Thursday, May 31, 2007
Have a look at this video of Chavez goons firing on demonstrators in Venezuela. Thats why. The second amendment has nothing to do with hunting. The founding fathers never dreamed that anyone would try to ban guns for the purpose of hunting, any more than they would try to ban pots and pans for cooking.
The founding fathers made their reasons for the second amendment very clear. Private citizens should be armed that they may effectively resist a tyrannical government. Chavez recently shut down one of the main opposition TV stations and the people of Venezuela don't having their freedom of the press revoked. Since Chavez has also assumed the authority to rule by decree, the democratic process in Venezuela has been suspended. The people of Venezuela no longer have any recourse other than to take to the streets. Unfortunately, Venezuela also has draconian gun control laws, making it difficult for the people to defend themselves against the Chavez thugs.
Don't think for one second that this could not happen in the USA. There are many on the left who would like to silence voices they disagree with. How many times have you heard lefties complain about Fox News Channel, Rush Limbaugh, or the blogosphere? They want to silence anyone who disagrees with their views on socialized medicine, excessive taxes, global warming, or the racist so-called "affirmative action" programs. And guess what else they want..........gun control!
People like Michael Moore, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Harry Reid, Barbara Boxer, Jane Fonda, and many others would turn the USA into a giant version of Venezuela if we give them the opportunity. Dissenting news outlets such as Fox New Channel would be shuttered and anyone posting unacceptable ideas in a blog would be arrested.
Wednesday, May 30, 2007
While brave Venezuelans battle police in the streets, a group of Brits have endorsed the marxist dictator Chavez in his attempt to silence the opposition:
We believe that the decision of the Venezuelan government not to renew the broadcasting licence of RCTV when it expires on May 27 (Chávez silences critical TV station, May 23; Comment and Letters, May 25) is legitimate given that RCTV has used its access to the public airwaves to repeatedly call for the overthrow of the democratically elected government of President Hugo Chávez. RCTV gave vital practical support to the overthrow of Venezuela's elected government in April 2002 in which at least 13 people were killed. In the 47 hours that the coup plotters held power, they overturned much of Venezuela's democratic constitution - closing down the elected national assembly, the supreme court and other state institutions.
Whether Chavez was democratically elected is debateable. What is certain is that now he is not governing democratically, but has the power to rule by decree. And why did Hugo wait until five years after the coup attempt to shut down RCTV?
And what about the coup attempt by Chavez to overthrow a democratically elected government in 1992? They don't bother to mention that.
The letter is signed by several famous British socialists and Marxists, including Tony Benn and Tariq Ali. Yet another example of the incompatibility of socialism with democracy and freedom.
Tuesday, May 29, 2007
Christopher Hitchens Pans Jimmah
I have always enjoyed reading anything that Chris Hitchens writes. He is one of the few lefties that I have any respect for, because he is honest and says what he means. He never minces words.
Hitch has a great essay about the former president Carter. Here are a few excerpts:
I once had quite an argument with the late Sen. Eugene McCarthy, who maintained adamantly that it had been right for him to vote for Ronald Reagan in 1980 for no other reason. "Mr. Carter," he said, "quite simply abdicated the whole responsibility of the presidency while in office. He left the nation at the mercy of its enemies at home and abroad. He was the worst president we ever had."
I find this quite interesting. I had never heard that McCarthy voted for Reagan in 1980. But of course, this is not the sort of thing that our beloved journalists in the lamestream media would be likely to report.
Eugene is quite correct that Jimmah left us at the mercy of foreign thugs. When the Iranian islamofascists seized our embassy in Tehran and held our diplomats as hostages, Jimmah foolishly thought that he could negotiate to bring them home. He even offered to pay ransom. Khomeini and his band of merry thugs humiliated the USA for 444 days. This didn't end until the day that Ronald Reagan was inaugurated as president.
Hitch gives Jimmah another hug:
It was because, whether in Afghanistan, Iran, or Iraq—still the source of so many of our woes—the Carter administration could not tell a friend from an enemy. His combination of naivete and cynicism—from open-mouthed shock at Leonid Brezhnev's occupation of Afghanistan to underhanded support for Saddam in his unsleeping campaign of megalomania—had terrible consequences that are with us still. It's hardly an exaggeration to say that every administration since has had to deal with the chaotic legacy of Carter's mind-boggling cowardice and incompetence.
The Belfast Telegraph reports that Colombia's marxist FARC movement may have given Sinn Fein as much as $2 million in exchange for weapons training.
A top-level think-tank closely connected to the US military has linked an alleged $2 million payment made by Colombian guerrillas to the IRA with Sinn Fein's election campaign.
The bombshell report - by the influential Rand Corporation - is likely to re-ignite the controversy over the Provos' links with the Marxist FARC movement.
It is not difficult to believe that this is true. Sinn Fein/IRA have had links with marxist and terrorist groups all over the world, including Hizbolla, Hamas and Baader-Meinhof. Last month I posted a photo of wall graffiti from the catholic section of Belfast that showed support for the muslim terrorist groups.
So who in the IRA helped the Colombian terrorists?
While the Rand Corporation says the expertise FARC gained led directly to the deaths of hundreds, the IRA has never admitted its members were involved in training the rebels.
Three men - Martin McCauley, James Monaghan and Niall Connolly - were arrested as they attempted to leave Colombia using false documents in August 2001.
They were initially acquitted of training FARC, but convicted of travelling on false documents. As prosecutors appealed, the three were freed and went into hiding.
They have consistently denied training FARC and claimed they were in the country to learn about the stalled peace process there and to educate the movement's leaders about Ireland. Following the appeal, which overturned the acquittals, the three did not come out of hiding and later returned to Ireland.
And there is no doubt that the Irish terrorists gave significant help to the Colombian terrorists:
The report baldly states that the IRA became involved with FARC for other reasons apart from the cash.
These included using the FARC-controlled zone to test weapons. The report states that, in spite of denials by the 'Colombia Three', authorities in the troubled South American country began noticing an improvement in FARC's ability to carry out more sophisticated operations.
"Beginning in early 2001, FARC began intensifying its operations, killing more than 400 members of the Colombian armed forces in 18 months, using car-bombs, secondary devices and homemade mortars."
It is extremely encouraging that the voters in the Republic of Ireland gave an emphatic thumbs -down to the terrorists of Sinn Fein.
Any member of Sinn Fein who tries to enter the USA should be denied a visa just like any member of al Qaeda. And any US citizen who gives support to Sinn Fein should be prosecuted.
Monday, May 28, 2007
This is amazing. Bloggers at the Daily Kos feel free to publicize their opinions about anything and everything. But when it comes to Venezuelans, only those who toe the party line are allowed to express themselves:
There’s an extraordinary spectacle currently playing out in the broadsheets both here and in the United States with regards to Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez’ decision not to renew the license of a major Venezuelan TV channel, Radio Caracas Television (RCTV). The move is being portrayed as an attack on freedom of speech and a threat to Venezuelan democracy, and is being cited as proof of Chavez’ authoritarianism by those who have been accusing him of being a would-be dictator from the second he was elected to power.
heathlander's diary :: ::
I say ‘extraordinary’ because this is a TV station that openly supported and facilitated the illegal military coup against Chavez in April 2002
Tell me something, Heathlander, why is it that Chavez waited five years after the coup attempt to shut down RCTV? Could it be that he is afraid that the station might report some unpleasant facts about him?
Heathlander has the gall to title his post "Deterring Democracy in Venezuela". What democracy? Chavez has completely suspended all democratic processes and is now ruling by decree. His victories in the last two elections were very questionable, most likely due to fraud.
Oh, I know. Idiots like Heathlander equate socialism with democracy. So long as the government controls everything, it doesn't matter if it is the will of the voters or not.
The Devil's Excrement (what a name for a blog!) has news and photos of attacks on Globovision, in another attempt to stifle free speech. They also show photos of students at Venezuelan universities protesting the shutdown of RCTV.
Update: Youtube has videos of protestors being attacked with water cannon and gunfire
Update II: Citizen Feathers has more on the protests and more videos
Update III: From comments on Devil's Excrement:
Just been listening to Radionexx. People are calling in from Venezuela with information.
1) one student killed in Valencia, 5 injured 2) Students in Táchira routed police and GN after 8 hours.
If anyone doubts that the left favor dictatorship and suppression of civil liberties, all they need do is read one of the lefty blogs like Democratic Underground (what a hypocritical name for a blog!). Here are a few choice comments from their discussion of the takeover of the last remaining independent TV station in Venezuela:
AngryAmish (1000+ posts)
Mon May-28-07 10:08 AMResponse to Reply #23
36. Heneeds the militia to crush his enemies - the enemies of the people
And crush them he must if there is to be peace and justice. It is time to clear the weeds and get rid of the roaches. Crush them.
IndianaGreen (1000+ posts)
Mon May-28-07 04:46 AMResponse to Original message
6. Now, that's what I call real singing and dancing in the streets
We would be doing the same here if the FCC had the balls to yank the broadcasting license to the radio network that carries Rush Limbaugh for not firing him for broadcasting hate speech and racist songs.
murdoch (293 posts)
Mon May-28-07 11:08 AMResponse to Original message
41. This is more democratic
Watching news about this on the US corporate media they are talking about freedom of speech and so forth. Huh? These channels are completely controlled by a tiny elite, whose interests are completely against the vast majority of people in their own country - in Venezuela and the United States. It's a joke to hear the commissars of Rupert Murdoch, or NBC - the voice of the military contractor called GE and whatnot talk about freedom and whatnot. Freedom for a handful of idle class billionaires to completely control our airwaves. Even PBS nowadays has what are but they don't call commercials for ExxonMobil, Coca-Cola and whatnot.The Venezuelan government was elected by the people democratically, and the government having control over the station is much more democratic than it resting in the hands of a few billionaire heirs. While there is a lot of similarity between the voice of the majority shut out of the airwaves here and there, one difference there is only about 30% of the population of Venezuela is white, and they are sort of a foreign, settler ruling class over the 70% of Indian (and to a lesser extent black) native population. So it is a little more polarized. Most of these Indians have little access to Venezuela's oil wealth until recently, and they have absolutely no voice on the media outside of the government channels.
merwin (1000+ posts)
Mon May-28-07 06:35 AMResponse to Reply #11
13. I love that! It's amazing how people can believe so many lies...
I'm just surprised that Chavez let that station's license go until it expired. He had reason and the right to revoke it the instant the station called for a violent uprising against the government. But he didn't revoke it, so he must be a dictator... right?I love how all the restraint he's showing regarding this is being spun against him to somehow prove how much of a dictator he is.How about next time I get my license taken away for driving drunk too many times, I declare Washington State a dictatorship! It's simple cause and effect. You do something stupid, you face the consequences. They called for a violent illegal uprising, and they didn't get their license renewed. How terrible!
Most of the left don't want democracy. They don't want freedom of expression. All they want is for everyone to think like they do and do as they say. Everyone goose-stepping to the beat of political correctness.
You can also tell how envious the left are of Chavez's authority to shut down any voices of dissent. Read the second post by IndianaGreen where he wants to shut down Rush Limbaugh. If it were up to people like him, they would also shut down Fox News, the Wall Street Journal, and much of the blogosphere for disseminating 'hate speech'. If it were up to him, I would be thrown in jail just for writing this blog.
Sunday, May 27, 2007
The fascist Chavez regime has shut down Radio Caracas TV, the last remaining independent voice in the media. Massive protests have resulted and the thug Chavez has sent out the military with water cannons and even tanks. Some news is still coming out via the blogosphere. Jungle Hut is reporting teargas and shooting in Caracas. Gateway Pundit has a lot of good info and links.
Sinn Fein, the political arm of the marxist-terrorist Irish Republican Army, had a stunning defeat in the recent elections in the Repuiblic of Ireland:
Sinn Fein wanted to double its representation in Ireland's parliament, the Dail, putting it in government on both sides of the Irish border. Some polls had predicted that the party could win up to 15 seats, but it only managed to cling on to four of the five seats it held before polling day. The party narrowly escaped losing its only remaining seat yesterday after Aengus O Snodaigh was elected to the South Central constituency.
In spite of the wet dreams of the lefties, people the world over are sick of terrorism, sick of socialism and marxism. They want to be free to live their lives as they see fit, not be subject to the whims of government officials. People in Ireland don't care to be ruled by the local version of al Qaeda.
THE DUP's Lagan Valley MP Jeffrey Donaldson said the election results showed that the electorate in the Republic had by and large rejected Sinn Fein's outdated political policies and Marxist philosophy.
"I think that the results in the Republic are clear evidence that people there regard the constitutional issue as settled and they are notimpressed by Sinn Fein's United Ireland agenda and their outdated political policies and Marxist philosophy," he said.
The likes of Sinn Fein have no business being in the Republic of Ireland nor the United Kingdom. They should go to the middle east or Cuba or North Korea. There they will feel much more at home.
Saturday, May 26, 2007
Dick Morris has more information about InfoUSA, the company that has been bankrolling Bill and Hillary Clinton:
According to the The New York Times, InfoUSA compiled and sold lists that disclosed the names of elderly men and women who would be likely to respond to unscrupulous scams. The lists left no doubt about the vulnerability of the elderly targets. The Times reported, for example, that InfoUSA advertised lists of “Elderly Opportunity Seekers,” 3.3 million older people “looking for ways to make money,” and “Suffering Seniors,” 4.7 million people with cancer or Alzheimer’s disease. “Oldies but Goodies” contained 500,000 gamblers over 55 years old, for 8.5 cents apiece. One list said: “These people are gullible. They want to believe that their luck can change.”
Isn't that nice? And get a load of what happened to one of InfoUSA's 'customers':
The Times profiled one unfortunate 92 year old man who entered a sweepstake sponsored by InfoUSA. The information that he innocently provided was then sold to the predator marketers. After responding to their telemarketing calls seeking financial information, his entire life savings was stolen from his bank account at Wachovia Bank. These practices, using lists supplied by InfoUSA were repeated all over the country.
And this is the type of person and company that are bankrolling our former president, senator, and candidate for future president. They also let Gupta spend the night in the Lincoln Bedroom in the White House.
So why do Bill and Hillary think they can get away with taking money from this scumbag? Because they have made a career out of doing just that, and never even received a slap on the wrist. They made their cattle futures money from Tyson, had their shenanigans with the McDougalls on the Whitewater deal, and received large monetary rewards for pardoning Marc Rich and many others. They were not prosecuted and they kept right on winning elections.
When are people going to wise up and realize that these two are up to no good whatsoever? Don't hold your breath.
As reported in my previous post, the Clintons are still up to their old tricks of bartering political favors for cash or other goodies, such as chartered flights on a private jet. Republicans do this sort of stuff quite often too. Our current president used his access to Daddy Bush to snare his fortune, back when Bush Sr. was VP and then president.
The problem is that our people in law enforcement are reluctant to do anything about it, because they depend on elected officials for their appointments to office, raises, promotions, etc. Likewise, the elected politicians do not want to prosecute the Clintons or anyone else, because they know that it will then be their turn to get knocked off the gravy train.
There is only one way to minimize the massive corruption of our government officials: reduce the size and scope of the government. If we have fewer federal, state, and local government agencies, fewer employees, and less spending on government projects, then there will be fewer opportunities for corruption. Limit government to national defense, controlling our borders, and the police and the courts. With few exceptions, almost everything else done by government can be handled much more efficiently in the private sector.
Isn't that a simple solution? Easy to say but not easy to do. Too many people like Bill and Hillary have a vested interest in having a large government. They will fight like a wild hyena to prevent anyone from taking away their sugar daddy.
It has been quite interesting watching the Clintons as they deftly trade political favors for money and other consideration. Hillary's law career was going nowhere back in the 1970s but then when Bill was elected Attorney General of Arkansas, she was hired by the Rose law firm in Little Rock. And then when Bill was subsequently elected Governor of Arkansas, she was made a partner in the firm.
Hillary took bribes from Tyson attorney James Blair in a complicated scheme that involved trading cattle futures. They received an interest in the Whitewater land development deal from James McDougal. Then when Bill left office, they traded pardons for campaign contributions. They even went so far as to grant a pardon to a man who was a fugitive from justice and had renounced his American citizenship.
Now we hear that Bill and Hillary have beeen the recipients of generosity from Vinod Gupta, of infoUSA:
When former President Bill Clinton and Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton took a family vacation in January 2002 to Acapulco, Mexico, one of their longtime supporters, Vinod Gupta, provided his company’s private jet to fly them there.
The company, infoUSA, one of the nation’s largest brokers of information on consumers, paid $146,866 to ferry the Clintons, Mr. Gupta and others to Acapulco and back, court records show. During the next four years, infoUSA paid Mr. Clinton more than $2 million for consulting services, and spent almost $900,000 to fly him around the world for his presidential foundation work and to fly Mrs. Clinton to campaign events.
Those expenses are cited in a lawsuit filed late last year in a Delaware court by angry shareholders of infoUSA, who assert that Mr. Gupta wasted the company’s money trying “to ingratiate himself” with his high-profile guests.
So what sort of consulting did Bill do to earn $2 million in four years?
Asked to describe Mr. Clinton’s consulting services, an infoUSA official said they were limited to making appearances at one or two company events each year.....
...The lawsuit says Mr. Clinton signed a consulting agreement in April 2002 to “provide confidential advice and counsel to the chairman and C.E.O. of the company for the purpose of strategic growth and business development.” InfoUSA made $2.1 million in quarterly payments to Mr. Clinton from July 2003 to April 2005, and in October 2005 entered into a new three-year agreement to pay him $1.2 million. It also gave him an option to buy 100,000 shares of infoUSA stock, with no expiration date.
The complaint asserts that the contracts with Mr. Clinton are “extremely vague” to the point of being wasteful. It says they state that Mr. Clinton will not lobby for infoUSA, and that the company cannot use his name, likeness or association for any business purpose.
So what about the free trips on the jets?
Ethics rules for senators and candidates require only that the recipient of a flight make reimbursement at a rate equal to that of a first-class ticket, a long-derided loophole that allows special interests to provide de facto gifts of expensive private air travel, which generally costs far more than commercial fares. Mr. Singer would not say what Mrs. Clinton paid for her flights.
Mrs. Clinton’s use of infoUSA planes appears to be mostly campaign related. In one instance cited in the lawsuit, Mrs. Clinton “traveled at the company’s expense aboard a private jet from White Plains, N.Y., to Detroit, Mich., and then to Fort Lauderdale, Fla., and home to White Plains, N.Y., after calling the company the previous day in desperate need of a plane.”
InfoUSA paid $18,480 in January 2004 to fly Mrs. Clinton “and her four-person entourage” to New York from New Mexico, where she had made a campaign appearance and attended a book signing. Campaign finance records show that her committee, Friends of Hillary, made a reimbursement of $2,127 for that flight. It was not clear if any other candidate committees in New Mexico also helped defray some of the cost.
How nice! Hillary gets to travel on a private chartered jet for the price of a commercial first-class ticket.
Does anyone in their right mind believe that those two deserve to be back in the White House?
Friday, May 25, 2007
Michael Gerson, writing in the Washington Post, pulls one of the old tricks of the left in his Op-Ed: Letting Fear Rule: Nativism Is a Recipe for Long-Term GOP Losses
In 1882, Congress passed and President Chester Arthur signed the Chinese Exclusion Act. Today we don't name laws as bluntly as we used to. But anti-immigrant sentiments are very much alive, this time expressed in opposition to the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007.
So opposition to illegal immigration is the same thing as racism. Never mind the fact that we who oppse the amnesty proposals are concerned about illegal immigration, not legal immigration. I have yet to hear anyone say that Latinos should be excluded from legal immigration.
For a certain kind of conservative, any attempt to grant a legal status to illegal immigrants is as welcome as salsa on their apple pie. One conservative commentator claims that the law is "going to erase America" -- an ambition even beyond Ted Kennedy's considerable powers. Another laments that "white America is in flight" -- and presumably not just to Jackson Hole or Nantucket for the summer.
It is true that most illegal aliens are Latinos, due to the fact that we share a common border with a Latin American nation that long ago implemented socialist policies of the type that the left here in the USA favor. Therefore, we are automatically racists because we oppose law-breaking by a group of people who just so happen to be Latinos.
So, if I were to say that Frank Costello and Lucky Luciano were mafia hoods, does it follow that I am prejudiced against Italians? Or if I said that OJ Simpson is a murderer that I am racist towards blacks?
What if I said that Bill Clinton is a pathological liar? Am I therefore prejudiced against my own race?
The Christian faith teaches that our common humanity is more important than our nationality. That all of us, ultimately, are strangers in this world and brothers to the bone; and all in need of amnesty. This belief does not dictate certain policies in a piece of legislation, but it does forbid rage and national chauvinism. And this is worth a reminder as well.
May I be so bold as to remind you of something, Michael? We who oppose illegal immigration are concerned about crime and lawbreakers. Every single person who has entered this country illegally has broken the law and violated our sovereignty. To grant them amnesty would be to invite 10 million or more people who do not respect our laws to live here permanently. How can we be sure they will obey our other laws?
Update: I just read from Powerline that Gerson was one of Bush's aides. This is not surprising. Bush has made some good appointments (Rumsfeld, Ashcroft, Roberts, Alito, etc.) and some terrible ones (Mineta, Gonzales, etc). It is clear that Bush is getting some terrible advice on this issue.
From the New York Times (speak of the devil) comes an Op-Ed by Nina Planck about the danger of feeding infants and small children on a vegan diet:
WHEN Crown Shakur died of starvation, he was 6 weeks old and weighed 3.5 pounds. His vegan parents, who fed him mainly soy milk and apple juice, were convicted in Atlanta recently of murder, involuntary manslaughter and cruelty.
This particular calamity — at least the third such conviction of vegan parents in four years — may be largely due to ignorance. But it should prompt frank discussion about nutrition.
I was once a vegan. But well before I became pregnant, I concluded that a vegan pregnancy was irresponsible. You cannot create and nourish a robust baby merely on foods from plants.
Those who wish to deny children a proper diet should be aware that what may work for an adult may not work for a child who is trying to grow and develop.
A vegan diet may lack vitamin B12, found only in animal foods; usable vitamins A and D, found in meat, fish, eggs and butter; and necessary minerals like calcium and zinc. When babies are deprived of all these nutrients, they will suffer from retarded growth, rickets and nerve damage.
Responsible vegan parents know that breast milk is ideal. It contains many necessary components, including cholesterol (which babies use to make nerve cells) and countless immune and growth factors. When breastfeeding isn’t possible, soy milk and fruit juice, even in seemingly sufficient quantities, are not safe substitutes for a quality infant formula.
Yet even a breast-fed baby is at risk. Studies show that vegan breast milk lacks enough docosahexaenoic acid, or DHA, the omega-3 fat found in fatty fish. It is difficult to overstate the importance of DHA, vital as it is for eye and brain development.
A vegan diet is equally dangerous for weaned babies and toddlers, who need plenty of protein and calcium. Too often, vegans turn to soy, which actually inhibits growth and reduces absorption of protein and minerals. That’s why health officials in Britain, Canada and other countries express caution about soy for babies. (Not here, though — perhaps because our farm policy is so soy-friendly.)
The vegan/animal-rights people remind me quite a bit of the global warming zealots. They are constantly spouting falsehoods and half-truths to try to prove their agenda, no matter what the facts may be. Many of them try to claim that the human digestive system is adapted only for eating plant food. That is utter hogwash. Humans are omnivores and their digestive systems are very different from those of true herbivores such as rabbits or cows.
What's even worse, there are the terrorist groups such as PETA, ELF, and ALF that are trying to force everyone to become a vegetarian.
Hat tip to small dead animals. And to the New York Times, for printing something of use for a change.
Thursday, May 24, 2007
I just recently became acquainted with Dr. Helen's blog, and what I have read has been a delight. She has written a great deal about anti-male bias in academia, a problem I am all too familiar with.
Helen has a great sense of humor:
So Hillary Clinton went to Rutgers to kiss up to--I mean support--the women's basketball team. She addressed 700 students and faculty (the actual women players were too busy to meet with her--good for them) and urged the crowd to take a "Rutgers pledge," to say, "Enough is enough, when women or minorities or the powerless are marginalized or degraded."
My thoughts: As a woman, I would rather be referred to as a "nappy-headed ho" by Don Imus than called "powerless" by Hillary Clinton.
She is one fine nappy-headed ho.
Tuesday, May 22, 2007
I always read Dr. Sowell's articles with interest, because he has a unique insight into the problems that face modern society. In a recent article, he adds his thoughts to the current debate regarding the proposed amnesty to illegal aliens:
The big talking point of those who want to legalize the illegal immigrants currently in the United States is to say that it is "unrealistic" to round up and deport 12 million people.
Back in 1986 it was "unrealistic" to round up and deport the 3 million illegal immigrants in the United States then. So they were given amnesty -- honestly labeled, back then -- which is precisely why there are now 12 million illegal immigrants. As a result of the current amnesty bill -- not honestly labeled, this time -- will it be "unrealistic" to round up and deport 40 million or 50 million illegal immigrants in the future?
The idiots in Washington want to do the same thing they did back in 1986, regardless of the fact that the amnesty of 1986 only made the problem worse, not better.
And Thomas hits the nail on the head again, regarding the sincerity of the amnesty proponents about enforcing our borders:
Incidentally, remember that 700-mile fence that Congress authorized last year? Only two miles have been built. That should tell us something about how seriously they are going to enforce other border security provisions in the current bill.
Sunday, May 20, 2007
Not content to have ruined Northern Ireland, the marxist-terrorist group Sinn Fein is also running for office in the Republic of Ireland. Ruth Edwards writes about them today in the Independent:
What kind of deal would they want anyway? Having received a hammering for their plans to raise corporation tax to a level that would drive most businesses out of the country, they've taken refuge in uncosted economic policies: medical cards for all children, maximum class sizes of 20, 70,000 affordable homes and so on.
Every political party in Ireland would like to endorse such policies, but they know the money has to come from somewhere: the Sinn Fein leadership still inhabits a dependency culture that views the British treasury as Santa Claus. The richest political party in Ireland, it's raised millions from Irish-America, and many more from robbing banks, smuggling, fraud and selling know-how to Farc guerrillas in exchange for narco-dollars. Of course they don't understand the value of money. How can we expect them to?
Apart from minor deals (like getting rid of the Offences against the State Act), Sinn Fein will focus on making a drive for a united Ireland the major goal of Irish foreign policy, thus making reconciliation with unionists impossible. These old-fashioned nationalists want to keep their old-fashioned northern nationalist constituency happy, regardless of the consequences. McGuinness will keep laughing and joking with Ian Paisley until after the dust settles in the South, and then it will be business as usual.
In local councils up north, Sinn Fein has serious form: any time nationalists and unionists seem to be getting on too well, they wreck the peace with a motion calling for a united Ireland, the erection of a memorial to a local IRA killer or a demand for parity for the Irish language. Hardened by hatred, Sinn Fein politicians thrive on confrontation. As Fianna Fail will soon find out if it does a deal at national level, these are bedfellows who promise you a quiet night, but end up taking the duvet off you and kicking you out of bed.
Sinn Fein deny all this, but they are, of course, propagandists of genius. Look how they are airbrushing out of history the 2,000 the IRA murdered, while raising hell internationally over every corpse they can make political capital out of.
As I listen to Adams talk about making the prevention of suicide a priority, I think of those children who killed themselves because they had been tortured and mutilated by the IRA brutes who ran (and still run) their ghettoes. As he demands a rights-based culture, I think of Joe Rafferty, an innocent who had his most basic right - the right to life - removed by the IRA in Dublin in 2005 because he had annoyed one of its thugs. His sister, Esther Uzell, supported by other victims like Ann McCabe and the McCartney sisters, is standing in Dublin South-East to draw attention to what lies behind the smiling mask of Sinn Fein.
The Republic of Ireland is doing well. Sinn Fein will bring it trouble. Bad, bad trouble.
Ireland needs Sinn Fein about as much as Israel needs Hamas.
Friday, May 18, 2007
Michelle Malkin has more on the con job that is being laid on the American people:
Does this empty promise of the amnesty/deportation trade-off sound familiar? Why, yes, yes it does. Let me boil it down to fundamentals: Bush-Kennedy amnesty is the J. Wellington Wimpy plan:
"I'll gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today."
Amnesty is the hamburger. Enforcement is the payment that will never come. I've reported this reality over and over and over and over and over again. All the leaked memos and graphs and analysis in the world, however, cannot sum up the deportation/enforcement/border security sham--and the mess at DHS--more clearly than the reality expressed by an illegal alien quoted by the Associated Press today:
"If I get deported and need to cross the border again, that's not a problem," he said.
It was true in 1986. It's as true as ever in 2007. Wimpy will get his amnesty burgers and the Beltway fools who keep deluding themselves about the false promise of immigration enforcement will be left empty-handed. Again.
The 1986 law failed because (1) The federal government has not been enforcing the law against hiring illegal aliens, and (2) The amnesty given at that time gave hope to illegals who subsequently came that there would be another amnesty.
After reading the blogosphere this morning, I can't help but be encouraged by the indignation coming from both the left and the right concerning the proposed blanket amnesty of illegal aliens. Kathryn Jean Lopez at NRO has some good quotes:
Mark Levin, on Wednesday night, implored: “Do these Republicans ever learn? . . . Do they understand that a majority of the American people, whether they’re Democrats, Republicans, or nothing, have had it up to here with illegal immigration and they don’t want to subsidize it?”
And furthermore, I want to know if the advocates of amnesty will continue to support the racist, so-called 'affirmative action' preferences for Latinos? If the USA is such a bad place for them, why do so many of them continue to flood into this country, sometimes even risking a long trek through the desert with inadequate water?
If Bush and his fellow idiots in Washington give amnesty to illegal aliens, it will cause millions more to pour into the country. And since they are given preferences over whites for college admissions, hiring, promotions, and government contracts, then whites will be pushed further and further back to the end of a longer and longer line.
I am sick and tired of hearing the lame argument that the illegals are only taking jobs that American citizens will not take. One of the main reasons why Americans don't want those jobs is because the wages are so low. And why are the wages low? Because there is an unending supply of unskilled labor coming across the border from Mexico.
The bill currently being formulated in the Senate would grant blanket amnesty to all illegal aliens with its absurd Z-visa. See Michelle Malkin for details.
If you care about the USA, write your senator and ask him or her to vote against the bill.
Thursday, May 17, 2007
I strongly recommend reading Gateway Pundit. He has an excellent posat on the Bush-Blair meeting:
And, years from now, the world will look back and two giants will stand out.- Two men who were unfaltering in purpose and mission.- Two men and their allies who took out two of the most evil regimes in history.- Two men who, under incredible duress and constant abuse, freed 50,000,000 million suffering people, built democracies, and made the world more safe.
The sign of greatness is to stand up for what you believe, even when others are calling you a stupid, warmongering pawn of Halliburton who can't pronounce 'nukylar'.
Some of Blair's words at the conference:
Well, thank you very much, Mr. President, and thank you, as ever, for the kindness and graciousness of your welcome to me here at the White House. And thank you also for the strength of your leadership over the past few years. You have been a strong leader at a time when the world needed strong leadership. You've been unyielding and unflinching, and determined in the fight that we face together. And I thank you for that. And I also would take this opportunity of saying that I believe that the relationship between the United States of America and Britain is a relationship that is in the interests of our two countries and in the interests of the peace and stability of the wider world. And sometimes it's a controversial relationship -- at least over in my country. But I've never doubted its importance. I've never doubted that it's based on principle, on shared values, and on a shared purpose, which is to make our world a better, more free, more just place in which people of all nations and all faiths can live. So I would like to thank you for the strength also of that relationship over these past few years.
Wednesday, May 16, 2007
The global warming cadre remind me a lot of islam. Anyone who dares question their orthodoxy is in trouble:
University of Washington climate scientist Mark Albright was dismissed on March 12 from his position as associate state climatologist, just weeks after exposing false claims of shrinking glaciers in the Cascade Mountains.
Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels (D) had asserted in a February 7 Seattle Times editorial, "the average snow pack in the Cascades has declined 50 percent since 1950 and will be cut in half again in 30 years if we don't start addressing the problems of climate change now."
Albright knew from his research that the Cascade Mountains snow pack had not declined anywhere near what Nickels asserted, and that the snow pack has actually been growing in recent years.
Albright sent emails to his colleagues informing them of the factual data.
At most, according to reliable datasets, the Cascade Mountains snow pack declined by 35 percent between 1950 and 2000. Moreover, even that number is misleading. Nickels and other global warming alarmists deliberately choose 1950 as the "baseline" for Cascade Mountains snow pack because 1950 was a year of abnormally heavy snowfall resulting in an uncharacteristically extensive snow pack.
Albright noted in his emails the current snow pack is only marginally lower than the long-term average since 1943. Moreover, the Cascade Mountains snow pack has been growing since the late 1970s.
I am an economist, not a climatologist. But I note some important facts about the climate change debate that lead me to believe, as does the Anchoress that the global warming zealots are not being sincere. First is the fact that Al Gore has two big houses that use an exorbitant amount of energy and that he jets around the world while expecting the little people to walk or ride bicycles. If he is not taking the matter seriously, as shown by his actions rather than by his words, then why should I? Second is the fact that much of the arguments made by the global warming advocates consist of outright lies, half-truths, and data-mining as done by Mayor Nickles in this example. Wasn't that 'clever' of him to choose 1950 as his base year, knowing that that was a year of exceptionally large snowfall?
Tuesday, May 15, 2007
Monday, May 14, 2007
In an earlier post, I talked about how Rijkman Groenink, Chief Executive of ABN Amro bank in the Netherlands, has accepted the lower of two offers made for the bank. Now we hear that the chickens are coming home to roost for Groenink:
Separately, Rijkman Groenink, ABN chief executive, on Monday withdrew as a candidate for nomination to the supervisory board of Royal Dutch Shell.
Mr Groenink, who faces calls to resign from ABN, said he wanted to “fully dedicate” his attention to the bank. ABP, the giant European pension fund, indicated last week it was considering voting against his appointment to the Shell board at the energy giant's annual meeting on Tuesday.
Given two offers, one of which is substantially higher than the other, why would anyone in his right mind take the lower of the two? Clearly, the lower offer from Barclays has something in it for Groenink. Perhaps something we don't know about.
This is a problem in the USA as well as in Europe. Often the management of a company will make decisions in their own personal interest, rather than the best interest of the company. In such a situation, it is the right of the stockholders to throw out the management. The stockholders of Shell are wise to keep this self-serving jackass off their board.
Sunday, May 13, 2007
Sources say that the Canadians will undergo a drastic acquisition programme:
OTTAWA – A key federal cabinet committee has given the go-ahead for a plan to construct six corvette-sized Arctic patrol vessels, The Canadian Press has learned.
The cabinet priorities and planning committee approved the program to build the 100-metre-long, 6,000-tonne warships within the last 10 days, according to defence and political sources.
The patrol vessels, which are almost as large as the navy's frigates, are a step down from the armed Arctic icebreakers that the Conservatives promised in the last election campaign and will likely not be in service before 2015.
Nevertheless, said one political source "it'll be good for the military, good for Canadian industry and the Arctic is critical to our national interest."
Cabinet is said to have authorized a two-year definition phase in which the scope of the shipbuilding project will be laid out. Much of the cost of the new vessels – about $300 million apiece – is being put off until later years.
The vessels, which will be capable of smashing through "fresh ice," are expected to be based on the Royal Norwegian Navy's Svalbard class design, said a military source. That particular type vessel is armed with a 57-millimetre deck gun, missile-launching tubes and also has a helicopter pad.
How are those poor Canadians going to afford this? Won't they quadruple their defense budget?
Friday, May 11, 2007
As I have posted before, Hatemonger's Quarterly is one of my favorite blogs. He has a great post today, that echoes my own experiences in academia:
Imagine you’re a miserable academic (pardon the redundancy) who works on such important topics as greengrocers in the medieval world or Hungarian breast-feeding. As you have yet to score tenure, you work plenty of hours on all sorts of professorial tasks: organizing lectures; grading papers; researching for unreadable articles; sitting on useless and thankless committees; &c.
As you might well have guessed, you’re not too keen on some of your students—most of them, actually. Despite the purportedly rigorous standards of your purportedly competitive home institution, the average undergraduate at your college is about as motivated as a corpse. And a lazy corpse at that.
Too busy working on making their livers resemble brown bananas, these students simply can’t trouble themselves to do the sorts of things one expects of average undergrads. You know, like attend class, stay awake, make a dent on your homework, study, and not rape anyone.
I can relate to all that. I have had students who would come to class only once per week, or even less. And they didn't see anything wrong with that. The only time they saw a red light was when they got their grades.
Ah, but these kids sure can complain. They spend about five minutes composing their five-page papers the night before they’re due, and thus they read like the work of an illiterate immigrant. But this doesn’t stop them from bitching about their ineluctably lousy grade. If these lowlifes spent half as much time on their work as they did on their kvetching, they might actually earn decent scores. But, of course, they don’t care that much.
How many times have I experienced this!? Students who would have aced the course if they had put as much effort into studying as they did into bitching. I recall one student who got a low grade on a writing assignment because he didn't follow my instructions at all. He emailed me and told me that it was necessary to have at least a 3.0 GPA to become an army officer. He wantedme to "understand that". I emailed him back and asked him if his superiors in the army would want him to follow instructions?
Hatemonger has a great idea:
And this, dear reader, is where our fantastic potential product comes in. We call it the Professor’s Revenge Service, and we’re sure it’ll be bigger in academic circles than Foucault was in the 1980s.
So, what’s the Professor’s Revenge Service, and how does it work? Well, if a particular student drives you bonkers, all you must do is call up the Professor’s Revenge Service and pay our flat-rate fee. We at the service do all the rest.
That is to say, we agree to videotape your horrid student on his first post-graduation day at his first post-graduation job. We’ll send you a high-quality DVD of your former student in action at his new miserable occupation. You’ll take great pleasure as you watch him, in the inimitable words of Tom Lehrer, slide down the razor blade of life.
Thursday, May 10, 2007
Now, from Hamline University in Minnesota, we learn of how student Troy Scheffler has been suspended because he complained about Hamline's ban on concealed weapons and also about the university's racist 'affirmative action' program:
Troy fired off his response: Counseling wouldn't make students feel safer, he argued. They needed protection. And the best way to provide it would be for the university to lift its recently implemented prohibition against concealed weapons.
"Ironically, according to a few VA Tech forums, there are plenty of students complaining that this wouldn't have happened if the school wouldn't have banned their permits a few months ago," Scheffler wrote. "I just don't understand why leftists don't understand that criminals don't care about laws; that is why they're criminals. Maybe this school will reconsider its repression of law-abiding citizens' rights."
After stewing over the issue for two days, Scheffler sent a second email to University President Linda Hanson, reiterating his condemnation of the concealed carry ban and launching into a flood of complaints about campus diversity initiatives, which he considered reverse discrimination.
"In fact, three out of three students just in my class that are 'minorities' are planning on returning to Africa and all three are getting a free education on my dollar," Scheffler wrote with thinly veiled ire. "Please stop alienating the students who are working hard every day to pay their tuition. Maybe you can instruct your staff on sensitivity towards us 'privileged white folk.'"
As is well known, leftists can't stand it when someone challenges their dogma. They returned fire at Troy in no small way:
On April 23, Scheffler received a letter informing him he'd been placed on interim suspension. To be considered for readmittance, he'd have to pay for a psychological evaluation and undergo any treatment deemed necessary, then meet with the dean of students, who would ultimately decide whether Scheffler was fit to return to the university.
The consequences were severe. Scheffler wasn't allowed to participate in a final group project in his course on Human Resources Management, which will have a big impact on his final grade. Even if he's reinstated, the suspension will go on his permanent record, which could hurt the aspiring law student.
"'Oh, he's the crazy guy that they called the cops on.' How am I supposed to explain that to the Bar Association?" Scheffler asks.
He has also suffered embarrassment. Scheffler obeyed the campus ban and didn't go to class, but his classmate, Kenny Bucholz, told him a police officer was stationed outside the classroom. "He had a gun and everything," Bucholz says. Dean Julian Schuster appeared at the beginning of class to explain the presence of the cop, citing discipline problems with a student. Although Schuster never mentioned Scheffler by name, it didn't take a scholar to see whose desk was empty.
If this country were run by the likes of Linda Hanson or Kristen Murtaugh, it would be a totalitarian dictatorship with no civil liberties whatsoever.
I tried calling Linda Hanson, to get her thoughts on the matter. Her secretary said that she was in a meeting all day. Her phone number is 651-523-2022.
Hat tip to Protein Wisdom.
Wednesday, May 09, 2007
Animal-rights 'activists' are some of the most messed-up people in the world. And now we hear of the ultimate depravity:
ATLANTA (AP) - A vegan couple were sentenced Wednesday to life in prison for the death of their malnourished 6-week-old baby boy, who was fed a diet largely consisting of soy milk and apple juice.
Superior Court Judge L.A. McConnell imposed the mandatory sentences on Jade Sanders, 27, and Lamont Thomas, 31. Their son, Crown Shakur, weighed just 3 1/2 pounds when he died of starvation on April 25, 2004.
The couple were found guilty May 2 of malice murder, felony murder, involuntary manslaughter and cruelty to children. A jury deliberated about seven hours before returning the guilty verdicts.
Defense lawyers said the first-time parents did the best they could while adhering to the lifestyle of vegans, who typically use no animal products. They said Sanders and Thomas did not realize the baby, who was born at home, was in danger until minutes before he died.
But prosecutors said the couple intentionally neglected their child and refused to take him to the doctor even as the baby's body wasted away.
I hope no one is fooled for one second that these 'activists' are nice people. They are nothing but scum.
Tuesday, May 08, 2007
Jonathan Freedland, writing in the Guardian, laments the recent defeat of Segolene Royal in the French elections. I was also sad to see her lose, although for different reasons. But Mr. Freedland sees a silver lining in this cloud:
Yet there are some signs, tentative for now but noticeable all the same, that movement is under way even in the US, inside the belly of the capitalist beast. They come partly in reaction to the ever worsening state of inequality in that country. You can pick your stat, ranging from the claim that just two men - Bill Gates and Warren Buffett - have as much money between them as 30% of the entire American people......
America's politicians have begun to notice. The Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards speaks of the "two Americas". Barack Obama tells audiences that not only is caring for the poor an American tradition, but that "those with money, those with influence, those with control over how resources are allocated in our society, are very protective of their interests, and they can rationalise infinitely the reasons why they should have more money and power than anyone else".
Mr. Freedland mentions the great wealth of Messrs Gates and Buffett, but fails to note that these 'awakened' politicians: Edwards and Obama, are also very wealthy. Although not in the Gates/Buffett class, they are both certainly wealthier than 99.9% of all Americans.
There is a big difference in the manner in which these two pairs of men acquired their wealth. Bill Gates was a pioneer in the microcomputer revolution, building the world's most successful software company from scratch. He earned his wealth by offering people value for their money. Moreover, he has compensated his employees quite well, thousands of current and former Microsoft employees are millionaires.
Warren Buffett built his wealth through savvy investing. Using the vehicle of Berkshire Hathaway, which is essentially a closed-end mutual fund, Buffett repeatedly selected companies with winning strategies. By doing so he provided a valuable service to the US economy. His stock picks ensured that capital flowed to some of the most efficient and productive companies.
I cannot heap such praise on Edwards nor Obama. Both men earned their fortunes by acting as parasites on the US economy, not by providing value as Gates and Buffett did. Edwards earned his fortune as a trial attorney, winning huge legal fees through medical malpractice suits, thereby driving up the cost of health care for people who are not wealthy.
Obama became wealthy by trading political favors for money, often through complicated schemes like the Clintons did. In a previous post to this blog, I linked to the story of how Barack made money from Chicago slumlords who were supposed to provide housing for the poor, but actually ended up cheating people.
Thus, there are two types of wealthy people. Those who provide value to their customers and those who act as parasites. In the parasite group we can include Bill and Hillary Clinton, who traded political favors for money, sending their daughter to elite private schools like Sidwell Friends and Stanford, while the children of the poor are confined to ineffective and unsafe public schools.
Unfortunately, I must include President Bush in the parasite class too. He had little success as a businessman but then traded on his father's status as vice-president and then president to become wealthy. Fortunately he put a stop to it when he became governor of Texas and has also refrained from graft and corruption as president.
The problem is that simpletons like Freedland can't understand the difference between a Gates and an Obama. If the USA were run like the former Soviet Union, people like Obama and Edwards would be members of the 'nomenklatura', the privileged class, whereas people like Gates and Buffett would be imprisoned or executed as dissidents.
Get a load of this:
Reid A. Bryson holds the 30th PhD in Meteorology granted in the history of American education. Emeritus Professor and founding chairman of the University of Wisconsin Department of Meteorology—now the Department of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences—in the 1970s he became the first director of what’s now the UW’s Gaylord Nelson Institute of Environmental Studies. He’s a member of the United Nations Global 500 Roll of Honor—created, the U.N. says, to recognize “outstanding achievements in the protection and improvement of the environment.” He has authored five books and more than 230 other publications and was identified by the British Institute of Geographers as the most frequently cited climatologist in the world.
And what does he have to say about the theory that human-induced CO2 emissions are causing global warming?
Q: Could you rank the things that have the most significant impact and where would you put carbon dioxide on the list?
A: Well let me give you one fact first. In the first 30 feet of the atmosphere, on the average, outward radiation from the Earth, which is what CO2 is supposed to affect, how much [of the reflected energy] is absorbed by water vapor? In the first 30 feet, 80 percent, okay?
Q: Eighty percent of the heat radiated back from the surface is absorbed in the first 30 feet by water vapor…
A: And how much is absorbed by carbon dioxide? Eight hundredths of one percent. One one-thousandth as important as water vapor. You can go outside and spit and have the same effect as doubling carbon dioxide.
Shhhhhh.... don't tell the lefties.... they'll probably try to outlaw spitting.
Hat tip to small dead animals.