Hero Cop May Have Saved Scores Of Lives

by Staff - June 29, 2007 - Sky News

Sky News sources say one of the first police officers on the scene of the London West End car bomb may have saved dozens of lives by defusing the explosives before the bomb squad arrived.

It is believed the quick-thinking cop recognised that the car was wired to blow up, jumped in and disconnected the trigger device, thought to be a mobile phone. This backs up an eye-witness account of a police officer briefly entering the metallic green Mercedes before running for cover.

People are being warned to stay vigilant after the discovery of the "massive" car bomb, which could have killed hundreds of nightclub revellers.

Before commenting on the article, I would first like to thank the police officer who stuck his head into that car and defused the bomb. A couple of liberal reporters said that his actions didn't accomplish much, because in their opinion "the bomb had already malfunctioned." So what? Do you think that makes him less than a hero? He didn't know that when he ran towards that car to defuse it. Thanks to all the courageous men who serve as police and firefighters and soldiers. They usually come through in moments of crisis and they really are heros. God bless them.

And now a few comments about the liberal writers and editors of our news, especially the politically correct article above.

Telling people to "stay vigilant" is good advice. It would help if there was even a teeny clue in this article as to who they should "stay vigilant" against. However you can read this article all you want, there is not the smallest clue as to what group might have set this bomb. Political correctness is rampant in reporting on these incidents and no news organization wants to speculate who might have done it. After all, it is all George W. Bush's fault, no matter who did it.

Let me speculate though. Might it have been a group of Mormons? Don't they have too many kids? They are probably thinning their ranks by suicide bombings to reduce the number of kids in the family. No, that's not it. It is probably the Amish. You know they have all those nails in their barns. That is it. The Amish. Just reducing their excess nail inventory. Right?

No, it is not the Amish.

Might it be one of those extreme Islamofascist groups? Could that be who planted this bomb? I am sure I will shortly be sued by CAIR for even thinking such a thing. No one can think that unless they are ignoring what a peacefull religion Islam is. It has to be my blind hatred for the peacefull muslims among us that would cause me to make such an outlandish insult with no justification. How can I possibly speculate against these peacefull people.

One comment made on the ABC News web site coverage of this event says everything that needs to be said as to why these Islamofascists feel encouraged. A poster going under "cornbiker" attacks another poster who compared the killing of innocent people to actions of the Black Panthers with this message, "These Islamic extremists are equal to the Bush Administration . . . not the Black Panthers." What?

We are not united. We are at war with an external enemy and between opposing parties and world views within the United States. World War IV is being fought against all of the Islamofascist groups, and also against the liberal democrats who voluntarily side with them and defend them. I don't care what Harry Reid says, we have not lost. As soon as we start acknowledging the real enemies of our nation, we probably will start to win. As they get more and more open with their attacks, it is becoming obvious one of our enemies is right here at home.

Can You Save The Dream That Was America?

by Douglas MacKinnon - June 28th, 2007 - Townhall.com

Six months ago, my novel “America’s Last Days,” was released. The novel fictionalized a revolution from within led by the former director of the FBI and the former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who felt the nation was broken beyond repair . . . .

[snip]

. . . as the far-left labors day and night to ensure that the millions of immigrants pouring into our nation – illegal and legal – don’t assimilate, that they guarantee the balkanization of what used to be the United States. Time and history have proven that the fate of multiethnic, multicultural countries is certain. They break-up and revolve around the gravitational pull of their native language, culture, and ideology.

As the title asks, CAN YOU SAVE THE DREAM THAT WAS AMERICA?

More and more trends in the world are creating real fear that the natural optimism of Americans is being crushed for the first time in our history. There was a risk of this back in the 70s . . . and along came Ronald Reagan to restore the vision of our nation as a "shining city on a hill". That is what America is looking for again. Someone who can say, "this way back to the dream." What is amazing is that we have forgotten it is not the role of leaders alone.

YOU have to want it.

There were millions who wanted it . . . back when Reagan came along. Even back then there were millions who hated Reagan. He was attacked and villified unmercifully but he never backed down. However the ones who believed in the dream were still vocal about their vision. Reagan counted on them and their support. What I see that is different this time . . . we are allowing the extremists of the democrat party to intimidate us into backing down. People who believe in the dream are not supporting it because "they don't want to be confrontational."

Now is the time for people to get into the face of the liberals and end the intimidation.

I fear there is a coming nuclear holocaust here in America, caused by the willingness of radicals in Iran and Pakistan to provide nuclear bombs to the Islamofascists. That nuclear bombing will be the trigger for one of two things. A restoration of the American Dream through unity. Or the unraveling of a once great nation through bloodshed against each other.

Which do you want?

USS New York

It was built with 24 tons of scrap steel from the World Trade Center.

It is the fifth in a new class of warship - designed for missions that include special operations against terrorists. It will carry a crew of 360 sailors and 700 combat-ready Marines to be delivered ashore by helicopters and assault craft.

Steel from the World Trade Center was melted down in a foundry in Amite, LA to cast the ship's bow section. When it was poured into the molds on Sept 9, 2003, "those big rough steelworkers treated it with total reverence," recalled Navy Capt. Kevin Wensing, who was there. "It was a spiritual moment for everybody there."

Junior Chavers, foundry operations manager, said that when the trade center steel first arrived, he touched it with his hand and the "hair on my neck stood up." "It had a big meaning to it for all of us," he said. "They knocked us down. They can't keep us down. We're going to be back."

The ship's motto?

"Never Forget"

'Very Worried' For Israel

by David Horowitz - June 27th, 2007 - Jerusalem Post

Bolton: I'm 'very worried' for Israel

Sanctions and diplomacy have failed and it may be too late for internal [Iranian] opposition to oust the Islamist regime, leaving only military intervention to stop Iran's drive to nuclear weapons, the US's former ambassador to the UN, John Bolton, told The Jerusalem Post on Tuesday.

Worse still, according to Ambassador Bolton, the Bush administration does not recognize the urgency of the hour and that the options are now limited to only the possibility of regime change from within or a last-resort military intervention, and it is still clinging to the dangerous and misguided belief that sanctions can be effective.

As a consequence, Bolton said he was "very worried" about the well-being of Israel.

Anyone who cares about avoiding the nuclear holocaust that we avoided during World War III, needs to start worrying about the nuclear holocaust that is coming soon in World War IV. It is unlikely that the predictions of disaster that have been emanating from middle east experts since the mid 1990s will go away. It is ironic that the experts who first predicted the coming disaster were Democrats. In the mid 1990s there were few in the Republican Party who were focused on anything but domestic issues.

Domestic issues were the heart and soul of the "contract with America". It was not a document about foreign policy. Though there were a few in the Republican Party who got excited about the stupidity of the Clinton administration dealing with the first World Trade Center bombing as if it was a criminal matter, no serious party leaders were willing to support those democrats who were predicting worse problems if we did not recognize the Islamofascist danger.

The Republican party wing that agreed (with the Scoop Jackson democrats who were raising the alarm) were an emerging group called neo-conservatives. Mostly former democrats, they were not the traditional leaders of the Republican Party, and their power to make the Islamofascist danger a leading issue was quite limited. Recognition of the danger got lost in partisan politics.

After 9/11, there was a period when this partisan politics got set aside. However as it has returned, the interesting thing is that the democrat party has decided do abandon their principaled leadership on the Islamfascist danger, and simply return to their traditional appeasement oriented attacks against the power they see as the real danger, the free enterprise oriented nation of America.

With the democrats in control of both houses of congress totally opposed to the war, any rational attempt to deal with Iran is, I am afraid, doomed to failure. Like John Bolton I believe the earliest use of nuclear weapons will be against Israel. As horrible as that will be, for me, the next use is what appalls me. That will be their use against major cities here in America.

I pray it will not be AFTER those bombs have gone off before America wakes up. When that happens I am concerned that unity will not be the reaction. I worry that payback against the appeasers will be the the problem we will have to deal with. That could tear America apart.

Radio Free America

Editorial - June 25th, 2007 - Investor's Business Daily

First Amendment: Sen. Dianne Feinstein and the liberal left have a problem with unfettered free speech on talk radio and are calling for government regulation. Is it because in the marketplace of ideas they're bankrupt?

First we had McCain-Feingold creating black out periods where those who were politically disfavored had their free speech rights trampled by Federal Election goons who would get injunctions to stop just those groups that the officials were against. As usual with corrupt bureaucracies in this world where most bureaucrats are democrats, groups that were favored by democrats never seemed to need to have injunctions against them.

At the same time it is reported here that the Supreme Court finally got around to stopping this contemptible practice (by the slim margin of 5 to 4) democrats are ready to strip our rights again with a new law limiting free speech. 5 to 4 was the bare majority view that free speech is still allowed by our Constitution. 5 to 4 is not law. That is politics. It is frightening to think we can have our free speech rights stripped with the change of a single justice.

This "fairness doctrine" issue the democrats are pushing now is an example of why socialism is always evil. Democrats are rushing down the road to totalitarian abuse faster than anyone would have predicted and rationalizing it as "fairness". Once they get back the "fairness doctrine", they will be able to control public discourse. Tyrants have always known the first thing you do is control speech to control a people. Democrats want to control us . . . for our own good of course.

The end of this editorial is more powerful if you read the whole article, but I love it anyway; "The liberal mantra seems to be: We disagree with what you say and will defend to the death our right to restrict it."

A Worsening Economy?

No Way!

by By Donald Lambro - June 25th, 2007 - Townhall.com

Why are Americans still so sour on the economy when it remains quite sturdy and promises faster growth in the months to come?

One big reason: the almost universally negative reports in the national news media. Americans still get a sense of the economy's health from the nightly network news shows where positive facts about the U.S. economy never get reported.

The conclusion of this article as to the reason Americans do not believe how strong our economy is doing?

The inability of the inarticulate President George W. Bush to respond to the media campaign. Another possiblity is that George W. Bush does not have a clue what his job is and doesn't respond because he doesn't realize he should.

Either criticism is a valid response to the question, or in the words of our younger generation, "well duh".

‘A Mighty Heart' Gives A Free Pass To Terror

by Youssef Ibrahim - June 25, 2007 - The New York Sun

I am not one to believe American movies must be propaganda, for that indeed would doom them. As an avid fan of cinema, like billions of other people around the world, I believe they should simply be good and, in the face of such an obvious evil, be there.

My strongest reservation in "A Mighty Heart" is the absurd political correctness that permeates the film; its writers, producers, and directors do not even mention fanatical Islam to avoid offering offense.

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." - Edmund Burke

Two quotes . . . one from an article about current events and one a famous quote that has been repeated again and again. The two are inescapably entertwined. Daniel Pearl's death was an example of the Islamofascist (fanatical Islam) movement's willingness to kill anyone who was not a subservient follower. Not just kill. Kill in the gruesome manner of beheading the victim alive! Yet the movie actress Angelie Jolie, a socialism advocate, whitewashes this event and removes any mention of the evil of Islamofascism from her movie. You don't have to wonder why.

Her motivation is total opposition to anything American that supports free enterprise or patriotism. This commitment to opposing America in favor of ending free enterprise (in support of the failed and evil concept socialism) is like a pavlovian reaction among socialists. So too is their willingness to attack anyone who questions their motivations and label them with insults. Usually this includes calling them Nazis or Fascists (a set of insults I find amusing since both of these political ideologies were socialist!).

Throughout the world the popularity of this actress will allow this movie to blur the evil practiced by the Islamofascist movement. How can that do anything to assure that the Western World maintains the will to fight this war for our existence?

Untreatable Form Of TB

by Stephanie Nebehay - Jun 22, 2007 - Reuters

Up to 30,000 have new untreatable form of TB: WHO

GENEVA (Reuters) - A new, untreatable form of tuberculosis is striking up to 30,000 people a year, the World Health Organization said on Friday, and warned it could spark an "apocalyptic scenario" if unchecked.

For the last 40 years, democrats have been waging a fairly successful battle to destroy America's pharmaceutical industry. Through the campaign to make generic drugs cheaper, they have wiped out most of the generic drug manufacturers. Through their campaign to restrict profits on patented drugs, they have driven mergers which have reduced the number of new drugs coming to market. It seems the consequences of the democrat's war on the pharmaceutical industry has been to exacerbate every problem they have attempted to correct.

Jimmy Carter learned the same lesson back in the 70s when he tried to reduce gasoline prices and instead drove them to record levels. Government controls rarely work. They usually produce the opposite of the intended consequence.

What is frightening about this article is the knowledge that untreatable TB is just one of a number of serious health problems that only a strong pharmaceutical industry can fix. The same problem is evident with the strains of HIV-AIDS in Africa for which we have no drug regimens. It has become common to think that AIDS is under control. It isn't. The next surge in AIDS cases will return to a period of massive death because of the lack of drugs.

The solution proposed by democrats is to punish the drug companies for making money off the existing drugs and to discourage the companies from investing in research on the strains for which no drugs exist. How is this supposed to help?

There is a looming health crisis caused by the willingness of many to focus on supposed excessive drug profits. When they or a loved one are dying of some untreatable disease, they will be equally willing to curse the drug companies for not having a drug that will save them. They will never connect their current opposition to drug profits to the lack of research that will kill them.

It just seems bizarre to me that having wiped out 90% of the generic drug companies and more than half of the major drug research companies is not considered to be the result of the governments efforts by democrats who legislated the efforts. Anyone with a brain could see that it is.

Talk Radio 'Dominated' By Right

by Kara Rowland - June 22nd, 2007 - The Washington Times

A report from a liberal think tank yesterday criticized the "right-wing domination of talk radio," saying the current landscape does not serve all Americans.

In a report titled "The Structural Imbalance of Political Talk Radio," the Center for American Progress concluded that 91 percent of weekday talk radio is conservative, compared with liberal content at 9 percent. The group, which said it analyzed 257 news and talk stations owned by the five biggest radio broadcasters, calls for stricter media-ownership limits and public-interest requirements.

"There is little free speech or free choice in a market system that pushes out one-sided information 90 percent of the time on the radio," said John Halpin, a senior fellow at the center. "Radio stations are licensed to operate in the public interest. Promoting one point of view over all others does not meet any reasonable public-interest standard."

The study also analyzed all commercial news and talk stations in the top 10 markets, where it deemed 76 percent of programming conservative and 24 percent liberal.

Democrats seized on the findings, touting the study as further evidence that government intervention to make the media more "fair" is needed.

This is so bizarre. Democrats (with their liberal, progressive and socialist minions) control broadcast TV, cable TV, newspapers, magazines and book publishing. Democrats have a competitive share of the Internet news and commentary (blogs) even though Libertarians and Conservatives have the lead. But Democrats DOMINATE the largest forms of news dissemination. For some reason that is not good enough. They cannot tolerate conservatives having a single forum to present their views.

Let's get some perspective. Talk radio is only a portion of the 16% slice of radio listeners who make up the news-talk-sports segment. Take out sports and pure news from this 16% slice and you are talking a really small part of total radio. Democrats are ready to pass legislation to control what can be said on that one small slice called "political" talk radio alone. They are perfectly willing to return to the days when free speech was under tyrannical control of Democrat thought police. They called it the "fairness doctrine" then before it was ended because it so clearly violated feedom of speech. What it represented back then was government bureaucrats making sure that no one disagreed with the liberal doctrines which they were touting as "politically correct" speech. "Fairness"? There was nothing fair about it then. There is nothing fair about it now. It is nothing but government control of speech by liberals violating everything they claim they believe in.

The hypocrisy of this proposed Democrat legislation is that it only applies to that one small segment of news dissemination that liberals do not dominate. Talk radio became the forum for conservatives because they were denied any significant voice in most other media forms. Newspapers and TV are dominated by liberals and socialists. Democrats find it "outrageous" that conservatives have ANY place to voice their views. Their willingness to shut down conservative voices, to destroy free speech, is hypcrisy in its most malignant and evil form. They call it "fair" to make radio stations force people to listen to liberals views and thoughts in the ONLY media forum where conservatives currently have the lead.

If we proposed to apply the same "fairness doctrine" to TV, newspapers, magazines and book publishing, Democrats would go beserk.

Fred Thompson Archive

More and more I am impressed with the articles that Fred Thompson has been writing. Like the radio shows that Ronald Reagan wote himself, the articles Fred writes indicate a knowledge of the issues of the day. They also indicate a common sense attitude that is based on a clear philosophy of life that leaves many people very comfortable with who the man Fred Thompson is.

Click here for a link to the archive of Fred Thompson articles for anyone who would like to peruse them and get to know Fred better.

Read The Sunspots

by R. Timothy Patterson - June 20th, 2007 - Financial Post

The mud at the bottom of B.C. fjords reveals that solar output drives climate change - and that we should prepare now for dangerous global cooling

When our nation was founded, one of the key components of the way our government was structured was to resist democracy. Surprised? Pure democracy has long been recognized as the most evil form of government. Global warming is a perfect example of the kind of evil that can be foisted on the public when they listen to politicians demagogue an issue. Global warming has got to be the most demagogued issue since racism.

A further quote in the article posted above is an example of the kind of information that is not being discussed by politicians.

The only constant about climate is change; it changes continually and, at times, quite rapidly. Many times in the past, temperatures were far higher than today, and occasionally, temperatures were colder. As recently as 6,000 years ago, it was about 3%C [5.4%F] warmer than now. Ten thousand years ago, while the world was coming out of the thousand-year-long "Younger Dryas" cold episode, temperatures rose as much as 6%C [10.8%F] in a decade -- 100 times faster than the past century's 0.6%C [1.1%F] warming that has so upset environmentalists.

As recently as 1000 years ago the Renaissance was caused by temperatures nearly 2%C higher than today. Those higher temperatures led to a great increase in the production of food and one of the easiest and most progressive periods in man's existence. Why are we reacting to the possibility of a return to higher temperatures as if that is bad? Demagoguery. Purely and simply the left is playing chicken little and predicting disaster where no one can know for sure exactly what will happen. There is no evidence disaster is the probable result or that man is causing it. It is pure speculation.

There are three things that are true.

1. 30 years ago these same people were predicting a global cooling.
2. There is evidence that the current period of high sun activity is coming to a close.
3. There is no evidence man and his CO2 production are causing the current rise in temperatures.

Environmentalists have predicted disaster unless we turn over the reins of government to them for 40 years. This is all about political power, not science. The people who are advocating this already believe in socialism and government control. They are unhappy with our form of government and its reliance on individual freedom. If we listen to them, we are headed down the "road to serfdom" Frederick Hayek predicted.

What concerns me is that we seem to have forgotten what serfdom means. An example was described in "Brave Heart", the movie about Scotland and William Wallace. In the film, the Lord had a right to have sex with any woman serf of his who was about to get married. The bodies of his "serfs" belonged to him. Today that would be more properly called slavery. The trigger to William Wallace's hatred for government and the King was his fiance's unwillingness to surrender that much freedom.

If we listen to these people who advocate government taking drastic action to stop global warming, we are really listening to people who want to make us slaves. How much of your freedom are you willing to surrender to people who are lying about man's role in global warming?

Duke Deal Shields Faculty (i.e. The Group Of 88)

by Anne Blythe and Eric Ferreri - June 20th, 2007 - News & Observer

DURHAM - Duke University's settlement with exonerated lacrosse players gives legal protection to faculty members, some of whom have been under siege for speaking out in the wake of the gang-rape allegations.

Neither side would disclose the terms of the agreement, announced Monday, but Duke's faculty chairman, Paul Haagen, informed professors that one provision is that all faculty members have been released from liability related to the lacrosse case.

That news sparked another round of vitriolic messages from e-mailers and bloggers still exercised over a student newspaper ad signed in the spring of 2006 by 88 Duke professors, who decried a campus culture of racism and sexism.

The group of 88 still do not get it.

This incident of the Ad run by the group of 88 could be the source of some honest dialog about how to reduce racism and sexism in our society if they wanted. It will not be because they are the biggest racists and sexists and they deny their own motivations. They are not interested in reducing racism or sexism. They make it an issue by their actions and statements . . . even their very existence.

The problem is that institutional racism and sexism is at the heart of this group of 88 issue. It is not white racism. It is black racism. It is not male sexism. It is female sexism. Two groups whose income and jobs are dependent upon insisting our society is excessively racist and sexist are the black and women studies departments in our major universities. They were the ones running the ads.

Look at the two ads.

The second ad denies the first ad failed to respect "innocent until proven guilty" and claims "It has been broadly, and often intentionally, misread." However any honest assessment of the first ad has to take into consideration the reality of what the ad said and its context.

The ad entitled, "What Does a Social Disaster Sound Like?", included anonymous statements by students talking about racism and sexism on the Duke campus. The ad thanked "protesters making collective noise." Those protestors put up "Wanted" posters showing all the white members of Duke Lacrosse team and accusing them of rape.

The ad was clearly defending the concept that our society is a racist and sexist society and claiming the "rape" proved this hypothesis.

In reality though, claiming we are a racist and sexist society is something this group of 88 cannot stop doing. One of the quotes in their ad is a classic. "I was talking to a white woman student who was asking me 'Why do people' --and she meant black people -- 'make race such a big issue?' They don’t see race. They just don’t see it." Those for whom race is their primary focus are outraged that others are simply immune to their focus. They have stopped progress on both racism and sexism by making it their jobs to deny progress.

The group of 88 went on to say "We’re turning up the volume in a moment when some of the most vulnerable among us are being asked to quiet down while we wait. To the students speaking individually and to the protestors making collective noise, thank you for not waiting and for making yourselves heard."

You cannot thank protestors who are demanding people be punished for a crime that is not proven and later insist you weren't advocating their cause. If they are guilty of abandoning "innocent until proven guilty" your thanking them for their actions makes you equally guilty.

It is clear the goup of 88 was very embarrassed and angry when the rape allegations proved to be a total fabrication. They actually denied that was possible for many months. Their denials prove the duplicity of their current claim they never actually accused the players.

The way that these professors now hide from their own actions is indicated by their current attempts to obfuscate what they did as well as what they said.

The first ad is no longer visible . . . it used to be proudly displayed on the Duke African American web site. You can see that by checking the link where it used to be:
http://www.duke.edu/web/africanameric/listening.pdf

All you get is a statement that the page has been removed.

However you can see most of the text on the Google saved web page at:
http://listening.nfshost.com/listening.htm

The second ad is available here:
http://www.concerneddukefaculty.org/

The signatories to this second ad are listed here:
http://www.melloweb.com/concernedDuke/signatures.html

The signatories to the first ad are no where to be found.

I think the group of 88 actions are reprehensible and prove just how racist and sexist they are. Departments dedicated to racism and sexism will never admit the problems have been addressed by our society. Departments dedicated to racism and sexism will do as they did here, promote racist and sexist attacks against those they see as their enemies, whether there is any truth to the allegations or not. It is time that organizations like black studies and women studies groups, dedicated to proving what a racist and sexist society we are, be removed from society.

Unfortunately they see as their enemy the bulk of our society. That is you and me. I think it is time we shut down these racist and sexist departments to stop the evil they inflict on society. What do you think?

The Democracy Worshiper

by Patrick J. Buchanan - June 19th, 2007 - Townhall.com

Of the Bourbons, restored to the throne after the French Revolution, the guillotining of Louis XVI and the Napoleonic interlude, Talleyrand said, they had "learned nothing and forgotten nothing."

Unfortunately, so may it be said of our own George II.

Last week, at Czermin Palace in Prague, George Bush delivered his latest epistle on democracy as mankind's salvation, as though he had learned nothing since ordering the invasion of Iraq -- to bring the blessings of democracy to Mesopotamia and the Middle East.

President Bush began by paying tribute to the founding father of Czech democracy. "Nine decades ago, Tomas Masaryk proclaimed Czechoslovakia's independence based on the 'ideals of democracy.'"

Well, that may be what the Masaryk said, but it is not exactly what he did. In 1918, he did indeed proclaim the independence of Czechoslovakia, confirmed by the Allies at Paris. But inside the new Czechoslovakia, built on the "ideals of democracy," were 3 million dissident Germans who wished to remain with Austria and half a million Hungarians who wished to remain with Hungary. Many Catholic Slovaks had wanted to remain with Catholic Hungary. Against their will, all had been consigned to Masaryk's Czech-dominated nation.

Query for Bush? If 3 million Germans were put under alien rule without their consent and against their will, and they wished to exercise their right of self-determination, as preached by Woodrow Wilson, did they not have a right to secede peacefully and join their German kinsmen?

Because that is what Munich was all about.

Between 1938 and 1939, dissident Germans, Slovaks, Poles, Hungarians and Ruthenes -- abetted by Berlin, Warsaw and Budapest -- broke free of Masaryk's multinational democracy. Rather than let them secede from Prague, Churchill thought Britain should go to war.

Was Winston right, or were the Sudeten Germans right?

I agree with little that Pat Buchanan concludes but I always read him for a simple reason. Pat Buchanan remembers more about history than most people who are writing today.

One of the things he remembers (that many seem to forget) is that democracy has long been the fastest and quickest way to abuses by mobs, or to the subverting of democracy by a dictator to appease the mobs. It is one reason that democracy has often been called mobocracy.

Our founding fathers did not create a democracy here in America. They created a Republic. The idea was to promote freedom.

Pat Buchanan reminds us in this article of some recent history where democracy resulted quickly in abuses of the rights of others and the destruction of freedom. The goal of the founding fathers of our nation was not democracy. It was freedom. Our founders carefully constructed a system that used representative democracy to select our leaders while they also constructed systems to block popular will. One key component of that blockage of popular will was to guarantee rights for the specific purpose of maintaining freedom against the popular will.

In recent years the biggest problem we have is that the courts and the legislature are systematically subverting the principals of our nation. The courts and the legislature are conspiring to set aside the protections and rights guaranteed to maintain freedom, and replacing them with the "pure" democracy that our founders were so rightfully afraid of. They are implementing democracy at the expense of freedom. They are never honest enough to admit this though.

Buchanan does not think we should be in Iraq. He claims trying to extend democracy to Iraq is a waste of time. Yet in this article he seems to argue the premise that we are a democracy and it has been the foundation of our freedom. In this last he is wrong. Our own problems right now are a result of the frivolous whims of the mob and too much democracy. The argument really is what is the most effective way to fight the war against Islamofascism. Buchanan is at least better than most press today because he at least agrees we are in a war and it should be fought. He simply disagrees with how we are fighting on one front.

However through appropriate legal processes we committed to a war that asked people to die for our nation and its decisions. Now, the "mob" in America is trying to find ways to claim this is an unjust war and get us out of Iraq.

By their argument, no democracy can ever go to war. By their argument we can ask people to die for our nation and its decisions only when every single person agrees. If this was true we would never have become a nation. They are also arguing that we can change our mind and then find scapegoats for why we should not have gone to war if it becomes unpopular.

The earliest democracy, Greece, once did that. They sent an army to fight a battle. The battle went badly so the general was ordered killed by the popular democracy of that time, everyone voted on everything. Pure democracy. The "mob" then discovered that he was about to win the war by brilliant tactics so they cancelled the order to kill him. Too late they found out he had already been killed on their first order. A perfect example of "pure" democracy. Democracy of the mob.

Pure democracy, mob rule, is frightening. One of the worst problems of our current situation is how few people understand that we will only remain free as long as we oppose the rule of the majority except when it is limited by our defense of freedom first. Rule of the majority is always evil. What we need to return to is the quest for freedom, including the quest to assure freedom for those whom we do not agree with. That quest for freedom was what made our nation great. Not democracy. I am not sure Buchanan really understands that.

Two States Of Destruction

by Cal Thomas - June 19th, 2007 - Townhall.com

Those still in doubt or denial about what Israel's (and America's) enemies are planning might benefit from reading Jed Babbin's new book, "In the Words of Our Enemies" (Regnery Publishing). In it, Babbin assembles what the Islamic terrorists, Chinese and North Korean communists and Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez are saying they want to do to us. This quote from the al-Qaida training manual leaves no room for diplomacy: "The confrontation that Islam calls for with these godless and apostate regimes, does not know Socratic debates, Platonic ideals nor Aristotelian diplomacy. But it knows the dialogue of bullets, the ideals of assassination, bombing and destruction, and the diplomacy of the cannon and machine-gun."

Anyone who questions the sincerity of such a statement is a fool. Apparently enough fools remain in leadership in Israel, the United States and Europe to encourage the killers to fight on until victory is attained.

Appeasement has never worked. Democrat friends are found of repeating their new mantra about Iraq, "Who thinks we can win a land war in Asia? Iraq is lost." Harry Reid is one who loves this statement. However in the early days of our nation, we beat back these Islamofascists decisively. Who is not aware of one battle in that multi-generation war, "the shores of Tripoli" line in the Marine Corps Hymn?

Unfortunately the ease and simplicity of the "Halls of Montezuma" battle referred to in the line that precedes it has left our nation with an illusion about the war against Islamofascism of that time, as if it was an easy single battle. The slavery practiced by the Islamofascists of that time was far from our nation and yet it enslaved hundreds of thousands over generations. The real history of that evil has been forgotten in the clouds of time.

It was not easy to win 200 years ago and it will not be easy to win today. However we can win this war against Islamofascists just as we won 200 years ago if the people who wanted to pay tribute then are not the people we listen to today. Like then it will take generations and will be dependent on our culture maintianing a will to win.

There are two types of people in every generation. Freedom Warriors and Tribute Slaves. Each generation has the choice of which it will listen to. Who are we going to listen to?

Free Scooter Libby

by Christopher Hitchens - June 18th, 2007 - Slate

If Scooter Libby goes to jail, it will be because he made a telephone call to Tim Russert and because Tim Russert has a different recollection of the conversation. Can this really be the case?

[snip]

Does it not seem extraordinary that a man can be prosecuted, and now be condemned to a long term of imprisonment, because of an alleged minor inconsistency of testimony in a case where it is admitted that there was no crime and no victim?

Chistopher Hitchens, the writer of this article, is a liberal. A hard core bordering on Marxist liberal. Do not fail to appreciate this. He also has posted this article on a liberal news site. That is an interesting sidelight on what Hitchens is saying in this article. Scooter Libby is a political opponent of Hitchens and they share almost nothing in common in their views on politics. With that certainty in your mind re-read this article defending the Vice President's advisor Scooter Libby from a prosecutor who has spent millions trying to destroy a Repubilcan administration and a Clinton appointed Judge who has displayed clear bias against the defendant and the administration he worked for since this case started.

I agonized over where to post this article. I could not decide whether it belonged on my sister blog, "The Rule of Law", or here on the "Inner Banks Eagle". The first deals with court tyranny and the second deals with politics. In the final analysis I opted for the "Inner Banks Eagle" because this is so obviously more political corruption than court corruption. However it is a tough call. It has major elements of both.

Getting back to Christopher Hitchens. Hitchens is a man of ideals. He believes in fair play. He is committed to the classical liberal goals. He is NOT a partisan like so many in the current Democratic Party. He is also brilliant and a great writer (not my opinions alone). Those are some of the reasons that he remains on my list of favorite writers even though we disagree on so many things. When Christopher disagrees with me, I know I had better think through my own logic very carefully else he will destroy my case. Disagreeing with HItchens is an interesting intellectual challenge. When we agree coming from such divergent political philosophies I doubt there is much on which we are wrong. It is that belief that makes this article so important.

What I can't understand is how so many liberals are supporting actions against Libby that are inimical to their very basic premise of what is fair in government. If a fair court system is not a part of liberal philosophy what is? How can anyone defend this farce of a trial based on such a corrupt agenda? Does the "rule of law" mean nothing?

Christopher Hitchens has chosen as his title the classical liberal demand for those who are being unjustly accused. Free Scooter Libby. It is a perfectly just demand.

Now What About Those Duke Professors

by Dinesh D'Souza - June 18th, 2007 - Townhall.com

So Nifong is going to resign, and maybe get his license taken away too. Now what about the mau-mau artists at Duke, influential figures on the faculty, who whipped the campus up into a racial hysteria? What happens to the people who helped to create a mob mentality against students, rendering their lives miserable for more than a year, when their guilt was never established, never even probable, and now they have been shown to be innocent?

From the time the first reports of sexual assault at Duke University surfaced, these intellectual vigilantes went to work. Houston Baker, a professor of English and Afro-American Studies, issued a public letter condemning the "abhorrent sexual assault, verbal racial violence and drunken white male privilege loosed among us." He seems to have simply presumed the students guilty.

Shortly after that, 88 members of the Duke arts and science faculty--the so-called Gang of 88--signed a public statement praising campus demonstrators who had distributed a "WANTED" poster that branded the lacrosse players as "rapists."

A presumption of guilt. That is what is now the biggest problem with racism in the Inner Banks. Their are many whites who are guilty of what Dinesh calls " . . . Recovering Southerner Syndrome. This is the ailment, first named on [his] blog, in which Southerners feel so guilty about slavery and segregation that they perform undignified backward somersaults to prove that they are 'not really Southern'."

What he avoids mentioning, what is part and parcel of this outrageous problem, is the willingness in the black community to label anyone who disagrees with them on any issue as a racist. Think that poor test scores mean we are not spending our school money smartly? "How dare you criticize a black superintendent. You are just a racist."

This makes it impossible to have an intelligent conversation on any topic. We have serious problems here in the Inner Banks and as long as white conservatives walk around terrified of being called racist honkies and black conservatives walk around terrified of being called Uncle Toms, NOTHING can be fixed.

Last year we contacted all the blacks in the Republican Party of our area to hold a meeting to talk about how to help conservatives in the black community get their message out on some of the serious problems we face. As Angela McGlowan has pointed out, most blacks in our area are conservative and have more in common with the Republican Party than with the Democrat Party. Every single one refused to attend any public gathering. The reason? If anyone found out they were registered as Repubicans they would be blackballed in their community. This intimidation is contemptible. However you cannot pretend it is not real.

Freedom of speech has been destroyed by the willingness of extreme racists in the black community to attack and humiliate anyone who disagrees with them. If you are white you are a "racist honky". If you are black you are an "uncle Tom". Insults are their first resort the minute you disagree with black leadership.

It is time for us here in the Inner Banks to acquire a thick skin. The culture of the south is to be non-confrontational. However it is time to stop trying to be non-confrontational. It is time to start calling these liberals, black and white, what they are. Bigots and racists. Worse bigots than the old style racists that they learned from. America has changed but liberals in the South cannot see the change. It is time for them to come into the 21st century. Their tactics and insults are disgusting. It is time for us to get into their face and call them what they are.

Dinesh calls them "intellectual vigilantes". They are worse than that. They are what they are so quick to call others. Racists.

Flaw In The Ointment

by Peter Huck and Kelly Burke - June 16th, 2007 - Sydney Morning Herald

It was perhaps inevitable that at some stage China would trip, given the speed at which it hurtles towards economic supremacy. That fall, in the glare of the world's media, has come with the humiliating revelations that fake food and medical ingredients have been exported, triggering mass poisonings in the West. With the Beijing Olympics just over a year away, Chinese officials have been forced into frantic damage control.

China's crisis on the road to international respect reached a climax two weeks ago when Zheng Xiaoyu, the former head of the country's Food and Drug Administration and a 62-year-old Communist Party apparatchik, was sentenced to death for accepting $832,000 to falsify documents that approved fake medicine over a seven-year period. This dramatic measure was the climax of weeks of unrelentingly bad press for China.

The melamine scandal which killed pets in America . . . killed people in other countries. It was based on Chinese wheat gluten tainted with the chemical. No one can understand how the managers of these Chinese companies thought they would not be discovered. Deaths from their actions were predictable.

Another poisoning scandal the Chinese are dealing with is diethylene glycol. Chinese manufacturers have used it as an alternative to glycerine. It too is a deadly chemical and many tens of thousands have died in numerous countries around the world from the exported products, mainly vitamins, cold medicine, cough syrup and tooth paste. It is highly recommended that no one consume any food or health product labelled "Made in China". Again, how could anyone expect this was not going to be discovered?

China is going to have great difficulty recovering from these scandals, as they are still a secretive totalitarian society. The real problem though is they are also a racist society. They have long been racist. In China enclaves all over the world, including here in America, the Chinese never intermarry with other races considering all but Chinese as inferior.

As noted in the article China is also illegally manipulating its currency to maintain its export supremacy. Once again, racism is at the heart of the arrogance that allows the Chinese to practice this currency manipulation. The Chinese simply do not consider that their "inferiors" will catch them.

China is both racist and totalitarian. Not a good combination. American officials and corporate purchasing agents need to expect more of these scandals and inspection of Chinese products needs to be stepped up dramatically.

Bush’s Deal: Border Cash for Amnesty

by Amanda Carpenter - June 15th, 2007 - Townhall.com

In an effort to resurrect the Senate’s immigration bill, President Bush has agreed to spend $4.4 billion to increase border security based on the premise that money would be repaid later with penalties and fines from illegal aliens seeking legal status.

Recognizing his personality traits, I am not surprised that Bush will not accept the defeat of the Amnesty bill. Over 80% of the American people oppose this bill and Bush could not care less. Whatever you think about his character, no one can deny that he keeps fighting for what he wants without regard for polls.

Leave it to the tone deaf, stubborn and vindictive George W. Bush to "propose" to spend American tax dollars for something that should already be done (protecting the border) as a deal in order to get his fervent wish to be the President who turned America into a Spanish speaking nation. Bush Jr. thinks that if he is the man who opens the floodgates to destroy American culture and turn it into Aztec North, that a hundred years from now he will be a hero to the citizens of that future time. A legacy for history is all that he cares about now.

The one thing that you can be sure of is that George W. Bush could not care less what the people of America want, either democrats or Republicans. He has successfully misled for so long he thinks his opinion is all that counts. Since he was Governor of Texas it has been his track record to reach out to his enemies and crush the Republican "base" again and again. No matter how many times his enemies turn on him, he forgives them. Just look at the insults he has endured from Kennedy, Pelosi, Reid, Murtha, et al. He never has a problem with their insults. He keeps making deals with them, especially Kennedy.

He never forgives the "base" though. He knows that he can revile them and call them vigilantes and most of them will not care. This strategy has usually worked for him. He is confident that he can con the Republican "base" whenever he needs to and they will come running back to him. Who can doubt him? With all the betrayal he has practiced in his Presidency, 62% of the Republican Party still supports him.

As regular readers here know, I am not one of the 62%.

Lieberman Asked To Resign From His Own Party

by Staff - June 12th, 2007 - WTNH TV (Connecticut)

The Connecticut for Lieberman Party is calling on Senator Joseph Lieberman to resign from the U.S. Senate following his remarks made Sunday on CBS' Face the Nation regarding military action against Iran.

Lieberman said on the national television program that, "we've got to be prepared to take aggressive military action against the Iranians."

Only in America!

The man calling for Lieberman's resignation is head of the minority party that was used as the process by which Joe Lieberman ran for the Senate seat that he held previously as a Democrat after he lost the primary in the Democrat Party. However after the election, a long time OPPONENT of Lieberman, joined the party and took control of it. He now uses the party that was set up to ELECT Lieberman as a platform to ATTACK Lieberman.

As it has often been said, "Ain't politics grand?"

Do Away With Public Schools

by Jonah Goldberg - June 12th, 2007 - Townhall.com

Here's a good question for you: Why have public schools at all?

OK, cue the marching music. We need public schools because blah blah blah and yada yada yada. We could say blah is common culture and yada is the government's interest in promoting the general welfare. Or that children are the future. And a mind is a terrible thing to waste. Because we can't leave any child behind.

The problem with all these bromides is that they leave out the simple fact that one of the surest ways to leave a kid "behind" is to hand him over to the government.

For those of us here in the Inner Banks, an interesting fact mentioned in this article is that Washington DC schools spend $13,000 per student and get as bad a result as we get here. That means that they are spending 50% more than we spend. Yet education adminstrators, here in the Inner Banks and in Washington DC, have only one solution. SPEND MORE MONEY!

No matter how much evidence exists that we spend more than enough money to educate our children, the education bureaucrats are (like a broken record) unable to offer any solution except spend more money. Nations that spend half what we spend here in the Inner Banks, and a third of what Washington DC Spends, are the best in the world.

Our problem is not money. Our problem is stupid bureacrats who will not teach.

Like Jonah I think it is time to start proposing really outrageous solutions that shock people so that we can change the dialog. Right now America is losing its next generation of kids.

Re: The Company You Keep

Symposium - June 12th, 2007 - National Review Online

After two shorter syndicated columns [here and here], Linda Chavez wrote a lengthy piece on conservatives, Hispanics, and immigration for National Review Online, published Monday. Today those named in Chavez’s “The Company You Keep” and other immigration-policy experts respond to Chavez.

The symposium linked here is a long read, mostly because it is several articles by noted writers such as Ward Connerly, John Derbyshire, Mark Krikorian, Stanley Kurtz, Heather Mac Donald, Ramesh Ponnuru and Michael Radu. It includes an absolutely vast number of links to other articles, all of which add to the intelligence of this debate.

The most important aspect of this debate is that once again it is Amercans who are opposed to changing America who are being reviled by those who defend the right of other cultures to come here, leaving their culture, and make us accept them and their culture. It is not Americans who are going to another culture. We seem to stay home. Expatriot Americans have always been rare.

Linda Chavez got angry when the debate changed from how to welcome those from another country . . . . to a debate about how to stop their invasion of our nation. At that point she called those who disagreed with her racists.

Immigration is not a problem when it is a matter of assimilation of small numbers. Immigration is a problem when it displaces a great number of Americans and changes the dialog abolut how much privilege do we give to the new arrivals as opposed to those already in our society who need help. It is a problem when illegal arrivals demand special privileges. It is a problem when illegal arrivals demand we change our culture to accept their culture. Especially when immigration advocates feel they are losing the discussion and resort to the blackmail process of calling those of us who were here first . . . . RACIST for simply disagreeing with THEM.

As Dr. Ada Fisher noted in her article below, we are actually considering giving illegal aliens FREE tuition while charging black (and white) American citizens for the same education. At what point does this special treatment of illegal aliens get recognized as insane? At what point is it acknowleged that defending our own culture is reasonable and fair? At what point do we tell anyone who uses the insult racist against us, "just shut up"? Disagreeing with you is not racist and I will no longer tolerate your cheap insults.

Illegal Immigrants Box Out Black Citizens

by Dr. Ada Fisher - June 7th, 2007



One would think that a 3.7 GPA and 1800 on the SAT (out of 2000) by a black male would be enough to guarantee his college admission anywhere with a full financial ride. Don’t you believe it! Increasingly, black males and black students who have academically done above average work are finding themselves boxed out of financial aid for college.

In a time when we are willing to consider giving those in NC illegally . . . . tuition breaks at the state rate . . . . or in Florida possibly admitting students here illegally free, what are we saying to native born citizens whose parents pay the taxes for these educational institutions? We also need to examine the academic performance of athletes with their graduation rates and have a public disclosure of the financial awards they receive. Are they meeting the same standards as other students?

I have always opposed illegal immigration because it is not fair, it is racist against darker skinned immigrants and it encroaches on the rights and opportunities of those who live in this nation and have played by the rules. The new Immigration bill being proposed by Congress is amnesty plain and simple. If it passes, every congress person who supports it should be put out of office. We must strengthen borders, put in the provisions forcing employer compliance with the laws in hiring, and fail to make the benefits of higher education available to those here illegally. Emergency services in good conscious cannot humanely be denied to anyone, but we must avoid providing to non-citizens breaks which we don’t give to our own citizens.

The Black Caucus should be out-raged at this travesty of justice in seeing others cut to the front of the line ahead of those born here. Where is our leadership from those who say they have a special understanding of black people? Illegal immigration does nothing but push more of us to the back of the line and that is not acceptable for too many citizens have died in the struggle for their civil rights and opportunities which are still being denied.


Dr. Ada M. Fisher is a physician, licensed teacher for secondary education in mathematics and science; and previously elected school board member. Dr. Fisher is the Republican candidate for the NC 12th US congressional district. Contact her at P. O. Box 777; Salisbury, NC 28145; telephone (704) 637-6134, drfisher@dradamfisher.org

1968 Redux

Echoes of Vietnam in Iraq--especially from the press.

by Robert McFarlane - June 10th, 2007 - Wall Street Journal (Opinion Journal)

Thirty-nine years ago, halfway through my second tour in Vietnam, the Tet Offensive was launched by North Vietnamese and Viet Cong forces, who were soundly defeated on the battlefield. Two measures of that battle--both relevant to the situation in Iraq today--stand out for me. The first relates to an important lesson U.S. forces had learned after three years of conflict: the vital role of "winning hearts and minds" of the local population. The second concerns the power of the press to affect our ability to sustain violent warfare.

During the Vietnam "war" the press consistently opposed America. They were traitors to our nation and its troops then, and they are traitors to our nation and its troops now. The difference however is in the risks to our nation.

Though there were a number of people who believed in those days that we were at war with communism, and that loss in Vietnam would encourage the communists in the Soviet Union to continue their goal of world conquest, the press simply did not buy it. Today there are a great number of people who believe that there is no war against Iraq. They believe we are, as we were in Vietnam, supporting one side in a war for control of one country. They reject we are in a war of much greater magnitude.

This time, even more than we were in Vietnam, we really are at war with a greater enemy. That enemy is Islamofascism.

The press makes light of that concept. They ridicule George W. Bush's "war on terror" label. They have convinced themselves that we should leave Iraq and let the two sides fight among themselves without our involvement. Since most evidence is that after our departure Iraq will go back to control of the Baathists, the press is really arguing that the socialists who practiced such evil tyranny before should be on top again. The press is socialist and has no problem with Saddam Hussein or Fidel Castro or anyone who espouses socialism being in control. They do not believe that leaving Iraq will result in the militants against us flowing here to America to continue the war.

What makes the risks so much greater this time is that the "greater power" we are fighting is a group of maniacs, that unlike the Soviet Union, really are prepared to use nuclear bombs to get what they want. If we lose this war, the consequences will be devastating.

A Lame Joke Becomes Reality

by Mark Steyn - June 10th, 2007 - Orange County (California) Register

About five years or so back, I started making references in columns to "fine upstanding members of the Undocumented-American community." But from the lame Steyn joke of yesteryear to the reality of tomorrow is a mere hop and a skip. A few days ago, Harry Reid, the Senate majority leader, declared:

"This week we will vote on cloture and final passage of a comprehensive bill that will strengthen border security, bring the 12 million undocumented Americans out of the shadows, and keep our economy strong."

Talk about "a fast track to citizenship"! Never mind probationary visas, Z-visas and Green Cards, in the eyes of the Democrat steering "comprehensive immigration reform" through Congress these guys are already "undocumented Americans." Was it simply a slip of the tongue? Or did Senator Reid mean it?

If he did, the very concept of citizenship is dead, and the Senate might as well opt for really comprehensive immigration reform" and declare everyone on the planet a U.S. citizen with backdated Social Security entitlements.

When a political party gets really busy giving away taxpayer money they can sometimes lose sight of the original goal. The goal of democrat giveaways was originally to help the needy. That then morphed into buying votes from American citizens who were envious of their neighbors wealth. However they have just about gotten all the votes of both the truly needy and the envious-Americans that are to be had. Since they cannot turn any more hard working citizens into democrat greed mongers, they are looking overseas to find more envious greedy people. All they need to do is extend the right to vote to them, and voila, they can guarantee political power forever.

Harry Reid has no illusions. He wants to give these illegal aliens the right to vote. Amnesty is just the first step to democrat control of your tax dollars. And that is simply one short step away from the totalitarian state he really craves.

Women Rule

By Kathleen Parker - June 8th, 2007 - Townhall.com

From Conception to the Shroud, Women Rule

Not only do women outlive men, but recent research shows that they're also being born more often than in the past. The allegedly stronger sex, it turns out, is really the weaker and more vulnerable -- from conception until death do us part.

Recent statistics prove that the feminist war against males is making serious inroads. Male children are not being born as often, males no longer dominate in school, marriage is being ended as a way to protect children leaving more and more men alone in the world. This last is one of the surest indications of a man's longevity. Bachelors die many years before married men. Loneliness is recognized as the cause.

Feminists are glorying in this new pattern. Male hatred is just about the only politically correct hate left in the legal lexicon.

Stemming Politics

Editorial - June 07, 2007 - Investor's Business Daily

Science: With the president sure to veto a bill expanding embryonic stem cell research, a new breakthrough should make the whole issue moot. But it won't stop Congress and presidential candidates from playing politics.

That is what EMBRYONIC stem cell research is all about. Politics. The democrats are lying about the issue every time they say scientists are excited about the "potential" for stem cell research and fail to acknowledge the difference between EMBRYONIC stem cell research and ADULT stem cell research.

You can support abortion where the mother is the victim of rape, incest or to save the life of the mother during the embryo phase of pregnancy (the first trimester), and still oppose human life being so cheapened as to allow for the creation of pregnancies just for EMBRYONIC stem cell research to be conducted. Creating potential human life for such casual uses is seen by most as obscene. Making tax payers fund this obscenity is even more insulting.

Democrats equate opposing EMBRYONIC stem cell research as opposing all stem cell research. It isn't. That is the lie.

Some facts about this debate that the democrats try to obscure. More than 20 successful treatments of disease have come from ADULT stem cell research. To date there is NO CURE that has come from EMBRYONIC stem cell research.

Republicans DO NOT oppose ADULT stem cell research as it does not require destruction of potential human life.

The potential to end this contemptible democrat political campaign to malign Republicans with their misleading refusal to discriminate between EMBRYONIC and ADULT stem cell research will be fantastic. As noted in the article:

. . . . . on Wednesday, a real live technological breakthrough was announced by three teams of scientists, and the whole explosive political issue surrounding stem cells can be expected to dissipate as a result. The scientists used skin to produce the equivalent of embryonic stem cells; such cells could be used to find new treatments for those diseases without the extinguishing of tiny human lives.

If democrats keep up their campaign anyway, it will be an obvious lie, or proof that it was not research they wanted . . . . but proof (like PETA's President) they simply want to kill humans for any reason they can come up with. Having a lie on which they can attack Republicans is simply a bonus.

Preliminary Observations About A Fred Thompson Presidential Race

by Paul Weyrich - June 6th, 2007 - Townhall.com

While I recall the Reagan Presidency with great fondness I never got hooked on the notion that we must have a Reagan clone to save the nation. Reagan was perhaps guided by the Good Lord because he certainly was the right man for that era. With William J. Casey as Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, John Paul II as Pope and Margaret Thatcher as Prime Minister of Great Britain, Reagan and his allies helped the Soviet Union to implode. It has been a mere thirty years since the evil empire began to unravel. Yet adults born in or after 1987 have no clue how dangerous the Soviet Union was not just to this country but to the entire world.

[snip]

Those who treat Reagan’s legacy as a myth, as if Nancy were writing the script, forget that he was a human being. For all the good he did for the country, he dropped the ball now and then. I know I must speak such things in a whisper, but it is certainly true that Thompson, like Reagan, didn’t always do what might have been done. Yes, in dealing with the Soviets he [Reagan] made few mistakes, in dealing with Tip O’Neill he made a number.

So what about Thompson? Is he the right man at the right moment?

I think this thoughtful article sums up quite interestingly the questions that are being asked about our current situation in America. The current Bush, Bill Clinton and the first Bush will all go down in history as the wrong man for their time. All have serious flaws of character that weakened their Presidencies and our nation.

The first Bush did not have the determination to even wait 24 hours and assure the Republican Guards were destroyed so that Saddam Hussein would not survive. I am not sure now if it would have changed the outcome of the war against Islamofascism, but there is certainly no doubt that it made America look weak (even as George showed that he was a weak man). It contributed to an expansion of the already eager Islamofascist determination to take us on.

Clinton simply did not understand the war at all. He gutted our military at a time when we should have been strengthening it. He was a master politician but an incompetent statesman. He never acknowledged that we were being attacked and a war existed. He belittled the risks and tried to extend civil rights to the Islamofascists and treat them as criminals. He also is only patriotic to a dream of a more socialist nation that does not exist. At least not yet. That is why so many patriots and lovers of free enterprise still despise him.

The current Bush is fighting the war well but is such an incompetent strategist and communicator that he has allowed his enemies to brand him a loser. He is unfortunately taking the image of our military down with him, even as he tries to defend what they are doing at his direction. He can't run again though, so the question is what does the Republican party do to fix the loser image that is so gutting the willingness of many Americans to see this war through to victory?

I think that is what a lot of Republicans liked in Reagan. Even though he was vilified with the same vicious attacks Bush is getting, the smears never stuck to him or the party. He had the ability to focus on the important and not try and fix every problem in sight that the MBA fascinated Bush just cannot emulate. Bush seems tone deaf and attacks his base more often than he attacks his opponents. Bush's participation with Hastert in running the most pork riddled administration in history will for decades tar our party. When Reagan left office the Republican Party was admired and respected. Today it is justifiably distrusted. Thanks "W". Well he can't take all the blame. Some belongs to Hastert . . . . and even to Newt.

So where are we today? Several battles are being fought for the heart of the Republican Party that will determine the future of our nation.

The issue of abortion is being debated in the party, and whether the absolutists on the issue will stay in the party if their view does not prevail will determine whether the party remains a power. Almost all Republicans agree that abortion after the first trimester is an obscenity and must be made illegal. However almost half of Republicans agree that abortions during most if not all of the first trimester are not a sin and should not be illegal. These people do not buy the newly derived revisionist Christian view that the fertilized egg has a soul. The view of moderates who are not a part of either major party . . control most election outcomes (at federal, most states, and a large part of local governments anyway) and they agree with the middle view on abortion. Some early abortions should be legal. The outcome of this battle for the soul of the Republican party may determine whether America wins the war against Islamofascism. The democrats are not fighting the Islamofascists at this point. They are in many ways aligned with them. If the Republican Party becomes a non factor at the federal level, as it was in the last election, the battle over the abortion issue will concede the court ordered premise that abortion is a right, and also indirectly lose the war against Islamofascism. Who wins in this battle? Certainly not the Republican Party or America.

The difference of opinion about whether there IS a war against Islamofascism or not may also be determinative of coming elections. Many Americans do not believe this war was started by the Islamofascists. They have accepted the liberal democrat line that they are responding to "our attack in Iraq". They say loudly and confidently that "there were no Islamofascists in Iraq before we invaded." The press cheers this view. Is it correct? To those of us who cannot understand this view it simply ignores any evidence that contradicts it. When you show all the evidence that Saddam Hussein saw how powerful the Islamofascists are and how hard he worked to make sure he was "not an enemy" of the movement, they belittle the evidence or ignore it. There are people like Walter Jones in the Republican Party here in Eastern North Carolina who have bought into this premise. Until nuclear bombs go off in Israel and in American cities, there will be no answer. What happens at that time is the real fear. How will America respond to nuclear bombs going off? When they go off will we unite as we did after 9/11? Or will we turn on each other to a start a blood bath of retribution against the appeasers? Unity means the Republican Party wins. A blood bath means we all lose.

Socialism is actually being advocated by a number or Republicans. Foremost among these is George W. Bush. His compassionate conservatism is nothing but socialism light. Bush has pushed hard for a recognition that you cannot simultaneously pretend that we are all equal under the law and then reject the ability of religious groups to participate in the expenditure of federal money for certain social service functions. However this does not address a more important issue. If Republicans reject socialism and advocate free enterprise, how can we simultaneously defend the concept of any group, religious or otherwise, getting on the federal gravy train for social services? This dichotomy is tearing the party apart.

A long term problem with the Republican Party has been the schism over illegal immigration. There is of course a group in our party, mostly fat cat big corporation types, who support both the Democrat Party and the Republican Party. They are COMMITTED to assuring that illegal immigration continues. They are the same group who support the socialist program of minimum wages, a related issue; related because both issues really are about cheap wages. Thomas Sowell, and most other responsible economists, have long explained the damage to small business (and all of society) of minimum wage laws. Both illegally using workers who are not residents or citizens of our nation, and illegally paying certain people off the books, are popular tactics of big corporations. It is only small business, where it is more obvious who is at fault, who are damaged by both issues and who cannot hide from government bureaucrats. The Republican party must decide. Are they defenders of free enterprise or defenders of socialism? This decision will either unify or destroy the Republican Party.

I am curious about the campaign to determine who wins the 2008 nomination because to a great extent it is being used to work out Republican positions on the issues listed above. This article by Weyrich asks many of the more interesting questions that must be decided. I wonder if the campaign for Presidential candidates will hide the more interesting philosophical debate about the soul of the party?

GOP Wives Are A Pol’s Breast Friend

Front-runners get ample attention on the front lines

by Margery Eagan - June 3rd, 2007 - Boston Herald



Fred Thompson with wife Jeri

Does the heaving bosom play well among Bible Belt Republicans? Among New Hampshire primary voters?

How else to explain, as debate week begins, the bursting out all over by GOP front-runners’ wives? What’s with this ample - and aging - display of decolletage?

Mrs. John McCain, 52, just gave Fox News’ Greta Van Susteren an at-home tour wearing this tight, bubble-gum-pink wraparound shirt cut to her sternum. Three inches of cleavage. Poor Greta, the consummate professional in blue blazer and yellow button-down, didn’t know where to look.

Look at Fred Thompsons' wife, 24 years his junior. There has to be something there to keep her interested, wouldn't you think?

Republican Convention - Day Two

Day two of the 2007 North Carolina Republican Convention started with the traditional breakfast for the County Chairman's Association. It is at this breakfast that the County Chairman elect the Chairman of their organization. This year the unanimous choice was Bob Pruett from Carteret County, shown below.

Immediately after that breakfast, the Saturday morning session started on the convention floor. This is always one of the best attended sessions of the convention because all of the candidates for statewide office are granted an opportunity to speak to the delegates. For many, the convention is their first chance to meet the candidates face to face at their booths in the hall outside the convention floor. Their speeches in this morning session are often the first chance many delegates have to hear the candidates positions on the issues. Both are important so the convention is very powerful tool in impacting the support the candidates will get in their campaigns around the state. As a result everyone seriously running is always at the convention and always does their best speech.

The first speeches in this session are usually from the candidates for Governor. This year there are three Republicans running for Governor. They are Senator Fred Smith (from the Clayton-Goldsboro area), Bob Orr (former Supreme Court Justice) and trial lawyer Bill Graham, well known contributor to political campaigns, both Democrat (What? Yes, this is true. He even supported Easley against the Republican candidate last time.) and Republican (Does that make him bi-partisan?).

Of the three, the one whose speech was clearly the hit of the convention was Senator Fred Smith's. The ending had the crowd roaring its approval.




Though on a lower key, Bob Orr was also well received. Bob is right on the issues and a really good man, but his judicial temperament and studious language will be a hard sell on the campaign trail.

The third candidate, Bill Graham, had an interesting reception. Only a couple of anti-tax points were well received and that was partly due to the clear lack of volunteer support. Though there were a large number of people wearing the orange "We" t-shirts for Graham, it quickly became obvious in talking with them they were all paid college students from outside North Carolina. When the speeches started they all lined up along the edges of the convention floor standing as guests and not seated on the convention floor because they were not North Carolina Republican delegates. There were at least a couple of delegates who referred to Graham as "our" John Edwards!

His "volunteers" cheered on cue, but the effect was not spontaneous or sincere.

After these three gubernatorial candidates spoke, the candidates for Lieutenant Governor followed. My choice is Patrick Ballantine, shown giving his speech below. Patrick is an up and coming Republican star who will be around for many years. He will make a great Lieutenant Governor for North Carolina.

One area where Republicans fell down badly last year was in judicial races. These are supposed to be non-partisan races , but in truth that change in election process was done by the democrats specifically to harm Republican candidates. The trial lawyers give millions to democrat activist judges since they are the ones who have allowed our court system to get so out of control. Since the change, Republican judges have lost most races and our North Carolina court system is about to go over to the control of liberals.

The three candidates that will be up for election next year are Bob Edmunds, for Supreme Court, John Tyson and Doug McCullough for appeal courts, shown below. Those three names need to be remembered and supported statewide. Bob Edmunds, John Tyson and Doug McCullough are great judges. As is repeatedly stated, voting the Republican ticket will not get these justices elected. You must specifically vote for them at the bottom of the ballot in the non-partisan election area of the ballot. The three candidates spoke together and are shown below with Bob Edmunds on the left, John Tyson in the middle and Doug McCullough on the right (Bill Miller, master of ceremonies is seated in front).




After the speeches, the morning session ended and the luncheon commenced. Below, Fred and Ginny Smith are meeting people while waiting for the food service to start.



Invocation for the luncheon was given by Jim Bention, shown below, one of the county Vice Chairmen who are so important to the success of our party.





Speeches at the luncheon were provided by two of our most popular federal officials, Sue Myrick, U.S. Representative (shown below), and Elizabeth Dole, Senator. Sue is chairman of a group dedicated to protecting our borders and is passionate about that cause. She gave a speech denouncing the proposed amnesty bill, and enlightening everyone on its shortcomings.






Senator Elizabeth Dole (below) gave the keynote speech for the luncheon.

Afterwards, I was able to get in line and get a couple of the Senator Fred Smith books for myself and a friend from Gatesville who knows Ginny Smith from her work in the Federation of Women's Clubs. Ginny, shown on the right below, was this year's Woman of the Year. Ginny signed that book too.

Above, Blair Keen, one of Fred's volunteers looks on as Fred and Ginny prepare to sign my friends book.

After that, the only thing left for me to do was to cast the Bertie County votes in the Chairman and Vice Chairman races before I headed home. The existing Chairman, Daves, and the existing Vice-Chairman, Sawyer, were re-elected easily.

I skipped the Saturday Night banquet, but I don't think I missed much. The highlight of the convention was the fantastic popularity of Senator Fred Smith's book, and Fred's speech at the Saturday Morning session.

I was there for those.