Thursday, May 31, 2007

Nagin delivers first state of the city address since Katrina

America’s most incompetent politician had yet another moment in the spotlight yesterday. New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin delivered his first state of the city speech since hurricane Katrina, and what a speech it was!

Much of it was typical political banter. He talked about repairing roads, boasted about the cleanliness of the French Quarter, and hailed the hardy bounce-back of New Orleans’ tourism industry. But it was interesting how he addressed the astronomical crime-rate. He made some comments about graduating officers from the police academy and installing some cameras, but here is his view on the record number of homicides occurring in his blessed city. He referred to spikes in the body count as “blips” and said that “we had one this weekend”. For the record, there were 161 murders in New Orleans in 2006 (in a city with a population of roughly 200,000), and the city is currently the most violent in America. The Mayor’s response to this is “we had one this weekend”. Thanks for that insight, Ray.

But the highlight of the speech was his blistering criticism of state and federal gov’t, namely Bush and Louisiana Governor Blanco, for not delivering enough money to the city’s recovery. He did what Ray Nagin does best, point the finger and blame.

"It's not our fault that the levees breached that the federal government built," he said, launching into the speech's singular moment of unscripted oratory and rousing the night's only standing ovation. "It's not our fault that we were stranded and left. It's not our fault that the Road Home program has issued only 12 percent of the grants after almost two years. It's not our fault that our water system is leaking today. It's not our fault."

So the good Mayor likes to say it’s not our fault. It’s everybody else’s fault, but not his. It would seem that the city officials have absolutely no blame when it comes to the failures that occurred before, during and after the hurricane. Nagin seems to believe that his office is completely blameless, but Governor Blanco and President Bush are instead the great villains of this disaster.

It’s impressive to me how a man is capable of coordinating the return of voters from 44 states to help in his re-election bid, while also coordinating their bus ride back out of town once those votes are cast, yet he is unable to coordinate the allocation of over 100 billion federal dollars that have been given to rebuild his city. That’s billion with a “B”. That’s a lot of money. What more does the mayor want? The money has been earmarked for his city, the US taxpayers have picked up the bill. Yet, he wants to gripe because we weren’t fast enough in giving him his 100 billion dollars. He’s mad because it hasn’t been delivered. Yet, he wants us to believe that he has no responsibility in the matter. A simple thank you would suffice, Mayor. We gave you a lot of money, it’s your job to make sure your constituents get that money.

I suspect that many people, his own citizens included, are beginning to get a little weary of hearing Nagin’s “blame everyone else” attitude, and after reading these responses from the good people of New Orleans, that suspicion appears to be correct. Go to this link and see what the people have to say. Their words speak volumes.

Tuesday, May 29, 2007

I've always liked Dick Morris. Well, to be honest, I've really only liked him since he parted ways with Bill Clinton. Morris used to be Clinton's right hand man, his top political advisor, but the things he witnessed under the Clinton presidency (especially from the first lady) left Morris with more than a sour taste in his mouth. Now, America is facing the grim possibility of a second Clinton administration, and Morris has become the canary in the mine of American politics. Here is an intriguing story first broken by the New York Post about what Bill has been up to since leaving office. Read the article, then decide for yourself, but here are some key points:

--Since he left office in 2001, former president Bill Clinton has been paid by InfoUSA, an Omaha, Nebraska company that has been identified as a key provider of specially designed databases that are sold to criminals who use the detailed information to defraud the unsuspecting elderly.

--And, just months after he left the presidency, Bill Clinton was paid $200,000 for a speech given to InfoUSA in Omaha. Since then, he has been paid an undisclosed amount each year, listed only as “more than $1000” for ‘non-employee compensation” on Senator Clinton’s Senate financial disclosure form.

--According to the The New York Times, InfoUSA compiled and sold lists that disclosed the names of elderly men and women who would be likely to respond to unscrupulous scams. The lists left no doubt about the vulnerability of the elderly targets.

--One list said: “These people are gullible. They want to believe that their luck can change.” (As I type this, Bill Clinton is cashing checks from this company!)

--The relationship between Bill Clinton and Vinod “Vin” Gupta, the CEO and Chairman of InfoUSA is both long-standing and deep. A frequent Clinton donor, he has stayed in the Lincoln Bedroom, admitted to donating $1,000,000 to the Clinton Library and told the press that he’d consider an additional donation.

--InfoUSA has lately been attacked by some of its shareholders, particularly by the Greenwich, Connecticut company Cardinal Capital that went after Conrad Black. Lord Black is now on trial in Chicago for corporate fraud (anyone have thoughts of Enron?)

In addition, Hillary is stalling on the release of her financial records, records that no doubt show more details of their involvement with this despicable organization. This is Bill Clinton, ladies and gentlemen. This is what he does best. And if you think President Hillary Clinton will be any different? Well, I'm sure they're banking on it. After all, InfoUSA has apparently scammed many people just like you, and Bill Clinton built a political career doing the same.
Back in high school when I played ball we had certain rules that had to be followed. They were the coach’s rules, meant to teach us discipline. If someone broke one of those rules then the punishment was given to the entire team. Yes, when a teammate cut class or failed to turn in an assignment, we all ran or did pushups as a result. The idea was that problems were worked out internally, and it was a very effective means of getting us to behave ourselves. We didn’t get mad at the coach for enforcing his rules, we got mad at the person who broke those rules and the problem got fixed. Apparently, those high school kids had better insight than the people of Mexico.

Believe it or not, I’m going to tie this in to the recent Miss Universe pageant. The pageant was held in Mexico City, a ciudad where apparently the citizens have trouble behaving with class and dignity. Every time Miss USA made an appearance, she was heckled and booed mercilessly. Even when she tripped and fell (perhaps because she was shaken by the rude treatment) she was the target of scattered laughter and ridicule. The pundits felt this treatment was the citizens’ reaction to America’s current immigration policy, which is puzzling to me since we don’t actually have an immigration policy other than amnesty. I guess that’s not good enough for the people of Mexico.

Never mind the fact that Miss USA has no political power, and is in no way responsible for our foreign policy. Never mind the fact that Mexico’s second largest import is money sent back to their country from immigrants in America, their first being tourism much of which comes from America. Never mind the fact that Mexico’s governmental failure, ineptness, incompetence and corruption is the primary reason why their economy sucks so bad, thus creating these pseudo-refugees that resort to illegal means of seeking economic prosperity in a country that has been more generous to them than any other nation on this planet. Never mind the fact that the vast majority of Americans welcome immigrants into this country with open arms, all we ask is that they obey our laws. I guess that’s too much for us to ask, shame on us I suppose. How silly of us Americans to ask people to obey our laws in return for the opportunity to pursue their own American dream. For decades the people of Mexico have thumbed their nose at our laws with their gimmee, gimmee, gimmee attitude, and now they react with surprise and disgust when many of us, as a result of their gluttonous cavalier behavior, demand tougher laws and tighter control. It seems like they’d be more upset with those who broke the rules than those who make the rules. It seems like they’d demand change in their own government. It seems so, but again, judging by their behavior towards our beauty contestant, they don’t seem to know the meaning of class and dignity.

I’m sure the Left will tssk, tssk about this, waning on about how we have alienated our allies and about America’s negative international reputation. A few may even consider re-evaluating the proposed amnesty legislation to make it not as tough on those who break our laws (as though it can get any easier), certainly hoping to solidify the ever precious Hispanic vote in a Faustian display of political “sensitivity”. It’s doubtful any of them will point fingers at those who are actually breaking the law. In their eyes, criminals are free of guilt and criminal behavior is always the result of a faulty society.

This is just another example in a long trend of America-bashing (no wonder the Left loves them so much, they share a similar hatred for this country) that has become the favorite past-time of the international community ever since we disposed of the menacing Russian bear that threatened to take away everyone’s freedom. Well, Americans are getting a little tired of being the world’s doormat. For centuries, our generosity has been unsurpassed and unprecedented. Never has there been a group of people so intent on world peace and prosperity for all, and there never will be once we fall. We give of ourselves like no other population on this planet. We bend over backwards to help those in need, even to the point of sending our sons and daughters to die so that someone a world away can have the right to vote for their own leaders. Whenever there is a crisis, America is always the one to look to (that’s the only time when America-bashing isn’t quite as popular). We ask for nothing in return, aside from respecting our laws and not bombing our civilians, a small request in my mind.

Yet, this generosity is repaid with venom spewed by the perpetually selfish who always want more and the self-righteous elitist snobbery who envy and despire our position as lone superpower and seek our ultimate destruction. Eventually, the giver will tire of giving to the unappreciative and will recognize when they are being taken advantage of. Perhaps that’s part of the reason why we want tighter border control. If you can’t pay us the respect of obeying our laws, then why the hell should we continue our generous ways? These people choose not to respect our laws. Instead, they choose gimmee, gimmee, gimmee, without even a simple thank you in return. They can’t even conduct themselves civilly at a beauty pageant for crying out loud! What’s that say about the Mexican people?

Personally, I think the people of Mexico can stick it where el sol doesn’t shine, and you can quote me on that, amigo!

Friday, May 25, 2007

McCain poll numbers drop

As predicted, John McCain’s support for illegal immigrant amnesty is starting to show at the polls. This story first broke one week ago, last Friday. At that time, he was polling in the mid-20s, just a few points behind Guiliani and had recently made up some ground on the former NYC mayor. But the polls released since then show a change. Now, he is polling as low as 13%. The message is clear, you can’t win the GOP nomination without the conservative base, and the conservative base does not support amnesty for illegal immigrants.

And the fact is, most of us would be willing to compromise on this issue, understanding that we can’t deport 12 million people. We’d be willing to stipulate on some sort of “path to citizenship” for these people, but ONLY after the border is secure and not one moment before. McCain missed an opportunity here. He could’ve taken a hard-line stance on border security, demanding we protect our southern border, while also promising a path to citizenship for the illegals already here. I don’t think that would have cause nearly the same kind of stir.

Instead, he favors this bill that grants amnesty while still leaving our southern border wide open, and that’s just not acceptable (yes, I know there is a provision for 300 miles of fence to be built, of which only 2 miles have been completed and our border is nearly 900 miles long. Securing 30% of the border is NOT securing the border). McCain is in big trouble and I’m not sure he can pull out of this hole.

And to respond to other comments. McCain is NOT the only GOP candidate who can win the White House. According to real clear politics, head to head hypothetical polls show only one scenario in which a Republican wins: Guiliani vs Clinton. So you progressives shouldn’t be too excited about McCain’s plummet. Plus, the polls don’t include Fred Thompson or Gingrich because they haven’t yet entered the race.

Thursday, May 24, 2007

I’ve said over and over that the Left just doesn’t get the war on terror. They don’t get it. They don’t understand it, they don’t know anything about it. They don’t get its origins and they certainly don’t know how to fight it or bring it to an end. Two news articles put out today express these thoughts with precision.

First, Amnesty International issued a report about the damage done by the global war on terror. This is part of what they said:

“The gap between Muslims and non-Muslims notably deepened, fueled by discriminatory counter-terrorism strategies in Western countries, warned the rights group in its annual report.”

Personally, I don’t know of any discriminatory practices the US gov’t engages in. In fact, I don’t think we go far enough, but that’s just me. What amazes me about this statement is that it clearly places blame on the West for this current conflict. Excuse me, but you can’t get any more discriminatory than deliberately targeting people who are not of your religion and then killing them. The only requirement these people have to kill someone is that the victim NOT be Muslim. Doesn’t that qualify as a “discriminatory strategy”? Yet, Amnesty International doesn’t seem to feel the need to criticize the radical Muslims. No, it’s the West’s fault…I guess because we somehow force them to carry out random acts of violence against civilians.

Let me be clear, the West didn’t ask to be involved in a war on terror. Bush didn’t want it. His approval rating would be through the roof if it weren’t for the war on terror. No one wanted this. If it were up to America, the world would live in peace. No one can argue that with any sense or reason. We didn’t ask these lunatics to fly planes into our buildings. But they did. They did it because we’re not Muslim, and because they hate our “anything goes” culture. And, guess what, they did it before we implemented these so-called “discriminatory counter-terrorism strategies”, so obviously that had nothing to do with their acts of violence. It goes to reason that eliminating these things will do nothing to discourage future acts of violence. However, we haven’t been attacked since then, so maybe these strategies are actually having a positive effect. Again I say, the Left is clueless, and AI’s statement above is proof of that.

They went on to say this (about terrorist organizations): "Unless governments address the grievances on which these groups feed, unless they provide effective leadership to bring these groups to account ... the prognosis for human rights is dire."

Yes, you read it right. I double-checked. The quote is accurate. These people are suggesting a policy common on the Left, a failed policy that has been tested in history and only ever led to more bloodshed and bigger wars. That policy is appeasement. Address the grievances? These people aren’t filling out complaint cards, they’re murdering innocent civilians. And we’re just supposed to give them what they want so they’ll stop? Hitler had a grievance once. He felt the Sudetenland belonged to Germany. So we addressed his grievance and gave it to him. What happened next? Appeasement doesn’t work. Negotiating with people who only want us dead doesn’t work. We can’t just fix this problem with dialogue, because these people don’t want a peaceful planet. They want a radical Muslim planet, and they want anyone who disagrees to die. Tell me how we can address that grievance? Should we all just commit suicide, or should we all convert to Islam? Pick one, because that’s the only way we are going to address their grievances.

Amnesty International is so concerned about human rights abuses, yet they seem focused on blaming the West while ignoring the real culprits. Who is more guilty of rights abuses? Again, the radical Muslim sect seems to have escaped Amnesty International’s criticism. Maybe, just maybe, if we stop blaming and fighting amongst ourselves, then we can focus on the real enemy here. Can you imagine the outcome of WW II if groups like this were portraying America as the bad guy? Can you imagine the negative effect it would have had on that war? I can. It involves a swastika flying over our nation’s capital instead of the American flag. Amnesty International obviously hasn’t thought of what kinds of human rights abuses would come if the radical Muslim sect actually achieved their objective of world domination. They haven’t realized that perhaps the only thing keeping that from happening is the action of the West. So maybe they should back off a little.

The Left needs to wake up before it’s too late. We’re likely gonna have one of these bleeding hearts in the White House in ’08. Edwards’ recent address is a preview of how the Left wants to deal with things. The Islamofascists are licking their chops at the opportunity to have a go at us once one of these useful idiots is in power. If they don’t change their way of thinking soon, then bad things are going to happen and I’m afraid it will make 9/11 look like a cake walk.

Monday, May 21, 2007

Memorial Day is one week away. It is a national holiday meant to honor the fallen of wars past. It is a time of remembrance and mourning. It is a tribute to those who paid so dearly for what we all enjoy on a daily basis. If there is any day of the year to put aside our differences and come together in respect, it’s this day.

This article refers to an email that he received regarding the Edwards campaign. Apparently, this message urges Americans to attend local Memorial Day parades and activities carrying banners that say “support the troops, end the war.” Accompanying this message is the obligatory “paid for by John Edwards for President.”

Is this real? I certainly hope not. To give the benefit of the doubt, this could very well be anti-Democrat propaganda put out to make Edwards look bad. That would indeed be horrible, but still better than the alternative, which is that this is a legitimate message and Edwards is actually encouraging political protest on Memorial Day. To be honest, judging Edwards by his past actions, this certainly looks like the work of a trial-lawyer. In other words, it’s low and it’s cheap and it’s highly disrespectful to our fallen heroes.

Hopefully, Edwards will come forward and clear the air. If not, he has a lot of explaining to do. You can protest the war all you want, but in the interest of decency let’s keep Memorial Day as a day of remembrance, not a day of division.

Saturday, May 19, 2007

The US Senate has come to an agreement on a new immigration policy and it appears that the President is on board with their plan. The blogs are exploding with this one, and if you tune into any political TV or radio show then you surely have heard the news by now. Brace yourselves, this one is going to get ugly.

Here are the basics. The 12 million people who inhabit this country illegally will be asked to make themselves known. They will be forced to pay a $1000 fine for their offense, then promptly given a temporary work visa (the so-called "Z Visa"). This will allow them to remain in the country. Then, after a period of "some years later" (yes, that is ACTUALLY the wording in the bill), they will be called upon by the government to pay an additional $4000 and then will have to return to their native land to "get in line" for citizenship. Once their turn comes, if they can demonstrate proficiency in English and a worthy trade, they will be granted permanent residence in America and eventually citizenship. This program is entirely voluntary and, no, there is no penalty for not participating. Worst of all, the bill includes no plan to secure the southern border.

I'm trying to be calm as I type....Folks, this is a sellout of the highest degree. If this bill passes, it will represent perhaps the greatest breech of trust between the government and its citizens in the history of this nation. This bill is amnesty for 12 million felons. This bill, a potential Congressional law, turns its eyes away from law-breakers and excuses their offenses. This is unprecedented.

I have respect for President Bush and have stood by him through much, but he is wrong on this on so many levels. And so are our elected leaders in the US Senate. They say it's not amnesty. I guess they take us all for fools. They have gone too far and I expect there will be some serious repurcussions as a result.

First, we're going to see Bush's approval rating plummet, not that it can drop much further, but of the 38% who still support him many have the same views as I and many will drop that support with this bill. We could very well see a single-digit approval rating before he leaves office. Michael Reagan said today that he will go down as the worst Republican president in this nation's history if this bill passes. That kind of statement from someone of his stature will carry teeth. And he is not alone. Conservative commentators are fuming and Bush stands to lose what little support he still has for his job approval.

Second, because of his support for this bill and the pictures of him rubbing elbows and smiling shoulder to shoulder with Ted Kennedy, John McCain's presidential campaign is all but OVER. I honestly think he has forgotten which party's nomination he seeks. He had been trying to paint himself as more conservative than we thought, but now Michael Moore would have a better chance at winning the GOP nomination. Watch what happens to him in the polls. Save your money, Senator, you have no chance at winning this nomination.

The same will happen to Rudy if he doesn't quickly denounce this bill. Right now he is "reviewing" it, which means that he's waiting to see what the polls do. The longer he waits, the worse it is for him, and we may very well see Mitt Romney vault to the top of the GOP contenders.

Third, a darkhorse will enter the race and has a chance of sweeping the GOP nomination away from all the others, using this single issue as a springboard to the 08 general election. Watch and see what Gingrich and Fred Thompson do here. This may be the opportunity they've been looking for. The conservative "base" has had it with our conservative leaders. We were appalled at their do-nothing Congress and their repeated wimp-out politics, and the 2006 election showed it. But if they thought '06 was bad, then they'd better get ready for a stunner in '08. That election will be a landslide for the Dems unless someone with a spine and a pair of balls can step forward and put a stop to the Republican back-down policies of the past 10 years. The conservative base has the power to put a Republican President and a Republican Congress in office, that was proven before. But we will not exercise that power for gutless cowards. We'd almost rather have a Dem in office. At least they make no bones about screwing us over.

But politics aside, what this bill does is basically sweep aside the law. We are a nation of laws and now the US government is granting a free pass to those who break them. For those of you who want impeachment, this may very well be your chance. If the US Senate and the President go on record aiding and abetting 12 million felons, then I believe we have grounds to impeach them all and I would support it, so long as we went after every single person who signed their name to that bill...Democrat or Republican or Independent. I would call for every one of them to be removed from office and I guarantee I would not be alone.

This bill will cost over 2 trillion taxpayer dollars, and it will all be wasted. It will fail because no illegal immigrant will opt into a system that contains no enforcement. There is no penalty for not declaring yourself, but if you do come forward then you pay $5000 and have to go to the back of the line. Yes, you are penalized for following the law but nothing happens if you continue to break the law. And the government expects this to work? Have we entered a fourth dimension that I'm not aware of? Do our laws mean anything nowadays?

There is no provision for securing the border...none. I ask, how many miles of border can we secure with $2 trillion? Yet it will be wasted on another failed government program. The border stays wide open and there is no longer a penalty for crossing it! And they think this will DETER illegal immigration? There is nothing in the bill for those currently in line, those who have obeyed the law and followed the proper course for legal citizenship. Suddenly, 12 million people have been vaulted in front of them. They will get visas, while the law-abiding would-be immigrants get to wait longer. This is a slap in the face of those who choose the American dream, and honor our laws in the process.

And how can our elected officials tell us straight-faced that this is not amnesty? Do they honestly think we are that stupid, or do they simply not care what we think? I'm not sure which is worse. But I do know that this is an insult to Americans all across the country. It's an insult that transcends party lines, born from the elitist attitude that our politicians have been living for decades. They have now reached the point that they can do anything and say anything and we are powerless to stop them. To hell with them all! What are our options? Vote them out? Sure, and trade a Democrat for a Republican or vice versa. Lately, I can't tell the difference between the two, except that one is a communist and the other a spineless wimp. Again, I don't know which is worse. But I do recognize betrayal when I see it. The message is that law no longer matters. What we are moving towards is a government of partisan anarchists that can bend and twist the "law" to fit their own political agenda, damn the consequences. And if the law can't be bent properly, then a new law will be made. And if the rights of law abiding citizens get trampled in the be it. They're the ones in power and we're the meaningless underlings who don't know what's best for us or for this country.

This same thing has happened in our country twice before. On two prior occasions, the government became bigger than the people, infringing upon the citizens in an unacceptable manner. War resulted both times, one was called the American Revolution, the other the Civil War. Are we ever going to learn the lessons of history? Wasn't it Jefferson that said that in order for a democracy to survive it must endure a revolution every few centuries? Perhaps the next revolution will be to eliminate the two parties that have become complacent in their power, and deaf to the desires of those who gave them that power, and replace them with those who truly serve the people. Now is the time for a third party to emerge.

Thursday, May 17, 2007

My position on human induced climate change (or, "global warming" as it has come to be known) has always been clear. First, we must not panic nor induce panic in others. Panic is not a constructive reaction (anyone remember the "global cooling" scare of the 80s? What happened to that?). Second, we must be open to the fact that there is much we don't know about the earth's climate and what makes it "tick". Just today, I saw a report that too many trees growing in the tundra areas may be bad for the climate, something about decreasing the reflective character of the ice and increasing the effects of solar radiation. But wait a minute, I thought that part of the carbon dioxide problem was not having enough trees? The point is we still don't know many things about this planet we live on and it seems every day we learn something new that turns upside down what we thought we knew before. But we do know that earth's climate is dynamic, that warming and cooling trends have happened before and will certainly happen again. Whether or not man contributes to that is still very much in question.

So it's my position that before we come to a conclusion and take drastic action one way or another, we must first get the facts. Which is why this one particular article interests me. This mentions a number of prominent scientists - from a French socialist to an astrophysicist to a renowned meteorologist - who have all evaluated and re-evaluated the available data and come to the conclusion that there is no reason to panic, and that the role of man in the earth's climate is not as big as many believe.

Geophysicist and socialist Dr Claude Allegre says: "the cause of climate change is unknown" and that "the ecology of helpless protesting has become a very lucrative business for some people!" Just 20 years ago, Allegre wrote this: "By burning fossil fuels, man enhanced the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere which has raised the global mean temperature by half a degree in the last century." It would appear that Dr Allegre did not give in to panic, but instead chose to continue evaluating the data at hand, coming to a much different conclusion.

Geologist Bruno Wiskel once set out to build a “Kyoto house” in honor of the UN sanctioned Kyoto Protocol. Wiskel reversed his scientific views completely and became such a strong skeptic, that he recently wrote a book titled “The Emperor's New Climate: Debunking the Myth of Global Warming.” A November 15, 2006 Edmonton Sun article explains Wiskel’s conversion while building his “Kyoto house”: “Instead, he said he realized global warming theory was full of holes and ‘red flags,’ and became convinced that humans are not responsible for rising temperatures.”

Astrophysicist Dr Nr Shaviv: "Like many others, I was personally sure that CO2 is the bad culprit in the story of global warming. But after carefully digging into the evidence, I realized that things are far more complicated than the story sold to us by many climate scientists or the stories regurgitated by the media. In fact, there is much more than meets the eye,”

Australian gov't Mathematician/Engineer Dr David Evans: “I devoted six years to carbon accounting, building models for the Australian government to estimate carbon emissions from land use change and forestry. When I started that job in 1999 the evidence that carbon emissions caused global warming seemed pretty conclusive, but since then new evidence has weakened the case that carbon emissions are the main cause. I am now skeptical,"

Climate researcher Dr Tad Murty: “I stated with a firm belief about global warming, until I started working on it myself,”

These are just a few. There are many more mentioned in the article. I salute these scientists for keeping an open mind and being willing to acknowledge what the evidence shows. Undoubtedly they will come under great scrutiny from the mainstream science world. So what they're saying takes courage. I'm open to the notion that man is causing global warming. I just want to see proof of that before I go endorsing things like Kyoto, things that would absolutely cripple our economy and put lots of people out of work and in a lower income bracket. To me, that's too much to risk on a simple theory that's "full of holes and red flags". I hope that others would adopt a similar way of thinking, and I certainly hope that one day we will discover the proof that will lay this debate to rest.

Wednesday, May 16, 2007

Tonight's post-vacation post comes from Robert, thanks for the feed. Here is a column written by Thomas Sowell and I couldn't have said it any better myself.

The Anger of the Left by Thomas Sowell

That people on the political left have a certain set of opinions, just as people do in other parts of the ideological spectrum, is not surprising. What is surprising, however, is how often the opinions of those on the left are accompanied by hostility and even hatred.

Particular issues can arouse passions here and there for anyone with any political views. But, for many on the left, indignation is not a sometime thing. It is a way of life.

How often have you seen conservatives or libertarians take to the streets, shouting angry slogans? How often have conservative students on campus shouted down a visiting speaker or rioted to prevent the visitor from speaking at all?

The source of the anger of liberals, "progressives" or radicals is by no means readily apparent. The targets of their anger have included people who are non-confrontational or even genial, such as Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush.

It is hard to think of a time when Karl Rove or Dick Cheney has even raised his voice but they are hated like the devil incarnate.

There doesn't even have to be any identifiable individual to arouse the ire of the left. "Tax cuts for the rich" is more than a political slogan. It is incitement to anger.

All sorts of people can have all sorts of beliefs about what tax rates are best from various points of view. But how can people work themselves into a lather over the fact that some taxpayers are able to keep more of the money they earned, instead of turning it over to politicians to dispense in ways calculated to get themselves re-elected?

The angry left has no time to spend even considering the argument that what they call "tax cuts for the rich" are in fact tax cuts for the economy.

Nor is the idea new that tax cuts can sometimes spur economic growth, resulting in more jobs for workers and higher earnings for business, leading to more tax revenue for the government.
A highly regarded economist once observed that "taxation may be so high as to defeat its object," so that sometimes "a reduction of taxation will run a better chance, than an increase, of balancing the Budget.".......full article

Tuesday, May 08, 2007

Okay, so why did Bush oppose the 9/11 commission? Why did he delay it? Why hasn't he implemented their recommendations? Blah, blah, why, why, whah?

My guess is Bush opposed the 9/11 commission because he knew it would be fruitless. Bush knew that putting together a committee of politicians to jabber on about the 9/11 attack would waste a lot of time and a lot of taxpayer dollars and nothing would come from it. Guess what. He was right. After months of investigation and interviewing "witnesses", the genuises on the commission decided that everyone was to blame. Yes, they felt that Bush's 8 months in office contributed as much to the attacks as Clinton's 8 years. Wonderful. What insight! If only we had them before the attack. No wonder the Dems are so quick to cite them everytime the issue of terrorism comes up.

Basically, the 9/11 commission became exactly what Bush didn't want, a blame commission. It was used by politicians in political races to point fingers and hurl accusations on both sides of the aisle. And nothing good has come from it. And no, Bush didn't implement their recommendations. And no, we haven't been attacked for 6 years. That says a lot in itself.

And regarding the charge that Bush tried to "stack" the commission with his cronies...Well, this is laughable to say the least. Does the name Jamie Gorelick ring a bell? It should. She was Clinton's deputy attorney general who "specifically prohibited intelligence agents from telling law enforcement agents about suspected terrorists in the country". It was this policy that many gov't officials demanded be changed after the attacks. And guess who was on the 9/11 Commission....Yes, Jamie Gorelick, hand picked by the Democrats to sit on the Commission that was put together to evaluate her very own policy. And who was stacking the commission with cronies? That's like having Bill Clinton presiding as the judge at his own impeachment hearings. Her very presence on the commission was enough to invalidate their findings.

But what bugs me the most is all this blame. We point fingers at everyone from NORAD to Cheney to Rice to Bush to Clinton, but no one seems to blame those who are truly responsible. Did the 9/11 Commission assign blame for the attacks on Al Qaeda and Bin Laden? Did the Jersey Girls? Does anyone think that Bin Laden is more to blame than Bush or Clinton? The fact that we have to think about that question makes it clear that we, as a nation, have our heads stuck so far up our asses that it's a wonder we even know who attacked us on 9/11. If we don't get over it and stop assigning blame and, for once, focus on those who actually carried out these attacks, then more attacks are sure to come. And something tells me that 3,000 dead will pale in comparison to what they have in mind for us in the future. So, my guess, is Bush knew what the 9/11 Commission would become, and it would eat away at our resolve to face the true enemy. It appears that he was right.

Monday, May 07, 2007

Here is a book review I posted on Once again, someone has chosen a book review site to challenge me in socio-political and once again I refuse to debate things on That's what this site is for. So here is the review, followed by a keen reader's response.

Ann Coulter has written yet another book that is sure to have the Left on the offensive. This time she addresses what she calls the Church of Liberalism which, in her mind, is the only religion that many on the Left endorse. The Church consists of the untouchable spokesmen (those who have suffered terrible losses and hate Bush), adoration for priest-like teachers, unconditional support for the rights of criminals and undying devotion to the theocratic doctrine of Darwinism. Coulter uses her jagged wit to point out that despite their opposition to organized religion the Left adheres to the principles mentioned in an almost cult-like manner.

But, of course, the most controversial part of the book was her criticism of the 9/11 wives. Very few things can get the Left in a frenzied uproar the way Coulter did by going after these women. While I admit that her words were a bit over-the-top, perhaps flirting on the brink of cruelty, I also have to admit that she does indeed have a point. Losing a loved-one does not exempt someone from being challenged in debate, especially when that someone resorts to harsh name-calling and reckless accusations of their own. Ironically, the Left's reaction to Coulter's contention validated her point.

Those on the Right will find parts of this book interesting and will agree with me that some of it is over the top. But, basically, this is much of the same from the woman the Left loves to hate.

And here is the response from a gentleman named Edwin.

I read your profile with interest. Perhaps you could tell me where the New Jersey Girls began name-calling. Perhaps you can also tell me how you can justify any of the attacks on these women by anyone let alone Coulter and others of her ilk.

These women wanted to know:
Why were the airlines made exempt from law suits?
Why Port Authority didn't exercise an evacuation procedures.
Why they kept people in the building.
Why was Norad's response so weak and directionless.
Why President Bush opposed an independent commission into the greatest attack upon this country.
Why the White House gave less money to investigate this disaster than they gave for a study on casino gambling.
Why the White House tried to stack the commission with cronies, especially with Henry Kissinger, a frequent visitor and unofficial advisor to the White House.
Why the White House fought tooth and nail the commission lasting longer than 18 months.
Why the president refused to testify under oath.
Why the president had to have Cheney with him when he answered questions.
Why the White House did not implement a single 9/11 commission recommendation?
What the Congress and the White House were doing to ensure that it would never happen again.

Don't you think these questions deserved answers?

Yes, Ed, I do. So let me give it a shot. First, here are a few quotes from the Jersey Girls:

"At any point in time the casualties could have been lessened, and it seems to me there wasn't even an attempt made." --Monica Gabrielle

"President Bush and his workers . . . were the individuals that failed my husband and the 3,000 people that day." --Kristin Breitweiser

"Three thousand people were murdered on George Bush's watch."-- Kristin Breitweiser

Yes, I consider these to be reckless accusations and name calling. What exactly is Ms Breitweiser suggesting with that last quote? As for "justifying" the attacks, well I don't justify cruelty of any kind. I simply stated that Coulter had a point. We've conveyed a sense of infallibility to victims in today's society. The Jersey Girls, Cindy Sheehan; they all seem to get a free pass to make reckless accusations with harsh and uncalled-for language, and because they have suffered we are not allowed to challenge them on it. Again, the fact that Ed takes exception to my review validates that point.

The airlines were exempt from lawsuits because, in my opinion, the airlines weren't to blame. Had they, for some reason, actually prevented all 19 hijackers from getting on the plane they would've been sued by the ACLU for discrimination. Gimme a break.

The buildings weren't evacuated because they felt there was more harm in moving people outside. You know, the threat of inciting panic and getting people trampled and all. There is no way anyone could have anticipated a collapse of the buildings. The fact that firefighters entered the buildings themselves is proof of that.

NORAD scrambled fighters and the decision was made to bring down planes if necessary. What exactly were they supposed to do? Shoot down commercial jetliners on a whim? The towers were already burning before it became obvious. We weren't prepared. It's not NORAD's fault.

Bush adheres to executive priviledge and doesn't believe that a member of the administration should testify under oath. That's his right, and any President would do the same. Cheney was a key advisor and was in Washington when the attack happened, Bush wasn't, so it makes sense to have him there when answering questions.

That's all for now. I'll answer more tomorrow.

Friday, May 04, 2007

Oklahoma legislature passes tough illegal immigration bill

Regardless how many times I post on this topic and how many times I make it clear that I don’t oppose immigration, I’m still called a xenophobe on a regular basis. I’m sure today will be no different.

I’m all for immigration. I think it’s as American as apple pie and baseball, but baseball has a steroid problem and immigration has a legal problem. So it’s illegal immigration that I adamantly oppose. This post could go on for pages and pages. I could get into the “respecting our laws” aspect or the national security threat that illegal immigration poses. But, today, I want to focus on the social impact.

Why do people come to America? They want a better life. No one argues that. They want work, education and health care. They want a decent place to live. Fair enough. I think it’s wonderful that no matter how much this country is bashed in the media and in the political arena both domestically and internationally, there are still many people who view America as a better place. So let them come, as long as they obey the rules and adapt to our culture.

I think English should be the official language of the US. I think immigrants should be well-versed in US history. They should know the words to the Star-Spangled Banner (something that even natural born citizens have trouble with). I think you should be a citizen or a documented legal immigrant to be entitled to a job, a place to live, an education, a driver’s license and social security benefits. I do not think that being born on American soil entitles you to citizenship, but being born to a citizen or a documented immigrant does. These are my opinions and some may disagree, but there are many out there who are with me.

I’ve heard the arguments. I know the human rights issues, the civil rights issues, it’s all a bunch of yah-yah to me. The fact is that American culture is vanishing. People don’t know her history and there is no pride in their “new” country. Talk to anyone who immigrated to American 40, 50, 80 years ago and they’ll tell you the same thing. There is no incentive to learn English, and there is a waning incentive to avoid the entitlement programs that are crippling our budget. But, still, it’s such a major human rights issue that the pro-illegal immigration crowd seems to think that we are obligated to give these people the things that our citizens receive, while not expecting them to live up to the duties (namely taxes) that the citizens must meet. It’s a debate that will rage for years and the federal gov’t isn’t likely to do anything about it (until we are attacked via our porous border). So I have a solution.

It’s simple. I propose an opt-in tax to fund entitlement programs for illegal immigrants. We put a check box on our tax returns. This box, if checked, will allow any taxpaying citizen to opt-in their support of illegal immigrants in this country. It will an additional 5, 10, 20% or whatever is deemed necessary, to that person’s tax bill. If someone has a firm belief that Americans should pay these things for illegals, then simply check the box on your tax returns. You have that right. But, you don’t have the right to force me to do the same when my beliefs are different.

There you go. Simple. Effective. An end to the debate.

Thursday, May 03, 2007

So the first Republican presidential debate is over, and I have an assessment. First, no one blew me away, but I was most impressed with Duncan Hunter. He was quick and to the point and he made some very good points, especially in regards to immigration and taxes, and he will clearly keep America on the offensive against terrorists. Also, he was one of the few who wasn't rattled by the pace of the debate. That guy may emerge as a threat to the front runners.

Congressman Paul scares me a little. He brings back memories of Ross Perot.

Mitt Romney looked to me the most presidential, and if I were to declare a "winner" it would be him. He's very good at debating and has a strong platform. Very smooth and firm on his record. He picked up some votes tonight. But he is going to have problems with his religion. I'm not sure the GOP will nominate a Mormon for president, however wrong that may be. Which brings up the low blow of the night, Mike Huckabee reminding the world that Romney was a Mormon by saying that a candidate's faith should be open for discussion. Huckabee made himself look cheap.

Guiliani did well overall, but he has a big albatross on his neck in the form of abortion. He was comfortable talking about every issue but this. If he were pro-life, he'd be much higher in the polls. As things are now, he has a shaky lead. Just wait until gay marriage and gun control come up for discussion. I don't see Guiliani winning this nomination, especially after watching Romney tonight. That can be bad because of all the candidates I feel Guiliani has the best shot at beating Hillary.

McCain looked too much like Al Gore, very stiff and robotic and, next to Brownback, perhaps the most liberal of them all. He has an uphill climb and he needs to look and speak much more like a conservative if he's gonna secure the base. He tried to look tough when discussing Bin Laden - "I'll follow him to the gates of hell" - then he smiled. Shouldn't you have a sorta pissed-off-serious look when talking about fighting terrorists? I wasn't buying it. He probably lost some votes tonight.

Tommy Thompson was bumbling through every answer. That guy is painful to listen too.

Tancredo was solid. He has the look of a great pick for a running mate. He's solid on securing the border and big-time pro-life. He will bring a lot of the conservative base to someone's campaign. Plus, he raised his hand and said he would pardon Scooter Libby, good for him. I respect this man a lot.

As for Brownback, I don't remember him nor do I remember Jim Gilmore. Enough said.

You can bet that Fred Thompson was watching, and maybe saw a door of opportunity open. Run, Fred, Run!

Wednesday, May 02, 2007

Here is a recent review of my book: When Evil Prospers. Courtesy of Curled Up

Tragedy strikes again in 2009 as terrorists attack American civilians, this time in Texas. One-fourth of Ameriquest field in Arlington is blown away while the stadium is packed with baseball fans. So soon after 9/11, how can this be happening again? Have we learned nothing from the attack on New York City? Over 5,200 are killed in this latest blast, and that’s not counting the many injured. Hospitals are at maximum capacity with healthcare personnel working impossibly long shifts, and there doesn’t seem to be any relief on the horizon.

Two of the perpetrators are involved in a serious car accident as the attempt to make their getaway. One perp lives, one dies. In the other vehicle, a mother dies at the scene and her little girl dies at the hospital. The outraged fans catch the perpetrator as he was tries to escape the wreckage. A Middle-Eastern man, cursing America is apprehended in London along with another accomplice.

Dr. Mark Daltry, his brother Andy, also a doctor, and Mark’s wife, Teresa, are all at the ballpark when the attack occurs. The brothers live, but Teresa is killed. Despite their shock at Teresa’s sudden death, the brothers begin giving medical assistance to the many victims who have been literally blown out of the stadium.

U.S. President Deborah Hillman immediately assembles her cabinet for advice on how best to proceed. Newly elected, she knows this emergency can make or break her political career. There are many diplomatic concerns to be taken under consideration; permission from the United Nations is sought before any military response can be initiated.

Texas Governor Ed Hood cannot believe that immediate action has not been taken to protect the citizens, other than federal funds from FEMA being released. The president invites him to Washington to meet with her and her cabinet. Disclosures of a corrupt U.N. and many nations being against America result in the governor leaving Washington dissatisfied and committed to protecting his state by calling on the National Guard.

As days become weeks, a bereaved Mark Daltry has sequestered himself in his home. When Teresa died, she took all the best parts of him with her. His future seems useless and fruitless. His brother Andy lures him from the house to go the shooting range. After discharging 28 successful rounds, Andy confronts his brother about his grief, about becoming a vigilante, and about his sanity.

When Evil Prospers is a political thriller with a complicated storyline, at times sluggish and bogged down by too much background information on some characters. The thought of more terrorist activity this soon recalls the emotions, tragedy and turmoil of 9/11. A distressing and difficult read.

While this review is less-than-favorable (compared to what others have said), I want to express my appreciation to Curled Up for their comments and their candor. I don't take issue with their assessment, although I do feel they missed the central point of the book. What I do take issue with is something that is not unique to them. You can find it in the last paragraph and pretty much anytime a frank discussion about 9/11 occurs.

Why is it that so many people have such a difficult time recalling and discussing the events of 9/11 and our current war on terror because it's "too soon"? I really believe that kind of attitude speaks volumes about this nation's attitude towards the task at hand. Can you imagine someone in 1947 saying it's "too soon" to relive the events of Pearl Harbor? Yet, that's what we hear from so many when the events of 9/11 are relived today, whether through book or movie or whatever. Could it be that people like this realize that reliving 9/11 also means having to confront those who perpetrated it? Is that the reason so many people continue to say "I'm not ready"?

I wrote a book with a distinct theme, a message, a lesson. For those who haven't read it, here are the points I make in the book:

We are a severely divided nation
We are a nation at war
Our enemy is strongly united in the cause of America's destruction
If we don't come together, we WILL be defeated

I think it's an important message. These four points are things that, I think, ALL Americans should hear, starting with the imbeciles in Washington. And yet my book catches grief because it "recalls the emotions, tragedy and turmoil of 9/11". We have to do a better job of big picture grasping here. Right now, our country is engaged in a fight for survival against an enemy the likes of which we have never seen. It's time to focus.

For those who have read the book, I welcome YOUR thoughts on this matter.

Tuesday, May 01, 2007

A few months back, I analyzed all the potential Presidential candidates and my assessment of the GOP candidates was that they're rather stale. Now, that perception hasn't changed. Guiliani doesn't seem to have the "rally" ability to unite the grassroots voters, the middle America conservatives. McCain is simply not trusted by the Right. Romney doesn't have a chance. In many polls he trails Tommy Thompson and Newt Gingrich (who isn't even running). And although I called Gingrich the potential wild card that could turn the election upside down, it doesn't appear as though he's going to run. A confession of an affair during the Lewinsky scandal pretty much confirmed that.

But just as I'm about to give up hope for the Right and declare Hillary the next President, along comes Fred Thompson. Here's a guy who has seen the grassroots Right rally around him like you wouldn't believe. They've adopted him as their candidate. One website even calls itself "Draft Fred Thompson" for President. There is an online petition, thousands of signatures strong, urging him to run. And now, the Reagan republicans appear to have joined the show. There are even rumors of other GOP campaigns already looking for "dirt" on him. Thompson's record and toughness, along with his slow southern drawl and charm, may be the perfect recipe for the defeat of Hillary. I'll be posting more on Thompson and his record. Look out for this guy. If he enters the campaign, things will get very interesting.

Here's a taste of Mr. Thompson, just in case anyone is wondering if he's tough enough to be President.