields of Iraq, which has become a breeding ground for the most ruthless and militant Al-Qaeda fighters we have seen. In the process we are discovering the new face of Al-Qaeda, as a movement involved in bloody sectarian strife against fellow Muslims.

This is the second important article from today's headlines. It is based on the premise that we have allowed ourselves to be lured into Al-Qaeda's plan to fight America on the ground in the middle east, and that this was always Bin Laden's strategy. I guess my reaction is that I would have been more impressed with this article had it been written 3 years ago, rather than as a hind sight based attack on what we have done. It would have had a little more credibility.

However it does seem consistent with the same liberal premise Steyn discusses in the other article posted below from today's editorials on the war. The liberal democrat premise is that we must not fight these islamofascists. We need to allow them to censor us, to control us, we need to walk away from this fight, to buy some peace now with the assurances that we will ultimately lose anyway. This premise, that if we just leave them alone we will have some time of peace and the ultimate slavery they will inflict will not be on us but on our descendants, is ultimately just another form of appeasement. That seems to me to be the only rational explanation for what the liberals are proposing we do. What frightens me is that even cold warriors like William Buckley are starting to agree with the premise that we should pull out of Iraq.

Does this make sense? What do you think?

Needing To Wake Up,
West Just Closes Its Eyes

By Mark Steyn - February 26, 2006 - Sun-Times Columnist
Two years ago, a 23-year-old Paris disc jockey called Sebastien Selam was heading off to work from his parents' apartment when he was jumped in the parking garage by his Muslim neighbor Adel. Selam's throat was slit twice, to the point of near-decapitation; his face was ripped off with a fork; and his eyes were gouged out. Adel climbed the stairs of the apartment house dripping blood and yelling, "I have killed my Jew. I will go to heaven."

This is the first of two articles from this days headlines that explore the forces of a worldwide movement that Americans have got to understand. That movement is called by some islamofascism. George Bush refers to it as "terrorism", maintaining his strategy of NOT using any reference to islam within his criticism of the movement. He is trying to separate the war against it from references to the religion that drives it, as he thinks we are better off not having the religious war the islamofascists want.

Steyn closes his article by tying together the reality that the recent "cartoon" campaign has resulted in liberals all over the world giving in to the islamofascists (by censoring what we say) with the islamofascists growing demand that we abandon the fight for Israel. Interesting juxtoposition. Probably right. It does seem more and more that liberals in America are willing to give up any fight for freedom as long as they get one world government of some sort. I personally do not see the "caliphate" as a government that I can accept to live under. Why do democrats?

Saturday, February 25, 2006

The Fascists Of Free Speech

By Catherine Seipp - February 24th, 2006 - Los Angeles Times
A FRIEND OF MINE took his young daughter to visit the famous City Lights bookstore in San Francisco, explaining to her that the place is important because years ago it sold books no other store would — even, perhaps especially, books whose ideas many people found offensive.

So, although my friend is no fan of Ward Churchill, the faux Indian and discredited professor who notoriously called 9/11 victims "little Eichmanns," he didn't really mind seeing piles of Churchill's books prominently displayed on a table as he walked in.

However, it did occur to him that perhaps the long-delayed English translation of Oriana Fallaci's new book, "The Force of Reason," might finally be available, and that because Fallaci's militant stance against Islamic militants offends so many people, a store committed to selling banned books would be the perfect place to buy it. So he asked a clerk if the new Fallaci book was in yet.

"No," snapped the clerk. "We don't carry books by fascists."

Now let's just savor the absurd details of this for a minute. City Lights has a long and proud history of supporting banned authors — owner Lawrence Ferlinghetti was indicted (and acquitted) for obscenity in 1957 for selling Allen Ginsberg's "Howl," and a photo at the bookstore showed Ferlinghetti proudly posing next to a sign reading "banned books."

Yet his store won't carry, of all people, Fallaci, who is not only being sued in Italy for insulting religion because of her latest book but continues to fight the good fight against those who think that the appropriate response to offensive books and cartoons is violent riots. It's particularly repugnant that someone who fought against ACTUAL FASCISM [emphasis added] in World War II should be deemed a fascist by a snotty San Francisco clerk.

Liberals are rapidly becoming an object of laughter, not just to conservatives, but to anyone with a brain.

It is particularly apparent among the most extreme form of liberalism, that bigotry practiced by the intolerant liberal anti-war extremists on the west coast. This article is a must read for anyone who really thinks for themselves. The attitude exemplified by the clerk in this article is simply amazing. However this is what the democratic party has become. A mockery of everything they claim to stand for.

HIV Infection Rate Among Blacks Doubles

Reposted as history. Originally posted in February of 2005.

By Jeff Donn - Feb 25, 7:08 PM - AP News

BOSTON (AP) - The HIV infection rate has doubled among blacks in the United States over a decade while holding steady among whites - stark evidence of a widening racial gap in the epidemic, government scientists said Friday.

Other troubling statistics indicate that almost half of all infected people in the United States who should be receiving HIV drugs are not getting them.

There is a more troubling issue with this increasing disparity between blacks and whites. That is the coverup by democrats of their contribution to the crisis to begin with. If they had not actively sought to interfere with the use of vectoring when HIV-AIDS first appeared, the disease might not have gained so strong a foothold here in America. Based on the lie that attempts to control the disease were politically motivated attacks on the gay and drug using communities, democrats spent their energies subverting health officials for poltical gain. It is ironic that one of the strongest support groups of the democrats, the black community, is now paying the price for this attitude. Ironic, but horribly sad.

Friday, February 24, 2006

Black Americans and the Republican Party
A Forgotten Legacy

By Dr. Ada Fisher - February 24th, 2006 - The North Carolina Conservative
The first black Senator was Hiram R. Revels, elected to fill the US Senate seat formerly held by Jefferson Davis. Joseph H. Rainey of S.C. became the first African-American Congressman. Blanche K. Bruce of Mississippi was the first African-American elected to a full term in the US Senate. All of this was before Reconstruction. John R. Lynch is the first African-American to preside over the RNC and gave the keynote address. Edward Brooke (MA) was the first black Republican Senator post-Reconstruction, and he received the 2004 Presidential Medal of Freedom from George W. Bush, a Republican president. So far 3 of the 6 elected black US Senators have been Republicans.

The northeastern part of North Carolina has lagged the rest of the state in development, in large part because the democratic agenda for this part of the state has been based on socialism and welfare. Democrats are the party of big corporations because to an overwhelming degree, it is big company socialism that has been the Democratic Party contribution to recent governance.

However small corporations are the engine of economic growth. Small corporations excel in any area where government provides infrastructure but does not try to determine which companies shall win. However small company success does require that government not burden the small business with profit destroying social programs.

We have not provided either infrastructure or a business friendly environment here in eastern Carolina. Only now is this part of the state getting any of the expressway construction that has driven business growth in the western part of the state. Investment in infrastructure has been overlooked while socialist and welfare programs have burdened government, and local business with taxes that destroy jobs.

This article deals with some of the history of the conservative roots of the black community, and recognizes that Republicans were more accepting than Democrats at championing true equality of opportunity. It is in the Republican Party that conservative blacks belong. That is true here in the Inner Banks as well.

Beirut's Berlin Wall

Reposted as history. Originally posted in February of 2005.

By David Ignatius - Wednesday February 23, 2005 - Washington Post

.... Walid Jumblatt, the patriarch of the Druze Muslim community and, until recently, a man who accommodated Syria's occupation. But something snapped for Jumblatt last year, when the Syrians overruled the Lebanese constitution and forced the reelection of their front man in Lebanon, President Emile Lahoud. The old slogans about Arab nationalism turned to ashes in Jumblatt's mouth, and he and Hariri openly began to defy Damascus.
"It's strange for me to say it, but this process of change has started because of the American invasion of Iraq," explains Jumblatt. "I was cynical about Iraq. But when I saw the Iraqi people voting three weeks ago, 8 million of them, it was the start of a new Arab world." Jumblatt says this spark of democratic revolt is spreading. "The Syrian people, the Egyptian people, all say that something is changing. The Berlin Wall has fallen. We can see it."

It is truly interesting watching what is happening in the middle east. It is even more interesting watching what is NOT happening in the democratic party. They have still not accepted that the war in Iraq was the right move. Long term the only thing that had any hope of limiting the islamofascists in the middle east, was completely changing the dynamic. The democrats laughed at the possibility, and claimed that Bush and the neo-cons who were proposing that were simlply cynical liars. Now that it is happening, the democrats cannot even concede they were wrong.

[2-26-2005 - Footnote to this article - Hillary Clinton's new move to embrace the war in Iraq and her travels to Iraq to proclaim the victory are amusing. She is the frist democrat to see the consequence of the democrats not getting on board. It is also an indication of how clear it is becoming; WE ARE WINNING! Hillary wants to take credit.]

Thursday, February 23, 2006

The Buckshot Heard Round The World

By John Reiniers - Feb 21st, 2006 - Hernando (Florida) Today
I'd rather be hunting with Dick Cheney than riding in a car with Sen. Ted Kennedy. Whittington survived. Mary Jo Kopekne didn't.

John Reiniers has summed up how I have felt about this issue since it started. I was amazed that the Democrats thought they could somehow make this a political issue that harmed both Dick Cheney and George Bush.

They haven't. In fact they look like partisan bigots. Since I think liberals are overly partisan . . . . . especially after I got spit on while working for Arnold . . . I can only thank them for helping me prove my point about their partisan hostility. The only reasonable reaction to this excess is to laugh at them. Partisan bigots come across like imbeciles. My only request, can you please keep this story alive a couple more days? Thanks very much.


Dems Frozen In Time Warp

Reposted as history. Originally posted in February of 2005.

Star Parker - February 22, 2005 - townhall.com

It didn't take long for Howard Dean, the new Democratic National Committee chairman, to show his credentials as a graduate of the Trent Lott school of racial sensitivity training.

His remarks, at a meeting with the uniformly Democratic Congressional Black Caucus, that Republicans would need the "hotel staff" if they wanted to fill a room with blacks, tell us a lot about the man. They also tell us a lot about the Democratic Party that has chosen him to lead it out of its abyss.

It is clear that the democrats are so obsessed with the past that they cannot .... simply cannot "move on" (their pet expression for Republicans when any democrat has committed a crime). They are also so obsessed that they are forgetting to pretend that they care for the groups they have kept in the fold for many years. They are especially discourteous to blacks who earn a good living. It really annoys democrats for a black to not be on welfare, to not be "hotel staff", to not be beholding to them. The way they savaged Condi Rice is a perfect example.

Wednesday, February 22, 2006

She's Worth 'Going Nuclear' Over

By Harold Johnson - Tuesday, February 22, 2005 - Orange County Register

State Justice Brown would be a champion of freedom on the federal bench

[The OC Register web site requires a login to read the article - use the ID "anonanon" with Password "anon1234"]

If GOP leaders really do go to the wall for Brown - and succeed - a bright future awaits her on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit (a post that could position her for an eventual Supreme Court nomination). But her departure will be a loss for the law in California.

This daughter of an Alabama sharecropper - this African-American woman who attended segregated schools in her native state, and put herself through college and law school in California - offers testimony to the rewards that can come from character and can-do commitment.

But Brown's star power derives from more than her impressive personal story. She is an intellectual leader of California's high court and its most articulate voice for limited government and individual freedom.

This nation would be well served with Justice Janice Rogers Brown on any court. She is simultaneously one of the most impressive and down to earth people I have ever met. I do not say that because she is conservative. I say that because she is an intelligent fighter for freedom and restrictions on the power of government, including limiting the power of the courts to abuse the powerless.

Great American.

Uncle Tom Revisited, Redeemed

by Clarence Page - February 22nd, 2006 - Chicago Tribune
Today Uncle Tom is a prickly American paradox. His very name has become an insult, describing a black person who is overly eager to win white approval. Yet Stowe's Uncle Tom ultimately is a heroic figure who encourages two abused slave women to escape, then suffers a fatal beating rather than give up the women's whereabouts or his Christian faith.

"It's ironic that Uncle Tom is a derogatory term today, yet he was such a powerful character in bringing about the abolition of slavery," [James] Henson Sr. said. "The way he was depicted as almost Christlike caused a lot of Christian people to say, if the institution of slavery could kill someone as kind, gentle and noble as Tom, we have got to put an end to this institution."

There will be a lot of things that liberals will dislike about this article. First it reminds us all that some of the toughest and bravest Americans we could ever admire are blacks who stood proud during that period when our nation failed to live up to its ideals and tolerated slavery. Josiah Henson, the role model for the character of Uncle Tom in Harriet Beecher Stowe's book was such a man. The character Uncle Tom was a great man. No greater love has any man than that he give up his life for another. That is courage. That is a man I will stand with.

Second it reminds us that it is possible to talk to one another without motives being denounced as the opening gambit. It is almost impossible to have a discussion about this character, or any other matter of race when liberals say "believe as we tell you or you are racist". Try and claim that the character Uncle Tom should be a person anyone would be proud of and you get denounced as racist. Try it. I am amazed that Clarence Page had the courage to write this article. It is as amazing as the courage Bill Cosby showed when he said similar things about self inflicted problems in the black community. It almost causes you to hope, can we have a frank discussion about race without being denounced as a racist? Maybe times are changing. Larry Elder thinks that they are! Martin Luther King's dream may yet come to pass.

Great article.

Tuesday, February 21, 2006

Losing Our Delusions. Not Much Left.

Reposted as history. Originally posted in February of 2005.

by Martin Peretz - Post date 02.17.05 Issue date 02.28.05 - The New Republic

Ask yourself: Who is a truly influential liberal mind in our culture? Whose ideas challenge and whose ideals inspire? Whose books and articles are read and passed around? There's no one, really. What's left is the laundry list: the catalogue of programs (some dubious, some not) that Republicans aren't funding, and the [left wing] blogs, with their daily panic dose about how the Bush administration is ruining the country.

This is a truly amazing editorial in a liberal magazine that has for quite some time been a liberal leader in the intellectual discussions of our nation. It is a fascinating read. Like the resignation letter of Christopher Hitchens over the anti-war bias of the left, it is a surprising break with conventional wisdom of the left. No one on the right has been as honestly critical of the problems that beset the liberal mind set of the democrats as Peretz has been here.

To get back on track, liberals and democrats might start with; 1. a willingness to concede socialism is a horrible and evil system that dehumanizes people and leads to a totalitarian state, and 2. that they are once again willing to be patriots for our great nation. I suspect either position is going farther than Peretz (or any liberal) is willing to go, but this editorial is a good start.

Are Bloggers Journalists?

Intellectual Capital: Michael McGough / Are bloggers journalists?
A judge who would jail reporters questions their special status under the First Amendment. He has a point.
Editorial Opinion - Monday, February 21, 2005 - Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

Circuit Judge David S. Tatel acknowledged that "unconventional forms of journalism -- freelance writers and Internet 'bloggers,' for example -- may raise definitional conundrums down the road." But Tatel suggested that courts could settle the issue on a case-by-case basis with the "flexibility and capacity for growth and adaptation [that] is the peculiar boast and excellence of the common law."

What are we to think when an oligarchic judge starts proclaiming the need to decide things on a "case-by-case" basis? This is the natural language of tyrants who would not be bound by law but wish to rule based on their own opinion. We have way too much of this arrogant "ruling" already. That is how the elitist judges have twisted the Constitution on its head and now interpret a clause guaranteeing freedom of religion into a clause they claim prohibits the free expression of religion in public.

It is equally bizarre to hear a journalist who is petrified of the new phenomenon of blogging proclaim the judge is right to limit "press protection" for his competition. Is this America?

Media Madness

Cheney Shooting Overkill, Cartoon Cowardice

by Mary Laney - February 20th, 2006 - Chicago Sun-Times
There is a lot of big news about to come out. More tape recordings made of Saddam Hussein and his advisers soon will be translated and released. We may find out whether Iraq actually did have weapons of mass destruction and if they were moved prior to our invasion there.

However, instead of focusing on this, the news has been filled with stories on how Vice President Dick Cheney accidentally shot his friend with birdshot while hunting quail.

This is exactly the kind of article that explains why conservatives cringe when they try and read a newspaper or listen to TV today. The political correct liberals have so brainwashed America that the average reader thinks what is printed in the New York Times or reported on CBS News, actually is what is news. Conservatives don't believe any of it. Most conservatives today have some other sources of news and the dichotomy makes us cynical about everything we hear. I doubt I have read a real newspaper 5 times in the last year. It is always a paper someone else bought and I have to be really really bored to take the time. It is always a pack of lies.

The list of transgressions by the islamofascists listed in this article is amazing. Do the anti-war anti-American anti-Bush "Michael Moore Democrats" think that they can just ignore the evil perpetrated against us and any real American will buy it? To read or listen to the MSM, the left thinks we are the bad guys. No wonder there is no communication between the left and the right. We don't even agree on the definition of evil.

Monday, February 20, 2006

The Left Hasn't Learned A Damned Thing From 9/11

by Rick Moran - February 19th, 2006 - The American Thinker
Every once and a while over the last few years, I have come very close to saying to hell with it and tossing George Bush and the Republicans over the side. That’s when the left comes to Bush’s rescue and proves all over again why even allowing them to get a whiff of regaining power is extremely hazardous to the collective health of the west not to mention the personal safety and well-being of hundreds of millions of people.

I can certainly sympathize with these sentiments. I am at best an ambivalent supporter of George Bush. Though I am a solid Republican because of my feelings about "Free Enterprise" and the contemptible support for socialism by the democrats, the Republicans in Washington have certainly indicated a lack of understanding of what "Free Enterprise" means too.

However this article explains why these weak feelings of support are of no consequence. The anti-war left and the socialist imbeciles in the democratic party, make it no contest.

Starr - Lawyers Share Blame

Reposted as history. Originally posted in February of 2005.

By W. Dale Nelson - Casper Wyoming Star-Tribune - February 19, 2005

Recent scandals in corporate America reflect a "loosening of a fundamental bond in our society, the bond of trust," and lawyers must share the blame (emphasis added), former Whitewater special prosecutor Kenneth Starr said Friday.

Speaking at a Wyoming Law Review symposium on professional ethics, Starr said, "One is struck these days with the outpouring of concern throughout our society about ... excesses in the marketplace where moral judgments seem terribly clouded by avarice."

SHARE the blame? The most egregious avarice shown in our nation is the avarice by lawyers and judges. Both are dedicated to the premise that their pocketbooks are best fattened by a culture where crime and evil is actively condoned by the courts, and therefore commonly practiced in our society, so everyone has to hire them (for a fee) to protect them from the crime.

The extension of "rights" to the terrorists in Guantanamo showed little concern for the terrorists or the consequences to society of extending them rights. It was another in the ongoing examples of seizing power by judges and lawyers over another aspect of our lives. Lawyers will certainly gain power if every soldier has actions in battle reviewed by the courts to protect the "rights" of the enemy.

Duplicitous and complex logic is always used to cover up and misdirect society from their true motivation in these expansions of their power, avarice pure and simple. Pretending to care about justice for the enemy conbatants at Guantanamo Starr said, "That is how strong our shared sense of fairness is". We must be very careful before believing there is any great difference between lawyers who profess to be conservatives, like Starr, versus lawyers who profess to be liberal. Neither are on the side of justice.

The consequence of judicial and lawyer avarice is our revolving door "lets make a deal" justice system where judges show utter contempt for the safety of law abiding citizens, and equal contempt for justice. They care more about the community of lawyers than they ever will about our society.

The new sentiments by Starr in this article are simply a growing concern about how many in our society now hold the system they represent in the same contempt that I do. They are searching for some way to pretend they "care" to lessen this revulsion for them by our citizens. The concern they express will be meaningless until they actually start to care about justice more than money.

I have never been able to understand how the many nice decent people who practice law (many are my friends) can be so impervious to the corruption of the system they represent. Can you explain it?

Sunday, February 19, 2006

Lost in Translation

Reposted as history. Originally posted in February of 2005.

By Amal Jayasinghe - Lanka Business Online - 19 February 2005
If there is a Pulitzer award for embellishing, exaggerating, and outright lying and misleading in print, the coverage of "Baby 81" would merit top billing.

District judge, M.P. Moahaidein, on Wednesday (Feb 16) made it clear that there never, repeat never, were nine couples claiming the child as their own and only Junita and Murugpillai Jeyarajah had said they were the parents.

Once again the MSM prove their level of competence, or rather incompetence. Though they insist repeatedly that bloggers fail to check facts and get things wrong as a result, this story that you heard about constantly last week, will now fade into obscurity. Why? Because it was all a bunch of lies. No one has been able to pin down exactly who started it, but one innocent couple, their baby, and most of the world's news media readers were the victims. Was it foisted on the pubic by bloggers? No. It was all the work of the MSM.

Iranian Fatwa Approves Use Of Nuclear Weapons

by Colin Freeman and Philip Sherwell - February 19th, 2006 - London News Telegraph

Iran's hardline spiritual leaders have issued an unprecedented new fatwa, or holy order, sanctioning the use of atomic weapons against its enemies.

In yet another sign of Teheran's stiffening resolve on the nuclear issue, influential Muslim clerics have for the first time questioned the theocracy's traditional stance that Sharia law forbade the use of nuclear weapons.

Once again the anti war brigade fails to anticipate the abandonment of a "priciple" that they assured us made Iran no risk to America. Just as they keep assuring us that Saddam Hussein "never" had WMD, even though he did have WMD and even used them, because he said he gave them up and was not planning to develop them, even though we have found several programs that were still in place to develop them, they assure us he really did not mean to use them against us since they believe him and so there was absolutely no reason to go to war . . . . blah . . . . blah . . . . . blah . . . . .

If we do not do something, the next "9/11" will be a nuclear bomb going off in Washington, or New York, or Chicago, or Los Angeles . . . but according to local democrats, so what. They aren't North Carolinians in those cities so lets just demand we bring the troops home and see what happens. This is intelligent. Right?

Saturday, February 18, 2006

The Second Mexican War

By Lawrence Auster - February 17, 2006 - FrontPageMagazine.com
The Mexican invasion of the United States began decades ago as a spontaneous migration of ordinary Mexicans into the U.S. seeking economic opportunities. It has morphed into a campaign to occupy and gain power over our country—a project encouraged, abetted, and organized by the Mexican state and supported by the leading elements of Mexican society. It is, in other words, war.

This article is obvious to anyone who is paying attention to what is happening in America. It is not the first time it has been said, and it needs to be repeated frequently. California has been taken over by Mexicans, and the rights of American citizens are being continuously destroyed. This will not stop while the democratic party promotes illegal immigration as a policy of expandng their voter base. It is the reason that so many illegal aliens VOTE in California elections. They are encouraged to do so by the democratic party.

It is also the reason I have remained ambivalent about George Bush since the day I first voted for him. He is totally blind to the active actions by Mexican politicians to take over America. His amnesty program feeds the goals of the reconquista movement. This reconquista movement is not a figment of imagination. The following quote from the article talks about actions by Mexican officials to claim sovereignity over Mexicans in America.
One such claim is to deny the authority of American law over them. Thus President Zedillo in 1997 denounced attempts by the United States to enforce its immigration laws, insisting that “we will not tolerate foreign forces dictating laws to Mexicans.” The “Mexicans” to whom he was referring were, of course, residents and citizens of the U.S., living under U.S. law. By saying that U.S. law does not apply to them, Zedillo was denying America’s sovereign power over its own territory. He was saying something that the Mexican elite as a whole believe: that wherever Mexicans live (particularly the U.S. Southwest, which many Mexicans see as rightfully theirs) the Mexican nation has legitimate national interests.

America needs to wake up to this reconquista movement. African-Americans especially need to wake up. They are actively supporting a party that is giving their jobs, their language and their nation away.

The Blogs Must Be Crazy

Reposted as history. Originally posted in February of 2005.

Or maybe the MSM is just suffering from freedom envy
Peggy Noonan - Thursday, February 17, 2005 - wsj.com Opinion Journal

Blogging changes how business is done in American journalism. The MSM isn't over. It just can no longer pose as if it is The Guardian of Established Truth. The MSM is just another player now.

It is interesting how so much of the discussion of blogs focuses exclusively on the part of news and journalism in which the blogs and MSM overlap. This is mostly in the area of political news and opinion. And yet the blogs that are really the most interesting are the ones that are still not getting noticed. Speciality blogs. These are starting with small audiences and they have no apparent chance of exploding onto the national scene. Local community service blogs. Blogs for a club. Blogs for a religion. They are simply growing, and helping the audience they serve to grow (and grow together) by communicating. As they continue to grow, I am fascinated by what their impact will be and how much they can grow. When will they start to get visibility in national news?

The power of the Internet is this amazing ability to bring the world together. That is what the MSM is experiencing. They are being brought together with their audience of readers and listeners. They can no longer hide in the "ivory tower". The blogs are clawing their way into the newsrooms and demanding that the MSM become a part of the greater society. The blogs allow us to communicate back to the MSM gods. They may not like what they hear, but they cannot stop the communication.

Only five short years ago who would have predicted the growth of this infant niche of political blogs into a power that could bring down Dan Rather and Eason Jordan. People need to notice, the specialty blogs are growing. I think Peggy Noonan is on to something with her point about "freedom". That is what blogs bring to the table. Amazing freedom. There is little doubt, "You ain't seen nothing yet!"

Friday, February 17, 2006

Not Crazy Horse, Just Crazy

Reposted as history. Originally posted in February of 2005.

Ann Coulter - February 17, 2005 - anncoulter.com

Tenure was supposed to create an atmosphere of open debate and inquiry, but instead has created havens for talentless cowards who want to be insulated from life. Rather than fostering a climate of open inquiry, college campuses have become fascist colonies of anti-American hate speech, hypersensitivity, speech codes, banned words and prohibited scientific inquiry.

As usual Ann leaves little for anyone else to say, as long as you are conservative. The incredible situation in America's schools, especially our colleges, is that the extreme left in American society controls the education establishment. Good teachers are as intimidated as the students. This is not acceptable to conservatives, and it is hard to argue that it is just.

To put the problem into perspective you only need to compare the following statistics on political ideology of teachers. Extreme liberals (socialists, marxists, communists) make up only around 15% of Americans, but over 45% of teachers. Liberals and progressives make up only another 20% of Americans, but are 40% of teachers. This combined 35% of Americans dominates the political ideology in schools with 85% of teachers, and is militantly opposed to anyone not liberal having any say in how schools are run. Thus 65% of Americans have no say in how schools are run.

To look at it differently, moderates are drastically underrepresented. There should be 6 times as many to equal their percentage of Americans. The combination of both moderates and conservatives equals 65% of Americans but they are only 15% of teachers. Is there any wonder students spend more time learning about homosexual lifestyles and choices than they spend learning calculus?

There are a great number of fine teachers in America with no agenda. It is unfortunate they are caught in the middle of a political battle. It is not just or fair that one political idealogy, the left, has exclusive control of our schools. It seems bizarre that having taken over the eschools, the left is outraged that Americans who do not share their idealogy object to their politicizing the schools. If the situation was reversed you can be sure they would be as upset as conservatives and moderates.

Thursday, February 16, 2006

Now What? The Lessons Of Katrina!

by The Editors - Published in the March, 2006 issue - Popular Mechanics


Not the federal agencies tasked with preparing for catastrophes. Not the local officials responsible for aging levees and vulnerable populations. Least of all the residents themselves, who had been warned for decades that they lived on vulnerable terrain. But when Hurricane Katrina struck the Gulf Coast on Aug. 29, 2005, it seemed as though the whole country was caught unawares. Accusations began to fly even before floodwaters receded. But facts take longer to surface.

In the months since the storm, many of the first impressions conveyed by the media have turned out to be mistaken. And many of the most important lessons of Katrina have yet to be absorbed. But one thing is certain: More hurricanes will come. To cope with them we need to understand what really happened during modern America's worst natural disaster. POPULAR MECHANICS editors and reporters spent more than four months interviewing officials, scientists, first responders and victims. Here is our report.--THE EDITORS

This group of articles by Popular Mechanics will tell you much more about what happened during the Kartrina disaster than you will find out from the congressional reports that the main stream media (MSM) are giving so much coverage. The politicians are concerned with finding scapegoats and assigning blame to someone other than themselves since they realize that the real blame lies at their feet. The MSM is participating in this scapegoating since they are so hostile to the Bush administration and blaming the administration is their fist choice.

These articles will tell you a lot more . . . . and the pictures are amazing. The following is the most important quote from ALL the articles.

According to the National Hurricane Center in Miami, the Atlantic is in a cycle of heightened hurricane activity due to higher sea-surface temperatures and other factors. The cycle could last 40 years, during which time the United States can expect to be hit by dozens of Katrina-size storms. Policymakers--and coastal residents--need to start seeing hurricanes as routine weather events, not once-in-a-lifetime anomalies.

Another simply amazing quote tells you a lot about how incompetently our government officials run the flood insurance program.

Just 1 to 2 percent of claims were from "repetitive-loss properties"--those suffering damage at least twice in a 10-year period. Yet, those 112,000 properties generated a remarkable 40 percent of the losses--$5.6 billion. One homeowner in Houston filed 16 claims in 18 years, receiving payments totaling $806,000 for a building valued at $114,000.

At what point can government officials be expected to stop wasting our money?

Unidentified Resident, Rare N.Y. Case Linked

Reposted as history. Originally posted in February of 2005.

By Cheryl Clark - San Diego Union-Tribune - February 15, 2005

An unidentified San Diego resident may be infected with the same rare, aggressive and highly drug-resistant strain of HIV found last week in a New York City man who has rapidly become ill with AIDS, health officials said yesterday.

This is not good news. Saying "this is only the third case, why get concerned" is not the intelligent reaction. Medical professionals have been predicting for several years that the increasing frequency of drug resistant strains of HIV in Africa could not be contained. Whether these cases are the first signs of the prediction coming true or not, the prediction is scary. The Republican Party switched its position on help for AIDS in Africa as the scope of the tragedy became clear.

However help for Africa is not the whole story. If this outbreak widens, the most important thing we can do is assure that the ridiculous reaction to AIDS in the 1980s is not repeated here in America. Drug and homosexual communities treated attempts to contain the disease as assaults on their individual freedom.

Millions have died, and millions more live diminished lives due to the refusal to address the problem when it could be easily contained. We must not allow these communities to minimize the problem. Those communities seem to be circling the wagons against society again.

This affects us all as the disease cannot be contained within communities about which it is convenient to say, "they brought it on themselves". Millions of innocent spouses of drug users and bisexuals have been infected, and then infected others far from the drug and homosexual communities. Tens of thousands of innocent children of drug users and children of innocent women (among the infected as described above), also have contracted the disease and have had their lives destroyed.

How many more innocent will die this time if we allow history to repeat?

Wednesday, February 15, 2006

Media lynch mob tries to out-blog the bloggers (and fails miserably)

Reposted as history. Originally posted in February of 2005.

Jack Kelly - Jewish World Review - Feb. 15, 2005

But the key fact is not that Eason Jordan is now looking for work, but that bloggers were trying to uncover the truth about what he said, while "professional journalists" were trying to suppress it. For us, the "people's right to know"— which we invoke in self-righteous tones when we're prying into the private lives of people who are not journalists — takes a back seat to protecting the reputations of members of our club.
As a blogger, I have to spread awareness of this article (Sorry if I am grinning). If you are not a blogger this article is a handy summary of the latest skirmish in what is becoming a real knock down drag out war over truth. You might want to click here and read the story to get caught up before reading my comments.

This conflict is between the MSM (blogger shorthand for Main Stream Media) and bloggers (what the MSM calls "salivating morons" or "sons of Senator McCarthy"). Doesn't it seem the MSM have lost the command of creative writing they are supposed to be so good at if all they can do is hurl ad hominem insults?

A blogger on Lucianne, one of the pioneer blog sites along with Drudge Report, came up with a great quote describing the frustration many bloggers feel about the MSM. "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." — Voltaire.

This has been the problem with the MSM for a long time. Reporters have long since ceased to conduct a search for the truth and until recently have waged a campaign of propaganda aimed at selling the leftist preferences of the MSM.

However the amazing thing is how little the MSM understands the phenomenon that blogs and blogging has brought about. We are not going away. We are just getting more pervasive. The more prevasive we get, the more truthful reporters will have to be. The reporters are going to have to come to grips with this before we get more of their scalps.

Kelly says on behalf of the MSM reporters, "We feel about bloggers the way Custer must have felt when he charged that village at the Little Big Horn, and discovered it was much, much bigger than he'd imagined it to be. The bloggers' wigwam is large, and growing. There is plenty of room on the lodgepole for more scalps."

I think most bloggers love the characterization of being scalp hunters. A common quote of B movie westerns comes to mind, "The Tom Toms are beating for war". It is really really fun being a part of a war party! Can I wear war paint?

Gored In Jeddah

by Kathleen Parker - February 15, 2006 - TownHall.com
Perhaps Gore, instead of slapping the U.S. for behaviors unbecoming a superpower, might have asked the Saudi monarchy to stop sponsoring terrorists. He might have asked them to stop funding Islamist schools that teach future terrorists that the U.S. is the Great Satan and that all Americans are infidels who need to be killed.

That would be a nice start to our keeping open channels of friendship and mutual understanding. On the other hand, it would probably be considered bad manners to bring up terrorism and that Wahhabi thing while a guest in the Host State. Better to bash the homeboys, who can be counted upon to resist the urge to behead people with whom they disagree.

There are still those who believe that Al Gore should have been President. The disreputable behavior he has shown in Saudi Arabia should disabuse the most fervent democrat of the illusion that Al Gore is a partiot. It should also rate as one more specific example of the reality that democratic leadership is dedicated to the destruction of our nation, at least as long as we remain a free enterprise society. Politics is now all about socialism. If you are not a socialist, democrats will attack you in the most vile of ways.

Tuesday, February 14, 2006

Feminists on warpath to get their man

Reposted as history. Originally posted in February of 2005.

Phyllis Schlafly - February 14, 2005 - Townhall.com

Once again the intelligent and common sense Phyllis Schafly zeroes in on the unwillingness of certain elements on the left to accept freedom of speech. Political Correctness was always simply the way Democrats stopped open discussions of issues. To espouse anything they disagreed with was contemptible and uncivilized.

To liberals, some subjects are not only non-debatable, they are non-researchable because they think they already know the answers and they don't want to be confused by facts.
This time they are on the warpath over the issue of gender differences. They are opposed to any discussion, and adamantly against any research, to determine whether baby girls and baby boys have any innate characteristics that explain why they choose certain professions. To the liberals and democrats, the differences are clearly the result of an unfair and insidious culture. End of discussion.

Don't you dare suggest it is permissable to investigate whether they are right. Even asking the question proves you are evil. Freedom of speech is only a right of people on the left.

Monday, February 13, 2006

Ukraine, Iraq and Washington State

Reposted as history. Originally posted in February of 2005.

Who would have thought Washington would finish dead last?
By Bob Williams - Evergreen Freedom Foundations - Dated 2/14/2005
Despite threats from the terrorists, years of brutal war and no history of conducting free and fair elections, a provisional government only seven months old conducted an orderly election. With the aid of U.S. troops, the turnout was higher than expected, as was the level of transparency and legitimacy.

When the democrats in Florida were busy "voting" for the people who had not properly cast their ballots, they screamed with rage when it was suggested that only valid votes should count. It was suspicious in the extreme that with every recount, more and more George Bush ballots were spoiled, and more and more ballots for Al Gore were "found".

Their outrage increased when it was suggested that what they were doing was stealing an election.

Washington State democrats did not learn the lesson, or maybe they learned the lesson that they found important. It has been well documented that King County irregularities are clearly the reason for the election of a democrat governor, who lost on the first two vote counts. We now have proof positive that if you allow local county democrat officials enough recounts, they will always find the democrat "won".

Bob Williams explains here how Iraq runs a fair election. America needs to learn the same lesson if democracy is going to retain the respect of the people.

Hood Richardson
Press Release


Hood Richardson to File Monday for N.C. Senate District

Hood Richardson, a popular, conservative Beaufort County Commissioner and local businessman from Washington, NC, will file to run for the N.C. Senate District 1 seat on Monday, February 13, 2006, at the Beaufort County Board of Elections (12:01 p.m. approximately).

The seat, currently held by Marc Basnight, is comprised of eight counties: Beaufort, Camden, Currituck, Dare, Hyde, Pasquotank, Tyrrell, and Washington.

The Beaufort County Board of Elections is located at 132 North Market Street, Washington, N.C. Supporters of Hood Richardson are invited to attend.

Franky S. Lee - Events Coordinator (252) 217-1942

Hood Richardson for Senate
102 Dudley Place
Washington, NC 27889
(252) 975-3472

Saturday, February 11, 2006

Thanks for the Super Bowl Thanks

Reposted as history. Originally posted in February of 2005.

Center for Individual Freedom - Editorial Opinion - 2-10/2005
This year, through the first two quarters and half-time, all was normal. The game, commercials, and even the half-time show proceeded unexceptionally, with viewers devoting their attention subject to their own tastes. But shortly into the game’s third quarter, a commercial aired that captured everyone’s attention, halted conversations and subdued the atmosphere at many a home and bar.

This is a very fine editorial. I have not previoulsy been exposed to the Center for Individual Freedom, but based on some time on the site it is well worth while.

However while we are on the subject of our troops, if you would like to do something for our troops more than "thanks", I recommend the organization
Soldier's Angels. They are really a great group that truly thank our soldiers in a most meaningful way. God bless our troops, and you also for helping.

Friday, February 10, 2006

Beating a Dead Parrot

Reposted as history. Originally posted in February of 2005.

Why Iraq and Vietnam have nothing whatsoever in common.
By Christopher Hitchens - Monday, Jan. 31, 2005 - Slate.com

.... perhaps now is the moment to state the critical reasons why there is no reasonable parallel of any sort between Iraq and Vietnam.

There has been an interesting dialog going on between Christopher Hitchens and the rest of the left wing media for the last three plus years. It has resulted in Hitchens quiting his job at a liberal newspaper, an act that at least shows Hitchens has the courage of his convictions. More than that as far as I am concerned. Hitchens is the only reason I still talk to many of my friends on the left. I use him as an example of how leftists have lost their way, but liberals have not. Hitchens has definitely not. He is as sharp as ever. I do not agree with him on much, but I admire him deeply. The difference between liberals and leftists is that leftists are always anti-war, unless of course it is war against America.

I missed this article by Hitchens when it first came out. To some extent it is old news, being driven by the now rather dated elections in Iraq. However our dialog with the left, trying to differentiate between the Joe Lieberman and Christopher Hitchens patriots versus the John Kerry and Bill Moyer traitors, makes it important. It is important that we not lump everyone together. As Hitchens and Lieberman prove, there are good guys on the left.

Curse Of The Moderates

by Charles Krauthammer - Friday, February 10, 2006 - The Washington Post

As much of the Islamic world erupts in a studied frenzy over the Danish Muhammad cartoons, there are voices of reason being heard on both sides. Some Islamic leaders and organizations, while endorsing the demonstrators' sense of grievance and sharing their outrage, speak out against using violence as a vehicle of expression. Their Western counterparts -- intellectuals, including most of the major newspapers in the United States -- are similarly balanced: While, of course, endorsing the principle of free expression, they criticize the Danish newspaper for abusing that right by publishing offensive cartoons, and they declare themselves opposed, in the name of religious sensitivity, to doing the same.

God save us from the voices of reason.

What passes for moderation in the Islamic community -- "I share your rage but don't torch that embassy" -- is nothing of the sort. It is simply a cynical way to endorse the goals of the mob without endorsing its means. It is fraudulent because, while pretending to uphold the principle of religious sensitivity, it is interested only in this instance of religious insensitivity.

Have any of these "moderates" ever protested the grotesque caricatures of Christians and, most especially, Jews that are broadcast throughout the Middle East on a daily basis? The sermons on Palestinian TV that refer to Jews as the sons of pigs and monkeys? The Syrian prime-time TV series that shows rabbis slaughtering a gentile boy to ritually consume his blood? The 41-part (!) series on Egyptian TV based on that anti-Semitic czarist forgery (and inspiration of the Nazis), "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion," showing the Jews to be engaged in a century-old conspiracy to control the world?

I am sure that Krauthammer asked this question to be rhetorical. He knows the answer. So do we. The islamofascists are not moderates, and the islamic "moderates" are not moderate as we know the word. It is not moderate to propose that there is no need to behead us to persuade us to convert to Islam.

Proposing that financial pressure and government control is more than enough is not moderate. Proposing that special laws that imprison those who disagree with you is sufficient, denying freedom of speech to non-muslims, that is all that is needed.

Do you think this is moderate?

Thursday, February 09, 2006

The Steady Climb Up Rushmore

Reposted as history. Originally posted in February of 2005.

Matt May - February 9th, 2005 - The American Thinker
..... President Bush will be honored in the annals of history as not just a great President, but as a great man. He will be remembered for his broad, sweeping vision of freedom that not only touted the greatest ideals of the United States, yet fulfilled them here and around the world to the best of his ability.

For those of us who saw our recent election as a choice between a man who understood our nation faced nuclear bombs as a clear long term threat, and those who could not visualize that threat, this article sums up how we see George Bush. The first black Secretary of State is being replaced by the first black female Secretary of State, not to meet some quota of minorities, but simply because Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice were the best and most capable candidates. George Bush saw that. He is a great judge of character and ability. He seems to see most things with clarity. I still think Reagan is the best President we ever had, but George is very good. Excellent read.

All Right, I Insulted Americans –
But They Are Not Planning To Behead Me

by Anatole Kaletsky - February 09, 2006 - The London Times (OnLine)
LAST WEEK I devoted this space to a diatribe against George W. Bush, conjoined with a paean of praise for the American system and Alan Greenspan, the retiring Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board. The purpose of the article was to discuss the genius of a nation whose economy, culture and spirit of public service could operate so successfully, despite — or perhaps because of — such doltishly incompetent leadership from its top politicians.

Very interesting article. The title gives a clue to the ultimate tone, but it is written by someone whose support for socialism and general anti-American positions would not have led you to expect the reasonableness of the conclusions. It provides some insight into the harm to islamofascism caused by the "Cartoon" riots. It is in fact, an article that shows admiration for America and what makes us great.

Wednesday, February 08, 2006

Question Of The Day

Reposted as history. Originally posted in February of 2005.

"Would you first save the dog you love or a stranger if both were drowning?"

The Case For Judeo-Christian Values
February 8, 2005 - Townhall.com

This article by Dennis Prager raised some very serious issues. I find the question above to be one of the most intriguing moral tests that any nation can address. America has totally changed its mind on this question in the last 40 years. Why do you think that is? What is your answer? I can't decide whether the current situation is discouraging, or the fact that we can once again have this discussion is encouraging ...... I prefer to be an optimist! Great read.

Tuesday, February 07, 2006

Point Of No Return

by Thomas Sowell - February 7th, 2006 - TownHall.com

Looking back at the history of tragic times often reveals that many -- or most -- of the people of those times were often preoccupied with things that look trivial, or even pathetic, in view of the catastrophe looming over them. Will later generations looking back at our times see a similar blindness, and even frivolousness, in the face of mortal dangers?

I keep posting articles from Thomas Sowell. The reason is simple. He is one of the best writers I know and arguably the smartest man in America. This article is amazingly prescient. It is also extremely frightening.

New DC Paper Descibes Ponzi Scheme

Reposted as history. Originally posted in February of 2005.

Social Security Robs Future To Pay For Past
Editorial Tuesday - February 1, 2005 - The Examiner

Seventy years ago, the United States was in an economic crisis and needed to simultaneously inject cash into our ailing economy while protecting the elderly who had been hurt most by the Great Depression. Franklin Roosevelt, just like too many of today's politicians, wanted to offer his supporters something for nothing, so he mortgaged the retirement of future workers to shower benefits on his political supporters.

For some reason, an all-too-typical act of political cowardice is seen today as an act of great political courage -- a wonderful New Deal for us all.

We live in the 21st century and now the New Deal bill is coming due.

There is a new paper in Washington DC, "The Examiner". Like most papers started in the last 40 years, it is intended to offer a choice of political discourse in a market dominated by the liberal paper of the area, in this case the Washington Post.

It is not surprising that one of their first editorials, excerpted above, is modern criciticism of a traditional hero of the left. Franklin D. Roosevelt is getting more and more bad press for the Ponzi scheme for which he is most noted.

Recently Dutch Martin reviewed Jim Powell's new book "FDR's Folly", summarizing the intellectual case against Roosevelt . Powell explains that Roosevlet, far from ending the depression, prolonged and deepened it, damaging the nation and its people by the way he handled it. Powell's is a book that every American should read.

In their editorial on Social Security, "The Examiner" describes the basics of the Social Security scam and the clear inability to sustain the "rob from the young to pay the old" premise on which it is based. Since continuing Social Security as it is can tear this nation apart and create class warfare, I do not see how fixing it cannot be considered a crisis.

Monday, February 06, 2006

Later Than We Think

by Arnaud de Borchgrave - February 6, 2006 - The Washington Times
The man in charge of hoodwinking the Western powers about Iran's now 18-year-old secret nuclear program believes the apocalypse will happen in his own lifetime. He'll be 50 in October.

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's Shi'ite creed has convinced him lesser mortals can not only influence but hasten the awaited return of the 12th Imam, known as the Mahdi. Iran's dominant "Twelver" sect holds this will be Muhammad ibn Hasan, the righteous descendant of the Prophet Muhammad. He is said to have gone into "occlusion" in the 9th century, at age 5.

His return will be preceded by cosmic chaos, war, bloodshed and pestilence. After this cataclysmic confrontation between the forces of good and evil, the Mahdi will lead the world to an era of universal peace.

For all those who think that it is possible to "negotiate" with the islamofascists, this article is a must read. Everytime I hear how we should not have gone to war in Iraq, and that we need to bring our soldiers home, I wonder if the person espousing those views has ever LISTENED to what these people believe.

These are tough times. The growing doubt about whether we should be at war is a serious concern. If the American people waver now, the consequences will be even bigger problems in the future. These islamofascists are serious. Individual suicide bombers are not the biggest threat. The biggest threat is Islamic states willing to embace nuclear holocaust on behalf of a delusional return to Islamic glory on behalf of the Mahdi!

Tweaking Noses

Reposted as history. Originally posted in February of 2005.

With George Bush's repeat victory, everyone on the right is having fun at the reaction on the left. George just seems to have a knack of saying and doing things that make people on the left go crazy. To see perfect examples all you have to do is replay some of Ted Kennedy's speeches of the last couple of weeks.

But George is not alone in having the knack of saying things that make the left go crazy. Charles Krauthammer does a pretty good job in the article
here from a couple of days ago, and he doesn't even make fun of them. He simply describes things like the democrats reaction to voting in Iraq ..... with venom.
Another suicide bomber, reported Iraq's interior minister, was a child with Down syndrome. There are no words for the depths of such depravity, sending an innocent to murder innocents, dressing this poor child in explosives and then leading him to his slaughter. These are the people whom Michael Moore, avatar of the Democratic left, calls the "Minutemen." These are the people who Ted Kennedy, spokesman for the Democratic left, says are in a battle with the United States for "the hearts and minds of the people." This is both stupid and pernicious.
The Iraqis have earned a little respect. When will the democrats start to give them credit instead of honoring the terrorists? Don't they see how crazy that makes them look?

If you enjoy laughing at the democratic predicament though you have to read Mark Steyn in the article
here. Steyn has always mixed his criticism of the left with humor. He describes the democratic reaction to the state of the union by George Bush.
Democrat Senate colossus Harry Reid -- who makes Tom Daschle look like Reese Witherspoon -- said in his first major speech of the week, "With yesterday's elections in Iraq, President Bush has a golden opportunity to change course,'' which means . . . well, to be honest, I haven't a clue what it means. But it sounds a lot like Reid's terrific speech from June 1944: "With yesterday's successful D-Day landings, General Eisenhower now has a golden opportunity to change course and surrender."
We will not surrender. We will win. We are winning, even though it will remain tough, hard, deadly work. Except for Joe Lieberman, can you name one democrat who seems happy we are winning? It seems that democrats do not think Americans are still capable of winning tough fights. It almost seems their mantra is, "if it isn't easy, we quit". That is crazy. What can you do but shake your head in amazement?

Why can democrats not see how that reaction appears to most Americans? Do they not feel their noses being tweaked?

Sunday, February 05, 2006

Condi - The Person We Need For America!

Reposted as history. Originally posted in February of 2005.

Condoleezza Rice is one of the most amazing Americans we have ever seen. World class musician. Champion figure skater. Brilliant educator. Football expert. Fluent in French and Russian. She is most assuredly a master of English. Taking apart Barbara Boxer in the recent Senate hearings, she proved she is tough as nails and a world class debater.

Condoleezza Rice - Secretary of State

The following article proves that Condi is impressing people all over the world.

Condoleezza Rice Brings Morality To Realpolitik
Editorial Opinion - Daily Telegraph (U.K.) - 05/02/2005

"There cannot be an absence of moral content in American foreign policy," she (Condi) says. "Europeans giggle at this, but we are not European, we are American, and we have different principles."
In her current profession she is an expert in political science who is also a master of military strategy. She has a command of facts that impresses the heavy weights in both fields. She is known as a quick wit, is well liked generally and thought of as a pleasant if blunt spoken individual.

In 1993 she became the youngest Provost in Stanford history, a post she held for 6 years until she left to support George Bush for President. She succeeded as a conservative in an arena, education, and in a school, Stanford, that is dominated by liberals. The political skill that took is significant.

A very moral person, Condi is close friend and confidant of the President. With hard work and dedication she has acheived an amazing amount already. It seems impossible that anyone could find time to become as accomplished in so many different fields. I nominate her for President in 2008.

Saturday, February 04, 2006

Iraqi civilians fight back against terrorists!

Note the difference between what I see as important in this news (my title above) and the liberal media sees as important (their title below). Attacks have been going on for quite a while. What is new? Iraqi civilians fought back and killed some of the terrorists, and wounded more. What does the media see as important? That the terrorists have not just rolled over and given up.

Iraqi insurgents resume deadly attacks
ABC - Australia - Friday, 4 February , 2005
Reporter: Mark Willacy

....... Now the people of this mixed village of Sunni and Shia Muslims, they ignored the threat and they did turn out to vote.

We understand that last night the insurgents came back to punish the people of al-Mudhariya, but instead of metering out that punishment the villagers fought back and they killed five of the insurgents and wounded eight. They then burnt the insurgents' car. So the people of that village have certainly had enough of the insurgents.

Another article with a similar message is the usual insightful reporting of Charles Krauthammer. His article here provides some historical perspective about the willingness of the MSM to believe only in their illusions.
Iraqis turned out to vote in great numbers, with great enthusiasm and determination. Surprise. The media have not been as surprised, noted a friend of mine, since the Nicaraguans turned out in their 1990 election to kick out the Sandinistas.
These two articles provide some great perspective you will not see much coverage of outside the blogs. The tide of victory is turning our way.

State Of The Democratic Party

by Tony Blankley - February 2, 2006 - The Washington Times
As the party of reactionary inertia — as the party that not only doesn't have any solutions to today's dangers and problems, but denies that such problems exist — the Democrats on the floor of the House Tuesday night demonstrated a flawless, intuitive sense of its new, disfunctional self.

The Democrats' wild applause on behalf of doing nothing was more than a merely tactical political blunder. It displayed a deeper truth about them.

If one recalls, last year the official position of the Democratic Party was not only that they opposed President Bush's Social Security reform. They also argued there was no crisis — no major problem that required rectification.

(In fact Social Security has four trillion dollars of unfunded liability, and if major changes are not made quickly, will only be able to pay the retired baby boomers about 70 cents for each dollar of promised benefits.)

The only problem with this situation is that for the vast majority of people who really care about this, they do not want to believe that someone else will not be taxed to fix it. The American citizen who needs social security will not accept the money will not be there. The American citizen who does not need social security wants no change as they are sure "change" will simply be higher taxes on them now.

There is thus a powerful political constituency for the status quo and kicking the problem down the road. Bush ran into this when he tried to fix the problem. Rather than getting credit for any solution, he got resentment that he made people think about the problem.

However the real frustration is that when the problem becomes reality down the road, democrats are sure they can blame it on Republicans. The writer of this article, Tony Blankley, does not think a rational person would accept this. He sees that it is a problem with the politics being played by the democratic party. However the democrats believe that they will not be held responsible for what they have done. It will be "interesting" to see who is right. Yes. That is definitely the right word. "Interesting".

Friday, February 03, 2006

The Dems' Week from Hell

Reposted as history. Originally posted in February of 2005.

by Noemie Emery - Issue date 02/14/2005 - The Weekly Standard

They're in a hole, and they keep digging

I wouldn't think having a former kleagle of the Ku Klux Klan lead a futile floor fight against the nomination of the first black woman to be secretary of state is a good way to enhance the appeal of the Democratic party to swing voters, but maybe that's just me," opined Jack Kelly.
There are some articles that you cannot improve on. I recommend you read this one. It has some of the best one-liners written this year. An example; "Bush thinks freedom is better than terror and tyranny; Democrats think they are better than Bush".

Thursday, February 02, 2006

What bloggers have wrought

Reposted as history. Originally posted in February of 2005.

Welcome to Jesusland Journalism School, Dan Rather
Mary Katharine Ham - February 1, 2005 - Townhall.com

There’s a big debate right now in the blogosphere about whether the CBS investigation was a whitewash. It does have the mark of Tom Sawyer’s paintbrush on it, but the important part is that everyone knows that.

Rathergate revealed and the investigation has reinforced that CBS is no longer in charge of the truth. They can “defend” and “conclude” until Rather runs out of pithy expressions, but it won’t change what everyone knows—that the documents were fakes and CBS and Rather were motivated by political bias.

That’s what happened when the Internet suddenly turned national media into a small-town newspaper, subject to the concerns, criticism and accountable to the abundant knowledge of its own readers.

Welcome to the blogosphere, where the MSM (that's "main stream media" to those new to blogs) is shocked to find "letters to the editor" are unfiltered, un-edited and ALWAYS published. Those who read blogs spread truth with the lightning speed of email and hyperlinks. The blog community determines truth, not some overpaid editor or producer. If you write something good, it will spread like wildfire. If you make a mistake, your inbox fills with severe criticism at the same speed and other blogs will cream you with great gusto. Rather still does not know what hit him, but he will go down in history as a biased partisan liar. Not the reputation he wanted, but what he deserves for sure.

Republicans And Blacks

by Thomas Sowell - January 31st, 2006 - TownHall.com

The Republican Party has not had much success attracting black votes in recent decades and conservative blacks have not had an easy time in the Republican Party.

Blacks have voted so overwhelmingly for Democrats for so long that Republicans have few incentives to try to gain black votes -- and little success when they do.

Political inertia can be powerful. The "solid South" voted consistently for Democrats for more than a century. Today, the Jewish vote is just as automatically for Democrats as the black vote is, and with even less reason, since Jews have little to gain from the welfare state and Israel's strongest supporters are religious conservatives.

When Republicans from time to time try to reach out to blacks, they tend to do so ineptly, if not ridiculously. For reasons unknown, they seem to want to appeal to black voters in the same ways that Democrats appeal to black voters, by adopting a liberal stance.

Why would anyone who wants liberalism go for a Republican imitation when they can get the real thing from Democrats? Republicans do not have a snowball's chance in hell of winning the votes of liberal blacks.

I think the reason that I have always admired Thomas Sowell is that he never soft pedals his views. He is straight forward and blunt. Unfortunately, even as the Republican Party has attracted more Libertarians and Neo-Conservatives, a certain number of "moderates" have come along with them. "Moderates" are so wishy washy that they do not understand what Sowell so eloquently expresses here. In recognizing that many blacks belong in the Republican Party, they think that they must reach out to current African-American leadership and their political positions. These are not the African-Americans who belong in the Republican Party. It is the great number of conservatives, libertarians and neo-conservatives who belong.

When is Republican leadership going to get this? Part of the reason I think is that most liberals as well as liberal blacks, immediately brand Republicans "racist" if you disagree with them. In order to avoid that label "racist", moderate Republicans tend to reach out to blacks with liberal programs. I wonder if a better strategy would not be to simply label this attack for what it is. Black racism. When liberal blacks have to resort to hurling the "racist" charge, it is usually because they have lost the argument.

There are a huge number of conservative, libertarian and neo-conservative African Americans. These are the natural Republican members who are starting to come to the Republican Party. In coming years and in many places they will become the dominant force in the Republican Party. Like here in the Inner Banks! We welcome conservatives to the party.

Wednesday, February 01, 2006

The Tennis Tempest At ABC

by Brent Bozell - Wednesday, February 1st, 2006 - TownHall.com

A few facts from Bozell's article:
1. Antonin Scalia assembled a 481 page packet of judicial information for a conference.
2. At this judicial conference Scalia taught for 10 hours before lawyers who were there to understand more about our courts and fulfill their continuing education requirements.
3. Scalia received no honorariaum for the conference.
4. While at the conference, Scalia played tennis for 2 hours.
5. ABC TV excoriated Scalia for taking a tennis junket as part of a so called expose on judicial abuse of trips.

Brent Bosell's article is a good article, but none of the above facts except the last are mentioned until deep in the article. Here is his opening.

If you thought Teddy Kennedy's pratfall over Samuel Alito's membership in a conservative Princeton alumni group was embarrassing (quoting magazine satire articles as if they were real), you should see what ABC's "Nightline" tried to pull last week.

The subject was the ethics of judicial travel. As investigative reporter Brian Ross explained in the middle of the piece, "Justices at all ends of the political spectrum take plenty of these trips to lots of nice places, all paid for by somebody else."

With the above background this is a good article and I highly recommend it. However the lead information Bozell chose does not make his article's point clear until quite late in the article. Sometimes I wonder whether conservative writers are more interested in attacking the mainstream media than in communicating their facts.

Alberto Gonzales is being smeared

Reposted as history. Originally posted in February of 2005.

The democrats are still fighting vigorously to maintain their control of the U.S. court system and its ability to legislate their agenda without support of the people. Afraid that Alberto Gonzales is being groomed for a position on the Supreme Court, they are trying to defame him and tarnish his reputation now so they can stop him later. This article describes their efforts.

Democrats flash steel on Gonzales
Gail Russell Chaddock - Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor - 2/1/2005
........"We heard from democracy activists all over the world distraught by the US record on detainees. They are saying: 'What can we say to our own governments if the US has authorized its military to take such actions against civilians?' " says Elisa Massimino, director of the Washington office of Human Rights First, formerly the Lawyers Committee for Human Rights, which is opposing the Gonzales nomination.
Civilians? Democracy activists? The people on the left have a socialist anti-American agenda which is based on never ackowledging that any terrorist opposed to America is anything but a "civilian" and that all socialists are called "democracy activists". The end result is that you can't accept anything they say as truthful. What is suprising is the open acceptance of this anti-American, leftist agenda by the Democratic party.

What they are complaining about is a memo that Gonzales did not write. He asked for the opinion of the Justice department and they wrote the memo at issue. The conclusions of the memo were not "authorized" as this socialist Massimino blithely claims. Their argument is that soldiers in Iraq, who never read the memo, or even heard about it, were influenced by the so called "environment" it created.

Just as the lie that Bush said the the danger of WMD in Iraq was "imminent" became a leftist "truth", repeated endlessly, we are now seeing the lie that Gonzales "authorized" Abu Ghraib as a constant refrain. When Democrats repeatedly adopt and embrace the agenda of the world's still powerful anti-American socialist movement, how can you believe that they remain a loyal opposition?