Dick Durbin, Traitor and Scumbag

Pardon my language, but this jack-off should be voted out of office. Is it any wonder that he wants to pull our troops out of Iraq when this moron votes time after time to deny the citizens of Illinois the right to carry concealed weapons? If a turban-head tries to pull off a crime in Illinois, the most a citizen can legally do is throw spit-balls. Wonderful.

Durbin is a dirtbag that should be dropped into Bagdad with no body armor, no weapon (besides his twisted words), and an "America - Love it or Leave It" shirt on. We can then say goodbye to this waste of air.

I actually feel better now...not as good as if I could bitch-slap him (which I won't do, because assault is against the law). So, I wave my private parts at Dick-head Durbin.

I Want the Bumper Sticker

Check out this post from Crotchety Old Bastard. Gotta love this guy.

http://crotchetyoldbastard.com/blog/2007/01/new_national_emblem.html

More Stupidity in the NYTimes

No real comment needed.

The Times Lies About Enemy Combatant Law [Andy McCarthy]

The Times is flat dishonest in its campaign against subjecting enemy combatants to military proceedings, which the Grey Lady passes off as a page-one news article. Correspondent Tim Golden writes:

Under a law passed by Congress and signed by President Bush in October, this double-wide trailer may be as close to a courtroom as most Guantánamo prisoners ever get. The law prohibits them from challenging their detention or treatment by writs of habeas corpus in the federal courts. Instead, they may only petition a single federal appeals court to examine whether the review boards followed the military’s own procedures in reviewing their status as “enemy combatants.” [Emphasis added.]

It's hard to quantify how inaccurate (and, one is compelled to conclude, disingenuous) this is.

First, the law that governs these detainees is not the Military Commissions Act that President Bush signed in October. As that act makes clear, the review of Combatant Status Review Tribunals is actually governed by a law the president signed a year earlier, the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 — specifically, Section 1005 of that law.

Second, by definition, a federal appeals court is not only a federal court; it is also a higher federal court than the single district court to which U.S. citizens must petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Leaving aside, moreover, that it is unprecedented in the history of the United States for enemy prisoners to have access to our courts during wartime to challenge their status as enemy prisoners, the al Qaeda detainees at issue here have actually been given access to the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, which, aside from being superior to all district courts, is often regarded as second only to the Supreme Court in our judicial hierarchy.

Third, it is simply not true that the D.C. Circuit is limited to examining whether the military's combatant status review tribunals "followed the military's own procedures in reviewing their status as 'enemy combatants.'" To the contrary, in addition to determining whether the military followed its own procedures, Section 1005(e)(2) expressly calls on the court to consider "to the extent the Constitution and laws of the United States are applicable, whether the use of such standards and procedures to make the determination is consistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States." (Emphasis added.)

To be clear, I believe the alleged combatants — aliens with no U.S. immigration status held by the military outside the jurisdiction of the federal courts during wartime — have no rights under the Constitution, and have rights under federal statutes only to the limited, if any, extent Congress has expressly made those statutes applicable outside our borders. Whether I am right or wrong about that, however, the detainees are still fully entitled to claim that the military's standards and procedures are inconsistent with federal law. They are not, as the Times asserts, limited to challenging whether the military's standards and procedures have been followed.

Fourth, the essence of habeas corpus is the right to claim that one's detention flouts fundamental rights under the Constitution and laws of the United States. While the detainees access to the D.C. Circuit is not called "habeas corpus," the Detainee Treatment Act precisely allows them to claim that their detention is in violation of their fundamental rights under U.S. law. Thus, although aliens held outside the U.S. are not constitutionally entitled to habeas review in the federal courts, Congress has substantially given it to them anyway.

Other than that, the Times really did a bang up job on this one.

Hat-tip: The Corner - National Review Online

Legal and Illegal Immigration

I am a big supporter of the border fence (especially in Texas) and really liked the border webcam test project that has just been completed at several Texas border crossings. It looks like the State of Texas is going to fund webcams all along the border.

In today's National Review Online, Charles Murray, libertarian extraordinaire, was asked his views on legal and illegal immigration. I thought this would be timely given the news breaking this morning about Swift Meat immigration raids.

From Charles Murray, via National Review Online:

What's my position on immigration? Well, since apparently someone asked (and I have never published anything on immigration), here goes.

Regarding illegal immigration:

1. Making laws about who gets to become a citizen, under what circumstances, is a legitimate function of the state.

2. Protecting borders is a legitimate function of the state.

3. Enforcing the law is a central function of the state.

4. Immigration reform must begin first with enforcement of existing immigration law. If it takes a wall, so be it.

5. And while I'm at it, I'll mention that English should be the only language in which public school classes are taught (except for teaching English as a foreign language) and in which the public's business is conducted.

Regarding legal immigration:

1. Immigration is one of the main reasons—I'm guessing the main reason apart from our constitution—that we have remained a vital, dynamic culture, but immigration of a particular sort: Self-selection whereby people come here for opportunity. That self-selection process used to apply to everyone. It still applies to the engineers and computer programmers and entrepreneurs who come here from abroad, but it is diluted for low-job-skill workers by the many economic benefits of just being in the United States. Most low-job-skill immigrants work very hard. But Milton Friedman was right: You can't have both open immigration and a welfare state. The tension between the two is inescapable.

2. Massive immigration of legal low-skill workers is problematic for many reasons, and some of them have to do with human capital. Yes, mean IQ does vary by ethnic group, and IQ tends to be below average in low-job-skill populations. One can grant all the ways in which smart people coming from Latin American or African countries are low-job-skill because they have been deprived of opportunity, and still be forced to accept the statistical tendencies. The empirical record established by scholars such as George Borjas at Harvard cannot be wished away.

3. I am not impressed by worries about losing America's Anglo-European identity. Some of the most American people I know are immigrants from other parts of the world. And I'd a hell of a lot rather live in a Little Vietnam or a Little Guatemala neighborhood, even if I couldn't read the store signs, than in many white-bread communities I can think of.

4. When it comes to the nitty-gritty, I would get rid of reuniting-families provisions, get rid of the you're-a-citizen-if-you're-born-here rule, and make immigrants ineligible for all benefits and social services except public education for their children. Everybody who immigrates has to be on a citizenship track (no guest workers). And I would endorse a literacy requirement. Having those measures in place, my other criteria for getting permission to immigrate would be fairly loose. Just having to get through the bureaucratic hoops will go a long way toward reinstalling a useful self-selection process. But, to go back to basics: None of this works unless illegal immigration is effectively ended.

I suppose other libertarians will disagree, but I don't see a single item in this approach that runs against the principles of classical liberalism.

Charles Murray

Hat Tip: National Review Online

Thanks to our Military -- and to hell with the ISG

I have the pleasure and honor to know many active-duty and retired military men and women. The quote below aptly represents, to a man, the attitude and spirit of each and every one of them. Too often we forget to say "thank you".

The Patriot Post
Founders' Quote Daily

"I am not influenced by the expectation of promotion or
pecuniary reward. I wish to be useful, and every kind of
service necessary for the public good, become honorable
by being necessary."

-- Nathan Hale (remark to Captain William Hull, who
had attempted to dissuade him from volunteering for
a spy mission for General Washington, September 1776)

THANK YOU.

Hat Tip: Patriot Post's Founders' Quote Daily

Traveler Profiling by the Feds -- Go Go Go

The Dept of Homeland Security and whoever it designates hereby has my permission to collect the data about me indicated in this story, as well as any other data it deems necessary to insure that I am not a security risk while flying. I've been a frequent flyer for 25 years, with over 2.7 million miles on Delta alone. I feel MUCH safer if they do this to EVERYONE flying.

FOXNEWS.COM HOME > POLITICS

Feds Quietly Assign Terror Risk Scores to Millions of Americans

Thursday, November 30, 2006

WASHINGTON — For the past four years, without public notice, federal agents have assigned millions of Americans and other international travelers computer-generated scores assessing the risk they pose of being terrorists or criminals.

The travelers are not allowed to see or directly challenge these risk assessments. And the government intends to keep them on file for 40 years.

Earlier in November, the government disclosed the existence and details of the Automated Targeting System (ATS) for the first time in the Federal Register. Privacy and civil liberties lawyers, congressional aides and even law enforcement officers said they thought the ATS had been applied only to cargo.

• Get more coverage at the Homeland Security Center.

The scores are assigned to people entering and leaving the United States after computers assess their travel records, including where they are from, how they paid for tickets, their motor vehicle records, past one-way travel, seating preference and what kind of meals they ordered.

The Homeland Security Department notice called it "one of the most advanced targeting systems in the world" and said U.S. ability to spot criminals and other security threats "would be critically impaired without access to this data."

Still, privacy advocates view ATS with alarm. "It's probably the most invasive system the government has yet deployed in terms of the number of people affected," David Sobel, a lawyer at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a civil liberties group devoted to electronic data issues, said in an interview.

A similar DHS data-mining project for domestic air travelers — now known as Secure Flight — caused a furor two years ago in Congress, which has barred its implementation until it can pass 10 tests for accuracy and privacy protection.

So Help Me, Mohammed

I promise this will not turn into a rant.

Below is a link to a Dennis Prager column from today, stating that our one and only Muslim elected to Congress wants to swear on the Koran, not the Bible, during his oath of office. Mr. Prager makes THE salient point about this in his column -- what happens if an elected official wants to swear on a stack of Playboys? No, I'm not making this up -- read the article from the link below. Here are the first two paragraphs:

Keith Ellison, D-Minn., the first Muslim elected to the United States Congress, has announced that he will not take his oath of office on the Bible, but on the bible of Islam, the Koran.

He should not be allowed to do so -- not because of any American hostility to the Koran, but because the act undermines American civilization.

Read the entire article here.

H/T Townhall.com

New element Asinine-90

More from National Review Online...

Kerry Can't Apologize [Jonah Goldberg]
If you take Kerry's two statements — the written and unwritten — in their entirety, I really don't think he can apologize at this point. I really do think he could have defused this whole thing, maybe not entirely, by simply saying "I botched the joke and I'm really sorry it sounded like I was diminishing the talent and work of our troops, something I would never do. I take a back seat to no one in my respect for blah blah blah..." But now he's questioned the sanity, the integrity and the manliness of anybody who could have possibly taken him the wrong way. That means, in effect, that he's calling all these servicemen who understandably took offense at the plain meaning of his words, wusses and nutters. That makes Kerry a tool of the first order. And, if he apologizes now, with some Gilda Radneresque "never mind," it will once again reinforce his metaphysical toolishness. The guy thinks he can be president and he thinks he's doing what the "fighting Dem" base wants him to do. The problem is he has basically radiated himself with the isotope Asinine-90 and the only way the rest of his party can protect itself from radition poisoning is to sequester the guy in some lime-pit for 10,000 years until his asininity half-life deterioates to managable levels.

Amen, brother Hanson -- a must read

From today's National Review Online

Kerryism [Victor Davis Hanson]

Kerry surely must be one of the saddest Democratic liabilities around. Some afterthoughts about his latest gaffe, which is one of those rare glimpses into an entire troubled ideology:

(1) How could John Kerry, born into privilege, and then marrying and divorcing and marrying out of and back into greater inherited wealth, lecture anyone at a city college about the ingredients for success in America? If he were to give personal advice about making it, it would have to be to marry rich women. Nothing he has accomplished as a senator or candidate reveals either much natural intelligence or singular education. Today, Democrats must be wondering why they have embraced an overrated empty suit, and ostracized a real talent like Joe Lieberman.

(2) How could Kerry possibly claim that he was thinking of the uneducated in the context of George Bush, who, after all, went to Harvard and Yale?

(3) Some of the brightest and most educated Americans are not only in the military, but veterans of Iraq. Two of the best educated minds I have met-Col. Bill Hix and Lt. Col. Chris Gibson, both Hoover Security Fellows-were both Iraqi veterans. What is striking about visiting Iraq is the wealth of talent there, from privates to generals. Without being gratuitously cruel, the problem of mediocrity is not in the ranks of the military, but on our university campuses, where half-educated professors and non-serious students killing time are ubiquitous. Personally, I'd wager the intelligence of a Marine Corps private any day over the average D.C. journalist. Every naval officer I met at the USNA, without exception, seemed brighter than John Kerry, whose "brilliance", after all, has managed to offend millions of voters on the eve of a pivotal election. If the Democrats lose, it will be almost painful to watch the recriminations against Kerry fly.

(4) This is not the first, but third, time he has denigrated soldiers in the middle of a war-and there is a systematic theme: John Kerry's assumed superior morality allows him to pass judgment from on high about supposedly lesser folk who become tools of a suspect military: thus we go from limb-loppers and Genghis' hordes to terrorists to dead-beats. The only constant is that the haughtiness is always delivered in the same sanctimonious, self-righteous, and patronizing tone.

(5) The mea culpa that Democrats are blaming the war and not the warriors is laughable after Sens. Durbin, Kennedy, and Kerry have collectively compared American soldiers to Nazis, Pol Pot's killers, Stalinists, terrorists, and Baathists.

(6) The problem is that Kerry is not just a senator, but the most recent presidential candidate of the Democratic Party, and thus in some sense, especially given the diminution of Howard Dean, the megaphone of the entire party.

(7) His pathetic clarification, as he blamed everyone from Tony Snow to Rush Limbaugh, displayed the same Al Gore derangement syndrome, and thus raises a larger question: what is it about George Bush that seems to reduce once sober and experienced liberal pros to infantile ranting?

(8) And why is the supposedly lame Bush so careful in speech, and the self-acclaimed geniuses like a Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, or Howard Dean serially spouting ever more stupidities? For all the Democrats' criticism of George Bush, I can't think of a modern President who has so infrequently put his foot in his public mouth, and, by the same token, can't think of any opposition that on the eve of elections seems to have an almost pathological death wish.

The Democrats should use this occasion to have an autopsy of Kerryism, or this strange new tony liberalism, that has turned noblisse oblige on its head. It used to be that millionaire FDRs and JFKs felt sympathy for those of the lower classes and wished to ensure that the hoi polloi had some shot at the American dream. But today's elite liberals-a Howard Dean, Al Gore, Ted Kennedy, George Soros, Ted Turner-love the high life and playact at being leftists simply because they are already insulated from the effects of their own nostrums that always come at someone poorer's expense while providing them some sort of psychological relief from guilt. Poor Harry Truman must be turning over in his grave-from bourbon, cigars, and poker to wind-surfing and L.L. Bean costume of the day says it all.

Scares the Be-Jesus out of me

From National Review Online:

Concentrates the Mind [Mona Charen]

This is from Majority Whip Roy Blunt’s office. It’s a Who Would Be Who in a Democratic majority Congress. It's intended to scare Republican voters into showing up at the polls on November 7. It sure scares me.

Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey (D-Wis.)
Elected 1969, 18th term
Rep. Obey voted with the AFL-CIO 100% of the time. Obey voted against the Deficit Reduction Act, against Defense Funding (FY06), against the Legislative Line Item Veto, and against funding the Global War on Terror (FY04).

“Mr. Obey was one of those Democrats who ripped Mr. Clinton for endorsing a balanced budget in 1995. Rather than cut spending, his goal would be to spend less on defense and more on domestic programs and entitlements.” (WSJ, 08/31/06)

Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charlie Rangel (D-N.Y.)
Elected 1970, 18th term
Rep. Rangel voted with the ACLU 94% of the time. Rangel consistently voted against free trade agreements, against the Bush tax cuts, against Pension Reform, and against Welfare Reform.

Rep. Rangel “opposed the Bush tax cuts and recently voted against free trade with tiny Oman. His committee's crucial health care subcommittee would be run by California's Pete Stark (1972), who in 1993 criticized Hillary Clinton's health care proposal because the government wasn't dominant enough.” (WSJ, 08/31/06)

“No question about it.” -Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY), when asked whether tax increases across the spectrum would be considered should Democrats take control of Congress. (CongressDaily, 09/26/06)

Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers (D-Mich.)
Elected 1964, 21st term
Rep. Conyers voted with the AFL-CIO 100% and the ACLU 100% of the time. Conyers consistently voted against any liability reform, against the USA PATRIOT Act Reauthorization, against REAL ID, against the Child Interstate Abortion Notification bill, and against Border Protection and Immigration Reform.

“He recently made his plans clear in a 370-page report… the report accuses the Administration of violating no fewer than 26 laws and regulations, and is a road map of Mr. Conyers's explicit intention to investigate grounds for impeaching President Bush.” (WSJ, 08/31/06)

Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman John Dingell (D-Mich.)
Elected 1955, 25th term
Rep. Dingell voted with the AFL-CIO 100% of the time. Dingell voted against exploring for American-made energy in ANWR and OCS, against reforming the Endangered Species Act, and against the Telecom Reauthorization bill.

“The Michigan Congressman would do his best to provide taxpayer help to GM and Ford. But telecom companies would probably get more regulation in the form of Net neutrality rules, and a windfall profits tax on oil would be a real possibility.” (WSJ, 08/31/06)

Education and the Workforce Committee Chairman George Miller (D-Calif.)
Elected 1974, 16th term
Rep. Miller voted with the ACLU 95% of the time. Miller voted against Higher Education Reauthorization, against Head Start Reauthorization, and against Pension Reform.

Rep. Miller is “the chief sponsor of the ‘Employee Free Choice Act,’ which would make it much easier for unions to organize by largely banning secret elections… The Californian also wants to raise the minimum wage and fulfill the National Education Association wish to spend more federal dollars on local school construction.” (WSJ, 08/31/06)

Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D-Mass.)
Elected 1980, 13th term
Rep. Frank voted with the AFL-CIO 100% and the ACLU 95% of the time. Frank voted against the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention Act, against Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement, and against Credit Rating Reform.

“…the ascension of Barney Frank (1980) would mean a reprieve for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, despite $16 billion in accounting scandals. His main reform priority has been to carve out a new affordable housing fund from the two companies' profits. And forget about any major review of Sarbanes-Oxley.” (WSJ, 08/31/06)

Government Reform Committee Chairman Henry Waxman (D-Calif.)
Elected 1974, 16th term
Rep. Waxman voted with the AFL-CIO 100% and the ACLU 95% of the time. Waxman voted against the 9/11 Recommendations Implementation Act, against the formation of the Bipartisan Katrina Committee, and against 527 Reform.

Rep. Waxman “would compete with Mr. Conyers to see who could issue the most subpoenas to the Bush Administration.” (WSJ, 08/31/06)

Intelligence Committee Chairman Alcee Hastings (D-Fla.)
Elected 1992, 7th term
Rep. Hastings voted with the AFL-CIO 92% of the time. Hastings voted against declaring that the U.S. will prevail in the Global War on Terror, against the 9/11 Recommendations Implementation Act, against Supporting Terrorist Finance Tracking, against the USA PATRIOT Act Reauthorization, and against Border Protection and Immigration Reform.

Rep. Hastings “who, should Ms. Pelosi succeed in pushing aside current ranking Member Jane Harman, would take over the House Intelligence Committee. Before he won his Florida seat in 1992, Mr. Hastings had been a federal judge who was impeached and convicted by a Democratic Congress for lying to beat a bribery rap. He would handle America's most vital national secrets.” (WSJ, 08/31/06)

*Group ratings are from 2004. Key votes are from the 108th and 109th Congress. Wall Street Journal quotes are extracted from “Back to the Congressional Future” editorial, August 31, 2006.

Part II: How NOT to treat a soldier

Comments on the previous post from a friend of mine...

Having lived in the UK and used the NHS I can attest that it is every conservative’s poster child for what can go wrong with a public health care system. In addition there is a huge south asian population in the UK, many of whom do not feel part of British Society. The war in Iraq in particular, but Afghanistan as well, is tremendously unpopular, so much so, that Blair is being forced out by his own party (ya gotta love parliamentary democracies). So it’s not surprising that the squatties (English for grunt) are being harassed while they languish in a squalid hospital. Still it’s appalling and will no doubt result in yet another backlash against British Muslims, further alienating the young and disaffected creating more opportunities for them to become radicalized.

Here in Canada we have followed a similar path. The Defence Medical Centres were closed over a decade ago. The rational was to save money by eliminating “duplicate” publicly funded health care systems (Canada, famously has a nation wide publicly funded health care system). At the time the rational made sense, spend millions on dedicated medical centres or on bullets and boots. We had beaten the godless commies and the probability of an all out war with anyone seemed highly unlikely. Now that we are in a real shooting war again we are getting a lot of seriously injured soldiers being returned to public hospitals. Since the brigade currently deployed in Afghanistan is based not far from Ottawa (where I live) most of the injured are being returned to a local hospital. By all accounts they are receiving excellent care. Though there has been controversies about how reservists (which make up about 30% of our combat arms formations) are treated if they receive disabling wounds. (i.e. they are screwed). The casualty rates would have overwhelmed our paltry military health care system anyways. Furthermore they would have lacked the expertise especially in specialty areas like Neurology.

Only the US has the resources to warrant such an excellent dedicated and parallel system.

As an aside my Regiment (The Royal Canadian Regiment) has just returned from a 3 week standup fight with the Taliban. They report that they now have wire guided AT missiles, mortars, crew service weapons and are not afraid to fight in the open and during the day. It’s getting ugly out there.

How NOT to treat a soldier

From National Review Online

Looking After the Troops [Andrew Stuttaford]

Via the Daily Telegraph:

A paratrooper wounded in Afghanistan was threatened by a Muslim visitor to the British hospital where he is recovering.Seriously wounded soldiers have complained that they are worried about their safety after being left on wards that are open to the public at Selly Oak Hospital, Birmingham. On one occasion a member of the Parachute Regiment, still dressed in his combat uniform after being evacuated from Afghanistan, was accosted by a Muslim over the British involvement in the country. "You have been killing my Muslim brothers in Afghanistan," the man said during a tirade. Because the soldier was badly injured and could not defend himself, he was very worried for his safety, sources told The Daily Telegraph... Liam Fox, the shadow defence secretary, called the treatment of wounded troops "an absolute disgrace". "They should be in completely separate wings even if this means shutting down entire NHS wards. It is a betrayal of our troops having them treated in mixed and open wards. Those who have been injured on operations must be with those who understand their predicament in a secure environment. "The Defence Secretary should be having urgent talks with the Health Secretary to do this otherwise this Government's commitment to our Armed Forces is nothing but talk." There is also resentment among serving troops unhappy about being treated in a NHS hospital that they believe is unsuitable for military patients. Soldiers on operations say they would rather receive a more serious injury and go to the top American military hospital in Ramstein, Germany, than end up in a NHS hospital. They now half jokingly refer to getting "a Boche rather than a Blighty" in reference to the wounds that would send them home. Ramstein has an outstanding unit for brain surgery, and neurological intensive care beds in Britain are in short supply. "The blokes see it that if you are unlucky you get wounded and go to the UK at the mercy of the NHS, but if you get a head wound you get sent to Ramstein in Germany where the US has an outstanding medical facility," said an officer serving in Afghanistan. "It also does not do morale much good knowing that within 18 hours of being wounded you could wake up in a NHS hospital with a mental health patient on one side and an incontinent geriatric on the other." ...In the past decade the seven military hospitals in Britain, Germany and Cyprus have been closed. The remaining military hospital at Haslar, Portsmouth, is expected to be sold to developers next year.

Incredible.

National Airborne Day

TO ALL WHO READ THIS:

Say "thank you" to a paratrooper today...those who are willing to jump out of perfectly good airplanes. What are they thinking?

A DAY FOR U.S. PARATROOPERS [W. Thomas Smith Jr.]

Today is National Airborne Day, honoring all U.S. paratroopers and military parachutists (from all services) since the first American soldier leapt from a plane over Fort Benning, Georgia on August 16, 1940.

What's interesting is that all soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines who earn the wings of a "military parachutist," must first attend jump school, which is still located at Fort Benning and still conducted by the U.S. Army.

In his 2002 National Airborne Day proclamation, President Bush said, “Airborne combat continues to be driven by the bravery and daring spirit of sky soldiers. Often called into action with little notice, these forces have earned an enduring reputation for dedication, excellence, and honor. As we face the challenges of a new era, I encourage all people to recognize the contributions of these courageous soldiers to our nation and the world.”

Hat-tip: National Review Online

Terror plot while Bush and Blair on "vacation"

As we learn more about the terror threat that has been discovered in Britain, I think we can discount (further) the kooks that complained about "we're at war, and Bush is GTT (Gone To Texas) for a vacation". Tony Blair is also on "vacation"; I suspect they wanted to get out of the spotlight, throw off the NYTimes and the other traitorous MSM who would tell (sorry, "report responsibly to") the terrorists about what we're doing to fight, and get to secure locations so that they could coordinate the take-down of the bad guys.

Some sensible precautions on the part of our gov't (and I'm not being a conspiracy kook when I observe these):

1. Bush and Blair are away from their respective capitols
2. Succession-planning seems to be working fine (as POTUS and VPOTUS are now split up)
3. US Gov't has raised the Terror Level warning
4. Tomorrow is 8/11, so we probably had our antennae up anyway

Interestingly, I have a plug-in to Firefox that displays the current threat level from DHS. It's still showing "Elevated (yellow)". Looking at the DHS website, they have NOT updated the website yet. The announcement of the Threat Level being raised was made about 20 minutes ago now, and DHS still hasn't raised the notice on the site to Orange.

Oh well...just tells you that, in spite of it all, the gov't moves slowly.

More dumb stuff from the NYTimes

Jeez...they get the first 2 paragraphs right...then fall apart with their socialism. I swear you could offer a million bucks for just ONE sensible economics writer over there, and no one could collect the money!

Editorial

Lessons From Prudhoe Bay

Published: August 9, 2006

No sooner did BP announce that a corrosion problem was forcing a shutdown of its pipelines serving Alaska’s Prudhoe Bay than prices again shot up, with oil temporarily gaining more than $2 a barrel, to nearly $77, and gasoline rising five cents a gallon in some cities. Consumers are understandably rankled. But there’s nothing necessarily predatory about what’s going on — this time.

Refineries and gas stations that are not well stocked rush to buy when there’s a sudden shortage, provoking an immediate price increase. Meanwhile, BP and the other oil companies that share in the Prudhoe Bay oil field stand to lose more from the shutdown than they will reap from a spike in prices.

What is predatory is some politicians’ attempt to use the shutdown to realize their drilling dreams. Pete Domenici, the Senate Energy Committee chairman, was quick off the mark pronouncing BP’s travails as yet another reason to drill more at home.

That’s backward, for two reasons.

First, even all-out drilling won’t vaccinate the market from unexpected shortages because there simply isn’t enough potential domestic supply to dent Americans’ demand. The United States holds only 3 percent of global oil reserves, yet uses 25 percent of the world’s oil.

Until we have marketable alternatives to oil, the only thing that will truly reduce Americans’ vulnerability to oil shocks is reduced demand. According to the nonprofit National Environmental Trust, if Americans had started a 10-year phase-in of 40-mile-a-gallon driving standards in 2001, they would already be saving 267 million barrels of oil a year. That’s nearly twice the amount produced annually at the Prudhoe Bay field.

No matter what Mr. Domenici and other oil company cheerleaders say, the BP fiasco also reminds us why we should not put the fate of America’s wilderness in the hands of the oil companies.

BP has a lot of explaining to do, starting with why the ragged condition of its pipelines went undetected for so long. But it has already reinforced one lesson: True energy security does not entail more drilling, especially in Alaska.

Wars past and present, and the Media

In the bigger picture about our chicken**** media, check out this story...my wife's father was in this battle (RIP TSgt Leonard):

"During World War II, U.S. and German forces fought the battle of Hurtgen Forest. It began Sept. 19, 1944 and ended Feb. 10, 1945. That was one battle in a strategically insignificant corridor of barely 50 square miles east of the Belgium-Germany border. The Germans inflicted more than 24,000 casualties on American forces, while another 9,000 Americans were sidelined due to illness, fatigue and friendly fire. Had live TV beamed this battle to America, there might have been an outcry that the policy was failing and somehow a cease-fire and an accommodation with Hitler should be achieved.

America won that war because the objective wasn't to understand the Nazis, or to reach an accommodation with them; the objective was to win the war. Anything less in this war - against an equally evil and unrelenting enemy - will mean defeat for the United States and for freedom everywhere. That's what Rumsfeld was getting at when he said, "We can persevere in Iraq or we can withdraw prematurely, until they force us to make a stand nearer home. But make no mistake: They are not going to give up, whether we acquiesce in their immediate demands or not."

Rumsfeld is right." -- Cal Thomas

Hat-tip: Rightwing News

Support your local Businessman

I'm working on a Firefighter and Police Appreciation Day for our local cops and firemen. In making calls to a number of businesses in the area to solicite their support, I met with a sales manager for a big insurance company (you'd know the company if I told you the name). I'm a sales guy, and have been a sales VP, so I'm pretty good at spotting classy salesmen vs. the "all hat and no cattle" type. Here's a guy who's the same age as I am, rock-steady, calm, cool, collected, and ready to help with his company's resources in support of the community. I bitched a bit about how hot it was in the restaurant we were meeting in. I complained about this and that, just normal nits and nats. Then I asked him if he had ever worked around cops.

Turns out he's a Lt Col Military Policeman in the Army Reserve. He's already served 2 tours in Iraq. Now, he didn't say a word about my bitchin' and moanin', just said he'd been over there and was glad to be back. See what I mean about the classy and rock-steady part?

Let me tell you -- I was embarrassed. I apologized to him for complaining about a 75 degree indoor restaurant when he'd had his butt on the line sweating it out in 115 degree weather, humping it. I thanked him for his service and for not kicking my tail, and we continued our work.

Does anyone have a crowbar to get the foot outta my mouth? TGFOS (Thank God for our Soldiers). Perspective, folks, perspective.

TGIF's

Thank God it's FOOTBALL Season.

Rush Limbaugh quote

Drugged or sober, ya gotta love Rush...

Overheard [Kathryn Jean Lopez]

Rush Limbaugh today, reacting to the poll that says 1/3rd of Americans think 9/11 was an inside job: "When Elvis hears this it'll kill him!"

Posted at 2:16 PM


Hat tip: National Review Online

The Economy and Taxes

For all of the sneering at "trickle-down economics", as well as the criticism on the left about tax rates and the rich not paying its fair share, Karl Rove is lucid and succinct regarding how the tax burden is born by high-income taxpayers. Read the entire article (by Mr. Buckley, in which he quotes Mr. Rove).

Excerpt From William F Buckley, copyright United Press Sydicate.

The charge that only the rich were the beneficiaries of the tax cuts? Rove answers: "If this were true, then logic tells you that the percentage of federal income taxes paid by the wealthy would be falling after the tax cuts." That did not happen: The top 1 percent of the nation's earners, those making more than $317,000 per year, saw their share of the nation's income tax go up (by 1.5 percent), not down. The top 3 percent (making more than $200,000) paid a 5 percent larger share of taxes. Rove quoted a finding of The Wall Street Journal: "For every 100 Americans today, the wealthiest three are paying taxes equivalent to the other 97 combined." (Emphasis mine)

Here's a link to the full article.

Economics Lesson about Oil

Please read this great post from a Senior Lecturer in Economics at Northwestern University.

http://www.knowledgeproblem.com/archives/001709.html


Then, please, read my comments below:

Dear Prof Kiesling:

As a traveling salesman with an economics degree, one of the hardest things to listen to (and keep the ole trap shut) on the rental-car shuttle bus is the price of gas...what people pay for self-service, and what they have to pay the greedy Hertz-Avis-National monopoly (ok, oligopoly, but that's lost on them). Folks DO have choices in price; look at $3.19 for self-serve in Wisconsin, vs $6.00 if Hertz fills the tank for you. This would seem to be the easiest example of how competition could drive pricing down...but NOOOOOO. It's all about greed on the part of Pick-a-Rental, right?

In fact, people make a conscious choice to be LAZY and/or let the employer pick up the price differential in the gas from the rental-car company. "What do I care? It's not coming out of MY pocket." Here is where the old example of employer-paid health insurance comes into play. If your company pays the insurance premium, and you only have a small deductible, what incentive do you have to ask about the price of the MRI when you've only strained your knee? Similarly, what incentives are there for rental companies to lower the price of gas if people pay the going rate, and the employer gets stuck with the bill? I would argue that it is not the oil companies or the rental firms that are being uncompetitive; it's the CFO and Sales VP that approve of the expense who are the real enemies of competition.

Oh well, have to run to turn in the rental car and catch a flight. $6.35 here...but, not my problem...

Meanwhile, back at Camp Inelastic...

Regards,

Texan in Wisconsin

HAT TIP: National Review Online and Knowledge Problem

NYTimes using moral equivalence again

Will they ever stop being traitorous?

From the New York Times:

WASHINGTON, July 21 — The Bush administration is rushing a delivery of precision-guided bombs to Israel, which requested the expedited shipment last week after beginning its air campaign against Hezbollah targets in Lebanon,American officials said Friday.

The decision to quickly ship the weapons to Israel was made with relatively little debate within the Bush administration, the officials said. Its disclosure threatens to anger Arab governments and others because of the appearance that the United States is actively aiding the Israeli bombing campaign in a way that could be compared to Iran’s efforts to arm and resupply Hezbollah.

Just...freaking...unbelievable. We sell munitions to a democratically-elected government that is DEFENDING itself. And the NYT equates that sale with the Iranians supplying a TERRORIST group with weapons that are used to kill and frighten civilians. The Times tries to soften it with the word "appearance". Ptui.

Getting Citizens out of Lebanon Part 3

All are home and safe...if a bit frazzled.

Thanks for your thoughts and prayers.

Doug

Getting Citizens out of Lebanon Part 2

I have just seen that the Greek liner Orient Queen has docked in Cyprus. I also received word that my cousin and family were on this ship. Haven't heard from them in Cyprus, but things are looking good. I'll let you know when they step back onto US soil.

Nancy Pelosi and the Pledge of Allegiance

Today, the House voted to forbid federal courts from ruling on keeping "under God" in the Pledge. Good idea, that. Imagine my surprise (NOT) when I read this about Pelosi.

From the Associated Press, as seen on the Fox News web site:

BEGIN QUOTE

WASHINGTON — The House, citing the nation's religious origins, voted Wednesday to protect the Pledge of Allegiance from federal judges who might try to stop schoolchildren and others from reciting it because of the phrase "under God."

The legislation, a priority of social conservatives, passed 260-167. It now goes to the Senate where its future is uncertain.

Click here to see how your representative voted.

"We should not and cannot rewrite history to ignore our spiritual heritage," said Rep. Zach Wamp, R-Tenn. "It surrounds us. It cries out for our country to honor God."

Opponents said the legislation, which would bar federal courts from ruling on the constitutional validity of the pledge, would undercut judicial independence and would deny access to federal courts to religious minorities seeking to defend their rights.

"We are making an all-out assault on the constitution of the United States which, thank God, will fail," said Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.

END QUOTE

Sigh...can anyone be a worse Representative than Ms. Pelosi?

Getting U.S. Citizens out of Lebanon

Just found out that my cousin, her husband, 3 kids, and her husband's dad are in Lebanon, visiting the dad's relatives. Will keep you posted on their progress. Please say a prayer for them when you hit your knees each night.

Thanks,

Doug

From the "You Can Only Take so Much BS" file

Is anyone surprised that even Colin Powell would be sickened by eating with Clinton?

Colin Powell Visits Hospital After Falling Ill at Restaurant

Friday, July 07, 2006

ASPEN, Colo. — Former U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell was briefly hospitalized early Friday after falling ill at a restaurant where he was dining with former President Clinton and others, police said.

NYTimes version of Pinko Liberal Crapola

Scott, you posted a great comment earlier re: President Bush's announcement about the economy and the deficit. I watched the announcement live, and a great line from W was to the new Treasury Secretary: "You've been on the job one day, and you're doing great!".

The point is, as you so well stated, the tax cuts help the economy by putting more money into our pockets...and the money doesn't stay there! We spend it. Good for the economy as measured by GDP, jobs, real estate prices (nudge, nudge, wink, wink) etc.

Now look at what the NYTimes says about the announcement today here. Are they on the same planet as the US economy?

Great Obituary

Hope they write about me like this...

Frederic Arthur (Fred) Clark
Frederic Arthur (Fred) Clark, who had tired of reading obituaries noting other's courageous battles with this or that disease, wanted it known that he lost his battle as a result of an automobile accident on June 18, 2006. True to Fred's personal style, his final hours were spent joking with medical personnel while he whimpered, cussed, begged for narcotics and bargained with God to look over his wife and kids. He loved his family. His heart beat faster when his wife of 37 years Alice Rennie Clark entered the room and saddened a little when she left. His legacy was the good works performed by his sons, Frederic Arthur Clark III and Andrew Douglas Clark MD, PhD., along with Andy's wife, Sara Morgan Clark. Fred's back straightened and chest puffed out when he heard the Star Spangled Banner and his eyes teared when he heard Amazing Grace. He wouldn't abide self important tight *censored*. Always an interested observer of politics, particularly what the process does to its participants, he was amused by politician's outrage when we lie to them and amazed at what the voters would tolerate. His final wishes were "throw the bums out and don't elect lawyers" (though it seems to make little difference). During his life he excelled at mediocrity. He loved to hear and tell jokes, especially short ones due to his limited attention span. He had a life long love affair with bacon, butter, cigars and bourbon. You always knew what Fred was thinking much to the dismay of his friend and family. His sons said of Fred, "he was often wrong, but never in doubt". When his family was asked what they remembered about Fred, they fondly recalled how Fred never peed in the shower - on purpose. He died at MCV Hospital and sadly was deprived of his final wish which was to be run over by a beer truck on the way to the liquor store to buy booze for a double date to include his wife, Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter to crash an ACLU cocktail party. In lieu of flowers, Fred asks that you make a sizable purchase at your local ABC store or Virginia winery (please, nothing French - the *censored*) and get rip roaring drunk at home with someone you love or hope to make love to. Word of caution though, don't go out in public to drink because of the alcohol related laws our elected officials have passed due to their inexplicable terror at the sight of a MADD lobbyist and overwhelming compulsion to meddle in our lives. No funeral or service is planned. However, a party will be held to celebrate Fred's life. It will be held in Midlothian, Va. Email fredsmemory@yahoo.com for more information. Fred's ashes will be fired from his favorite cannon at a private party on the Great Wicomico River where he had a home for 25 years. Additionally, all of Fred's friend (sic) will be asked to gather in a phone booth, to be designated in the future, to have a drink and wonder, "Fred who?" Published in the Richmond Times-Dispatch on 7/9/2006.

Hat tip: NRO and Richmond Times-Dispatch

Taxes 101

It has long been known that lowering taxes really is a good thing for everyone. Even my most liberal friends know this (even though it is tough for them to admit). However today we got the kind of economic report that we like, which reflects the truth behind this VRWC propoganda.

Today's report from the president shows that GDP is up, tax dollars collected IS UP, spending is lower than expected (by quite a lot) and the budget deficit is lower relative to GDP. The biggest misconception is that tax breaks only benefit the rich. But the more money there is in the hands of the people, the more we all benefit. Even lower wage earners who pay less taxes (and reap smaller gains) because often times their jobs depend on higher wage earners willingness and ability to spend and reinvest. The biggest problem we face isn't the inability of our leaders to understand this, it's the peoples patience with letting such a system work. It takes time for that money to work it's way through the system, years in fact. But given the opportunity it does and this has been shown more than once. That being said, we still need to control our spending and watch the budget deficit but as long as our debt-income ratio is improving and we manage that deficit the economy will be in good shape. Even with oil at $75 a barrell.. but that is another story.

Point is, whether you like him or not, the presidents economic policy was right and will continue to be. Make those tax cuts permanent and let's get on with business...

Kenneth Lay R.I.P.

I am absolutely incensed at Henry Allen of the Washington Post. Read this atrocious article from Mr. Allen about Ken Lay's death. This is one of the most mean-spirited diatribes that I've ever read. The man is dead and can't defend himself. I'm willing to bet Henry Allen was picked on as a kid, and the only way he could retaliate was by talking about the bullies behind their backs.

In the early 80's, one of my best friends from college married Ken Lay's daughter. The wedding was in Houston, and we had quite a time. This is the one (and only) time that I met Mr. Lay. We were invited to play golf at his country club, and, as I was in the wedding, I spent much of that week in the kitchen at the Lay's home. Mr. and Mrs. Lay were gracious hosts, and could not have been more down-to-earth, engaging, funny, and just plain tickled that their daughter was getting married and that so many would come to celebrate that happy occasion. I recall that I bought them a hedge trimmer as a gag wedding gift -- what do you get for the couple that has everything?

The rehearsal dinner was hosted at the Lay's home, and we enjoyed a gourmet dinner around the pool. I gave the first toast to the couple, and recall wading into the pool while doing so (I was a bit of a joker back then). The happy parents were enjoying themselves, beaming with pride, and were themselves enjoyable.

Now, I have not again seen the Lay's since that wedding, and my buddy was ultimately divorced from the daughter (he's passed away, now, as well. R.I.P. BOBBY). I accept the jury's decision in the case...I wasn't there, didn't hear the evidence, and they did.

What I will say is this: no deceased person (with the exception of mass murderers and child abusers) deserves the bile and pure hatred that is written into Mr. Allen's article. To state that Mr. Lay cheated the hangman is one thing (tasteless, to be sure). But to say that he deserved the potential abuse in prison that is described in this rag is beyond the pale. Good God, man, have you no manners? Your mother would slap you for the pure rudeness of your words. Heaven help you if Florence King ever got within arm's reach of you. If you had uttered them, your mouth would be washed out with soap. I'd supply the soap.

Let's recall that a wife and family have lost a father...and I witnessed what a kind, gentle, and loving man he was. For the sake of his family, let's say a prayer.

Another NYTimes headline from yesteryear

Hat tip to Atlas Shrugs...

General Robert E. Lee and the Press

From Burt Prelutsky.com:

Gen. Robert E. Lee: “It appears that we appointed all of our worst generals to command the armies and we appointed all our best generals to edit the newspapers. I mean, I found by reading a newspaper that these editor generals saw all the defects plainly from the start but didn’t tell me until it was too late. I’m willing to yield my place to these generals and I’ll do my best for the cause by editing a newspaper.”

Thanks, Burt.

From the Missus

I have been sitting here for a day listening to both sides on this issue of whether or not what the New York Times did was right or wrong in printing the recent story on international bank transactions and whether the Supreme Court went too far in allowing the GITMO detainees and others the same rights as US citizens.

Here is how I feel about both of these issues. I am not asking you to agree or disagree with me….this is just how I feel.

WHAT THE HELL IS THE MATTER WITH THE NEW YORK TIMES AND THE SUPREME COURT ?????????????????

ARE THEY NUTS?

Ok, now that I have that off my chest, let me tell you why I feel as I do. First and foremost we have men and women on the front lines fighting to help keep the world safe from the likes of Al Qaeda, Osama Bin Laden and those of like mind. Why would the New York Times journalists want to endanger these soldiers further? A question I would like to ask the editor of the New York Times is, “How many people who are employed by the New York Times have a son, daughter, brother, sister, father, mother fighting in Afghanistan or Iraqi?” If any of them do, why are they working for a paper that is trying to help kill their relatives? If there are no employees that have relatives fighting there, how can the New York Times represent a balanced picture of why we are fighting? There are two sides to every story (except the New York Times).

On the issue of Security for the US, the journalists and editors of the New York Times have committed treason on a scale that makes all those before them who sold or gave away national secrets look like petty shoplifters at the five and dime. The New York Times keeps saying to us, “We (the legal citizens of the US) have a right to know what our government is doing”. My response to them is, “What makes them think I want to know, let alone need to know, this information?” I have enough faith in my government to believe when they tell me it is a security risk therefore we are not telling the public.

Let’s say this is the early 1940’s and WWII is raging on in Europe. Would the New York Times have printed the ship movements in the North Atlantic as fleets of ships sailed out of East Coast harbors, carring hundreds of thousands of men bound for England and getting ready for D-Day? Would the New York Times have called 1-800-Zig-Heil and let the Nazis and SS know we are coming, tell them where the ships would dock so they could meet these men at their port of call and welcome them to their new homeland? Would the New York Times have written an article and informed the Japanese people we have a secret program called the Manhattan Project? All I can say to the New York Times and the people that work there: ”Loose lips sink ships!!!!”

I think the Federal government should claim eminent domain on the New York Times building, saying they need the property for a top secret program. Oh, by the way, I am sure France and its people would welcome with open arms those employees of the New York Times. Bon Voyage.

Now for the Supreme Court (man do I have a headache): if I understand what happened the other day, the Supreme Court just gave away our constitutional rights to every citizen of the world. Did the Justices forget who is paying their salaries, benefits, retirement, office expenses, etc, etc, etc? Did they forget that their letterhead reads “U.S. Supreme Court?” For those of you on the bench at the Supreme Court office building the key letters here are “U.S.”, which stand for United States, NOT United World. That would be “U.W.” Always glad to help out those who don’t get it.

Let’s go back to WWII and reference what the Supreme Court just did. We (the United States military) just captured 100 German soldiers on the border between France and Germany. We process them and put them on a boat, with their final destination being a POW camp somewhere in the United States. Once they arrive at a US port and step onto US soil, all rights granted to all current US citizens are now given to these POW’s who probably just shot and killed your father, brother, uncle or son. We process them through our police system, set bail, let a Bondsman post their bail, have them sign the necessary paperwork and let them walk out the door of the jail. Waiting outside for them is our government’s Human and Social Services agent waiting to hand them a voucher for their hotel, a credit card to buy food, clothes, personal items, drinks at Hooters and a down-payment on a new car (hey….how do you expect them to get around to do sight seeing while they are waiting for their trial?). By the time a trial date is set and the attorneys have done all their due-diligence, low and behold the war is over and now we are going to either ship them home, book passage to South America, or let them stay here and be an illegal citizen until the courts can figure out what to do, which probably is not anytime soon.

For those of you that sit on the Supreme Court answer me one question: where in our Constitution or laws does it say that we the people of the United States must give away our rights to every Tom, Dick or Harry or for that matter every Saddam, Osama or GITMO detainee?

Those rights rightfully belong to us, those who have obtained legal status in this country by birth or through immigration and application. Has the Supreme Court now declared Eminent domain on our constitutional rights? To those of you that sit on the bench of the highest court in this nation, I would appreciate you remembering where you are and who you represent.

Now back to the New York Times, please note that in writing this editorial I only exercised my Constitutional right of Free Speech. I did NOT divulge any government secrets.

Deborah
Wisconsin

NY Times reveals secret plans...again

This would be funny if it wasn't true...

Hat tip: From NRO (Courtesy of reader Les Baitzer.)

Why We Should Keep Secrets

Very well said...fom PowerLine Blog:

"But Then the Enemy Would Adapt"

Defenders of the New York Times, the L.A. Times and the leakers who outed the Terrorist Financing Tracking Program say that the newspaper stories didn't tell the terrorists anything new. But there is a big difference between knowing that we're trying to follow money trails, and knowing how we do it. In that context, this interview with the commander of Israel's Air Force, Maj.-Gen. Eliezer Shkedy, which appeared in today's Jerusalem Post, is interesting. It's a long interview that covers current events in Gaza along with other topics. But these comments are especially relevant to the controversy over our newspapers' unwillingness to keep a secret:

Every three months we try to develop an additional capability. The [terrorists] are behaving in a certain way? How do we need to grapple with that? But I can't go into details. This war is so complex. They are always trying to figure out what we're doing; they adapt to it. I would love to be able to tell the people of Israel what we are doing new to protect them. They'd be proud to hear it. But the moment I make something public, the other side will adapt. So telling the public actually harms my efforts to protect the public.

Liberals stubbornly refuse to acknowledge what is really a very obvious point.

Thanks to reader Joel Goldberg.

Pelosi Opens the Border Unconditionally

This moron wants us to extend all of our Constitutional and Legal rights to all people, anywhere in the world. She honestly thinks we owe our rights to others, not from this country, who FIRE WEAPONS at our soldiers. Unbelievable. Does this make her a Commie, or a Socialist? Either way, she needs a one-way ticket to Gitmo.

From her press office today, commenting on the Supremes' decision about Gitmo:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE June 29, 2006

CONTACT: Brendan Daly/Jennifer Crider 202-226-7616

Pelosi Responds to Supreme Court Decision on Guantanamo Military Commissions

Washington, D.C. – House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi released the following statement today following the United States Supreme Court decision that trying Guantanamo detainees before military commissions violates U.S. law and the Geneva Conventions:

“Today’s Supreme Court decision reaffirms the American ideal that all are entitled to the basic guarantees of our justice system. This is a triumph for the rule of law.

“The rights ofdue process are among our most cherished liberties, and today’s decision is a rebuke of the Bush Administration’s detainee policiesand a reminder of our responsibility to protect both the American people and our Constitutional rights. We cannot allow the values on which our country was founded to become a casualty in the war on terrorism.”

Pinko Liberal crapola

I'll update this with my comments as soon as I calm down...

Reason # 17 why we should do away with the EU...(hyperbole, not a real threat).

From The Wall Street Journal Opinion Page:

Unlawful Rendition

By TERRY DAVIS
June 27, 2006; Page A14

At about 10 in the morning on Sunday Aug. 15, 1994, a small plane landed at Villacoublay military airport outside Paris. On board was a team of agents from the Direction de la Surveillance du Territoire, or DST -- broadly speaking, the French equivalent to the CIA. Their handcuffed and hooded prisoner had been captured only hours before in the Sudanese capital of Khartoum. His name was Illich Sanchez Ramirez, better known as Carlos the Jackal, self-styled revolutionary, terrorist and murderer.

Two years later, the European Commission on Human Rights, a predecessor of the European Court of Human Rights, rejected his complaint and ruled that the circumstances of his arrest and transfer to France did not violate the European Convention on Human Rights.

This ruling by a Council of Europe body has been repeatedly used by the highest officials in the U.S. State Department to try to prove that so-called extraordinary renditions are justified and lawful under international law, including European human-rights laws.

I am disappointed because this is nothing less than obfuscation.

The decision in the case of Sanchez Ramirez v. France is only seven pages long and can be read in a couple of minutes. It is available on the Council of Europe Web site -- admittedly only in French, but I find it almost impossible to believe that the entire State Department has so profoundly misunderstood a straightforward legal ruling because of linguistic difficulties.

What Condoleezza Rice's colleagues systematically -- perhaps deliberately? -- omit in their analogies between the capture of Carlos and so-called extraordinary renditions of al Qaeda terrorist suspects are a few basic and very important details.

Carlos did not disappear, nor did he end up in some Caribbean gulag. He was taken to Paris and brought before a judge, with the right to a lawyer and a fair trial. This was because he was arrested on the basis of a valid arrest warrant, issued before his capture on the basis of his alleged involvement in a car-bomb attack which killed two people and injured 70 people in Paris. An arrest warrant is a piece of paper signed by a judge. This may not seem much, but it makes all the difference. This is the stuff our freedom is made of.

The Commission on Human Rights acknowledged that Carlos may have been arrested and transferred to France in an unusual manner, but this did not change their views on the lawfulness of his detention. And this proves another very important point.

Contrary to the belief of some people, the European Convention on Human Rights is not a collection of lax, ineffectual and utopian principles. It is a body of international law, which was drafted in difficult and uncertain times and has been tested in courts ever since. The convention balances the rights and freedoms of individuals against the interest of the larger community. It allows for a robust, effective and fair response to the threats faced by society, including from terrorism. In Europe, we reject the bogus choice between our security and our freedom.

After his arrest, Illich Ramirez Sanchez was given a fair trial and was sentenced to life imprisonment. Today he may be an angry old man, but he is not a martyr. He spends his time filing complaints through the very system he once set out to destroy. I do not know whether Carlos has atoned for his crimes, but what is important is that he has been deprived of the opportunity to commit new crimes or alternatively inspire other people to follow his example.

There is a message in all that. A really effective fight against terrorism is one which stops more terrorists than it helps to recruit.

Mr. Davis is secretary general of the Council of Europe.

Senator Roberts' Letter

Here is a copy of the letter sent by Senator Pat Roberts to John Negroponte, asking that the leaks reported in the NYTimes be investigated. Any bets on whether it will be acted upon?

My preference is to revoke the NYTimes' White House Press creds. National Review has been big on backing this.

Geneva Convention, The Supreme Court, and Terrorists

Please read this article, as well, from National Review:

[The] Geneva [Convention]'s Golden Rule is earned reciprocity. Article 2 of the Convention makes it very clear: a non-party may earn the privileges and immunities of the treaty if it “accepts and applies the provisions thereof.”

Another reason why we owe NOTHING to these scumbag terrorists. No Geneva Convention rights, no US Constitutional rights, no NOTHING...except lead poisoning (as in 45 cal bullet to the brain).

That is all.

Hat Tip: NationalReviewOnline

USA vs Terrorists

Here is a snippet from a post on the National Review by James S. Robbins...

Three American soldiers in Iraq have been charged with murder for the deaths of three prisoners of war. Meanwhile two captive American soldiers were slain by insurgents. Privates Kristian Menchaca and Thomas L. Tucker were tortured, killed barbarically, and their bodies left to be found wired with booby traps. For the insurgents it was cause for celebration. “We have executed the Exalted Almighty God's verdict on the two Crusader infidels we captured, by slaughtering them,” the Mujahedin Shura Council stated. “God is great. Glory be to God.”

PLEASE, read the entire article here. Robbins goes on to show why we have the moral high ground.

He's hit it right out of the park with this article.

Hat tip: NationalReviewOnline

Zarqawi Autopsy report

I have received an email from an otherwise non-conspiracy theorist, stating that Zarqawi may have been either tortured or lived through the bombing and be in custody. My initial response was "there's no way someone's going to live through the overpressure from 2 500-lb bombs".

Well, here is the autopsy report...nuff said.

Pinko Liberal Media example #11,335,340

The Arizona Republic published this cartoon. I call b-s on it. Here's the cartoon:


Shame on them...this is TOTAL BS. Write a letter to them. Here's the link to write.

G**damn pinko liberals. Can you imagine what Gunny R Lee Ermey is going to do?

I'm not a Marine, but...Semper Fi.

Thank God for Marines

With apologies to Major Syd, if this doesn't bring a tear to your eyes...

Marines are different

By Blackfive on Military

The email below is from USAF Colonel Brett Wyrick who is the commander of the 154th Medical Group, Hawaii Air National Guard, and is serving as a surgeon in Balad with the 332nd Expeditionary Medical Group. Col. Wyrick had been sending his father, a Vietnam-era fighter pilot, emails about his experiences in Iraq:

Dear Dad,

If I ever hear airmen griping and complaining, I jump into them pretty quickly, now. Most people over here have nothing to gripe about compared to Marines. Marines are different. They have a different outlook on life.

One Marine Private was here for several days because he was a lower priority evacuation patient. He insisted on coming to attention and displaying proper military courtesy every morning when I came through on rounds. He was in a great deal of pain, and it was a stressful to watch him work his way off the bed and onto his crutches. I told him he was excused and did not have to come to attention while he was a patient,and he informed me that he was a good Marine and would address "Air Force Colonels standing on my feet, Sir." I had to turn away so he would not see the tear in my eye. He did not have "feet" because we amputated his right leg below the knee on the first night he came in.

I asked a Marine Lance Corporal if there was anything I could get him asI was making rounds one morning. He was an above the knee amputation after an IED blast, and he surprised me when he asked for a trigonometry book. "You enjoy math do you?"

He replied, "Not particularly, Sir. I was never good at it, but I need to get good at it, now."

"Are you planning on going back to school?" I asked. "No sir, I am planning on shooting artillery. I will slow an infantry platoon down with just one good leg, but I am going to get good at math and learn how to shoot artillery". I hope he does.

I had the sad duty of standing over a young Marine Sgt. when he recovered from anesthesia - despite our best efforts there was just no way to save his left arm, and it had to come off just below the elbow.

"Can I have my arm back, sir?" he asked.

"No, we had to cut it off, we cannot re-attach it." I said.

"But can I have my arm?" he asked again.

"You see, we had to cut it off."

He interrupted, "I know you had to cut it off, but I want it back. It must be in a bag or something, Sir."

"Why do you want it?" I asked.

"I am going to have it stuffed and use it as a club when I get back to my unit." I must have looked shocked because he tried to comfort me,"Don't you worry now, Colonel. You did a fine job, and I hardly hurt at all; besides I scratch and shoot with my other hand anyway."

God Bless the Marines!

Col. Brett Wyrick

VAE VICTIS

Hat tip: BlackFive

Porn as a form of Warfare

From National Review Online:

AL-ZARQAWI [Andrew Stuttaford]

With remarkable timing, the Atlantic has a lengthy piece on the late, unlamented Al-ZarQawi. The whole thing is well worth reading, but, as the good folks at Reason noticed, this is too good not too highlight:

“Despite their enthusiasm, al-Zarqawi, al-Maqdisi, and Abu Muntassir did not appear to be natural revolutionaries. Their first operation was in Zarqa, in 1993, a former Jordanian intelligence official told me, when al-Zarqawi dispatched one of their men to a local cinema with orders to blow it up because it was showing pornographic films. But the hapless would-be bomber apparently got so distracted by what was happening on the screen that he forgot about his bomb. It exploded and blew off his legs.”

I shouldn’t laugh, but well…

More seriously, it’s a reminder that the sheer seductiveness (sometimes literally so) of Western culture is an important part of the arsenal of democracy (remember the role that it played in the internal demoralization of the Soviet Union), so, let’s praise the Lord, pass the ammunition, and lob over the porn …

Don't forget...even DEMOCRATS killed Al-Z

From Blackfive:

Not Just One Pilot

By Blackfive on Military

This message from Richard, a DoD contractor, via Seamus is important to understand how Zarqawi met his fate:

We ALL got that SOB.

Some grandmother somewhere in America works in a factory soldering wires to a harness that will connect to a little square box containing a little projection camera for an F-16 Heads Up Display.

A young man or woman a year removed from high school pulled pins from 500lb bombs on a hot desert tarmac.

Another kid in America works in a foundry pouring hot aluminum alloys which will eventually find its way to the compressor stage of the F-100 engine that will power an F-16 from a runway.

Someone in America sang in a church choir on Sunday, and on Monday was holding a rivet gun, helping build another warplane, which will help keep us free.

Some group of brave men in the darkness, shined a little laser beam against a building.

Some geeky American, known for his/her math skills wrote a little program that turns numbers into coordinates.

Some young American decided to become a pilot after watching the Thunderbirds or Blue Angels put on a show.

Some American you or I will never meet, had an idea, which became GPS.

Some kid who last year was dancing at a Prom pulled the chocks.

Some kid wiped the canopy that a year ago was wiping car windshields in their summer job at the local car wash back home.

Someone working in a rubber factory had no idea that his or her work product was tucking itself into its bay as the pilot brought up the gear 20 ft off the deck.

Some little American girl who years ago was all about MTV and CDs gave a vector, cleared hot.

Some pilots did their job.

SHACK, baby.

AMERICA got that son of a bitch.

Every damn one of us.

All I can say is that before he died, I hope it hurt like hell.

This one's for Nick Berg.

Star Trek link to Zarqawi

Hat tip to PhilDragoo over at Free Republic for the graphic.

Cool website -- check it out

Last night I stumbled (literally - I use Stumble.com) on a great website. It's LibraryThing. For those of you (like me) that have large book collections, one of the struggles is how to catalogue and keep track of all of the books you have. I've started many times over the years to create an Excel spreadsheet and put in Title, Author, ISBN, etc. It's just too big of a task. I have about 5,000 books, so you can imaging the pain in the tail it would be to enter all this info, instead of just putting in the ISBN.

Well, it's now easy as pie. With this new website (free for up to 200 books, $10 for one year, $25 for lifetime) all you have to do is enter the ISBN (you either know what that is, or quit reading this entry). These folks have created a search engine that goes out and gets the info about the book, including a small image of the cover. How cool is that? You may tag your books so that you can sort by type, and you can download the list to an Excel spreadsheet.

The only (minor) issue I had was that, on some of my older books, there was no cover art. Hey, what do you expect when you enter a college textbook from the 70's?

UPDATE: I found out that you can scan the cover of any book that this service doesn't find and add it in...better than 6 beers and the Coors girls (well, not quite).

I HIGHLY recommend all of you to check out this website, sign up, and start using it. I have a link over on the right. >>>>>> (That's over here>>>> for you ambidextrous folks.)

Freedom in Iraq

No matter what you thought of his policies or Presidency, whether you are liberal or conservative, Ronald Reagan inspired our nation through unyielding optimism tempered with reality, vigilant faith in the people and a dedication to the principles upon which this nation was founded. While visiting our nation's capital and listening to debate over the war in Iraq, whether we should be there, our excuse for doing so and how soon we should pull our troops out, I was reminded of a quote from President Reagan that summarizes eloquently, simply and far better than I ever could, why despite the trials, tribulations and questions that abound, our presence there is the right thing to do.

"The ultimate determinant in the struggle now going on for the world will not be bombs and rockets but a test of wills and ideas - a trial of spiritual resolve: the values we hold, the beliefs we cherish and the ideals to which we are dedicated... So let us ask ourselves: What kind of People do we think we are? And let us answer: free people, worthy of freedom and determined not only to remain so but to help others gain their freedom as well." - Ronald Reagan

Chickenhawks on D-Day

Check out this blog -- the top 11 things that the war protesters would have said on D-Day.

Click HERE for the link.

It would be funnier if it wasn't so g**damn true.

If you see a veteran today, say a special "thank you" for his/her service.

20th Century's Greatest President

Today is the 2nd anniversary of the death of Ronald Wilson Reagan. Here is a quote that you all will appreciate.

INSIGHT

"[Ronald Reagan] quoted Thomas Merton, 'We must be content to live without watching ourselves live, work without expecting immediate reward, love without instantaneous satisfaction, exist without special recognition.' The president then wrote, 'In today's modern world many would challenge Merton's statement and ask why we must be content to live this way.' He answered that question with some of the best advice I've ever received: 'Because our nation was built by men who dedicated their lives to building our country for the sake of their children and countrymen, without taking the time to worry about receiving recognition for their efforts'." —Oliver North

Hat tip: Patriot Post (www.patriotpost.us)