Monday, May 29, 2006

What JFK Might Tell Our Leaders

Reposted as history. Originally posted in May of 2005.

By Theodore C. Sorensen - May 28, 2005 - The Boston Globe

TOMORROW WOULD have been John F. Kennedy's 88th birthday. Were he still alive, I have no doubt that, with his customary idealism and commitment to country, he would still be offering advice to our current leaders in Washington. Based upon his words of more than 40 years ago, he might well offer the following:

To President George W. Bush on Iraq, Iran, and North Korea: ''The United States, as the world knows, will never start a war. This generation of Americans has had enough -- more than enough -- of war." (American University commencement, 1963)

[Kennedy, the man who kept missiles out of Cuba, would not have failed to note the war against us went on for 20 years before we retaliated. Starting a battle does not constitute starting a war. Kennedy would not have ignored 9/11.]

To President Bush on stem cell research: ''For those of us who are not expert ... we must turn, in the last resort, to objective, disinterested scientists who bring a strong sense of public responsibility and public obligation." (National Academy of Sciences, 1961)

[People who advocate the taking of human life for research are not objective, disinterested scientists. Opposing the spending of tax dollars while allowing private funds to continue to be spent is certainly more responsible than forcing people who hate abortion to have their tax dollars directed to something that they consider anathema.]

To Vice President Dick Cheney on international organizations, alliances, and consultations: ''The United States is neither omnipotent nor omniscient. We are only 6 percent of the world's population . . . we cannot impose our will upon the other 94 percent of mankind." (University of Washington, 1961)

[Multilateral for democrats means Russia, Cuba and France support us. Multilateral for Republicans means England, Poland and Australia support us. Notice anything significant about the character of nations the democrats admire? How much arrogance does it take to still insist that if no socialist states support us it is not multilateral?]

Sorenson and the rest of the Left are re-writing history. The bold entries are my responses to his bizarre accusations. As they have done with FDR, the left has abandoned Kennedy's principles and taken certain quotes out of context. They misconstrue the world we live in to support their new socialist principals (principals that Kennedy never espoused). In every case it is proof of their anti-Americanism.

I will not bother to answer all of Sorenson's attacks. I am simply amazed that his open admiration for socialism does not ever hamper his insistence the Left are not socialists.

Sunday, May 28, 2006

Global Hoax - "The Tempest"

by Joel Achenbach - Sunday, May 28, 2006 - The Washington Post
LET US BE HONEST about the intellectual culture of America in general: It has become almost impossible to have an intelligent discussion about anything.

Everything is a war now. This is the age of lethal verbal combat, where even scientific issues involving measurements and molecules are somehow supernaturally polarizing. The controversy about global warming resides all too perfectly at the collision point of environmentalism and free market capitalism. It's bound to be not only politicized but twisted, mangled and beaten senseless in the process. The divisive nature of global warming isn't helped by the fact that the most powerful global-warming skeptic (at least by reputation) is President Bush, and the loudest warnings come from Al Gore.

Human beings may be large of brain, but they are social animals, too, like wolves, and are prone to behave in packs. So when something like climate change comes up, the first thing people want to know is, whose side are you on? All those climatic variables and uncertainties and probabilities and "forcings" and "feedback loops," those cans of worms that Bill Gray talks about, get boiled down to their essence. Are you with us or against us?

Somehow Hitler keeps popping into the discussion. Gore draws a parallel between fighting global warming and fighting the Nazis. Novelist Michael Crichton, in State of Fear , ends with an appendix comparing the theory of global warming to the theory of eugenics -- the belief, prominently promoted by Nazis, that the gene pool of the human species was degenerating due to higher reproductive rates of "inferior" people. Both, he contends, are examples of junk science, supported by intellectual elites who will later conveniently forget they signed on to such craziness.

This is one of the most interesting articles I have found on the global warming issue. It covers most of the key points of both the supporters of the theory of global warming, and the views of those who doubt global warming is a problem. It is an excellent read, and if you want to have an opinion about global warming, you should understand what it says.

Politics Without Money

by Paul Jacob - May 28th, 2006 -
So what to do?

We could just limit the purview of government, and the money issue would peter out — after all, "paying Paul" would no longer be policy. If we brought back constitutional limits, and added some new ones, then there'd be scant incentive to invest in politicians to . . . do things they really shouldn't be doing anyway.

But a lot of people want anything but the Constitution, so that idea gets nixed. Politicians like the power that comes from spending gobs of other people's money, and many interest groups as well as citizens welcome being bought.

That's why politicians tend to prefer their own solution: socialized elections.

It is interesting how many Republicans are getting on board with the rapid growth of socialism in our nation. Socialism is not just the end of a free economy. It is government control of everything, especially elections. This article by Paul Jacob is the best article I have seen that ridicules John McCain and the Republicans who are getting on board with the concept of eliminating democracy from our elections. Because that is what government funded elections really becomes. Totalitarianism or socialism. Bureaucrats deciding who gets to "participate" in "democracy". That is what goverment funding and "limitations" on contributions are really all about. Ending democracy.

Saturday, May 27, 2006

Investing In The Right Ideas

Reposted as history. Originally posted in May of 2005.

BY James Pierson - Friday, May 27, 2005 - Wall Street Journal (
How philanthropists helped make conservatism a governing philosophy.

Reports by People for the American Way and the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy dwell with heavy emphasis on the supposedly nefarious strategies and tactics employed by the (conservative) foundations to advance their (in the opinion of progressives) highly dubious cause.

Invariably, these broadsides ignore the substance of the ideas themselves, quite as if John Stuart Mill's famous characterization of conservatives as "the stupid party" were still the rule in the early 21st century. But the plain fact is that modern conservatives have been engaged with the world of ideas to a far greater extent than most modern liberals.

Attacks by liberals-progressives-socialists on conservatives is an ancient tradition, as noted by the quote above. Al Gore probably thought he would be revered Like John Stuart Mill if he called George Bush stupid. Perhaps that is why no meaningul dialog is possible. When democrats start off with the opinion that conservatives are (in the words of today's democratic leader Howard Dean) "evil, corrupt and brain-dead", the consequence of this attitude are obvious. When you spew hate, hate is returned. Additionaly, no one ever listens to someone for whom they have contempt.

That is the reality we face today. The public dialog is as poisoned as it has ever been. Perhaps that is why the only place a dialog on important issues is currently going on is within the Republican Party.

Hayek is correctly given credit for the underpinnings of most of the different movements that are currently shaping our world, but that does not mean that all flavors of "conservatives" agree on everything. Republicans have a lively discussion going about all of the major issues of our times. The result has been conservative think tanks that discuss what is happening in the world, and how to deal with it effectively.

Democrats (i.e. liberals, socialists, progressives, by whatever label they chose at any moment) have opted out of the national conversation by two acts. Virulent hatred of conservatives the result of which is they don't listen to anything a conservative has to say, and the "political correctness" doctrine by which they have attempted to end discussion of thoughts or ideas they deem inappropriate to even discuss. The only people silenced have been those who care what democrats want, their own supporters.

The failure of socialism is ignored by democrats. Anything democrats propose and get into law is deemed a success no matter the "unintended consequences". This refusal to address reality is a serious shortcoming. Reality exists whether it is deemed acceptable to say or not.

Conservatives have not handicapped themselves with this attitude. Among conservatives worldwide, and especially here in America, the attitude is best summed up by Ronald Reagan's attitude, "if we agree 70%, then we should be friends". With this attitude it is possible to disagree and discuss complex matters with the open acceptance that leads to brilliant ideas coming to the fore.

The creation of these conservative think tanks, and the results they have obtained, would have led to less positive results if they were handicapped by a straight jacket of "political correctness".

This article is a must read. Everyone needs to learn more about the influence of F.A. Hayek on the world we live in. "The Road To Serfdom" is not his sole contribution. It is amazing how much we owe to this man.

Friday, May 26, 2006

Leaving The Left

Reposted as history. Originally posted in May of 2005.

Keith Thompson - Sunday, May 22, 2005 - San Francisco Chronicle (
I can no longer abide the simpering voices of self-styled progressives -- people who once championed solidarity

Nightfall, Jan. 30. Eight-million Iraqi voters have finished risking their lives to endorse freedom and defy fascism. Three things happen in rapid succession. The right cheers. The left demurs. I walk away from a long-term intimate relationship. I'm separating not from a person but a cause: the political philosophy that for more than three decades has shaped my character and consciousness, my sense of self and community, even my sense of cosmos.

Like Christopher Hitchens, Keith Thompson is a "classical liberal". It is interesting to see more and more "classical liberals" come to the reality that today's Left (socialist-progressive) has abandoned the ideal of classical liberalism and is solely committed to political power and the destruction of free enterprise (i.e. America as it's leading proponent) no matter who they have to align with to do it. This article explains why so many libertarians and "classical liberals" are coming over to the Republican Party. They are the neo-conservatives you hear so much about.

Thursday, May 25, 2006

Senate Charade

Reposted as history. Originally posted in May of 2005.

Editorial - 5/25/2005 - The Wall Street Journal (
A remarkable exercise in political self-protection

"We have kept the Republic," declared Democrat Robert Byrd, with all due modesty. "The Senate won" and "the country won," added Republican John McCain. All (who rigged this "compromise") are apparently destined for Mount Rushmore, as soon as Mr. Byrd can stuff the money for the sculpture into an appropriations bill.

What a charade. This ballyhooed "compromise" is all about saving the Senators themselves, not the Constitution. Its main point is to shield the group of 14 from the consequences of having to cast difficult, public votes in a filibuster showdown.

The 7 democrats are all being lauded by members of their party. The 7 Republicans are being excoriated by members of their party. Forget what the press says. The reaction of the two parties tells you everything you need to know about what this charade means.

High School Valedictorian’s Diploma Withheld

Reposted as history. Originally posted in May of 2005.

Because Of Graduation Speech
No writer listed - 5/24/2005 - Nashville News Channel 5 (dot com)
Abe Stokla said all he wanted to do was give a memorable speech, but what he thought was funny, school leaders considered offensive.
Stokla planned to say, “You have given us the minimum required attention and education to master any station at any McDonald’s anywhere. For that we thank you. Of course, I’m only kidding."

To the modern education administrator the tradition of free speech means nothing. They censor speech of anyone who does not adhere to the "politically correct" line. And it is not politically correct to make a joke about them.

Welcome to America in the 21st Century.

A Compromised Party

Reposted as history. Originally posted in May of 2005.

Thomas Sowell - May 25, 2005 -
Unity often beats disunity, even when the side that is unified is smaller. This is not a unique situation. Democrats have long understood that they are in Washington to represent the people who voted for them. Too many Republicans seem to think that they are in Washington to make deals with the Democrats.

The real question is what do Republicans do next? As far back as the Reagan years, many Republicans could not be counted on unless they felt that "their" man was going to win. Even now there are Republicans going around ranting that "the party" let them down and they are going elsewhere. These are mostly the same "good time charlies" who voted for Perot and put Clinton into power for 8 years.

The party did not wimp out and make a deal with the democrats. Seven turncoats did.

We only have one party that is dominated and led by socialists. "The Road To Serfdom" by Hayek makes it very clear that socialism leads to totalitarian control of people's lives. Socialism is not dead just because the Soviet Union collapsed. The people who secretly supported the Soviet Union are still among us. They are now globalists and still dedicated to socialism. They have adopted a new term to call themselves, "progressives". They now control the democratic party.

Stopping socialism is where we must focus our energies and effort. The democratic party will impose socialism however they can. They will use a judicial oligarchy or popular election. The result is what they care about. Not how. This is a test of those who wish to be free. We have to stop socialism by either method.

What are you going to do? Unify or drop out?

Wednesday, May 24, 2006

Bordering On Fraud

by Thomas Sowell - May 23rd, 2006 -
The immigration bill before Congress has some of the most serious consequences for the future of this country. Yet it is not being discussed seriously by most politicians or most of the media. Instead, it is being discussed in a series of glib talking points that insult our intelligence.

Some of the most momentous consequences -- a major increase in the number of immigrants admitted legally -- are not even being discussed at all by those who wrote the Senate bill, though Senator Jeff Sessions has uncovered those provisions in the bill and brought them out into the light of day.

How many times have we heard that illegal aliens are taking "jobs that Americans won't do"? Just what specifically are those jobs?

Once again our congressional leaders are passing a bill, not to help America become a better nation, or to defend our nation from external forces that are trying to destory it, but just so they can appear to be doing something that will help them get re-elected. In the earliest days of our nation, there was a great deal of concern that we had not protected ourselves from the corrupting influence of democracy. I believe in the concept of the people, but there are times when I worry that the naysayers were right. Democracy may not be able to last when the people want "bread and circus". The only defence is if our elected officials have character and it no longer appears that they do.

Thomas Sowell has pointed out the flaws of these bills. What are we going to do about them?

Tuesday, May 23, 2006

Democrats Oppose English As Official Language

The following Democrats voted to oppose recognizing English as America's official national language. They have not said what language they want but leading supposition is that they support making Russian America's official language in recognition of Russia's support for socialism. Socialism has now become the official religion of the Democratic Party.

The following is the list of Senators who voted against English.

Akaka (D-HI)
Bayh (D-IN)
Biden (D-DE)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Clinton (D-NY)
Dayton (D-MN)
Dodd (D-CT)
Domenici (R-NM)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Harkin (D-IA)
Inouye (D-HI)
Jeffords (I-VT)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Kohl (D-WI)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murray (D-WA)
Obama (D-IL)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Salazar (D-CO)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Schumer (D-NY)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Wyden (D-OR)

Though he is no longer a Senator, John Edwards expressed support for the vote against English.

North Carolina Republican Convention

Reposted as history. Originally posted in May of 2005.

ASHEVILLE - The North Carolina Republican Convention held this weekend celebrated the success of the party at the national level. It also celebrated having mostly national officials from North Carolina, with both of our Senators and the majority of our Representatives being Republican. The convention also addressed the disappointments that are the source of future challenges for the North Carolina party. We desire to convert the reality that Republicans get the largest number of votes in our state into a Republican state legislature and Republican Governor that reflects that vote advantage. I was privileged to attend as a delegate from Bertie County.

Bill Miller, Convention Chairman

This convention was more fun than most in large part because of the convention chairman, Bill Miller. Conventions have been known to be derailed by factional fights which the podium leader failed to properly manage. Bill did a great job of balancing the technical needs of getting all the work of the convention done, while keeping it interesting and on schedule. His sense of humor and timing were also great additions.

Ferrell Blount (on left) Was Re-elected State Chairman Of The North Carolina Republican Party

Political party conventions are always an interesting exercise. From the earliest days of our nation, the founders were surprised at how political parties became major players in government. They should not have been surprised. They created a democratic republic but could not alter the need for a governing coalition to make it work.

Convention Floor Is Jammed, While Guest Balcony Is Empty

The question is always, how do you go about putting together a governing coalition? We are a nation with numerous ideas about how to govern. Everybody has one..... on every subject that government touches. Since they are all different opinions however, compromise is a critical part of this. The trick is organizing the compromise. That is where parties have always been effective since it is unrealistic to expect that everybody can negotiate with everyone else.

Richard Burr, Keynote Speaker, Received A Standing Ovation, Both Before And After His Inspiring Speech, This Group Loves Him

In most cases the existence of a party is representative of a movement that backs it. Republicans are the conservative party. It is also the reason that every party has to have a platform, to explain the movement. This is the statement not just to the outside world, but to the party members of what they have agreed to in principle. So party conventions are always concerned with what the platform will say.

Chairmen's Organization Breakfast, With Jim Burgio, Lance Barrett, David Rickard, Kyle Puryear, Bob Pruett, Dale Rankin And Joe Jones

Platforms are no longer a short statement of basic philosophy (such as the 10 commandments) but have evolved over time into fairly specific statements. The North Carolina Republican platform covers family, economic policy, individual liberty, sanctity of life, state government, election laws, education, justice, environment and national policy. Though there were some spirited discussions in getting the platform adopted, the end result seemed to satisfy the delegates who were present. You can read the details of the platform here.

Chairman Joseph Avery Of Johnston County Greeted By DeVan Barbour Upon Arrival

Conventions are also a place where movement leaders are asked to motivate the organization. This year we had speeches from two great leaders of our conservative movement, Dr. Mike Adams, a North Carolina college professor who has become a national leader of conservative education and restoring free speech, and Dr. Jerome Corsi, co-author of "Unfit For Command", who is leading a movement to democratize Iran. Mike had the convention stomping and cheering. We also had a great speech from our new Senator, Richard Burr, who really moved the crowd.

Dr. Mike Adams (on right), Author of "Welcome To The Ivory Tower Of Babel"

Another major issue of interest for the convention was the selection of state party leadership for the future. Two impressive individuals were vying for the top post of State Chairman, Ferrell Blount and Vernon Robinson. The party has two types of people that must be motivated; those who have committed to the party operation, the party activists, and those who vote. The individual who serves as chairman is usually the person who best can balance representing the party philosophy while emphasizing the practical aspects of party operation and management. Ferrell Blount was the winner.

There were several other positions that were filled, both at the state party level and in various groups within the party organization.

One Of The Dinners That Are Constant During The Convention, (from left) Duval Smith, Jacqueline Pearlman, Zach Clayton And Delegate From Johnston County

As the convention came to an end, the one thing that was clear was that enthusiasm remained high throughout. Republicans can sense that they are in tune with North Carolina's people, and they believe that things will only get better in the future.

Spirited Entertainment Kept Enthusiasm High, Here The "Toe Jam Time Cloggers"

The major impressions I have of the 3 days is a constant swirl of activity; frantic reading of one more document that you are going to have to vote on in a few minutes, climbing the steep hill to the Asheville Civic Center (best exercise I have had in years), rushing to dress for another dinner with another great speech, remembering names of another dozen people met one after the other, trying to get a sense of what the various people you are to vote on are like when you meet them, networking at the hospitality suites and finally, the overwhelming energy that comes from these institutions of American democracy. If you have never been to a party convention, it is your loss. They are amazing.

Monday, May 22, 2006

Not Just Immigration: It's Societal Transformation

By Mark Steyn - May 21st, 2006 - Chicago Sun-Times
From the Washington Times: "The Senate voted yesterday to allow illegal aliens to collect Social Security benefits based on past illegal employment."

Well, I think that's the kind of moderate compromise "comprehensive immigration reform" package all Americans can support, don't you?

Some mean-spirited extremist House Republicans had proposed that illegal aliens should only receive 75 percent of the benefits to which they're illegally entitled for having broken the law.

Steyn at his most sarcastic. Probably only funny to those who are already upset with the illegal immigration that is occuring. I recently read an argument that comforms with Steyn's obvious frustration with the whole tone of this disagreement. We are repeatedly told that "we can't deport all 12 million illegal aliens" so we should not try. Well we can't catch all murderers either. Does this mean we should not try to catch them. Let's give them amnesty too.

Friday, May 19, 2006

The Speaker's Wrath

by Robert Novak - May 18th, 2006 -
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert, a 64-year-old ex-high school wrestling coach, ordinarily is not a shouter. But according to Capitol Hill sources, he engaged in a high decibel rant last week when he met with Vice President Dick Cheney. The speaker was enraged by the sacking of his friend and former colleague, Porter Goss.

Hastert was so vituperative that a private session with President George W. Bush in the living quarters of the White House was scheduled immediately (although Hastert aides said the meeting had been planned previously). The speaker toned down his volume on the hallowed ground and did more listening than talking. But the president did not slake Hastert's wrath over the abrupt sacking of Goss as CIA director.

George W. Bush has proven once again that he is not a politician, nor much of a statesman, nor much of a Republican. Porter Goss was sent to the CIA for a simple reason. The CIA had declared war on the Republican Party. Democrats, never any true friend of the role and purpose of the CIA, were attacking Goss for defending Bush. Clinton era promotees were being shown the door for involving themeselves in political actions that were clearly illegal. So Bush, ever anxious to befriend his enemies, sacked Goss.

At a time when Bush needs friends in his own party, he is once again the target of conservatives who are outraged at his position on immigration, and his willingness to stab them in the back. The comment about "vigilantes" comes to mind.

Between Bush's incompetent wasting of political capital on the failed efforts on Social Security, something his own party never was unified on, and his failure to maintain focus on the war, this latest tone deaf attack on his base seems almost suicidal (politically!).

Thursday, May 18, 2006


Reposted as history. Originally posted in May of 2005.

by Thomas Sowell - May 18th, 2005 -

It was perhaps appropriate that Dan Rather received the prestigious Peabody award in journalism at the same time when Newsweek magazine was finally backing away from its false story about Americans flushing the Koran down the toilet at the Guantanamo prison.

At least Dan Rather's forged documents didn't get anybody killed, as the phony Newsweek story did. What is even more revealing -- and appalling -- about the mainstream media is that they are now circling the wagons around Newsweek, to protect it from criticism, just as they circled the wagons around Dan Rather last year, and now give him an award this year to put the frosting on the cake.

Leave it to Thomas Sowell to get to the heart of this issue. There will be no honest reporting by any of the MSM about this anymore. They are in circle the wagon mode.

The MSM bias cannot be tolerated any longer. Stop reading newspapers! Just read blogs.

Leftist Media Missed A Turn To The Right

Reposted as history. Originally posted in May of 2005.

by Janet Albrechsten - May 18th, 2005
With much of the blogo-sphere tilting right, and looking - dare one say it - decidedly mainstream, parts of the old media are bunkering down. They have become the new reactionaries, sticking to what Anderson calls their illiberal liberalism. Old media derides the blogger as "a guy sitting in his living room in his pyjamas writing what he thinks". Old media detests the Fox phenomenon and those dastardly "shock jocks" -- you know, those radio broadcasters who often attract more listeners than newspapers have readers.

But their sniping cannot hide the fact that the mainstream media is no longer the gatekeeper of information. The gates are open and even a guy in pyjamas can do a better job than old media.

It is interesting that even in Australia, the leftist bias of American MSM is totally clear. It appears that the Internet has reached Australia. I wonder why no one in our major newspapers of TV stations seems to get what blogs are about. Is it perhaps that they are not just biased, but so biased they are incapable of change?

Wednesday, May 17, 2006

Mag Dead Wrong

Reposted as history. Originally posted in May of 2005.

To be absolutely clear, let me expand that headline - Magazine "Dead" Wrong. Dead, as in people died. Real people who will never again be able to hug their children.

by Deborah Orin - May 17th, 2005 - The Washington Post

WASHINGTON — Newsweek yesterday abruptly retracted its collapsing claim that GIs flushed a Koran down the toilet, after the magazine got blasted by the White House — and sparked riots that killed at least 17 in the Muslim world.

"Based on what we know now, we are retracting our original story that an internal military investigation had uncovered Qur'an [Koran] abuse at Guantanamo Bay," Newsweek editor Mark Whitaker wrote.

Newsweek's belated admission that it was wrong in claiming that a probe had found interrogators at the detainee camp at the U.S. base in Cuba flushed a Koran came after days of refusing to budge, even after its lone anonymous source said he couldn't stand by the story.

Once again the main stream media (MSM) writes an article from their politically biased perspective that America is always the bad guy, and anything negative about us must be true. In a world where we have real enemies (besides the MSM) this article gave them an excuse to drum up riots and kill those who are our allies.

Today, the press is still insisting that the Pentagon did not stop them from printing it. They argue it is therefore not really the fault of the press. What hypocrisy. If the Pentagon had said they thought it was false but could not immediately prove it was false, the story would have been about how the Millitary was trying to cover up something. The most important part of this story is how clearly it proves the bias of the MSM.

Tuesday, May 16, 2006

Bolton's Sin Is Telling Truth About System

Reposted as history. Originally posted in May of 2005.

by Mark Steyn - May 15th, 2005 - Chicago Sun-Times
When rent-a-quote senators claim to be pro-U.N. or multilateralist, the tsunami operation is what they have in mind -- that when something bad happens the United States should commit to working through the approved transnational bureaucracies and throw even more "resources" at them, even though nothing will happen (Sri Lanka), millions will be stolen (Oil for Food), children will get raped (U.N. peacekeeping operations) and hundreds of thousands will die (Sudan).

The attacks on John Bolton are being motivated by concern for what the "international community" will think of us. When George Voinovich and the democrats say "international community", what they mean is the global socialists who hate America. What I want to know is why we care what America haters think? Why is this Republican Voinovich touting their line?

John Bolton is an honorable man who is being besmirched by liars in the "international community", and their socialist representatives here in America.

Monday, May 15, 2006

Nowhere To Run

Reposted as history. Originally posted in May of 2005.

by Jack Kelly - May 15th, 2005 - Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
The insurgents in Iraq are active, but increasingly desperate

More than 400 people have been killed in Iraq in the last two weeks, including at least five U.S. Marines taking part in Operation Matador in western Iraq.

A reader wants to know if, in light of this upsurge in violence, I still believe, as I wrote in a
column Feb. 27, that "the war in Iraq is all but won."

My answer is emphatically yes.

It is becoming much clearer that we are winning the war in Iraq. Both Al Qaeda and the democratic party are becoming more hysterical in their attacks.

The NAACP's Fight Against Private School Vouchers

by Star Parker - May 15th, 2006 -
So why would the NAACP work to kill a program that gives low income minority kids a chance to get a good education at a private school?

"Vouchers siphon off money from public education," according to the president of the NAACP's New York Chapter.

But, of course, vouchers do not siphon off money from the public school system. However, they do cause the public school system to compete for those funds. Vouchers shift power to parents from bureaucrats.

Here, as elsewhere, NAACP leadership automatically equates big government with black interests.

There is no question but that black leadership is courrently aligned with the big government attitude of socialism. Not only the NAACP but most other black leadership is comletely dedicated to socialism. They take their cues from ANSWER and various other global socialism front groups, which to a great extent are also anti American.

However this is rapidly changing in the community even if the leadership is not yet on board. More and more the natural conservative attitudes of much of the African-American community, their love of God, their moral commitment, their willingness to work, their pride in community . . . makes them realize that the corruption of socialism is simply not compatible with their values.

That is one reason that the black leadership is so hostile to the Republican Party. They know they are losing their power.

Sunday, May 14, 2006

Politics Lost

by George Will - May 14th, 2006 -

WASHINGTON -- Half a century ago, the best columnist America has ever produced, Murray Kempton, lamented that the absence of honest passion was a shared characteristic of professional wrestling and American politics. Kempton was dismayed because in 1952 the Eisenhower campaign hired an advertising agency. What would we come to next?

What Time magazine columnist Joe Klein thinks we have come to -- politics "gangrenous with cynicism" -- is summarized in the title of his invigorating new book, Politics Lost: How American Democracy Was Trivialized by People Who Think You're Stupid.

Mr. Will is one of many people who are worried about politics in America, and this book review covers a new book that makes that point. This is an excellent article that everyone who votes should read. The courts are rapidly permitting the evisceration of "free speech" and in the process subverting democracy.

We must stop McCain-Feingold and other laws that permit government to decide who gets to speak, and criminalizes anyone who violates the new rules in a way the courts or the bureaucrats think is wrong. In the process we need to recognize how dangerous people like John McCain are when they think it is perfectly okay for bureaucrats to decide who should be allowed to participate in democracy. John McCain believes he has the right to stop free speech of those he believes fall short of his standards.

This is America?

Cinderella Story

Reposted as history. Originally posted in May of 2005.

by Duncan Currie - May 13th, 2005 - The Daily Standard
Two conservative underdogs emerge victorious in Dartmouth's alumni trustee elections.

THE PETITION CANDIDATES DID IT. In a stunning--at least to their critics--upset, Peter Robinson and Todd Zywicki each won an alumni seat on Dartmouth College's board of trustees. The results were made public yesterday afternoon, following two months of electronic and mail-in voting.

Chalk up another victory for the "New Media"--namely, for the conservative blogosphere. Robinson and Zywicki relied heavily on the Internet to publicize their efforts.

The blogs win again. It is amazing how blogs are changing what is happening in our nation. At every level, groups accustomed to complete control of the public dialog in their sphere are being challenged by the blogs, and losing. In this case, the liberal power block of college teachers lost to outsiders who believe that the political blackballing of conservatives must end.

Saturday, May 13, 2006

Bust Judicial Filibusters

Reposted as history. Originally posted in May of 2005.

by C. Boyden Gray - May 13th, 2005 - Human Events Online
As Republican leaders have moved closer to restoring 214 years of Senate tradition of giving judicial nominees an up-or-down vote, Democrats have launched an aggressive defense of their unprecedented use of the filibuster that is based on mythology, not fact.

Elections must have consequences. This article shows some of the ways in which democrats are twisting logic and history upside down. There is no honest precedent for their refusal to allow an up or down vote on these judicial nominees. Certainly there is no precedent to take an entire group of nominees, including Janice Rogers Brown, and spread the extremist lies about them that democrats are spreading.

Friday, May 12, 2006

Charter Schools & Choice

Reposted as history. Originally posted in May of 2005.

What is all the fuss about?

Debra England - May 1, 2005 -
In The Road to Serfdom, a brilliant treatise on the dangers of collectivist ideologies, Nobel Prize-winning economist F.A. Hayek demonstrated the contradictions inherent between command economies and personal liberty. Hayek deftly illustrated how attempts to control entire economies – or even significant portions of an economy - result inevitably in the growth of totalitarianism and a commensurate loss of personal freedom. Where better to apply Hayek’s analysis today than to the $400 billion anachronistic government monopoly that is our public K-12 educational system?
How can there be so many problems with our school system? I have met numerous public school teachers who are good decent people, and yet they are incapable of seeing how horrible the sysetm they work in performs. They are defensive about criticism of the system and become hostile very quickly if you question anything about it. They have good intentions and thus cannot see how the results of their efforts do not match.

There could not be a single greater improvement to the education system than if every teacher was compelled to understand how "good intentions" can destroy personal freedom as shown by
The Road to Serfdom. Perhaps they would stop believing that all who are unhappy with the current state of education are their enemies.

Thursday, May 11, 2006

On Bluffs And Nuclear Options

Reposted as history. Originally posted in May of 2005.

By Lee Harris - May 11th, 2005 - Tech Central Station

A Two Hundred Year Old Tradition?

Democrats tells us that the filibuster tradition is two hundred years old, making it almost as old as the United States itself. Just Google the phrase "the filibuster tradition" and up will pop a number of sites in which it is confidently stated that the filibuster tradition goes back to the earliest days of the Senate.

However the truth is that the "fillibuster" as we know it was invented by 11 extremist "liberals" who opposed the First World War. As noted in Lee's article, "It is one thing to filibuster against a minor bill affecting people's lives only marginally, and quite another thing to filibuster against a nation's efforts to prepare to fight a war, and it was the willfulness of the willful 11 that drove the Senate to reach for a procedure that would allow a way of terminating filibusters, provided it could be shown that the overwhelming majority of the Senate was desirous of this termination."

If you want to get the true history of this process, this is a great article to understand it. The article addresses both how it came about and why it can be a good thing. The question of whether the good it does is served in its current use by democrats is not so clear.

Republicans And Immigration

by Thomas Sowell - May 11th, 2006 -

Maybe some recent polls will put some backbone into Senate Republicans. But don't bet the rent money on it.

The percentages vary a little from poll to poll, as is usually the case, but these polls agree on one thing -- the public's top priority on the immigration issues is controlling the borders.

As usual Thomas Sowell points our reality. Whether explaining economics or explaining Republican inconsistency, Sowell always gets to the heart of the matter.

We have to defend our borders. There is not one war going on, there are two. We are not under attack from the islamofascists alone but from the Mexicans as well. Reconquista is reality and unless America starts to defend our borders, this 220 year old democracy will be gone. If the Southwest goes back to Mexico, the deconstruction of the union that was attempted once before will happen again. The bloodshed will be just as bad this time as last, but the consequences of the outcome are not likely to be as positive. I see no Abraham Lincoln saving the union this time.

Do you really see the people who have formed ANSWER as being willing to stay in a nation where they have lost the votes of California? Without California the democratic party is finished.

However Sowell is right. In the meantime we seem to have a Republican Party that is determined to help the Mexican invasion succeed.

Wednesday, May 10, 2006

To win this year, Republicans
need to run like Democrats

by Dick Morris - May 10th, 2006 - The Hill

For the first time since the Gingrich revolution, the Republican Party is facing massive defeat. Will its congressmen and senators go down in the upcoming 2006 elections like the Democratic lemmings did in 1994, faithfully parroting their president’s dogma while they sank below the horizon? Or will they have the dexterity and flexibility to move to the center and the left to meet the coming onslaught?

Dick Morris is always saying things that defy conventional wisdom. He is frequently right. Oops. That should be "correct", not "right". He is occasionally "right" and frequently "left". However he is smart enough at this game of politics that you should always listen to his advise, even when you don't take it.

He is now taking the position that the Republican Party is wrong on three issues:

1. Wrong on global warming. The public thinks global warming is happening, and it does not matter whether it is or not, saying the evidence doesn't support it merely means the Republican Party is disbelieved.

2. Wrong on gas prices. Statistical evaluations that say gas prices are below their long term levels when adjusted for inflation, like back during the Carter days, simply conflicts with people's desire for a free lunch. They also don't care about the issue of demand surge exceeding the number of refineries that government has refused to allow increased. They want cheaper prices and want the government to find the evil robber barrons who are jacking up the prices and do not care whether there really are robber barrons or not. They want scalps and they want them now.

3. Wrong on Iraq. The war has gone on too long for most voters. They want out. They don't care what is in our long term national interest, they don't care that they can't be drafted, they don't care if things are getting better, they are tired of the debate and they want it to end. If nuclear bombs hit our cities later because we pull out too soon it will not be their fault because they don't care what is right. They want out. Stop the war now.

Dick Morris believes that Republicans will lose the election unless individual candidates are allowed to pander to these popular misconceptions. He may be right. It just seems to me that he is arguing that democracy cannot survive because the people are too stupid to make good decisions in complex times. I believe in democracy. I sure hope Dick Morris is wrong.

Tuesday, May 09, 2006

Filibuster More Likely For Boyle

By Jonathan Allen - May 9th, 2006 - The Hill
Republican senators are welcoming the impending return of judicial nominations to the Senate floor as D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals nominee Brett Kavanaugh moves toward consideration and the White House readies a new list of judges to send to Capitol Hill.

Kavanaugh, who had a rare second hearing before the Judiciary Committee yesterday, does not appear to be in as much danger of drawing a serious filibuster as another Bush nominee, Terrence Boyle.

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) plans to bring Kavanaugh’s nomination to the floor before Memorial Day, but Boyle’s future remains less certain.

This is bizarre. This is an article claiming that Democrats are trying to stop Terrence Boyle from becoming a federal Judge. Terrence Boyle should be fillibustered, but he should be filibustered by Republicans. He may have been reversed 165 times but that is more because of his shortcomings as a Judge than having a bias against minorities, the Democratic claim.

In our Bertie County desgregation case, he actually became so confused at one point that he asked if the children who were currently attending the school he was ordering closed, J.P. Law, would be transferred to the school that was fartherest away and least likely to be of help, West Bertie Elementary. Despite years of handling this case he still doesn't have a clue what the case was about, or the consequences of the orders that he made, or have the slightest clue what Bertie County needs or how it is organized. It didn't appear he knew the law either, as he let the Department of Justice lawyer make claims that were counter to the more recent appeal court rulings. A Judge that doesn't know the law and is confused by a case is not the kind of Judge that Bush should be appointing.

I hope that Richard Burr and Elizabeth Dole will join in voting to block this man from the bench. He does not deserve to be a federal Judge.

Democrats Protect U.N. Why?

Reposted as history. Originally posted in May of 2005.

Overtime at the Iniquity Factory
Jed Babbin - 5/9/2005 - The American Spectator

We -- all those who care to see that justice is done, that those who bribed and were bribed are jailed and the money stolen from the people of Iraq returned -- have lost any faith in Volcker's investigation. It's about as likely to determine the facts of the Oil for Food scam as Mohamed el-Baradei's purblind International Atomic Energy Agency is to find that Iran is building nuclear weapons. El-Baradei may discover the truth if a mushroom cloud rises over Dallas, but Volcker never will.

The entire time this Oil-For-Bribes scandal has been going on, democrat leadership has defended the U.N., and attacked anyone who criticized the U.N. The democrat candidates in the recent campaign against Bush had one primary charge, that he did not let the U.N. handle Iraq. They kept insisting that he had to be "multi-lateral", which to them meant, let the U.N. take the lead in all international relations.

John Bolton, nominated for Ambassador to the U.N. is being attacked because he cannot be depended on to defer to the U.N. When did the democrat party become slavishly devoted to defending the U.N. in the face of massive evidence it is anti-American? And why are they so supportive of this anti-American institution?

Check out the recent proposal by democrat leadership that America hating communist W.E.B. DuBois be honored by our government. This was not done because there is some large group of Americans who wanted DuBois honored. International socialists wanted it. The national leadership of the democrat party is blatantly if quietly pro-socialist and active supporters of the global socialist movement. Democrat voters are neither pro U.N. or predominatly pro socialist (though a large number of the most militant are!).

Many people here in N.E. North Carolina don't even know what their party means when it takes actions like the DuBois incident. They are so far removed from the current leadership of the party that they seem puzzled when you mention socialism. We cannot ignore this disconnect. Local democrats cannot be allowed to pretend they are not culpable for the anti-American agenda of their national leadership. It is time for local democrats to decide if they are for socialism or not. The first step is to have a discussion of what that means.

In the meantime, the U.N. must be resisted strongly. Since the U.N. is at the center of the anti-American, pro socialist movement in the world, that means we must resist democrats at every level. We must start this resistance before that nuclear cloud rises over Dallas.

The War We Are Fighting Needs A More Accurate Name

by Dennis Prager - May 9, 2006 -
To understand what Americans are fighting, it is necessary to first understand that we are not fighting a "War on Terror." We are no more fighting a "War on Terror" than we fought a "War on Kamikazes" in World War II. Of course we had to stop Kamikaze attacks, the suicide crashing by Japanese pilots of airplanes into American war ships. But we were fighting Japanese fascism and imperialism.

The same holds true today. We are fighting Islamic fascism and imperialism (though surely not all Muslims).

The most important question about this article is a realistic assessment of the consequences for the war if the average Muslim is confused by any new name we choose. George Bush, and many of the advisers that persuaded him to adopt the phrase in support of the war that the neo-cons urged him to undertake, rightly understood that winning this war would be tougher if the average Muslim thought it was a religious war. It is not important just to make sure it is not a religious war. It is important that the average Muslim understand that. Otherwise when we win we are simply sowing the seeds for the next war, just as has happened so many times before.

Several writers have suggested "islamofascist" as a name for the war. In this article, Prager mentions, "Islamic fascism", but suggests also "radical Islam," "militant Islam" or "Islamist". However his thesis is in support of a new term based on the theory that the war is rooted in "Islamic imperialism".

He mentions one source of the new term when he says "My working definition of imperialism is that of University of London professor Efraim Karsh, whose recent book, 'Islamic Imperialism' (Yale University Press), is one of the few indispensable books on Islam."

I support changing the name for an important reason. The original reason for the term "war on terror" as the name for this war, however valid its intention may have been, failed to appreciate the undermining effect on the American populace. The ambiguity of the "war on terror" term is helping the anti-war (and anti-American) crowd to weaken American resolve. As long as we continue to fight against the "islamofascists" or the "islamic imperialists" and are carefull not to make war on the moderate Muslims, we can rally Americans behind a clear target. That is why we need a clear name, to rally Americans. I believe we should deal in some other way with the risk of inflaming Muslim moderates than calling this war by a confusing name.

Friday, May 05, 2006

Never Again?

By Charles Krauthammer - Friday, May 5, 2006 - The Washington Post
The establishment of Israel was a Jewish declaration to a world that had allowed the Holocaust to happen -- after Hitler had made his intentions perfectly clear -- that the Jews would henceforth resort to self-protection and self-reliance. And so they have, building a Jewish army, the first in 2,000 years, that prevailed in three great wars of survival (1948-49, 1967 and 1973).

But in a cruel historical irony, doing so required concentration -- putting all the eggs back in one basket, a tiny territory hard by the Mediterranean, eight miles wide at its waist. A tempting target for those who would finish Hitler's work.

There is little doubt that since 9/11, the safety of the world is dependent on effectively dealing with radical islam. That movement that has also been called islamofascism. George Bush uses the euphemism "terrorists" to avoid naming the group in a way that includes the word Islam. He thinks this helps with keeping the war from becoming a war between Islam and the West. In reality, it already is a war between "militant" Islam and the West. How much the ambiguos name has kept moderate Islam from joining is still on open question.

In the meantime, my main focus has been on America's relationship with the "islamofascists", and my belief that 9/11 signalled the certainty that we had to do something really dramatic to change the dynamics of this war that has been going on for over 20 years. It is only a matter of time until nuclear bombs are going off in American cities. However this article by Charles Krauthammer reminds us that the precipitating event for the next great war is more likely the destruction of Israel by the same religious fantatics that created 9/11 than another attack on America.

There is a great body of Americans who are not paying attention. They have no interest in the Middle East and the coming storm is simply being ignored, just as it was ignored in 1938. This time though, unlike in World War II, the enemy will have nuclear bombs. Pakistan already has them and the vast majority of that nation supports not the current government that is on our side, but the fantatics who would use the bombs against us. Iran will have nuclear bombs soon. It is only a matter of time until some part of the radical islam fringe gets their hands on them. Which city do you think will disappear first, Washington or New York? For Americans that is important.

As Krauthammer points out that question really is only about the first city in America. More and more it seems likely that the first city to go will be Tel Aviv. What will America do if that happens? Never again?

Innocent Until Proven Guilty?

Reposted as history. Originally posted in May of 2005.

Not if you are a Republican who supports Israel. Just ask Lawrence Franklin.

The Franklin Arrest
New York Sun - Staff Editorial - May 5, 2005

As for Mr. Franklin, he was nothing if not a staunch critic of an unelected bureaucracy he believed was too complacent about the threat posed by Iran and other terrorist states. On the basis of what is now known, he deserves an apology. It may turn out that the FBI will file additional charges against him. But until that happens, and it is looking much less likely that it will, then the burden is on his slanderers in the government to show their faces.

However I would not hold my breath expecting it to happen. Mark this as one more attack of the democrat lie machine. Like the attacks on John Bolton and John Ashcroft, the attack on Lawrence Franklin is merely additional evidence of the socialist and anti American inclinations of the entrenched bearucrats in Washington. Sandy Berger can be convicted of stealing documents and he walks. A Republican discusses with our allies things that are "claimed" to be off limits and (without conviction) his reputation is destroyed. Think anyone in the press will apologize?

[On 6/13/2005 Franklin was finally indicted for some the crimes of which he has been accused in the press. It still does not explain why Sandy Berger got away with worse. If convicted I am sure Franklin will do hard time. Why? Because he is helping that evil nation Israel. Berger was simply helping our friends, communist China.]

Wednesday, May 03, 2006

State of the Scare

Reposted as history. Originally posted in May of 2005.

By Joel Schwartz - May 3rd, 2005 - Tech Central Station
Recent air quality improvements are extraordinary. Days exceeding EPA's tough new 8-hour ozone standard dropped more than 50 percent nationwide between 2003 and 2004, even though 2003 was itself a record [low] year. Forty-four percent of ozone monitoring locations violated the standard as of the end of 2003, but only 31 percent as of the end of 2004. Both are huge improvements over the 1970s, when 80 percent of monitors violated the 8-hour standard.

This is an excellent article that goes through some fairly complex technical issues in a way that allows the non technical to follow them. What is happening is that air quality has improved dramatically over the last 35 years, but environmentalists who have an extreme agenda refuse to acknowledge the improvement. They continue their "chicken little" insistence that "the sky is falling" even as all evidence shows air quality is dramatically better. They are simply trying to scare the general public with interpretations of data that are essentially lying.

One irony is a study by the enviro-extremists intended to show how "bad" things are, included data from the California Air Resources board that showed asthma incidence was 30 percent lower in areas with the highest ozone levels. With such evidence that contradicts their conclusions you cannot give credence to any of their conclusions.

One paragraph in the article proving the success of the constant barrage of enviro-extremist propaganda is depressing.

Polls continue to show that most Americans believe air pollution has stayed the same or worsened over the last decade, will worsen in the future, and is a widespread and serious threat to health even at current, historically low levels. All of these beliefs are false.
I will repeat that final conclusion, ALL OF THESE BELIEFS ARE FALSE. None of the data proving how much things are improving is EVER published in the Main Stream Media. However any hysterical report claiming that "the sky is falling" will receive front page news all over America.

You have to wonder why!

Tuesday, May 02, 2006

Newspaper Circulation Continues Decline

Reposted as history. Originally posted in May of 2005.

Newspaper Circulation Continues Decline, Forcing Tough Decisions
By Julia Angwin and Joseph T. Hallinan - Staff Reporters - The Wall Street Journal - May 2, 2005

The biggest publishers may show the largest declines: Gannett Co., which owns about 100 newspapers, says it will be down "a couple of points" from last year's levels. Circulation at Tribune Co.'s Los Angeles Times is likely to be off in excess of 6% of its most recently reported figures. Belo Corp.'s Dallas Morning News expects to report daily circulation down 9% and Sunday circulation down 13% from the year-earlier period.
The Newspaper Industry is looking for some way to reverse their decline. However the reality is that the problem is not a simple one. There are both structural and perception issues to deal with.

Though there is a tendency to blame the problem on the Internet (and to a lesser extent Cable), it is important that the newspaper editors and publishers get a better grasp on what that means. The major source of newspaper revenue, advertising, has always been in competition with the Yellow Pages. They simply had an advantage in being able to produce their ad pages daily instead of once a year. The Internet is penetating this basic type of business advertising dramatically as the instantaneous update nature of the Internet gives it an advantage over both Yellow Pages and Newpapers. Both will suffer.

In addition movies, autos and job ads are being penetrated heavily by the Internet, as the search capabilities make them so much easier to use than the newspaper.

However the splashy part of newspapers has always been the front page and editorials. When you say newspapers, that is what both the newspaper people and the public think of first. However two factors have damaged newspaper's perception here. First, news reporters are heavily liberal, biased and blind to their bias. Thus they alienate half of their customers with most of what they write. Secondly they have lost their monopoly, and the ability to chastise them for their errors has become simple and easy due to the blogs. This has created resentment on the part of reporters. These two factors have left the newspaper people with a reputation among their customers for being arrogant and out of touch, a perception that will not go away by arguing that it is not fair. As a former boss noted, arguing with your customer that he is wrong is a bad way to try to sell him something.

When times are changing you need goodwill to get through the problems. It is ironic that newspapers reject the need for fixing these two perception issues as a precursor to dealing with the structural changes in their industry. However that really says that the preception of arrogance is justified. The article is right when it says that tough decisions are needed.

So far newspapers have not indicated they are ready.