« July 2005 | Main | September 2005 »
August 30, 2005
One Sweet Racket
Baltimore commentator Frank DeFilippo breaks down just how underhanded a deal Pennsylvania legislators have concocted for themselves; a follow-up to the news links recently posted on S-T-R. Their self-voted pay raise makes them the second highest paid legislature in the country behind California. But that doesn't even include the perks and extras which drive their benefit package up to $150,000 apiece. If we Marylanders think we're getting a raw deal having $61 million extracted from us to keep our own local masters living well, we can say a small thanks we're not being wrung out of $346 million like our neighbors up north.
To quote DeFilippo, "So anyone who’s looking for a get-rich-quick scheme ought to consider moving to Pennsylvania and running for the state legislature."
Posted by Robert Jackson at 10:31 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Every Enemy of the U.S. Government is EVIL
Writes WarNutDaily columnist Dennis Prager:
All those who support the American war in Iraq should make a deal with anyone opposed to the war. Offer to answer any 20 questions the opponents wish to ask if they will answer just one:
Do you believe we are fighting evil people in Iraq? That is how supporters of the war regard the Baathists and the Islamic suicide terrorists, the people we are fighting in Iraq.
According to Prager, any response other than an unequivocal "yes" means that the person isn't even worth engaging in further conversation. He even claims that the perfectly reasonable response "Some of those we are fighting may be evil, but not all; some are simply fighting against foreign occupation of their country" is insufficient, a non-answer. One simply must agree that every single person who fights against our righteous, God-ordained government (when Republicans are in charge of it) is not just wrong but out-and-out evil.
As Prager puts it, "Anyone who remains unable to morally judge people who slit the throats of innocent people, who place bombs in the middle of markets, and who murder anyone attempting to help women achieve basic human rights is a moral imbecile." (Funny, but I thought the war was about eliminating the threat of Saddam Hussein's WMD and assistance to al-Qaeda . . . but that is so 2003.)
Well, Mr. Prager, I find anyone who remains unable to morally judge people who drop two-ton bombs on cities full of innocent people, kill tens of thousands of civilians, transport suspects to foreign countries to be tortured, humiliate and abuse prisoners of war, and hold other suspects incommunicado without recourse to attorneys or courts to be a moral imbecile--and you have just earned the number-one spot on that list.
Posted by Mike Tennant at 01:45 PM | Comments (0)
Blowing People (Up) Out of Proportion
The U.S. military claims that some early morning raids on "terrorist safe houses" in Iraq killed seven (count 'em) "militants."
Meanwhile, the Baghdad police report that, in order to kill those seven militants (and who knows if they really are terrorists?), our government killed eight times as many civilians. Is it any wonder why this is the case when "our guys" dropped four 500-pound bombs on a single house?
I guess being the "good guys" in a war means never having to say you're sorry.
Posted by Mike Tennant at 01:37 PM | Comments (0)
Disaster Relief? We Need Neocon Relief!
Yesterday a caller to The Rush Limbaugh Show objected to the provision of federal disaster aid to hurricane victims. His reasoning was that taxpayer dollars (i.e., stolen money) should not be provided to private individuals--especially to individuals who knew the risks involved in living where they did and made no effort to insure themselves against those risks. The caller failed to mention the unconstitutionality of charitable spending by the federal government, but his points were well taken nonetheless.
Naturally, the great leader of conservatism took issue with this, as did a later caller. Rush said, "The Mississippi River flooded real bad [sic] in the early 90s, and I was literally shocked at the phone calls I got from people who were angry. 'I don't want to bail these farmers out! I didn't choose to live next to a river and floodplain.'" Yes, the man who claims to be a believer in small and constitutional government was shocked that people thought that they shouldn't be robbed at gunpoint to bail out others.
Rush then proceeded to explain that New Orleans is vital to our national survival and that therefore federal disaster relief is perfectly acceptable. Ultimately, after telling us how vital the port is for getting oil and other commodities to average Americans, he said, "New Orleans has to function. New Orleans is clearly a national city."
Of course, there's no such thing as a "national city" any more than there is a "state city." A city is a city, and it ought to be up to the residents of that city--and any individuals, businesses, and charitable organizations that feel inclined to help--to prepare for and clean up after disasters.
Rush needs to read about Davy Crockett's experience with voting for federal disaster aid when he was a congressman. Perhaps Walter Williams, a frequent EIB guest host, could also enlighten him. Williams is fond of quoting James Madison on the same subject, to wit: "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents."
Posted by Mike Tennant at 08:49 AM | Comments (2)
August 27, 2005
Pat Robertson Describes U.S. Foreign Policy
"All that Robertson has done," Jacob Hornberger writes, "is state publicly what has long been an important part of U.S. foreign policy – assassination of foreign rulers who behave independently of Washington."
Hornberger's article details the various way the U.S. controls the behavior of foreign governments, based on John Perkins' book, Confessions of an Economic Hit Man.
Posted by George F. Smith at 11:18 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
August 26, 2005
Ellsworth Air Force Based Saved!
"Ellsworth Air Force Based Saved!" trumpets the announcement on Senator John Thune's webpage. The South Dakota Republican's whining and pleading (not to mention threats and arm-bending) saved Ellsworth AFB (this time anyhow), from the U.S. Based Realignment and Closure Commission (BRCC) attempts at militarily and financially sound rationalizing of the vast archipelago of bases upon which Pax Americana, not to mention many state's and town's local economy's, are based.
Lost amid all the special pleadings and back-stage political hardball is the fact that if the US didn't have all these diplomatic and military operations ongoing throughout the world, none of these air and naval bases and army garrisons would even be necessary.
I mean really, South Dakota? Who the hell does Ellsworth AFB (home of the B-1 bomber wings) supposedly protect America from anyhow? Crazy Horse? No he's dead. Canada? Pleeeease. If B-1 sorties are needed to bomb enemies shouldn't the B-1 squadrons be deployed along the coastal regions then?
Here's a thought: How about if America turns in her badge and resigns the job of World Policeman and only maintains enough armed forces to what is needed to fend off terrorism and to protect the borders and airspace over the continental US?
Posted by Ali Massoud at 02:52 PM | Comments (0)
John Roberts E. Lee?
Here's one good reason to support John Roberts for the Supreme Court:
When John G. Roberts Jr. prepared to ghostwrite an article for President Ronald Reagan a little over two decades ago, his pen took a Civil War reenactment detour.
The article, which was to appear in the scholarly National Forum journal, was called "The Presidency: Roles and Responsibilities." Roberts was writing by hand a section on how the congressional appropriations process had evolved.
A fastidious editor of other people's copy as well as his own, Roberts began with the words "Until about the time of the Civil War." Then, the Indiana native scratched out the words "Civil War" and replaced them with "War Between the States."
Okay, so it's not much, but it has the Washington Post in a tizzy. Clearly Roberts is "sympathetic to the Confederate position," which means, in Beltway parlance, that he is a racist.
If, out of "tens of thousands of pages of Roberts files," this is the best they can find, I don't think Roberts has anything about which to worry.
Posted by Mike Tennant at 01:46 PM | Comments (1)
The "Fair Tax" Redux...
Digging around into the details of the Linder-Boortz Fair Tax (sic) plan/scheme/bandwagon I found this criticism at the American Constitutional Research Service blog. To wit:
"Contrary to what the proponents of the Fair Tax claim it will do, the unadulterated truth is, the Fair Tax proposal would expand the number of tax gathers in the United States to include individual tradesmen and entrepreneurs, and, even ordinary working people engaged in self employment, forcing them to "register" with folks in government in order to pursue a livelihood [ see SEC. 502. REGISTRATION], and would require these poor souls, along with America's businesses, to become a modern-day regiment of enlisted tax gathers for the federal government, increasing the number of tax gathers throughout the United States to an all time high, and compelling them to maintain burdensome and inquisitorial records and reports under a penalty of perjury, just as is now done under the existing IRS Code."
I don't see any way around this problem either myself. Perhaps the proponents will enlighten us? And further:
"The Fair Tax would, if adopted, give birth to a new tax raising code to satisfy the wants and fancies of tyrants in government___ all the above to be implemented under the pretext of the "Fair Tax Reform", a reform which promises to abolish the IRS and income taxation, but in substance and truth will only tighten the iron fist of government around the people's productivity, and demand the less fortunate people in our society to shamefully kneel to the iron fist of government to receive their monthly government check___ a family consumption allowance which cleverly creates a new army of voters dependent upon folks in government for their subsistence. Were we not warned by Hamilton in Federalist Paper 79 that 'A POWER OVER A MAN's SUBSISTENCE AMOUNTS TO A POWER OVER HIS WILL'? "
As we have observed in the two hundred some years of the current American republic "paper" guarantees of freedom and respect for rights are easily subverted over time by political machinations made possible by "interpretations" of various courts.
The next time you buy tires or pay your telephone bill, please note the federal excise tax on both these items that was added eighty years ago (as a temporary tax) to fund World War I. When the income tax was passed in 1913, some wanted a cap limiting it to 5% for the "rich" and to 2% for everyone else. It was felt by proponents that this wasn't necessary because people would never stand for it being any higher. History shows us all how that worked out.
Atomistic as it may be to some, user fee style taxes are the only morally just and (somewhat) controllable form of taxation.
-Ali Massoud
Posted by Ali Massoud at 12:34 PM | Comments (0)
August 25, 2005
A Mind is a Terrible Thing to Lose
Pat Robertson very clearly stated his approval of state-sponsored assassination- then claimed he didn’t say that, despite video and audio recordings to the contrary. Now, Rush Limbaugh has been caught in the same delusional game. Limbaugh is quoted on his program making the following obscene remark: “Cindy Sheehan is just Bill Burkett. Her story is nothing more than forged documents, there's nothing about it that's real…” Now, according to Keith Olbermann at MSNBC.com, Limbaugh has judged his remarks about Cindy Sheehan “so unpopular, so subversive, and so crazy….. that he has found it necessary to deny he said them - even when there are recordings and transcripts of them - and to brand those who’ve claimed he said them as crackpots and distorters. More over, that amazing temple to himself, his website, has been scrubbed clean of all evidence of these particular remarks, and to ‘prove’ his claim that he never made the remarks in question on August 15, he has misdirected visitors to that site to transcripts and recordings of remarks he made on August 12.”
The full transcript of what Limbaugh really said can be seen at Olbermann’s blog entry, as well. Pat Robertson’s excuse may be due to a psychosis brought on by spending too much time immersed in the Old Testament. What is Limbaugh’s problem- pressure on the brain from his anal cyst? Loss of circulation from having “half his brain tied behind his back?” Or is it boredom inspired by the intellectual (but highly profitable) rut he’s been in for the last ten or more years?
Posted by Roger Young at 08:05 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
Philadelphia 1787 vs. Baghdad 2005
Contra Tom Palmer, Baghdad in 2005 is nothing like Philadephia in 1787. See this column by Fred Kaplan (courtesy of the LewRockwell.com blog) for the proof. Here's just one good paragraph:
America's Founding Fathers shared the crucible of having fought in the Revolutionary War for the common cause of independence from England. This bond helped overcome their many differences. Iraq's new leaders did not fight in their war of liberation from Saddam Hussein. It would be as if France had not merely assisted the American colonists but also fought all the battles on the ground, occupied our territory afterward, installed our first leaders, composed the Articles of Confederation, and organized the Constitutional Convention. The atmosphere in Philadelphia, as well as the resulting document and the resulting country, would have been very different.
Posted by Mike Tennant at 09:02 AM | Comments (2)
August 24, 2005
Cato Scholar Compares Puppet Iraqi Government to Founding Fathers. No really.
Tom Palmer, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, has recently returned from a junket to Iraq where he says working with the US puppet regime prolly feels the same as being at the Constitutional Convention in 1787 with Tom Jefferson and the boys. No really.
This is what passes for "Libertarian" thinking in Washington, DC these days I guess. I was accepted to do an internship there during the summer after my junior year of high school. I went into the US Army that summer instead. I had always had a secret nagging regret that I didn't do it, but now I know I didn't miss a thing.
If the pollyanna statism-in-denial swill (as written by Dr. Palmer here), is the best Cato can do, then it confirms what I have suspected for a while now. The Cato Institute is a Republican entity in all but name. Entirely in their thinking though. Sad too.
Posted by Ali Massoud at 08:08 PM | Comments (0)
Recanting the War
Check out Justin Raimondo's column today at Antiwar.com. He details the myriad ways in which conservatives, and even some neocons, are beginning to sour on the war in Iraq and/or Bush's handling of it. It's a good read.
Posted by Mike Tennant at 10:45 AM | Comments (0)
August 23, 2005
Thieves Sue Their Victims for Reporting Them
Pennsylvania state legislators just voted themselves a hefty salary hike, and the people of the state are justifiably furious about it.
Young Conservatives of Pennsylvania have even taken it upon themselves to mount a billboard and radio campaign targeting those legislators who voted for the raise. Naturally, this has roused the ire of those legislators whose faces are plastered on billboards next to the size of their raises (up to 32 percent); and so, in the best American tradition, they are threatening to sue YCOP for running this campaign.
Now here's the question for the class: Which political party is up in arms that conservatives are targeting their members for violating conservative principles? If you said, "the Republicans," you get an extra 15 minutes at recess today. Yes, the "party of fiscal responsibility" is attempting to silence dissent when its members fail to live up to their promises. Quoth an aide to one of the targeted state senators:
“I think it is absurd that a conservative group would target Republican leaders who have helped maintain the Republican majority in the senate for almost 25 years and maintained Republican leadership. It is a stupid mission if one believes in conservative principals [sic] and conservatism because it is the Republican Party that preserves those ideas.”
Yes, folks, it is "a stupid mission" for conservatives to hold Republicans responsible for their theft of taxpayer dollars for personal enrichment. After all, "the Republican Party . . . preserves" conservative ideas--in a hermetically sealed jar, never to be taken out and used.
If this doesn't prove that the GOP hasn't a conservative bone in its body, nothing will.
(Link courtesy CNSNews.com.)
Posted by Mike Tennant at 11:49 AM | Comments (4)
Pat Robertson: "Thou SHALT Kill . . . If Thy Victim Is a Commie"
Religious broadcaster Pat Robertson called on Monday for the assassination of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, calling him a "terrific danger" to the United States.
Robertson, founder of the Christian Coalition of America and a former presidential candidate, said on "The 700 Club" it was the United States' duty to stop Chavez from making Venezuela a "launching pad for communist infiltration and Muslim extremism." . . .
"You know, I don't know about this doctrine of assassination, but if he thinks we're trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it," Robertson said. "It's a whole lot cheaper than starting a war ... and I don't think any oil shipments will stop." . . .
"We have the ability to take him out, and I think the time has come that we exercise that ability," Robertson said.
"We don't need another $200 billion war to get rid of one, you know, strong-arm dictator," he continued. "It's a whole lot easier to have some of the covert operatives do the job and then get it over with."
Nice Christian attitude there, Pat. How 'bout we just get rid of that commandment about not killing?
(Thanks to Drudge for the link.)
Posted by Mike Tennant at 11:42 AM | Comments (0)
Medicare Law Prompts a Rush for Lobbyists
Remember how Republicans and conservatives fought the Clinton health care program tooth and nail because it would lead to bigger government and more government rationing of health care? Remember how the Republican Congress passed, and the Republican president proudly signed, a bill adding prescription drug coverage to Medicare?
Well, now, according to the New York Times:
The new Medicare law has touched off explosive growth in lobbying by the health care industry, whose spending on advocacy here far exceeds that of consumer groups and other industries like defense and banking.
Almost every week the federal government issues new rules or guidelines to carry out the 2003 law, which provides a drug benefit starting in January. To keep track of the new rules and to decipher their meaning is a full-time job for hundreds of lawyers and lobbyists, who regularly seek changes advantageous to their clients. . . .
"You see a real surge in health care lobbying because that's where the money is," said Frederick H. Graefe, a lobbyist for hospitals and makers of medical equipment. "Twenty years ago the defense industry was dominant and had the most lobbyists, the big players. Now it's health care."
Last year alone, the health care industry spent $325 million - more than any other sector - in its efforts to influence Congress and federal agencies, according to Political Money Line, a nonpartisan group that studies reports filed with Congress by lobbyists and their clients.
You can be sure that both parties are getting in on the act, too.
John E. McManus, who formed his own lobbying firm after working for Republican members of the House Ways and Means Committee, received a total of $620,000 last year from the American Medical Association, the Advanced Medical Technology Association, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America and several drug companies, including Merck and Genentech. Mr. McManus can help them navigate the new Medicare law because, as a Congressional aide, he helped write it.
On the other side of the political spectrum, David H. Nexon, a health policy adviser to Senator Edward M. Kennedy for more than two decades, stepped down in February to become senior executive vice president of the Advanced Medical Technology Association, the lobby for makers of medical devices like Medtronic and Guidant.
Charles M. Brain, director of legislative affairs for President Clinton, reported that he got $240,000 last year for representing the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America. Stephen J. Ricchetti, deputy chief of staff in the Clinton White House, lobbies for Eli Lilly & Company, Novartis and Pfizer.
And even better:
The Generic Pharmaceutical Association has retained Mr. [Chris] Jennings and Mark W. Isakowitz to lobby for legislation to increase the use of generic drugs. As a White House aide, Mr. Jennings helped devise the Clinton plan for universal health insurance. As a lobbyist at the National Federation of Independent Business, Mr. Isakowitz, a Republican, helped defeat the Clinton plan.
And conservatives continue to believe the GOP really stands for smaller government.
Posted by Mike Tennant at 11:31 AM | Comments (0)
August 20, 2005
Debtors in Rush to Bankruptcy as Change Nears
As the NY Times story points out people are rushing to court to beat the changes in the law that the collection lawyers, credit card companies, and banks paid congress to enact.
So far this summer my small business has been chumped by three people and two businesses out of what they owe. We provided the product or service as asked for, and at the agreed upon price, and yet we end up with nada but a paper from the court.
One of the business accounts I am familiar with, and I would've forgiven the debt if he'd had but asked me to. The others just strike me as chislers and deadbeats. Another cost of being in business I guess.
Nothing feels worse than having to go without pay for work you do and then having to ask paying customers to pay more to cover the loss. Yet I must and will.
Posted by Ali Massoud at 04:39 PM | Comments (0)
August 17, 2005
Another Day, Another Government Lie Exposed
Here's a shocker for you. Everything the British government and London police department told us about the July 22 shooting death of Jean Charles de Menezes, an innocent Brazilian, by London cops, turns out to be a lie.
The documents and photographs confirm that Jean Charles was not carrying any bags, and was wearing a denim jacket, not a bulky winter coat, as had previously been claimed.
He was behaving normally, and did not vault the barriers, even stopping to pick up a free newspaper.
He started running when we saw a tube at the platform. Police had agreed they would shoot a suspect if he ran.
However, it was just a series of "mistakes" that led to Menezes's death, and you can be sure no one will be held responsible or pay any real price for this.
Posted by Mike Tennant at 08:56 AM | Comments (0)
August 16, 2005
How Conservatives Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb
Harry Truman was a very liberal Democrat who thought nothing of indiscriminately killing thousands of civilians in the "Good" War, just as his predecessor, another very liberal Democrat, had done. Truman's most famous indiscriminate killing of civilians, of course, was his decision to nuke Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
These days the most vociferous supporters of Truman's decision are not liberal Democrats but ostensibly conservative Republicans, who treat anyone who disagrees as just another anti-American leftist pinko. And yet . . .
On August 8, 1945, two days after the bombing, former Republican President Herbert Hoover wrote to a friend that "[t]he use of the atomic bomb, with its indiscriminate killing of women and children, revolts my soul."
Days later, David Lawrence, the conservative owner and editor of U.S. News (now U.S. News & World Report), argued that Japan's surrender had been inevitable without the atomic bomb. He added that justifications of "military necessity" will "never erase from our minds the simple truth that we, of all civilized nations . . . did not hesitate to employ the most destructive weapon of all times indiscriminately against men, women and children."
Just weeks after Japan's surrender, an article published in the conservative magazine Human Events contended that America's atomic destruction of Hiroshima might be morally "more shameful" and "more degrading" than Japan's "indefensible and infamous act of aggression" at Pearl Harbor.
Such scathing criticism on the part of leading American conservatives continued well after 1945. A 1947 editorial in the Chicago Tribune, at the time a leading conservative voice, claimed that President Truman and his advisers were guilty of "crimes against humanity" for "the utterly unnecessary killing of uncounted Japanese."
In 1948, Henry Luce, the conservative owner of Time, Life, and Fortune, stated that "[i]f, instead of our doctrine of 'unconditional surrender,' we had all along made our conditions clear, I have little doubt that the war with Japan would have ended soon without the bomb explosion which so jarred the Christian conscience."
A steady drumbeat of conservative criticism continued throughout the 1950s. A 1958 editorial in William F. Buckley, Jr.'s National Review took former President Truman to task for his then-current explanation of why he had decided to drop an atomic bomb on the city of Hiroshima. The editors asked the question that "ought to haunt Harry Truman: 'Was it really necessary?'" Could a demonstration of the bomb and an ultimatum have ended the war? The editors challenged Truman to provide a satisfactory answer. Six weeks later the magazine published an article harshly critical of Truman's atomic bomb decision.
Two years later, David Lawrence informed his magazine's readers that it was "not too late to confess our guilt and to ask God and all the world to forgive our error" of having used atomic weapons against civilians. As a 1959 National Review article matter-of-factly stated: "The indefensibility of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima is becoming a part of the national conservative creed."
My, how "conservatism" has changed in the last 50 years! The same people who once correctly understood Abraham Lincoln; opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Social Security, Medicare, and the whole "social safety net"; decried excessive regulation, spending, and deficits; and demanded realism in foreign policy now stand for precisely the opposite. Why shouldn't their views on the Bomb have changed, too?
Posted by Mike Tennant at 02:03 PM | Comments (0)
August 15, 2005
Diaper pin Laden?
Remember "innocent until proven guilty"? Well, in America not only are you guilty until proven innocent; you're also guilty of crimes that have not yet been committed until proven innocent--even if you're a baby. See, for example, this AP article:
Infants have been stopped from boarding planes at airports throughout the U.S. because their names are the same as or similar to those of possible terrorists on the government's "no-fly list."
It sounds like a joke, but it's not funny to parents who miss flights while scrambling to have babies' passports and other documents faxed. . . .
Sarah Zapolsky and her husband had a similar experience last month while departing from Dulles International Airport outside Washington. An airline ticket agent told them their 11-month-old son was on the government list.
They were able to board their flight after ticket agents took a half-hour to fax her son's passport and fill out paperwork. (Emphasis mine.)
Yes, folks, it took half an hour to determine that an 11-month-old was not a security threat.
By the way, masochist that I am, I found this over at FreeRepublic.com, where there was very little outrage expressed at all. Most of the venom was directed at the parents for giving their kids names that show up on the no-fly list. Then there was this gem: "Just ban everyone named 'Mohammed.'"
Posted by Mike Tennant at 04:43 PM | Comments (1)
August 12, 2005
Arresting the Drug War - Cops and ex-Cops Who Say, "End it".
LEAP is an organization of cops and ex-cops who say fiddling around with harmless drug users only fosters corruption, wastes time and money, fills the jails and prisons, and enables huge profits for drug cartels.
"Former cop and LEAP founder Jack Cole wants to remove the profit motive from the equation by legalizing drugs and having them supplied by the government. 'Organized criminals and world terrorists would be monetarily crippled for many years to come,” Cole says.
Bob Owens, a former police chief in Oxnard, California, regards soft drugs such as marijuana 'as too unimportant to use manpower' on. He calls the war on drugs “a straw-man that can distract people and stir the hysteria that accompanies it.' "
Reasonable voices are out there but the msm would rather piss & moan about Natalee Holloway, the Karl Rove/Valerie Plame story and Paris Hilton gossip.
Read the full story here.
Posted by Ali Massoud at 09:56 PM | Comments (1)
Free Speech or a Free Trip Out of the Country?
Here's Steve Chapman on Tony Blair's latest project: "deportation for any non-citizen who is guilty of 'fostering hatred' or 'justifying or validating ... violence' or 'glorifying terrorism.'" Chapman says it's "a net that will catch minnows as well as sharks" and punishes free speech.
Meanwhile, "America's Truth Detector," Rush Limbaugh, wants to apply the same policy at home, extending it to anyone who disagrees with the U.S. government, at least while Republicans are in charge of it:
We just had Stephen Breyer saying, oh, yeah, totally appropriate, we must import what they're doing around the world in other democracies, it will help buttress their attempt to establish the rule of law, and we might learn something, too. Well, here's something I'd like to import. I'd like to import the ability that the Brits are doing to export and deport a bunch of hate-rhetoric filled mullahs and imams that are stoking American sentiment. Wouldn't it be great if anybody who speaks out against this country to kick them out of the country? Anybody that threatens this country, kick 'em out. We'd get rid of Michael Moore, we'd get rid of half the Democratic Party if we would just import that law. That would be fabulous, the Supreme Court ought to look into this. Absolutely brilliant idea out there.
Posted by Mike Tennant at 10:14 AM | Comments (1)
August 11, 2005
Empire State Building, Neocon Style
One would think that the disasters in Afghanistan and Iraq, along with the Madrid and London bombings, might force neocons to reconsider their plans to rule the world. One would, of course, be wrong.
In fact, WarNutDaily today has two--count 'em, two--columns extolling the virtues of empire.
Ben Shapiro, in "Why war in Iraq is right for America," after detailing the myriad ways in which the war has failed and lost public support, and even admitting that Saddam Hussein probably wasn't a threat to us and that America's relative reluctance to enter past wars has worked to our advantage, writes:
"But now, America faces a crossroads. Since the death of the Soviet Union, we are unquestionably the world's only superpower, the world's remaining empire. Acquiring an empire requires a different mindset than maintaining and expanding one. Empires either decline or they grow. If America is to survive and flourish, Americans must realize that empire isn't a choice: It's a duty. . . .
"That is why impatient isolationism serves us ill in Iraq. Did Iraq pose an immediate threat to our nation? Perhaps not. But toppling Saddam Hussein and democratizing Iraq prevent his future ascendance and end his material support for future threats globally. The same principle holds true for Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Egypt, Pakistan and others: Pre-emption is the chief weapon of a global empire.
"No one said empire was easy, but it is right and good, both for Americans and for the world. Forwarding freedom is always important, but it is especially important where doing so ensures America's future security – as in Iraq. Maintaining American empire will require Americans to recognize the dangers of impatient isolationism." (Emphasis mine.)
Then Erik Rush, in "The case for imperialism," says that Western imperialism is a "moral imperative." Because Third World countries are so backward, Rush says that they're better off being ruled by Western powers. He writes:
"Might it have been more prudent – and intellectually honest – to have maintained true puppet governments in the Third World, but with the social, economic – and yes, military – provisions in place necessary to acclimatize these cultures to Western concepts, rather than simply exploiting them economically and then withdrawing when the chips were down?
"Am I saying that a program of culturally colonizing the Third World in a systematic and deliberate fashion would have been an appropriate course of action? Keeping culturally underdeveloped nations 'down' rather than allowing them the self-determination we so highly value?
"Yes – that is exactly what I am saying. Societies that eschew slavery, mass execution, stoning, rape as a criminal penalty, beheading and impalement are – to be blunt – culturally superior to those that do not. It was the West's moral obligation to see that overwhelming economic and military power did not fall into the hands of culturally immature societies, but lack of conviction, moral weakness and intellectual dishonesty caused us to drop the ball.
"For the record, despite all that has been done in the areas of humanitarian, economic and military aid, the nations in question still accuse the West of having 'kept them down.' It's one of the reasons so many of them want to kill us." (Emphasis in original.)
Some people just don't get it. Worse yet, some people call themselves conservatives and yet turn around and support government expansion that would have done Stalin proud.
Posted by Mike Tennant at 09:17 AM | Comments (0)
Abracadabra! New Jobs Out of a Hat!
"Highways just don't happen," [President George W.] Bush said. "People have got to show up and do the work to refit a highway or build a bridge, and they need new equipment to do so. So the bill I'm signing is going to help give hundreds of thousands of Americans good-paying jobs."
*SIGH* How many times can this same economic fallacy be repeated by politicians? How many so-called conservatives will agree with the president?
The government cannot create jobs. All it can do is transfer jobs from productive private-sector work to wasteful, inefficient, politically-directed public-sector work. After all, the only way the feds can get the $286.4 billion to fund these projects--6,471 of which are nothing but pork--is to take the money from us.
Fortunately, Bush has assured us that "the federal government is not raising gas taxes to pay for road projects." I feel so much better knowing that they're going to raise some other taxes or go further into debt, resulting in higher taxes down the road.
How long will conservatives continue to stand by this man and his party?
Posted by Mike Tennant at 09:07 AM | Comments (0)
August 10, 2005
Early Signs of a Coup?
From the Tongue-in-Cheek Dept:
An Air Force Reserve colonel is in trouble after being accused of defacing Bush bumper stickers at Denver International Airport. It’s not surprising to find out that the good colonel never learned to respect property rights during his stint with the military and I abhor his actions. But it is always a hopeful sign when a long time member of the empire’s legions realizes he’s been conned. Perhaps after his conviction, punishment and dismissal he’ll be inspired to minister to those still lost and “serving.”
Posted by Roger Young at 10:19 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
The State's Goofy Language
Just this morning I'm watching some local news on the boob tube. The attractive info-babe informs me that Texas is now an official "Majority-Minority State." She never bats an eye while speaking such drivel. Is it only me that realizes what a ridiculous statement that is? Of course, what's meant by this ludicrous, offensive term is that there are more minorities than WHITE people. Those well versed in basic math would then be able to conclude that these minorities (non-white) should now be called the Majority. But they can't do that, of course. The term "minority" has always meant "non-white" but the state knows they could never get away with making that truthful distinction. They're willing to use the outrageous term, "Majority-Minority" to cover it up.
The saddest part is that hardly anyone will notice. . Not only that, this newspeak will be adopted by the sheeple just as the word “gender” (relevant only to grammatical distinctions) has replaced the word “sex.”
Posted by Roger Young at 11:22 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
August 08, 2005
License to Kill Competition
If this doesn't prove that the purpose of government licensing is not to protect consumers but to protect existing businesses, nothing will:
They may have been squeezed out of the lemonade business, but two Salem boys say they are not bitter.
Dominic Serino, 9, and his neighbor, Ryan Decker, 11, were forced Saturday to shut down their lemonade stand at Salem Common after an employee of a nearby sausage vendor called police, complaining that the boys were hurting his sales.
The budding entrepreneurs had to call it quits, under orders by some reluctant police officers. The boys, after all, did not have a license, and rules are rules. The two packed up and trudged home. But they said yesterday that they remain fans of the sausage man. . . .
"I didn't tell the police, 'Listen, throw these kids out of here,' " Clowery said. "I am superapologetic. I just didn't want them to be within direct line of sight. It's a tourist area. We spend big money for the spot."
As usual in the land of the free, the parents are standing up for their kids' freedom--right? Wrong.
"I have talked to Ryan about 'the law is the law' and you have to abide by that," Angela Decker said.
She said the parents were using the stand to help teach the boys the basics of running a business, but the lemonade controversy created a real-life civics lesson for them, too. Now, she said, they will help the boys explore the option of applying to the city for a waiver from a license, which typically costs about $2,000.
"We don't want the boys to give up," she said. "It's about doing the right thing and doing it right."
And two more sheeple are raised to love the State.
Posted by Mike Tennant at 09:31 AM | Comments (0)
August 06, 2005
Government Corruption as a TV Gameshow! What a Concept.
"Live from Congress! Hear of high-ranking officials trying to board planes with $100,000 stuffed in their underwear. See politicians refusing to answer investigators for fear of incriminating themselves. Watch their wives reduced to tears. Secretaries revealing their bosses' dirty secrets. Their opponents insulting them with accusations of corruption and lies. And an eager public lapping up every word while watching the bad guys fall and the good guys struggle to survive." From the Christian Science Monitor on line.
Hey, if they can't beat the system, at least ordinary Brazilians can benefit by the entertainment value of it, eh?
Public disgrace and embarrassment go a long way toward ending corrupt practices than do law enforcement efforts that are carried out by the very people taking bribes. Back in the early 1980's then Mayor Ed Koch used to have a radio program on NYC's city owned station called the John Hour, where the head of the NYPD vice unit would read the names and addresses of men arrested for soliciting prostitutes.
I have no beef with sex workers but the concept of disgrace and embarrassment is more of a deterrent than a ticket and a small fine quietly mailed into a court PO box.
Posted by Ali Massoud at 01:31 PM | Comments (0)
August 05, 2005
Google Blacklists C/Net Reporters
Get this. "Apparently, Google was angered by an article published earlier by Cnet where all sorts of personal information about Google CEO Eric Schmidt was included. The information was obtained from Google searches." From Slashdot.org
Kind of speaks for itself. Sheesh. Hey Mr. Schmidt! Information just wants to be free!
Story link here.
Posted by Ali Massoud at 02:20 PM | Comments (0)
August 04, 2005
If You Don't Bother Them, They Won't Bother You
The latest al-Qaeda tape is out; and, sure enough, it tells us that the terrorists hate us for our freedom. Oh, wait. It actually says this:
"If you continue your politics against Muslims, you will see, God willing, such horror that you will forget the horrors of Vietnam."
"Didn't Osama bin Laden tell you that you would never dream of peace until we actually live it in Palestine and before all the infidel armies withdraw from the land of Mohammed?
"Instead (of accepting the truce), you spilled rivers of blood in our countries, and we exploded volcanoes of anger in your countries."
"The truth that has been kept from you by (President) Bush, (Secretary of State Condoleezza) Rice and (Defense Secretary Donald) Rumsfeld is that there is no way out of Iraq without immediate withdrawal, and any delay on this means only more dead, more losses.
"If you don't leave today, certainly you will leave tomorrow, and after tens of thousands of dead, and double that figure in disabled and wounded."
Hmm. That doesn't sound like someone who hates freedom to me. In fact, it sounds like someone who's saying, "You leave us alone, and we'll leave you alone. Keep attacking us, and we'll keep attacking you." That makes perfect sense.
Since, however, it contradicts the official line from Washington, it cannot be allowed to stand or to penetrate the skulls of average Americans. Thus we have our Dear Leader's response: "He's saying, you know, 'Leave.'" To which the proper response from everyone else is: "Yes, that's what he's saying, and it's what we should be doing anyway, so leave."
The U.S. president described the ideology of al-Zawahiri and his adherents as "dark, dim, backwards. They don't appreciate women. If you don't agree to their narrow view of a religion, you'll be whipped in the public square."
Their goal, he said, is to spread their point of view throughout the world, starting in the "broader Middle East. And part of their goal is to drive us out of the broader Middle East."
But Bush said the United States would not bend to the threats of al Qaeda or of al-Zawahiri.
"They're terrorists, they're killers and they will kill innocent people trying to get us to withdraw from the world so they can impose their dark vision on the world. That's what they're trying to do, and the comments today by Mr. Zawahiri absolutely reinforce what I have just told you. We will stay the course; we will complete the job in Iraq."
The next time terrorists attack the U.S., we'll know exactly whom to blame: al-Qaeda and the United States government. Come to think of it, that's whom we should blame for the last terrorist attack on the U.S., too.
Posted by Mike Tennant at 03:46 PM | Comments (3)
Rafael Palmeiro- American Hero
Hats off to baseball player Rafael Palmeiro who gave the U.S. Congress a taste of its own medicine by, apparently, lying about his use of steroids. Forget the fact that that the lowly Congress critters have absolutely no business questioning Mr. Palmeiro about what substances he puts into his body. By misleading these lowlifes, Mr. Palmeiro has expressed his disgust and lack of respect for Congress members that is shared by millions. I would have preferred that he would have simply told Congress, “my body is none of your business“ and walked out, but lying and creating confusion is the next best action.
Congress, being miffed by this lack of respect, is looking into charging Mr. Palmeiro with the honorable, victimless crime of “lying to Congress,” i.e., perjury. It’s a shame they don’t have the balls to take the same course of action against a murderous tyrant in the White House whose lies brought death to thousands of innocent people. But then, The State's business isn't about protecting, it's about controlling.
Posted by Roger Young at 12:55 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
Say What?
Yesterday, our esteemed Commander and Kook traveled to my neck of the woods. Seems that an outfit calling itself the American Legislative Exchange Council deemed our head psychotic worthy of its annual Thomas Jefferson Freedom Award. According to its mission statement, the American Legislative Exchange Council promotes "free markets, limited government, federalism, and individual liberty." How these worthy principles have anything to do with the work of GW Bush, a proven liar and murderous war criminal, is a complete mystery to those who think rationally. If fact, a fourth grader could easily make the argument that the man is the absolute antithesis of these values.
ALEC is either a group of ignorant dunces or a Neocon front. You decide and than send them your comments.
My sympathy is extended to those in Virginia who experienced a minor earthquake from TJ spinning in his grave.
Posted by Roger Young at 12:16 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
August 03, 2005
We're Safer Because of the War, So Stay Home
Our fearless leader and his pals in talk radio and the op-ed pages keep reminding us that the war in Iraq has made us safer and that any terrorism directed against the U.S., its citizens, or its allies has absolutely nothing to do with the invasion and occupation of Iraq.
Apparently the State Department hasn't been paying attention:
The State Department issued an updated worldwide caution on terrorism yesterday, warning Americans about the threat of extremist violence against U.S. citizens and interests abroad. . . .
As causes of concern, the department cited spillover from the U.S. intervention in Iraq in and outside the Middle East, as well as other recent terrorist attacks in Europe. "Ongoing events in Iraq have resulted in demonstrations and associated violence in several countries; such events are likely to continue for the foreseeable future," the statement said. "U.S. citizens are strongly encouraged to maintain a high level of vigilance, be aware of local events, and take the appropriate steps to bolster their personal security."
Condi needs to start cracking some heads, or people might start to get the idea that the Iraq adventure hasn't been such a good thing for Americans after all.
(Thanks to Antiwar.com for the link.)
Posted by Mike Tennant at 04:23 PM | Comments (0)
Private Law Is Murphy's Law
Check out Robert Murphy's article on "The Possibility of Private Law." It's definitely worth reading in full.
Posted by Mike Tennant at 12:58 PM | Comments (1)
August 02, 2005
Big Brother Is Watching You (and Conservatives Love Him)
Is it any wonder that some people believe the federal government was behind 9/11? After all, "terrorism" has served as the excuse for vast increases in federal power. Here's the latest (or at least the latest announced) one:
The Department of Defense has developed a new strategy in counterterrorism that would increase military activities on American soil, particularly in the area of intelligence gathering.
The move is sparking concern among civil liberties advocates and those who fear an encroaching military role in domestic law enforcement.
In an argument that eerily foreshadowed the July London terror attacks, the Pentagon in late June announced its "Strategy for Homeland Defense and Support," which would expand its reach domestically to prevent "enemy attacks aimed at Americans here at home."
The strategy, approved by Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England on June 24, argues that the government needs a multi-layered, preventive approach to national defense in order to combat an unconventional enemy that will attack from anywhere, anytime and by any conceivable means.
We can, of course, count on conservatives to oppose this kind of unconstitutional growth of government--right?
"The Defense Department has always done intelligence operations in the United States. They have the legal right to do that. There is nothing new here," James Carafano, a homeland security analyst with The Heritage Foundation, told FOXNews.com. "There are no new threats to privacy or constitutionality. I just think it's about doing [intelligence] more efficiently and effectively."
Uh-huh. Just like the Gestapo was "about doing intelligence more efficiently and effectively."
Posted by Mike Tennant at 11:23 AM | Comments (0)
Dozens Flock to 'Blinking' Jesus Statue in New Jersey
"While dozens of people continue to flock to Hoboken to see a statue of Jesus that many believe blinked its right eye, church officials aren't claiming a miracle just yet." From news reports.
What does it say about our modern, (pre-eminent even?) first-world society that simple minded saps and gullible religious kooks really believe God communicates with the world through means such as this? I wonder whether to laugh or cry. The most powerful force in the universe can find no other way to make its presence known except such things as appearing to "blink" or show His face in grilled cheese sandwich?
Rationality and toleration is about the best we can hope for any more in these times, eh? Sheesh.
Posted by Ali Massoud at 10:13 AM | Comments (0)