Epic Nation

Bush's pick

2005-07-19T18:49:00.000-05:00

The president will be announcing his choice for O’Connor’s recently vacated Supreme Court seat tonight. The chattering classes immediately started claiming that they had it on good authority that he would be choosing Edith Brown Clement. Well, all that’s changed now and the talking heads of the MSM now have it on good authority that Clement is not the president’s choice.

Leave it to so-called mainstream reporters to report as “news” the fact that they have zero clue of what’s going on. Waiting for Bush’s announcement later in the evening is just too much to ask of these tools considering the entire profession suffers from Attention Deficit Disorder.

But if everyone’s playing the guessing game, I’ll go with Edith Hollan Jones.

Here's what Renew America has to say about Judge Jones:

Judge Jones has openly criticized Roe v. Wade, condemns "modish, untested philosophical notions" imposed by the Supreme Court "that would have left the [Constitution's] Framers aghast," and believes that the Framers' principles of limited government and personal virtue were derived mainly from the Ten Commandments and the Golden Rule. In January 2003, she told a University of Virginia audience that the nation's foundational values were Biblical.

Jones is critical of the legacy of the Warren Court, which she contends "extravagantly assumed the power to dictate new 'rights' not expressly stated in the Constitution and in so doing foisted its philosophical vision on the United States with consequences far beyond the Court's imagining."

Among areas Jones believes the activist Supreme Court has damaged American society are crime and punishment, pornography, family relations, public order, and youth and education.

Concerning the decline of religion, morality, and self-government in American society, Jones told a group of law students at the University of Texas in 2001, "I am hopeful that with the debacles of the twentieth century, we can recover the original intentions of the framers of the Constitution."

If I'm right, and Bush picks Jones, this is going to be one hell of a summer. I'm already looking forward the Left’s hyperventilating reaction; it should be entertaining. Besides, it will be nice to keep up with real news for a change. This Rove nonsense was old the first day it was reported on.

Must be that Viking blood...

2005-07-01T23:22:00.000-05:00

A Swedish citizen who was held hostage by terrorists in Iraq for 67 days has vowed revenge on his captors. Ulf Hjertstroem, a 63 year old banker, has put a bounty on the heads of those “bastards” who kidnapped him:

"I want to take them out of the game," Ulf Hjertstroem, a 63-year-old oil broker who had lived in Baghdad for 14 years, told Expressen. […]

"I have now put some people to work to find these bastards ... I invested about $50,000 so far and we will get them one by one[.]"

This is the sort of talk I would expect from a Texan, not a Swede. I have to say I’m impressed by this man’s confrontational attitude. I’m sure he’ll be facing some harsh criticism from the pacifist wimps in the Swedish media/”intelligentsia.”

Hat tip to AYD

US denies the UN control over the Internet

2005-07-01T22:12:00.000-05:00

Here’s some good news:

A unilateral decision by the United States to indefinitely retain oversight of the Internet's main traffic-directing computers prompted concerns Friday that the global telecommunications network could eventually splinter.

This issue has been getting little attention in the press, but in the last few years there has been an ongoing campaign on the part of internationalists to wrest control of the Internet’s domain name service – basically the master directory for the web – from the United States. And who, pray tell, would manage the Internet’s most essential of services?

The United Nations, of course.

A notable detail that should give people pause for thought is that China has been the most ardent proponents of this plan at the UN. Just imagine China, those champions of free speech who have implemented a country-wide firewall to keep Chinese citizens from gaining access to unfiltered news and information on the Web, having a hand in managing the Internet with the depots over at Turtle Bay.

Right now IP address allocation is managed by a non-profit organization based in the US; the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN). Opponents of ICANN claim that if the agency doesn’t surrender their control to some international body the Internet will fracture into several networks. But the prospect of a splintered Internet that they raise to create fear, I would raise as an argument to keep ICANN in place.

If there are countries/organizations that believe ICANN shouldn’t have sole control over the Internet’s management, then by all means, they should create a new network. If ICANN is so deficient, let Internet consumers and providers go flocking to a new Net. What’s there to fear but competition?

Personally, I trust the market is more than satisfied with ICANN’s stewardship of the Web.

Justice O'Connor resigns

2005-07-01T19:11:00.000-05:00

I fear a blood bath.

UPDATE: The ink has yet to dry on O'Connor's resignation and the headline over at the NOW website reads:

Justice O'Connor Resigns... Women's Lives on the Line

Got hyperbole?

About that "white Christian party"

2005-06-30T19:30:00.000-05:00

I realize I'm a little late on responding to Howard Dean's claim that the Republican party is a "white Christian party". But I was thinking of another comment Howie made:

"I hate the Republicans and everything they stand for," former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean told Democrats gathered at a Manhattan hotel, in quotes picked up by the New York Daily News.

It doesn’t take a logistician to make the following deduction, but if Dean hates the Republicans and everything they stand for, and the Republican party – according to Dean – is a “white Christian party”, then it could be said that Howard Dean hates white Christians and everything they stand for.

So there you have it folks, the chairman of the Democratic National Committee proclaiming he loathes Christians and everything they represent. Nice job “reaching out” to those red states Howie.

Bait and switch

2005-06-24T06:33:00.000-05:00

Karl Rove made some comments to a group of New York Republicans on Wednesday basically contrasting the philosophical precepts of liberals and conservatives. The remark that has Rove in "trouble" was reported in NewsMax as follows:

"Liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers." Conservatives, he said, "saw the savagery of 9/11 and the attacks and prepared for war."

This had Democrats - including Senators Clinton and Schumer - throwing a tantrum; asking for an apology and/or resignation from Rove. While I felt the Democrats reaction was a bit whiney, I was scratching my head over why the heck Rove made the comments.

There is no spontaneity to Karl Rove. Everything he does is part of some grand design, so he does not slip up by using ad hoc rhetoric. But I was miffed with his comments because I felt that Democrats were finally feeling some heat over Durbin’s comments on the Senate floor. So why the heck would Rove want to give the Democrats any dirt to sling back at us?

Putting aside the fact that Rove’s comments were 100% accurate, I now suspect his remarks are part of a broader strategy. There is an endless catalog of Democrats publicly disparaging our efforts in the war on terror and the troops. But Republicans have so far been kept from beating Democrats to a political pulp with their own words because they have successfully buffered themselves with the “how dare you question my patriotism?” defense.

But instead of employing this reliable – though passive – defense in confronting Rove's claim, the Democrats got a little too cocky, stepped up to the proverbial rhetorical dais, and challenged the veracity of Rove’s charges. They have effectively solicited a debate on this issue, and opened themselves to the litany of evidence against them. A complete review of every treacherous comment made by the left since 9/11 is now fair game.

Karl Rove: Genius.

Greatest American

2005-06-24T02:23:00.000-05:00

I'm watching the Greatest American on Discovery Channel right now. Just had to comment on the fact that Randy Jackson - not Michael's brother, but of American Idol fame - is sharing the panel with Ann Coulter and Dennis Miller. Sure, Miller and Coulter are no sages of our time. But Randy Jackson? You've got to be kidding me.

Randy Jackson is touting Martin Luther King Jr. as the greatest American, which is perfectly fine. But I have to imagine the supporters of MLK's candidacy are feeling a little let down that Randy Jackson is their primary representative on this program. His placement on the panel is so asinine that I question the motives of the show's producers. Were they trying to handicap MLK's candidacy by placing this moron on the panel to defend him?

GOP plays politics with US constitution

2005-06-23T04:43:00.000-05:00

First off, I would like to begin this post by explaining why I've neglected my blog lately. I spent the last month going through the evaluation/approval process for my master’s thesis. Now that my paper’s fate is out of my hands, I have some more spare time for updating my blog. Let the blogging commence!

It appears the GOP has forgotten its conservative roots and has decided to play barefaced political games with the US constitution:

The GOP-led House voted 286-130 on a measure Wednesday that would give Congress authority to ban desecration of a U.S. flag. Its prospects aren't good in the Senate, but Republicans could still get what they want — an issue that divides or even conquers Democrats in the 2006 and 2008 elections.

I doubt I need to defend my patriotic bona fides, but if anyone is wondering, I do not condone the burning of the US flag and if I witnessed such an act I would probably have to bite my upper lip to keep myself from misdemeanor assault charges. However, I respect the constitution a far deal greater than the stars and bars, and therefore could not disagree more with the Republicans in congress on this issue.

The political gamesmanship here is not difficult to decipher. The GOP is trying to put Democratic members of congress on the record for voting against a flag burning amendment. The Dem's would be cornered; trying to placate their base by voting against the amendment would disgust moderates. As tempting as this is, it's an incredibly myopic strategy for the GOP.

This amendment process, if it continues, will leave the GOP reeking of hypocrisy. How can a party of so-called constructionists expect to be taken seriously if we are willing to chip away at the very rights we claim to champion? The next time we deride the left for its attempts to curb freedom of speech/expression we won’t have a moral foundation to stand on.

Sure, burning the flag is a horrible act. But so long as no persons or property are harmed in the process, it should be covered by the First Amendement. In a perfect world I would expect that every American would respect and cherish the flag and what it represents. But if amending the consitution is the only route to meet that end, I'll pass.

The GOP will not always be the majority party (I know, hard to imagine). If we tinker with the constitution to win a couple political points and silence those who offend us, who knows what the opposition will cook up in the future to settle the score.

If some imbecile is so incapable of engaging in public debate that their only recourse is to buy and burn an American flag, then that should be their right. Pity the poor dumb bastards? Yes. Amend the constitution to infringe upon their right to free expression? Absolutely not!

France votes "Non" to EU constitution

2005-05-29T15:33:00.000-05:00

France votes down EU constitution. AP reports:

PARIS - French voters rejected the European Union's first constitution Sunday, early government results showed a stinging repudiation of the ambitious, decades-long effort to further unite the continent.

With about 83 percent of the votes counted, the referendum was rejected by 57.26 percent of voters, the Interior Ministry said. The treaty was supported by 42.74 percent, the ministry said.

This is huge news with immense repercussions. In short, France has just surrendered (hehe... need I make the obligatory French surrender joke?) all influence they had in the EU. No matter how the media tries to spin this, it's a huge loss for French elites and the European "social model" envisioned by the continent's leftists. I don't have the energy to write on it now, but stay tuned.

Sixième République?

Socialists create revenue source with new anti-piracy laws

2005-05-27T00:37:00.000-05:00

Sweden has finally adopted laws that bring the country into compliance with the European Union Copyright Directive. Sweden is home to the bulk of copyright law offenders in Europe. One of the largest file sharing applications (DC++) operates a majority of its server hubs within Swedish borders. The Local reports:

Sweden on Wednesday passed a law banning the sharing of copyrighted material on the Internet without payment of royalties, in a bid to crack down on free downloading of music, films and computer games.

The law, which was approved by a large majority in parliament, will go into effect on July 1st. Those who violate the law will be ordered to pay damages.

The law is all well and good, but as is the case with most legislation written by the socialist cranks in Sweden, it goes a step too far:

More controversially, the new laws also make downloading unauthorized copies of copyrighted material illegal, and they impose levies on blank media of SEK0.0025 per megabyte for recordable discs and SEK0.007 for re-recordable discs.

Uhg... I could vomit. The tax doesn't sound like much when it's broken down to a per megabyte basis - especially to American readers who have no clue what the Swedish Krona (SEK) is worth - but this tax is ridiculous!

Let's break it down considering the 50 pack of 4.7 GB (4700 megabytes) recordable DVD's I have sitting on my desk. The disks are not rewritable, so I will apply the lower of the two taxes: (4700 * .0025) * 50 = 587.5 SEK. At today's exchange rate that works out to $79.95! Considering I paid $13.99 for this pack of 50, that's a 570% tax.

Disgusting.

I guess this explains why the laws in Sweden are so sexually permissive; otherwise the entire parliament and department of taxation would be sitting in prison for fiscal sodomy. Besides, it's not as though the tax makes any sense. The flawed logic behind this law is so typical of socialists. When will leftists realize that taxing the hell out of law abiding citizens does nothing to prevent criminal behavior?

Italian author faces trial for insulting Islam

2005-05-26T23:39:00.000-05:00

An Italian author is being put on trial for insulting Islam in her book titled The Rage and the Pride. BBC reports:

Controversial Italian journalist Oriana Fallaci is to face trial for allegedly insulting the Muslim faith in her latest book, a court in Italy says.

Ms Fallaci is being sued by the head of the Muslim Union of Italy, who says The Force of Reason is defamatory.

[...] The case is being tried in the northern town of Bergamo, where the book was published. The prosecution has 10 days to come up with a charge.

Italy was the birthplace of fascism, so I suppose it should come as no surprise that authors who express opinions not approved of by government are being rounded and put to trial. I am surprised, however, that Sharia Law is taking hold so quickly in Europe. Insults to Islam are illegal under Sharia Law, and it appears the Italian justice system has trashed free speech to comply. I figured it would take at least another 50 years before Europeans would be reduced to dhimmitude.

Islamo-fascism is probably the greatest threat facing Europe right now. But as this case in Italy shows, Europe lacks the will to resist the colonization of their continent by the Arab world. The socialist elite's bizarre obsession with multiculturalism is rotting away the core of European civilization. The trial of Ms. Fallaci demonstrates the resignation of European leaders to their new constituency.

Meanwhile, back in the US, the media continues to circle the wagons around Newsweek. The latest straws being clutched at by the liberal press is the claims of Koran desecration made by members of Al Qaeda. Conveniently ignoring the fact that Al Qaeda's training manual instructs terrorists to make such claims, the MSM continue to make clear they will take the word of terrorists over that of US soldiers.

There is also a certain irony that reporters are so terribly offended by insults to Arab Muslims when they themselves attack American Christians on a daily basis. Funny how that works out. Leftists must prefer Islamo-fascism over even the slightest semblance of Western traditional values.

Birthday surprise

2005-05-23T00:00:00.000-05:00

This blogger turns 25 today, and received the best surprise gift ever:

That's me doing a tandem jump from 11,000 feet over the North Shore of Oahu, HI. The guy strapped to my back is Jim, a tandem master at Skydive Hawaii. We went up with a group of 4 tandem jumpers and two photographers in a Cessna 208 Caravan. The free fall lasts about 50 seconds, at which point the chute is pulled and you slowly float back to earth. The speed of your body during free fall is 120 MPH.

The entire crew at Skydive Hawaii was awesome; a real fun group of jumpers who love what they do and make the experience all the better. If you're ever vacationing out here and looking for a memorable adventure, I suggest you check these guys out. They are the oldest operation on the island and have a perfect safety record. My fiancé and I both jumped today, and we already want to go again.

EU insists "Non" means "Oui"

2005-05-21T20:33:00.000-05:00

France will be voting next Sunday on a referendum concerning the EU constitution. For some time it was assumed without a second's thought that France would vote in favor of the constitution by a large margin. But in the past several weeks polling has shown that the majority of French citizens will vote "Non" on the measure.

The polling has boosted the momentum of the "non" campaign and has put French leaders into full panic mode. All 25 members of the European Union must vote in favor of ratification for the document to be valid. So a rejection of the constitution by the French would basically kill the EU constitution.

It has been said over and over again that no "Plan B" exists should the French vote down constitution. But with the French vote approaching, and opinion polls still suggesting a defeat, it seems the EUROcrats in Brussels have cooked up a plan to save the constitution should the French vote no. The Sunday Telegraph reports:

Until now senior EU figures, including José Manuel Barroso, the commission president, have said that there is no "plan B" if the French reject the constitutional treaty next Sunday, suggesting that it will effectively be killed off by a No vote. The Sunday Telegraph has established, however, that the 25 EU members plan to issue an emergency joint statement if rejection is by a small margin.

The statement would insist that the constitution, the blueprint for the EU's political future, lives on and that ratification must continue. The treaty has to be endorsed by all 25 states to take effect.

Wow, European democracy in action folks. If the slovene masses don't vote in favor of the elite's grand scheme, screw'em!

First, notice how all 25 members of the EU will be issuing a joint statement. A more accurate phrasing of that is the technocrats that represent the 25 EU members will be issuing an emergency joint statement. If the French reject the constitution by a majority vote, they can't very well be one of the "EU members" issuing an emergency measure to save the thing.

Second, it appears that European democracy means that losing by a "small margin" is in fact a victory. By the way, I wonder who gets to decide what constitutes a "small margin". A bunch of pro-European judges in Brussels? I have a feeling the Democratic party in the US would just love to apply this rule in states like Ohio.

Finally, for them to insist that "the consitution lives on" after being voted down would be incredibly pathetic. So pathetic in fact I would like to see them try. It would interesting to see if Europeans just roll over and take it, or if they actually rally against the tyranny of Brussels.

Commies warned on currency distortion... again

2005-05-18T08:43:00.000-05:00

It looks as though the Bush administration has finally worked up the nerve to ask that China stop bending the US over a barrel with their monetary policy. The NY Times reports:

The Bush administration warned China on Tuesday that its currency policies were distorting world trade, and it brandished the threat of retaliation against the country's exports if Chinese leaders did not change course in the next year.

In language far harsher than it has used before, the Treasury Department declared that China's fixed exchange rate between its currency, the yuan, and the dollar posed a risk to its economy and the economies of much of the rest of the world.

The administration stopped short of accusing China of outright currency manipulation, a move demanded by American manufacturers who complain that the Chinese have artificially undervalued their currency to make exports cheaper in the United States.

This article addresses the increasing concern over the undervaluation of the Chinese yuan to the dollar. The Chinese government pegs their currency to the dollar at a ratio of about 8 to $1. Economists estimate that the yuan may be undervalued by as much as 40% compared to the dollar, and conservative estimates say the yuan is undervalued by 10%. In any event, the Chinese are creating problems for a US economy already facing adversity.

The manufacturing sector in China has grown by leaps and bounds in recent years, amassing a trade surplus between themselves and the US alone of $162 billion in 2004. This represents a 30% leap upward from 2003’s number. By pegging their own currency to the dollar the Chinese ensure that they will reap such windfalls from their exports to the US in the future as well. This is because even with a declining dollar, sales to the US will not be affected because the yuan will decline with it. It is no surprise that some economists are putting pressure on the Chinese to switch to a market based system as far as their monetary policy is concerned, and move away from the unscrupulous method they are currently using.

The US Congress is mulling over tariffs and other trade sanctions it could place on the Chinese to encourage them to change there policy. I would normally be completely against such measures as they stand against the tenets of free market capitalism. But considering the fact that the Chinese are cheating the system to begin with, such measures would be well deserved on the part of China. China is profiting at the expense of American exporters by undervaluing their currency.

Consider a situation in which the Chinese allowed their currency to float. Now also consider a declining dollar, which is what the US has been experiencing over the past 2 years. As the dollar declines on its own in this situation the Chinese yuan would appreciate against the dollar. Chinese exports would become slightly more expensive, but US exports would make up the difference and then some because more world consumers would want to purchase US goods. Also, domestic consumption would increase because Americans would be buying less from China and would turn to US producers.

But the reality is that none of these offsetting activities can take place, and as the dollar declines the Chinese take the yuan down with it. The dollar is in crisis while the Chinese laugh all the way to the bank because so called “free marketers” would rather we fall on our sword than check the Chinese with trade sanctions.

Some argue that putting pressure on the Chinese is out of line because they are a sovereign country who has their own right to manage their currency as they see fit. But if the Chinese wish to continue benefiting from the free market trade that large countries such as the US allow them to participate in, they should play by the free market rules across the board. The Chinese hardly care about the value of their currency compared to foreign currency since the state runs the entire economy and there is little if no concern as to how the Chinese citizenry are affected by such economic policies, as the so-called “rulers” of China are nothing more than self appointed tyrants who rule under the authority of the gun as opposed to the voting booth.

Holy Shiite!

2005-05-17T05:11:00.000-05:00

The NY Post today has perhaps their best cover since the famed "Axis of Weasel" cover featuring French president Chirac and German chancellor Schroeder:

As the cover story indicates, Newsweek finally retracted their bogus story that claimed US soldiers were guilty of flushing a copy of the Koran down the toilet. The retraction comes after numerous riots, 17 killed, and the US image in Afghanistan - which until now had been the huge success story of the War on Terror - in tatters. Not bad results for only a weeks worth of biased reporting.

The rest of the blogosphere is slamming Newsweek plenty for their sins, and I too have covered the story a good deal, so I'll leave it to others to beat, chop, and grind this dead horse into sausage. But I would like to make one point.

The whole Dan Rather affair had serious implications and the damage done to what was left of CBS's integrity was suitable penance for their shoddy journalism. But Newsweek can not be let off so easily. The institutional mindset at Newsweek, that US soldiers should always be presumed guilty unless proven innocent, has lead to the deaths of 17 people. Also, the propaganda tool they provided for our enemy will no doubt be used to recruit new militants who will exact their revenge on our young men and women in uniform.

Many in the press seem to forget, but war is a deadly serious business. Michael Isikoff and John Barry will be cozy and safe in their New York City apartments, while it will be our soldiers' blood that will spill because of their "error". The least we can expect is that these men be held to account, along with their editor Mark Whitaker, for the incredible amount of damage they have done to our war effort.

They called a bunch of juiced-up baseball players to testify in front of Congress to send a message to steroid users. Why not call a hearing on the institutional bias that exists in the press to send a message to treasonous reporters?

Filibuster Angst

2005-05-17T05:00:00.000-05:00

It appears that negotiations between Majority Leader Frist and Harry Reid on a deal for Bush’s judicial nominees that would grant concessions to the Democrats while avoiding a filibuster have broken down. AP reports:

"I've tried to compromise and they want all or nothing, and I can't do that," Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada told reporters after a private meeting with Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn.

"We both agreed that after several months of discussions, we have been unable to come to a negotiated position where the president's nominees get an up-or-down vote," Frist said.

I think Reid forgets his place when he speaks about the Republicans wanting “all or nothing”. It is Reid who is the minority leader, not Frist, and it was the American people who voted for a Republican majority. Liberals seem to think that the Republican controlled House, Senate, and White House are some chance aberration that they need only to wait out. Democrats have zero respect for constitutional tenets of majority-rule and have only parliamentary jockeying to turn to as an agenda.

Americans need to understand that Senate filibuster rules were made up in the Senate and are an artificial precept, existing outside the US constitution. Harry Reid and the Democrats love to talk about the “separation of powers” when the topic of abusive filibustering comes up. This demonstrates either complete ignorance on the part of the Democrats, or their own perception of Americans as being ignorant of the constitution.

Whatever the case may be, Republicans have failed to explain these democratic precepts to the American people. And it’s too bad, because the fact that we must now resort to rule changes in the Senate is indicative of the eroding civility in Washington. The Senate is supposed to be a place of tradition, where gentlemen are able to work with each other to serve the nation. Now, with the militant left calling the shots for the Democrats, all civility has been tossed out the Senate window.

The ability to filibuster may have served a useful purpose at one time, but it has been so abused by the Democrats in the Senate that it is now a tool for trivial partisan obstruction. And that too is a shame. While majority rule should be respected in the Senate, there should be procedures that a minority can apply in extreme circumstances to force extra debate on important issues.

Tolerance by the barrel of a Swedish gun

2005-05-16T07:12:00.001-05:00

Last year I wrote about a minister in Sweden named Ake Green who was being prosecuted under Sweden's new "hate speech" laws for his comments about gays during a sermon; which included calling homosexuality a "deep cancer". Green was convicted and sentenced to 30 days in jail, but an appellate court would eventually acquit him of all charges.

Now the chief prosecutor of Sweden has taken the case to the Supreme Court of Sweden to get the appellate court's decision reversed. BBC reports:

Sweden's Supreme Court has said it will review the acquittal of a Pentecostal pastor who denounced homosexuality as "a deep cancer" in a sermon. [...] Sweden's chief prosecutor said that in his view, Mr Green's comments did amount to hate speech, and so he was seeking a review.

The Swedish constitution contains 4 documents, one of which is the Fundamental Law on Freedom of Expression. A Swedish constitutional lawyer is not needed to understand the intent of the document either; it states:

Every Swedish citizen is guaranteed the right under this Fundamental Law, vis-à-vis the public institutions, publicly to express his thoughts, opinions and sentiments[...]

Knowing the trickery that lawyers can play with constitutional language, the authors of this document go on to further remove any possible misinterpretation of its intent:

The purpose of freedom of expression under this Fundamental Law is to secure the free exchange of opinion, free and comprehensive information, and freedom of artistic creation. No restriction of this freedom shall be permitted other than such as follows from this Fundamental Law.

Hard to find any wiggle room in that statement. So what does the chief prosecutor expect to accomplish?

Fear.

By dragging this minister's name through the mud and ruining his reputation and career, the hope is to intimidate all other members of the clergy into submission. Who would dare speak out against homosexuality when it has been made clear that the full weight of the Swedish judicial system will come down on them? The issue here is not the protection of a minority class of citizens, Green never spoke of violence. This is about forced secularism by the godless socialist elite in Sweden.

Sweden has always had a strong tradition of tolerance. Now it seems tolerance in Sweden is only granted to special minority groups, annointed the title of "protected class" by some cabal of leftist elites. Those who resist will be met by men with guns and a prison cell.

These are dark days for Sweden.

Its all over for Newsweek

2005-05-15T18:40:00.000-05:00

Newsweek may have thought they could sweep this little debacle under the rug with the confusing Evan Thomas piece that made a cryptic admissions that is barely understandable. But Newsweek is getting covered by everyone now, EVERYONE.

From the Blogosphere to the MSM, everyone is taking a pound of flesh. Newsweek made an appology today in an attempt at damage control:

"We regret that we got any part of our story wrong and extend our sympathies to victims of the violence and to the U.S. soldiers caught in its midst," Editor Mark Whitaker wrote in the magazine's latest issue.

Victims of the violence? The violence that ended up killing these people was just a sympton of the riots caused by Newsweek. Get it right, these 15 people that are now dead were victims of Newsweek's irresponsible reporting. If the magazine wasn't so obsessed with doing any damage it can to our president and the military, and actually did some fact checking instead of running to press with a shotty story, these 15 people would be alive today.

The last 4 years have been shameful for the mainstream media. I can think of no other time where the media's credibility was in such tatters. The lies they used to be able to get away with are now being thrown back in their face, and their monopoly on "truth" has been broken up. While the MSM goes on covering their phony "quagmire" in Iraq, the New Media should start covering the MSMs quagmire. I can see the headline now:

Deathtoll in Mainstream Media's War Against Democracy Hit Another Milstone Today, 15 Civilians Reported Dead in Afghanistan

Newsweek Lied, People Died!

2005-05-15T06:48:00.000-05:00

Even Thomas has written a piece for Newsweek that basically says the whole story about a copy of the Koran being flushed down a toilet was a crock of dung:

While various released detainees have made allegations about Qur'an desecration, the Pentagon has, according to DiRita, found no credible evidence to support them. [...] How did NEWSWEEK get its facts wrong? And how did the story feed into serious international unrest?

Cause they jumped on a crappy lead with no real evidence and ran with hoping to sell a few more magazines at the expense of human life! Are there any journalists working for Newsweek who can explain the concept of fact checking to them?

Don't give Newsweek a break because of Thomas' piece either. The passage above represents all of the admission of wrong doing, the rest of the article is a longwinded explanation on how it came to be that Newsweek screwed the pooch so bad on this story:

Given all that has been reported about the treatment of detaineesincluding allegations that a female interrogator pretended to wipe her own menstrual blood on one prisonerthe reports of Qur'an desecration seemed shocking but not incredible.

Blah blah blah... Thomas goes on for another 1,000 words or so following this same flawed arguments. It's the typical justification from a liberal; "it's not the evidence that matters, but the severity of the charge." Even the events Thomas cites to justify his believing in this story aren't even fact. Thomas says it himself that they are "allegations" and "reported" treatment. Maybe the writers over at Newsweek should stop reading their own press. The leftists in the media have bought their own pack of lies, and now live in the fantasy world they created.

Hey Evan, journalists writing bogus stories that get people killed and endanger many more is also pretty damn shocking, and completely credible! But I have a feeling this is the very beginning of this scandal. Rather may have lied through his teeth, but no one died because of it. But this Newsweek piece lead to riots and death.

Let me borrow one of the favorite jingles of the left: NEWSWEEK LIED, PEOPLE DIED!

UPDATE: I dont know how I missed this little gem:

A U.S. military spokesman, Army Col. Brad Blackner, dismissed the claims as unbelievable. "If you read the Al Qaeda training manual, they are trained to make allegations against the infidels," he said.

Hmm... makes you wonder where exactly guys like Evan Thomas attended journalism school.

A Rumor that Won't Flush

2005-05-14T15:49:00.000-05:00

So the Arab league, and the mainstream media, are all bitching about a rumor that someone flushed a copy of the Koran down the toilet at the base in Gauntanamo Bay. There were some protests that turned deadly in Afghanistan so the US press, smelling a story that could do damage to our country and possibly result in an increased death rate of US soldiers, jumped all over the story. Now a bunch of other countries who have always hated us are stating, well, they hate us:

In the Yemeni capital, thousands of Sana University students demonstrated on campus, chanting Death to America!

There's a shocker.

Anyways, my problem isn't with these whack-job students (I wonder what subject they teach at the prestigious San'a University) and their anti-American governments. They have, do, and always will hate this country and will always find an excuse to let it be known. But I do have a problem with the "journalists" and "reporters" in the US covering this story.

Right now the whole thing is based on a rumor, spread mostly by the media, that someone flushed a copy of the Koran down the toilet. Follow me on this one. I went on Amazon and found that the Koran they have for sale is 465 pages long. Let's suppose the copy wasn't even a hardback edition, but a paperback. Now take a book roughly that size (don't want to use an actual copy of the Koran lest we want an international incident to occur in your home bathroom) and try to flush it down the toilet.

My apologies to Tom Clancy; this experiment has nothing to do with his ability as an author.

Surprise-surprise! The book doesn't go down the toilet.

I can't imagine why anyone hasn't tried this already and proved this story bunk. The media so wants to hurt our country that they abandon all common sense in their efforts to do so. I realize most in the middle-east don't have access to the requisite items for this experiment, namely books and toilets, but the journalists covering this story have no excuse.

At very least this warrants some skepticism of the story!

Military base closures

2005-05-14T14:57:00.000-05:00

There's been a lots of news in the past 24 hours of how locals and politicians are reacting to the base closures announced by the Pentagon. As would be expected there's a lot of whimpering and whining going along with the closures. Since New England is hardest hit, it's mostly Democrats doing the moaning. NewsMax reports on Joe Lieberman's reaction to the closures in his home state:

Sen. Joe Lieberman called the recommendation "irrational and irresponsible."

"It insults our history and endangers our future," said Lieberman, D-Conn. "It is right here in southeastern Connecticut where the heart and should of America's submarine force lives."

So sorry that military strategic interests insulted your history Joe, whatever that means. Chris Dodd is doing some whining over the closures as well, but even he admits it will be an uphill battle. Other Democrats were out complaining yesterday as well, including John Kerry:

Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., condemned the proposal to close Otis Air National Guard Base on Cape Cod, says, "Otis is the number one base for homeland defense on the entire East Coast. ... It simply makes no sense to close Otis in the post 9/11 world."

Yeah, maybe if the primary objective of homeland defense is protecting the beach houses of New England's pseudo-aristocracy. Funny how a guy with who never met a cut in military spending he didn't like is suddenly preaching about homeland defense.

If you read today's paper you will find that John Kerry isn't the only new expert on defense strategy roaming the halls of our capital. Olympia Snowe, a Republican in campaign financing only, probably wins the price for the most idiot comment of the day:

"It is a travesty and a strategic blunder of epic proportions on the part of the Defense Department," the Republican said in a statement, vowing to visit each facility mentioned to help craft a strategy to prevent the proposed changes. "It is entirely beyond me as to the basis on which they made their recommendations, but it certainly wasn't logic or reason. Clearly, in arriving at these inexplicable decisions, the Defense Department and the Navy must have been operating in a fog so thick they couldn't even see the facts in front of them."

Nice hamfisted approach to winning them over Olympia. With diplomatic skills like hers I can't help but wonder how she will vote on the Bolton nomination. Insulting the intelligence of Navy and military brass is sure to win them over. By the way, which war college did Snowe attend again?

I am no military expert, so I have no idea what the strategic interests are behind these closings. I trust the people running our military to do what's right though; this is their profession and they know what's best. But I can appreciate the karmic justice angle of this story. Here we have a bunch of liberal states, represented by politicians who would bleed the defense budget dry if it meant one more welfare program, full of MoveOn.org-types who damn our soldiers daily, and they're just now discovering their love of all things military as the gravy train pulls away. Funny how that works out.

Good news for Swedish college students

2005-05-12T10:05:00.000-05:00

The Swedish government has a complete monopoly on all alcoholic beverages sold in the country. Meaning that when you want to buy a bottle of wine or a few cans of beer, you have to wait in line at a government run store that could only have been designed by the fine folks who brought us the DMV.

A typical liquor purchase, let's say a liter of Sweden's own Absolut vodka, will begin by taking a number and waiting for the LED screen above the service counter to signal your turn. As you wait you must browse the catalogue to find the reference number for the product you want and filling out a card with your order on it. When its your turn you will hand your order card to a clerk who will then wander into the rows of shelving behind the counter and fetch your bottle of vodka. So far, so good.

Now comes the painful part, paying for that single liter of vodka. The horrible dollar to SEK (Swedish Kronar) exchange rate aside, the tax levied on a single liter of alcohol by the Swedish government is roughly $27.00! Add that to the already inflated price of the liter and you're throwing down $40.00 for one liter of vodka.

But relief for Swedes seems to be on the horizon. The MaconTelegraph reports:

Sweden's strict regulatory policies have come under pressure in recent years because of its membership in the European Union, which is based on the free flow of goods and people. Now, in the latest concession to new realities, a government panel, backed by alcohol officials, has recommended that Sweden cut its steep tax on hard liquor by 40 percent.

"New realities" is socialist-speak for consumer choice. Because Europeans are now free to move about between countries they can choose where they will buy goods, alcohol included. What most business students learn in the first week of ECON 101, it takes an entire government panel of socialist bureaucrats to discover in Sweden.

"Our taxes were decided in a situation where the borders were closed. Now they are open," said Bjorn Rydberg, spokesman for Sweden's liquor, beer and wine monopoly, Systembolaget. "It's impossible to have this high tax today, because people can go buy their alcohol in Germany or Denmark. And sometimes they turn around and sell it here illegally.

Go figure. Did any of those pinkos care to research the correlation between organized crime and prohibition in the United States? Nah, why do that when you can use canned government talking points to goad the public into a sense of fear over the free market:

"We want alcohol to be sold with age controls and with social controls, not in dark parking lots from the backs of trucks."

Wow, that single sentence covered the three primary elements of socialist propaganda:

We're doing it for the sake of children - "age controls"
You couldn't possibly know what's good for yourself - "social controls"
Beware the dark forces of capitalism - "dark parking lots from the back of trucks"

Socialists are rendered rhetorically impotent in the face of common sense, so they resort to the standard pinko playbook: mischaracterizations, fearmongering, and dishonesty. They see a huge revenue source slipping from their grasp and it scares them. The inability to control other's wealth means the inability to control their livelihood's. How's a government technocrat with no marketable skills to amass a fortune without the ability to extort their own citizens? Quite a conundrum.

Rebuild the WTC Twin Towers!

2005-05-12T06:58:00.000-05:00

I ran across the website of Ken Gardner a couple months ago and thought his idea to rebuild the WTC as it once was, only bigger and stronger was a far fetched but great idea. I suppose I told myself it was far fetched because I hadn't seen this guy getting any coverage, and the media seemed to have covered the "Freedom Tower" as a done deal. But it looks as though some like minded people with a great deal of influence are begging the question: "Why not rebuild the Twin Tower?"

Donald Trump has begun a campaign to reincarnate the WTC as it was before. The NY Post, which has been nagging Pataki over the horribly designed "Freedom Tower" he so loves, is also backing Ken Gardner's plan to rebuild the Twin Towers. In an Op-Ed today in the Post, Nicole Gelinas expresses her own feelings over the "Freedom Tower", along with some of Trump's thought on the matter:

New Yorkers have gotten a few weeks' reprieve from the Freedom Tower. It's now back to the drawing board again partly because, as originally designed, it was structurally unsound. ("Buildings need floors," Trump said "It's an important structural element.")
But barring a miracle over the next few weeks the latest version of the Freedom Tower will still be a 70-story office building topped by at least 600 feet of false angles and empty space.
So the building still won't offer any spectacular views of Manhattan unless you're an adventurous pigeon. And that "skyline element" that's meant to symbolize New York's defeat over terrorists? It can't even hold its own physical weight.
"If we build this pile of rubbish, the terrorists will have won," Trump told me.

I will be watching Chris Matthews for the first time in months tonight because he will be interviewing Trump on the plan. I think the whole gang over at MSNBC is putting the weight behind Ken Gardner's plan. David Shuster reports on HardBlogger that since Gardner brought his 9-foot model of the Twin Towers' to MSNBC's studios it's been a hit with his colleagues and viewers at MSNBC. Even the insufferable Don Imus was backing the plan for a new Twin Towers this morning on his show.

I don't know what Pataki's problem is, or what his connection to the "Freedom Tower" is, but he needs to change course on this issue. What better way to restore the Manhattan skyline than to raise the WTC back from the ashes bigger and greater than ever? And talking about a big FU to the maniacs who celebrate it's demise.

Please contact Governor Pataki and let him know how you feel on the issue.

UPDATE: Some poor shmuck of a woman from the Governor's office (I believe she's the Secretary of NY Parks, or something along those lines) just came on Imus to defend the Freedom Tower design... Boy, did she ever step into a bear trap.

Imus is ripping her a new one! I'm not sure if he's mad about the Freedom Tower, or if he's just insulted that they would send such a nobody on his show to defend it, but he's not giving her an inch. Uhg... Imus just had her microphone turned off... uhg, this is painful to watch.

Pataki has been on Imus plenty of times, he knows the drill. I wonder what's keeping him from phoning in on this issue?

Bush No Leader When it Comes to Illegal Aliens

2005-05-09T06:24:00.000-05:00

Bush will be the end of the Republican party if he doesn't pull his head out of the sand on the issue of illegal immigration. Okay, okay, that's a bit of an exageration. But the mood of conservatives is souring over this issue. Michele Malkin has posted a story about her attendance at an illegal alien rally this weekend. The article is a must read. Here's a preview:

Asked if the Department of Homeland Security had been notified of the illegal alien rally, Lt. Hack emphatically said no. "We're here to help them."

Even if they're here illegally? I asked. "We don't want to intimidate anyone," said Lt. Hack.

Shouldn't you report people to DHS if you know they are here illegally? I asked. "That's not my responsibility," he said.

While illegals rally openly in Maryland, the Mexican government is actively hampering the deportation of an illegal alien in New Hampshire. Wizbang is covering the story:

Last week, I told the tale of Police Chief Garrett Chamberlain of New Ipswich, New Hampshire, and his novel approach to dealing with illegal aliens. He charged Jorge Ramirez, 21, of Mexico, with "criminal trespass" for being in New Ipswich (as part of the United States) illegally. Last week Ramirez pleaded guilty and agreed to report for deportation in exchange for the $1,000 fine being waived.

But that was before the Mexican government got involved. They hired a local attorney for Ramirez (who had appeared without counsel in his first appearance), who filed a withdrawal of his plea. The court accepted it, and he now faces trial in July.

While law enforcement refuses to pursue illegals, and the Mexican government demonstrates its blatant disregard of US sovereignty, where's W? Well, when he's not playing grab-ass down at the ranch with his buddy Vicente Fox, he's proposing amnesty for illegal aliens. How rewarding criminals by granting them legal status will curb the flow of illegal immigrants through our borders W doesn't explain.

But maybe that's the point. W has a bit of a libertarian streak, and that may be what's driving him on this issue. Deflated wages aside, and influx of cheap workers into the labor market is good for business. And what's good for business is good for libertarians. National security? Feh! Libertarians can't be bothered with such foolishness.

Bush has played many issues well, but on immigration the man is completely tone deaf. How the man can prattle on about "defending the homeland" in just about every speech while still turning his head to our porous border is beyond me. The intellectual dishonesty on this issue by Bush is disgusting.

W need not worry about public opinion on the matter since he isn't running for reelection, but the party should be worried. Bush is the face of our party, and he is leaving the Republicans incredibly vulnerable on this issue. If other party leaders don't step up and voice some concern over the condition of our border the Democrats will outflank us come 2008, and maybe as early as 2006.

And why wouldn't they? The protectionist wing of the Democratic party, which includes all the big labor unions, have their own reasons for sealing up the border.

Neanderthals killed off by free trade

2005-03-26T20:19:00.000-05:00

Economists from Michigan State University and University of Wyoming have published a study that suggests the extinction of neanderthals was caused by free trade:

Economics-free trade may have contributed to the extinction of Neanderthals 30,000-40,000 years ago, according to a paper published in the “Journal of Economic Organization and Behavior.”
“After at least 200,000 years of eking out an existence in glacial Eurasia, the Neanderthal suddenly went extinct,” writes University of Wyoming economist Jason Shogren, along with colleagues Richard Horan of Michigan State University and Erwin Bulte from Tilburg University in the Netherlands. “Early modern humans arriving on the scene shortly before are suspected to have been the perpetrator, but exactly how they caused Neanderthal extinction is unknown.”

Creating a new kind of caveman economics in their published paper, they argue early modern humans were first to exploit the competitive edge gained from specialization and free trade. With more reliance on free trade, humans increased their activities in culture and technology, while simultaneously out-competing Neanderthals on their joint hunting grounds, the economists say.

Does this report explain the behavior of Howard Dean and his supporters? Is he the missing link? Democratic incumbents can probably file for protection under the endangered species laws now.

Churchill Vindicated?... pfff

2005-02-22T02:32:00.000-05:00

In an article on Hawaii Reporter, Mark Burch claims that Ward Churchill has been vindicated:

Churchill was just recently vindicated. It was a moment of supreme irony. Last week, a news commentator on Fox was excoriating Churchill for the "little Eichmannns" comment, and in the very next segment, Elizabeth Holtzman was being interviewed. She is the chairwoman of the Interagency Working Group (IWG) that is trying to get the CIA to release the rest of their documents about employing Nazi war criminals. She dropped a bombshell: the CIA employed five of Eichmann's top advisors.

After taking the obligatory liberal shots at Fox News, Burch begins to build his case that those in the Trade Center did in fact deserve to burn to death. By connecting the CIA (which he has obviously mistaken for the OSS, seeing as though the CIA did not exist during Nazi rule) he has made the first "connection" in his argument. He ignore the fact that US and British intelligence worked with Nazis to organize, among other operations, the failed assasination attempt on Hilter and coup to overthrow the dictator. But these are but minor details to a liberal trying to make a point.

Facts be damned, Burch goes on to list members of the CIA who had any connection at all to Wall Street. At this point its "case closed" from Burch's viewpoint. US intelligence made contact with Nazis, there have been members of the CIA who have also worked on Wall Street, so the workers inhabiting the World Trade Center were complicite in the WWII war crimes of the Nazis, therefore deserving of the title "Little Eichmanns" and their deaths at the hands of terrorists.

Whewww... he really takes the reader for a rhetorical joy ride with that trail of connections. But youve gotta give it to the guy for his dedication to proving a point. Which was what again? Oh yeah, that one little phrase out of the volume of epithets used by Ward Churchill to label the victims of 9/11 was accurate. So I wonder what type of exhausting effort Mr. Burch would make to prove that US economy is built on the graves of millions.

The success of the stock market is built upon the rotting corpses of the victims of American economic imperialism, which number close to 6 million, that iconic number needed to designate mass murder a holocaust.

Hmm, he sure did wrap that up. Defending two words spoken by his great diety Ward Churchill is worthy of an entire article. But stating the US is to blame for mass murder of holocaust proportions is a matter of fact, and need only be justified by one sentence.

One must ask: would liberals throw a hissy fit, as they did in the case of Mr. Churchill, if anyone were to label Mr. Burch an anti-American?

UH sets date for Churchill lecture

2005-02-19T17:03:00.000-05:00

I just recieved a press advisory from an ally of EpicNation (hat tip Stuart K. Hayashi). Professor Ward Churchill is to speak at University of Hawaii on Tuesday, February 22, at 7:00 PM in the Art Auditorium at UH. They have dubbed his lecture "Speaking Truth to Power: Academic Freedom in the Age of Terror"

"Age of Terror", is that reffering to Islamo-facsism, or a Republican president and majority in both houses of Congress? Here are a few telling excerpts from the press advisory:

During the height of the McCarthy era, when politicians and the press were conducting witch hunts for alleged subversives whose speech they labeled un-American, Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas said: Restriction of free thought and free speech is the most dangerous of all subversions. It is the one un-American act that could most easily defeat us.

You know liberals are on shaky ground when they start pulling out the old "McCarthyism" card. The assertion that this controversy is akin to the McCarthy hearings is a false one, and also distorts the history involved. McCarthy targeted private citizens, not servants of the State. While some of McCarthy's intentions were good, he certainly crossed the line by trying to limit the expression of persons and institutions seperate of government. Churchill is not a private citizen (yet). The University of Colorado recieves both state and federal dollars. It is a public school, and therefore is ultimately subject to the will of the public. The University of Hawaii statement continue:

In this spirit, a coalition of University of Hawai`i faculty, students, and departments, along with a number of community organizations, has decided to afford Professor Churchill the First Amendment and academic freedom rights he has been denied at other institutions.

Which government's constitution are they reading that say's a person has the right to spew anti-American hate speech on the taxpayer's dime? (maybe France's) But this is typical of liberals; create a victim's status for those in their ilk who are challenged by the majority. Afterall, to liberals, there is nothing higher in the social pecking order than "Victim".

Also, this illusory suggestion that Ward Churchill has been labeled anti-American by his critics is laughable. The man's entire career has been based on the fact that he is a card carrying, chest thumping, "you can quote me on that!" anti-American. Churchill himself reject the notion that he is an American, labeling US government as "colonizers", and our American values "subterfuge". He proudly supports the seperatist movement of indian tribes from the United States. How much more "anti-American" can the guy get? Consider the following from Churchill's essay Suppression of Indigenous Sovereignty in 20th Century United States:

Ultimately, the issue can be resolved only on the basis of a logically/legally consistent determination of whether indigenous peoples actually constitute "peoples" in the legal sense. While the deliberately obfuscatory arguments entered on this matter by the U.S. and other nation-states have by this point thoroughly muddled the situation with respect to a host of untreatied peoples throughout the world, the same cannot be said concerning the treatied peoples of North America, most especially those within the United States. As was noted above, we have long since been recognized not only as peoples, but as nations, and are thereby entitled in existing law to enjoy the rights of such regardless of our geographic disposition vis-a-vis our colonizers.

When a person claims the right of sovereignty within the border of the United States, and refer to its people as colonizers, they are quite literally anti-American. Not anti-American in the Al Franken, Michael Moore, or Ted Kennedy sense of the word; but anti-American in the "I reject the sovereign authority of the United States" revolutionary wack-job sense of the word.

What flavor KoolAid are they serving in the University of Hawaii faculty lounge? We can assume its one of the Red flavors. (Uh oh, Red with a capital "R"; McCarthyism!)

University of Hawaii to offer a warm aloha to terrorist sympathizer

2005-02-18T05:05:00.000-05:00

Militant anti-American Ward Churchill may be coming to my neck of the woods soon. Hawaii Reporter, who's founder and president Malia Zimmerman has proven to be quite the thorn in the side of Hawaii's Democratic party thugocracy, obtained a memo circulating among University of Hawaii (UH) professor's trying to raise money for Comrad Churchill's trip.

University of Hawaii professors have organized an aggressive fundraising effort to bring Ward Churchill, a highly controversial professor based at the University of Colorado and activist in the American Indian Movement, to lecture at the University’s Manoa Campus, according to an internal memo obtained by Hawaii Reporter.

Churchill, who prides himself on publishing inflammatory anti-American propaganda, came into the national spotlight in recent weeks for his declaration in a recently published essay that the victims killed and injured in the 9-11 attack on America were not "innocent."

Mr. Churchill, who also claims that American capitalism, not Saddam, was to blame for the deaths of 500,000 Iraqi children, represents the neo-Marxism that infests the campus of UH. He will be in good company.

When Churchill isn't cheerleading for Islamo-fascism, he meets with murderous dictators in the Middle East, and moonlights as an academic hack and phony American Indian. Ann Coulter did some digging, and discovered the following:

In 1983, Churchill met with Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi and later felt it necessary to announce that his group, the American Indian Movement, "has not requested arms from the Libyan government." [...]

In light of the fact that Churchill's entire persona, political activism, curriculum vitae, writings and university positions are based on his claim that he's an Indian, it's rather churlish of him to complain when people ask if he really is one. But whenever he is questioned about his heritage, Churchill rails that inquiries into his ancestry are "absolutely indefensible."

Churchill has gone from claiming he is one-eighth Indian "on a good day" to claiming he is "three-sixteenths Cherokee," to claiming he is one-sixty-fourth Cherokee through a Revolutionary War era ancestor named Joshua Tyner. (At least he's not posing as a phony Indian math professor.) [...]

In addition to calling Americans murdered on 9/11 "little Eichmanns," Churchill has said: "The U.S. Army gave blankets infected with smallpox to the Indians specifically intending to spread the disease."

Not only are the diseased-blanket stories cited by Churchill denied by his alleged sources, but the very idea is contradicted by the facts of scientific discovery. The settlers didn't understand the mechanism of how disease was transmitted. Until Louis Pasteur's experiments in the second half of the 19th century, the idea that disease could be caused by living organisms was as scientifically accepted as crystal reading is today. Even after Pasteur, many scientists continued to believe disease was spontaneously generated from within. Churchill is imbuing the settlers with knowledge that in most cases wouldn't be accepted for another hundred years.

Like I said, this guy will fit in perfectly at the University of Hawaii.

Ward Churchill: Wanna-be American Indian, wanna-be Che

Bang-bang, your dead

2005-02-12T00:02:00.000-05:00

Another one bites the dust. This from NewsMax:

CNN chief news executive Eason Jordan quit Friday amidst the furor over remarks he made in Switzerland last month about journalists killed by the U.S. military in Iraq.

The liberal media keeps setting them up, and bloggers keep knocking them down!

W's gonna keep them honest on this Social Security stuff

2005-02-03T21:53:00.000-05:00

This from the Office of the Press Secretary (via Drudge):

Myth: Jonathan Weisman's Washington Post Story today (p A13), includes the headline that "Participants would Forfeit Part of Accounts' Profits," which is flat wrong. The article says workers who opt for personal accounts "would ultimately get to keep only the investment returns that exceed the rate of return that the money would have accrued in the traditional system." This statement, unfortunately, is also flat wrong. Both the headline and this assertion are completely inaccurate. The White House is seeking a correction from the Washington Post.

Look's as though the President is going to slap the media in the mouth everytime they attempt to lie about Social Security reform. Little tip for the press over the coming months: let the Dems speak for themselves!

Today, Iraq and America should be proud

2005-01-30T03:09:00.000-05:00

The Iraqi people began voting a few hours ago, and the reports so far indicate a high voter turnout. There have been attacks, and I have no illusions that the day will be one of joy without tragedy; as those opposed to a Democratic Iraq will continue their murderous campaign against Iraqi civilians. The risk that Iraqis must take to cast their vote can only add to the legitimacy of the election.

As Iraqi women vote, crickets chirp at the headquarters of "feminist" group NOW

Today I am proud to be an American. This is a pride that goes beyond that swelling of the heart upon hearing the national anthem, or viewing an American olympian take a gold medal. The pride I feel is like no other. The

United States of America

is the only country on the planet with the capability and, more importantly, the will to give the gift of democracy to a country like

Iraq

. It is for this reason that I am proud today.

Democracy: brought to you courtesy of the American soldier, despite the "Democratic" Party

I look to

France

Germany

, and other European nations and feel not anger, but pity. With all the objections to the war in our own country, there still exists the consensus that the ultimate objective of a democratic

Iraq

is a noble and just cause. Our national debate is not so much about the goal, but the means by which we achieve it. The story in Europe is very different. Europeans view the spread of democracy with cynical contempt. They oppose

action in

Iraq

not only because of their pacifistic tendencies, but also because they don't believe the Arab people are capable of embracing democratic values. Europe has lost faith in the principle of Liberty itself.

I'll take: "Images you'll never see featuring a French flag" for $1000 Alex

As I watch my television right now, it is clear that the people of

Iraq

do not share in Europe's cynicism.

UPDATE: No surprise here; as Election Day winds down in Iraq (the polls will close in 2 hours) the American media is in a desperate search for bad news to report on what has been a stunning success. I pulled the following sentence from an AP story:

A low Sunni turnout could undermine the new government and worsen tensions among the country's ethnic, religious and cultural group.

Keep crossing your fingers AP! I find it incredibly ironic that the left/media care so much about the Sunni people turning out to vote. The best analogy I can think of to describe the Sunni's is that they are to Saddam what the Nazi party members were to Hitler. Did we give a damn if former Nazis turned out to vote after the Second World War? I think not.

Russia's slippery slope

2005-01-25T01:33:00.000-05:00

AP reports:

A group of nationalist Russian lawmakers called Monday for a sweeping investigation aimed at outlawing all Jewish organizations and punishing officials who support them, accusing Jews of fomenting ethnic hatred and saying they provoke anti-Semitism.

In a letter dated Jan. 13, about 20 members of the lower house of parliament, the State Duma, asked Prosecutor General Vladimir Ustinov to investigate their claims and to launch proceedings "on the prohibition in our country of all religious and ethnic Jewish organizations as extremist."

How do you like that logic: "Russia has Jews. Russians are anti-Semetic. Anti-Semitism is bad. Let's get rid of all the Jews so there won't be anymore anti-Semitism."

Disgusting.

Only in these modern times, where truth is relative, could an elected official spew their hatred while blaming the target of their loathing for breeding the very racism they project. Europe and Russia have been so poisoned by their own anti-Semitism that they have abandoned even the most basic logic in their campaign to erradicate the Jews.

In other news today, Jews are fleeing French anti-Semitism by emigrating to Isreal. AFP reports:

Unofficial figures put the number of immigrants to Israel from France at about 2,500 in 2004. Aliya Day was attended by some 4,350 people, the highest figure ever, according to David Roche, director of the Jewish Agency in France. [...]

A report from the French interior ministry in December said racist violence including anti-Semitism had increased by over 70 percent in 2004, with 194 reported acts and 711 threats, compared to 112 acts and 418 threats over the same period in 2003.

Maybe this is part of a new Franco-Russian alliance. After all, the French have made dirtier little friendships in the past.

French premier Henri-Philippe Petain shakes hands with ally Adolf Hitler

Democrats send Klansman Byrd after Dr. Rice

2005-01-24T21:07:00.000-05:00

Democratic Senator Robert "Sheets" Byrd has booked an entire hour tomorrow to oppose the nomination of Dr. Condoleeza Rice as Secretary of State; the first African-American woman to hold the post. But if you were to take AP's word on the matter, you would think Byrd was mearly giving an anti-war speech:

Two Democratic opponents of the war, Sens. Robert C. Byrd of West Virginia and Barbara Boxer of California, have booked an hour each to speak, with eight other Democrats due to weigh in with briefer speeches.

This party has really lost its mind. They decide to have the party basket case, Babs Boxer, and their resident Klansman, Sen. Bryd, act as the star performers in their attempt to smear Dr. Rice's nomination as Sec. State. And to top it off, they offer if up as an "anti-war" statement; as if Rice could do anything to stop combat operations in Iraq as Secretary of State.

Maybe during his speech Sen. Byrd will offer some of the inspiring rhetoric he has used in the very recent past:

There are white niggers. I've seen a lot of white niggers in my time; I'm going to use that word.
-Sen. Robert Byrd, March 4, 2001

Do you think after the 2006 elections, when they get their lunch handed to them again, the Democrats will rethink this whole theory they have that Americans would agree with everything they have to say so long as they "get the message out" better? These people have a political "tin ear".

WI Dems slapped with felony charges

2005-01-24T20:12:00.000-05:00

Remember that story on Election Day about the tires of 25 vehicle rented by the Republican Party of Wisconsin being slashed? Well if you didn’t hear about it, it’s because the press all but ignore the story. The WI Republicans rented the vehicles for their get-out-the-vote efforts. But their efforts were ultimately in vain, being that all the vehicles were rendered useless by politically motivated saboteurs.

So whats foul group of individuals would carry out such a nasty trick? None other than the "make every vote count" screaming liberal Democrat whack jobs. WisPolitics reports:

Republican Party of Wisconsin (RPW) Chairman Rick Graber issued the following statement today after Milwaukee County District Attorney E. Michael McCann filed felony charges against five Democrat Party employees who slashed tires on 25 vehicles rented by RPW for get out the vote activities in last November’s elections. Those charged include the sons of U.S. Rep. Gwen Moore and former Milwaukee Mayor Marvin Pratt.

“Make no mistake, this was an act of political sabotage - a coordinated effort by paid Democrat workers to disrupt the political process and prevent Republicans from getting to the polls. It is especially interesting to note that, according to the criminal complaint, those charged made detailed plans to vandalize Republican headquarters and even gave their project a name – ‘Operation Elephant Takeover.’

So where is the avalanche of stories from the New York Times, Washington Post, and AP documenting the disenfranchizement of Republican voters? Will Jesse Jackson be beating a path to the offices of the Wisconsin Democratic Party to hold series of sit-ins and press conferences? Are the hack "journalists" over at MSNBC and CBS News going to dedicate 23 hours of their daily news coverage to discuss this crime against democracy carried out by the Democratic party?

Of course not.

Stories like this only get attention these days thanks to bloggers and other alternative forms of media. I can only imagine the scandal that would sweep Republican ranks if this were carried out by any of their party officials.

(hat tip to National Review's The Corner)

The Jones Act, Union hucksters, and other fun tid-bits...

2005-01-24T02:19:00.000-05:00

I’ve been working on a little project concerning the Jones Act; a protectionist law that costs Hawaii's economy hundreds of millions of dollars each year. The law, enacted in 1920, basically protects all ships operating between US ports from competing against any non-US shipping companies. US shipping companies and organized labor have a very powerful lobby in place to keep the Jones Act in place. Even conservative Republicans - the same ones that claim to be "free-market capitalists – don’t seem to have the spine to go near the bill.

Having said that; while carrying out some of the research on my project, I came accross some interesting information I thought was worth sharing. I'm also hoping to get some feedback from anyone familiar with the Jones Act.

The Jones Act is a popular subject among my economics professors. One professor in particular dedicates an entire week’s worth of class time to the subject. This obsession makes sense seeing as though I attend university in one of the most effected states of the Jones Act: Hawaii. When giving the estimated per-household cost of the Jones Act to Hawaii’s residents, the numbers vary, but they hover around $3,000 per year. Whether or not this figure is “dead-on” is not my concern. But it can certainly be said that the Jones Act inflates the price of goods that are shipped under the anti-competitive auspices of the Act.

Cliff Slater, a writer for the Honolulu Advertiser and ardent critic of the Jones Act, points out in his article entitled Jones Act Costs Us Big Bucks that no real research has been carried out on the Act’s effect on Hawaii. But in the same article he points to the following comparison between shipping routes protected by the Act and those which are open to competition:

The cost to ship a standard-size 40-foot container of apples 2,100 miles from Oakland to Honolulu via Matson (using Jones Act ships) is $4,862, or $2.31 per container/mile.

To ship the same container of apples 5700 miles from Seattle to Hong Kong (using competitive ships) costs $3,800, or 68 cents per container/mile.

Allowing that the cost of loading and unloading is disproportionately higher for the shorter runs, it is not unreasonable to assume that, everything else being equal, Jones Act shipping costs about twice as much as competitive shipping.

Again, the exact cost to Hawaiian consumers is not the issue here, but their should at least be an agreement on the fact that the Jones Act does indeed create higher costs on shipped goods. Having said that, consider the following assessment by a University of Hawaii professor:

In summary, using Jones Act opponents' numbers, there would be a net loss of $257.25 million to $1.5 billion in output per year in Hawai'i, or a loss ranging from $611 to to $3,563 per household if the Jones Act were repealed. The number of jobs lost in ocean shipping ranges from a low of 5,675 to a high of 17,025. This compares with a total loss of jobs in the Hawaiian economy of approximately 13,000 since 1991. The loss in personal income would range from a low of $157,750,000 to a high of $473,250,000.

You can check out this professor's "study" for yourself (and contact me if you can make any sense of the reasoning behind his conclusion). Also, put aside his argument that almost every shipping job on the islands would be lost as a result of repealing the Jones Act (does he assume port maintenance, unloading/loading of ships, ship repair, and all the other jobs that make up the vast majority of the shipping industry could be carried out by the crew of a foreign ship?). This professor's economic reasoning is a whole other matter in and of itself. But the fact that someone is actually making an argument that the Jones Act actually saves the Hawaii economy money makes me wonder who this guy is shilling for.

The professor behind this "study" is Dr. Lawrence Boyd, a labor economist for the Center for Labor Education and Research (CLEAR) at the University of Hawaii. Dr. Boyd's resume is pretty thin, so its hard to pin down where hes been or who may have influence over his "research". But the director of CLEAR, William Puette, has a resume that leaves little to the imagination in terms of where his interests lie. Here's an excerpt:

He is also the publishing editor for a Hawaiian labor history series, author of the booklets, CLEAR Guide to Hawai'i Labor History, Labor Dispute Picketing: Organizing a Legal Picket in Hawai'i, A Picket Guide for Hawai'i Public Employees: Organizing a Legal Picket Line Under Chapter 89, HRS, and Pa'a Hui Unions: the Hawai'i State AFL-CIO, 1966-1991; […] Through Jaundiced Eyes: How the Media View Organized Labor.

Hmm... wonder if this guy is pro-union? Anyways, back to Dr. Boyd's "study" on the Jones Act, and his claim that it actually benefits Hawaii's economy. To explain the enourmous difference between the conclusions of other economists and his own, Boyd makes the following statement/claim:

Why are these results so different? Often when highly charged debates take place you occasionally see "dueling experts" for both sides who provide different results because they are paid or committed to one side or the other. This is not the case here. This research is a spin off of a larger research project where I am trying to determine the degree to which competition exists in the Hawaiian shipping trade. Neither the Center for Labor Education and Research nor myself have received any financial support for this effort. (Emphasis added)

Whenever someone makes a statement like the one above, and claims to be an inpartial critic, I will always assume the exact opposite. To me, a statement of pre-emptive denial should be treated as a red flag screaming out "GOOGLE THIS HACK!" So, I did some "Googling", and found that CLEAR is – surprise! - far from impartial.

CLEAR received a $1,000,000 from Unity House, a non-profit group formed to benefit Local 5 and Hawaiian Teamsters. The endowment was presented to the University of Hawaii and CLEAR by none other than Anthony Rutledge, son of Unity House’s founder Arthur Rutledge. The Rutledge name is no stranger to union corruption and fraud. Consider the following report from the National Legal and Policy Center Organized Labor Accountability Project:

On Oct. 30 of [2002], the U.S. Attny. for the Dist. of Hawaii charged Aaron Rutledge with persuading an unnamed individual to destroy and withhold records and "objects" sought by fed. investigators on Oct. 30, 1997. That day, the agents were searching the offices of the non-profit, Unity House, and Local 5 of the Hotel Employees & Restaurant Employees union (HERE). They also searched the home of Aaron's grandfather, Art, frmr. chief of Local 5 and founder of Unity House, a non-profit established to benefit members of Local 5 and the Hawaii Teamsters union. Reportedly, the agents seized computer files and bundles of cash that day.

Can Dr. Boyd really claim CLEAR's inpartiality when one of their major sources of income is from an organization with dubious connection to organized labor? Also, can the director of CLEAR be even-handed when setting the priorities of the organization when he himself has such a long history of labor advocacy? Does the University of Hawaii, a public university, feel comfortable spending tax payer's hard-earned money to fund such shady "studies"?

Stay tuned.

The moral case for Social Security reform

2005-01-23T21:19:00.000-05:00

Reason Online has a great article up by Jonathan Rauch on how the real motivation behind George W. Bush's plan to reform Social Security is not so much economic, but that of morality. Here's an excerpt, but I recommend reading the entire article:

Conservatives need to frame Social Security reform as a dollars-and-cents issue, but that is not really why they are excited. What they really hope to change is not the American economy but the American psyche.

Conservatives used to speak derisively of liberal social engineering. The attempt to create private Social Security accounts is, so to speak, conservative social counter-engineering. Government should help provide for unforeseeable contingencies: tsunamis, unemployment, open-heart surgery. But if there is one event in all of human life that is wholly foreseeable, it is the advent of old age. Why, then, shouldn't people save for their own retirement, instead of relying on welfare from the government—which is what Social Security, as currently constituted, really is?
Tanner argues that people who own assets behave differently and see their place in society in a different light. Private accounts, he says, would encourage a culture of saving and personal responsibility; they would discourage political class warfare; they may, he argues, improve work habits, and even reduce crime and other social pathologies. Create private Social Security accounts, and millions of low-income Americans will be stockholders and bondholders. Republican political activists look at the way portfolio investors vote—and salivate at the prospect of millions more of them.

The 2004 exit polls suggested, to many conservatives, that "moral values" won the election for Bush. It may seem odd, then, that his boldest post-election priority is not abortion or gay marriage or schools, but Social Security. The key to the paradox is that Social Security reform is not, at bottom, an economic issue with moral overtones. It is a moral issue with economic overtones.

When liberals try to contemplate the morals of a red state voter, I wonder what they imagine. Are they really so fixated in their own hatred of Christians that they build this moral template around their own stereotype? When the Left speaks of those voters who cast their ballot for George W. Bush because of "morals", without fail they will bring up abortion, gay marriage, and the role of Judeo-Christian values in America. However, by mockingly defining the values of these Americans with their own distorted stereotypes, liberals unintentionally miss several other morals that define conservatives.

Work ethic, reliance on Self, and personal responsibility are the moral tones that ring hollow upon the ears of liberals. Principles such as these would never cross the mind of a liberal because they have such a warped view of their own country. To them, an individual can only realize happiness through government. This makes perfect sense when you consider most liberal Democrats have never earned a real living, and only made a name for themselves once they entered government.

How the Democrats painted themselves into this corner is of little concern to me. But seeing how they plan on realligning themselves with the values of most Americans will be interesting. Intellectual sloth has reduced the left's rhetoric to creating characters of their opposition. While its easy for them to create a distasteful image of a Bible thumping demagogue, it would be nearly impossible to do the same of a hard working American who wants nothing more than to be able to support his family without the feds bleeding him dry.

So long as the Democratic party stands for growth of the federal government, they will find themselves increasingly marginalized by an electorate that would rather be left alone.

EU scum...

2005-01-19T18:04:00.000-05:00

The Scotsman reports:

Tsunami struck Thailand has been told by the European Commission that it must buy six A380 Airbus aircraft if it wants to escape the tariffs against its fishing industry.

Do I even need to comment on why this is disgusting? Hey Europe, quit blackmailing countries to sell your crap, and learn to compete in the open market.

Because I know the French must be behind this, I present the following picture in their honor:

Time magazine poll good news for Bush

2005-01-16T21:21:00.000-05:00

I have a feeling the Dems were crossing their fingers that 2005 would be different, and they would finally get some traction in their opposition to the President's plolicies. But judging by this latest poll from Time magazine, this is going to be another tough year for the Left. Time reports:

President Bush's approval rating has risen to 53%, according to the latest TIME poll conducted January 12 and 13. His approval rating is up 4 points from his Dec. 13-14 approval rating of 49%. The President's approval numbers have improved across a variety of issues, including his handling of the economy (51% approve, up from 40% approve in September), his handling of the situation in Iraq (45% approve, up from 41% approval in September), and his handling of the war on terrorism (56% approve, up from 49% in September).

Note the internals of the poll; 11% jump on handling of the economy, and 7% jump concerning the war on terror. Numbers like these, especially on the economy, will hurt the Dem's come the 2006 midterms. How many Senate Democrats swore up and down about the Bush tax cuts being a catalist for disaster? If the voters don't remember now, I'm sure the RNC will do a great job of reminding them. The next big indicators will be Bush's numbers on Iraq following the elections at the end of the month, and polling on his Social Security reforms.

Tic-toc tic-toc... do you hear that, Democrats? It's your countdown to irrelevancy.

Yellow journalism: U.S. media coverage of Iraq borders on treason

2005-01-16T19:31:00.000-05:00

Everyday Americans are bombarded with bad news from Iraq. Every morning we wake to new "reports" on how our troops are losing the peace, and the spiraling "quagmire" Iraq has become. But if you talk to the soldiers who have returned from Iraq, or read the dispatches of soldiers who are over there now, you will quickly learn that this is not only a distortion of the situation on the ground, but an outright lie.

I've come accross just such a dispatch from a US commander in Iraq. Lt. Colonel Tim Ryan reports what he sees as media treason in his essay posted on the military blog BlackFive. Here's a teaser:

What if domestic news outlets continually fed American readers headlines like: "Bloody Week on U.S. Highways: Some 700 Killed," or "More Than 900 Americans Die Weekly from Obesity-Related Diseases"? Both of these headlines might be true statistically, but do they really represent accurate pictures of the situations? What if you combined all of the negatives to be found in the state of Texas and used them as an indicator of the quality of life for all Texans? Imagine the headlines: "Anti-law Enforcement Elements Spread Robbery, Rape and Murder through Texas Cities." For all intents and purposes, this statement is true for any day of any year in any state. True -- yes, accurate -- yes, but in context with the greater good taking place -- no! After a year or two of headlines like these, more than a few folks back in Texas and the rest of the U.S. probably would be ready to jump off of a building and end it all. So, imagine being an American in Iraq right now.
I just read yet another distorted and grossly exaggerated story from a major news organization about the "failures" in the war in Iraq. Print and video journalists are covering only a small fraction of the events in Iraq and more often than not, the events they cover are only the bad ones. Many of the journalists making public assessments about the progress of the war in Iraq are unqualified to do so, given their training and experience. The inaccurate picture they paint has distorted the world view of the daily realities in Iraq. The result is a further erosion of international public support for the United States' efforts there, and a strengthening of the insurgents' resolve and recruiting efforts while weakening our own. Through their incomplete, uninformed and unbalanced reporting, many members of the media covering the war in Iraq are aiding and abetting the enemy.

Since the onset of operations in Iraq, the U.S. media has worked nearly as hard as our enemy to break the will of the American people. This officer gives one of the most damning assesments of media coverage in Iraq, and the toll it has taken on our efforts their. Here's just one more bit of the article:

What about the media's portrayal of the enemy? Why do these ruthless murderers, kidnappers and thieves get a pass when it comes to their actions? What did the media not show or tell us about Margaret Hassoon, the director of C.A.R.E. in Iraq and an Iraqi citizen, who was kidnapped, brutally tortured and left disemboweled in streets of Fallujah? Did anyone in the press show these images over and over to emphasize the moral failings of the enemy as they did with the soldiers at Abu Ghuraib? Did anyone show the world how this enemy had huge stockpiles of weapons in schools and mosques, or how he used these protected places as sanctuaries for planning and fighting in Fallujah and the rest of Iraq? Are people of the world getting the complete story? The answer again is no! What the world got instead were repeated images of a battle-weary Marine who made a quick decision to use lethal force and who now is being tried in the world press. Is this one act really illustrative of the overall action in Fallujah? No, but the Marine video clip was shown an average of four times each hour on just about every major TV news channel for a week. This is how the world views our efforts over here and stories like this without a counter continually serve as propaganda victories for the enemy. Al Jazeera isn't showing the film of the CARE worker, but is showing the clip of the Marine. Earlier this year, the Iraqi government banned Al Jazeera from the country for its inaccurate reporting. Wonder where they get their information now? Well, if you go to the Internet, you'll find a web link from the Al Jazeera home page to CNN's home page. Very interesting.

Please read the rest of Lt. Colonel Ryan's essay here:

Aiding and Abetting the Enemy: the Media in Iraq

CIA report: EU's future bleak

2005-01-16T18:27:00.000-05:00

A CIA report has made some very troubling predictions concerning the future of the EU. Unless the EU makes significant changes to it's welfare system, the CIA predicts the Union will break up within 15 years. The report cites Germany as the crux of the problem - with France and Italy getting honorable mention:

[T]he EU’s economic growth rate is dragged down by Germany and its restrictive labour laws. Reforms there - and in France and Italy to lesser extents - remain key to whether the EU as a whole can break out of its "slow-growth pattern".

After pointing to several problems facing the EU, the report goes on to say that the current leadership of Europe is unlikely to make the reforms necesary, and that it will most likely take a major economic crisis to break the current thinking in the EU.

Concerning the growing migrant population in Europe, the report states that EU state must do a better job of accomodating this growing demographic or face even further problems. The report makes specific reference to the growing number of muslims in Europe:

Europe’s Muslim population is set to increase from around 13% today to between 22% and 37% of the population by 2025, potentially triggering tensions.

With regards to NATO, and other post WWII alliances, the CIA is convinced these institutions will also dissolve and US and EU relations continue to erode:

The EU, rather than Nato, will increasingly become the primary institution for Europe, and the role Europeans shape for themselves on the world stage is most likely to be projected through it. Whether the EU will develop an army is an open question.

If this news wasnt bad enough, the report also predicts the econonomies of China and India will surpass Europe in the near future. One of the reasons for this, according to the report, is the increased level of research and development going on in these countries compared to the EU. Also, the EU's dependence on natural gas from an increasingly instable Russia will be another headache for our European cousins.

So what should we make of all this? Nothing. It will be entertaining to sit back and watch the grand liberal experiment that is Europe disintegrate before our very eyes. The Left in the US has also held up Europe as a shining example of their policies in action. Europe is impotent as a military power, has bankrupted itself with its socialist welfare system, and now faces a cultural crisis like no other because of it's myopic immigration policies.

What no one on the left will admit, however, is that it was U.S. might that has shielded Europe from global realities since the end of the Second World War. Now Europe thinks its all grown up, and they want to venture out on their own. But without the United States backing them up, Europe will be incapable of protecting their own economic interests or those of their allies. As a result, Europe will see its roll in global affairs continue to diminish.

The Europeans have found themselves in the unenviable position of having neither a carrot, nor a stick.

More anti-Christian hatred from the Left

2005-01-14T18:19:00.000-05:00

Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) reports on just the latest example of the bias against Christians by leftist college administrators:

Florida’s Indian River Community College (IRCC) is engaging in a campaign of repression against a Christian student group for attempting to show Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ" on campus. The college banned the Christian Student Fellowship from showing the film despite the fact that the college has hosted a live performance entitled "F**king for Jesus" that describes simulated sex with "the risen Christ." When the group complained to the college president, administrators pulled group leaders out of class and demanded an apology.

FIRE is an organization that defends students in cases such as the one stated above. The group takes on cases for students representing any ideology, though in most cases it is conservatives and Christians who are under attack. By the way, at what point did the Left decide they wanted to take on the predominant religious group in this country? And they wonder why they can't win national elections anymore.

AcedemicBias, who is also covering the case above, has a video up on their site that documents another case of bias against conservatism on a college campus. The video is in documentary form, and was created by Evan Coyne Maloney from BrainTerminal - another great site. The bias in thise case is on the campus of Cal Poly in California.

The film is titled Brainwashing 101; I highly reccomend viewing it. If your interested, here's the link: Brainwashing 101

Like deja vu, all over again

2005-01-14T00:59:00.000-05:00

Fox News reports:

Palestinian militants set off a large truck bomb as gunmen stormed an Israeli base at a vital Gaza crossing Thursday, killing five Israelis and wounding five others in an attack that defied peace efforts by new Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas.

Looks like Abbas will be no better at controlling the Palestinian militants than Arafat. When will the opinion leaders in the U.S. face the facts that this region of the world will continue to breed violence as long as "elected" officials try to co-exist with terrorists groups like Hamas. But I suppose it's unavoidable. The Palestinian people, like much of the Middle East, have been so poisoned by the lies of their leaders they have come to respect terrorists murderers more than their "elected" leaders.

To paraphrase Ronaldus Magnus:

Mr. Sharon, build up this wall!

UPDATE:

Looks like the Isrealis are the only realists left on the planet.

Israel is suspending all contacts with the Palestinian Authority until it completes an investigation into Thursday's deadly attack in the Karni crossing where six Israelis were killed, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's spokesman announced on Friday evening.

A man of God

2005-01-12T18:50:00.000-05:00

The President may have just picked the fight of his life, and I'm not talking about Social Security. In an interview with the Washington Times, the President said the following:

I don't see how you can be president at least from my perspective, how you can be president, without a relationship with the Lord.

Wow! This is a man who knows who is, knows his maker, and is not the least bit afraid to tell the secularists accross this country who he attributes his success to. The Left is going to go nuts over this, and they would be wise to bite their tongues. So far the Democratic party has been able to fake their religious bonafides (Bill Clinton, "Southern Baptist"? - pff!), so the American people, who are mostly a Christian people, have not caught on to the fact that the Democratic party has been attempting to undermine the Christian foundation of our nation.

If the Left lets the cat out of the bag by going after the president for his comments, they will soon regret it. I assume the first charge will be that the president only thinks Christians can be true Americans. But W is used to dealing with this band of Christian bashers and hedged his statements:

I fully understand that the job of the president is and must always be protecting the great right of people to worship or not worship as they see fit. That's what distinguishes us from the Taliban. The greatest freedom we have or one of the greatest freedoms is the right to worship the way you see fit.

It will be interesting to see what tack the Left takes to attack the president on this. Given the fact their lunatic fringe has taken over, it will certaintly be entertaining. But they will be hard pressed to find a majority of Americans who will follow them in tearing apart Bush on this. Whether or not you believe in God or not, it should still be refreshing to know your president serves a higher authority than himself. I think most Americans would agree.

The jig is up!

2005-01-12T18:28:00.000-05:00

Howard Fineman has written an article explaining why the dominance of the MSM has come to an end, and the vicious spiral into irrelevancy has begun:

A political party is dying before our eyes — and I don't mean the Democrats. I'm talking about the "mainstream media," which is being destroyed by the opposition (or worse, the casual disdain) of George Bush's Republican Party; by competition from other news outlets (led by the internet and Fox's canny Roger Ailes); and by its own fraying journalistic standards.

Its a great read, and Fineman's entire premise for the story is the fact media bias does in fact exists, it has for awhile, and it has favored the Democrats.

Dick Morris is dreaming

2005-01-12T18:01:00.000-05:00

NewsMax has an piece up by Dick Morris where Morris explains the 2008 matchup will be between Hillary and Condi.

Dick Morris, the nation's most prominent political consultant, says the 2008 race is shaping up to be showdown between two of America's most popular women: Condi Rice and Hillary Clinton.

I like Dick Morris, but he is one of these guys who predicts every single political outcome possible so that at some point down the road he will definitely be able to say "See, I told you so". This is one of those times. Not only will Condi never make it through the primary, but Hillary's chances are slim as well. Maybe its just wishful thinking on the part of Morris - God knows he'll be a hot commodity on the cable news shows if its Hillary vs. Anyone.

Shameless

2004-12-08T04:31:00.000-05:00

It seems I am not the only one getting sick of the several "9/11 wives" who have in effect become liberal pundits. Kristen Breitweiser and Patty Casazza, two of the most transparent partisan hacks of this leftists clan, are the worst offenders. Aided by a media more than willing to give a voice to victims of 9/11 so long as they are rabid anti-Bush partisans, these two have been making rounds for their Democratic handlers to damn those members of Congress who have asked for more debate on the intelligence bill. The Media Research Center has this great wrap-up of their appearance on Good Morning America:

With "OUTRAGED 9/11 WIVES" as the on-screen heading, Monday's Good Morning America featured Kristen Breitweiser and Patty Casazza, to denounce those opposed to the intelligence reform bill, without bothering to mention how both endorsed John Kerry. (In a Kerry ad, Breitweiser declared that since "I want to look in my daughter's eyes and know that she is safe...I am voting for John Kerry." Casazza had pined that "on 9/11, my life was in a long, dark tunnel. Now I can see some light. John Kerry has the answers" and after Bush won she worried the public was in more danger.) On GMA, Breitweiser launched into left-wing paranoia about how "Defense contractors need to recognize the fact that with $40 billion of a budget being spent on things that are not making us safer, we need a director of national intelligence to reallocate those funds to human intelligence on the ground." Casazza demanded: "What do we say to our children at this point in time? My son is 14. In three years he could be drafted to go to the war if that is brought back -- you can go to war, but we will not protect you here at home. That's unconscionable."

If you ever catch any of these women on TV, listen to what they say carefully. Its obvious to even the most a-political viewer that these women have been given talking points. They all say the same stuff - verbatum at times. Its no surprise a similar political action group hasnt been put together by 9/11 widows who support Bush (yes, they exist and they are numerous). Only Democrats are shameless enough to take advantage of this national tragedy and its destraught widows to meet their political ends.

Nationalizing major league baseball

2004-12-04T23:40:00.000-05:00

The John McCain answer to every problem: more governmnet control over its citizens. This from Fox News:

Sen. John McCain on Saturday demanded immediate action by representatives of major league baseball's players and owners to tighten the sport's drug-testing policy "to restore the integrity of baseball" or face possible congressional action.

Is their nothing government can't solve, Mr. McCain?

Frodo failed...

2004-12-04T19:58:00.000-05:00

I just finished watching Lord of the Rings this afternoon. A curious Google search thereafter came up with this stunning result.

It answers so many questions.

Good news from Ukraine

2004-12-03T18:04:00.000-05:00

The Supreme court of Ukraine has declared the much disputed runoff election in that country invalid, and has ordered a new runoff election. The December 26 replay of the runoff will favor the opposition and is seen as a blow to the current government who's candidate will find it nearly impossible to win after the corruption his campaign has been involved with.

(image from Swedish paper Aftonbladet)

This latest development is also a blow to KGB snake Vlad Putin who had wanted an entirely new election that did not involve either of the current candidate. I suppose Vlady thought he could rig another full election if he had the time and a "clean" candidate to market with more Russian money. MSNBC reports:

The ruling, made after five days of hearings by the court’s 21 justices, was a major victory for opposition leader Viktor Yushchenko, who had rejected the government’s demands that an entirely new election be held.

And it was a stinging blow to outgoing President Leonid Kuchma and his powerful ally, Russian President Vladimir Putin, who wants to preserve Moscow’s centuries-old influence in Ukraine in the face of Yushchenko’s followers’ desire to move closer to the West. Only a day earlier, Putin had sharply derided the idea of holding a new run-off.

Putin had the most to lose in the election, which is really a battle between East and West. Putin would like to see Russia go back to its glory days of Soviet rule, and bringing Ukraine back under its sphere of influence was crucial to that end. The eastern half of Ukraine's population is ethnic Russian, so this fight isnt over by a long shot. Russia will continue to have a great deal of influence over Ukraine, and I imagine they will not give up as easily as the West would suppose.

Dollar troubles?

2004-12-03T07:12:00.000-05:00

Be warned: This post is much less a conclusive essay, and more a "who the hell knows for sure" rambling. But its not in a "truth is relative" sort of way. Its more along the lines of "dumb asses who don't know what they're talking about should keep their mouths shut".

While attending business school in Europe in 2002 the dollar had just begun its slide and their was a certain cockiness among my European (cough cough FRENCH cough) friends who saw this as evidence of a weakening U.S. economy. A good friend of mine was convinced that this was the beginning of the end of the dollar's dominance, and a passing of the torth to the Euro. Whether this was a matter of national pride (there is no real EU nationalism perse, but the French consider themselves the master of Europe and take full credit for any of its accomplishments) or economic reasoning, there was still a strong feeling that a weakening dollar was bad news for the US and good news for the EU.

To be honest I am still not sure what to think. But I do feel more comfortable than not about the dollar's current position. A "cheaper" dollar means that demand for US exports increases; something that should alleviate the concerns of those worried about a growing US trade deficit. Also, along with rallying the housing market, the lower interest rates encourage capital investment because of discounted borrowing.

At the same time the demand for European goods is down because imports from the EU seem more expensive. I would imagine this is having adverse effects on an economy that depends so greatly on US consumers to buy their products. So, should Europeans be all that happy about a "strong" Euro?

Back to US concerns over the dollar. I've read several articles over the last few months about the decline of the dollar and what it could mean for the economy and consumers. Some analysts make the argument that a weakening dollar will eventually lead to high inflation. But with inflation holding steady at 2%, and the Fed making its intentions clear that interest rates will be increased, should we be concerned about inflation? Can the Fed reign in the dollar before inflation becomes an issue?

Hmm... seems I've asked more questions than anything else. But maybe thats my point. Who knows what will happen? I'm sure those who have a real grasp on the issue only share their thoughts with people/firms/governments willing to pay a great deal of money for their expertise.

I can, however, make one solid conclusion: the idiots in the press have no idea what theyre talking about and should stop hyping the "collpasing dollar" storyline to meet their own sensationalist ends. Until Lou Dobbs, or even Neil Cavuto for that matter, can explain (with supportive data) how this administration's monetary policy has adversely effected the U.S. economy (using Maynard Keyne's IS/LM economic model), they should stick to bitching about Kenneth Lay and the price of crude.

More lies from AP and MSNBC

2004-12-03T06:23:00.000-05:00

MSNBC (also the news site for NBC News) has an AP story up titled "U.S. uses evidence gained by torture". Reading this headline one would suppose that the United States is actively using evidence that is knowingly gathered through the use of torture. Not so. I defy anyone to read this story and find where the use of torture is sited, much less any evidence used against these people that was gained through such torture.

But this headline is really not meant to give an accurate depiction of what the story is about. This headline is meant to get all the idiots in TV and radio talking about how the U.S. is using torture against detainees. Do you think morons like Don Imus, Katie Couric, or Chris Mathews actually read these stories before spouting their anti-American filth on the airwaves? No. Some intern hands them a stack of stories, they browse the headlines, and then make up the rest. By the end of the day the story will be "public concern over torture dogs president Bush''.

At what point will the president come out and damn the press for their rabid anti-Americanism? Yes, anti-Americanism. When the press goes out of its way to "report" news they know is false with the intent of damaging the credibility of our military during a war in which image plays a vital role, they are on the side of our enemy. The 2nd Amendment does not protect the speech of those who would defend, support, and champion an enemy of the state that would like to see the Constitution itself dissolved.

Pentagon dupes networks?

2004-11-30T23:28:00.000-05:00

Drudge has the following teaser up on his page right now:

PENTAGON USES NETWORKS TO DUPE ENEMY... DEVELOPING...

Glad to see the military is using those fools in the media. But is Drudge's headline a bit flawed? He could have simply wrote "PENTAGON DUPES ENEMY". I'll keep an eye on Drudge and update this post once he publishes the story behind this teaser.

UPDATE: Drudge was teasing a story to appear in tomorrow's L.A. Times. Basically, the Times piece is just another smear on the Bush administration meant to hinder its ability to fight the war on terror:

On the evening of Oct. 14, a young Marine spokesman near Fallouja appeared on CNN and made a dramatic announcement. "Troops crossed the line of departure," 1st Lt. Lyle Gilbert declared, using a common military expression signaling the start of a major campaign. [...]

In fact, the Fallouja offensive would not kick off for another three weeks. Gilbert's carefully worded announcement was an elaborate psychological operation — or "psy-op" — intended to dupe insurgents in Fallouja and allow U.S. commanders to see how guerrillas would react if they believed U.S. troops were entering the city, according to several Pentagon officials. [...]

Officials at the Pentagon and other U.S. national security agencies said the CNN incident was not an isolated feint — the type used throughout history by armies to deceive their enemies — but part of a broad effort underway within the Bush administration to use information to its advantage in the war on terrorism.

So its all to the advantage of the Bush administration, not the American people or troops on the ground? They act as though the war on terror is some political campaign, and the Bush administration is playing dirty against their preffered candidate.

Does any attempt at succes on the part of the Bush administration irk the left so bad that they would rather see us lose in Iraq? That's a rhetorical question, by the way. I think its become obvious over the past two years who's side the left is on.

Take for instance their refusal to show the videos of American civilians having their heads sawed off, but they trip over themselves to show a Marine shooting a terrorist sniper. From Abu Ghraib to Guantanamo Bay, the media has been running its own "psy-op" campaign for our enemy, its about time the Pentagon gave them a taste of their own medicine.

O'Reilly defends Rather

2004-11-30T06:30:00.000-05:00

Who does Bill O'Reilly think he's kidding? Bill has written an editorial piece claiming Dan Rather was done in by the internet "smear" machine. As though Rather was a victim of circumstance, not his raging hatred of the Bush family and conservatism in general. But thats not what has me heated. Bill can defend whomever he wants. But take a look at some of what Bill wrote:

Let me ask you something: In the future, do you think potential public servants and social crusaders are going to risk being brutally attacked within this insane system? I don't. I think many good people are simply going to walk away from the public arena. Dan Rather did not get what he deserved in this case. He made a mistake, as we all do, but he is not a dishonest man. Unfair freedom of speech did him in. This is not your grandfather's country anymore.

Which "insane system" are you refering to, O'Reilly; the First Amendement? Furthmore, what do you think we should do about all this "unfair freedom of speech" plaguing our nation? O'Reilly sure can dish it out, but when it comes to taking it hes the biggest wimp out there. For a man who has no moral ground to stand on, he sure spends alot of time pontificating on all things virtuous. If only more people had the integrity of Bill O'Reilly. Here's some more from Bill's editorial:

So anyway I'd be rubbing your big boobs and getting your nipples really hard, kinda' kissing your neck from behind... and then I would take the other hand with the falafel thing and I'd put it on your...

Oh wait, I've got the wrong transcript here. This was Bill giving one of his great talks on values to a subordinate at Fox News. My mistake.

By the way: Am I the only conservative out their who just about rips his hair out when people put the words "Bill O'Reilly" and "conservative" in the same sentence? Uhg, I could vomit every time I here someone equate this pompous windbag with conservatism. His self absorbed buffoonery is the antithesis of what it means to be a conservatism.

Oh yeah, Bill, "falafel":

Pronunciation: f&-'lä-f&l
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural falafel
Etymology: Arabic falAfil
: a spicy mixture of ground vegetables (as chick-peas or fava beans) formed into balls or patties and then fried

"You'll shoot your eye out!"

2004-11-28T22:06:00.000-05:00

Will they ever learn? Not satisfied with the degree to which they have solidified their minority status, the left is seeking out more phony problems they can not solve for us. Found an AP story over at CNN hyping up the dangers of BB guns:

A study has found that air rifles, paintball pistols and BB guns injure as many as 21,000 Americans each year, undermining the notion that such weapons are harmless in the hands of young people.

First, how can this even be called a "news story" when its full of the typical lefty editorial tactics. For example, setting up the false notion that anyone has ever argued these guns are "harmless in the hands of young people". Talking about building a straw man. Also notice how these items are refered to as weapons. Maybe we should start running background checks on kids getting BB guns. Hell, why stop there? I'm sure countless deaths a year can be attributed to alluminum baseball bats, yet we countinue to arm our children with these instruments of death.

Nonpowder guns kill an average of four Americans yearly, and from 1990 to 2000, there were 39 such deaths -- 32 of children younger than 15, according to a report in November's issue of Pediatrics.

Wow, thats a real shocker of a statistic they site; roughly 4 deaths per year. Considering that during the same period there were 8,604 deaths caused by bicycles, 7,500 child drownings, and 140 kids killed by choking on small toys; shooting a BB gun is quite possibly the safest activity for your children. But I think we can all figure out why this article was written. Liberals are looking for some new platforms to base their losing campaigns on, and this is probably one of them. What are they thinking?

I can only conclude that there is something seriously wrong with the left in this country. I seriously wonder if theyve been up every night sniffing modeling glue (which has killed 700 since 1996) since the whooping they recieved on election day. When they stared up at that map full of red on November 3rd, wondered aloud about American "values", and tried to figure out how to reach out to the middle-America voters, is this what they came up with?

Their stance on gun control has made the South unwinnable for Democrats. So what's their sollution? Piss off potential voters as early as possible so the Democratic party can carry on its tradition as a national joke for generations to come. Theyve run out of adults to marginalize, so now their going after the kids. Idiots, idiots, iditos.

But again, I say to the left: Keep it up dipshits!

Churches in Europe warned over "anti-gay slurs"

2004-11-28T06:25:00.000-05:00

This from al-Beebzera (BBC News):

The Archbishop of Canterbury [Dr Rowan Williams] has called for church traditionalists opposed to homosexuality to stop using inflammatory words about gay people.

What vile words are receiving such condemnation?

Archbishop Peter Akinola of Nigeria has described homosexuality as "an aberration unknown even in animal relationships".

Is that all the Christian haters over at al-Beebzera (again, BBC News) can come up with to back this story up? Whether or not you agree with this particular tenet of Christianity, calling homosexuality an aberration unknown in animal relationships is hardly "inflammatory". There is no call for violence, so whats the problem - besides offending a few liberal twits? How long will it be before Ministers in Europe are thrown in jail for simply stating their articles of faith? Oh wait, theyve already begun jailing the "un-enlightened".

Also, whats got this Archbishop in such a tizzy? Is he running for parliment on a Socialist ticket or something? I really dont understand why these so called men of the cloth bother to devote their lives to a religion they obviously have no faith in.

Also, this is a leading story over at the BBC. Funny how they dont mention the fact that Muslim clerics throughout the West have called for the killing of Jews and the execution of all homosexuals. If they insist on molding their reporting around a Socialist secular bias, they may as well be even handed about it.

Then again, if European lefties are known for anything its their shameful cowardice. Its not as though they will have their throats slit in broad daylight for anti-Christian reporting. If only Theo Van Gogh had followed the same rules of yellow journalism, he may still be alive today.

Boo hoo

2004-11-27T20:42:00.000-05:00

The whiny little cry babies over at the Washingtont Post just cant stand for the idea that a majority party may want to start acting like one:

[...]Speaker J. Dennis Hastert last week enunciated a policy in which Congress will pass bills only if most House Republicans back them, regardless of how many Democrats favor them. Hastert's position, which is drawing fire from Democrats and some outside groups, is the latest step in a decade-long process of limiting Democrats' influence and running the House virtually as a one-party institution.

It would never dawn on this writer that maybe Democrats should change their policies so more people will vote for them. No, that would be too, well, Democratic of them. The childish tantrum continues:

Senators from both parties, leaders of the Sept. 11 commission and others have sharply criticized the policy. The long-debated intelligence bill would now be law, they say, if Hastert and his lieutenants had been humble enough to let a high-profile measure pass with most votes coming from the minority party.

First of all, I dont remember electing any of those pompous windbags that made up the 9-11 commission. This is probably why the press love them so, none of them are accountable to the masses - much like the press! Most of the suggestions made by the commission were just the same old beurocratic jockeying that crippled the intellgence agencies to begin with. Like most liberals in the U.S. these days, the Washington Post seems to believe that since the voters in this country have proven themselves idiots by electing Republicans to lead the government, elected officials should be bypassed all together.

Some humble advice for the Democratic party leadership and the press (as if there's a difference these days): Keep it up dipshits! The longer you all act like a pack of suck-ass losers incapable of re-evaluating your failed policies, the longer you'll be taking orders from Republicans.

No matter what you have convinced yourselves at your elitist cocktail partys, the fact remains that your ilk of closet socialist are not liked by the majority of this country. I know you think its your right to be in charge, and its been tough getting used to your minority status since 1994. But you had better get used to it if all you have to offer is more whining.

Don't let the door hit you on the way out

2004-11-23T18:50:00.000-05:00

ABC News is reporting that Dan Rather will resign:

Dan Rather announced today he will step down as anchor and managing editor of the "CBS Evening News" on March 9 — 24 years to the day after his first broadcast as the network's anchor.

I can't say I'll miss your shilling for the Democratic party. Its a shame you had to go down as the biggest media crook in history. But dont be blue Danno, think of all your heroes you were able to meet:

Note the Commy outfit Komrad Dan is sporting

Akward moment: Saddam & Dan realize they wore the same suit

CA tree huggers want to tax grocery bags

2004-11-23T18:23:00.000-05:00

I grew up in the People's Republic of California, so I am rarely shocked by the actions of liberal kooks in that state. But I ran into a story today that had me scratching my head. The tree huggers in the state are calling for a 17 cent tax on grocery bags. This from NewsMax:

The elitist eco-hypocrites of San Francisco have a new weapon in their never-ending attack on poor people: Now they want to tax grocery bags at 17 cents a pop.

"The measure is primarily being pushed by environmentalists who view plastic grocery bags as a menace, not as a modern marvel of convenience," USA Today reported today.

NewsMax gets the "elitist eco-hypocrites" part of the story right, but strays when saying there is a "never ending attack on poor people" in San Francisco. This is after all a city that refrigerates homeless people's garbage to keep it from rotting. The real reason for this is the extreme liberalism (bordering Marxism) that has engulfed the city of San Francisco over the past 3 decades.

The story is easily laughed off as just another crazy idea from those libs in San Francisco. But its more than that. If you want to know where the Democrats want to take this country, you need look no further than San Francisco.

Conspiracy in Chile?

2004-11-22T18:12:00.000-05:00

An interesting, yet faulty, theory has been floated over at PowerLineBlog conerning the little "fracas" this weekend where the President had to physically pull a Secret Service agent from a mob of Chilean police:

Judging from your comments, I don't think you guys realize the seriousness of what happened in Chile. Let me put it into perspective: the president has been marked for death by hundreds of terrorist groups; he is in a foreign country, one where there have been near contintuous riots against America and against him, personally, over the Iraq War; as he's walking into a banquet hall, the local police intentionally cut him off from his security detail [...]

There are a lot of people out there who want to see George W. Bush dead; alas, there are a lot of heads of state who would not shed a tear. In this day and age, when armed local cops intentionally cut the president off from his security detail, that should be taken as no less a violent act that when an anti-aircraft missile battery "paints" an American plane with fire-control radar.

This writer is probably not far from the mark when he says some heads of state wouldnt mind "offing" W. But even if their is some wish out there to have the Prez taken out, by Chile or any other state, they would quickly scratch the idea once some foreward minded person reminded them of who would take the healm and what his first act as POTUS would be:

Ukrainian election results in doubt

2004-11-22T16:12:00.000-05:00

This election cycle for Ukraine has been troubling from the start. The candidates were Viktor Yushchenko, the opposition candidate running on a pro-Wester and pro-Democratic theme, against the pro-Russian (aka: a Vodka sucking pinko more Red than the wall of a KGB gulag) Prime Minister Viktor Yanukovich.

Between a state owned media machine that was discracefully biased in its coverage of the race (sound familiar?), an assisination attempt on the opposition candidate, and the prying of Russian president Putin, this has been anything but a fair election. But when reading up on the election results yesterday morning I was met with news that the race was all but won by the opposition candidate Yushenko. But it looks like the ballot boxes gained weight over night:

Ukrainian opposition leader Viktor Yushchenko on Monday urged tens of thousands of supporters to defy authorities and protest through the night in central Kiev over a presidential election they dubbed fraudulent [...]

And, while Russian President Vladimir Putin speedily congratulated Yanukovich on his victory, the United States and Western Europe denounced the election as fraudulent. U.S. Senator Richard Lugar, monitoring the poll for the White House, said authorities had indulged in a "concerted and forceful program" of fraud.

While supporters of Yushchenko hit the streets to protest an obviously fraudulant election result, the gustapo is already gearing up for a good ol' fashioned authoritarian slaughter of its own citizens:

"We appeal to the organizers of mass protests to assume responsibility for their possible consequences," said a statement by the prosecutor general and the interior ministry [...]Yanukovich projected the appearance of head of state, scorning Yushchenko as one of "a small group of radicals" who sought to split Ukraine by violence and illegal actions.

This, of course, Commy-speak for "don't say we didn't warn you when youre gunned down in the streets like wild dogs".

Mark my words, this is just the beginning. Violence will errupt in Ukraine, Putin will have his finger prints all over it, and tensions between the U.S. and Russia will come to fruition over this. Putin will finally be outed for the neo-Stalin he truely is.

Terrorist plays dead, fires on Marines

2004-11-22T15:31:00.000-05:00

Just a week after the media threw a little tissy-fit over a Marine shooting a terrorist thug who had just moments before been firing on US forces, another terrorist thug played dead and then opened fire on the Marines. From ABC News (Australia):

The US military says Marines in Fallujah have shot and killed an insurgent who engaged them as he was faking being dead, a week after footage of a marine killing an apparently unarmed and wounded Iraqi caused a stir in the region.

"Marines from the 1st Marine Division shot and killed an insurgent who while faking dead opened fire on the marines who were conducting a security and clearing patrol through the streets," a military statement said.

Had any Marine been hurt in this incident the blood would have been on the MSM's hands. Their knee-jerk reaction to anything our troops do has created an environment where soldiers on the ground are having to be hesitant in their actions. I wonder if they saw this particular scumbag, wondered if he could be playing dead, and thought "hmm... probably shouldnt shoot him, dont wanna end up being the next soldier hung out to dry by the media". I hope imbeds like Kevin Sites (the NBC ratboy who released the tape of a Marine shooting a terrorist without bothering to make sure the context of the incident was known) are proud of themselves.

Has anyone seen this guy? He's a cross between a typical little wanna-be soldier (alot of these journalists fancy themselves as journalistic Rambos, and dress the part) and a dirty hippy who should be protesting a WTO meeting.

I have a little vocabulary lesson for Sites and his ilk of self-loathing American "journalists" playing soldier in Iraq:

Frag - fragged, frag·ging, frags
To wound or kill (a fellow soldier) by throwing a grenade or similar explosive at the victim: “He got fragged. Blown away”.

Something to think about

2004-11-22T07:27:00.000-05:00

Here's some food for thought for all of those campus protestors who damn our military, career activists who burn our flag, and the defeatists in the press who willingly aid our enemy with their "blame America first" reporting.

Remember who guards your freedom

I want you to close your eyes and picture in your mind the soldier at Valley Forge, as he holds his musket in his bloody hands.

He stands barefoot in the snow, starved from lack of food, wounded from months of battle and emotionally scarred from the eternity away from his family surrounded by nothing but death and carnage of war.

He stands tough, with fire in his eyes and victory on his breath. He looks at us now in anger and disgust and tells us this...

I gave you a birthright of freedom born in the Constitution and now your children graduate too illiterate to read it.

I fought in the snow barefoot to give you the freedom to vote and you stay at home because it rains.

I left my family destitute to give you the freedom of speech and you remain silent on critical issues, because it might be bad for business.

I orphaned my children to give you a government to serve you and it has stolen democracy from the people.

It's the U. S. Serviceman
not the reporter who gives you the freedom of the press.

It's the U.S. Serviceman
not the poet who gives you the freedom of speech.

It's the U.S. Serviceman
not the campus organizer who allows you to demonstrate.

It's the U.S. Serviceman who
salutes the flag, serves the flag, whose coffin is draped with the flag, who made it possible for the protester to burn the flag!!!

Spirit of Munich Reborn in Spain

2004-11-21T21:22:00.000-05:00

(I've been very busy with school lately and haven't had time to write on my blog. But here's an article I wrote for my school paper awhile back that never appeared on Epic Nation)

April 2004

The terrorist attacks on Spain in March brought sorrow and pain to Europe and tears of sympathy from across the globe. What followed the attacks, however, was perhaps just as troubling. Just days after the terrorists bombed several train cars, killing more than 200 passengers, the Spanish electorate voted in a new government that promised to pull out of Iraq and loosen ties with the United States. It is increasingly clear that the terrorist organization responsible for the bombing was al Qaida, and that its intention was to shake the resolve of Western nations allied against Middle Eastern terrorism. It appears they were successful.

In the aftermath of the attacks in Spain, it seems the axiom “peace at any price” has taken hold in Spain, if not throughout Europe. But by what means? And at how high a price? The cowards behind the incident in Spain represent a craven ideology that is perpetuated by glorifiing murder and martyrdom. The aggressors who champion this philosophy of hatred are bent on destroying Western civilization and must be met by the full force of all free people. In the face of such malevolence, we mustn’t be tempted by the temporary comfort of appeasement and capitulation. How much are we willing to pay for the peace we desire? History illustrates just how extraordinary the cost of such spurious comfort can be.

In September 1938, German Chancellor Adolf Hitler and British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain met in Munich to discuss the future of the Sudetenland in Czechoslovakia. It was Hitler’s intention to revise the terms of the 1933 Treaty of Versailles, which annexed this German land after World War I. Chamberlain was convinced by Hitler’s argument that it was simply a matter of “German self-determination” that gave Germany title to this land. To avoid military confrontation, Chamberlain agreed to Hitler’s terms, and the infamous Munich Agreement was born.

It was the feeling in Europe at the time that the German threat could be contained with diplomatic maneuvering and appeasement. But the comfort bought in Munich was false and short lived. In March 1939, the Germans occupied all of Czechoslovakia and invaded Poland before year’s end. The torrent of violence that engulfed the globe during World War II was stoked by what the French aptly referred to as “l’esprit de Munich” – The Spirit of Munich. Peace at any price, in this case, came to cost over 40 million lives.

Today in Europe, the principle allies of the United States in the war against terror have been Spain, the United Kingdom, and Poland. Spain, under Prime Minister Jose Aznar, was an unflinching partner in the war against terror. Aznar risked political ruin by aligning himself with President Bush during the outset of the Iraq conflict, and he has proven himself a resolute leader in the year since. Unlike some political opportunists who have used emotionally based rhetoric to capitalize on the war in Iraq, Prime Minister Aznar acted under no such self-beneficial motivations.

What motivates men like Aznar is an understanding of the stakes. Aznar understands—as does President Bush and Prime Minister Blair—that terrorism is born out of the frustration, hopelessness, and strife that are endemic to the failed states of the Middle East. While the warlords, dictators, and imperial cronies of the Middle East live in luxury, their citizens barely survive on the sustenance their looted economies can provide for the unprivileged. To prevent their being overthrown by an insurrection of the masses, the ruling class of the Middle East places the blame for their citizen’s impoverished existence on the West. Using murder, torture, and the mutilation of a peaceful religion, these tyrants are able to channel hatred away from their own failed regimes and toward Western culture. Until prosperity built upon democratic governance is established in the Middle East, organizations such as al Qaeda will continue to recruit multitudes of disenfranchised Arabs. It is for this reason that tyranny must be defeated and democracy must flourish in Iraq and throughout the Middle East.

Chancellor Schroeder of Germany, President Chirac of France, and Prime Minister-elect Jose Zapatero of Spain refuse to recognize this dynamic of terrorism’s origin or the means by which it will be defeated. Though France and Germany committed troops to Afghanistan immediately after Sept. 11, 2001, they have used the disagreement over the ouster of Saddam Hussein to distance themselves from the U.S. and the war against terror. In fact, France and Germany do not view this as a war at all, and have made clear their intentions to treat terrorism as a law enforcement matter to be handled by the courts. Zapatero, too, expressed his agreement with this point of view when, in a recent interview, he lamented that “fighting terrorism with bombs ... with Tomahawk missiles, isn’t the way to defeat terrorism,” and said that “terrorism is combated by the state of law.”

By suggesting that the only U.S. means of fighting terrorism is military force, Zapatero is either revealing his complete ignorance on the subject or a zealous form of rhetorical dishonesty. The United States views the rule of law to be just as essential as military combat in the war on terror. The Patriot Act is one example, if controversial, of this administration’s commitment to a multi-lateral offensive against terrorism. But our enemies will not be defeated by rule of law alone. Any person fanatical enough to die for his or her ideology is oblivious to the rule of law. The suggestion that this enemy can be contained without any armed conflict is both naïve and reckless. It will take a combination of law enforcement, actionable intelligence, and military force to see this war through. The leaders of Europe and the United States should heed the lessons learned at Munich. For the old adage states: “He who does not learn from history is doomed to repeat it.”

The Brits know who their friends are

2004-11-18T07:44:00.000-05:00

A poll taken this week shows that British citizens overwhelmingly believe they should have closer ties with the US than with the French. Chirac and Blair will be meeting today to discuss Franco-British relations, which makes this poll all the more comforting:

French snipers murder civilians

2004-11-18T01:11:00.000-05:00

In the midst of another MSM slander of our troops (the video of a soldier killing - GASP! - a terrorist) I came accross an interesting video. Interesting not because it depicts the cowardice of French soldiers (this is already very well documented), but interesting in so much as it has been completely ignored by the media.

The video depicts a sit-in protest in the Ivory Coast being observed by French soldiers. The protesters are seen sitting in a field singing songs and chanting slogans when for no reason at all French snipers open fire on members of the crowd.

Click here for video - or right click and "Save Target"

Muslim gang of 10 attacks 2 men in Sweden

2004-11-16T23:06:00.000-05:00

It breaks my heart to see what's happening to Sweden. The following video clip represents an all too often occurance in Sweden. Muslim gangs are a growing problem in the country, but the authorities have bound themselves to a political correctness that wont allow them to admit the problem even exists. Two young Swedish men were beaten by a gang of 10 Swedish Muslims for no better reason than the fact they were white.

Click the picture to watch the closing moments of the men's beating (caught on tape by one of the perpetrators):

This video may add some perspective to my post titled Washington Post Story Unfair to Sweden.

UPDATE: Perhaps these two hapless men wandered into one of Sweden's "no go zones" described in this news report. Here's an excerpt:

Parts of Europe have now become ' Islamic Zones ' where the law of the police and the secular State has ended and the authority of the Imam and Mosque is absolute. In Sweden's third-largest city, Malmø, entire sections of the city and the central authority and remit of the State have been handed over to Islamic groups that terrorise the indigenous population and the police now publicly admit that they no longer control the streets. Ambulance personnel are attacked when they are called to deal with emergency situations in these ' Islamic Zones ' and the emergency services now refuse to attend emergencies in the area without a police escort.

Good riddance Yasser

2004-11-12T13:40:00.000-05:00

How fitting the man is buried among the same lunatic mass hysteria of mob mentality that put him in power to begin with. This man’s legacy will be that of wholesale terror and complete moral bankruptcy.

By the way, notice the flag of our supposed ally France in the foreground. I think those in support of Jihad such as Hamas have a better idea of who their allies are than do American Democrats.

Hat tip to the guys over at FuckFrance for the video still shot.

Howard Dean for DNC chairman!

2004-11-09T20:26:00.000-05:00

Word is that Howard Dean is on the short of list of possible persons to take over the DNC chairmanship. AP reports:

Jockeying for the top job at the Democratic Party is under way after Election Day losses, with former presidential hopeful Howard Dean indicating an interest in the post while other names are circulating.

If Dean were to take the position he would have his work cut out for him. Terry "the punk" McAuliffe's 4 years at the DNC has left the party in shambles, and probably has the tinfoil hat contigent of the party thinking he was a double agent working for Rove. Of course it was the Clintons who had McAuliffe made chairman. But thats not to say he had no conflicts of interest ::cough cough Hillary cough::, or that he hasnt been added to Karl Rove's Christmas card list.

In any event, a Dean chairmanship would be welcomed with equal enthusiasm from both the kook fringe of the Democratic party and the entire Republican party. It would be a signal to the country that the DNC has chosen to move leftward instead of embracing the moderate voters who made the President's upset victory possible last week.

It is for the above reason that I seriously doubt the grown-ups at the DNC will allow Dean to take the job. Then again, if the party truely wants to free itself from the Clinton grip this would be the best way to do it. That's for them to figure out, personally I hope he gets the job.

I also have a feeling National Review may be thinking of recylcing their magazine cover from the Democratic primary:

A cold wind continues to blow through Europe

2004-11-09T19:45:00.000-05:00

The keepers of political correctness in Europe have struck another blow for their cause. Earlier this year a minister in Sweden was thrown into jail for stating homosexuality was a sin. Now an entire political party in Belgium has been banned. This from the BBC:

Belgium's highest court has ruled that the Flemish far-right Vlaams Blok party is racist. The ruling means the Blok will lose access to state funding and access to television which will, in effect, shut down the party.

The party was ruled as racists not because they were burning crosses or rounding up minorities in the streets. No, they were ruled as racists because they challenged the current imigration policies in Europe and have campaigned for reform. This happens to be one of the most crucial issues facing Europe as they move towards integration. But the problems will not be solved if public debate is censored by a politically motivated judiciary.

I'm sure we'll see more and more of this sort of news coming out of Europe as their continent continues its decline into oppresive rule and political chaos.

Ambulance chasers out of luck

2004-11-08T13:37:00.000-05:00

In all the excitment of the week following Bush's (ie: conservatism's) victory I had completely forgotten about the trial lawyers. Im sure all of us have been making a list in our heads of all the LOSERS in this election; Michael Moore, the Democratic party, all those filthy hippy protesters who seemed to crawl out from their 40 year hibernation.

National Review has a great piece up right now about the trial lawyers being one of the biggest losers of all. Here's a preview:

The litigation industry in America had a lot riding on last Tuesday's elections. In addition to running a personal-injury lawyer — almost wholly financed by plaintiffs' attorneys — for the second highest office in the land, Trial Lawyers, Inc. faced several state referenda and key judicial races that were bellwethers for tort reform. Although the lawyers scored a couple of small victories, they by and large were trounced in what amounted to a very bad night for America's avaricious legal vultures. Businesses, doctors, and grassroots activists combined to lay the groundwork for both state and federal legal reform.

The Left's New Enemy

2004-11-08T07:02:00.000-05:00

Just a gut feeling, but has anyone else noticed that "Evangelical Christians" are the latest hot topic of the left?

I couldnt help but notice over the weekend that just about every Democrat and leftist pundit had a single talking point in common; that Evangelical Christians won the election for George Bush. Could it be that the latest Democratic talking point have been distributed and the left's enemies list has been revised? Theyve already started to mock Christians as radicals, so you can be sure theyve got them in their cross hairs.

Like I said, at this point its just a gut feeling. But I wouldnt be shocked if the left is out to demonize Christians in this country and make them out to be pack of wild kooks who are no better than the Taliban. Once they get the chattering class in on their little act the main stream media will follow. Hell, maybe they can even get Michael Moore to create a "documentary" to whip up some anti-Christian hatred in this country. The party of Roosevelt is now the party of Goebbels, so it would come as no surprise.

Its the age old liberal strategy - If you cant beat 'em, destroy 'em.

Die already you murderous pig

2004-11-05T03:08:00.000-05:00

Arafat will be dead soon and it's fitting he chose France as his final place of rest. This murderous pimp fits in perfectly with the anti-Semetic French. The people of France willingly capitulated with the Nazis and they show the same enthusiasm in their embrace of radical Jihadists like Arafat. When this gutless child murderer finally ends his long journey to the lowest depths of hell he will be in good company.

Hat tip to VanEyk.

Bush Country

2004-11-04T20:32:00.000-05:00

Chris Mathews has been trying to compare middle American and the coasts as though the United States was some sort of 3rd world country with tribal factions. He actually said our nation was like India placed between two Pakistans! The man has obviously lost his mind, but his "divided America" theme is not just his own. I noticed alot of people in the media talking about a "divided" America - conservatives and liberals.

Maybe they need to see the election map broken down by county.

2004 Election Results by County

Sitting on the story

2004-11-04T20:24:00.000-05:00

Judging by the headline, AFP (Agence France Presse) must have been sitting on this story for decades.

The left has lost its mind today

2004-11-03T23:08:00.000-05:00

Like many conservatives today I've been surfing through the evening talk shows to see the left's reaction to the stunning defeat of their candidate. I can only conclude one thing; these people have gone mad. I'm not trying to exagerate, these people are just plain loopy! Go ahead and turn on the TV and look for these people. Juan Williams, a normally cool headed lefty, started flipping out on Bill O'Reilly about how the media was too harsh on Kerry! But the main talking point from the left tonight was the need for Bush to move to the left for his presidency to be legitimate.

Just like they did after their 2002 trouncing, the liberal "talking heads" have all concluded that the Democratic party hasnt gone far enough to the left, and that Republicans need to "reach out" (ie: ignore their mandate and serve as though they were Democrats). In 2002 these ideas seemed a little bit out there, but not crazy. Now, after getting another whooping in the House and Senate, how can these people be taken seriously when they repeat the same tripe?

The Democratic party is in total shambles. If the grown-ups in the party -- yes, they do exist -- don't grab their fringe by the ear and drag them back to the center of the political spectrum, this party will never recover from this loss. Amusing as it is to watch the left lose their minds, it is still disconcerting. The two party system is essential to assuring a check on corrupted power in this country, and we need the Democratic party to rebuild themselves into their former image so they can serve this role.

Another election win worth noting today

2004-11-03T08:02:00.000-05:00

From BBC News this morning:

Hamid Karzai has been officially declared the winner of Afghanistan's landmark presidential election.
The chairman of the nation's electoral board made the announcement at a ceremony in the capital, Kabul, on Wednesday afternoon.

President Karzai will be a key mid-east ally to the US, and will shape Afghanistan into a great example for the rest of the region. He is seen as a legitimate leader by the rest of the world, and has given credence to the fact that the Bush doctrine is integral to achieving real peace in the Middle East.

Bush Wins!

2004-11-03T01:38:00.000-05:00

BUSH WINS!

My Prediction

2004-11-02T19:56:00.000-05:00

From what Im seeing and reading right now (8:00PM Eastern) I am making the following prediction. Bush Wins with 300 electoral college votes.

At this point the networks are being very careful in their projections. For example Bush is up in VA 57% to 42%, but the call is still "too close to call".

Cheney receives a warm Aloha in Hawaii

2004-11-01T06:52:00.000-05:00

I had the chance to see Vice President Cheney tonight at the Honolulu Convention Center. This is the first time since Nixon that a Republican ticket has come to Hawaii to campaign, so this was an event Hawaii Republicans werent going to miss.

Im no expert at judging crowd sizes, but if I had to guess I would say there was at least 10,000 people in attendance. Ive gotta think thats an awesome turnout for an 11:00 PM speech on a Sunday night. The line was wrapping around the convention center by 9:30. Ive doubted the existance of a strong Republican presence on the islands, but I was proven terribly wrong tonight. As far as enthusiasm goes, this crowd was pumped! They were cheering for Cheney as though he was on the top of the ticket.

The speech itself was Cheney's stump speech with a few additional lines to make it more relevant to Hawaiians. The longest applause lines were on topics of national defense. But the loudest and most fervent reponse he got was when he said "we are a nation under God, and we should be allowed to say so" - THE CROWD WENT NUTS! Judging by the response I think the stealth issue of this election will be the respect of America's religious values.

I am college student in Hawaii from the mainland, so Im actually registered to vote in my home state of New Jersey. Thinking Hawaii was a lost cause for Bush/Cheney, I sent out my absentee ballot 3 weeks ago with some hope that New Jersey could swing to Bush. Now Im thinking Hawaii could go Bush too. With the race so tight in NJ and HI how can the Kerry/Edwards campaign be so confident in the midwest?

Final thought: The national race cant be as close as its made out to be.

Meet the new boss: Same as the old boss

2004-10-29T23:54:00.000-05:00

As one of ten new countries to join the EU this year, Poland saw their ascension into the Union as an opportunity to compete in the greater European market. Qualifying for EU membership is no easy feat. Candidate countries must satisfy a number of arduous standards, in addition to alleviating trepidation on the part of current members. Poland was no exception. Their entrance to the Union was met with apprehension on the part of some EU members who still doubted the former communist state’s economic viability. This uneasiness towards Poland was not without reason.

The last few years have seen tremendous reform in Poland. Under a communist regime until 1989, the country has since made great strides to transform its economy into a formidable competitor in the free market. During communist reign the Polish economy was completely nationalized, creating vast levels of inefficiency and corruption. Poland has worked tirelessly to privatize industry and modernize government regulation in an effort to form an affable commercial environment. But an overzealous faction of EU states is now threatening all the progress the Poles have made.

With the intent of attracting new foreign investment from overseas business, Poland cut their corporate tax rate by 30% in the year leading up to their ascension. Following Poland’s lead Slovakia, Hungary, Latvia, and the Czech Republic all cut their rates by double-digit levels as well. The rationale is that tax cuts not only attract outside investors to these markets, they also stimulate job creation, boost consumer spending, and generate momentum for Polish firms entering the European market. These common sense approaches to economic growth, however, were not well received by some in the EU.

France, Sweden, and Germany are demanding that Poland, along with other Eastern European countries, raise their corporate tax rate. They have also proposed additional regulations as to how EU states implement accounting standards, adding to an already bloated European bureaucracy. Fearing that countries to the east may become an attractive alternative for tax-laden corporations within their own borders, Western European countries are hoping to rig the system to their advantage.

The socialist governments of France, Sweden, and Germany have crippled their own economies with detrimental labor policies, intrusive government oversight, and copious welfare benefits they can’t afford. Firms who operate in these countries are unable to compete in the face of such inhospitable conditions, and now Poland is being coerced by these three nations to follow the same disastrous policies. Having experienced the ultimate result of socialist doctrine while under Soviet rule, it should be no surprise that Poland has scoffed at these demands.

Poland’s strategy is not rooted solely in their acrimonious experience with the Soviets. The “economic miracle” realized in Ireland also lends credence to the Pole’s approach. Ireland joined the European Economic Community in 1973 with a per capita GDP of 62% the European average. By cutting top tax rates from 40% down to 12.5% the Irish were able to realize an economic boom, and their per capita GDP is now 131% the EU average. This stunning achievement on the part of the Irish was the result of laissez-faire economics. The example set by Ireland, however, has been mostly ignored in Europe.

Many in Europe stubbornly clutch to the pipe dreams of collectivism, refusing to recognize economic reality. For instance, Sweden is touted as the preeminent socialist state in Europe. However, Sweden’s nationalized healthcare system and generous retirement pensions are only made possible by a corporate tax rate that reaches 60%. Sweden’s economy is barely surviving and it’s reflected in the labor market. While Swedish unemployment is just under 6%, non-employment (an index that accounts for persons not included in the unemployment rate, such as participants in government programs that pay people to simply look for work) is at an astounding 23%.

The economies of France and Germany are struggling as well, with unemployment rates of 8.9% and 9.7%, respectively. Like Sweden, the French and German economies have become prisoners to a swollen welfare system. Unable to curb spending, both countries violated the Maastricht Treaty criteria in 2002 and 2003 by allowing deficits to climb above 3% of GDP. The violation was supposed to have been met by a fine of 0.5% of each country’s GDP. Nevertheless, indicative of Franco-German pomposity, both countries asserted their intention to suspend the rule. True to form, France and Germany have already announced they will break the cap again this year.

Each country has their own unique set of circumstances, but the pattern is unmistakable; the welfare states of France, Germany, and Sweden cannot compete in today’s global market. Like the Soviets, they view economics as a zero sum game where wealth can only reach those without it through redistribution. Politicians pillage corporate earnings to make good on grandiose promises, bureaucrats strangle innovation with egregious regulations, and labor unions extort firms for whatever meager profit they may have earned throughout this contemptuous process. Meanwhile, investors go elsewhere, growth stagnates, and entrepreneurs throw in the towel. There’s little wonder why these countries view Poland as a threat, the ship is sinking and firms are looking for a life raft.

The EU is at a crossroads. Europeans have the opportunity to develop an economy that could easily rival that of the United States. In fact, the evolution of the EU has been very similar to the US; elimination of interstate tariffs, the implementation of a common currency, and a central government to protect the rights of each state. But the economic success enjoyed by the US is not the product of a powerful government, nor have our technical innovations been the fruit of intrusive bureaucracy. Our success was born from the principle that a people shall never be subservient to one another or their government.

Poland is all too familiar with the turmoil brought on by collectivism and authoritarian government. They’ve seen with their own eyes the corruption and squalor that grows from an overbearing authority. They survived the Soviet Union. Will they survive the European Union?

Campaign photos from this weekend

2004-10-25T04:14:00.000-05:00

Kerry's crowds could fill most middle school gyms:

Meanwhile, the president is filling stadiums:

Kerry lies about meeting with Security Council members

2004-10-25T03:41:00.000-05:00

A story on the front page of today's Washington Times refutes the claim by Senator Kerry that he met with the members of the UN Security Council before his vote on the war. The Times points to a statement Kerry made in the second presidential debate:

"This president hasn't listened. I went to meet with the members of the Security Council in the week before we voted. I went to New York. I talked to all of them, to find out how serious they were about really holding Saddam Hussein accountable," Mr. Kerry said of the Iraqi dictator.

The statement was part of an overall argument Kerry has tried to make throughout the campaign; that he has the ability - and connections - to work with world leaders. But just like the Senator's claims earlier this year that he had met with world leaders who wanted to see him elected, this story is a complete lie. Another fabrication delivered to the American people from a man who claims his mothers dying words to him were "integrity, integrity, integrity".

Joel Mowbray, who wrote the Times piece, did his homework and reports the following:

But of the five ambassadors on the Security Council in 2002 who were reached directly for comment, four said they had never met Mr. Kerry. The four also said that no one who worked for their countries' U.N. missions had met with Mr. Kerry either.

Its a shame the MSM will little, if any, attention to this story. The Senator was never questioned on his admitted fantasies of secret missions to Cambodia (a lie he spouted, among other places, on the floor of the US Senate), so it will be no surprise this latest tale from the Senator is ignored.

WaPo story unfair to Sweden

2004-10-23T06:45:00.000-05:00

The Washington Post had a big story in friday's paper about racial tensions in Sweden. The writer, Keith Richburg, obviously spent some time over in Sweden researching for his report, but didn't stay long enough.

It is true that Sweden is struggling to integrate its growing immigrant population. In many citys there exists two seperate communities; one at the center of town for ethnic Swedes and another on the outskirts dominated by foreigners - usually from Northern Africa and the Middle East. This is perhaps the single point that Richburg is able to get right. But he fails to understand Sweden's difficulties throughout the story.

Richburg attempts to draw a parallel between the problems Sweden is facing and those American's have faced for years. Without any explanation he assigns the immigrants victim status not realizing, I assume, that the great majority of these people came to Sweden as refuges. If these people were ever victims it was at the hands of their former governments, from which Sweden saved them. Not appreciating the great generosity of the Swedish people, the author bases his article on the premise that it is racist Swedes that are the problem. Richburg reports:

Another 17-year-old student from Iran, Honey Ghaffari, agreed. "They look at you and see dark hair and assume you can't be Swedish," she said. Ghaffari has also lived in Sweden almost her entire life. [...] Sometimes, in small stores, if there's an old lady, she'll look at me like I'm shoplifting something," said Charles Anderson[.]

Storys like this are all too common in the United States, but they are far from the norm in Sweden. Keith Richburg is an African American, so it isn't difficult to understand why he would take comments like this and let them set the premise for his entire article. This bias is made more evident when examining even further the types of quotes he used - and possibly sought out - for his story:

"They don't feel they are a part of this community," he said. "They don't know this society. They don't know the codes. ... There's that feeling of 'we' and 'them.' "

Sweden has opened its borders to these people willingly. These are not American minorities that most US journalists are used to covering. They weren't brought to Sweden by slave ships and they didn't have to outrun a border patrol dogs to get there, they were welcomed! If there is a "we verses them" attitude it certainly isn't being permiated by ethnic Swedes.

The problem with this piece is that it was written through the lense of an American who can only rely on his own self-reference criteria. Meaning, he attempts to write a story on Swedish social ills using the framework of American race relations. It is for this reason that Richburg fails to comprehend the problems facing Sweden.

The failure to fully integrate immigrants in Sweden is in large part due to the fact that upon arrival most of them are put into government built housing projects. In the past decade these projects have increasingly become ghettos, where Swedish law is secondary to youth gangs. Its ironic that Richburg chose to focus on Malmo, a city where police have lost control of entire neighborhoods and ambulances refuse to enter without police escort.

These housing projects are part of an even larger problem in Sweden: the bloated welfare state. An immigrant in Sweden, who cannot speak the language, and in all likelyhood does not have job skills that are of great value to an industrialized nation, is usually better off collecting money from the government than trying to find employment. Even Richburg stumbles accross this point, but misses the importance:

Hosseinkhah [division head of the district's employment and training office] said Sweden's generous welfare system is partially to blame. "We have a welfare system in Sweden that is usually a help to people, but it is also a problem," he said. For some immigrants, he said, "they don't need to get a job, because they get an allocation from the state." He said his office has handled immigrants who had lived in Sweden as long as a decade and had never worked.

Sweden's policy towards refuges is in dire need of reform; a subject that goes far beyond the scope of this post. But the main point I would like to get accross is that American journalists would serve themselves well by learning about true nature of Swedes before they try to smear a people they know little about. Casting judgement on other countries through the prism of American stereotypes not only erodes their credibility, but also makes them look like total jack asses.

One funny note before I wrap this up: This has little to do with my disagreement with Richburg's story. But its still a telling sign of how serious he was about trying to find credible sources for his report. In the closing paragraph of his article (which most writers try to make the most powerful), who does Richburg choose to quote? What great hero of the Swedish masses did this journalist want to close his argument with? None other than Swedish hip-hop "artist", Timbuktu:

Timbuktu knows something about racial prejudice — as a black man born in Lund, Sweden, whose first language is Swedish, but who for most of his life has had to deal with the stares, the taunts, the curiosity and the inevitable question: "But where are you really from?"

My Swedish girlfriend wonders if any prominate Swedish journalists will be hanging their rhetorical hats on the opinions of Vanilla Ice. We'll have to wait and see. After the unfair hand dealt to Swedes by Keith Richburg, they just might.

Time poll: Bush approval rating at 53%

2004-10-23T06:20:00.000-05:00

The latest Time poll out today has Bush over Kerry by five points, 51% to 46%. This is a 4 point swing from last week's Time poll that had Bush at 48% and Kerry at 47%. I don't count on any of these polls to be an accurate portrayal of what we'll see on election night, but it heartening to know that Bush seems to have the momentum heading into the final days of this race. Time reports:

President Bush has opened a 5 point lead against Senator John Kerry, according the latest TIME poll. If the 2004 election for President were held today, 51% of likely voters surveyed would vote for President George W. Bush, 46% would vote for Senator John Kerry, and 2% would vote for Ralph Nader, according to the TIME poll conducted by telephone from Oct. 19 – 21. Among all registered voters surveyed, Bush leads Kerry 50% to 43%.
Last week’s TIME poll found 48% of likely voters would vote for Bush, 47% would vote for Kerry, and 3% would vote for Nader. That poll was conducted Oct. 14-15 and included 865 likely voters.

While these numbers by themselves would have any Bush fan resting easy over the weekend, his approval rating should be cause for even greater excitement. Bush is at 53%, a 4 point jump from lasts week's Time poll that had him at 49%. This is the number I am much more concerned with.

Bush’s approval rating has risen to 53%, with 44% saying they disapprove of how he is handling his job. That is a four-point improvement over just last week, when Bush’s negatives were even with his positives. In last week’s TIME poll, the President’s approval rating was at 49% approving and 49% disapproving of the way he was handling his job.

Bush has had a steady lead in the polls over his opponent, but his own approval rating has been floating in the high-forties on average. Bush needs to get that mean score up over 50% - the "majic number" - which this Time poll did for him. Real Clear Politics, which uses a weighted average of all polls in each polling cycle, has Bush's average job approval over 50%.

Has Al-Zarqawi handed this election to Bush?

2004-10-18T00:06:00.000-05:00

One of the greatest points of contention in this presidential race has been over whether or not Iraq was an essential front in the War on Terror. While John Kerry has been unable to offer any clear message on where he stands on Iraq, he has recently framed the war as a "grand diversion" from the war against terrorism and the battle with al-Qaida.

The Senator will be hard pressed to defend that position with Al-Zarqawi now pledging his allegiance to al-Qaida and bin Laden.

AP reports:

The most feared militant group in Iraq, the movement of terror mastermind Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, declared its allegiance to Osama bin Laden on Sunday, saying it had agreed with al-Qaida over strategy and the need for unity against "the enemies of Islam."

The question is, will Senator Kerry take another mulligan on his Iraq position?

Kofi Annan: bribery at U.N. "inconceivable"

2004-10-17T22:25:00.000-05:00

Because most media outlets are focused on the presidential race here at home, little attention is being paid to the growing Oil for Food scandal that continues to dog the United Nations. Specifically, U.N. diplomats from France, China, and Russia are facing some well deserved scrutiny over their financial relationships to Saddam's regime.

In the midst of this very important investigation, Secretary General Annan decided he would interject and offer his own personal opinions on the matter. Annan commented on the specific charge that France and Russia had been lobbying for an easing of sanctions on Iraq in return for lucrative oil contracts in the future.

It is a fact that these two countries used their position at the Security Council to have sanctions lifted. Arguing from the standpoint that the sanctions were only harming Iraqi citizens, France and Russia have both insisted that sanctions needed to be restructured. Having said that, there has yet to be any conclusive evidence that would suggest that a deal was made with Iraq in exchange for a pay-off down the road. This is why the investigation must be allowed to run its course before conclusion from either side are made.

But Annan has decided he knows best and has brushed off the central issues to this scandal as though they were known falsehoods. With the investigation still in progress the principle agent of the United Nations has made an unabashed attempt to undercut the investigators' authority by implying that they are involved in some sort of wild goose chase.

Annan, in an interview on British television, said such claims of bribery were "inconceivable", and went on to assert that:

"These are very serious and important governments. You are not dealing with banana republics... I don't think the Russian or the French or the Chinese government would allow itself to be bought because some of their companies are getting contracts from the Iraqi authorities... I don't believe it at all."

Mr. Annan is either naïve to the underhanded nature of global politics, or he is an accomplice to the crime and is now trying to raise doubts to the central charges. An 8 year old is incapable of such naivety, so the latter scenario is more likely the case. The Secretary General is abusing his position to cast doubt on any conclusions the investigation could report before they are even made.

And to think this is the very same organization that John Kerry treats as the United States' ultimate moral authority.

Nader up to 2% in polls

2004-10-17T22:09:00.000-05:00

The Washington Post's tracking poll shows Nader doubling his support, from a paltry 1% to a measly 2%. Glenn Reynolds suggests that this could actually be a biproduct of Kerry's tough talk actually becoming credible. This does sound like a plausible explanation, and would prove Dick Morris' theory about Kerry being cornered in the debates - because any which way the Senator tacked he would be alienating some faction of his base - correct.

This could also be the first signs of lost hope on the left for their candidate. Seeing the race closing in Bush's favor they may be casting protest votes over the fact that their true love, Howard - The Scream Machine - Dean was taken down by the grown-ups at the DNC and their allies in the MSM.

Most likely explanation? Small glitch in the polls - Nader will be back at 1% at next tracking.

New York Times endorses Kerry... gasp!

2004-10-17T18:40:00.000-05:00

The New York Times, in a move about as shocking as Pravda endorsing Joseph Stalin, has handed its coveted endorsement to Senator Kerry:

We have been impressed with Mr. Kerry's wide knowledge and clear thinking - something that became more apparent once he was reined in by that two-minute debate light. He is blessedly willing to re-evaluate decisions when conditions change.

I wonder what "conditions" the Times is referring to? Would Howard Dean's runaway campaign - based entirely on an anti-war platform - during the Democratic primary qualify as one of these conditions? This Senator has not "re-evaluated" anything besides his own best interests. The ideological evolution of John Kerry is not borne out of a desire to better serve our nation; it has drifted along the ebb and flow of political expediency.

But why bother arguing the Times' endorsement, its not as though this came as a surprise to anyone.

Among papers endorsing the president was the Chicago Tribune, which offered the following explanation:

There is much the current president could have done differently over the last four years. ... But for his resoluteness on the defining challenge of our age — a resoluteness John Kerry has not been able to demonstrate — the Chicago Tribune urges the re-election of George W. Bush as president of the United States.

Looks as though the Trib wasn't as impressed with Kerry's political nimbleness as was the Times.

Gallup: Bush over Kerry 52% to 44%

2004-10-17T18:27:00.000-05:00

The latest CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll, which tracked likely voters from 10/14-10/16, has Bush up by 8.

Like most polls we'll be seeing over the closing weeks of this campaign I think this one shouldn't be taken too seriously. A poll can only represent a snap-shot of the period in which it was taken, and cannot give an accurate description of the overall race.

For a more comprehensive and reliable state of the race I suggest Real Clear Politics, which is a weighted sum of all the polls from each period. Right now they have Bush over Kerry by 4 points, a more likely number.

Those offshore tax-sheltered rascals!

2004-10-11T18:39:00.000-05:00

Mr. Kerry just loves to lecture American businesses about setting up shop abroad (which they wouldnt need to do if liberals like Kerry didnt tax them to death), and has even coined the term "Benedict Arnold Coporations" to describe these companies. Maybe the senator wants to explain this document:

Larger image available at Boston Globe

Kerry: terrorism equivalent to prostitution, gambling

2004-10-10T19:00:00.000-05:00

A story in the New York Times today, which the paper probably thought would help Kerry, some more startling revelations are made about John Kerry's view of terrorism. When asked by his interviewer what it would take to make Americans feel safe again, the Senator replied:

We have to get back to the place we were, where terrorists are not the focus of our lives, but they're a nuisance [...] As a former law enforcement person, I know we're never going to end prostitution. We're never going to end illegal gambling. But we're going to reduce it, organized crime, to a level where it isn't on the rise. It isn't threatening people's lives every day, and fundamentally, it's something that you continue to fight, but it's not threatening the fabric of your life.

So global terrorism is an "organized crime" and merely a "nuisance". The remark speaks for itself. John Kerry honestly views the fight against terrorism as a law enforcement matter. This is the same approach the Clinton administration took after the first attack on the World Trade Center, and now the Senator would like to continue this failed policy after the second Trade Center atack.

Not surprisingly, the Bush campaign sees this as excellent fodder to hit Kerry with and will be using the quote in a new ad. The Kerry campaign, sensing again that their idiot of a candidate has just stepped in it again, issued a statement claiming that the GOP was taking the Senator's words out of context:

This is yet another example of the Bush campaign taking John Kerry's words out of context, and then blowing it up into something that is nothing [...] The whole article is about how John Kerry recognizes that the war on terror requires a multipronged approach. It's not just the military aspect, but you need diplomacy to be able to enlist your allies. The Bush people have never understood that.

How does the need for diplomacy answer the question on whether or not John Kerry views this war as simply a law enforement effort? Is this summit Kerry is so fond of mentioning going to include a request that France send police officers to patrol the streets of the United States? Not satisfied with the depth to which his statement made Kerry's hole deeper, the Kerry spokesman continued:

John Kerry has always said that terrorism is the No. 1 threat to the U.S.

Interesting. Let's review the transcript from the first debate:

LEHRER: New question, two minutes, Senator Kerry. If you are elected president, what will you take to that office thinking is the single most serious threat to the national security to the United States?

KERRY: Nuclear proliferation. Nuclear proliferation.

The man was so sure of his answer he said it twice! Sounds alot like his little fantasy voyage into Cambodia that was "seared, seared" into his memory. John Kerry, flip-flop? Nah!

UPDATE: Bush campaign already has their ad up using the Kerry remarks. The grown-ups over at the Kerry camp must want to strangle their candidate.

Troops prefer Bush to Kerry

2004-10-07T20:04:00.000-05:00

This scoop from Ramesh Ponnuru over at NRO's The Corner:

The Army Times is reporting that active-duty servicemembers are backing Bush over Kerry 72-17 (with 1 percent for Nader). The numbers are just about identical for the reserves and the Guard.

I shouldnt even have to make a comment after citing this poll. Numbers like these shouldnt be appearing for the first time in a blog either - they should be headline news. Imagine if these numbers came out when Clinton was going against WWII hero Bob Dole.

The MSM would be lambasting the Republican candidate with questions like "how will you get these soldiers to fight for you Senator", "how can you take charge as Commander in Chief when the troops don't trust you", and "Senator, how do you account for the fact that the people tasked with protecting our nation choose your opponent over you by a 7:1 margin?"

Any takers on this story in the current context... CNN, CBS, NBC, ABC, WaPo, NY Times, NewsWeek, AP, Reuters?????

::crickets-chirping::

Bush gives Kerry a rapping in PA

2004-10-06T14:47:00.000-05:00

Just finished watching the foreign policy half of Bush's speech in Wilkes Barre (transcript). Here's just one bite to give you an idea of the tack the president is taking:

The senator speaks often about his plan to strengthen America's alliances, but he's got an odd way of doing it. In the middle of the war, he's chosen to insult America's fighting allies by calling them "window dressing" and "the coalition of the coerced and the bribed." The Italians who died in Nasiriyah were not window dressing. They were heroes in the war on terror.

Bush brought his 'A'-game to PA, now he needs to bottle it up and bring it to the debate with Kerry on Friday. If only half of the points Bush made today make it into Friday's debate, he will walk away with a Reaganeque victory. How can the majority of Americans honestly disagree with his overall thesis that:

Senator Kerry assures us that he's the one to win a war he calls a mistake, an error and a diversion. But you can't win a war if you don't believe in fighting. On Iraq, Senator Kerry has a strategy of retreat. I have a strategy of victory.

Mr. President, please, BRING IT ON!

A true great leaves us

2004-10-06T04:03:00.000-05:00

"Ooh, naked lady tees. Give me a box of those, give me two of those, 3 of those, 1 one those. Uhf, this is the worst hat I've ever seen... you buy a hat like this and I bet you get a free bowl of soup... it looks good on you though!"

-Rodney Dangerfield, Caddyshack

Rodney Dangerfield, dead at 82.

Cheney Won

2004-10-05T21:41:00.000-05:00

Cheney hammered Edwards in the first half, and it was a draw on domestic issues. Which was more important? Exactly, foreign policy. Cheney wins... now its a matter of what all the idiot pundits in the press will say.

Good Night!

Cheney/Edwards: Part VIII

2004-10-05T21:30:00.000-05:00

Closing statements...

Edwards is in full trial lawyer mode. "Im just a poor country boy hick.. boy oh boy!". This shtick may work well with a jury down south, but I dont think people buy this line of crap after 9/11. His thesis is "we will fix this mess in Iraq", not "we will protect you from terrorists".

Cheney cuts the crap and talks straight up with the American people - I think this comes off better than the "Ive basked in the light of America" BS that Edwards was trying to shovel. Cheney comes across as confident, concise, and sure of his principles. He speaks to the honest dangers we face post-9/11 (something I dont think Edwards grasps), and appears confident that it is this administration that will most effectively fight terrorism. Hmmm... interesting tactic, he also - in a round about way - challenged the American voters to join with the president in this tough battle.

I'll be back with my final thoughts...

Cheney/Edwards: Part VII

2004-10-05T21:17:00.000-05:00

There both praising there respective bosses, another waste of time... but if anyone came off better it was Cheney.

Uhg, now Cheney's hand rubbing is interfering with his microphone. Knock it off!

Flip-flopping...

Edwards is trying to sell the line that "John Kerry has been consistant throughout his career". Now hes trying to paint the Bush/Cheney team as flip-floppers. He making some good points, but theyre all such small difference in opinion, not differences in principle.

Again with this "we have a plan crap", but then explaining he doesnt have time to explain it now... how about showing up to a press conference? Or explain it on Russert Anything.

Cheney/Edwards: Part VI

2004-10-05T21:10:00.000-05:00

New topic: AIDS rates for black women in the US? Hmmm... well, I needed a bathroom break anyways.

Did Edwards just say "the lack of free healthcare in this country increases the chances of kids developing AIDS"? Jeez, this guy is on dope. Kids develop AIDS in the same sense they develop a pregnancy. What a dupe.

Waste of time topic

Cheney/Edwards: Part V

2004-10-05T21:03:00.000-05:00

The debate is now turning towards medical liability reform - and, not so much, the fact that Edwards is a trial lawyer (ie: weazle ambulance chaser).

Edwards just said lawyers arent the problem... haha! Yeah, we'll see how that resonates with voters. He also wasted about 30 seconds talking about some swimming pool company that he sued cause of a suction problem - huh? You would figure that he would have put together a better response to this line of questioning, hes tanking!

Edwards wanted to make this about lawyers - not healthcare - Cheney is going along with it. A question on healthcare costs is now becoming a discussion on trial lawyers and tort reform. This is not a good turn for Edwards - what was he thinking? (Backstage Dem whispers: "IDIOT!")

Uhg... Haliburton again... pff... "Trial lawyer!".... "Oh yeah... HALIBURTON!"... grow up boys.

Cheney/Edwards: Part IV

2004-10-05T20:48:00.000-05:00

Domestic policy time (yawn).

Hmm... Cheney responds to jobs/economy question with something about education and Edwards calls him on it. Cheney talks about what the president has done with healthcare, etc., and the Edwards trys to force his "Mr. VP, we cant afford 4 more years of your experience" line. The line was not only out of context, but he didnt really say it clearly -- Im sure the Dems are cringing, cause he just threw that line (which could have been damaging if used correctly) in the trash.

There on fiscal matters now. I think Cheney is making a good case. Hes borrowing the Bush 2000 line of "we want people to spend there own money, they want government to make choices for people... its a fundamental difference of opinion". It worked well for Bush against Gore, and I think it will work well now.

Oh man, Edwards just stepped into it. He talked about middle class tax cuts - Cheney quipped that the president just signed middle class tax cuts YESTERDAY, a bill which neither Edwards nor Kerry even showed up to vote on.

Gay marriage: Cheney hedges his personal beliefs well to the fact that government shouldnt sanction gay marriage. Edwards comes back with something about Cheney's daughter - dont think he should have gone there.... waiting for Cheney reponse (hopefully its something along the lines of, stay the hell out of my family business) ... eh, nothing. Boo!