Saturday, April 30, 2005
The Abdullah Azzam Brigades said Saturday's violence was in revenge for the arrests of thousands of people in Sinai after the October bombings there. The group claimed responsibility for those attacks as well.
Hmm, if their goal is not to be arrested, maybe these idiots should not attack anyone. Problem solved!
Jennifer Wilbanks has been found. Well, I guess she really found herself. This is the woman from Duluth, GA that went missing last week after she went jogging. Her wedding was planned for today, Saturday, and it was to be a pretty big wedding. They had 600 people on the guest list, and 14 groomsmen and bridesmaids. She apparently freaked out earlier in the week, went running, and never came home. Instead, she hoped a bus to Las Vegas. Amazingly, she made it all the way to Albuquerque on only $40. Impressive. About 1:30am this morning, she called 911 saying that she was outside a 7-Eleven and didn’t know where she was. That she was kidnapped by a Hispanic man and a white woman in a blue van. And that they dropped her off in Albuquerque. Not true. A few hours later, she broke down during an interview with the FBI and confessed to running away.
It’s nice that she’s alive and that she wasn’t really kidnapped. And I guess this is her way of coping with stress. But really, how selfish is this? To just run away and never call. All you had to do is call one person and say “Hey, I’m freaking out right now and I’m heading out West. Don’t worry about me, I’ll be fine. Just let everyone know I’m okay.” The town of Duluth would have saved money. The state of Georgia would have saved money. And your family wouldn’t be scared to death that you were kidnapped, raped, and killed. Just a little common courtesy would have gone a long way.
Remember that chick from Madison, WI that pulled this same stunt? She was told that she’ll have to repay the money that was spent searching for her. I think that makes sense. Because you failed to be a decent human being, you will have to pay for your mistakes and the strain you put on others.
At this point, the main feature of the Castro-Chavez plan is for Venezuela to give away oil and goods to Cuba, in exchange for, uhh, hmm..... Well, that part is unclear, although it looks like Cuba could probably spare a few cigars and doctors--that's all they make. Oh, I forgot, they also have a lot of classic cars, largely because no one there has been able to afford anything newer since the 1950s, except the Communist leadership, of course. Given the huge economic advantages of the plan, there is little doubt that other nations in the region will be lining up to get in on the deal.
With the Castro-Chavez plan in place, it looks like the Venezuelan people have a lot to look forward to. Although 80% of them live in poverty, they will have the satisfaction of being Cuba's greatest benefactor, and can be certain that this arrangement will be memorialized in huge, pompus ceremonies held by the Communist elite of both countries. When times get tough, all the Venezuelan worker will have to do is think, "If just one more army uniform can be put on a Cuban soldier's back, it was all worth it."
Thursday, April 28, 2005
Quick background, according the lawsuit: In January, 2004, seven Arab men go into a Denny’s at 2am. They are seated, given menus, and ordered. Their food had not come an hour after ordering, so one of them goes to the counter to inquire. The manager on duty allegedly says “bin Laden is the manager of the kitchen” and “bin Laden is in charge”. One of the Arabs question the manager as to why he used the name Bin Laden, and the manager replied “We don’t serve bin Ladens here! You guys, out!” So the Arab gentlemen eventually left. No complaint was ever filed.
Now, while I would claim myself to be a decent constitutional scholar, I don’t know much about civil rights law. So if someone could clue me in as to the legality of this manager’s actions, that’d be great. Because while it might be wrong, in a moral sense, could it possibly be illegal? I was under the impression that most, if not all, business have the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason. Am I way off base here? So what if the manager called the group of Arab men “bin Ladens” and then told them to leave? I can’t imagine myself in that situation wanting to stay at the restaurant.
Maybe Denny’s should send these guys some coupons for a free breakfast or something. I really don’t think that they deserve $4 million each for their inconvenience. Then again, it did take them nearly a year and a half to file any type of complaint, so the veracity of their claim can be challenged.
Maybe Milwaukee should take some steps to implement similar measures. Have you ever been to the Milwaukee Public Library on Wisconsin and 8th? Insane! I don’t feel comfortable leaving my backpack with my legal pad sitting on a table while I go have a cigarette. It probably won’t be there when I get back. That’s ridiculous. And it’s quite amusing to walk around the main floor and look at the fine gentlemen getting an edumacation from the picture books. Or some of the guys “reading” a book that is upside-down. It’s a freaking homeless shelter. And it doesn’t help that some charitable organizations set up free food outside of the library. That’s aweful. You’re simply promoting the library as a homeless shelter. Really, if you haven’t been down to the MPL, you should check it out sometime. But leave your Ipod at home.
The charge? Sen. Coburn is accused of earning too much money in his home state, where he delivers babies when he's not working in the Senate. In fact, Sen. Coburn is so dastardly in his corrupt behavior that he even made continuing to deliver babies a campaign promise. Well, the U.S. Senate isn't having that, so it did the only thing it could under the circumstances: Charge Coburn with ethics violations.
Can you believe this? Apparently, Sen. Coburn is extremely unpopular with both parties in the Senate because he has a reputation for challenging huge spending bills, which, as you know, are the main reason our taxes are so high; they're also the main vehicle for most Senators to show that they've done something for their campaign contributors. When Coburn wouldn't follow the routine, the truly corrupt Senators worked to get him out of the chamber. He's no good for them.
Of course, if we had a real media in this country, this story, and not the Tom DeLay story, would be front-page news. Unfortunately, that isn't the case, so we can just sit back and listen to the baseless allegations against DeLay while a really good politician is kicked out of office. What a shame.
Wednesday, April 27, 2005
First, the United Nations annually saves America taxpayer dollars byThis guy is basically saying that it's our responsibility to remedy every crisis in the "international community," so we should be glad that we belong to the U.N. because it helps us carry out these responsibilities. He even goes so far as to say that the U.N. "saves America (sic) taxpayer dollars" by helping to shoulder the costs of getting involved in various conflicts across the globe. Again, this assumes that we have a duty to pay for every conflict the U.N. intercedes in.
helping to share the burdens of keeping the peace with other nations.
Right now, the United Nations oversees 18 peace operations in war-torn nations around the globe.
Would America wish to pacify and pay for all those problematic hotspots all by itself?
Second, the United Nations takes over rescue missions when natural
disasters strike, as happened recently with the tsunami in the Indian
Would Washington want to assume the responsibility alone to clean up after such horrific calamities?
Third, even in Iraq, where the United Nations once balked, it has since
then aided the United States in setting up an interim government, supervising recent Iraqi elections and assisting those elected to write a new constitution.
Would the Bush administration prefer no involvement by the United
Fourth, for its internal flaws, the United Nations has usually acted to
remedy itself. Most recently, it created an investigative body under
the direction of a leading member of the American establishment, Paul Volcker, to probe the oil-for-food scandal.
Doesn't this sound like someone trying to sell AmWay? Like AmWay, the U.N. has built itself up around the idea that the cost of membership is a non-factor in evaluating whether the join (or stay in). AmWay requires members to pay an exorbitant fee at the outset before the "savings" on its wholesale products kick in. The U.N. does the same thing, making the U.S. pay a disproportionate share of the price of both membership fees and enforcement actions before providing the "benefit" of a forum for subjecting the U.S. to the international equivalent of Festivus' "Airing of the Grievances."
Then, when it really matters, like our involvement in Iraq did, the U.N. sits on the sidelines pouting because its corrupt officials (or their sons) won't be able to afford a chalet in the Swiss Alps once the U.N.'s part of the "enforcement" action is over. And when their cover is blown, the U.N. is incapable of getting to the bottom of the problem without an independent U.S. investigation.
On second thought, maybe the U.N. really isn't like AmWay. Even though it's expensive and overpriced, AmWay at least provides something useful. I don't think the same can be said for the U.N.
Here's my theory: The frogs are bloating from drinking too much water. They are drinking too much water because they are thirsty. They are thirsty because they are hot. And the reason they are so hot is due to global warming.
What else could it be?
Tuesday, April 26, 2005
Authorities said Gregg Luttman made an obscene gesture at the clerk, cursed staffers and nearly hit an employee with his truck. When police tried to arrest him, Luttman allegedly scuffled with an officer and kicked out the back window of a cruiser.
I guess he really took "Have it Your Way" seriously.
I hate to think this, but I would bet money that some idiot out there will try to copy this when a relative dies. As long as they don't get in any trouble, no one would ever know. Certainly not the government!
Monday, April 25, 2005
But the new blog isn't just for celebrities, there is plenty of room for the "masses" as well:
But unlike the Drudge Report, the Huffington Post will be interactive, offering news as well as commentary from famous people and allowing the masses to comment too, although not always directly with the celebs.
Okay, time to get serious. First, the Drudge Report is not a blog, it's a news site (sometimes called a "collector") that either links to other news sites or provides original reporting. Second, almost all real blogs allow the "masses" to comment. Because the Drudge Report is not a blog, it doesn't offer commentary. Comparing a blog to the Drudge Report is like comparing an op-ed page to a front-page story. Using that analogy, I can see why the NYT would blur the two together.
Not only that, but I just love how the NYT uses the term "masses" and implies that the idiot celebrities' ghostwritten contributions to the Huffington Report will be somehow superior to anything you might hear coming from Jay Leno's couch or an overblown Oscar's acceptance speech. When the topics become serious, the lefty celebrities just sound stupid, although stupid in a profound-sounding way.
Sunday, April 24, 2005
Friday, April 22, 2005
I'm surprised they bother to teach debate in Cuba. Because speaking up and debating will likely land any debater in jail there, teaching debate in Cuba is something like teaching crack-smoking here. Not a good idea.
And who is Castro to criticize Bush. He has never run for office, and never has had to debate anyone. This reminds me of any number of blowhard sports commentators, who breathlessly criticize the players without ever having played the game.
Brought to you by the fine people of Racine, Wisconsin.
But really, what kind of parenting failure do we have here? How have you not relayed to your child that it is not okay to attack your principal with a wooden pole? Kinda pathetic if you ask me. But hey, maybe that’s how they do things down in the Chicago suburbs.
Tuesday, April 19, 2005
This is a familiar mantra for most, if not all, liberals. For instance, Al Gore is a so-called champion of public education, and against school choice, while he sends his own kids to the private schools. John Kerry is a supporter of public transit, but would never take a bus, owns several SUVs and recreationally uses an $8,000 bicycle. In short, the limousine liberals are constantly demanding that the public finance their social engineering projects (socialized education, short-rail systems, affirmative action), while being completely exempt from the consequences of these programs.
Click the above link for an excellent analysis of this phenomenon.
Monday, April 18, 2005
I am still trying to figure out what Tom DeLay did (other than be successful) to get so much press coverage based on his ethics. The trumped-up accusations against DeLay are based on the weakest of ethics violations, such as paying family members to work on his campaign, which many of his Democrat accusers have done as well. Despite the criminal tone set by the media, DeLay has not been charged criminally or formally censured by anybody.
Back in the old days, the media would actually put a story like this in context, and allow the embattled politician a chance to set the record straight. Because the liberal-dominated media prefers that DeLay remain "under fire" from "several fronts" (two liberal Republicans = one front), DeLay had to actually make his own publication to explain what's going on in an accurate light.
And the Communist newspaper editors wonder why they're readership is declining.
Sunday, April 17, 2005
The mainstream press is placing all of its hopes on so-called "moderate" Republicans, hoping that they will vote against Bush on a variety of issues. Hoping to sow the seeds of dissention, ABC is reporting that a "top Senate Republican," Senator Chuck Hagel, doesn't like some of the things he's heard about U.N. Ambassador nominee John Bolton. Apparently, one of Hagel's staffers worked with Bolton, and said that Bolton has an intimidating management style, which makes him hard to get along with. Sen. Hagel hasn't said that he would vote against Bolton's nomination, just that he finds the allegations disturbing, which could possibly lead to him voting against the nomination if he heard too many more negatives.
In the same article, Democratic Senator Joe Biden is quoted at length about his own problems with Bolton:
"John Bolton's strong and in some areas very respected ideological view of
foreign policy intelligence are admirable, but they're not admirable for someone
running a Cabinet-level position, one of the largest embassies in the world,
which is essentially, the embassy of the United States at the U.N.," Sen. Joseph
Biden, D-Del. said.
"What happens when our ambassador has to stand up and make the case on
intelligence relating to Iraq and North Korea?" Biden added. "Do you think John
Bolton is going to be believed? … I think it matters a great deal whether or not
they have credibility as we move into these most dangerous moments with Korea
and with Iran."
Apparently Sen. Biden thinks that "credibility" comes with being "believed." Bolton once said that the top 10 floors of the U.N. could be chopped off and nothing in the world would change.
That sounds pretty believable.
Democrats must stop 'speaking down to voters,' Dean says, USA Today
Howard Dean, current chairperson of the Democratic National Committee, has accused Republicans of "grandstanding" in the Terri Schiavo ordeal. His party plans on running ads in the 2006 and 2008 elections that include an image of Tom DeLay and language suggesting that DeLay is trying to "decide whether you die or not."
Dean went on to accuse Republicans of trying to impose a "theocracy" that "tells people what to do," rather than allowing people to consult with their own "high powers" when deciding what decisions to make.
Within the same week, Dean hypocritically encouraged Democrats to "stop speaking down to voters" on issues such as abortion and the degeracy of popular culture. Dean went so far as to say that the Democrats need to be "concerned" with the fact that most people are "worried about what's on television."
If my memory serves me correctly, the Democrats were pretty intent on making sure a trial judge and Terri's scumbag husband had the final say on whether Terri Schiavo "died or not," not the Republicans, Terri's real family, or Terri Schiavo. All the Republicans tried to do was to provide extra judicial protections to ensure that Terri's right to live was observed, and that there was adequate evidence to suggest that she had actually "decided" to die of starvation/dehydration in advance--which is very doubtful.
If Terri were a clearly guilty death row inmate, the Democrats would have held candlelight vigils in an effort to protect her right to due process. But since she was a symbol for their death-loving euthanasia movement, they had other plans--plans to just skip the hearing and kill her. Just try to sell that in 2006, Mr. Dean.
Further, the Democrats' "concern" about what's on television is not going to con the average voter into thinking that they actually care about family issues. These are the same people who would call strip clubs and child pornography free speech, worthy of First Amendment protections. These are also the same people who would defend partial-birth abortion to the end, claiming it's a constitutional right. Are we really supposed to believe they give a damn about sex and violence on TV? Notice the fact that Dean doesn't even say he will do something about the problem. Instead, a la Tom Daschle, he will show "concern." What B.S.
Prepare to lose, my liberal friends. Prepare to lose. Yeeeeeaaaaaah!
Saturday, April 16, 2005
Do you remember that South Park episode where all the guys, young and old alike, were trying to out-metrosexual each other? It got so bad that the kids were wearing mesh shirts and everyone was talking about the "product" they used in their hair. Eventually, the womenfolk said enough is enough, and demanded that the men grow a pair and become, uhh, men again.
Well, it looks like South Park was on to something. The evidence is in, and it shows that women don't want a guy who knows more about designer jeans and hair "product" than they do. Shockingly enough, they seem to be trading in metro-man for his masculine counterpart.
What a surprise.
Friday, April 15, 2005
Warning: Video contains nudity, violence, and extreme stupidity.
In a move that only a sociology professor could applaud, the Center Against Racism, a Swedish civil rights organization with nothing better to do, is screaming and whining that an ice cream bar named "nogger black" is racist. An advertising poster includes the name in graffiti, which the group claims lampoons "black culture." According to the ice cream company, the term "nogger" has been used for 10 years to describe its nougat-based ice cream and the term "black" refers to liquorice.
It's funny that these idiots can't even see that by bringing such a ridiculous charge they are the ones lampooning black culture. Call me naive, but before reading this I didn't know that graffiti was a black cultural activity. Maybe its these so-called activists who are the real racists!
The "news" agency in North Korea has produced a puff piece discussing the many gifts given to Communist dictator Kim Il Sung, father of current dictator Kim Jong Il, during his years of rule. The following luminaries are included as gift-givers:
On various occasions he also received gifts carrying best wishes from heads of
political parties, states and governments, famous political and public figures,
businessmen and individual figures. They include Chairman Mao Zedong, Vietnamese President Ho Chi Minh, Cuban President Fidel Castro Ruz, Egyptian President Mohamed Hosni Mubarak, Cambodian Great King Norodom Sihanouk, the general secretary of the Central Committee of the Spanish Communist Party, the general secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Portugal, the
general secretary of the Irish Workers' Party and Former U.S. President
Jimmy Carter and his wife.
This is your legacy, Commrade Carter! I'm sure the former president will be thrilled to see his name included in this cast of goons.
Check out this article about the college admissions staff. Very interesting.
Bill Clinton was treated as a hero this week in Philadelphia for his role in providing a massive corporate welfare package to Norweigan shipbuilder Kvaerner, which agreed to build several ships on American soil in exchange for 400 million dollars in taxpayer-provided funds. Sounds like a great deal.
Clinton was treated like a rock star at the event, as several workers stopped just short of throwing their underwear after his speech:
A mob of workers, most of them men, surrounded Clinton like star-struck
teenaged girls clamoring for his autograph and a handshake, delaying his
departure for nearly an hour.
But it wasn't only Hollywood on display. Clinton had these gems of economic wisdom for the crowd, displaying the genius that led to the stock market bubble of the late 90s:
"I disagreed with those who said manufacturing was dead in America,"
Clinton said. "I believe every great country needs to make things. We might have
to do it with fewer people and more technology, but we need to make
"You have proved we can, and I thank you from the bottom of my
When I read this, I immediately thought of a scene in Rocky II where Rocky, who wants to quit fighting, applies for a job in an office. To reassure his employer of his qualifications, Rocky sits at a desk and shuffles a bunch of papers while saying "I can do 'dis." In reality, he couldn't even read.
In essence, Clinton said to the shipbuilders, "The economy gets better when people make stuff, so the government should build factories and people should make stuff in them. Come on people, we can do 'dis!" This is the depth of the Democrats' plan on the economy, which proves they are economic illiterates.
Milton Friedman they are not.
Thursday, April 14, 2005
If you want to see how stupid the terrorism policy of the left is, just click the link to the above opinion piece. The author, Simon Jenkins, in classic liberal freakout mode, tries to downplay the terrorist threat posed by Kamel Bourgass, who, when captured in Britain, was actively trying to produce chemical weapons (ricin). It's also worth noting that Bourgass stabbed a policeman to death prior to being taken into custody.
Although the author acknowledges that Bourgass is "clearly dangerous," he downplays just how dangerous, noting that Bourgass just had a bunch of ingredients used to produce ricin, and that it would have taken "tremendous effort" to convert them into the actual chemical weapon. Further, the author discounts Bourgass' connections to al-Qaeda, claiming that these connections were discovered through torturing CIA agents. In the end, the author claims that British politicos are the real terrorists, not people like Bourgass.
This is a perfect example of the liberal approach on terrorism. If an attack hasn't happened yet, then the government is going "too far" and "violating our freedoms" in trying to prevent it. For example, the liberals would have argued that the 9/11 hijackers were "just flight students, who add diversity to our flight schools," had they been arrested before 9/11. On the other hand, if the attack has already happened, then it becomes the fault of the nearest conservative politician, who should have "done more" to ensure that the attack was prevented. Nevermind that "doing more" would have resulted in the "going too far" response.
I think we should call the liberal philosophy on terror the "circular approach." If not that, then just plain stupid.
Can you believe this? If the schools allocated a meager 65% of their bloated budgets to the classroom, the net result nationwide would be an increase of 300,000 teachers at $40,000 a piece. Right now, the most bureaucratic district in the country, Washington, D.C., gets just 50% of its funding to the classroom. Who says we need school choice?
Wednesday, April 13, 2005
I'm really not sure what to think of this. Luis Posada, a Cuban exile currently seeking asylum in the U.S., has a checkered past that makes him both a good and bad candidate for asylum.
On the plus side, Posada did participate in the unsuccessful Bay of Pigs invasion and he assisted the CIA in several operations against the Cuban government, including plots to assassinate Fidel Castro. Moreover, he is 77 years old, so he probably isn't a big threat today, even if he is crazy.
On the negative side, Posada did allegedly participate in the bombing of a Cuban jetliner that killed 73 people. That said, he was acquitted twice in Venezuela on the bombing charges; however, both Cuba and Venezuela are demanding another trial. Further, Posada is a posterboy for our hopelessly lax security at the border with Mexico, as he recently crossed there without incident.
I think what tips the balance in Posada's favor is his ability to enrage Castro, who is desparate to punish Posada. After all, Castro didn't seem to mind us keeping Cuban criminals when he sent them here during the Mariel Boat Lift, so he can shut his trap.
Another reason to keep him is that if the lefties were in power, this guy would already be in a torture room in Havana. As human-rights-respecting Republicans, we can't turn over a terror suspect to a nation that will torture and/or kill him. The lefties used to agree with this principle, but, as in all things, when their political interests are at stake, their position on an issue changes accordingly.
Tuesday, April 12, 2005
In 2000, Sen. Schumer was lamenting that Republicans were making a "mockery of the Constitution" by excessively debating the qualifications of Clinton's judicial nominees. Like his colleague, Sen. Leahy seemed to "like" an up-or-down vote back then, but seems to have changed his tune now.
How hypocritical, yet unfortunately typical, of the Democrats these days.
Well, it looks like the Sudan has hit paydirt. The "international community" over at the U.N. has decided to give the Sudan 4.5 billion dollars to assist in rebuilding the Darfur region, despite the fact that the Sudanese military has not stopped committing atrocities there. The only country who demanded any conditions, such as, uhh, STOPPING THE GENOCIDE was, you guessed it, the U.S.
Why is the rest of the U.N. so stupid, you ask? Well, it all comes down to oil, with the "progressive" Chinese and Europeans lining up first to give up a load of strings-free cash to the Sudanese, in an unstated quid pro quo for oil of course. The Sudan's dictators don't even have to stop the genocide.
Wow. Now, more than ever, we should be seriously considering getting out of the U.N. Go Bolton!
YES. Nothing can stymie the left-wing push towards "international rule" quicker than the U.S. breaking its ties with the dictators and mullahs that compose the majority U.N. member states. In case you haven't noticed, the left has been out in force, from the newsrooms to wacko organizations like People for the (un)American Way, to stop John Bolton from getting nominated to the position of U.N. Ambassador.
So why is the left so against this nominee? To hear them tell it, you would think it's his management style. Apparently, when Bolton was at the state department, he tried to dismiss some intelligence analysts (one of whom looks suspiciously like Fidel Castro) because those analysts disagreed with his particular view of the data.
What's really going on is that the left disagrees with Bolton's negative view of the U.N., which they adore, so they think he is unworthy of being "promoted" to the role of U.N. Ambassador. The should just stop their whining and accept that Bolton will get the job, and will represent a big step back for their version of the new world order.
Monday, April 11, 2005
The difference between theory and practice couldn't be more stark than this.
Theory: Newspaper editorial pieces explain the (probably liberal) opinions of the editorial board of the newspaper. Op-Ed pieces reflect the views of the community and are submitted to the newspaper.
Practice: Most influential newspaper in the country, the New York Times, actively seeks an op-ed writer from the public to lambast current Republican congressional leader Tom DeLay and ask him to resign. The editorial board asks an influential Republican, former Congressman Bob Livingston, to do the job, believing that he would lend credibility to the editorial board's political cause. Livingston refuses, saying that he would actually support DeLay's cause and encourage him to remain in his position. The NYT's editorial board is no longer interested in this particular member of the "public" and abandons the project.
Can you believe this?!
Saturday, April 09, 2005
In the Democrats weekly radio address this week, Senator Minority Leader Harry Reid criticized Republicans for trying to "rewrite the rules so they can get their way." The "rules" the Republicans are trying to "rewrite" allow a small minority of radical leftist senators to stonewall President Bush's judicial nominees by filibustering. Filibusters can be described as a liberal Senator spewing endless inanities, ad nauseum, on the Senate floor in order to prevent a simple up-or-down vote on a particular judge.
Unfortunately for the Democrats, the United States Constitution requires only a simple majority in the Senate to confirm a judicial nominee, not the 60 votes required by Senate rules to end a filibuster. Because the filibuster rule can be changed by a majority vote in the Senate, Republicans are moving to eliminate this rule because it has become a favorite tactic of the left to prevent the confirmation of non-leftist judges.
Senator Reid's whining about "rewriting" the "rules" is simply a reflection of the fact that the left has no other means of implementing its policies (e.g., abortion, euthanasia, property confiscation) other than through an unelected, unaccounable judicial branch. The liberals are so worried about losing ground on these issues that they've taken to arguing a completely stupid position: "The Constitution just isn't good enough!"
Thursday, April 07, 2005
Former college professor Thomas Maxwell McCoskar was sentenced to 2 years in prison for engaging in consensual homosexual acts with a local man on the island of Fiji. The sentencing judge described McCoskar's conduct as "something so disgusting that it would make any decent person vomit."
Something tells me that the other inmates won't be so intolerant.
The Minuteman Project has claimed its first victim on the U.S.-Mexico border this week. The victim told authorities of his harrowing ordeal while being held by the vigilante group:
Carol Capas, a sheriff's office spokeswoman, said the 26-year-old man from
Obregon, Mexico, told agents he was physically restrained and forced to hold
a shirt while his picture was taken and he was videotaped.
The shirt read: "Bryan Barton caught an illegal alien and all I got was
Barton, who is from California, told agents that he and the other two
volunteers waived the man over to them, offered the immigrant
food and water, and gave him the T-shirt and money before the Border Patrol
Ha ha ha! Maybe he should bring a claim in the International Criminal Court! If that doesn't work, he can always sue Barton and the US government for a million dollars--the courts would be foolish enough to let him win.
Completely unbiased, I tell you! Nothing to see here! Move along!
Instructions: Write essays on each of the following 4 questions (25 points each). Your answers should be at least one page each, no less. You will be graded on your writing and organizational skills as well as your ability to bring the readings into your discussion. This test is designed to see how well you have thought about the materials we have read and discussed and your ability to discuss these materials after you have reflected on them.
1. How has the war on terrorism contributed to the powers of the Bush presidency? (Discuss at least 4 ways).
2. Discuss the sweeping attack on democratic rights under the Bush administration and what this means for the future of democratic government in America.
3. Whose interests are served by the foreign and domestic policies of the Bush administration?
4. Describe and discuss the role of the Bush advisors. Who are they? What is their agenda? And how is it being carried out?
Wednesday, April 06, 2005
These people are getting really good at using left-wing tactics to stymie the "international community" in its attempts to prosecute Sudanese war criminals. The government has set up not one, but two committees to "handle issues" related to the Darfur genocide and the International Criminal Court. This is classic liberalism.
Although it seems unrelated, this reminds me of when Hillary Clinton asked for 90 million dollars in taxpayer funds to study video game violence and its affects on society. Because actually doing something would be more difficult and unpopular than paying lip-service to "studying" the problem, both Hillary and the folks in the Sudan have taken the easy way out: form a committee and wait until everyone forgets.
The rest of the ad features Jimmy Stewart in the 1939 movie Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, whose character, Mr. Smith, filibusters a pork-barrel bill on the Senate floor. It's worth mentioning that Mr. Smith wasn't filibustering the confirmation of a federal judge--that has never been done until now.
The folks over at PAW must have forgotten about a famous real-life filibusterer, who, like the bad guys Mr. Smith fought, just happens to be the "King of Pork"--former Klan leader and current Democratic Senator Robert Byrd. Byrd is most famous for his 14-hour filibuster on the Senate floor, where he protested the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
The Democrats just might want to forget about that one.
Just like the unsuccessful attempt to copy Rush Limbaugh on Air America Radio, the left is once again attempting to inject its unmarketable beliefs in blog format, a la the Drudge Report. The new lefty blog will be named, unimaginatively, the "Huffington Report," in honor of its protagonist, Ariana Huffington. Persons contributing to the blog will include heavyweight thinkers Gwyneth Paltrow and Warren Beatty.
For a bunch of people who think they are a fountain of creativity over in Hollywood, these lefties sure seem like copycats.
Tuesday, April 05, 2005
Taking a play from the left-wing playbook in this country, the government of the Sudan has staged a so-called "million-man" march protesting indictment of several officials in the International Criminal Court for their roles in the genocide in the Darfur region.
On Monday, President Omar al-Beshir swore "thrice in the name of Almightly Allah that I shall never hand any Sudanese national to a foreign court." That pretty much resolves the matter. The U.N. never acts on anything, so the protesters can go home, unless, like their lefty counterparts in this country, the protesters don't have any work to do anyway.
This story is simply unbelievable. Reuters, dutifully reporting from the Arab Human Development Report, which is prepared (not surprisingly) under U.N. auspices, has concluded that the U.S. hasn't helped democracy, and instead has prevented it, in the middle east.
Anyone with two eyes can see how incorrect this so-called "report" is in describing the facts. First, the U.S. personally installed a democracy in Iraq within the past year. Maybe the reporters believe that democracy in Iraq was superior when 100% of the people voted for Saddam Hussein a few years ago. Second, the Palestinians and Israelis are closer than ever to a real split of power, which is apparently ignored by the report. And finally, Egypt is bracing for democratic reform. Again ignored.
I think that these U.N. hacks should prepare a 20-year report outlining all that the organization has done to instill democracy in the area. I'm guessing it would be pretty thin.
Monday, April 04, 2005
You've gotta see this article about North Carolina Wesleyan leftist radical and anti-Semitic political science professor Jane Christensen. Make sure to visit her website (http://faculty.ncwc.edu/Jchristensen/) because it is absolutely insane. It features a picture of her dressed up as a militant terrorist, complete with black face mask.
If she weren't a liberal, I simply would not believe that this could possibly be real.
Check out this passage, from the Americans for Democratic Action website, entitled "Reject Anti-U.N. Bolton":
"The nomination of John Bolton to become Ambassador to the United Nations is part of a continuing assault on international organizations and international rule . . . ."
Check out this article about the Al Gore-run Current TV network. Gore is a curious choice for a network that targets 18-34 year olds exclusively. When I think of someone who would be popular in this market, the last person who comes to mind is the wanna-be inventor of the internet.
Maybe Clinton fell ill when the words "18 to 34" and "job" were mentioned during the job pitch.
So-called Catholic "reformers" are featured in this thinly-veiled editorial by the "reporters" over at CNN. The liberal Catholics cited in the article claim that the Pope was a hypocrite for advocating human rights while at the same time opposing priests marrying, women clergy, contraception, and abortion.
I guess it all comes down to how you define "human rights." What is implied in this article is that the Pope couldn't logically oppose a Communist tyranny in the former USSR without also acting as a booster for abortion. This makes no sense. After all, the Communists support forced abortions, which the Pope opposes; therefore, he is perfectly consistent.
For all of you atheists out there, an explanation of the Pope's hypocrisy is in order. You see, the Pope is sort of limited by this book called the Bible, which requires him to do stuff that isn't always what you would define as cool. He's also limited by this thing called the Catholic Church, which also isn't always very cool. Because of these things, the Pope can't do things that non-Catholics can do. For example, he can't have sex with other people (men or women) and he can't ask someone to get an abortion. In a sense, this whole religion thing is violating the Pope's "human rights."
I guess that's just his cross to bear.
History professor Jacques Pluss has lost his job teaching at Fairleigh Dickinson University after admitting that he is a member of the American Nazi Party. Although the university insists that his dismissal is related to missing too many classes, Pluss believes otherwise.
Pluss insists that his political beliefs had no bearing on what he taught in the classroom. Perhaps so. Many students were reportedly "stunned" by the revelation that Pluss is a Nazi. However, one student mentioned in hindsight that an assignment requiring students to imagine being a German soldier during World War II may have suggested something. Shortly after being dismissed, Pluss publicly complained of the Jewish control of the university and used racial epithets to describe black basketball players at the school.
I wonder when the leftist university professors will rally to the defense of "academic freedom" in this case? When will Bill Maher be scheduling the poignant interview with Mr. Pluss to find out "why he hates us"? When will the public universities begin scheduling Mr. Pluss to come speak on campus?
Never, never, and never. These sorts of protections are only reserved for America-hating Communists like Ward Churchill, not America-hating Nazis like Pluss. I wish that people would demand the same sort of scrutiny of a professor's lectures and assignments when he/she is outed as a Communist. If so, we just might get back to teaching meaningful topics in university history classes. I wouldn't hold my breath for that to happen anytime in the near future.
Sandy Berger, former National Security Advisor for the Clinton Administration, has reached a deal with prosecutors over his theft of several classified documents from the National Archives. The charges carry a penalty of up to one year in prison and a $100,000 fine.
The deal? In exchange for a guilty plea, Berger will pay only a $10,000 fine and serve no jail time at all. Compare this to what happened to Martha Stewart, who lied to protect a friend after taking advantage of an insider's stock tip and was sentenced to 5 months in prison for obstruction. I bet she wishes she had Berger's lawyer, and connections.
Something stinks here.
Saturday, April 02, 2005
For some unknown reason, the prosecutor in the Michael Jackson case called the soon-to-be civil (suing for $) attorney for Jackson's accuser, who assured the jury that the accuser had not yet filed a civil suit against Jackson, and that the criminal case had nothing to do with trying to score some cash.
Then, as usual, Jackson's attorney, Thomas Mesereau, turned this witness to his advantage by getting the kid's soon-to-be attorney to admit that yes, a win at the criminal trial would ensure a positive verdict in a civil case. Moreover, the kid's soon-to-be attorney admitted that they still had five years to file the civil suit, should they choose to do so. Something tells me that the criminal trial will not last 5 years.
Although he does not currently represent the child in a civil case against Jackson, this same attorney is assisting the family, free of charge, with legal issues collateral to the case. This same attorney has represented another boy, who apparently wrested a settlement equalling millions of dollars from Jackson several years ago. The jury heard all of this.
In evaluating the prosecutor's actions, one question keeps popping into my head: Is he trying to lose?
Check out the selective use of language in this headline by the Chicago Sun Times: "Ex-Clinton aide in theft case: 'Guilty, your honor'". The article discusses "Ex" Clinton "aide" Sandy Berger, implying that Sandy Berger was some nobody in the Clinton administration that stole some papers from somewhere.
The "reporters" over at the Sun Times must have forgotten that Ex-Clinton "aide" Sandy Berger was the National Security Advisor during the last part of the Clinton Presidency--one of the most powerful people in the country, who would have acted as an architect of our terror policy from 1998 to January 2001, when Clinton left office. He was also a good friend of Bill Clinton's from several years back, when both worked on the Fullbright campaign together.
The language of this headline proves the point that selective language can shape the way people look at a story. What the Sun Times "reporters" are hoping for is to distance Bill Clinton from the scandal, and by implication distance Hillary as well. If the public schools are operating in the usual fashion, they should get away with it.
Friday, April 01, 2005
The Sudanese government has decided to openly defy a U.N. Resolution referring Darfur war crimes suspects to the International Criminal Court.
I hope they're ready for the severe consequences to come....another, uhh, resolution.
Michael Jackson has topped the list of Most Foolish Americans for the third year in a row. Yeah, being a rich wierdo who sleeps in the same bed as little kids who have gold-digging parents just might propel someone to the top of that heap.
Small-time Democratic power broker George E. Norcross III, from New Jersey, was secretly recorded making the Democratic political sausage. The results, which aren't pretty, reveal a threatening, powermad politico that would use patronage and threats to keep local politicians in line. His tool of choice? Access to such Democratic luminaries as Jon Corzine, who presumably could act as a spigot for funds and jobs at the local level.
When I read this, I immediately thought of Max Cleland's toasting of Tom Dascle at Dascle's retirement party earlier this year. Sen. Cleland gave an amusing poem about "Big Tom," during which he told a story about how he was scared almost to death when he thought he had crossed the big one. I laughed pretty hard at that, considering what a wuss Tom Daschle is.
Another thought was of Bob Torricelli, the disgraced former governor of New Jersey, who resigned after allegations of corruption rose to the surface. In his "apology" to the people of New Jersey, the first person he apologized to was Bill Clinton, of all people. That was a little weird.
Maybe these tapes show what really goes on behind the scenes in the Democratic party.
Today's NY Times reports that Hillary Clinton, who in her time in the Senate has "won over many Republican colleagues with a nonconfrontational and even cordial style," is gearing up for battle against the "right wing," which intends to use "Swift Boat style ads" against her in her 2006 Senatorial campaign.
According to my memory, the Swift Vets were a group of sailors who either served with John Kerry during the Vietnam War, or were angry with him for coming back to the states and betraying them when he later sided with the Vietcong against the U.S. Military. Essentially, the Swift Vets contradicted Kerry's accounts of his own trumped-up war war injuries, which were used as a springboard for getting himself elected President. To date, Kerry has not released military records that would put an end to the controversy.
I wonder how Hillary would get "Swift Boat Veteran" treatment during the 2006 campaign. Maybe it will have something to do with her own past totally contradicting her present actions. Recently, we've seen "Pro-Life Hillary" on abortion, "Pro-Family Hillary" on videogame violence, and "Silent Hillary" on the Terri Schiavo issue. In the past, we've seen "Socialist Hillary" on the national healthcare system, "Radical Feminist Hillary" on the partial-birth abortion issue, and "Unpardonable Hillary" where her brother secured a pardon (presumably with her assistance) for a dangerous drug dealer at the end of the Clinton presidency.
By 2006, there will be a ton of lipstick on the pig that is Hillary Clinton's platform. I doubt that the NYT will notice.