Sunday, July 29, 2007

Most Vote Machines Lose Test To Hackers

by John Wildermuth - July 28th, 2007 - San Francisco Chronicle

State-sanctioned teams of computer hackers were able to break through the security of virtually every model of California's voting machines and change results or take control of some of the systems' electronic functions, according to a University of California study released Friday.

The researchers "were able to bypass physical and software security in every machine they tested,'' said Secretary of State Debra Bowen, who authorized the "top to bottom review" of every voting system certified by the state.

Though the latest generation of computer voting equiment is much better than the last generation, it still leaves much to be desired. No one who knows much about computer voting is comfortable with the systems. At least part of the problem is the goal of the government organizations that buy these machines is not to realiably make sure that the votes cast are accurate and that an audit trail exists to prove the accuracy. Instead the goal is to be able to instantly report the results the minute the polls close.

Local bureacrats who can do this get much favorable press coverage from the media. Whether the results are accurate or not does not seem to be a high priority concern.

Audit trails have to be non-destructive and thus physical, requiring paper some place in the process with some effective means of protecting the paper version of the vote. The paper has to be tied to the computer results in some way. In most designs that is in conflict with the secret ballot premise of our elections. The legislature has used this excuse to go to systems that are in conflict with audit trail principles, and therefore almost certain to allow hackers to violate the integrity of the systems.

Of course the most serious problems in our current corrupt voting process is the fact that illegal aliens, the dead, the mentally handicapped, and felons are all over the voting rolls and vote in huge numbers, corrupting the process. The machines have no affect on that. It is also becoming quite popular to allow people to show up and vote on the day of elections without having registered. In many cases the process of doing this negates the ability of stopping their vote from countng, even when it is discovered later they were not citizens or were duplicate votes.

Our voting process is becoming more and more corrupt and the average voter is becoming more and more disgusted with the corruption. The problems in computer voting are just a symptom of our inability to devise a system that has integrity and meets the goals of ease of voting demanded by liberals. Ease of voting is not compatible with integrity of voting and the democrats who sabotage our systems and processes know it.

The YouTube Debate:
Send In The Clowns

by Ken Connor - July 29th, 2007 -

George Washington. Abraham Lincoln. Franklin Roosevelt. John F. Kennedy. Ronald Reagan. Who among these men would answer, with a straight face, a question posed by a snowman?

One wonders about the seriousness of a nation that considers the YouTube debate hosted by CNN a success and a triumph.

The failure of our teachers of the last two generations to teach may not have been their fault. There is a strong argument that you can lay the blame at the feet of the unelected tyrants on our federal judiciary and the Democrat Party's love for the union bosses at the NEA. However whoever is at fault, the consequences are starting to become obvious when such a childish event is praised because our citizens cannot think through the consequences.

I remember back in the 90s when so-called serious investors forked over billions to finance companies whose business plans were based on hyperbole. Such business plans as the idea that we would order our groceries over the Internet and they could be delivered to our homes for free for the savings. Fred Smith, inventor of Federal Express, commented on the concept when one company was selling this premise. His review was that the cost savings of the Internet order process were expected to be $2 per order, and the delivery costs were going to be $8 per order. "How long can this company last?" was his question. The company failed, like thousands of others based on nothing but Internet bubble hype. Many could not see the clear consequences of investing in businesses that experts could tell were nonsense.

The YouTube phenomenon is starting this non judgemental acceptance of technological revolution again. This debate side show adds nothing to helping citizens determine who is the best candidate to vote for. As noted in the article, it makes the debate more entertaining while trivializing the process of selecting a President. Even the argument that it makes the debate about more personal issues misses the point.

The President's job is not to be there to tend every Alzheimer's patient, teach every child, and arbitrate every labor dispute. The President is not supposed to solve every problem in America. Families, local communities, and local governments are often better equipped for dealing with personal tragedy.

When standing before an image of someone who is suffering, the natural reaction is to say, "Listen, I want to help you. Here's what I can do," even when on careful reflection one realizes that may not be good national policy. It is tempting for politicians who can wield the levers of power, to see themselves as the Savior who will wipe away every tear and heal every hurt. But, lest we forget, a government that is big enough to heal every hurt and right every wrong is one that is big enough to dictate every aspect of our existence.

That is the key poiint. Do we want to live in a dictatorship or in freedom? When the Soviet Union failed, a large part of the Soviet population recoiled at the responsbility of being citizens in a free nation. America is free. However there has never been a time when there were not citizens who would just as soon let the government tell them how to live and think. Is that our future?

Saturday, July 28, 2007

The Seeds Of The Global Warming Police State

by Robert Tracinski - June 29th, 2007 - Real Clear Politics

We have seen in recent decades the largest peacetime outpouring of government propaganda, all devoted to convincing us that human emissions of carbon dioxide are causing a global warming catastrophe. The German government, for example, has begun paying authors to inundate Wikipedia with articles boosting "renewable resources." So much for the Internet as the ultimate free marketplace for ideas: now one cartel will be supported by government subsidies.

Along with the campaign to subsidize government-approved speech, there always comes an attempt to suppress speech that challenges the official line. The designation of those who challenge the global warming scare stories as global warming "deniers"--smearing them as the equivalent of Holocaust deniers--has introduced the hard edge of dogmatism and character assassination to the public debate. The implications of this phrase were made clear by another Australian. (Apparently Australia, like Britain, is a few steps ahead of America in how seriously it takes its global warming dogma.) Referring to a British historian who was jailed for denying the existence of the Holocaust, leftist Australian journalist Margo Kingston growled: "David Irving is under arrest in Austria for Holocaust denial. Perhaps there is a case for making climate change denial an offense--it is a crime against humanity after all." (This quote appears at Kingston's former blog; see item #8.)

Kingston is a leftist provocateur and has gone beyond what the mainstream of the left has so far contemplated--but only a little beyond. Back in the United States, the left is still gingerly working to prepare the ground for green censorship, with Al Gore branding right-wing dissent an "assault on reason" that has "broken" the marketplace of ideas--which requires government intervention to fix. The fix is now being prepared in the form of a regulatory assault on right-leaning talk radio, among other initiatives.

This is another in the many articles starting to appear which are accepting the premise that environmentalism is becoming the darling of the socialists on the left. They are embracing it with a fervor that makes no sense until you understand that they don't really care about environmentalism nearly so much as they care about government control. To them, global warming is caused by the evil capitalists and their desire for materialsim. Only the good socialists have a plan to reverse this and return society to a pure and decent state of equality and morality enforced by government bureaucrats.

To those of us who have read Frederick Hayek's, The Road to Serfdom, the result is frightening. Socialism has failed every time it has been tried. It will fail again. In the process though, many people's lives will be ruined.

Friday, July 27, 2007

The Trouble With “Treason”

by David Horowitz - July 8th, 2007 - Front Page Magazine

I have always admired Ann Coulter’s satiric skewering of liberal pieties and her bravery under fire. Not many conservatives can fight back with as much verve and venom as she can, and if politics is war conducted by other means, Ann is someone I definitely want on my side.

I began running Coulter columns on shortly after she came up with her most infamous line, which urged America to put jihadists to the sword and convert them to Christianity. Liberals were horrified; I was not. I thought to myself, this is a perfect send-up of what our Islamo-fascist enemies believe – that as infidels we should be put to the sword and converted to Islam. I regarded Coulter’s phillipic as a Swiftian commentary on liberal illusions of multi-cultural outreach to people who want to rip out our hearts.

Another reason I have enjoyed Ann’s attacks on liberals is because they have been so richly deserved. No one wields the verbal knife more ruthlessly than so-called liberal pundits like Joe Conason, to cite but one example. I have been the subject of many below-the-belt Conason attacks. If people Joe Conason admired were the objects of acid Coulterisms, so much the better. If Conason was outraged, I was confident that justice had been done.

But now to my dismay, I find myself unable to find such satisfaction in Conason’s reaction to Ann’s new book Treason, or in the responses of other liberals like The Washington Post’s Richard Cohen (who has also attacked me in the past). In a review in the Post, Cohen dismisses Ann’s book as “Crackpot Conservatism,” reflecting the fact that their responses are not so much yelps of outrage as cackles over what they view as an argument so over the top that only true believers will take it seriously. It is distressing when someone you admire gives credibility to liberal attacks. But that, unfortunately, is what this book has done

A close friend has expressed similar unease with Ann Coulter's more recent books like Godless and did not seem comforted by my belief that her radicalization had been forced on her by the extreme attacks of those on the left.

Today, while doing a Google search to defend my view of Ann, I came upon this nearly month old article from one of the more realiably fervent conservatives around, David Horowitz. David echoes the same theme of my friend here in the Inner Banks and does so with a carefully researched article that takes apart some of Ann's worst excesses in an analytical and historically accurate fashion.

After reading this article I must concede that the criticism of Ann has validity. I still believe that she is funny, but it is clear from this article there is also a strong case that she is hurting the cause by going too far in attacking the socialists / liberals / progressives of the democrat party.

In general I find David Horowitz more conservative than I, and rarely read his Front Page web site because it is a touch too far for me. I am more / Libertarian in my views. To find David Horowitz agrees with my friend surprised me. To read his article made it clear I was not being fair in evaluating the criticism of Ann.

This is an excellent article that both suggests where Ann has gone too far, and still documents the need to recognize those elements of the left that are supporting the communist and socialist agenda. This is an agenda that we must fear . . . . and oppose. However we cannot become our enemies and lie. I think that is what Ann has started to do, something that both David and my friend, two men of widely different political views, have recognized.

Thursday, July 26, 2007

Back To The Future
In The Middle East?

vy Victor Davis Hanson - July 26th, 2007 -

After four years of effort in Iraq, Americans may well tire of th[e] cost and bring Gen. Petraeus and the troops home. We can then go back to the shorter-term remedies of the past. Well and good.

But at least remember what that past policy was: Democratic appeasement of terrorists, interrupted by cynical Republican business with terrorist-sponsoring regimes.

Then came September 11, and we determined to get tougher than the Democrats by taking out the savage Taliban and Saddam Hussein - and more principled than the Republicans by staying on after our victories to foster something better.

The jihadists are now fighting a desperate war against the new stick of American military power and carrot of American-inspired political reform. They want us, in defeat, to go back to turning a blind eye to both terrorism and corrupt dictatorships.

That's the only way they got power in the first place and now desperately count on keeping it.

As we look to the future we need to start worrying about the next crisis in America. That crisis is coming when nuclear bombs start going off in America. There is less and less chance that this holocaust will be avoided. It is therefore incumbent on everyone in America to start asking, what will we do when it happens?

Jeff Mixon From Civitas
Speaks In Ahoskie

Press release

The Al-Pam Republican Club has scheduled its August 2nd meeting in the town of Ahoskie, in Hertford County. The venue will be at Catherine's Restaurant. Catherine's is located at 706 South Catherine St. Their number is (252) 332-5858. The meeting will begin at 6:30 PM.

The speaker for the evening will be Jeff Mixon. Mr. Mixon is a legislative analyist with the Civitas Institute. He is a former member of the Department of Homeland Security's Gulf Coast Recovery Office. He has served as a campaign consultant for federal, state, and local offices in North Carolina and Virginia. Mr. Mixon is a veteran of the United States Navy with duty in the Submarine Force and Marine Corps. He is a native of Durham and a graduate of North Carolina Central University.

For more information, contact president Chris East at 793.9547 or email

The cost for the meal will be around $12-13 for a buffet style meal.

Interesting Statistics On War Dead

There is a great quote from Robert E. Lee about the way the press views the military.

We made a great mistake in the beginning of our struggle, and I fear, in spite of all we can do, it will prove to be a fatal mistake. We appointed all our worst generals to command our armies, and all our best generals to edit the newspapers?
- Robert E. Lee, 1863

Here are the actual total military fatality numbers for the U.S. Military from 1980 through 2004.

1980 .......... 2,392
1981 .......... 2,380
1982 .......... 2,318
1983 ......... .2,465
1984 .......... 1,999
1985 .......... 2,252
1986 .......... 1,984
1987 .......... 1,983
1988 .......... 1,819
1989 .......... 1,636
1990 ......... 1,508
1991 .......... 1,787
1992 .......... 1,293
1993 .......... 1,213
1994 ......... 1,075
1995 ......... 1,040
1996 .......... 974
1997 .......... 817
1998 .......... 826
1999 .......... 795
2000 .......... 774
2001 .......... 890
2002 .......... 1007
2003 .......... 1,410
2004 .......... 1,887

During the first 4 years of the Clinton Presidency, 4,302 Americans lost their lives in the military. During the first 4 years of the W. Bush Presidency, 5194 Americans lost their lives in the military. You would not know it from the way it is reported in the press. Also compare the numbers from back in the 80s when there was no war going on.

I wonder how these numbers will be reported after the first nuclear bomb goes off in America? The number of deaths that day will dwarf everything that has happened in the last 20 years.

Monday, July 23, 2007

Leaving Boomers Behind

by Michael Barone - July 23rd, 2007 - The New York Sun

For the past 15 years, our politics has been a civil war between two halves of the baby boom generation —


We see it in the hate-filled reactions to Bill Clinton and George Bush. And we are tired of it. Most voters would like to move on to something new.

It's not clear whether we will.

To make this a confrontation about the baby boomer generation is rather myopic. This confrontation is about socialism, something that preceeded the baby boomers and that will not end with their passing.

The continuous failure, again and again, of the liberals favorite economic system has created a rage on the left that is not amenable to logic. This drives their hate and hostility against anyone who will not adopt their love of socialism. Two generations of the left's control of the Main Stream Media (MSM) has created a backlash on the right that is equally outraged and outrageous.

This is not about baby boomers. This is about socialism. Trying to tag this as a confrontation within one arbitrary generational boundary is ridiculous.

Obama Solicits La Raza Backing

by Stephen Dinan - July 23rd, 2007 - The Washington Times

"Find out how many senators appeared before an immigration rally last year. Who was talking the talk, and who walked the walk — because I walked," Mr. Obama said at the National Council of La Raza's annual convention in Miami Beach. "I didn't run away from the issue, and I didn't just talk about it in front of Latino audiences."

The Illinois Democrat said the recent Senate immigration debate "was both ugly and racist in a way we haven't see since the struggle for civil rights."

This article is a perfect example of the duplicity in many of our debates here in America in this 21st century. A group that is racist in name and agenda, "La Raza" is "THE RACE" (and which demands rights only for Hispanices), is told by a democratic contender that he supports their agenda.

This racist group is advocating the right of mexican workers to take jobs from our poor. They are advocating the right of Mexican citizens to retake the Southwestern part of our nation and move it back to Mexican control and dominance. Their agenda is racist and their goal is the destruction of America as it currently exists. However this is never pointed out by the Main Stream Media (MSM). They are an "immigrants rights" group with benign goals, according to our socialist and anti-American dominated MSM.

Obama seeks their support. He even says he deserves it. I hope he gets it. No one who cares about our nation will support him if he does. Surely most of our population still realizes that these people are invading because we are the best nation on earth.

Do we really want to turn over the Southwest to such a corrupt and racist country as Mexico? For one example of their racism, a "gringo" can never own land or become a citizen of Mexico. Why is their racism not a problem for Obama. They are just as racist against blacks as against whites. Only Hispanics count in their agenda. Why else do they call themselves La Raza?

Sunday, July 22, 2007

Illegal Immigrants To Get
ID Cards In Connecticut

by Lucy Nalpathanchil - July 22nd, 2007 - ABC TV News

As many U.S. cities and states arrest illegal immigrants in raids and toughen laws against them, a Connecticut city is offering to validate them under a controversial, first-in-the-nation ID card program.
No better example exists of the fact that we are already in a civil war here in America. There are two sides fighting for the future of our nation. One side believes that we are a nation where only citizens shall determine the future. The other side believes that an invasion by foreignors is justified to end an economic system that they hate. That system is the free enterprise system that is the strength of our nation. Its opponents are socialists. They are what Jeanne Kirkpatrick used to refer to as the "hate America first" crowd.

That has not changed. They are opposed to anything that is American. If someone wants to invade, these socialists (also known as liberals, progressives or democrats) pass laws supporting their illegal activities. That is what is happening in Connecticutt. Democrats have passed laws to protect illegal activity and the people who have illegally invaded our nation. The reason is simple. They "hate America first".

Democrats Pledge Support
For Wide Access To Abortion

by Mike Dorning - July 18th, 2007 - Chicago Tribune

The recent 5-4 Supreme Court decision upholding a federal ban on a late-term abortion procedure that opponents call "partial-birth abortion" has increased anxieties among reproductive-rights advocates over the future of constitutional protections for abortion rights. All three of the Democratic campaigns used the forum to signal their determination to appoint Supreme Court nominees who would uphold the 1973 Roe vs. Wade abortion ruling.

The problem that really exists is that no one in the democrat party upholds Roe v. Wade. They actually uphold "Danforth", the perversion of "Roe" that replaced it. As noted in an article by Gregg Easterbrook, "Roe did not grant an unqualified privilege: it held that a woman's claim to make her own medical choices is strong in the first trimester of pregnancy, moderate in the second, and weak in the third, at which point the state acquires a "compelling" interest in the protection of new life. The court's inclination to permit abortion in the first two trimesters and all but ban it in the third was both morally defensible and helpful to physicians and regulators, because the beginning of the third trimester can be objectively determined within a week or so. Whatever one thinks of the legal reasoning in Roe--the opinion is sometimes attacked even by liberal scholars for its shaky use of precedent--its attempts at rights-balancing are a model of conscientious jurisprudence."

What happened was that "Danforth" destroyed that balance for third trimester abortions. Danforth went so far as to prohibit states from drawing clear lines at the third trimester--that is, it forbade states from using the logic of Roe.

It is thus not honest to say that the democrats are defending Roe when they are in fact demanding the right to murder which resulted from Danforth.

It is one more example of the lies that underpin the debate on abortion. There are strong arguments that abortion is wrong in the second trimester, but third trimester abortions are simply murder.

The baby can usually survive outside the womb from week 24 on, the start of the third trimester. Brain waves of third trimester babies indicate it has all the sentience of full term babies. It feels pain and clearly seems to indicate it fears death. It is a baby in all but the legal sense. Roe as modified by Danform is more an indication of the outdated stupidity of our courts than any reasonable claim the baby in the womb should not have the same rigths as a full term baby.

Third trimester abortions are not defended by Roe, but by Danforth. Danforth is the ruling that is truly evil. Danforth is the ruling that allows for a thousand murders to be committed each year under the claim of "constitutional rights". I think it is equally evil for democrats to try and claim that they are merely defending Roe. What they are defending is the right to murder of Danforth and pretending they are defending Roe.

Saturday, July 21, 2007

After Iraq

by Thomas Sowell - July 20th, 2007 -

While our media are impatiently waiting for the 4,000th American death in Iraq that they can trumpet, and rub our noses in -- in the name of "honoring the troops" -- we need to understand that casualty rates in Iraq are low, as wars go.

If and when that 4,000th American death in Iraq is reached, we need to recall that more Marines than that were lost taking one island in the Pacific during World War II.

During the Civil War, more than twice as many Union soldiers as that were killed -- in one day -- at the battle of Shiloh, and again at Gettysburg.

The "war on terror" is a misleading phrase. It is the terrorists' war against us -- and it is not something that we can unilaterally call off. Our only choice is where to fight it, over there or over here.

The part of "over here" that bothers me is the way this war alignment is proceeding. Since democrats are clearly aligned with the Islamofascists, when the war (not if) comes "over here", will the shooting result in war, real war, shooting war, between Americans as well as foreignors?

Train Of Thought: A letter
To Sen. Arlen Specter

by Diana West - July 20th, 2007 -

In our new age, in our post-modern culture, American war goals -- American self-preservation -- are secondary to war casualties, and I don't mean our own.

That's who we are -- socially humane, expendable and increasingly impotent. It's not who our fathers and grandfathers were. The men who decimated German and Japanese cities as part of the effort to win World War II as quickly as possible would have been perplexed by descendants who now send American troops house to booby-trapped house and expect to achieve anything but more war, "limited" though it may be.

Talk about waste.

America's enemies are hard to define nowadays. With this article Diana West has come close to summing up the reason the American people have become disgusted with the battlefield in Iraq. I refuse to say war in Iraq since we are not at war with Iraq. We are at war with Islamofascism and these extremists are killing our soldiers in Iraq as just one battlefield.

The problem is that no matter how just attacking Iraq was, the way we are fighting the war right now is not working. We have a President who thinks of himself as an MBA President. He takes on each task and does it the best he can. However he has failed to keep the American people on his side because he is inarticulate and tone deaf. This failure to keep the American people behind the war has allowed our internal enemies to drag his approval ratings to abysmal levels. This means the ability of America to fight for our long term freedom is compromised.

The anti-war movement has demanded, and America has complied, with a method of war that borders on the insane. We never fight all out war any more. We do not recognize that the easiest way to minimize all casualties is to destroy the enemy so the war stops. We fight limited war, handicapping our troops so that they don't do TOO MUCH damage to the enemy, and especially we must protect "civilians". As a result the war drags on.

In this war our enemies behead innocent civilians. They take the children of tribal leaders and bake them and feed them to the tribal leaders to demand allegiance. They set as their goal the killing of innocents as their primary form of warfare. Our liberal and progressive leaders complain that we must give up the fight if we can't stop them from their outrageous conduct. Anything they do is our fault according to Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid and other leaders of the democrat party. Our fault, and we must stop "making them" attack us.

No one it seems wants to win this war by going all out. Our nation is in trouble right now. We have four basic sides in the war right now. 1. Anti-war liberal-progressives who support socialism and side with anyone who is an enemy of our nation. 2. Patriotic liberals who want us to win but only if we fight "limited" war and don't do anything that they feel is nasty. 3. Patriotic moderates who will accept the limitations on our troops and fight the best they can to assure we "don't lose" this war. 4. Various flavors of conservatives, who feel we should fight aggressively to win this war and that our troops should not be sacrificed to "police" the middle east in the meantime.

This last comes closest to what Diana West seems to be proposing though she wants even more aggression. I have felt this way for a while. I recognize we must not stop the war. The four groupings of our citizens described above are in a state of flux. With next year being an election year, it will be fascinating to see what the four groups, (along with those like Diana who are outside the mainstream of even the aggressive group) wind up becoming. We may fragment even more. We may see one group come to the front and dominate. Right now it is chaos and our nation is suffering because of it.

What do you think? Should we bring our troops home, stay the course, or expand the war? Do you know why?

Your children's lives are dependent on your answer.

Thursday, July 19, 2007

Crooks of a Feather . . .

Crooks of a Feather . . .Or Just Misinformed?

by Fern Shubert - July 19th, 2007 - North Carolina Conservative

This morning I watched as Jim Black was sentenced to 63 months in federal prison for taking bribes from chiropractors. It was painfully obvious that there were other crimes for which he was not (yet?) being sentenced, although his efforts to obstruct justice were noted in part of the discussion of sentencing guidelines.

Probably the most entertaining part of the session came when Black’s attorney tried to convince Judge Boyle that there was nothing unusual about Black paying to hire an attorney for Mike Decker when Decker was called to testify before the grand jury. Judge Boyle, while accepting the explanation given, explained why he thought that action might be considered significant.

According to Judge Boyle, in his experience dealing with drug cases, when a mule is caught, the kingpin typically hires the attorney to be sure the mule keeps quiet. Obviously in Decker’s case, he did not keep quiet. Judge Boyle’s comment does strengthen the case of those who believe the public should be informed of the identity of those footing Black’s legal bills.

Another entertaining moment came after the hearing when Mecklenburg County Commissioner Parks Helms “held court” to give his spin on the Black story to a group of reporters. With John Rhodes and me standing in plain view, barely five feet away, he told what a great guy Black was and how he was never vindictive. Perhaps he meant he was never vindictive to his political allies, only to those like Rhodes and me who thought using the government to steal from the public to reward those allies was dishonest.

Since I returned to NC I have been hesitant to believe just how crooked our state politics have gotten. In the last few months I have finally become a believer. The stories about the abuse are constant and easy to find if you are not willfully ignoring the problem. This article is indicative of how openly dishonest the democrat party has become in North Carolina.

To me the most contemptible action documented in this article is the story "about Black’s action in firing pesticide inspectors in retaliation for fining Black’s son for cheating the public."

. . . . don't forget the time Black's son was being fined for cheating people by charging for pesticide applications he didn't make. Rather than advising his son to quit stealing, Black used the state budget to fire the people who caught and penalized his son. What a great guy.

Why are citizens no longer outraged when honest people are destroyed for their actions? This power play is a part of the culture that intimidates people into going along with the evil practices.

There was an earlier democrat in our area, Congressman Frank Balance, who has gone to jail for his criminal abuse of the public trust. Numerous democrat politicians in our area still talk about what a great guy he was and how sending him to jail was a miscarriage of justice. How can they believe this?

In none of these cases is the criminality petty or technical or small. It is open and abusive and arrogant.

Despite the fact that the majority of our state votes Republican, democrats dominate government at both the local and state level. This dominance is based on power rigging schemes that have long denied open and honest government to the citizens of North Carolina. There are a number of honest and well intentioned democrats in government in NC. Unfortunately they often cover up for and excuse rampant corruption that could not happen except for their complicity. Doesn't that make them equally guilty?

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

- Edmund Burke

If we are ever going to regain honest government in North Carolina, people of integrity in the democrat party are going to have to accept that their own futures are dependent on helping to end the abuse. Otherwise they become a part of the problem. Are there none in the democrat party who are outraged at the abuse?

I never see anything like the article linked below on Republican Patrick McHenry's campaign if the official in question is a Democrat. Here a conservative web site condemns the actions of McHenry that are not themselves illegal, but just immoral. We need more of that .

Wednesday, July 18, 2007

Al-Qaida Plans Nuclear Attacks

Al-Qaida Plans Nuclear Attacks on 7 U.S. Cities

July 17th, 2007 - NewsMax

The newly released book "The Day of Islam: The Annihilation of America and the Western World," (Prometheus Books) paints a frightening picture of al-Qaida's nuclear ambitions — one every American must read.

With the takeover in Gaza by Hamas, Iran is moving forward with their program to position radical elements of Islam in places where they can plant nuclear bombs when they have them. Hamas is one group of the Islamofascist movement, the group determined to see the return of the Caliphate and the world wide dominance of Islam with its Sharia law. They are sincerely dedicated to killing all infidels. They either want you converted to Islam or dead. They have, like Iran has, announced their intentions to destroy Israel. They have, like Iran has, announced their willingness to accomplish this by destroying Tel Aviv with a nuclear bomb.

These same threats have been made by Iran and other Islamofascist groups against America. We are called the "Great Satan". Anyone who thinks this is a wild hope that cannot be realized is not paying attention to what is happening in the world. Iran is funding and providing weapons to the "insurgents" in Iraq. We do nothing to retaliate. Except for Iran's efforts, the "insurgency" in Iraq might have already ended. They are convinced if they can attack us with no consequences in Iraq, they can attack us in America and there will likewise be no consequences they care about.

The problem is that they are perfectly willing to endure an invasion after they have nuked us since they already see the willingness of the democrats to "cut and run" after the minor casualties suffered in Iraq. They are sure that after some time we will tire and quit. No matter how bad you see the current war front in Iraq, you should note that the murder rate in Washington DC is higher than the death rate of American troops in Iraq.

Yet democrats are ready to quit. With this appeasement oriented goal, the democrats assure our enemies that we can yet be defeated in any war where they are patient.

Tuesday, July 17, 2007

University President, 2 Administrators Fired

University President, 2 Administrators Fired for Alleged Cover-Up of Student's Rape and Slaying

by Staff - July 16th, 2007 - Fox News

Three Eastern Michigan University administrators, including President John Fallon, have been forced out of their jobs, months after top school officials were accused of covering up the rape and slaying of a student by publicly ruling out foul play.

Read the entire article and you find out that these people were arrogant beyond belief. It is typical of the corruption that has become epidemic in all of our schools systems where tenure protects incompetents and demagogues from any consequences.

However as bad as this article makes it sound, comments on the TV coverage indicate an indifference to this girl's death by some of the school administrators that reeks of narcicism. Their careers, their jobs, their reputations, their needs . . drove them to acts that any decent person could not condone . . . even if there was no Clery Act! When did morality become conditional upon a law requiring it?

What is amazing is that many of their supporters feel that tenure should protect them from these consequences. Anyone want to take a bet that they don't sue the university?

Monday, July 16, 2007

The Nifong Sexual Assault
Wall Of Shame

by Mike Adams - July 14th, 2007 -

Several years ago, I made a funding request for a new Men’s Resource Center (MRC) at UNC-Wilmington. This was largely in response to the establishment of a Women’s Resource Center (WRC) here on our predominantly female campus. Back then, I made the request on the grounds of Equal Protection. Today, I renew my request in light of recent attacks on male college students in North Carolina – all at the hands of dangerous sexual predators.

As you all know, Mike Nifong recently helped an emotionally disturbed woman levy a false rape accusation against some innocent college students at Duke University. This was done in order to win votes and sympathy from the black community in Durham, North Carolina. His decision to prosecute a demonstrably false rape case in order to gratify his own political desires - even if his misconduct causes permanent psychological damage to his victims – renders him morally equivalent, in many ways, to an actual rapist. For that reason I will hereafter refer to Mike Nifong as a sexual predator.

Mike Adams is the master of satire. What he points out in this article (in a funny way to anyone with a sense of humor) is the outrageous lack of equal protection under the law that exists in our increasingly tyrannical society. Women make up the majority of society. It turns out that women make up the majority of the students at UNC-Wilmington where Mike teaches also. However under the guise of "minority" rights, women at UNCW are provided with a separate Women's Resource Center while men are banned from having a similar facility.

What is really ironic is that the "women" who control this resource center are advocating an anti-male hate-mongering program of "feminism" that is not even supported by the majortiy of women. It includes a program to charge various men with rape even when there is evidence no rape occured. Their argument is that ALL MEN are guilty of rape, so these false accusations still serve a purpose.

It is this legally premitted double standard that has resulted in boys in our society starting to fall behind and suffer from the same kind of persecution complex that other disfavored groups have suffered. Rather than be outraged that a double standard exists, many women feel it is simply justice that they "get their turn on top". So no concern at the injustice seeps into their feelings. Noe at all.

Many men fought for the end to gender based discrimination by government. Now these men and especially their sons are finding that we did not end discrimination. We just swapped if for government legislated discrimination in favor of women.

Friday, July 13, 2007

Growing With Time

By Charles Krauthammer - July 13th, 2007 -

A year ago, a confidential Marine intelligence report declared Anbar province (which comprises about a third of Iraq's territory) lost to al-Qaeda. Now, in what the Times' John Burns calls an "astonishing success," the tribal sheiks have joined our side and committed large numbers of fighters that, in concert with American and Iraqi forces, have largely driven out al-Qaeda and turned its former stronghold of Ramadi into one of most secure cities in Iraq.

If any single situation can make a mockery of Harry Reid's repeated assertion "this war is lost", it is Anbar Province. The democrat contention that this war is lost would be the equivalent of declaring after the Battle of the Bulge, "this war is lost". There were among the gutless appeasers of World War II those who were convinced at every turn that we were losing and that allowing Germany to obtain a cease fire to end the conflict was the best course of action. In those days, Americans consistently defeated such people. Today, we have made them majority leader and speaker of the house. If there is any cause for concern in our nation today it is the question, "how can we remain optimistic when we see Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi leading the legislature of our nation?"

If they had their choice, our military would be required to give back Anbar Province to our enemies.

Jim Black Gets 5 Years In Prison

By John Fuquay - July 12th, 2007 - Fayetteville Observer

RALEIGH — Former state House Speaker Jim Black’s sentencing Wednesday to 63 months in federal prison does not necessarily end one of the biggest public corruption scandals in state history.

Federal prosecutors said after the sentencing that a $500,000 transaction between Black and a lobbyist in 2000 is under state and federal investigation.

Considering the damage done to the state of North Carolina, and the very concept of our representative democracy, the sentence seems rather light to me.

Just for a reminder, Jim Black (along with Marc Basnight) took advantage of the political power bought with the bribes involved in this case and gerrymandered the state to change district maps in both the house and senate to suppress Republican representation. The result is that though the majority of citizens vote Republican the state is still controlled by Democrats. That is not just unjust, it is corrupt.

It is the ability of the Democrats to hang on to power, and wield that power to pay off favors, that has resulted in one true test of political corruption. Democrats get 3 times as much in political contributions as Republicans in our state. THREE TIMES. It is obvious that the money is simply another form of bribery to buy Democrat payoffs and favors.

There is a reason that Democrats constantly scream about "supposed" Republican corruption. Since Democrats are corrupt, they assume everyone else is too.

It is amazing that despite this money advantage and the advantage that the vast majority of the press is pro Democrat, citizens still vote Republican by a small margin. Republicans shouldn't even be in the race. I think this is reason for optimism. If we fix even a small number of the corrupt advantages the Democrats have rigged for themselves, we can fix some of the huge problems the Democrats have caused in our state.

Thursday, July 12, 2007

Bush Legacy, a Ford?

by Dr. Ada Fisher - July 2nd, 2007 - Warren, NC GOP (

The UN has proven itself ineffective in censuring its members or dealing with the nuclear proliferation of its members. So who is going to be a gatekeeper if not the world’s sole superpower? When Iraq denied access to UN inspectors repeatedly what happened? What happens when Iran and Korea do the same? What is the game plan on this issue from those running for President? Appeasement as a strategy to deal with the bully’s of the world doesn’t work. Ask any kid on a play ground or those walking through gang turf. Economic sanctions are weak as a strategy when multiple ancillary markets for goods and services exist through China, India and other nations. A military option can’t ever be taken off the table. The bigger question is, what if any are the indications for a preemptive strike? Is the possession of nuclear arms by someone threatening to use them indiscriminately or documentation of genocide on ones own people something that can be ignored as has been the case of Darfur or the Sudan? Should we only engage in foreign affairs if our national interests are served? This means we can turn our backs on genocidal happenings. Does the mayonnaise size jar of Ricin found in Iraq which could kill up to 450,000 people not count as a weapon of mass destruction? Would our leaders know a weapon of mass destruction if they saw one?

Though this article is posted on a Repubican Party web site, it is an important article. It addresses many of the concerns that I have about the facts known to have been suppressed by the MSM. Many of these facts have been so misrepresented that the majority of Americans think the exact opposite is true.

Dr. Fisher asks some really important questions.

Dr. Ada M. Fisher is a physician, licensed teacher for secondary education in mathematics and science, previously elected school board member, and was and is the Republican candidate for the NC 12th U.S. Congressional District. Contact her at P. O. Box 777; Salisbury, NC 28145; Telephone (704) 637-6134, Drfisher@Dradamfisher.Org

OLF Site Search Shifts To Virginia

by Cal Bryant - July 11th, 2007 - Roanoke-Chowan News-Herald

Over the past five years, the U.S. Navy has searched for a prime spot in eastern North Carolina to construct an Outlying Landing Field (OLF).

The Navy’s search may now take a turn north of the border in Virginia.

On Tuesday, Virginia Governor Tim Kaine identified 10 spots in his state the Navy could consider for its fleet of new F/A 18 Super Hornet strike fighter jets to perform “touch-and-go” training.

Three of the Virginia sites are as close to the Inner Banks as the site in Washington County. Because of the huge scale of territory that modern fighter jets cover, it is unlikely that these three sites will matter to us any less than the site in Washington County that appears to have been defeated by political efforts.

It is interesting to me that the battle has always been over where to place the new OLF and not whether a new OLF is important. The problem has always been twofold. The most critical one is that our nation no longer is willing to say to people, deal with your own decisions. The current touch and go landing field has been surrounded by homes and development that came in long after the field was built and used for this purpose. These people built their homes and then demanded the Navy move someplace else because they didn't like the noise. That is the reason a new field is needed.

Since a field already exists, and the only purpose is to move to a less congested area, it is ironic that our nation will not allow the field to be built anywhere there is wildlife too. If you can't build in the country and you can't operate near cities, there is certainly an implication that many people simply don't want our pilots to be able to practice. Is there perhaps an ulterior motive?

The second reason this is important is that we are at war right now. World War IV against the Islamofascists is reality. There is no argument that fighter jets will not be an important part of this war. Already the success and tactical superiority we gained in early battles in Iraq and Afghanistan prove that. Since the war will be going on for at least another generation, it probably is important that this OLF be built somewhere.

An important question in this battle over where to build the OLF, do we have the will to do things that are in our national interest any longer?

The 'Benchmark' Excuse

Editorial - July 12th, 2007 - The Wall Street Journal (

In an interview this week in the New York Post, General David Petraeus noted that while the performance of the Iraqi Army has been mixed, "their losses in June were three times ours." To suggest that Iraqis aren't willing to fight for their freedom is an insult to their families.

General Petraeus also noted that "the level of sectarian deaths in Baghdad in June was the lowest in about a year," evidence that in this key battlefield the surge is making progress. As a result, al Qaeda is being forced to pick its targets in more remote areas, as it did last week in the village of Amirli near Kirkuk, where more than 100 civilians were murdered. More U.S. troops and the revolt of Sunni tribal leaders against al Qaeda are the most hopeful indicators in many months that the insurgency can be defeated.

But that isn't going to happen under the timetable now contemplated by Congress.

For the first time since the Civil War, a preponderance of our citizens are publicly rooting for the defeat of American forces. If you add up both the forces who wanted Lincoln to abandon the South and the overwhelming majority in the South who were opposed to the Union, it is clear that a truly democratic vote taken at that time would have split our nation.

Despite the high probability that defeat in Iraq will lead to defeat in the World War currently being waged against Islamofascism, we are at a point where a vote by our citizens would be in the majority for "cut and run". They don't define it that way, and most of our citizens simply reject the argument that defeat in Iraq matters. That is Bush's fault.

It does not help that we have a President who is so tongue tied and tone deaf that he cannot explain the consequences of defeat. George W. Bush has damaged the Republican Party badly because he never understood anything about the true motivations of most of the party. He campaigned as a "compassionate conservative". What this has meant is big government programs. In other words, not conservative at all. He was actually helped to win by his inability to communicate clearly. If Republicans had understood what he was selling, he would never have been the standard bearer for the Republican Party.

We are now in World War IV. Bush never says that. He seems to imply that his job is to never give the nation bad news or talk about the need for sacrifice. The nation is being poorly served by Bush's inability to lead or communicate. Bush cannot lead by the only measure that matters for a President, picking the important issue and rallying our nation behind the winning strategy. If we leave Iraq, Bush has to go down in history as one of the most incompetent Presidents ever.

Monday, July 09, 2007

How Stem Cells Can Turn Tummy Flab
Into A Bigger Bust

By Sean Poulter - July 9th, 2007 - Daily Mail (London)

Scientists say they have perfected a procedure to take fat from around the middle and turn it into bigger breasts.

While reading the Daily Mail for an article hyperlinked from a favorite blog site, I noticed this article of interest on the ongoing debate about the difference between adult stem cells and embryonic stem cells. It has long been noted in the responsible press that they are two different things. That means you will never see the difference discussed in America's MSM.

Unless it has happened quite recently, there still has not been any practical medical procedure based on embryonic stem cells. The new procedure discussed in this article (which may well become popular as a replacement for breast implants) is based on ADULT stem cells. This is just one of around 30 practical medical procedures that have been based on adult stem cells. Many are now becoming standard medical processes.

That difference justifies bringing it to my audience's attention for two reasons. One is it proves the unnecessary justification of embryonic stem cell research so beloved by the "pro-choice" women's movement as an attack on conservatives. Feminists conveniently ignore that it is only embryonic stem cell research which is opposed by conservatives. Conservatives are not opposed to adult stem cell research and welcome it. The other reason is more personal. I cannot deny that anything that increases female beauty in the world is appealling. I like women.

The Internet Is Destroying
The World As We Know It

By A.N WILSON - July 8th, 2007 - Daily Mail (London)

Your child is next door on the computer, destroying the world as we know it and wrecking two of the most fundamental values that underpin society - first, as I shall explain, the distinction between truth and falsehood; second, the inviolability of personal property.

While the little blighter is about it, your darling ten-year-old is also helping to destroy the record industry, the publishing industry, newspapers and cinema. And what is more, this activity is highly addictive, and is more likely than not to make young people into addicts of gambling, pornography and insidious forms of self-deception.

The cycle of technological change never stops. It goes through periods of slow change and then intense change. However it never stops. In the 1700s and 1800s we had the age of inventions, during which the pace of technological change became frantic. Teletypes and looms and printing presses and cameras and railroads and powered boats, etc., etc. changed the world at a pace never seen before. They changed jobs and society. The result was numerous examples similar to the one known as the Luddites. People revolted against technology and tried to destroy it. That has never worked.

We are in a period of extreme change. The pace of change is at a level never before seen in mankind's existence. In the last decade of the 20th century there was a popular quote; "The Internet is changing everything." It was true then. It is true now. As is usual in society many technology leaders and political leaders saw this as an opportunity. Most of society waited to see what the changes would be. Nearly twenty years after the World Wide Web set the Internet on fire; many of those changes are becoming clearer.

The changes this article talks about are some of the trends that are happening. The two "fundamental values" that are highlighted in the article as being damaged, "the distinction between truth and falsehood" and "the inviolability of personal property" are certainly accelerated, however the second is only true for "intellectual property". What is not noted in the article is that many other equally important trends are also accelerated. Mankind has to deal with the reality that information is vastly more available and vastly more powerful.

The first trend, "damaging the distinction between truth and falsehood", is also being countered by the Internet. As quickly as Wikipedia is spreading falsehoods, blogs are becoming a powerful force for the rapid deconstruction of falsehoods. That is a countervailing force that can work for good. It has changed politics by accelerating the spread of any message. It has contributed to the modern reality that political campaigns never stop. It has an interesting development for two groups that existed before the Internet. Socialists and Islamofascists. Both are spreading their false gospels more fervently than ever using the Internet and they appeal to simplistic logic that only hearing one side of an argument often brings.

The second, "damaging the inviolability of personal property", is primarily a problem because our courts are so corrupt and antiquated. Attempts to stop the use of the Internet for stealing intellectual property have been fought by rules that existed when digital copying did not exist. The "fair use doctrine" has become a joke. Until the courts return to their original focus of "justice" and come into the 21st Century it is unlikely that small works of intellectual property like music and movies will be effectively protected.

We are living in one of the most exciting and dangerous times in mankind's history. Old habits die hard deaths. The socialists acquired overwhelming control of the global press just about the time that the Internet (with an assist from talk radio) broke their monopoly on reaching a large audience. The Islamofascists have taken advantage of the Internet's ability to spread an addictive message quietly and privately to millions with little public notice. Both trends are a part of the Internet that are as concerning as the two trends the article highlights. The Islamofascist group has even used the Internet to fuel their war on the world's foremost cultures.

The trends haven't changed the falsehood of the two messages. They have simply accelerated their spread in a world that is only partly relying on the countervailing trends the Internet also provides.

Our courts must be made accountable again. The antiquated rules that allow for identity theft and intellectual property theft must be brought into the 21st century. The orientation of the courts to delay and complicate issues must be overcome. The world is racing ahead. Our courts must stop allowing for the bad guys to win because they are focused on their outdated rules instead of justice.

People must stop believing what they hear, not just on the Internet but in newspapers and on TV. They must get both (or sometimes all) of the sides in an argument by activley looking to hear them. They cannot just pick one source for information. They also cannot abrogate the need to pay attention to the reliability of their source.

Like Wikipedia, the New York Times and other MSM have long been known for spreading lies and distortions. Yet many people will not change their habits and intentionally look for ways to hear from opposing voices. That does require that you think about some of these issues. They are complex, not the simple socialism based answers the MSM wants to project. However the long term trend is that more and more people are rejecting the Luddite solution, destroy the Internet or at least control the Internet.

Neither solution will work. The only real answer is that people must accept more responsibility for keeping up with what is happening. The Internet is CHANGING EVERYTHING. That means that YOU MUST CHANGE.

Sorry. I am not causing this to happen, I am just the messenger. Good luck.

Woman Jailed For 'Neglected' Lawn

by Staff - July 8th, 2007 - BBC News

A 70-year-old US woman has been left bruised and bloody after an unexpected clash with police who came to arrest her because her lawn was dry and brown.

This is so bizarre. Of course BBC is delighted to report this story since they hate America. However the sad thing is that more and more we see government officials who take these kinds of actions and see nothing wrong with them.

We really do need to pass out Frederick Hayek's "The Road to Serfdom" to all government officials in America. Even better is to give it to all voters. That would quickly return us to the days when people in America would not have put up with this abuse of power.

Sunday, July 08, 2007

Who's Behind The Integration Decision?

It's the Pacific Legal Foundation, champion of right-wing causes for 35 years.

by Mark Tushnet - July 7th, 2007 - Los Angeles Times

THE SEATTLE school integration case decided by the Supreme Court last month was brought in the name of a group called Parents Involved in Community Schools on behalf of Jill Kurfirst and her ninth-grade son. But it was a little-known, Sacramento-based organization called the Pacific Legal Foundation — a conservative public interest law firm involved in the case from the beginning — that developed many of the legal arguments five justices ultimately found persuasive.

Where did the foundation come from? The story begins with former Justice Lewis F. Powell. Shortly before he was nominated to the court in 1971, Powell, then a Virginia lawyer, wrote a memo to a friend at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce titled "Attack on the American Free Enterprise System." In it, Powell worried that liberal groups had nurtured specialist lawyers and developed litigation strategies to defend government regulation. Businesses, he argued, were suffering because they had a "disposition to appease" and weren't able to present a countervailing view of what constituted the public interest.

Powell's memo prodded the business community to help create a number of not-for-profit law firms devoted to arguing a conservative point of view. Ronald Zumbrun and Raymond Momboise, former advisors to California Gov. Ronald Reagan, founded the first one — the Pacific Legal Foundation — in 1973. On its website today, the foundation says it exists to fight "tyranny" engendered by "overzealous bureaucracies and government red tape" and that it is a foe of "government regulators and environmental extremists."

Fighting for freedom is becoming the most important focus of the conservative movement. A problem has been that conservatives have been led down many wrong paths in recent times. Momentary passions have been the focus of much energy and they have not always resulted in victories that have mattered in the long term.

To a great extent that is because conservatives keep getting wrapped up in the momentary passion of legal issues for a secondary goal and forget that what is important is about a greater goal, freedom. One problem is big business. Big business is not the friend of freedom. Big business is not the friend of conservatives. The desire for freedom of conservative individuals and the goal of small business, a competitive landscape which allows for free enterprise to exist, were subverted to the goals of big business. Big business sought "tort reform through judicial restrictions on punitive damages and interpreting national statutes in a business-friendly manner to reduce and eliminate penalties for business misconduct . . . restricting federal power, putting constitutional limits on regulation and fighting environmental regulation . . . "

As long as conservatives espouse the goals of big business the short term goals become destructive of more important issues. Big business is opposed to free enterprise which requires competition to work. People always seem surprised when I point this out. It is easy to see what I mean though. Big business gives twice as much money to democrats as it does to Republicans. Since democrats are the party of socialism it makes no sense until you understand that big business is opposed to competition. The more government regulations there are the more burden there is on the small business and the less competition big business faces. Big business only cares about the type of regulation. As long as big business embraces socialism, democrats embrace big business.

What does this have to do with integration? The article here is talking about the feasibility of this Supreme Court decision actually making lives better for children by getting school systems to stop wasting energy fighting battles over how many black children are seated in certain classrooms and instead fighting battles over how many black children can read and do math. To make that happen this legal victory must be followed by many more battles in BOE and PTA meetings all over our land. Conservatives need a plan of how to turn these battles into battles that increase freedom for our nation and our people. Big business will not fund that campaign. Indivduals and small business will because they care about the important issue of freedom.

It is the slowly encroaching slavery of socialism that we need to fear. Socialism is still the goal of the liberals who wasted two generations arguing that how many black children were seated in a classroom determined whether they could read. They won their stated goal even though many of these children still cannot read. Their bureaucracies are still in place in our school systems and they will find new ways to subvert freedom until we fight the right battles and win. They are still aligned with big business. No single Supreme Court Victory will change that.

Saturday, July 07, 2007

Powerline Blog And Iraq News

If you listen to the mainstream media (MSM), also known as ABC, CBS, NBC, New York Times, Washington Post, etc., you get nothing but lies and propoganda. I read 6 blogs every day, 3 liberal, and 3 conservative. That includes linking to the articles they use as source material, so it takes some time. These blog sites, which the MSM claims are biased, provide more honest news than any of the MSM, and even though it is posted with a point of view, if you read both sides of each story, one on the left and one on the right, the point of view is easy to filter out.

One of the most articulate and important of the conservative blogs is Powerline. I read them every day, but do not post articles from them, since it is so hard to link directly. However today I think it is important to cover their views on some of what is happening in the world. Since it is generally good news for our side in the war, you will not hear it on TV or see it in your newspaper.

[You can go to the web site and read the articles as originally posted right now, but as more postings happen they will scroll down. For that reason I have included the entire postings here so they will stay readable. However Powerline is a great site and I encourage everyone to read it regularly if you want to know the truth about what is happening in the world. ]

First are a couple postings about Al Quaeda and their growing desperation because they are losing in Iraq.

A glimpse of the future in Baqubah

Below John highlights
Michael Yon's latest report on developments in Diyala province. Yon's report mostly summarizes the remarkable progress achieved by the "surge" counterinsurgency strategy in Diyala. At NRO's Corner, however, Michael Ledeen highlights Yon's account of the terrorist onslaught from which we have for the moment rescued Diyala:

Speaking through an American interpreter, Lieutenant David Wallach who is a native Arabic speaker, the Iraqi official related how al Qaeda united these [previously independent criminal] gangs who then became absorbed into “al Qaeda.” They recruited boys born during the years 1991, 92 and 93 who were each given weapons, including pistols, a bicycle and a phone (with phone cards paid) and a salary of $100 per month, all courtesy of al Qaeda. These boys were used for kidnapping, torturing and murdering people.

At first, he said, they would only target Shia, but over time the new al Qaeda directed attacks against Sunni, and then anyone who thought differently. The official reported that on a couple of occasions in Baqubah, al Qaeda invited to lunch families they wanted to convert to their way of thinking. In each instance, the family had a boy, he said, who was about 11 years old. As LT David Wallach interpreted the man’s words, I saw Wallach go blank and silent. He stopped interpreting for a moment. I asked Wallach, “What did he say?” Wallach said that at these luncheons, the families were sat down to eat. And then their boy was brought in with his mouth stuffed. The boy had been baked. Al Qaeda served the boy to his family.

Yon's narrative that belies the Democratic talking points on the war and undermines the case for withdrawal. It foreshadows the killing fields that we will leave behind us when we withdraw, and the future our common enemy has in mind for us. In his Weekly Standard editorial
"Of Senators and soldiers," Bill Kristol elaborates on our progress against the enemy in Iraq in the context of political developments at home.

First they beheaded people who were opposed to them. Now they bake innocent children and make families eat them. This is the Al Quaeda that you never hear about in the MSM. Why? Why is their desperation not something you ever hear about in the MSM?

Next example:

Jihadists On Defense

On July 4, Zawahiri released a new video tape. The production values are pretty good, and Zawahiri is intercut with other footage, including television clips. What is striking about Zawahiri's message, however, is how defensive it is. And what Zawahiri is defensive about, is events in Iraq.

He begins by talking about Iraq, and that remains the main subject although there are passing references to other fields of battle. His theme on Iraq is the need for unity. Reading between the lines, you can tell that Muslims, including relatively radical Muslims, are distancing themselves from al Qaeda in Iraq, or, as Zawahiri calls it, the Islamic State of Iraq. He criticizes clerics who say there is no duty to carry out jihad in Iraq. He contrasts al Qaeda in Iraq favorably with Hamas, and complains that while Hamas receives near-universal support, al Qaeda in Iraq suffers from "a storm of media campaigns, allegations and claims ... whipped up in their face."

In part, as many commentators have noted, Zawahiri's plea for unity in Iraq reflects the abandonment of al Qaeda by most Sunnis there, and the fact that many Sunnis have joined with the U.S. and the Iraqi government in fighting al Qaeda. But the defensiveness Zawahiri betrays goes well beyond that schism. He plainly is concerned about how things are going in Iraq, and is anxious to generate support for his organization's efforts there.

I've never understood the theory that Iraq is somehow unrelated to the broader war on terror. It would not be possible to read what al Qaeda's leaders have written and listen to their tapes, and hold that view. At one point, Zawahiri exhorts his followers to "[h]urry to Afghanistan, to Iraq, hurry to Somalia, hurry to Palestine, and hurry to the towering Atlas Mountains." If we were to abandon Iraq, can anyone doubt that the flow of jihadists to those other regions, and more, would increase?

If we leave Iraq the one place they will start flowing to in large numbers is here in America. Why does the democrat party want to fight these savages in the streets of America?

One last posting from Powerline about the nuclear risks of North Korea and Iran:

Thinking about the barely thinkable

It's not much fun thinking about the nuclear ambitious, progress, and successes of North Korea and Iran, which may be why so many give it so little thought. This editorial in today's Examiner tries to direct our attention back to the subject. It offers no answers, but asks the right questions.

There is little doubt that in 3 to 5 years Iran will be bombing both Tel Aviv and Washington. When that so obviously certain future arrives the only question is what happens here in America? Who do we retaliate against? How much chance is there that we retaliate by starting a blood bath against the appeasers in the democratic party who are making sure this nuclear holocaust is in our future?

* * * * *

The above is a typical sample of the news that Powerline covers that you will never see in the MSM. This is a good example of why listening to TV and reading newspapers is hazardous to your future. Most of what you hear or read are lies. That is why every year more and more people abandon TV and newspapers and get their news from the Internet.

Friday, July 06, 2007

Ethanol Leads To Increased Beer Cost

by Zach Fox - July 5th, 2007 - Denver Post

Having a few too many beers may soon hurt your wallet as much as it could your liver.

The cost of beer has climbed 3 percent over the last year, slightly outpacing the rate of inflation, according to data from the Department of Labor.

And the cost of downing a brew at a restaurant or bar jumped 3.8 percent.

But the price of beer could see an even larger jump next year.

The totally predictable outcome of government messing with the food supply by making a key food the basis for a new energy program has been what everyone familiar with the free enterprise system predicted. Costs of corn are skyrocketing.

Oh suprise. Polticians are outraged. How dare the American farmer not make sure the costs did not go up. It is so typical of politicians that they are never willing to admit they simply do not understand how economics work. The American consumer always pays the price for their ignorance.

NC Legislative Black Caucus:
Open The Books

Editorial - July 3rd, 2007 - Winston-Salem Journal

It's time for the Legislative Black Caucus to open its foundation's books and let the public see what it's done with the approximately $900,000 in contributions it has collected over the last five years.

Thanks to political pressure, the public now knows that the foundation provided college scholarships to the relatives of five legislators, including those of Reps. Earline Parmon and Larry Womble.

Greensboro Rep. Alma Adams, in releasing the scholarship details, contended that all of the awards were based on academic merit and financial need. But if Womble can afford to drive a Ferrari on a retired educator's pension, how does his son qualify for a need-based scholarship to a state-supported university?

That's just one of the details about the caucus foundation that, simply stated, stink.

More and more evidence piles up that black leadership is more interested in living well and taking all the money they can get than helping the black community they claim to represent. Incredibly, Frank Balance is still lauded by NC's black leadership. When black leadership overwhelmingly supports the democrat party open-doors border policy that harms poor American citizens by taking their jobs, someone has to ask "Why?"

I think it is time for more people in the black community to listen to leaders like Bill Cosby and Angela McGlowan (author of Bamboozled). Getting a good education and a good job is the road to the American dream. Socialism (and welfare) is the road to political dependence (and corruption). Socialism is what the NC Black Caucus is focused on.

Thursday, July 05, 2007

The Forgotten "A" Word:

by Michelle Malkin - July 5th, 2007 -

The fact is: We are not a "nation of immigrants." This is both a factual error and a warm-and-fuzzy non sequitur. Eighty-five percent of the residents currently in the United States were born here. Sure, we are almost all descendants of immigrants. But we are not a "nation of immigrants."

An excellent short history of our founders concerns about assimilation being the most important aspect of immigration. The new multi-culturalist attitude that any culture is better than America and that immigrants should hang on to their own culture and language, is a prescription for the destruction of our nation.

Since that is so obvious, it is disingenious of the multi-culturalists to claim othewrise. However they do. They reject anything that argues their true attitude is anti-Americanism. However . . . it is.

The Revolt On Illegal Immigration

By Victor Davis Hanson - July 5th, 2007 - Real Clear Politics

This writer of this article gives an example of middle of the road logic on what is happening in America on the issue of illegal immigration. From Hanson's article:

Were the government to enforce laws already passed - fine employers for hiring illegal aliens, actually build the approved fences, beef up the border patrol, issue verifiable identification - we would then soon be dealing with a static population of illegal aliens. And that pool would insidiously shrink, not annually grow.

Some of the 12 million here illegally would willingly return home. Some with criminal records could be deported. Some would marry U.S. citizens. Some could be given work visas. Some could apply for earned citizenship.

The point is that our formidable powers of assimilation would finally catch up and have time to work on a population that would be at last fixed, quantifiable and identifiable. As aliens were more readily integrated with the general citizen population, Spanish would evolve into a helpful second, not a single alternate, language. Wages would rise for workers already here - many of them soon to be Mexican-American citizens - without competition from a perpetual influx of illegal aliens who work more cheaply.

Mexico would be forced to deal with rather than export its own problems. Billions in earnings would stay in the United States to help our own entry-level and legal immigrants from Mexico, not be sent back as remittances to relatives.

In short, a savvy public is neither racist nor hysterical in wanting the border closed now. It's the only comprehensive solution to the present mess of illegal immigration.

Sound radical or racist to you? Liberals hold Hanson out as an extremist and racist right wing nut. But then any disagreement with the democrat party line is attacked as extremist and racist. The democratic party has ceased to use logic on anything. Their position on illegal immigration is just one example. The best description I have heard of democratic ledership actions on the immigration bill was to "give the American people the finger while calling us bigots." Funny, but they were joined by their arch enemy George W. Bush. Hasn't stopped them from insulting him with every other breath though.

I like the fact that wages would rise for our citizens and legal immigrants if our borders were controlled. Inflation is always a problem in the world's leading economy, something we still remain. However those business people who try to insist open borders are a necessity are not being honest. There are manageable ways to control inflation that do not cheat our citizens of a reasonable wage based on economic circumstances. Making every person in the world a citizen is the solution for the democratic party but not the right answer for our nation. That a small element in the Republican Party defends the business leaders who like cheap wages does not mean it is the preference among most Republicans. The vast majority of the Republican party wants these jobs to go to poor Americans first and want our borders controlled.

A rational plan to control our borders would be of primary benefit to our nation's poor, especially the black community. I still can not understand why black leaders who embrace amnesty and keeping our borders open pay no penalty in the community that is most harmed by their actions, their own community. Blacks are still disproportionatly poor and need the entry level jobs and the work experience that comes with it to move up into our middle class society. That is the goal. Everyone earning a living wage.

Free enterprise will accomplish this. Socialism, the democratic party solution, never will.

Wednesday, July 04, 2007

Taking America For Granted

by Thomas Sowell - July 4th, 2007 -

When my research assistant and her husband took my wife and me to dinner at a Chinese restaurant, I was impressed when I heard her for the first time speak Chinese as she ordered food. My assistant was born and raised in China, so I should have been impressed that she spoke English. But I took that for granted because she always spoke English to me.

We all have a tendency to take for granted what we are used to, and to regard it as somehow natural or automatic -- and to be unduly impressed by what is unusual. Too many Americans take the United States for granted and are too easily impressed by what people in other countries say and do.

That is especially true of the intelligentsia, and dangerously true of those Supreme Court justices who cite foreign laws when making decisions about American law.

There is nothing automatic about the way of life achieved in this country. It is very unusual among the nations of the world today and rarer than four-leaf clovers in the long view of history.

Sowell gives a short simple explanation of something of importance. Why so many among us don't value what we have. HIs recognition of how rare is the freedom we enjoy is also to be respected. It is rare and those who fail to recognize that display their own lack of understanding of why our nation should be admired.

I am not surprised this is written by Thomas Sowell. I have long viewed him as one of the most intelligent philosophers and writers in our nation. In fact he may be our smartest American. This clear simple introduction to his July 4th article explains why. It is a good article and I recommend it.

Happy Birthday America.

July 4th, 2007 -
What Is Liberty And Freedom?

For twelve generations this nation has continued to be the optimistic "city on a hill" that has inspired freedom loving souls from all over planet earth. At an earlier time of civil war, a time when our people almost lost the unity that has mostly prevailed during the twelve generations of our existence, one of the great adherents to the dream that is America spoke on a battlefield during the conflict that tore at the soul of that vision, of the "great task." That "great task" was to defend a unique system that at its heart is optimistic defense of freedom and liberty for all, not just a few. Not even simply freedom for the majority. Freedom for all. Freedom that depends on an acceptance you care as much for the freedom of those with whom you do not always agree as you care for your own freedom.

Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth, upon this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived, and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met here on a great battlefield of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of it as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.

But in a larger sense we can not dedicate - we can not consecrate - we can not hallow this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled, here, have consecrated it far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember, what we say here, but can never forget what they did here. It is for us, the living, rather to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they have, thus far, so nobly carried on.

It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us - that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they here gave the last full measure of devotion - that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain; that this nation shall have a new birth of freedom; and that this government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

Freedom and liberty are complex concepts that do not mean the same thing to all people. The brilliant forefathers of our nation Abraham Lincoln honored with his great speech started a new form of government and the great task referred to by Lincoln in his address was to keep that new form of government alive. Many current Americans cannot understand why Abraham Lincoln was so inspired that he fought that civil war, the bloodiest conflict in our history. Why did Lincoln reject disunity of our great nation so stubbornly? If disunity happened then the great task was ended. Lincoln saw that. Lincoln made as his highest goal keeping that new form of government, our special government, alive. For that great cause the Union had to be preserved.

However disunity of our nation was not the cause of our problems. It was the primary motivations for which disunity was a solution that concern us. The last time our great Republic was at risk of disintegration it was driven by two motivations, slavery and state's rights. Both goals tore at the fabric of the nation that was dedicated to freedom and liberty for all individuals. We must understand what our government is if we are to continue the fight that Lincoln saw as so important.

Slavery was an insult to the concept of liberty and freedom for all. The abolitionist movement was a powerful force that created a new political party whose first President was Abraham Lincoln. Lincoln and the abolitionists recognized something that has become lost in the clouds of history. Universal acceptance of indivdual freedom is not the norm for mankind's existence. It is rare. It is worth preserving. Abraham Lincoln and the party he helped create were so committed to the concept of freedom and liberty that they were willing to fight a horrible bloody conflict to preserve a unique government system that protected individual rights of freedom and liberty for all first and foremost.

State's rights was also an insult to this concept of freedom for all. Many of the people who claimed to be fighting for the less obviously evil concept of state's rights, were actually adherents of slavery who recognized that defense of slavery was evil. However state's rights was itself evil too. Its adherents, were arguing that a subset of those unified in the great task of individual freedom and liberty could end the unified commitment to those ideals. Abraham Lincoln and the people who backed him found unity in defense of freedom for all to be worth fighting and dying for. They felt that liberty and freedom for all depended on the Union.

Today many think that Abraham Lincoln was a defender of something they call democracy. He was not. Any assessment of the beliefs of the time will find that a head count of those who supported democracy would have also supported splitting the nation. If Lincoln had believed in democracy, he would have sided with the proponents of state's rights. Lincoln's final sentence "that this nation shall have a new birth of freedom; and that this government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth", was a commitment to freedom for all, not a commitment to freedom for the majorty. Lincoln led the fight against splitting the nation because he believed freedom and liberty for all was so important that he would ask a huge portion of our nation to die in pursuit of this complex concept. He believed in the great task of freedom for all. Lincoln was an idealist who inspired people to follow him, even when they were not exactly sure what inspired him.

A new form of slavery is now the major risk to our future freedom. This new form of slavery that imperils our nation is called socialism. It is paired with a new form of state's rights, a less obviously evil motivation that is used by most who really are committed to their form of slavery, called socialism. This new form of "state's rights" is called pure democracy. It is an argument for "freedom" for the majority rather than freedom for all. It requires that if the majority votes it, your property and your freedom can be taken by the state.

Those who keep changing our form of government to be more willing to accept the will of the majority, pure democracy, as a power that trumps freedom for all, are assuring the demise of the great task, and the demise of this nation as well.

Those who promote the concept of socialism are willing to accept that economic betterment for some justifies creation of goverment powers that can take wealth from one to give it to another. Such a government will not be a defender of freedom. It will be a government that supports "freedom", or at least power, for the majority of those in government. America was not the first government to discover that. Almost every goverment since mankind invented the concept of government has permitted freedom for some, especially freedom for the majortiy of those in government. Freedom for those in power. Even some modicum of freedom for the majority has usually existed.

This is not the great task our nation took on twelve generations ago, freedom for a lot, or even freedom for most. We are dedicated to something far more beautiful, freedom for all.

On this day when we celebrate the independence that led to a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal . . . . let us not forget the need to fight against the new slavery and the new states's rights. Socialism and Liberty are not compatible. Democracy and Liberty are not compatible.

The question is can liberty and freedom endure? It is your call. Happy Independence Day.

Tuesday, July 03, 2007

I Was A Fanatic...I Know Their Thinking

I was a fanatic...I know their thinking, says former radical Islamist

by Hassan Butt - July 2nd, 2007 - Daily Mail (London)

How do Islamic radicals justify such terror in the name of their religion?

There isn't enough room to outline everything here, but the foundation of extremist reasoning rests upon a model of the world in which you are either a believer or an infidel.

Formal Islamic theology, unlike Christian theology, does not allow for the separation of state and religion: they are considered to be one and the same.

For centuries, the reasoning of Islamic jurists has set down rules of interaction between Dar ul-Islam (the Land of Islam) and Dar ul-Kufr (the Land of Unbelief) to cover almost every matter of trade, peace and war.

But what radicals and extremists do is to take this two steps further. Their first step has been to argue that, since there is no pure Islamic state, the whole world must be Dar ul-Kufr (The Land of Unbelief).

Step two: since Islam must declare war on unbelief, they have declared war upon the whole world.

One of the more interesting questions to ask the appeasers, those people who believe we should negotiate with the Islamofascists, "How do you negotiate with someone who simply wants you dead?"

Will he agree to give up the dream of your death if you cut off a leg? You must either become a believer and embrace sharia law thereby ending democracy, free enterprise, equality of women and freedom of religion at a minimum. Or you can DIE. They will not agree to just cut off your leg and let you practice the freedoms you are used to.

So how do you negotiate with these people? Please explain. Or get out of the way and let those of us who believe in freedom to fight.