August 17, 2006
Federal Court Rules Protecting America is Unconstitutional
The ACLU has convinced a federal judge that monitoring overseas communications of terrorists is against the constitution. Despite the fact the preamble lists defending the nation as an acceptable federal government function, the ACLU and US District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor said that the risk "innocent" communications could be intercepted far outweighed the risk of Al Qaeda attacking the United States. Despite programs such as ECHELON, CARNIVORE, and others that existed happily (albeit controversially) under the Clinton Administration, the possibility that George Bush might actually defend the country is a threat the Constitution cannot bear.
Despite the evidence, the media still calls the case a matter of "warrantless wiretapping" despite the fact that the clear intention is to monitor international calls. This ongoing deception is an attempt to create hysteria that the US is becoming a "police state" and that the treats are from Republicans, not terrorists. This is the same political quarter that brings you the idea (despite all evidence to the contrary) that George Bush and not Al Qaeda is behind 9/11.
The judge in this case, an appointee of Jimmy Carter, doesn't seem to understand the difference between overseas surveillance and domestic surveillance. Will the CIA start needing warrant the next time the spy on a terrorist overseas?
According to the ruling:
The President of the United States, a creature of the same Constitution which gave us these Amendments, has undisputedly violated the Fourth in failing to procure judicial orders as required by FISA, and accordingly has violated the First Amendment Rights of these Plaintiffs as well.
Let's skip past the FISA court idea, one that is still in dispute publicly and in the courts (other district courts either ruled for the government or declined to rule at all) and discuss the First Amendment issue. Debating what due process should exist for wiretapping is something that can and will take place, however, the idea that plotting terror attacks against the citizens of the United States of America could even possible be protected by the First Amendment should make everyone who cares about the safety of their family cringe. What other possible meaning is there to that phrase?
Many scoffed at the idea of framing resistance to the Patriot Act and the "warrantless wiretapping" programs as an attempt to establish an "Al Qaeda Bill of Rights", however, with Judge Taylor's ruling and the help of the ACLU, the shroud of the First Amendment has been extended to protect those who plot to kill Americans.
Posted by John Bambenek at 2:26 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
August 9, 2006
Book Review: Conservatives Betrayed by Richard Viguerie
The marriage between the Republicans and conservatives has been a loveless and unsatisfying marriage. The Republicans keep "stumbling home after midnight, smelling of booze and cheap perfume." And it is time for the marriage to come to an end.
Conservatives Betrayed: How George W. Bush and Other Big Government Republicans Hijacked the Conservative Cause by Richard Viguerie thoroughly lists, more than any other resource I can think of, the balance of indiscretions the Republicans have visited upon conservatism under the Presidency of George W. Bush (and even before that election). The days of the Contract With America are long gone and replaced with what can only appear to be a very similar spending philosophy of Democrats.
Viguerie systematically dissects the policies of the George W. Bush administration in the key areas of foreign policy, immigration, the right to life, the culture of life, the courts, and taxation. He shows beyond a reasonable doubt that the canard that this is one of the most extreme right-wing administrations in history is absolutely absurd. Sure, Bush has thrown conservatives some carrots, but he has shown that he's more than willing to grow the federal government and not buck the system. He, after all, has only recently cast his first veto and has used no rescissions to block pork barrel spending.
Chart after chart, figure after figure, the book painstakingly reveals what is apparent to most conservatives, George Bush isn't one of them.
This disaffection has been brewing for some time and came to a head with the immigration debate. While the nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court and the UAE ports deal resulted in acquiescing to the grassroots conservatives, immigration showed the GOP literally telling conservatives to go to hell. The argument was that by leaving the Republican plantation, we got eight years of Clinton, so now we had to suck it down. If that statement seems like it is defecating on conservatives, that is because it is exactly what it is doing. Conservatives should shut up and keep sending money to the GOP. We should leave the governing to the elites.
This book is a challenge to that accepted logic and presents a game plan to attempt to bring principles back into politics. The central premise is that conservatives should stop being wedded to the GOP and start being a movement that hopefully brings both parties into line or at least gives us an occasional chance to vote against the GOP candidate without implicitly supporting a repugnant alternative.
The status quo will lead to the situation we have here in Illinois -- party insider Rod Blagojevich running against party insider Judy Baar-Topinka with both having approval ratings on a good day rivaling President Bush. Not even party loyalists like their candidate. The state is on the verge of bankruptcy, in the worst financial shape of any other state, and there is no discernable difference (quite literally) between the policies of either party. Lastly, both are corrupt to the core having fair numbers of high-level staffers in both parties under federal indictment or conviction. That is the future of national politics if we do nothing… a bankrupt government, corrupt politicians, and sham elections between candidates no one likes.
One of the more scandalous, but most insightful, suggestions is dropping support for the death penalty. This stand, more than others, directly contradicts the general conservative support for a culture of life and undermines the moral authority that would otherwise be present if that stand was not there. Controversial, yes, but spot on.
The missing piece of the puzzle, however, is a social justice component (and I don't mean that term in the typical regressive way). Only one sentence of the book makes mention of communities supporting their members but the fact is, there are times where people will need a helping hand from others. Disasters strike, illnesses drain life savings, people die, and so on. A political ideology that does not explicitly have a plan on how to handle those situations is one that leaves a large portion of the population as a captive audience to the left and big government. Big government may not effectively meet people's needs, however many view it as "better than nothing". Arguing against minimum wage laws makes good economic sense, but is politically meaningless when there is no response to the fact some people simply don't earn enough for their families. The argument must seek to address this, and that comes by creating a living wage by reducing the cost of living (most of which comes in the form of taxation or increased cost of regulations passed down to the consumer).
Further, if an effective conservative movement is to be founded and empowered, it will take more than focusing on politics. Liberty is impossible unless it includes both political and economic liberty. Likewise, reform is impossible unless it includes both political and economic aspects. The book mentions Google and Yahoo as regressive-supporting companies. There needs to be conservative equivalents so people can vote with their pocketbooks. Arguing for conservative principles while supporting regressive causes (by using companies that are in the tank with regressive causes) is self-defeating, or at least self-impeding.
The book is exactly what it purports itself to be, a starting point and a moment to reflect. It is a quick read and should have nothing foreign for anyone moderately informed about politics. The disaffection of conservatives is a growing one and now, more than ever, is the opportunity to fight for the principles we believe in. Viguerie includes several steps to take to the field of battle which involves common people to run for office, or at least take effort to support conservatives over Republicans. It won't be until common people run for office that we'll have any real reform, or at least a return to some attempt at representing common people instead of the enfranchised elites.
In 2006, when only Congressional seats are up for grabs, conservatives have the chance to make it clear to Republicans that conservatism will win or lose elections for them, just as MoveOn has just proved that moderate and sensible Democrats like Joe Lieberman are not welcome in the Democratic Party. If conservatives engage the political system now, we can win. If we fall silent, we will become like Illinois, where all the potential leaders and talent flee the state and surrender it to the left. For now, Republicans have won only because of the incompetence of the Democrats; that will not be the case forever.
The question is: can we put principle above partisanship?
Posted by John Bambenek at 1:55 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
August 3, 2006
A Case of Double Standards
Compare and contrast these two cases:
The first, a scandal-ridden New Jersey Senator who was running for reelection abruptly resigns and drops out of the race 35 days before the election. Litigation ensues and the court decides that it should override the law under the concerns to ensure a "full and fair ballot choice" for the voters.
The second, a scandal-ridden Texas Congressman who was running for reelection resigns from office and drops out of the rice 5 months before the general election. Litigation ensures and the court decides that the candidate who no longer has residence in the district must remain on the ballot and there should be no exception to the law.
What is the difference between the two cases? The first was a Democrat, the second a Republican. Both were running for reelection for national office, however, the first was dealt with in state court, and the second, in federal court.
The inherent viewpoint of Democrats (and regressives in general) is that the written law means nothing when it conflicts with what is perceived to be the metaphysical intent of the law or what the law should be. This is why they can say with a straight-face that Bush should be impeached for crimes that amount to little more than not drinking deeply enough of the regressive Kool-aid.
Republicans generally believe the law should be upheld and if changes are needed the legislature (which exists entirely for this task) should be employed to modify those laws.
So when the Democrats ask for an exception, it is not inconsistent with what they believe, that namely, the law should reflect and advantage their policies, even when the written words of that law go clearly against them. When Republicans ask for an exception, they get denied outright.
In both cases, the misuse and abuse of the court system has lead to a schizophrenic application of the law, largely along partisan lines. The question of whether the law matters or not depends on which would most benefit the Democrats. An interesting thought exercise would be to imagine if George Bush stood accused of perjury in open court for lying about an affair during a lawsuit, and whether or not the Democrats would vote to impeach him on those groups. A fair amount of Republicans surely would.
It is tempting, then, for the Republicans to likewise abandon the written law and rely on tactics of jurisdiction shopping and court stacking to secure favorable outcomes, not based on the law, but on party loyalty. This temptation should be quickly dispatched. A law that means whatever those in power want, is not law, but tyranny projected through a black robe.
Citizens should take note at, yet again, the bipolar nature of the court system, and the routine differing application of the law depending on who is involved. If ever there was a case against judicial activism and reform of the courts, this episode would be it.
Posted by John Bambenek at 3:05 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Ending Corporate Welfare
The ACLU is indignant that there are members of Congress pushing to pass a law that would bar awards of attorney fees when groups sue to get religion out of the public square. These award of legal fees are very directly responsible to a vast increase in the body of law that has gone so far to protect against the appearances of government endorsement of religion, that even private individuals have been sanctioned for daring to utter the unutterable name of Jesus Christ in public.
It has been the ACLU's influence that not only is the government (rightly) prevented from taking sides on the matter of religion, but when private individuals happen to be speaking on government property, the First Amendment is brought to bear against them. It is unthinkable in the highest degree that the Founders or anything in the Constitution intended to restrict the free expression rights of citizens. The First Amendment was designed to create institutional separation between the agencies of government and the houses of religion, not to be a pre-regulated restriction on what private people can or cannot say.
The ACLU has used attorney fees to bully schools into submission in questionable cases or in matters where no settled law exists. School budgets are already tight (mostly because of bloated bureaucracy, but that's not the point). Many schools will capitulate to avoid having to fork out money to defend a winning case. As in most areas of law, he who has the most money wins. With the award of legal fees, it only encourages entrepreneurial lawyers to build cases where none may exist. It also prevents the ACLU from browbeating agencies into avoiding situations where those agencies may be right.
However, the money schools have is not their own. The money sitting in government accounts is not their own. They are merely stewards of assets they have been given to perform tasks they have been assigned. Their masters are the citizens who fund those organizations and who elect their leaders.
There is something profoundly wrong when, because of the actions of a politician, the entire society that funds that politician's organization is made to pay. There is much talk about making politicians and bureaucrats accountable, awarding legal fees for cases like this don't make the politicians accountable, it makes society accountable. It is irresponsible in the extreme to make other people pay for someone's "bad" actions. I'd prefer courts punish those people who are actually doing the deeds, not finding someone who has big enough pockets and make them pay, no matter how peripheral they may be. We'll throw them out of office the next election if the case warrants it.
Preventing the default award of legal fees makes good economic sense and it is good policy. The First Amendment is a simple area of constitutional law that does not, nor should not, take millions of dollars to litigate. It is about time this case of corporate welfare comes to an end.
Posted by John Bambenek at 1:27 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
June 28, 2006
Wictory Wednesday Presents Senator George Allen
This week Wictory Wednesday is supporting the reelection of Senator George Allen of Virginia. Sen. Allen has been a consistent supporter of conservative values in the Senate, earning a place in the ranks of the American Conservative Union's Best and Brightest.
Sen. Allen is a supporter of fiscal conservativism and introduced legislations to require a balanced budget. He also supported a law that would dock congressmen's paychecks if they failed to produce a budget by October 1st. The idea that legislators should be penalized for failure to do the few things they must do is one that should be whole-heartedly supported.
While Senator Allen does support accountability for school systems and supporting programs that succeed, support for school choice is notably lacking. There is no better accountability than allowing people to leave failing schools, taking tax dollars with them.
Illegal immigration is an issue many legislators are running away from while Senator Allen has the courage to take a stand. He understands what should be common-sense, immigrating legally is a good thing, immigrating illegally is a bad thing. It is obvious that decades of not enforcing immigration law hasn't worked and perhaps it's time we give law and order a chance. We don't need to demean the people who came here while the government basically said it wouldn't enforce the law, but that doesn't mean blanket amnesty… or for that matter, lavishing rewards on illegal immigrants.
Lastly, while it has become chic for members of Congress to suggest it's time to surrender to America's enemies and to proclaim that America is the cause of every world problem, Senator Allen understands that no victory came through surrender. The war on terror and Iraq are difficult problems that lesser men run away from by planting their heads in the sand. Winning the War in Iraq takes time and with plans for troop reductions under way, it's clear that "stay the course" is not only a strategy, but a strategy that's working.
Please considering donating to Sen. Allen's reelection campaign or volunteering your time.
This has been a production of the Wictory Wednesday blogburst. If you would like to join Wictory Wednesday, please see this post or contact John Bambenek at jcb (dot) blog [at] gmail {dot} com. The following sites are members of the Wictory Wednesday team:
Posted by John Bambenek at 12:49 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
June 20, 2006
Wictory Wednesday Presents Diana Irey for Congress
This week Wictory Wednesday presents Diana Irey for US Congress. Diana is running against ex-Marine Rep. John Murtha from Pennsylvania who needs no explanation as to why he should be replaced. This race began as what seemed to be an uneventful race against an incumbent who not only didn't expect competition, but is planning on making a run to become House Minority Leader.
Diana Irey served for ten years as commissioner of Washington County and served on a number of boards and commissions bring jobs and fiscal discipline to the local government. She supports not only lower taxes but lower government spending. While Murtha's campaign seems to revolve around nothing else but the Iraq War (albeit an important issues), Irey is approaching running for office with a variety of stances on issues including supporting victory in Iraq and treating soldiers with respect, not as criminals.
Most importantly Diana is not a beltway bureaucrat and has served only in local offices until now. She will not only bring a local perspective to a seat that is held by an individual more concerned with his own national profile, she will support balanced budgets and intelligent policy-making to a Congress that has shown itself to be free with the money entrusted to it.
Please consider supporting the campaign of Diana Irey for the House of Representatives for the 12th District of Pennsylvania.
This has been a production of the Wictory Wednesday blogburst. If you would like to join Wictory Wednesday, please see this post or contact John Bambenek at jcb (dot) blog [at] gmail {dot} com. The following sites are members of the Wictory Wednesday team:
Posted by John Bambenek at 5:46 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack
June 16, 2006
A New Direction for America... Backwards.
Today, after months of waiting, the Democrats have come up with an agenda for 2006. First, some noticeably missing items.
Iraq. For as much as the Democrats continue to criticize the President's mishandling of the war, the peace, or whatever you want to call it, their direction does not highlight any meaningful alternative. How do they believe a free and secure Iraq should be created? Well, if Murtha has his way, apparently by surrendering to Al Qaeda.
National security. Apparently terrorism is not a problem because the polar ice caps are melting. Perhaps we were mistaken, it wasn't planes that flew into the World Trade Center on 9/11, it was chunks of ice from the North Pole. So while they are ignoring national security, they're stumping for Gore's movie.
Immigration. Millions of immigrants took to the streets in protest in recent months. Millions more legal residents have also made their views known. No matter where you stand, this is one of the most charged and important issues on the minds of the people, and on this issue the Democrats are silent.
Moving on to some of the core items of the Democrats platform from items that simply haven't been on the public radar to making current problems worse…
Raising minimum wage. Despite the fact that every time the minimum wage has been raised unemployment has gone up; they believe that having no job is better than being paid some less than some arbitrary number. There are more intelligent ways to get people earning enough to provide for their families, raising the minimum wage isn't one of them. There is a finite amount of money in circulation, those wage increases need to be paid for somehow. It ends up being either lay offs, cut benefits, higher prices (and cost of living), or a combination of all three.
Price gouging. Who isn't against price gouging? However, for as much as that legal term has been thrown around, there has not been any evidence provided to support that it is happening. After about two years of hearing that companies are breaking the law to stick it to Joe Consumer, I'd expect that someone would be able to prove it to nail their ass to the wall for it. However, after two years of complaining they haven't found any evidence, it is doubtful that giving them a majority will accomplish anything except more hearings with legislators bloviating on TV so it looks like they are "doing something".
Fiscal responsibility. One of the most appealing parts of the platform is restoring fiscal responsibility, however, the likely way of doing this will be to increase income to the treasury, not reducing spending. One of the key items to pay attention is that they specifically reference the fiscal discipline of the 90s… i.e. when Congress was run by Republicans. Cutting taxes is one thing, you have to cut spending along with it. At least on this point the Democrats are intellectually honest. They'll at least raise taxes to pay for their spending. If we want to talk about fiscal responsibility, let's start with earmark reform.
Slash student loan costs. This is pandering at its worst because student loans are almost essentially free. I know, because I have them. My wife's student loans are consolidated for an APR of 1.65%. In other words, I could take the money, put it in a savings account, and use the interest to pay off the loan and still turn a profit on the loan. I know students who take student loans for the express purpose of using that money and investing it earning 8%+. Student loans are an incredible deal. Inflation is about 3%, which makes those loans essentially trivial interest. The only thing that could be done to make those loans cheaper would be to pay students interest for taking them out.
Stop tax giveaways for outsourcing. If by tax-giveaways you mean that other countries don't tax the crap out of companies like we do, than you're right. However, how exactly are you going to start taxing companies that aren't in the US? Tariffs? Bring the entire world under the United States tax structure? No one is paying businesses to leave the US and outsource, it's simply far cheaper to hire labor overseas in some industries.
Stop wasteful subsidies, Support stem-cell research. These two items are directly at odds. If there are wasteful subsidies, by all means eliminate them. However, funding stem-cell research (particularly embryonic which is what they are talking about) is in itself a wasteful subsidy. Adult stem cell research is curing people, it works. Private money is coming in hand over fist for adult stem cell research. Embryonic stem cell research does not work, which is why they have no investors and need a handout. While it might give the Democrats yet another chance to kill millions more babies and start treating people less as human beings and more as crops to be cultivated for parts, it remains that this science doesn't work.
The Democratic platform here doesn't address most of the issues important to Americans. The three top issues are Iraq, gas prices, and immigration for Congress. Health care is low on the list. Social security is absent. Stem cell research is absent. The minimum wage is absent.
Once again, we're faced with a party unwilling to tackle the big issues that Americans care about. It would be nice in 2006 to have a real choice between candidates, and it looks like the Democratic party has deprived us once again.
Posted by John Bambenek at 6:28 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
June 14, 2006
FairTax Blogburst: A Really Voluntary Tax Structure
Here's this week's FairTax blogburst.
by Terry of The Right Track
There are many reasons to support the FairTax. I managed to do a little research, and found some rather unique points of view that I had not previously considered, and was reminded of some previously-covered ideas that are still worth mentioning.
- For the most part, the FairTax is voluntary. If you want to pay the tax, purchase a new house, car, motor home, etc. If you want to avoid the tax, purchase a used house, car, motor home, etc. The tax only applies to new items.
- No one will ever need to take out a loan to pay taxes, interest, or penalties again, as can all too often happen under our current system.
- Drug dealers and other criminals, as well as anyone else currently paid "under the table", will pay taxes if they purchase new items. Ever seen a drug dealer driving a used car? Ever seen a pimp shopping at Goodwill? I didn't think so.
- Lower income families working multiple jobs get a fantastic incentive to work now, knowing that zero Federal taxes will be withheld from their paychecks. Most of the money from the second job can be applied to whatever previously unaffordable luxury they wish -- perhaps including, for the first time, a home of their own?
- With the abolition of the death tax, homes, farms, and land which might previously have had to be sold to satisfy the government's unquenchable thirst for money can now be retained and kept in the family. In cases where the property has been in the family for multiple generations, can you imagine the gratitude of the family?
- Friends and family can now actually help each other out with tax-free assistance, since the gift tax will be abolished.
- Businesses can actually lower their cost of doing business since they won't be paying the current 7.65% matching FICA tax for each employee.
- It's even a good deal for the environment -- think of all the paper we'll save by not having to file taxes!
But even with all this, we must remember that the FairTax initiative is a grassroots effort. If your Senator or Representative does not support the FairTax, find out why. Then let them know that you do support it. Make phone calls, write letters. Let your friends and family know the details of the FairTax, and why you believe it is such a good deal for Americans. Only through the diligent and concerned efforts of ordinary citizens will these bills ever make it through to the floors of the House and Senate.
The FairTax Blogburst is jointly produced by Terry of The Right Track Blog and Jonathan of Publius Rendezvous. If you would like to host the weekly postings on your blog, please e-mail Terry or Jonathan. You will be added to our mailing list and blogroll.
TD
Posted by John Bambenek at 10:36 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
June 13, 2006
Frog-Marching Fantasies Are Over
Rove will not be charged for anything over the Plame game. So after 2 years investigation they have a shaky indictment on Libby and no one charged with leaking the identity of SooperSekret Special Agent 007 Valerie Plame.
It's shaping up to be a bad summer for the Left. Zarqawi dead, Rove exonerated....
UPDATE:
Apparently the link above no longer works, do this one... but you've heard the news by now anyway.
Posted by John Bambenek at 8:49 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
June 6, 2006
FairTax Blogburst: Tax Reform Still Alive
Here's the latest FairTax blogburst.
It's Still Alive! by Ms.Underestimated
Folks, I told you about the good news Congressman John Linder gave us about an impending face-to-face with President Bush about the Fair Tax, and now the word is out! The Gwinnett Daily Post catches us up on this great news:
FairTax still kicking
06/04/2006By: Dave Williams
Many political observers were ready to bury U.S. Rep. John Linder’s FairTax bill last fall when President Bush’s tax reform commission gave the back of its hand to the proposed national sales tax.
The panel chose to recommend tweaking the current income tax system rather than such a dramatic overhaul of the way the federal government collects the revenue it needs to operate.
But the FairTax won’t go away. During a raucous public rally in Gwinnett County last month in support of the legislation, Linder, R-Duluth, announced that he is being offered an opportunity to present the bill to the president and House Republican leaders.
He will meet this week with the House GOP leadership, then head to the White House on a date yet to be set — accompanied by House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill. — to outline his bill to Bush.
So much for the demise of the FairTax.
“The national sales tax is very much like Freddy,’’ said University of Virginia political scientist Larry Sabato, referring to the main character in countless installments of the “Nightmare on Elm Street” horror movie series. “It just refuses to die.’’
See? I TOLD you so! It’s POSSIBLE! And that’s not all - the Gwinnett Rally was just the beginning:
A capacity crowd of 4,500 jammed the Gwinnett Convention Center for last month’s rally, which featured Linder, Atlanta-based syndicated radio talk show host Neal Boortz and Sean Hannity of the Fox Television Network.
“We think there were 3,000 people turned away,’’ Linder said. “I was amazed.’’
The event was so successful that Linder and Boortz are talking about following it up with a series of rallies. Linder said they’re looking at Orlando, Fla., as the next stop.
Okay you guys, here’s your next chance. We gotta stick together and make this happen. If you live in the southeast (or anywhere else, for that matter), I urge you to call your local radio talk shows and implore them to get Neal Boortz, John Linder, Sean Hannity, and whoever else is on board with the Fair Tax, to come hold a rally in YOUR area! If we keep up this momentum, this could truly be a present-day Boston Tea Party that we have on our hands. It’s time to get the government out of our lives, and as John Linder said that night “it’s none of the government’s business how much money I make.” YES!
We’ve got to be vigilant, though, as well all know there are those detractors out there who want to stop us:
The FairTax also faces competition from other proposals aimed at overhauling the current system, including the flat tax on incomes once championed on the presidential campaign trail by Republican Steve Forbes.
“The vast majority agree the tax code needs drastic revision,’’ Sabato said. “The problem is nobody agrees on what the revision should be. … There just isn’t a national consensus for it or anything close to it.’’
But Sabato gives Linder high marks for persistence.
“He is trying to plant the seed,’’ Sabato said. “Who knows whether the seed may sprout and even flower? On the other hand, the seed may die in the ground.’’
My friends, we can’t let that seed die in the ground. We must keep nourishing it with our voices. If we can get 1, 2, 4 or 50 more rallies like this going, we will send a loud and clear message to Washington: “I WANT MY FAIR TAX!”
Also, send these radio stations copies of the Fair Tax book. I know it has been previously called for us to send copies to our representatives, but I’m sure they’ve gotten their copies already. It’s the people of this country we need to change - the Congress is hopeless. If your local talk show hosts can believe in this, then this movement will carry forward. You can buy them here. The government cannot ignore an informed country. The time is now!
The FairTax Blogburst is jointly produced by Terry of The Right Track Blog and Jonathan of Publius Rendezvous. If you would like to host the weekly postings on your blog, please e-mail Terry or Jonathan. You will be added to our mailing list and blogroll.
Posted by John Bambenek at 11:06 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
Wictory Wednesday: Rep. Mark Kennedy for US Senate
This week, Wictory Wednesday presents US Rep. Mark Kenney for the Senate in Minnesota. Having served 3 terms in the US House of Representatives, he has the advantage of name recognition in the state.
Current the race is to replace retiring Senator Mike Dayton (D) and is considered to be a race where the Republicans stand a chance in picking up a seat in the Senate.
Mark Kennedy spent 20 years as a CPA before entering politics, which brings with it the hope that when he gets to the Senate he might help his fellow Senators on their problem of spending more than they have. He has come out against the spending habits, and the "earmark" process specifically. A particular reform he mentions which is unique is giving the President a line-item veto that allows the President to veto specific clauses in legislation instead of having only an up-or-down say. This increase in the accountablility of the Congress will only help the problem of a tax-and-spend Congress.
Rep. Kennedy understands that the best way to educate children is to put control of the schools in the hands on local officials and parents, not Washington or detached bureaucrats.
Lastly, he realizes that the path to a better health care system is not further detaching patients and doctors from the decision-making process. Our health care system is designed so that insurance companies don't have to meaningfully answer to their customers which results in what every economist would expect, a system that doesn't meet the consumer's needs.
With public opinion of Congress at an all-time low, Rep. Kennedy provides one of the few examples of someone who has some ideas and fights for them. Please see his website and donate or help his campaign.
This has been a production of the Wictory Wednesday blogburst. If you would like to join Wictory Wednesday, please see this post or contact John Bambenek at jcb (dot) blog [at] gmail {dot} com. The following sites are members of the Wictory Wednesday team:
Posted by John Bambenek at 10:57 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
May 30, 2006
Wictory Wednesday: Mike McGavick for United States Senate for the State of Washington
Mike McGavick has been running an insurgent campaign against incumbent Democratic Senator Maria Cantwell. Bucking the trend against the GOP nationally, Mike has closed the gap between his Democratic competitor to within 5 percentage points in the last Rasmussen Reports poll. Last November, he was trailing by 15 percentage points.
Mike is a solid conservative who understands the necessity of fighting the war on terror and on regulating the flow of immigration at the border. There is a difference between welcoming immigrants in an orderly way and having a wide-open border that is open to exploitation by those who wish to harm the American way of life.
On health care, Mike realizes that the problem with health care is not that it is run by insurance companies, but that there are too many middlemen that leave the consumer out of the loop. Insurance companies are paid by companies who provide benefits to their employees. Those companies want to keep costs low so they pick one vendor and offer two plans to their employees: lower premium lower benefit plans with vendor A, or higher benefit higher benefit plans with vendor A. The needs of the consumer are only indirectly represented to the insurance company... if at all. The hospitals and doctors are paid by the insurance companies. Hospitals collect less than 30% of bills that are sent to consumers without insurance (or after their insurance has paid only part). Hospitals will therefore cater to the insurance companies that pay the bills. The solution is to put the consumer in the driver seat when dealing with their healthcare, not remove them even farther by having the government run the show.
Lastly, in an uncharacteristic position lately for a Republican, he's for fiscal conservativism. He knows that tax dollars isn't monopoly money, but money to which he is a steward, not an owner. We can count on him to support common-sense reforms to the tax-and-spend habits that have plagued Congress lately.
Please consider taking a look at Mick McGavick's website and supporting his campaign.
This was a production of the Wictory Wednesday blogburst, a weekly posting by bloggers supporting solid Republican candidates for office (national office or governorship. If you are interesting in joining the Wictory Wednesday blogburst, please take a look at this post or e-mail John Bambenek at jcb (dot) blog (at) gmail (dot) com.
Posted by John Bambenek at 9:24 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
May 29, 2006
FairTax Blogburst: The FairTax Rally
This week's Fair Tax Blogburst is written by fellow blogger and friend Ms. Underestimated.
This is not just an idea anymore…it’s a movement! The Fair Tax movement.
What else do you call an event about something as dull and boring as the U.S. Tax Code that draws almost 7,000 to a rally? About 4,500 people got inside the doors, which had to be closed due to the 50,000 square foot Gwinnett Convention Center being at capacity at SIX THIRTY P.M.! The rally didn’t start for another hour, yet another almost 3,000 had to be turned away. People drove from Virginia, Florida, South Carolina, Mississippi, and all over the southeast. Hindsight being 20/20, I’ve heard some of them express disappointment over radio because they only heard the broadcast en route to the rally, and at 6:30 they weren’t even in Georgia yet. They knew they had to turn around and go home, but every single one said that next time, they’ll come a day or two in advance! Some who were turned away simply went to their cars and “tail-gated” with fellow Fair Taxers so they could all listen to the rally as WSB Radio broadcast it live.
After all, who knew there would even be a thousand that would attend? Neal Boortz, the co-author of the Fair Tax Book, certainly didn’t think so himself. In fact, when Neal took the stage at about 8PM, the old curmudgeon was visibly moved. But that’s just where it all begins. Let me take you inside the event in my memory.
I left my office at 3PM, drove 35 miles through horrific Atlanta traffic, and was about the 1,500th person in line. You could feel the passion in the air as attendees clutched their books, displayed their buttons or signs, or signed petitions that were being passed around. We slowly made our way into the Convention Center, and it was packed already. The setup was fantastic, with huge screens dangling from the ceiling above just about every seating section, so everyone was guaranteed a good view of what was going on on the stage. Neal has some fantastic pictures at his site. Here’s a couple of them.
(Photos by Carrie Carden)
Here’s what the inside of the Convention Center looked like, and above is what a portion of the line looked like just to get inside. I am not even a SPECK at the end of this line!
These are just a few of the supporters waving their signs of support inside the center.
Once I got inside, I hunted down a t-shirt, but to no avail - sold out. I did get a signed book, well, two actually, and a “fairtax.org” stamp for money:
What the heck… I figure if I stamp all of my bills, at least ONE of them might prompt someone who knows nothing about HR25/S.25,HR5 to at least look at the bill they’ve just been given from the store clerk, go “what’s fair tax?” and then go to the internet to read about it. Oh, well... back to the rally...
Neal was first up, and spoke to a rousing applause. He told us of how awed he was by the turn-out, and that it spoke volumes to him of just what this had become. He was actually surprised because he thought people wouldn’t come because it was the night of the American Idol finale (oh, please!). He also let us know that not only did the Gwinnett Convention Center DONATE the facility and time, but the stage, lighting, sound equipment, video screens, etc., were also all donated for the cause!
Neal spoke about the Fair Tax, then introduced Congressman John Linder. They both engaged the audience in rapt attention, raucous applause, and cat-calls when the IRS was mentioned. Then, as we’d been promised, Congressman Linder came bearing good news. In the past week, Hastert’s office had been in contact with Linder’s office, and Hastert has set aside a one-hour block of face-to-face time for Congressman Linder to discuss the Fair Tax (HR25) with President Bush! That eclipsed the other good news we would receive by video from Sen. Saxby Chambliss later on, that finally Sen. Johnny Isaakson has signed on to co-sponsor the bill with Sen. Chambliss!
Then Sean joined the fray. Sean came prepared with written questions he’d gotten from his listeners that day as he broadcast from Neal’s studio at WSB Radio. Sean proposed the questions to both Congressman Linder & Neal, and you know that Neal brought the most howls with his wry sense of humor.
As they talked up the Fair Tax, Congressman Linder reminded us that before the Revolutionary War, a clear 2/3 of the people didn’t want to have anything to do with a battle against the British Crown. But due to the hard work and persistent of a few determined people who yearned for their liberty, they fought all rationality and the majority who were okay with the status quo, and forged ahead to secure that very freedom that we have today. If it weren’t for those determined few, who knows what our America would be like today? Many thanks go to them.
Sean had to hurry off to do Hannity & Colmes from the Atlanta Fox affiliate, so he came in specifically to be with us for that 20-minute period of time. Sean really gets it. Next up, former senatorial candidate, Herman Cain.
For those of you who’ve never been blessed enough to hear Herman Cain speak, you have no idea what you’re missing. I am really sorry he lost out that campaign to Johny Isaakson in GA, because Herman Cain is TRULY a dedicated REAGAN conservative Republican, and he is wholly behind the Fair Tax. In fact, he sits in for Neal on his show when Neal’s out. Neal’s affiliates will accept NO OTHER substitute except for Herman Cain. Otherwise, they prefer to just run a “best of” in Neal’s absence.
Herman regaled us with anecdotal stories about his grandfather, who was a poor Georgia dirt farmer. He remembered that going into town, his grandfather used to say to the kids “them that’s goin, get in the truck.. them that’s stayin, GET OUT OF THE WAY!” The audience went WILD! He reminded us that those who want to forge ahead and make change in the world should use that analogy in our lives if we want to affect change. He had the audience, at the appropriate times, shouting “GET OUT OF THE WAY!” A lot of people were yelling “AMEN, REV. CAIN!” I don’t know if he’s a reverend or not, but he definitely moves me. In fact, the gentleman next to me said “Lord, if he keeps this up, I’m gonna start speaking in tongues!” That was not only humorous, it was also true. Herman Cain is riveting. He didn’t stop there.
He continued stories about his grandfather, about when all the potatoes had been pulled from the ground and loaded on his truck, that all the kids would load in the truck with him. He said his grandfather didn’t take the smooth, already-dug grooves in the road.
Rather, his grandfather drove over every bump, rock, rut, etc., and when they came to the market, he asked his grandfather, “why didn’t you just take the regular road instead of making the ride so rough?” He said it was then he noticed that back in the truck bed, all the big potatoes had risen to the top; and all of the little potatoes had settled at the bottom. Then he turned his attention directly forward, and forcefully shouted “.. and YOU people ARE THE BIG POTATOES!”
My God, I though it was the second coming! Would the roof stay on? Or would the trembling of the building turn out to be just be the response of the crowd? Either way, it was absolutely electrifying! And talk about feeling empowered.. WOW! I have goosebumps just remembering it as I write! He definitely had the crowd motivated, and that’s what made us feel so good. That we ARE the ones who want change, and are determined enough to see it through. There was also a tangible sense of camaraderie in the building, as if we have all just been reminded of our mission, and accepted the challenge.
John Stossel of ABC also came to speak for a few minutes, and he gave us this amazing tidbit: 1% of the people of this planet affect change; 9% of the people watch change being affected; and the other 90% wake up one day and say “what happened?” We ARE that One Percent!!!
I’m sick to death of those people who support the Fair Tax, but don’t participate in these events or even sign petitions because of their defeatist attitudes. “Oh, it’s a good idea, but it will never happen,” or “well, it won’t really work because of XYZ.” If our founding fathers had had that attitude, then… well, I don’t even want to ponder that lunacy.
If the patriots of the revolutionary war can do something as monumental as they did, then can’t this bunch of “potatoes” do even less? Let’s do it, everyone… let’s get rid of the IRS, and get the government out of our lives!
Folks, I’m here to tell you; after what I witnessed at the rally, I cannot and will not be defeatist about it. Everything good or bad that exists today in our country was brought about by grassroots movements. And if there’s one thing I learned last Wednesday, it is this: IT’S POSSIBLE!
The Fair Tax Book : Saying Goodbye to the Income Tax and the IRS
Buy the book TODAY (click the above link). Heck, buy 2 or 5, and send them to friends! And many thanks to
the Americans for Fair Taxation, who sponsored the event. Group President Ken Hoagland (right) also spoke to a roundly appreciative crowd.
If you have Comcast cable, you may be able to see video of this rally free from Comcast’s On-Demand service. Details are here.
The FairTax Blogburst is jointly produced by Terry of The Right Track Blog and Jonathan of Publius Rendezvous. If you would like to host the weekly postings on your blog, please e-mail Terry or Jonathan. You will be added to our mailing list and blogroll.
Posted by John Bambenek at 9:01 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
May 27, 2006
Good for them
Gonzales, Mueller, and others threatened to resign if they had to give back evidence after raiding Rep. Jefferson's office. I would too. If you can't prosecute members of Congress because they hide all the incriminating evidence in their congressional office, there isn't much point to trying anymore. If there is nothing else that should give hope that there are honest Republicans still about, they should look no farther that Attorney General Gonzales and FBI Director Mueller, as well as the other fine men and women who made a principled stand here.
Posted by John Bambenek at 6:10 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
May 26, 2006
Wictory Wednesday has Returned!!
Wictory Wednesday has returned! It is a once-a-week event where hundreds of bloggers ask their readers to support a Republican candidate by donating to their campaign (or at least blogging about them). After over a year break, I've taken the initiative to set it back up and put it together again. 2006 is a big election year and now is the time to assert the influence of the grass roots (or the "connected" will assert it for us).
Each Wednesday, I will send out the "default" candidate to support for that week. Since we aren't Democrats or liberals, you are free to change the candidate and support someone else of your own choice. We like free-thinkers here. All we ask is that you support some candidate on Wednesday and help advance the ideas we hold dear.
If you wish to participate in Wictory Wednesday which will begin on May 31st, 2006 (incidently my birthday), please send an e-mail to jcb.blog (at) gmail.com with your blog name, blog URL, and add the following blogroll code to your site (optional). If you don't post the full blogroll, a link to this post with some advertisement for Wictory Wednesday is appreciated.
<script language="javascript" type="text/javascript" src="http://rpc.blogrolling.com/display.php?r=cb04198e51db8289c2cfa56593350843"> </script>
The following sites are members of the Wictory Wednesday team:
Posted by John Bambenek at 12:53 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
May 25, 2006
StoptheACLU Blogburst: War against a discredited story
Stop the ACLU has the latest on the NSA's litigation against phone companies and their state-by-state effort to hammer those phone companies (and thus drive up the price we pay for telephone service) based on the USA Today story detailing the NSA buying phone records from those companies. Problem is? There doesn't seem to be any evidence it happened, and evidence that it didn't. Read more at Stop the ACLU. Gazoo.
Posted by John Bambenek at 9:05 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
May 23, 2006
If Hastert wasn't retiring, I'd say he should be thrown out
Listen, Denny, if a Congressman uses his office to break the law, it isn't unconstitutional for the executive branch to take a look at his office to prosecute him. It wasn't like he was drunk and drove a car into a barrier, or he slapped around a Capitol cop. He took bribes for official action and that makes his office fair game.
UPDATE:
Or maybe he isn't under investigation... mislead by the MSM again...
Posted by John Bambenek at 10:39 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
May 22, 2006
Defending the Right of Congressmen to Break the Law in Private
Over the weekend, the FBI executed a search warrant to search Representative William Jefferson’s congressional office. While it might be amusing to point out that the distinguished gentleman from Louisiana is a Democrat, the intent here is not to make partisan jabs (okay, maybe a little). Corruption has been a part of both parties and neither has a lock on it. (Just look at Illinois).
A politician, particularly from Louisiana, being on the take is not a big surprise. Nor is the fact that the same politician was caught on tape taking the money, nor the money having been found neatly wrapped still in his freezer at home. The biggest thing that voters should sit up and take notice is that congressional leaders from both parties are taking offense to the fact an object of a criminal bribery probe had his congressional office searched. That's right. These congressmen have the audacity to complain that searching Rep. Jefferson's office violated separation of powers.
To review, any police department (an executive agency) is required to ask a court before getting a search warrant. They have to lay out what they are searching for and why they want to search where they're requesting to go. A judge (a member of the judiciary) hears them out and either approves or denies the warrant. Odds are, because of the high-profile nature of this warrant, a judge took his time and carefully considered this warrant. At the end of the day, both the executive and judiciary landed on the same page with regards to this legislator's corruption. Or, you could look at it as the two other branches of government are checking the corruption of the third.
The facts are these, Rep. Jefferson is accused of using his legislative office to perform official acts for private pay… he took bribes. The FBI states that they have this bribe-taking on tape and that they found the money in Jefferson's home. While there is "two sides to every story" and he is "innocent until proven guilty" it certainly looks like the FBI might have a pretty solid case here. Perhaps if Jefferson is so concerned about executive and judicial scrutiny of his office, he ought to have considered not being corrupt in the first place.
The party leaders and other congressional members carrying the water for Jefferson, however, is beyond the pale. Instead of being angry with Jefferson for abusing his office or calling for impeachment hearings, they are complaining that the FBI… did their job. The message they are sending is that they demand the right of privacy for congressman who use their office for illegal activities.
If someone was shot in one of their offices, could there be an investigation?
What if one of them was dealing drugs out of their office, could they try to catch the Congressman in the act?
Any right-thinking person can see why a congressional office shouldn't be an impregnable veil against those who investigate and punish criminal activity. Apparently, congressional leaders of both parties thing there are more important things than stopping criminal activity, at least if one of their own is involved.
Voters of both parties need to send a clear message. Not only will we not tolerate corrupt individuals among our elected representatives, but we must not tolerate those who seek to protect them or otherwise prevent investigation and prosecution of them. We cannot let these congressmen… our employees tell us that the Constitution requires that we let them get away with taking bribes.
Any congressman who seeks to defend this activity, or construct absurd walls to investigating congressional misbehavior, need to be thrown out of office regardless of partisan affiliation. It is time that these lawmakers focus more of cleaning their own house instead of protecting the criminals within it.
Tags: jefferson, congress, corruption, bribes, separation of powers, united states, politics, FBI, judiciary, law
Thanks to Mudville Gazette,
Posted by John Bambenek at 10:03 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
April 9, 2006
Read this : The Dummification of Politics
Taking a break from my usual rule of no posting on Sundays to share this because I think it's great.
Joe Klein and I probably don't agree on much in the way of politics, but this is spot on.
Read it.
Posted by John Bambenek at 4:15 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
April 5, 2006
A Solution to Illegal Immigration?
The immigration debate has exposed a sore issue on all sides. Much of the country is upset that the government is doing nothing about illegal immigration and is simply proposing to grant amnesty to illegal immigrants in lieu of not enforcing the laws. The illegal immigrants believe this to be a racist attack designed to purge the country of Hispanics. Both sides have a point but there still needs to be a solution before the issue becomes too contentious.
The immigration enforcement position
Those who favor immigration enforcement argue that these people entered the country illegally and should not be rewarded for breaking the law. They state that the porous border makes it easy for the enemies of the United States to enter the country and undermine us from within. There is the argument that illegal immigrants inflate the welfare roles causing taxpayers to pay for people who sneak across the border. Lastly, the situation has led to open armed conflict on the border with Mexico.
The immigrants' position
Living in poverty with no hope of a better life for oneself or one's children isn't a fun thing. If you lived in Mexico and saw the prosperity in the US you'd want to come here too. With the Mexican government and the United States government making it so easy to come here it hardly seems like it is really illegal. Companies are ready and willing to not only hire you, but help you "doctor" the paperwork so it appears legit. If your child is born in the US they'll automatically have US citizenship.
It's a win-win.
Analysis
This problem has been caused by the government of the United States not only spending decades not enforcing the law but broadcasting that we have no intention of enforcing the law. When Mexico started producing pamphlets on how to sneak across the border, our government did nothing. While it is tempting to blame the illegal immigrants, we can hardly blame them for wanting a better life, being told by their government they can come to the US for a good life, and the US saying they won't enforce the laws. Making it a felony to be an illegal immigrant starts to get dangerously close to an ex post facto kind of situation.
One could make the argument that ignorance of the law is no excuse, but I'd like to take this opportunity to point to this law. In Illinois, premarital sex is illegal. No one expects the government to enforce this law and it hasn't for a good long time now. If one day they decided to break up the shack-up fest at the nearest meat market people would cry foul. Skipping past the constitutional considerations, something is fundamentally unfair about telling people you aren't going to enforce a criminal statute for decades and then suddenly changing your mind.
A government has the right to and ought to regulate the flow of immigration to that level which is most beneficial to the economy. It has a right to not take another country's poor to only become permanent beneficiaries of the welfare system. Lastly, the transparent lack of enforcement on the border has only emboldened criminal elements to operate there with impunity.
Solution
All immigrants would be required to register with the government and undergo some simple tests including a background check. If they have caused no problems here, they will be required to briefly return home, check-in, and then be allowed to return.
The number of legal immigrants we give visas to should be greatly increased and the process to get here simplified to those steps which are necessary to maintain security. The easier it is for legitimate people to get here (while keeping the bad guys out) will prevent the "black market" immigrant transport problem we have now.
When they return they'll be required to use legitimate information for any job they have and provide that information to the government. The situation of forty million people using the social security number of 000-00-0000 needs to end.
They'll have very limited access to welfare programs. In short, they'll be expected to support themselves like every other immigrant that comes here legally has to do. We should not allow the government of Mexico to treat the US as if it were responsible for its own poverty problem and welfare programs. If Mexico insists on the US providing social services for it, then it is time we consider whether Mexico should become the 51st state.
Because the government has shown that it cannot be trusted to properly enforce the laws, a "qui tam" provision must be included which allows private citizens to sue on behalf of the government those employers who employ illegal immigrants. These laws have worked well in cases of government fraud and Medicare fraud, and this would allow interested private parties to do the enforcing with the help of a court. Take away the jobs and a large incentive to sneak across the border goes away.
Two tracks of legal immigration should be adopted, an irrevocable path to citizenship and a guest worker program. Guest workers will be allowed to work for 10 years and have no eligibility for welfare. The path to citizenship will require a renunciation of Mexican (or other relevant nation's) citizenship and classes in English will be provided. Guest workers cannot be hired if there are willing and capable legal residents or citizens applying to do the work.
Congressional seats will be apportioned by the number of legal residents in the state and not merely the number of people in the state. Having a high proportion of illegal immigrants should not afford a state with extra House seats.
Any illegal immigrants captured or otherwise discovered in the United State will be permanently banned from legal immigration.
A border wall will be constructed to eliminate the flow of people into the United States in an undocumented fashion.
Summary
This should suffice in getting all the legitimate workers documented, isolate the criminal element as they would not likely walk into a government office to get fingerprinted, and create a regime that allows for enforcement (even when government officials want to weasel out). It will stem the incentives that cause people to sneak across the border and the incentives to hire such people. It will also allow for the compassion and fairness of liberal immigration that has been beneficial to our society. Lastly, it will emphasize assimilation by requiring a permanent irrevocable choice to become a US citizen. It is a difficult issue to arrive at a compromise on because of the failure of the government which made this the huge issue it has become.
Posted by John Bambenek at 10:48 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
March 30, 2006
DNC to Canvass in all 50 States
Here's the email I got from Mad Howard.
====
Dear John,
Are you ready to make history?
Thanks to the overwhelming support from thousands of Democrats, who donated to get the literature for the canvass printed and shipped, we're on schedule and gearing up for the unprecedented Neighbor-to-Neighbor Organizing Day on April 29th.
On that Saturday, thousands of volunteers will recruit hundreds of thousands more Americans committed to changing the status quo this year during door-knocking events in communities across America.
Democrats have a clear vision for America, and we're going to get the word out by making personal contact with our neighbors. And along the way we will build new relationships among volunteers on the ground, a network that will have an impact beyond a single day.
Whether you've never volunteered or you're a seasoned door-knocking veteran, it is crucial that you take part in this historic organizing push.
Please RSVP for an event near you:
http://www.democrats.org/50statecanvass/find
In many states, Democratic Party staff on the ground have already put together staging areas for massive voter contact events on the 29th. Thanks to donations from people like you, hundreds of thousands of pieces of literature are being printed and shipping in bulk to those locations right now.
If there isn't an event near you, don't worry. Some state parties will have canvassing events on alternate dates, or have other important events planned for that weekend.
You can still plan your own canvass in your community. Our online tool makes the planning process easy, and if you create your event before April 10th, we will get doorhangers to you in time for your canvass on the 29th.
You can create your own event here:
http://www.democrats.org/50statecanvass/create
Whether you're attending an event or hosting your own, we have also put together materials on the web to help you make your canvass as effective as possible.
The online package includes tips on canvassing, a suggested script for when you get to the door, and the doorhanger itself in various formats for you to print extras on your own.
Here is the online resource center:
http://www.democrats.org/50statecanvass
Two-thirds of Americans reject this president and the Republican leadership -- and they are waiting to hear from us.
We are all members of one American community and it's up to us to make sure that our country has a government as good as its people.
Democrats have a big task in November. We will only win if every one of us takes responsibility for the outcome of the election now -- while there is still time to build our operation.
Thank you for being a part of this extraordinary grassroots push.
Governor Howard Dean, M.D.
Posted by John Bambenek at 7:17 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Stop the ACLU - History of the ACLU Part 1
A History On The ACLU Part 1
I researched the Congressional Record dated Wednesday, September 20, 1961. Very important information relating to the ACLU and it's Communist/Socialist ambitions.
Dr. Fredrick Schwartz, executive director of the International Christian Anticommunism Crusade, "Communist Legal Subversion," page 75, House Committee on Un-American Activities: "Any attempt to judge the influence of Communists by their numbers is like trying to determine the validity of the hull of a boat by relating the area of the holes to the area which is sound. One hole can sink a ship. Communism is the theory of the disciplined of few controlling and directing the rest. One person in a sensitive position can control and manipulate thousands of others."
FBI Director, J. Edger Hoover called Communists, "Masters of Deceit". He continues, "Fronts probably represent the party's (communist) most successful tactic in capturing non-Communist support. Like mass agitation and infiltration, fronts espouse the deceptive party line (hence the word "front"), while actually advancing the real party line. In this way the party is able to influence thousands of non-Communists, collecting large sums of money, and reach the minds, pens, and tongues of many high-ranking and distinguished individuals. Moreover, fronts are excellent fields for party recruitment." The FBI director, people!
And how does this tie into the ACLU? I'm getting to that. The two co-founders of the American Civil Liberties Union are Roger Baldwin and Crystal Eastwood, both confessed socialists. Roger Baldwin was on the record of over 100 Communist front affiliations. In an article that he wrote for "Soviet Russia Today"(September 1934), "When the power of the working class is once achieved, as it has been only in the Soviet Union, I am for maintaining it by any means whatsoever." He goes on to say, "The class struggle is the central conflict of the world, all others are coincidental." He also wrote in a book commemorating the 30th anniversary of the Harvard graduating class of 1905 (in 1935), "I seek social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class, and sole control of those who produce wealth: Communism is the goal."
Dr. Harry Ward, the first chairman of the ACLU, was linked to over 200 front affiliations of the Communist Party. And was the chairman of one of the largest front organizations in this country, "The American League for Peace and Democracy." Which was placed on a list of subversive organizations by the Attorney General of The United States on June 1, 1948. Dr. Ward authored two pro-Soviet books, "Soviet Democracy" and "Soviet Spirit", which garnered him an investigation by the California State Senate Fact Finding Committee on Un-American Activities. The Committee stated on page 246 of their report, "The Communist affiliation of Dr. Harry F. Ward is indicative of the Communist sympathies of the members and sponsors of the 'Friends of the Soviet Union.'"
Since this history is far reaching, I will continue this subject in tomorrow's main posting. I don't wish to overwhelm my readers with too much information. But should you wish to read up on this subject further, you can read the entire Congressional Record for September 20, 1961, by clicking on the title of this post. It is rather eye opening.
This was a production of Stop The ACLU Blogburst. If you would like to join us, please email Jay or Gribbit. You will be added to our mailing list and blogroll. Over 180 blogs already on-board
Posted by John Bambenek at 5:50 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
March 20, 2006
Guard the Borders Blogburst: A Call to Action
On Thursday, March 16, the Senate Judiciary Committee told their staff to meet behind closed doors to construct an immigration bill that would include provisions from the Kennedy-McCain bill. Known as S. 1033, the McCain-Kennedy bill includes an amnesty for illegal aliens, a massive "guest" worker program that leads to citizenship, and an estimated one million additional permanent immigrants each year.
Millions of illegals to become citizens?
Kennedy-McCain immigration reform bill likely to pass Senate committee after recess
A bill that would give millions of illegal aliens in the United States the opportunity to earn citizenship is closer to becoming law today as members of the Senate Judiciary Committee signaled likely passage of a proposal by Sens. Edward Kenney, D-Mass., and John McCain, R-Ariz.Though a committee vote will not be held until after a week-long congressional recess, likely March 27, committee members appeared ready to back the Kennedy-McCain bill.
"The votes are there," said Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa.
Congress is working to pass a reform bill that includes enforcement, a policy on dealing with illegals already in the country and a guest-worker program pushed by President Bush.
Under the legislation, illegal aliens in the United States would obtain six-year nonimmigrant visas under which they could work in the country and travel outside the country. The aliens would have to pay a $1,000 fine and undergo background checks.
After six years, the aliens would be able to meet certain requirements and then apply for a green card, or permanent residency.
Besides voting on the bill after the recess, committee Chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pa., said the panel also would vote on a bill by Sens. John Cornyn, R-Texas, and Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., that would give illegal aliens up to five years to leave the U.S. After returning home, they could then apply to return, either as temporary workers or for permanent residency.
"Our intention is not to strand anyone outside the country," Kyl said, according to an AP report. But he asserted the McCain-Kennedy plan would give an illegal alien allowed to stay and work in the country a "huge advantage" over a person having to wait for years in his or her own country for a green card.
The McCain-Kennedy bill would start off with offering 400,000 of the new visas.
To compare the various bills please click here to view a .pdf chart created by NumbersUSA.org. You will be able to see for yourself that what the spin-meisters are telling us about the various bills clearly does NOT match the actual provisions of the bills themselves.
Although Sens. McCain and Kennedy adamantly deny that S. 1033 is an amnesty for illegal aliens, it clearly spells out a path to jobs and residency for illegal aliens. Among the significant immigration-increase provisions of the bill are: a new visa category (H-5A) for 400,000 low-skill foreign workers (this cap can be adjusted upwards); a new temporary 6-year visa category (H-5B) for illegal aliens (and their spouses and children) already in the country; an amnesty for illegal aliens who apply for an H-5B visa and pay a $2,000 fine; a provision for the H-5A temporary workers to apply for permanent resident status after four years; and an exemption of immediate relatives (spouses, children, and parents of U.S. citizens) from the annual level of 480,000 family-sponsored immigrant visas thereby providing additional visas to the family preference categories.
Supporters claim S. 1033 contains measures to increase border security, yet it contains virtually no such provisions. Aside from creating a Border Security Committee and requiring a few reports, the main "enforcement" provisions are aimed at helping Mexico control its borders!! S. 1033 does, however, require machine-readable immigration documents, and create a new electronic work authorization system that would eventually replace the current "I-9" system. S. 1033 would require the federal government to reimburse states for the cost of providing emergency health care to H-5A and H-5B workers.
Aside from the fact that any guest worker plan would be nothing more than a disastrous amnesty deal tied with a big red bow for lawbreakers, there is another reason to reject it: Our government can’t handle it!
Our government is not capable of handling roughly 13-20 million temporary worker applications when our illegal alien population suddenly becomes eligible through guest worker legislation - USCIS (U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service) simply cannot handle the administration overload it already has. The only solution would be to massively increase the government. The link above outlines a report from the GAO that shows how the USCIS is already irrevocably buried under a backlog of immigration adjudication. It's a whole other perspective on the various administrative amnesties proposed by the Senate. Mundane? Perhaps. Crucial to the overall scope and size of our bloated and sprawling federal government? Absolutely.
1. If you care about the careless increases in immigration as proposed by our Senate, please send a fax - today. It's fast, it's easy - and it's free. NumbersUSA has an amazing way to help us stay involved, and helps us get our voices heard. Their basic faxes are pre-written, and will take less than one minute to send. But, even better, once you register, the faxes are fully customizable to say what you specifically find important to say, if you so choose. The site is an incredible free resource for immigration issues. You can also opt-in for timely updates on issues coming before Congress, and take action on every single on, if you desire.
2. Email the permalink from this article to others you know who care about the impact of illegal immigration. Together, we can all have a voice. The more Americans that respond - the bigger the impact.
Please take a moment, and send a fax today. The Senate Judiciary Committe is behind closed doors as we speak. The McCain-Kennedy bill will come to a vote by next Monday. They and their staffs are smugly confident that they have the votes - let's convince our Senators otherwise.
Take action! We can still be heard!
Posted by John Bambenek at 9:24 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
February 26, 2006
Universal Health Care and Euthanasia
There are two events that should give people pause when considering universal health care. First is Hurricane Katrina and several facilities euthanisizing patients not because of terminal illness, but because they didn?t think they could move them. Second is Charlotte Wyatt who doctors want to euthanize (or more accurately let die) because they don?t think she is worth saving. A court has rules that the doctors can make this decision even though it is contrary to the will of the parents. In the first case, it is people making mistaken practical judgments. In the second case, it?s little more than outright eugenics.
It is one thing to let some one commit suicide because they've lived a full life and have little hope of recovery. It is another to mandate death to people because they aren't worth taking care of. The first case can be called "right to die". The second case is more properly called the "right to kill". Confusing the two makes it easier for the "right to die" crowd to be a "right to kill" crowd.
Right now it is particularly difficult for people to be put to death against their stated (or their family members) will in the United States; that is until universal health care is introduced (and hopefully it never will be). To summarize, the government can't be trusted to know which phone calls belong to terrorists and which belong to moms planning on getting their kids to soccer practice. The government can't be trusted to get industry advice and not sell out to the rich. The government can't be trusted even to hold prisoners captured on the field of battle. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE TAKE ALL MY MEDICAL RECORDS AND HAVE COMPLETE CONTROL OVER MY HEALTH CARE!!!
The problem comes in that the government uses different priorities to make decisions than people do. For instance, the Irish Health Service had other priorities in mind when deciding on health care for the elderly. Or stateside, an Illinois pension fund seems to be operating under different priorities then actually keeping pensions around for teachers. Bureaucrats like wasting money, when they waste too much there isn?t enough to take care of business. Apply this to health care and it means people without money who have come to rely on public health care will get screwed.
What happens when people get screwed by the health care system? Well they'll be euthanized more often than they are now. New Orleans medical professionals decided that it was too much effort to try to keep them alive so they killed them. Not because they were terminally ill. Not because they were in incredible pain. It was because they assessed the situation and didn?t think it worth trying to find a way to help them. The difference is when they aren't the government, they'll be prosecuted. When they are operating with a government imprimatur, they'll get away with it more likely than not. The government will decide who is worth treating and who should die based on some dollar calculation.
If the NSA can't be trusted to listen to some phone calls, what makes people think that this health care calculus will be honest?
Posted by John Bambenek at 10:01 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
February 15, 2006
Why I'm Sick of Talking Politics
It's crap like this. Why is this front page news? Why does the NYT need to fantasize over a grand jury to investigate an accident? He was hunting, someone got shanked. It happens, and if nothing else the NRA is pissed because there is another data point out there on why all guns should be banned.
Making jokes is one thing, but Democrats trying to make it a political issue is just stupid. I seriously feel dumber for having read those articles. Any time there is bad news, they blame Bush. Doesn't matter what it is.
Posted by John Bambenek at 8:24 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
February 13, 2006
Immigration Analysis by Darnell McGavock
By Darnell McGavock at Independent Conservative
Contrary to popular belief, most illegals coming to the USA already had jobs in the country that they left. Also, they are seeking much higher paying jobs than some might believe. Their days of trying to just pick fruit are over!
Here are some details, although it is best to read this entire article:
Study: Most illegal immigrants had jobsThe research, believed to represent the largest-ever study of undocumented migrants, contends that the vast majority of illegal immigrants from Mexico were gainfully employed before they migrated to the United States, and failure to find work in their native Mexico did not seem to be the primary reason for their departure, said Rakesh Kochhar, associate director for research at the center and author of the report.
…
In fact, the majority of new migrants will look for work with higher wages in industries such as construction, hotels or sales, said Roberto Suro, director of the Pew Hispanic Center.
…
Only 5 percent of the 4,836 migrants surveyed were unemployed in Mexico before moving to the United States - a significantly lower number than in past studies and theories about migrants, Suro said.
…
Ironically, Kochhar added, immigration status (in the United States) has little to do with finding employment. Migrants without identification had the same chance of landing a job as those with valid U.S. IDs.
…
So much for all that talk about illegals needing to find work. They already had work where they came from. They just come to the USA for a higher wage. And so much for all that talk about illegals only filling jobs "that Americans will not do". As I've previously explained, Americans did those jobs and can do them again. And never mind "those jobs", now the illegals are going for YOUR JOB. They want to move up the pay scale. The illegals coming in now are better educated than prior generations and so they are seeking higher paying jobs that require a higher skill set.
The actual report is available here.
The complete report mentions:
Once they arrive and pass through a relatively brief period of transition and adjustment, migrants have little trouble finding work. Family and social networks play a significant role in this; large shares of migrants report talking to people they know in the U.S. about job opportunities and living with relatives after arrival. They easily make transitions into new jobs, even though most find themselves working in industries that are new to them.
…
There is a steady and strong demand for migrant workers from Mexico in agriculture, construction, manufacturing and hospitality. These four industries employ about two-thirds of the survey respondents, irrespective of their background in Mexico or their year of arrival.
…
Migrants from Mexico are responsive to regional variations in demand for their services. Construction is the dominant industry for employing migrants in Atlanta, Dallas and Raleigh; hospitality is the major employer in New York City; manufacturing in Chicago; and agriculture in Fresno.
…
The percentage of survey respondents employed in agriculture in the U.S. has dropped from 17% of those in country more than 15 years to 9% of recent arrivals. At the same time, the percentage employed in construction and hospitality has increased from 23% to 42%.
…
The time is now to close our borders to illegal immigration.
This has been a production of the Guard the Borders Blogburst. It was started by Euphoric Reality, and serves to keep immigration issues in the forefront of our minds as we're going about our daily lives and continuing to fight the war on terror. If you are concerned with the trend of illegal immigration facing our country, join our blogburst! Just send an email with your blog name and url to euphoricrealitynet at gmail dot com.
Blogs already on board:
Posted by John Bambenek at 8:18 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
February 9, 2006
DI Reprints Mohammed Cartoons...
I got wind of this early, but today the Daily Illini reprinted the infamous Mohammed Cartoons and as was expected, they were flooded with phone calls, letters, etc. The news has broken nationally with the old editor and chief posting updates.
Personally, I don't know how I feel about it except to say that the new editor meant to prove a point and got the reaction he wanted. At some point I'll write on my opinions of the mischaracterizing of free speech (private citizens influencing others to not run things is not a free speech issue, certainly not in terms of the 1st Amendment), but the situation is pretty deep in all the issues it covers. I'm trying to put together a panel discussion on the issue, we'll see where it goes.
Michelle Malkin plugs it and more on the issue.
UPDATE: Here is the Chancellor's response.
UPDATE 2: Here's a brief quote from the AP article out on the subject (Not known is it is linked online anywhere yet)...
AP-IL PROPHET DRAWINGS DAILY ILLINI Student-run newspaper reprints some of Danish newspaper's cartoonsCHAMPAIGN, Ill. (AP) - The student-run newspaper that serves the University of Illinois community on Thursday ran reprints of some of the cartoons whose publication has sparked outrage and violence in many parts of the Islamic world.
The Daily Illini, which is independent of the UI, ran only six of the 12 cartoons first published in September in Denmark's Jyllands-Posten, but led with the one that has caused the greatest furor: a depiction of the Prophet Muhammad wearing a bomb as part of his turban.
Posted by John Bambenek at 5:14 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
January 28, 2006
To filibuster or not to filibuster, that is the question
Sen. Kerry, Kennedy, and Clinton appear to be on board with a filibuster, and I'm all for it. I think the should filibuster it. I think when the vote comes up a few hours before the State of the Union, they should let the filibuster begin and let it bump the State of the Union address. Then I think the Republicans should break it the old fashioned way by waiting for whoever does it to need to go to the bathroom. It's time to defeat this sword hanging over the Senate floor. Let them filibuster and then break the filibuster. The humiliation and utter defeat will by the final nail in the coffin of this dying and irrelevant group of children called the Democratic Party.
Posted by John Bambenek at 4:01 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
January 26, 2006
Judicial Legislation: The Destructive Power of Injunctions (Stop the ACLU post)
The judiciary has been characterized as what should be the weakest branch of government and for good cause. When a judge pronounces broad and sweeping judgments about what is or is not a "right" it bypasses democracy and establishes juristocracy. Such governments cannot be considered free.
An enormous amount of trust is placed in judges. This can be seen in the Alito confirmation that is feared to "tilt the country to the right". This language largely means that the Democrats are afraid that Alito is not going to vote the Democrat party line in court cases. But that's not the real issue. Why does a judge have the power to tilt the country to the right or the left? What happened to the legislature being able to write laws and courts applying them?
The problem with courts setting the laws largely revolves around how cases are decided. For each case there are two and generally only two sides. In cases involving civil rights and such you have the party who feels they have been harmed and you have the government. The judgment of the court based upon the statements of the single individual (or group) harmed and the statements of the judge can have an effect on the entirety of the population without any contribution or participation on their part. This is largely why the opinion that lawyers don't "write the law" is largely irresponsible as it tries to dissolve any argument that lawyers might have some moral responsibility.
Take Roe v Wade which had on one side Norma McCorvey and on the other side the state of Texas. The Supreme Court created abortion on demand as the law of the land based on the arguments of those parties. Amicus briefs are fine, but they don't rise to the same level as courtroom participation. Not only did no other interested parties get to participate, a national law was created without as much as a vote of the American people.
Lobbyists and special interests may be a dirty thing in the legislature, but at least for each issue there tends to be at least two groups that oppose each other vying for influence. In a courtroom, there is no one to speak for the desires of the varied opinions of the hundreds of millions of Americans who may be effected by a judicial injunction telling the government what laws they can pass, what laws they cannot pass, what they must set their tax rate at, what they must fund projects with, and a wide variety of issues that, until recently, were seen as part of the political process, not the judicial process.
Constitutional law has largely become a joke. It can no longer be considered that the practical exercise of constitutional law is based on the Constitution. When the Constitution was signed, representatives of the people were there representing their constituents. When a judge signs an injunction that significantly modifies or changes the agreement that was made, who does he represent? He wasn't voted into office by anyone. He doesn't represent anyone. He simply makes the laws, and the unbridled power allows for rampant misinterpretations of the law and constitution.
If the left is afraid of Alito as a Supreme Court justice it is because they have created a system that gives judges far too much power. If gay marriage should be law of the land, there is a process to do it. When people desired desegregation, they passed laws and constitutional amendments. Running into court to impose radically new social and legal norms is the refuge of those who wish to impose tyranny.
Lastly, some would argue there wouldn't be a Brown v Board of Education without an activist court. Activist courts may sometimes get things right and do what is best for society. But for every Brown v Board there is a Dred Scott. And when they get it wrong, you can't just vote the bums out.
See Stop the ACLU for the latest anti-ACLU efforts.
Posted by John Bambenek at 5:50 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
January 24, 2006
Mexico Invades the United States
Just after it has been released that there has been over 200 unauthorized border crossings unto US soil by the Mexican military, it appears that people dressed as Mexican military provided armed cover for drug dealers fleeing Texas into Mexico. Mounted machine guns were pointed at law enforcement apparently by the Mexican military inside the borders of the United States.
Some will dismiss this as meaningless posturing despite the fact that if the US military every crossed a border in an unauthorized fashion they'd scream bloody murder. Some may dismiss this as another attack on immigration, despite the fact that no immigrants were involved. In this case, suspected drug dealers fleeing with over a half-ton of drugs were trying to escape Texas law enforcement inside the Texas border, and they were provided armed cover by what appears to be the Mexican military. Some may say it just appears they were dressed like that, and it remains to be seen exactly who those people were, but if there are people running around in military uniforms using military-grade weaponry, Mexico ought to be doing something about it. Especially if they make a habit of causing international incidents on American soil.
For too long the border has gone underprotected. This isn't about immigration, per se. The United States should significantly loosen the restrictions on those who wish to come here to work and have a better life. However, that has largely been lost in the debate where few people understand that there is even a legal way to immigrate and equate those who illegally enter the country with those who follow the proper process. The political cowardice of those in office to enforce the laws related to the border have led not only to rampant illegal immigration but outright mockery of the law. Mexico provides guides for people wishing to enter the US illegally and then the Mexican government demands that Social Security checks be sent to Mexico.
There is nothing wrong with someone trying to get to the US for a better life for themselves and their children and the fact that people still come here in droves speaks volumes about the strength and vitality of the American economy. However, the de facto open borders policy has lead to military incursions, open drug trade, and even easy terrorist access into the country. There are those who say we can't win the drug war. They have a point when a foreign military can invade the United States and provide cover for drug dealers while the White House remains silent.
Posted by John Bambenek at 2:57 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBack
January 23, 2006
Guard the Boarders: Video Footage of Mexican Military Incursion of US Soil
It's one thing to debate whether or not workers should sneak into the country. It's another to pretend that Mexican military defending drug lords on our own soil is no big deal. Do you think Mexico would like Marines on their side of the border? You bet they'd raise a stink in the UN about it. But the US shrugs it off. There are those who think we can't win the drug war, well it certainly doesn't help when we let the military of another country defend the drug trade on our own soil. Below is the GTB blogburst.
====
Last week, those of us who keep an eye on border issues noticed that several mainstream media sources had featured articles about the regular Mexican military incursions over our borders and into our country. This is nothing new, as the Border Patrol has documented hundreds of such illegal incursions by an armed Mexican military over the past decade, and our government has done nothing to curb these incursions. In fact, it seems our government has looked the other way. While I'm relieved that this information is getting out into the mainstream, I have little confidence that our governement will actually do its job and secure our borders.
Some confrontations between the Mexican military troops and our own Border Patrol agents have become violent as Mexican soldiers have fired their weapons at the Border Patrol. It's a mystery why our government refuses to acknowledge these hostile invasions. They surely know about it, and the Mexican Embassy in Washington D.C. has gone so far as to publicly deny that the Mexican soldiers are hostile, but rather there to "patrol for illegal border jumpers". Contrary to that public statement, however, most of the Mexican military troops on the border are moonlighting as security escorts for drug smuggling gangs the coyotes who are running large groups of illegals across the border.
T.J. Bonner, a 27-year Border Patrol veteran who heads the National Border Patrol Council [said], "Intrusions by the Mexican military to protect drug loads happen all the time and represent a significant threat to the agents. "Why else would they be in the area, firing at federal agents in the United States? There is no other explanation," said Mr. Bonner, whose organization represents all 10,000 of the nonsupervisory Border Patrol agents.He also challenged reports that Mexican military units had crossed mistakenly into the United States, saying, "Every country's military has a [global positioning system] nowadays, including the Mexicans. "If the border is so poorly marked, why don't the thousands of Border Patrol agents working 24/7 along it ever seem to get lost, and none of us have been issued a GPS," he said.
[...]
Attacks on Border Patrol agents in the past few years have been attributed to current or former Mexican military personnel. U.S. law-enforcement officials have long thought that current and former Mexican soldiers are being paid to protect drug shipments bound for the United States.Several agents said the attacks have escalated in the past two years as U.S. security efforts on the border have increased -- including the July shooting of two agents in an ambush near Nogales, Ariz., by assailants in black commando-type clothing, who fired more than 50 rounds. Authorities said the gunmen used military-style cover-and-concealment tactics to escape back into Mexico. No one has been arrested.
Without any federal commitment to secure our borders, the Minutemen, a volunteer citizen's group, has performed an invaluable civic service in patrolling our borders to document and verify the location of illegal border crossers. They, too, have encountered Mexican soldiers on the WRONG side of the border. The video clip below comes directly from the Arizona Minutemen who told the Mexican soldiers, when confronted, they were there as "media" to document the border situation. It is incredibly important to note that there is no reason why American citizens should EVER be required to justify their lawful activities on American soil to a FOREIGN military presence. That is anathema to our rights as American citizens!
(SCOTTSDALE, AZ) January 20, 2006 – The Minuteman Civil Defense Corps ("MCDC") announced the release today of video footage of an incursion by a unit of the Mexican army across the U.S. border in Arizona.Chris Simcox and a group of Civil Defense Corps volunteers encountered a squad of approximately eight armed Mexican soldiers about 500 yards inside American territory. The Mexican soldiers started running back through the brush to Mexico when they realized they had been spotted.
The video shows a uniformed Mexican soldier climbing through a barbed wire fence on American soil to return to the Mexican side of the border as he races to catch up with the other Mexican soldiers who had also climbed back through the fence as they retreated back into their country.
A group of armed Mexican soldiers then returned to the barbed wire fence (on American soil) and confronted Simcox and the volunteers. A discussion in Spanish ensued, with the agitated soldier 'in charge' saying the Americans had no business being there.
Simcox and the volunteers did not budge. The Mexican soldiers left and drove off. Judging from earlier activity observed at the ranch that morning, Simcox is of the belief that a trafficking operation had been disrupted by the volunteers.
The footage, filmed in 2004, was sent to then Secretary of Homeland Security Tom Ridge. His office did not respond. The video has remained in the Minuteman video archive and is being released in response to recent news reports that over 200 cross-border incursions by the Mexican army have been documented since 1996.
Posted by John Bambenek at 10:19 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
January 22, 2006
Time-Gate? The Media is Learning the Wrong Lesson
Time Magazine apparently has an exclusive that there exists pictures with President Bush and Jack Abramoff together. Skipping past the irrelevancy of what these pictures are supposed to present, there is one immediate thing that comes to mind.
TIME has seen five photographs of Abramoff and the President that suggest a level of contact between them that Bush's aides have downplayed. While TIME's source refused to provide the pictures for publication…
Rathergate of fond memory provided what should have been a valuable lesson to the media to make sure they don’t use forged documents to try to prove a partisan point. However, the lesson they have learned is to provide less visibility and accountability, not more. If the pictures never make it to the public, then they can’t be refuted. This comes from an industry supposedly trying to expose truth, and instead they are concealing it.
There is one important question that any hack journalist would have asked when a resource showed but refused to disclose pictures such as these: why? That question goes unaddressed in the piece. There is no mention of how the source got them, even in general terms, why the source is hiding them, or why the reporters think they are legitimate. Apparently the public is supposed to just “trust” them. The media has become so afraid of bloggers and the public that they are afraid to give them any information which could be used to refute them. The only reason not to provide the pictures from Time’s perspective is because they can be easily refuted, despite the fact they are irrelevant anyway (the President is in thousands of pictures every year, that doesn’t mean that every photo-op is with his closest friends).
Cases of media bias are clear cut, such as the AP Style Guide clearly suggesting using anti-abortion instead of pro-life in order to push “abortion rights” and use pro-choice approved propaganda terms. In this case, the Democrats are trying to push the point that Republicans and only Republicans have corruption problems.
They are desperately trying to stick Abramoff to Bush to use as a template in the 2008 elections conveniently forgetting record-breaking corruption of a certain previous Democrat administration. In short, the Democrat party platform has become, ”We can’t beat them so let’s try to indict them”.
And it appears that Time Magazine is playing along.
Posted by John Bambenek at 7:26 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
January 19, 2006
Weak attempt at an Anti-ACLU Post
There is a movement to intervene in the ACLU case so that real Americans can have real views represented in the NSA lawsuit filed by the ACLU...
Debbie Schlussel, blogger/investigative writer/lawyer, is extending an invitation to citizens interested in intervening in the ACLU's NSA lawsuit. She practices in Eastern Michigan, where the suit was filed.
Take a look and sign up.
Posted by John Bambenek at 8:56 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
January 18, 2006
DI Column Posted: Connecting the Dots
You can read it here.
The editor who worked on this, a liberal, particularly had a problem with my description of abortion as "the right of women to kill their babies for reasons of convenience". She didn't want to get drowned in another sea of letters like my last column caused.
Posted by John Bambenek at 8:04 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
January 12, 2006
AP Media Bias - Uncovered
Here's the title of the story, "Corporate Taxes, Gov't Spending Hit Records".
Here's the quoted first paragraph, emphasis mine:
The federal government posted the first budget surplus for December in three years as corporate tax payments hit an all-time high, helping offset a record level for spending, the Treasury Department reported Thursday.
The first paragraph says the government is running it's first surplus in three years and they focus on something else. We wouldn't want to deprive the Democrats of the "record surpluses to record deficits" motto, would we?
Posted by John Bambenek at 2:23 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
War With Iran is Coming
The European project has failed. The EU has come out and said that diplomacy has failed and they are referring the matter to the Security Council. There is talk of economic sanctions, but economic sanctions alone have always been useless to deal with problems of this sort (see Cuba).
Make not mistake, Iran is building nukes. The issue would be easily resolved if Iran would allow public inspections of what they are up to and they have refused them. This barely concealed agenda is not lost on the Europeans who may waffle on terrorism are very concerned about weapons proliferation. It's a question of whether China or Russia will stonewall, but the politics of this situation make it unlikely that either of those superpowers will get themselves alienated so Iran can make nukes and threaten Israel.
The timing of these developments almost sets up an invasion. US troops are already in Iraq, the next nation over, and will be scaling down operations in the coming months. Iraq has elected its own permanent government and as the dust settles, likely so will the terrorist attacks (generated in no small part because of the assistance of Iran). No one seriously would consider attacking Iran without the US onboard, and the US will surely be leading that operation. The EU military certainly isn't up to the task.
While Iran is doing everything possible to push a confrontation including its saber-rattling towards Israel, there are political downsides domestically. The United States will ramp up for war (this time a globally supported one) during the 2006 election season making the election solely about war which will largely favor Republicans, and rightfully so. However, this will push other political issues back to the background. This shouldn't be read into such as to assume I'm suggesting this is a big GOP conspiracy, I don't think that at all.
However, several issues remain on the table, none the least of which is apparent corruption in Congress. With war going on, corruption will get forgotten. While the partisan witch-hunt that has developed is doing nothing to help matters, there are other efforts afoot that could help, such as the pushing of lobbying reform. Social Security will once again be forgotten and will stay unreformed and insolvent. Tax reform will be forgotten. Reforming the non-free market health care system will fall by the wayside.
The fact is being in a solid majority has made the GOP rest on their laurels not pushing for the limited-government conservative ideals that put them in power. War, while seemingly necessary in this case, will exaggerate this problem. The upcoming elections could provide the necessary motivation for the GOP to stand for the principles they enunciate and the unfortunate reality is that if war does come, the reigning-in will most likely be postponed.
Posted by John Bambenek at 1:56 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack
January 6, 2006
Fearmongering for Fun and Profit
Come on! Space terrorists???. Let's analyze the last few terrorist attacks shall we? Let's start with 9/11. They bought plane tickets, got flight training, and had box cutters. All in all, low rent. Subway bombings? Homemade explosives. Then there was the husband-wife duo who's gear was so crappy that the wife's bomb didn't even go off.
I'm not suggesting there is no such thing as terrorism, but the term has become so widely used to pad budgets with grant money, we are making ourselves MORE vulnerable to terrorism. Instead of paying attention to real threats, we are going to be goosing millionaires to see if they have bombs before they board a space shuttle. How about we focus on the real threat?
Posted by John Bambenek at 8:01 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
January 1, 2006
Articles of Impeachment Being Written
I've just gotten wind that UI Law Professor Francis Boyle is writing new articles of impeachment against the President. (His old version, here consisted of mostly thought crimes). The local anti-war group will be meeting tonight to discuss this with him it looks like. What this means is that not only will they go after the NSA wiretaps, they'll go after the war also and put that in. It'll be interesting to see what the final product is.
UPDATE:
Sorry, fixed old impeachment articles link (http://www.counterpunch.org/boyle01172003.html) dated 2003. Included such crimes as appointing members of the Federalist Society to the bench, not creating opportunities for minorities, and getting Congress to pass the PATRIOT Act. Get that, because Congress passed the Patriot Act, Bush should be impeached.
Posted by John Bambenek at 3:00 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
December 19, 2005
Forget Eavesdropping - Let's just surrender
After Katrina, one of the blog posts that was making the rounds was tribes. It's essentially a societal commentary written during the aftermath and political blood-letting that took place.
I remembered this article in the recent debate on the eavesdropping that the government is apparently doing in the course of the War on Terror. Politicians are taking turns pointing fingers, and apparently the New York Times timed the release not for the soonest possible dissemination of the information, but to shill a book that's coming out and try to sink the Patriot Act. (Yes, they are just that unpatriotic that they can't even vote for a law called the Patriot Act).
Particularly, that the pink tribes out there still don't believe there is a war on. They believe that they can still blame 9/11 on us and that all we need to do to win the War on Terror is "understand" our enemies and "raise awareness" (read as surrender).
First things first, who cares if the government is listening to phone calls? There are complaints that warrants haven't been issued. Let me get this straight, a warrant issued by a star chambers court (FISA court) where only the government gets to present a case, all the proceedings are sealed, and the judge hearing the case is appointed by the administration is safe and protects civil liberties, but a policy reviewed by the Administration every 90 days to make sure it's actually targeting bad guys is not? Would you trust a closed court that did not allow for the accused to present a defense an adequate way to try criminal offenses? Didn't think so. The whole process is cloak-and-dagger to being with, how is this news?
I have a cell phone; that means everyone within about 25 miles can hear what I say on it. That's right, you can listen in to the occasional suggestive comment I make to my wife. I don't call phone sex lines, I don't buy drugs, and I'm not trying to score some hookers. You listen to my phone calls and about the most you'll get out of it is that I love my wife. Scandalous! I figure most people are the same way. Innocence rarely utters shrill shrieks.
That should not be read to mean that I think the man should be in the business of listening to everyone's phone calls, but that there are some phone calls I'd like the government to listen in on. Particularly the ones that say when and where the next terrorist strike is going to happen.
However, the pink tribes have once again mounted the ramparts against the sheepdogs. It's not the wolves that are dangerous; it's the sheepdogs that protect us. Cops don't protect us from criminals, they intimidate minorities. Soldiers aren't defenders of freedom; they are indentured baby-killers. In short, the perpetrators are the victims and the defenders are the perpetrators. If we would only disarm, then we can all live in peace, and joy, any light.
For every victory the United States achieves, there are those who would choose to then lay blame. "We must learn from our mistakes!" The Iraqis just voted for their first constitutional government, instead of celebrating this event we are mourning our "failure".
After 9/11 and in fact during Hurricane Katrina, I tried various ways to get involved. I made several phone calls, was turned down, and moved on. I didn't feel good about it because I knew I could have done something. I learned more than peeling potatoes in the military and, if nothing else, I have proven that I'm a darn good crisis manager. That's the difference between the greys and the pinks. I wanted to get involve and helped. The pink wanted to blame FEMA.
The culture war is little more than this: will we do it ourselves, or will we hold out our hands and wait for someone else to do it for us. There is the constant drumbeat from the left, "you can't do it" (aka affirmative action), "you can't trust others to do it" (aka the fight against faith-based initiatives), and so on.
The facts are these, no one ever was known for being able to find the best government welfare programs. Stories of success in history are of people who fought, strived, failed, but got up and succeeded. These are the people we celebrate.
Before we give in to pessimism, despair, and finger-pointed, how about we at least figure out if the powers were misused first. Maybe we should wait to kick around the sheepdogs until we figure out if they did wrong. How about, for a change, we not assume every evil motivation simple by the fact that someone somewhere has another opinion? Instead of the raging pink brigade telling us everything that's wrong, how about they contribute something that helps things get better instead of telling us who is to blame?
Posted by John Bambenek at 2:29 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
December 8, 2005
Why We Can't Pull Out Of Iraq... Yet.
If one is looking for a reason that the United States cannot nor should not pull out of Iraq, they only need to look to neighboring Iran. After flagrantly developing nuclear weapons in full site of the world, all the international community will do is send delegations. When the president of Iran suggests that the "tumor" of Israel be wiped off the map, all they international community did was send delegations. Now, when the Iranian president suggests all Jews be expelled back to Europe, there will be the usual hang wringing, but not action.
Osama calculated, after witnessing our lack of spine in Mogadishu, that the United States has no patience for protracted conflict. The first sign of a body count, the American people will demand a pullout, the argument goes. Saddam knows this and is counting on it. He knew beforehand his army would be mopped. He counted on waiting us out, and by extension, a Kerry win. Iran and North Korea know the same thing. Even our Asian allies are coming to us with doubts we could ever real do anything should China start getting belligerent. The general consensus is that if you get in a fight with America, you'll lose the initial battles, but all you need to do is wait until the anti-war crowd, liberal media, and liberal politicians whine enough and the tide of public opinion will shift.
If we pull out of Iraq before finishing our objectives (which have always seem perfectly clear to me), Iran could simply nuke Israel and nothing would happen. North Korea could feel comfortable crossing the DMZ and taking South Korea. China could finally take that prime-beef real estate known as Taiwan without fearing an American response. Why? Because even if the US initiates military action, all they need to do is run the clock and the Left will talk the public into giving up. The anti-war crowd will come to us with stories about how the Jews are to blame.
There comes a time to pullout. That time starts after a permanent government is in place and when they are ready to be mostly responsible for their own security. The time is coming relatively soon, and most have thought that after this next round of elections, troop reductions would begin to occur. Look for the anti-war left to start claiming credit for the execution of a plan that has been in place for years.
UPDATE:
When the head of one of the major parties gets on national television and says the most powerful, best trained, and most advanced military in the word cannot beat low-rent suicide bombers with home-made bombs that can't seem to go off reliably, it says something. It says that if we cannot beat them in Iraq, we cannot beat them on our own soil. Howard Dean has not only said that our military is incompetent (as opposed to Kerry who says they are terrorists) but that we cannot even win the war on terror. In a nutshell, he leaves only one option left... surrender.
Posted by John Bambenek at 2:55 PM | Comments (5) | TrackBack
December 7, 2005
Polls Show When Bush Talks About his Plans, America Supports
The latest cBS/NYT poll shows that Bush's numbers are on the rebound. The reason? He's actually started talking about his successes and hitting back at his opponents. We have a plan for victory in Iraq, pretending like it isn't there is a deception. We get them to elect a soveriegn government, we prepare their government, we leave. Undoubtedly, when we leave the anti-war crowd will claim victory despite the fact it will have nothing to do with them.
People have been down about the economy for years despite the fact it has been going good. The more Bush and the GOP talks about their plans, the better they do. For too long they've been quiet, hopefully this will get them to speak up, put their platform out there and move forward.
I suppose it doesn't help that Kerry called the troops terrorists, and Howard Dean says we can't be low-rent terrorists with bombs stapped to themselves. If we can't beat them there, we can't beat them here. If that's what they believe, they are left with only one option, appeasement. The corrolary is that when the Democrats (Dean specifically) talk, the WORSE they do in polls.
Posted by John Bambenek at 5:53 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
November 28, 2005
Why Does the ACLU Hate the Troops?
Many have heard the ongoing debate on military recruiters in schools and the counter-recruitment efforts of the Left. Some schools are going so far as to sue the federal government on the grounds that their free speech is adversely affected by being compelled to allow military recruiters on campus in exchange for federal money. Get that? Schools (government actors) say their free speech is prevented because of conditions in accepting federal money don’t allow them to deny free speech to military recruiters (government actors). War is peace and all that. You know the drill.
Enter the ACLU. An organization that is solely devoted to the protection of the bill of rights is in the role of advocating the removal of military recruiters from schools and campuses. Much like their war on abstinence education, this isn't an issue having to do with rights. You are free to listen to a recruiter, to ignore a recruiter, and to have protests about recruiters in schools. But the presence of a recruiter in no way, shape, or form impedes anyone's rights.
The ACLU and others are not fighting military recruiting because it is a Bill of Rights issue. Nothing in the Bill of Rights implies that one has an absolute right to never be presented with ideas you disagree with, or, in this case, someone else being presented ideas you disagree with. They are fighting military recruiters because they insist only THEIR policies and ideas be presented. They fight Christmas because Christianity is unacceptable in the public sphere. They fight abstinence education because that ideas is unacceptable. Likewise they fight military recruiters because people signing up to serve is unacceptable. This is not the advocacy and welcoming of free speech, this is the enforcement through judicial fiat of social conformity.
You can't be all you can be if you're dead, reads one sign. This is the side that the ACLU is on, the side that is against the troops. The side that says America is not worth dying for. The side that says people are stupid to serve. The side that says an 18 year old is too young and ignorant to join the military but a 14 year old is old enough to make intelligent choices about getting an abortion. The side that is trying to disarm us in the hopes that our weakness there is strength. The side that insists on due process rights for unlawful combatants not entitled to them by law, but routinely undermines due process rights of soldiers awaiting trial for their abuse of prisoners.
Our pre-9/11 response was weakness. Did that help? Osama was quite clear and is quite clear; he thinks he can win because we are weak. Our Asia allies worry that we can't win a war against China. The ACLU is on the fronts making sure we can't.
Posted by John Bambenek at 5:34 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
The Problem with Republicans...
... is Republicans.
Liberals and liberalism won't work... but all too often Republicans are willing to play the stooge for big government, and occasionally get rich on it.
At least he saved an expensive trial by pleading guilty.
Posted by John Bambenek at 5:06 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
The Economy - By the Numbers
Holiday Sales up 22% From Last Year
Which is it? Both can't be true at the same time. Either sales are up or sales are down. Looking at the articles and all the associated articles, it appears that sales are up (20+%) across the entire market. The negative numbers are specific sectors or sub-sections (enclosed malls). It appears that the negative articles are written such as to indicate that the market and economy are doing much worse than they really are. This isn't the first time.
There is a significant amount of "talking down" of the economy. You can see this in the housing bubble theories, companies not doing enough, and the dire predictions of a weak holiday season (since proven untrue).
Unemployment is at 5.0%, despite two hurricanes. This is roughly half the rate of unemployment throughout most of Europe. Current income is up, GDP is growing (3.8%), and the stock market is up. Despite this, pundits insist that doom and gloom is coming even though economic indicators will continue to show increases.
Let's be honest a moment, it isn't the Republicans campaigning on a bad economy, it's the Democrats. It's in their campaigns that the economy is in the tank and everyone is suffering despite the complete lack of any evidence to support it. Income is up. Home ownership is up. Unemployment is down. Home values are up. Almost every traditional indicator shows that the economy is growing, yet the perception is fostered that we are heading towards the Great Depression.
This trend in reporting shows two things. Democrats are beyond using facts to scaremonger voters about the economy. Instead of coming up with a platform to better America, they spend their time telling America how bad things are. Facts be damned. Second, it shows that the press, once again, is in the tank with the Democrats agenda and is carrying the water for them. The story is a roaring economy, but they search and scour for some shred of evidence to talk it down. Objective reporting or campaigning? I think the answer is clear.
Posted by John Bambenek at 12:24 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
November 22, 2005
Media Bias Revealed
Real Teen just grabbed off the US News Wire a marketing firm who not only confirmed the X was intentional but that when callers called in, they were told by the CNN newsdesk to "tell Cheney to stop lying". One such call was recorded.
Here is what came across on the newswire.
Sure, news agencies have free speech, but at least they should be honest that they are promoting an agenda and not "objective reporters of news" anymore. The organization is here and has submitted releases in the past, though not of this nature. I have some skepticism of this being the real deal or just someone playing a prank and sticking it to Team Hollywood Inc. at the same time. If they have the tape, they should post it.
But if this is true, I think we can safely skip past all the mindless debates about CNN being objective.
Posted by John Bambenek at 6:00 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack
No Agenda - Democrats Have to Make Stuff Up
Democrats have no message, this has been known for years. Sure, you know what they are against but that's not how you move a country forward, you need to have something you are FOR. They've been focusing on messengers and not on the message. Cindy Sheehan, Joe Wilson, Rep. Murtha. They trot out their credentials and then say their positions cannot be criticized because of who they are. Disagreeing with Rep. Murtha is a vicious smear and labels him unpatriotic.
It isn't because Murtha is against the war that he's unpatriotic. He's unpatriotic because instead of using his free speech and engaging in a debate, he tried to stifle debate by preemptively labeling all criticism as out-of-bounds. This is why they don't win elections. Because they try to shut up the rest of America because their messengers are beyond this think we like to call debate. Call it rule by the elite.
Now, I pay pretty close attention to politics, even when I'm not posting. I have heard nothing, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, that indicates Bush would be so incredibly stupid as to pardon Libby after Woodward has so generously blown Fitzgerald's case to shreds. If Libby lied he SHOULD go to jail and I've heard no conservative say otherwise. See, we still consider perjury a serious crime.
But here comes the e-mail from the Dems that says a pardon is imminent. Based on what? Well there have no sources and nothing in the public sphere suggests ANY conservative or Republican has suggested a thing. Why? Because it would be STUPID. Slipping in 11th hour pardons on the way out the door is one thing, to do it in the middle of the term would not go unnoticed and would have huge political reprecussions. It would take a complete fool to think otherwise.
The Democrats are making this up to make the administration look worse, which makes me believe things aren't quite so bad. Why lie when the truth is on your side? There is no pardon coming, especially after the fiasco with Woodward and the fact we have *2* reporters who have been lying the whole time about the matter. The Democrats, in trying to overcome Fitmas, is trying to claim there is some big scandal brewing here to scare up their base.
That's because it is all they have left. Fear.
Here's the email
===
Dear Friend,
Don't Pardon this Turkey
You know the drill -- every Thanksgiving the president pardons a turkey. But this year George Bush may try to use the holiday season to slip in another pardon -- of his friend and former senior aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, who was indicted for perjury, obstruction of justice and making false statements.
Conservatives around Washington are buzzing with rumors that George Bush will regain control of his lame-duck presidency by ending the investigation into manipulated intelligence on Iraq and the subsequent cover-up with a pardon for anyone involved.
Despite pressure from Democratic lawmakers, Bush refuses to pledge that he will not pardon Libby or anyone else implicated in this breach of national security. A pardon for anyone on this deadly serious matter would be yet more evidence that Republican leaders value political party over country.
It's up to you to show that the American people are watching -- don't let George Bush pardon this turkey over the Thanksgiving holiday:
www.democrats.org/nopardon
From the cover-up of manipulated intelligence on Iraq to Tom DeLay's money-for-influence machine to Bill Frist's questionable stock deals, this administration and Republicans in Congress have always considered themselves above the law.
Forward this message to your friends and family -- the more people who sign the No Pardons petition, the more the White House will know that Americans are watching.
If we can make a strong showing before holiday weekend, George Bush will have to think twice before pardoning this turkey. Add your name now:
www.democrats.org/nopardon
On behalf of Governor Dean and everyone else here at the DNC, let me wish you a Happy Thanksgiving.
Enjoy your holiday -- but don't forget to spread the word that we need to keep an eye on this lame duck.
Thank you,
Tom McMahon
Executive Director
Democratic National Committee
P.S. -- More than 100,000 Americans responded to Republican attacks on decorated veteran and Democratic Congressman Jack Murtha by sending him a note of thanks for his courageous stand. You can still tell Jack Murtha not to back down by visiting:
www.democrats.org/shameonthem
P.P.S. -- Here is the letter Senate Democrats sent to George Bush asking him to pledge not to pardon Libby -- so far he has refused:
November 8, 2005
The Honorable George W. Bush
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington, DC 20500
Dear Mr. President:
The indictment of I. Lewis Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's Chief of Staff, marks the first time in 131 years that a senior White House official has been charged with a crime while still serving in the White House. The charges, while not yet proven, are extraordinarily serious and deeply disturbing.
Although it is too early to judge Mr. Libby guilty or innocent of these particular charges, it is not too early for you to reassure the American people that you understand the enormous gravity of the allegations. To this end, we urge you to pledge that if Mr. Libby or anyone else is found guilty of a crime in connection with Patrick Fitzgerald's investigation, you will not exercise your authority to issue a Presidential pardon.
It is crucial that you make clear in advance that, if convicted, Mr. Libby will not be able to rely on his close relationship with you or Vice President Cheney to obtain the kind of extraordinarily special treatment unavailable to ordinary Americans. In addition you should do nothing to undermine Mr. Fitzgerald's investigation or diminish accountability in your White House. A pardon in these circumstances would signal that this White House considers itself above the law.
We also urge you to state publicly whether anyone in the White House including White House counsel Harriet Miers or Vice President Cheney has already discussed the possibility of a pardon with Mr. Libby. Particularly given that the American people are still in the dark about what precisely transpired in the White House with respect to the CIA leak, it would be highly inappropriate if there were such discussions going on behind the scenes.
Swift public action on your part will make clear that you take seriously perjury and obstruction of justice at the highest levels of our government and that you meant what you said about bringing honor and dignity to the White House. We eagerly await your response and hope that you will announce your intentions promptly.
Respectfully,
Sen. Harry Reid, Democratic Leader
Sen. Dick Durbin, Assistant Democratic Leader
Sen. Debbie Stabenow, Democratic Conference Secretary
Sen. Chuck Schumer, Chairman of Campaign Committee
Paid for and authorized by the Democratic National Committee, www.democrats.org. This communication is not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee.
Contributions or gifts to the Democratic National Committee are not deductible as charitable contributions for federal income tax purposes.
Click here to unsubscribe from this mailing list.
DNC, 430 S. Capitol St. SE, Washington DC 20003
Posted by John Bambenek at 5:44 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
November 12, 2005
Column Posted: The Democrat's Plantation
You can read it here.
Posted by John Bambenek at 7:40 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
November 1, 2005
Trent Lott Questions Whether Rove Should Stay?
The headline from Drudge reads:
FLASH: Lott Questions Whether Rove Should Stay At White House...Trent Lott became the first Republican Senator to question whether Karl Rove should stay at the White House as Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy, interview on MSNBC 'HARDBALL'... Developing...
I'm sure some will make more of this than it's worth, but it pays to remember one little thing...
Remember that Trent Lott did get pushed out of his leadership position over his allegedly "insensitive" comments and had no one who had his back despite the fact that there was no merit to the outrage...
Could this be payback?
Posted by John Bambenek at 5:02 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
October 31, 2005
Much Better
Alito is an improvement if for no other reason then because everyone knows where he stands.
We elected these Senators and President so we can get some conservatives in the court, if you want us to back you again, fight for what we want and screw the minority who has no agenda.
Posted by John Bambenek at 11:19 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
October 29, 2005
MoveOn Watch: MoveOn Caught in Deceptive Cover-Up!
The MoveOn e-mail reads "Indicted! White House Caught In Iraq Cover-Up". Except one thing, the investigation has absolutely nothing to do with Iraq.
Here is the text of the memo that empowered Fitzgerald as to what he can investigate:
Dear Patrick: At your request, I am writing to clarify that my December 30, 2003, delegation to you of "all the authority of the Attorney General with respect to the Department's investigation into the alleged unauthorized disclosure of a CIA employee's identity" is plenary and includes the authority to investigate and prosecute violations of any federal criminal laws related to the underlying alleged unauthorized disclosure, as well as federal crimes committed in the course of, and with intent to interfere with, your investigation, such as perjury, obstruction of justice, destruction of evidence, and intimidation of witnesses; to conduct appeals arising out of the matter being investigated and/or prosecuted; and to pursue administrative remedies and civil sanctions (such as civil contempt) that are within the Attorney General's authority to impose or pursue. Further, my conferral on you of the title of "Special Counsel" in this matter should not be misunderstood to suggest that your position and authorities are defined and limited by 28 CFR Part 600.
You can read all the documents from the investigation here, but you'll quickly notice that whether the administration lied or not has NOTHING to do with this investigation. The investigation is SOLELY in relation to the alleged outing of a CIA agent. Coincidently no one has been charged with that. The motivations for going to Iraq, what was said and not said, what intel might have been twisted, and so on, are no where near the scope of this investigation. At all.
MoveOn, so desperate to spin this is making this investigation something that it is not. Such attempts at deception indicate that they have to resort to deception and lies because they have no other points. They are trying to make a Watergate where it does not exist.
The e-mail is attached with only parts that might identify the email I subscribed with removed.
====
Subject: Indicted! White House Caught In Iraq Cover-Up
Dear MoveOn member,
Today, the Chief of Staff to the Vice President of the United States was
indicted by a federal grand jury.
Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, a Republican appointee, announced
that Lewis "Scooter" Libby lied to a grand jury, lied to FBI agents and
obstructed an investigation into the White House cover-up of the lies that
led our nation to war in Iraq. Libby has now resigned. Top White House
advisor Karl Rove remains under federal investigation.
This is one of the biggest scandals to rock the White House in America's
229-year history.
But The New York Times reported that the Bush spin machine will resort to
"attacking any criminal charges as a disagreement over legal
technicalities." [1] The battle over public opinion begins today. We must
remind the country that this scandal isn't about a "technicality"--it's
about a White House scheme to cover-up the lies that led our nation into
one of the most deadly foreign policy blunders in our nation's history.
Can you write a letter to the editor to remind folks that there's no
graver crime than misleading a country into war, and then covering it up?
Our tool makes it easy to write to your local paper:
Today's indictment says Libby illegally obstructed the investigation into
the White House outing of an undercover CIA agent, Valerie Plame Wilson.
The ongoing investigation of Karl Rove revolves around the same charge.
So why did the White House leak a CIA agent's name? To punish her husband,
a former ambassador who had gone public with evidence that the Bush
Administration lied about WMD and nuclear threats in the run-up to war in
Iraq.
Here is a primer on what happened:
The 2003 Bush State of the Union: President Lies About Iraq Nuclear
Capability
* In his January 2003 State Of The Union, President Bush made his case
for war in Iraq. He included this now-infamous 16-word deception about
Iraq's nuclear capability: "The British government has learned that
Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from
Africa." [2]
* But the White House had known for nearly a year that this claim was
false. In February 2002, the CIA sent former Ambassador Joseph Wilson
to Niger to investigate the unsubstantiated claim that Saddam Hussein
tried to buy uranium from Niger for use in nuclear weapons [3].
* Wilson had discovered that the claims were bogus and documents used to
support the claims had been forgeries. He reported this to the CIA,
and the CIA told the White House [3].
Why Did The President Ignore Wilson's Findings And Lie? It's About Iraq
* Why did President Bush use the discredited nuclear claims in his
January 2003 State of the Union Address to make the case that Iraq was
a nuclear threat? They wanted to invade Iraq.
* A CBS News polling report in late 2002 made clear, "there is no
consensus on adopting a pre-emptive strike policy in general--except
where a nuclear attack against the United States is
contemplated..." [4]
* Only well after the war had begun would the Washington Post report on
"a pattern in which President Bush, Vice President Cheney and their
subordinates...made allegations depicting Iraq's nuclear weapons
program as more active, more certain and more imminent in its threat
than the data they had would support. On occasion administration
advocates withheld evidence that did not conform to their views." [5]
Wilson Strikes Back--Exposes Bush's Lie In Lead-Up To War
* Six months after the President's 2003 State of the Union Address, as
Bush's WMD and nuclear claims began to unravel, Wilson went public and
exposed the Bush Administration's false nuclear claims in a New York
Times op-ed [6].
* The full July 6, 2003 op-ed, "What I Didn't Find In Africa," can be
read here: http://www.moveon.org/r?r=1070
* The White House saw Wilson as a major threat. According to the Los
Angeles Times, "Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff was so
angry about the public statements of former Ambassador Joseph C.
Wilson IV, a Bush administration critic married to an undercover CIA
officer, that he monitored all of Wilson's television appearances and
urged the White House to mount an aggressive public campaign against
him, former aides say." [7]
White House Retaliates--Outs Valerie Plame Wilson As CIA Agent
* The week after Wilson's op-ed in the New York Times, "two senior
administration officials" were cited by conservative columnist Robert
Novak in his column outing CIA agent Valerie Plame Wilson [8].
* The White House Iraq Group (WHIG), originally formed to sell the war
to the public, "morphed into a virtual hit squad that took aim at
critics who questioned its claims." [9] WHIG was run out of Vice
President Cheney's office, and included Cheney's Chief of Staff
"Scooter" Libby, top Bush strategist Karl Rove, and other top Bush
administration officials.
* Not only did this leak end Valerie Plame Wilson's 20-year career as a
CIA covert agent, but it also exposed a longstanding CIA front
company, Brewster Jennings & Associates, where Plame worked and put at
risk many of the undercover agents who had worked with Wilson in the
past [10].
Today's Indictment--White House Official Obstructed Investigation Into The
Lie
* Today's indictment says Libby illegally obstructed the investigation
into the White House outing of an undercover CIA agent, Valerie Plame
Wilson. He also was charged with perjury and making false statements
to FBI agents. The ongoing investigation of Karl Rove revolves around
the same issues, among possible others.
* Former President George H. W. Bush was right in 1999 when he said, "I
have nothing but contempt and anger for those who betray the trust by
exposing the name of our sources. They are, in my view, the most
insidious, of traitors." [11]
* Former Republican National Committee Chair Ed Gillespie was right when
he said, "I think if the allegation is true, to reveal the identity of
an undercover CIA operative--it's abhorrent, and it should be a crime,
and it is a crime." [12]
The American people must know this important truth: Today's indictment is
about a cover-up of the lies that led our nation to war in Iraq.
Please write a letter to the editor to remind people that this was crime
against our entire nation, and could not be more serious. This letter tool
makes it easy.
Thanks for all you do.
--Tom, Jennifer, Adam, Carrie and the MoveOn.org Political Action Team
Friday, October 28th, 2005 [1] "Republicans Testing Ways to Blunt Leak Charges,"
New York Times,
October 24, 2005
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=1071 [2] "Rice: 16 words dispute 'enormously overblown,'"
CNN, July 14, 2003
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=1072 [3] "Cast of Characters Grows in CIA Leak Drama,"
Associated Press,
October 24, 2005
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=1073 [4] "Poll: Don't Go It Alone On Iraq," CBS News,
September 7, 2002
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=1074 [5] "Depiction of Threat Outgrew Supporting
Evidence," The Washington
Post, August 10, 2003
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=1075 [6] "What I Didn't Find In Africa," New York Times,
July 7, 2003
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=1070 [7] "Bush Critic Became Target of Libby, Former Aides
Say," Los Angeles
Times, October 21, 2005
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=1076 [8] "Mission To Niger," syndicated column, July 14, 2003
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=1077 [9] "Prez Iraq team fought to squelch war critics,"
New York Daily News,
October 19, 2005
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=1015 [10] "Leak of Agent's Name Causes Exposure of CIA
Front Firm," October 4,
2003
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=1079 [11] Remarks By George Bush, 41st President of the
United States, At the
Dedication Ceremony for the George Bush Center for Intelligence, April 26,
1999
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=1080 [12] Hardball With Chris Matthews, September 30, 2003
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=1078
Support our member-driven organization: MoveOn.org Political Action is
entirely funded by our 3.3 million members. If you'd like to support our
work, you can give now at:
PAID FOR BY MOVEON.ORG POLITICAL ACTION,
Not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee.
________________
Subscription Management:
This is a message from MoveOn.org Political Action. To change your email address,
update your contact info, or remove yourself () from
this list, please visit our subscription management page at:
Posted by John Bambenek at 8:34 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
October 28, 2005
The Questions Not Asked
During the press conference this afternoon, US Prosecutor Fitzgerald emphasized that no one knew that Valerie Wilson/Plame worked for the CIA and that her cover has been blown. He said that she needed that cover and the blowing of that cover has harmed national security. After reading the indictment and listening to the press conference. Libby was charged with perjury, obstruction, and lying to investigators.
If Libby leaked the name of a covered operative why is he not charged as such? The prosecutor during the press conference, Fitzgerald said he was “the first person in the chain of phone calls” that released her name to the public. Why is he not charged for leaking the name? Fitzgerald is saying that’s essentially what he did. The first question asked why Fitzgerald didn’t charge Libby for leaking; the response was that he didn’t know the motives so he can’t charge for leaking. That position is absurd.
A second question not asked is about Valerie Plame’s cover, the assumption seems to be given that she had it, needed it, and she kept it secret. Let’s discuss non-official cover for a moment and its purpose. The entire point of any cover is so that person covered can deal with foreign agents without them knowing they are dealing with an agent of the United States. That’s the point of espionage; it’s to deceive into getting information that would not normally be given. If foreign people would give up the information to an FBI agent, there is no point to having a covered agent.
Valerie Plame had cover so she could talk to people in other countries without knowing her affiliation with the United States, it’s that simple. If there was information that would otherwise compromise the fact that she was affiliated with the US government, her cover would be compromised.
Valerie Plame’s cover was blown the second she married Joseph Wilson (which is probably why she moved to Langley). How can I say this? Two things. The marriage ceremony was public and it creates a public record. In fact, Joseph Wilson made no attempt to hide the name or identity of his wife. Second, no one can seriously think that the known wife of a US ambassador would not have an affiliation with the United States government.
Some argue that her name was disclosed in a Who’s Who record, in talks given by Wilson, or other events. These are irrelevant distinctions because her name, in and of itself does not link her to the government. What links her to the government publicly is her marriage to a US ambassador, even without mentioning she was CIA.
If I was engaging in espionage in Russia on behalf of the United States, I would not take seriously the trustworthiness of the wife of a Russian ambassador. No one would. Perhaps the reason Plame’s leaking was not charged is because her cover was already blown the day she got married.
(see Malkin's coverage, Cao, OTB, Wizbang!)
Posted by John Bambenek at 1:41 PM | Comments (13) | TrackBack
October 18, 2005
The Miers Strategy
The nomination of a relatively unknown Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court has generated a lot of emotion in conservative circles. Many people wonder why Bush, who promised to nominate judges in the mold of Scalia and Thomas, is nominating stealth candidates. First it was John Roberts who had a slim record to replace Rehnquist. Then Bush nominated Harriet Miers who has little to no public record to replace O'Connor.
Conservatives, who have not been pleased with the history of stealth candidates in the past, reacted with indignation at yet another stealth candidate who we are told is a conservative but there is no proof. Just trust Bush.
Assuming that Miers is in fact a conservative (and that is an assumption, I admit), and I'm beginning to think she's Scalia with ovaries, nominating someone and hiding that fact sends a pretty bad message. When Clinton nominated Ginsburg, everyone knew what she was. When Bush nominates conservatives, the fact that they are has to be hidden. Membership in the Federalist Society is conceded as akin to membership in the Ku Klux Klan. Conservativism is not a crime, it is not a mental disorder, and it is not a moral failing. It is an intelligent and thought out political philosophy.
That aside, I think the White House planned things this way. By nominating a candidate that would upset conservatives, it puts the Democrats in an interesting position. Criticism is labeled as sexist and therefore puts pressure on Democrats to vote for the candidate just for PR points against Republicans. It has virtually taken the filibuster off the table (as long as nothing changes). Miers will slip onto the court without a fight on her, but a fight on the criticism of her. It is a political calculation of expediency to slip her onto the court and get a solid conservative there while disarming Democrats to stop it. Bush doesn't want a filibuster fight, so they took this route.
Posted by John Bambenek at 11:41 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
October 4, 2005
Is This a Joke?
First, it was conspiracy. After 6 grand juries, Earle finally gets an indictment. The problem was you can't conspire to break a law that is not in effect. The law cited in the indictment was not in effect until 2003; despite the fact the conspiracy took place in 2002. The indictment itself has no direct connection to DeLay (for those that have read it) except having his name as defendant.
After it becomes known that the indictment has in it no details or facts alleging a crime and the conspiracy is non-existent, Earle issues another indictment with a seventh grand jury on money laundering less than a week later giving that grand jury only hours with which to decide. In fact, the grand jury handed down this indictment over the telephone on the weekend!
Maybe I'm unusual, but if a prosecutor has to keep filing revisions to what charges he is charging someone with and keeps moving the bar, then in the end he just might not have anything at all. This is almost comical.
"Oops, we screwed up that last indictment. Let's throw something else against the courtroom wall and see if it sticks." I might have bought DeLay was corrupt with the first indictment, the "do-over" indictment proves that this is a politically motivated attack to maximize the chance of locking DeLay out of power long enough to do damage before this hack indictment mysteriously "goes away" just like the sham indictment he tried to put on Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison.
Posted by John Bambenek at 12:22 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
October 3, 2005
Betrayed.
So much for this supposedly conservative President
Posted by John Bambenek at 10:16 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
September 30, 2005
What to do about Tom DeLay?
With the recent indictment of Tom DeLay for conspiracy, other corruption has become apparent such as with Harry Reid. Tom DeLay engaged in travel plans some consider unethical, however, in the aftermath of that scandal over 200 Congressmen (from both parties) has to "revise" their travel documentation. Regardless of party, one does not need to look far for corruption. The grassroots on both sides is not particularly enamored with it either.
Some think it's the end of the Republican Party, but one only needs to look to Illinois to see how this will play out. Illinois has a governor with approval ratings even lower than President Bush. The current governor, a Chicago Democrat, got into office because the prior Republican administration is corrupt. When a Chicago Democrat runs on the platform to clean up Springfield and the voters buy it, you know you have problems. Now corruption is king (or rather still is king) and the Republicans are running on the platform of throwing out the Dem corrupt cronies. No one is buying so they Republicans are drafting a favored governor (Jim Edgar) from yesteryear to run again. The only problem is that he taught George Ryan everything he knows and while corrupt, wasn't as extreme as Ryan. That aside, Jim Edgar has announced he wants nothing to do with it.
My suggestion to deal with DeLay's supposed corruption? (Supposed because it took, what, 6 grand juries to find anything on him?) Massive blood-letting. Let's have both parties, everyone from the top all the way down to village dog catcher engage in a legal battle royale of corruption investigations. No matter where you are on the political spectrum, you think some political officials are corrupt. It's time to get this all out on the table because you know several hundred Congressmen have some crimes they want to hide. We can talk about some of the prior scandals (the House banking scandal for instance) but let the gloves come off and drop the "good 'ole boy" attitude and let them viciously attack each other in the criminal system.
One, it will go a long way to getting to corruption and waste out of government. Politicians get away with this because they never pay the piper. Take a look at the highway bill and how much pork and vote buying is there. If you want corruption out of politics, this is what it takes. I may be conservative, but I'm no fool. I know there are corrupt Republicans out there, and its time for them to pay the piper too.
Two, it emphasizes and underscores why we need limited government. Government needs to be big to be corrupt. If it doesn't have $2.2 trillion dollars to throw around, it becomes much harder for them to get companies to start bribing them. There aren't kickbacks on the $1,000 orders I do for work, for good reason. It's time to downsize the government and let the local entities do the social work of government. At the lowest level, we can at least keep an eye on them. I know where the mayor of my town lives and I can call him up at home right now. Good luck trying to get in touch with the President. Or Tom DeLay for that matter.
This presents a golden opportunity for those who believe in limited government. There are greedy people in the world and they want money and power. A massive corruption investigation, top to bottom, complete with jail sentences will make politicians have second thoughts the next time they want to shovel some cash to contributors to their campaigns. If I stole $500, I'd be doing time right now. It's time for those who have stolen so much more than that and wasted the rest to have their day in court.
Links: Cao, Wizbang, Michelle Malkin, Powerline, Captain's Quarters, et al
Posted by John Bambenek at 2:26 PM | Comments (8) | TrackBack
September 29, 2005
The Clinton Legacy of Corruption
- The only president ever impeached on grounds of personal malfeasance - Most number of convictions and guilty pleas by friends and associates* - Most number of cabinet officials to come under criminal investigation - Most number of witnesses to flee country or refuse to testify - Most number of witnesses to die suddenly - First president sued for sexual harassment. - First president accused of rape. - First first lady to come under criminal investigation - Largest criminal plea agreement in an illegal campaign contribution case - First president to establish a legal defense fund. - First president to be held in contempt of court - Greatest amount of illegal campaign contributions - Greatest amount of illegal campaign contributions from abroad
Read the rest here, and take DeLay's problems in stride.
Posted by John Bambenek at 10:20 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Stop the ACLU: The War on Abstinence
The ACLU has delcared war on abstinence education. The "guardian of civil rights" has determined that such programs are dangerous according to the Waxman report that I debunked last year. That report did not say all abstinence education programs contained errors, and included programs as erroneous because of ludicrous things such as the word "snuggling" as suggesting religion. The ACLU has picked the parts of the report out that the liked and started to run with it.
Skipping past the labeling of policy decisions they don't agree with as "dangerous", exactly what in abstinence education violates anyone's civil liberties? Parents are perfectly free to get condoms for their kids, buy them porn, or show them how to use sex toys. Abstinence education does not impede anyone from doing anything; it is the suggestion that one ought not to do anything. Yet, the ACLU considers this issue a matter of reproductive freedom.
Simply put, this is not a legal fight to protect anyone's rights. This is a fight to advance a specific agenda that has nothing to do with rights. Teachers are not running around arresting children for having sex.
They suggest that abstinence education is dangerous because kids will do it anyway and won't have essential information to protect themselves. The story goes they must be informed on all the choices such as Plan B, and amusing ironic name considering that safe sex is supposed to be safe (and not require Plan B's). Kids simply won't listen when being told not to have sex.
However, the same people insist on DARE programs in schools which tell kids to stay off drugs. Do we get rid of these programs too? Should we take out DARE and instead introduce a program that shows kids how to do drugs properly to minimize the chance of contracting Hep C?
Critics have said that the ACLU is not interested in defending civil liberties as much as they are fighting for the advancement of a certain agenda. This latest war on abstinence is the best example of this in action. No rights are being violated but the ACLU is on the scene to prevent the dissemination of messages that they disagree with.
This was a production of Stop The ACLUblogburst. Over 100 blogs are already on board. If you want to join us, just register through our portal. We will add you to our mailing list, and send you the info on how to get aboard and fight the ACLU.
Posted by John Bambenek at 9:57 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
September 28, 2005
If You Can't Beat 'Em, Indict 'Em
The saying goes; a motivated prosecutor could indict a ham sandwich if they wanted to. Tom Delay has been indicted on conspiracy charges after years of this prosecutor trying. First it was Abramoff, but after realizing that scandal implicated Democrats (in fact over 200 Congressmen started “fixing their paperwork”) and it was ok’d by the House of Representatives lawyers, they had to drop that one. Now they got a conspiracy charge that was cooked up to give this prosecutor jurisdiction he would not otherwise have. That’s not to say that he’s innocent, but it is to say that the Democrat’s plan to power is not to beat Republicans at the polls, it’s to invent charges against them. Call it the Rush Limbaugh treatment.
Here are some quotes from Democrats on the development:
But Nancy Pelosi, House Democratic leader, called his indictment “the latest example that Republicans in Congress are plagued by a culture of corruption at the expense of the American people”.
And from Tom McMahon of the DNC:
People ask what the difference is between the two parties, and this indictment gives one clear answer.
Republicans are committed to pushing the legal limits to collect checks from special interests who want to use government for their own narrow purposes. Democrats are committed to funding our party with contributions from ordinary Americans so that when we take power, the government will represent the people.
You can make your personal commitment to changing the culture of corruption by getting your Democracy Bond -- a monthly commitment to contribute to the Democratic Party:
Need we bring up some examples of Democrat corruption?
These people are all rich before they get into office and they take large pay cuts once elected, so they take perks. This isn’t something that is a Democrat or a Republican agenda because both parties are guilty of it. Need we bring up former disgraced Presidents that committed perjury?
The message the DNC is sending out is, “Get the corrupt Republican cronies out of office! We want our corrupt cronies in!”. That’s about as intelligent it is. And to be fair, that’s exactly the platform of the Illinois GOP against the Democrats in ’06. It swings both ways, but as a state that’s about to go on two consecutive governors in two terms getting indicted (who were from opposing parties) let’s at least be honest about corrupt being a political value, not a partisan value.
The lesson for the GOP, however, is that conservativism pays. If you are doling out millions in pork, eventually the money is going to get traced back to you. You won’t ever get bought or bribed if you aren’t in the business of wasting taxpayer money. The timing of DeLay announcing that fiscal conservativism is dead is nothing short of ironic here.
Thanks to OTB, Political Teen, Kit, others.
Posted by John Bambenek at 9:08 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
September 26, 2005
Is the ACLU Anti-Christian?
Many people view the ACLU as anti-Christian (Anti-Christian Lawyers Union, etc). With all the cases they take beating away any symbol of Jesus in the public square, it's hard to think they AREN'T anti-Christian. As the new symbol of Los Angeles shows, they don't seem to have a problem with other religions, just Christianity it appears. The question is, are they really anti-Christian?
The ACLU says they are the guardian of liberty who works to defend and preserve individual rights. However, they are less fighting for something than fighting against something. They fight against intelligent design and abstinence education not because they infringe on rights, but because they are part of an order they believe needs to be abolished.
Being anti-Christian implies that they intend to specifically attack Christianity as an end of itself. As Roger Baldwin (a co-founder of the ACLU) said of the goals of the ACLU:
"I am for socialism, disarmament, and ultimately, for abolishing the state itself... I seek social ownership of property, the abolition of the properties class, and sole control of those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal. I don't regret being part of the communist tactic. I knew what I was doing. I was not an innocent liberal. I wanted what the communists wanted, and I traveled the United Front road to get it.
The ACLU's actions are a part of a political worldview they hold. It was founded by communists and though many members and lawyers would say they aren't communist today that foundation influences the way they look at things. They are militant privacy advocates and anti-government to the point of wanting to take away valid tools from law enforcement. This is why they helped Rush Limbaugh, not because they support his speech, but because their causes temporarily aligned when the Florida prosecutor's office seized his medical records unjustly. That is not to say that the government is lily white when it comes to privacy, but to say that monitoring phone calls of suspected terrorists leads to a police state is ludicrous and scare-mongering.
The ACLU attacks the traditional foundation of the family in society. This is why they fight against parental notification of abortions, school choice, and the parent's role in educating their children. In fact, they attack traditional forms of authority beyond that of the state. In communist nations, the state is the highest authority and all needs and actions must be made in connection with what is best for the state. That is why you can talk about purges and gulags and communists don't flinch. Communism requires them.
Their attacks on Christianity aren't designed to eradicate Christianity, per se. They are designed to establish a social order (or more appropriately destroy the existing order) and customs that advance their ideas and Christianity isn't a part of it. In short, they aren't anti-Christian in intent, they are anti-Christian in effect.
Thanks to OTB
Posted by John Bambenek at 12:09 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
September 22, 2005
Culture & Cosmos: Kennedy Using Katrina to Attack Private Schools
The area affected by Hurricane Katrina has a much higher than normal percentage of students in private (usually Catholic) schools. This is because of the imfamously poor state of public education in the area. If you want to be left behind and assured of no resources with which to get out of New Orleans because of a Hurricane, public schooling is your best bet.
Because of the amount of people displaced who would otherwise go to private schools, President Bush proposed to give them assistance in getting into private schools where they ended up. Instead, Kennedy insists that all children must be put in public schools unless the families (who now have no jobs) can come up with a second set of tuition money to pay on their own.
I agree, it is ironic that the opposition to the Bush plan is coming from 4 Irish Catholic senators.
=====
One of the Senate's best known Catholics has worked to reject a proposal by President Bush that would have given families displaced by Hurricane Katrina financial aid to send their children to private or parochial schools. A bipartisan student relief package put forth by Massachusetts Senator Edward Kennedy and Wyoming Senator Michael Enzi did not include a provision that would have given students up to $7,500 because Kennedy opposed the provision, according to a high level Congressional staffer who spoke with Culture & Cosmos.
Culture & Cosmos also learned that a prominent Church prelate said he was furious that aid to private schools had been kept out of the package and he was especially angry that it is being blocked by "four Irish Catholic Senators."
The proposal for financial aid came from the Bush administration and the Department of Education and noted that, "Communities in Louisiana significantly impacted by the hurricane had an above average number of children enrolled in private schools — 61,000 students in private schools compared to 187,000 in public schools in four severely impacted parishes. These significantly impacted Louisiana communities averaged 25% of students attending private K-12 schools — much higher than the 11% national average of private school students." Out of the 61,000 students in private schools, 81%, or 50,000 attend Catholic schools. In fact, New Orleans public schools have long had a reputation for poor quality and the Catholic school system there is seen as an affordable refuge.
The total price tag for the Education Department's proposal which aims to cover most of the cost of educating students displaced by Katrina is $1.9 billion. The administration estimates that of that total, 25% or $488 million would be needed for educational support if their proposal was implemented.
Kennedy publicly criticized aid for private schools yesterday in a statement: "But I am extremely disappointed that [President Bush] has proposed providing this relief using such a politically-charged approach. This is not the time for a partisan political debate on vouchers." Despite the high percentage of New Orleans students who attend private school, Kennedy said "we need to focus on rebuilding the public school systems which are the cornerstones of the Gulf Coast communities and economies."
Catholic League president William Donohue praised the proposal. "This is more than an education issue – it is a matter of fundamental civil rights. Having been ravaged by Hurricane Katrina, the residents of New Orleans want to put their lives back together as soon as possible. What they don't need now is for federal lawmakers to stand in their way by playing politics with the choices they make."
Legislators are still hashing out the final details of the relief package they will send to the president so it is still possible that money for vouchers will be added back into Senators Enzi and Kennedy's legislations.
One observer pointed out that "it is a joke that Kennedy still thinks he is the preeminent Catholic politician in America. He is a disgrace on this and other issues important to Catholic."
Culture of Life Foundation
1413 K Street, NW, Suite 1000
Washington DC 20005
Phone: (202) 289-2500 Fax: (202) 289-2502 E-mail: clf@culture-of-life.org
Website: http://www.culture-of-life.org
Posted by John Bambenek at 8:09 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
September 15, 2005
Stop the ACLU: The Source of Rights in the United States
Did you know that the Constitution makes an explicit reference to Jesus Christ as Lord?
From the Signature section:
Done in convention by the unanimous consent of the states present the seventeenth day of September in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty seven and of the independence of the United States of America the twelfth.
It's common knowledge that the "AD" dating system is a reference to the life of Christ, that's why some scholars are trying to change "AD" to "ACE" (after common era) to not offend Muslims and the like. More importantly, it is calling it the year of "our Lord", our being the collective pronoun which implies that it is the Lord for all the signers.
It is important to not be unwelcoming to those of other faiths or no faith, but that does not translate into the need to mute all Christian beliefs in the public square, or to require that all public officials be atheist. Our founding was ripe with religious references, and more important, the source of our rights which makes the US distinct is based on religion.
Other nations give rights to its citizens out of its largesse. It can give rights and take rights away at will because they are rights the state can bestow. Not so in the United States. God has granted man certain inalienable rights that the government has no business taking in the first place. The United States can't take away the free speech of a person because it has no legal or moral power to do so. It doesn't grant free speech, we already have it, it simply does not get in the way. The acceptance of a higher power than the state is the cornerstone of the entire doctrine of rights in the United States, take it away and there is nothing stopping the government from repealing or amending, say, the First Amendment. The United States can't give away a right to an education or a right to health care because rights aren't for the government to give.
Here's this week's Stop the ACLU Blogburst.
===========
Just yesterday a lefty judge ruled the pledge of allegiance unconstitutional. It's pretty simple, either we are a nation under God, or a nation without God. I'm not sure the far left know how dangerous it is that they are trying to take God out of our history, and how fragile our moral fabric has become. It wasn't that long ago the out of control judicial branch ruled in favor of the federal government to take away our private property. There is no doubt the judicial branch has too much power that goes unchecked. It's time Congress step up and put a stop to the judicial tyranny and legislation from the bench. Rehnquist said it should be an impeachable offense. I completely agree.
Part of the process of exposing the radical agenda of the ACLU is to expose some of the deceptive tactics that it uses. One of those methods is often referred to as "spinning". One example of this is to take a quote from someone, take it out of context, and claim that it means something completely different than it's original intent. That is the case in one lie that the ACLU uses in many cases....
Not that many people could quote you the first amendment, but many would tell you that it refers to separation of church and state. That is a common misconception, and is absolutely not true. The words "separation of Church and State" are not in the first amendment. What the first amendment does say is,"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."This falsehood comes up almost every time religion and politics touch, and usually by the ACLU. Most recently it has come up with the issue of the ten commandments case.
So where did this myth come from?
It all started with a letter that Thomas Jefferson wrote to Danburry Baptist Association in 1802. The focus is on a portion of the letter where Jefferson states, "...I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state..." Jefferson wrote this letter to the Danburry Baptist Association to assure them in their concerns that the government would not establish a national denomination.
One of the most significant in a series of cases heard by the Supreme Court on the establishment of religion clause of the First Amendment was Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (1962). It was in this case that the phrase "Wall of separation of Church and State" became the cry of the far-left, and anti-Christian movement.
Intent of The Founding Fathers
So, was the original intent of our founding fathers to keep religion completely out of the government? Well, I will let them speak for themselves.
If Jefferson believed that the government should keep its hands out of religion completely, then why, while President of the United States, and the first elected president of the Washington, D.C. public school board, did he place the Bible and the Isaac Watt's hymnal into the public school system as required reading?Source
"Religion is the only solid basis of good morals; therefore education should teach the precepts of religion, and the duties of man towards God."Quote(Gouverneur Morris, 1792, Notes on the Form of a Constitution for France.)
Founding father who physically wrote the Constitution, and most active member of Constitutional Convention, spoke 173 times on the floor.Source
"Why...should not the Bible regain the place it once held as a school book? Its morals are pure, its examples captivating and noble. The reverence for the sacred book that is thus early impressed last long; and, probably, if not impressed in infancy, never takes hold of the mind."Quote
(Fisher Ames, The Works of Fisher Ames, 1809.) Founding father who on September 20, 1789 helped provide the wording for the First Amendment. Source
"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars.... The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and cherish them.... Let it simply be asked, 'Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert?' ...And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds...reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle."
(George Washington, 1796, Farewell Address.)Quote
These are just a few quotes showing how the founding fathers recognized religion's place in the founding of our government. The First Amendment was meant to ensure the churches protection from government interference. Not vice versa.
"There was a secular study done by the American Political Science Review on the political documents of the founding era, which was 1760-1805.
This study found that 94% of the documents that went into the founding era were based on the Bible, and of that 34% of the contents were direct quotations from the Bible.
88% of students nationwide are educated in the public school system.
The Bible was the foundation and blueprint for our Constitution, Declaration of Independence, educational system, and our entire history until the last 20 to 30 years".Source
As a matter of fact, Congress funded the printing of the first English language Bible printed in America. It came to be known as the "Bible of the American Revolution".
Who Has Endowed You With Your Rights?
It is a very important question, because whoever gives you the rights also has the power to take them away. Is it the state or God? Here is what the Declaration of Independence has to say about it:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Source
If you believe that your rights come from the state or society and not God, it brings up the question that George Washington asked...
"..Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert?' ...And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds...reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle."
(George Washington, 1796, Farewell Address.)
Or the one that Jefferson himself asked...""Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God?"
(Thomas Jefferson,Notes on the State of Virginia, 1781.)
And in summary, I will ask the same question. If you completely remove God from having any role in our government, you have handed your rights over to the State. The founders unanimously agreed that our rights were endowed to us by a Creator. They all signed the famous declaration that stated so. So, their intent should be obvious. It will be a scary day for those in the majority who believe in a deity, if the State tries to assume that role. Especially when it comes to our civil rights. And the secular direction that America is being pushed in is leading us far away from the original intent of our founding fathers. When the Courts have assumed the role of stripping us of our first amendment rights to express religion, they are playing God! And the fact that this is already beginning to happen, is a legitimate thing for us to fear.
It's time we stand up and make our voices known.This was a production of stop the ACLU blogburst. Over 100 blogs already onboard. If you would like to join us please just go to our portal, and register. You will be added to our mailing list, and we will send you the information you will need.
For sites already on board, See Here.
Posted by John Bambenek at 8:20 AM | Comments (6) | TrackBack
September 14, 2005
The Unconstitutional Pledge: Redux
A federal judge in San Francisco today has ruled that it is unconstitutional to recite the pledge of allegiance in public schools. The ruling flies in the face of the recent Newdow v Common Sense ruling in 2003 that says there is nothing wrong with having school kids declare their allegiance to the legal entity that pays for their education and supplies their freedom. There is also nothing illegal about people such as Newdow lobbying their federal legislators to change the law, but that takes too much time. The court that ruled that the pledge was unconstitutional was also the same court that was ultimately overturned by the Supreme Court in the Neadow case.
updates as I get them
U.S. District Judge Lawrence Karlton ruled that the pledge's reference to one nation "under God" violates school children's right to be "free from a coercive requirement to affirm God."Karlton said he was bound by precedent of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which in 2002 ruled in favor of Sacramento atheist Michael Newdow that the pledge is unconstitutional when recited in public schools.
It's unclear why Judge Karlton believes he's bound by a appealate precedent that was overturned by the Supreme Court as wrong. Newdow has brought the case that he lost again to the courts, this time representing some atheist families and their children. While Karlton has narrowed the case to recitation of the Pledge instead of the constitutionality of the pledge itself, he made it clear that "There is nothing whatsoever that requires acknowledging God to love this country".
The Supreme Court case in 2003 focused solely on Newdow's ability to sue on behalf of a child he does not see and does not have custody of. This case remedies the problem by Newdow fishing out a few families to represent instead and present the same arguments laying the way for the Supreme Court to actually decide the issue this time.
=============
Judge Karlton can be contacted at:
Karlton, Lawrence K.
Hinkle, Tim, Secretary, 916-930-4130, Fax: 916-491-3905
Rivas, Ana, CRD, 916-930-4133, Fax: 916-491-3934
Others talking about this:
OTB, Stop the ACLU, Michelle Malkin, ABP, others...
Posted by John Bambenek at 1:16 PM | Comments (5) | TrackBack
Fiscal Conservativism: 1994-2005 R.I.P.
Today Tom Delay announced that Fiscal Conservativism and Limited Government has died.
In proclaiming a new era of government waste at the hands of legislators, Tom DeLay, a key figure in the Republican Revolution in 1994, has made clear that corruption will trump principle in the GOP.
Posted by John Bambenek at 12:02 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
September 10, 2005
Hurricane Katrina: A Case for Affirmative Action
Now that it seems the evacuation is more or less complete in New Orleans, talk has begun on rebuilding New Orleans. It’ll be rebuilt, hopefully with an above sea level plan, if for no other reason out of American pride. The question I ask is not whether or not to rebuild, but who should do the building.
Off the top, the highly technical aspects of fixing and operating the pumps, elevating the city, repairing the levees and the like should be done by experts. This deals more with rebuilding houses, apartments, stores, and the bulk of the actual structures. As someone who is not a fan of affirmative action, I think the work of the actual building should go to the poor minorities who were displaced.
Yes, they’ll need to be trained and yes it will slow down the process. But let’s look at the alternatives for a second. You have a hundred some odd thousand very angry, upset people who were less than impressed by the overall response to the disaster. And they are upset for good reason. These are people who were beat down and pushed down by “the man” all their lives. Many are unemployed; many are unemployable, because they lack training and education in solid skills. These are the people that are standing around in the tens of thousands at various football fields near you and they’re going to have nothing to do for months while carpetbaggers head to New Orleans to rebuild it.
Instead, I propose letting those who want to make $30-40/hr that are physically capable to go back to New Orleans to build. One, it would help them out financially obviously. Two, they would get bona fide on the job training and experience in building, something they can reuse once the building is done. Three, it would give many of them something to do instead of sitting around a football field waiting for Red Cross to bring them their next meal. Four, and most important, it will help break the cycle of poverty by getting them work and a job skill that can be used even if they never go back to New Orleans. It will help them become self-reliant.
One of the lessons that Hurricane Katrina brings, that no matter who is in power or what governmental form there is, if you rely on the government to help you, most of the time you’ll be left hanging. This is a truth that thousands of years of human history have taught. If you can provide for yourself, you’ll do fine. If you need the government, you’re screwed.
As the old saying goes... give a man to fish, feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and he'll sit in the boat all day drinking beer... or something like that.
Posted by John Bambenek at 5:48 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
September 8, 2005
MoveOn Watch: Don't Let Republicans Point out Failures with Locals during Katrina, That Hurts Our Chances to Blame Bush!
MoveOn is outraged. They're steaming that federal officials have the unmitigated gall to point out that city officials should have used their own buses to get people out when they could, or that 2/3rds of the police force walked off the job leaving the city in chaos (earning a free trip to Vegas), or that Gov. Blanco sat on a Presidential request to evacuate and then waited 24 hours to approve the federal response. FEMA has some improvement to do, yes. But the local officials utterly failed their people. Mayor Nagin could have used the buses to get people out, he could have ordered the evacuation 36 hours when the emergency was declared AS HE SHOULD HAVE. FEMA can be faulted for not having the best response to the crisis, but the locals made the crisis happen. And MoveOn is pissed that people dare point out who is REALLY to blame here. It hurts their talking points.
Here's MoveOn's E-mail:
==============================================
President Bush and Republican leaders are trying to shift blame for the poor rescue and relief effort to the victims of Hurricane Katrina including state and local officials. Don't let them get away with that.
Sign a petition today demanding the president stop the blame-shifting and get to work helping Hurricane victims. Petition delivery will start tomorrow in Washington, D.C.
Dear MoveOn member,
It has been a week since Hurricane Katrina devastated the Gulf Coast, leveled New Orleans and left hundreds of thousands of Americans homeless. We saw the best of America during that time—millions of people stepped forward to offer help. Meanwhile, the Bush administration failed at their most important job: keeping America safe. The federal effort was too little, too late and it is now becoming obvious that hundreds or even thousands of people died as a result.
Then, starting Friday, in a Karl Rove-led campaign, the White House started to blame state and local officials and even the victims who were stranded without transportation when the Hurricane arrived. Sign our petition demanding that the Bush administration stop blaming victims, including state and local officials, and focus on helping them.
We'll begin to deliver the earliest signatures to the White House tomorrow, Thursday, when a delegation of MoveOn members from New Orleans, who are now homeless and will come to Washington and join other MoveOn members outside the White House at a petition delivery and protest. The petition is one important way to demonstrate that the public wants more action to help hurricane victims and is getting angry about this blame-shifting game the Bush administration is playing.
It is important that the Bush administration not get away with shifting their responsibility to local officials. Here is what actually happened.
Timeline
Friday, Aug. 26: Gov. Kathleen Blanco declares a state of emergency in Louisiana and requests troop assistance.
Saturday, Aug. 27: Gov. Blanco asks for federal state of emergency. A federal emergency is declared giving federal officials the authority to get involved.
Sunday, Aug. 28: Mayor Ray Nagin orders mandatory evacuation of New Orleans. President Bush warned of Levee failure by National Hurricane Center. National Weather Service predicts area will be "uninhabitable" after Hurricane arrives. First reports of water toppling over the levee appear in local paper.
Monday, Aug. 29: Levee breaches and New Orleans begins to fill with water, Bush travels to Arizona and California to discuss Medicare. FEMA chief finally responds to federal emergency, dispatching employees but giving them two days to arrive on site.
Tuesday, Aug. 30: Mass looting reported, security shortage cited in New Orleans. Pentagon says that local authorities have adequate National Guard units to handle hurricane needs despite governor's earlier request. Bush returns to Crawford for final day of vacation. TV coverage is around-the-clock Hurricane news.
Wednesday, Aug. 31: Tens of thousands trapped in New Orleans including at Convention Center and Superdome in "medieval" conditions. President Bush finally returns to Washington to establish a task force to coordinate federal response. Local authorities run out of food and water supplies.
Thursday, Sept. 1: New Orleans descends into anarchy. New Orleans Mayor issues a "Desperate SOS" to federal government. Bush claims nobody predicted the breach of the levees despite multiple warnings and his earlier briefing.
Friday, Sept. 2: Karl Rove begins Bush administration campaign to blame state and local officials—despite their repeated requests for help. Bush stages a photo-op—diverting Coast Guard helicopters and crew to act as backdrop for cameras. Levee repair work orchestrated for president's visit and White House press corps.
Saturday, Sept. 3: Bush blames state and local officials. Senior administration official (possibly Rove) caught in a lie claiming Gov. Blanco had not declared a state of emergency or asked for help.
Monday, Sept. 5: New Orleans officials begin to collect their dead.
(Adapted from: Katrina Timeline, http://thinkprogress.org/katrina-timeline/ )
Those are the facts. State and local officials BEGGED for help as people in their city suffered. The Bush administration didn't get the job done and when their failure became an embarrassment they attacked those asking for help.
The New York Times reported on Friday that Karl Rove and White House communications director Dan Bartlett "rolled out a plan...to contain the political damage from the administration's response to Hurricane Katrina." The core of the strategy is "to shift the blame away from the White House and toward officials of New Orleans and Louisiana."
This is the same pattern of smearing that the Bush political machine has used for a decade. John McCain and John Kerry had their war records smeared. The CIA cover of Ambassador Joseph Wilson's wife was blown after he criticized the Bush Iraq policy. Now, Hurricane victims are attacked when the Bush administration failed to do their duty to help them.
It isn't just the Bush administration. Republican Senator Rick Santorum blamed victims in a TV interview and House Speaker Dennis Hastert suggested New Orleans should not be rebuilt.
We can't let them get away with this. Please sign our petition today and do your part.
This is just the first step. We need to continue to help those in need directly and make sure our government does their job. There will be a time to figure out who specifically to blame and what to change. In the meantime, the Bush administration needs to get to work helping those in need.
Thanks for all you do,
–Tom, Tanya, Joan, Jennifer and the MoveOn.org Political Action Team
Wednesday, September 7th, 2005
P.S. Check out these links for more on the Hurricane relief efforts.
Katrina Timeline, ThinkProgress.org http://thinkprogress.org/katrina-timeline/
Editorial: No time for turf wars. The Times-Picayune, September 7, 2005. http://www.moveon.org/r?r=869
Editorial blasts federal response. CNN, September 4, 2005. http://www.moveon.org/r?r=870
The big disconnect on New Orleans. CNN, September 2, 2005. http://www.moveon.org/r?r=871
PAID FOR BY MOVEON.ORG POLITICAL ACTION
Not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee.
Posted by John Bambenek at 8:10 AM | Comments (8) | TrackBack
September 7, 2005
Hurricane Katrina: Planned Parenthood on the Scene Making Sure Black People Don't Breed
In the massive response to Hurricane Katrina, dozens if not hundreds of charities rushed to provide essential care to the victims. Some brought food, others brought medicine. Planned Parenthood got into the mix "on the frontlines aiding patients in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina." (Their words)
What were the essentials that Planned Parenthood brought to starving and dehydrating people? Why contraceptives, of course. It's as if the voice of Margaret Sanger herself spoke out from the grave saying "You've seen those masses of displaced black people on TV. Give us money and we'll make sure that, when they come to your town, they don't breed!" (HT: Dawn Eden).
In a crisis where people really need help and are avoiding roaming gangs of thugs and rapists I don't think sex is on their mind. Instead of letting the Red Cross or Catholic Charities take the donation money, Planned Parenthood is taking it so they can continue their eugenic mission. More on this at Culture & Cosmos.
Posted by John Bambenek at 3:54 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
September 6, 2005
Hurricane Katrina: After-Action Report - Where were the breakdowns
Now that it seems everyone who is going to be rescued from New Orleans has been and the clean-up operation has begun, it's time for an after-action report on what is and what is not to blame. This is probably going to be my last and most complete post on the subject with the possible exception of the column I have prepared for the Daily Illini.
First, we'll start by what three things that aren't to blame and go into what went wrong.
Levee funding cut by Bush
STATUS: Non-issue
The Army Corps of Engineers is responsible for the levees and floodwalls in and around New Orleans. They were designed to protect against a weak category 3 hurricane. There were no plans to upgrade that protection to category 4 or 5. Originally the plan was to have category 5 protection; however, environmentalists sued the district and stopped it. It would have taken 25 years (if it worked) to get the upgrades in to make the levees and walls protect against a category 5. (Source: Riverside magazine by the Army Corps of Engineers).
There were funding cuts to upgrades they were trying to do, but those upgrades would have been irrelevant. 15 foot walls don't contain 22 foot surges which is what they were facing. As a matter of fact, the portions of the wall that failed were the portions that have received the greatest effort with what the Corps did do. Those were recently upgraded walls. From the NYTimes:
Shea Penland, director of the Pontchartrain Institute for Environmental Studies at the University of New Orleans, said that was particularly surprising because the break was "along a section that was just upgraded."
Louisiana and New Orleans were aware of the situation which is why their disaster plans call for complete evacuation using, among other things, the buses in the Mayor Ray Nagin Memorial Motor Pool.
National Guard deployments in Iraq
STATUS: Non-issue
About 3,700 Louisiana National Guard troops were overseas when the hurricane struck. The objection goes those people could have been helpful in keeping order. It misses the fact that 8,000 troops were left behind at the disposal of the governor in addition to the guardsmen from neighboring states. Reports indicate that the Arkansas National Guard was able to respond before the Louisiana National Guard. There are over 30,000 troops on the ground now. Having troops wasn't the problem; getting them there you could argue was. More on that later.
Racism
STATUS: Invented by race-baiters trying to be relevant again
The governor of Louisiana is a Democrat. The mayor is a black Democrat. They were responsible for the evacuation and their signatures, not Bush's are on the plan. If you want to make the argument that Democrats are racist and want black people to die, that's your prerogative. Some other myths on racism such as the cannibalism claim are debunked here.
Gov. Kathleen Blanco
STATUS: Frozen under pressure
After the crisis struck, Gov. Blanco remained indecisive and would not commit to decisions. One example is below which is a transcript on CNN of Mayor Nagin's comments which indicate Gov. Blanco waited 24 hours to commit on which federal plan to initiate.
From CNN Transcripts: (HT: Wizbang)
NAGIN: The president looked at me. I think he was a little surprised. He said, "No, you guys stay here. We're going to another section of the plane, and we're going to make a decision."
He called me in that office after that. And he said, "Mr. Mayor, I offered two options to the governor." I said -- and I don't remember exactly what. There were two options. I was ready to move today. The governor said she needed 24 hours to make a decision.
S. O'BRIEN: You're telling me the president told you the governor said she needed 24 hours to make a decision?
NAGIN: Yes.
S. O'BRIEN: Regarding what? Bringing troops in?
NAGIN: Whatever they had discussed. As far as what the -- I was abdicating a clear chain of command, so that we could get resources flowing in the right places.
S. O'BRIEN: And the governor said no.
NAGIN: She said that she needed 24 hours to make a decision. It would have been great if we could of left Air Force One, walked outside, and told the world that we had this all worked out. It didn't happen, and more people died.
That wasn't the only time she froze. She took control of the emergency apparatus yet continued to refuse to act. Bush had to personally call and beg Blanco and Nagin during dinner to order a mandatory evacuation. They still waited until the morning. A state of emergency was ordered August 26th at 9:44pm, they waited until 28th at 10am to order the evacuation. A full 36 hours could have been added to the evacuation time which could have included the National Guard going door-to-door to drag people out of New Orleans. She simply sat around and failed her people. Blanco refused to give any authority to the federal government to act.
Mayor Ray Nagin
STATUS: Who me?
While Mayor Nagin thinks the CIA is going to off him in the near future, he should look no farther than the lots of buses he left in his parking lots that could have gotten people out.
The initial responsibility of evacuating people in New Orleans belongs to the Mayor which we have seen did little to nothing beforehand.
Conduct of an actual evacuation will be the responsibility of the Mayor of New Orleans in coordination with the Director of the Office of Emergency Preparedness, and the OEP Shelter Coordinator.
The buses sitting in parking lots and not evacuating people is the fault of Mayor Nagin and Mayor Nagin alone.
New Orleans Police Department
STATUS: Two-thirds of the police force is gone
That's correct, over 2/3rds of the New Orleans police department just left and now they are trying to entice them back with taxpayer funded trips to Vegas. FEMA has no plan (but probably should) for such a catastrophic power vacuum which did little more than strengthen the anarchy. Why the police just left instead of do their jobs is unknown, but perhaps this may explain it.
Failure to use buses to evacuate people
STATUS: 500-2000 buses ruined in their parking lots
The evacuation called for using buses to get those without cars out, but they simply left the buses in the parking lots to get destroyed. They could have at least took the buses to high ground so they could have been used after the hurricane passed, much less get people out before the hurricane hit.
One trip of 500 buses at near full capacity is 30,000 people. They could have made at least 3 trips. Sure, people would have been left, but 90,000 people would be safe and dry now.
Pirates, Looters, and Mobs, oh my!
STATUS: Armed bandits shut down rescue operation necessitating militarizing the situation
There were FEMA and other rescue teams that got in fairly quickly, but snipers began shooting at rescue helicopters, pirates began boat-jacking rescuers, and all mayhem broke lose, complete with police looting and standing by while people did so. If people were going to raid food stores, the government should have taken it first and rationed it. Instead it created an environment of lawlessness in a culture that recognizes no moral norms. (More on that later).
Rescuers had to halt operations in general, and at locations like the Superdome, because they had no security to proceed with. This necessitated an unforeseen buildup of military force that could provide security which took more time.
That's it for now. FEMA could have handled some things better, sure. But the responsibility in the first few days is local, not federal. The states have to authorize help, and Louisiana didn't. Mississippi was hit by the same hurricane and there was no crisis there because people did what they were supposed to do. FEMA could have stepped up better, sure. But the point is they shouldn't have had to deal with a complete collapse of the local authorities in the first place. They shouldn't have had to deal with 100,000 people trapped in New Orleans.
(Thanks again to OTB)
Posted by John Bambenek at 3:56 PM | Comments (16) | TrackBack
September 5, 2005
Hurricane Katrina: Louisiana Demoted to Federal Territory (satire)
Today during a special session of Congress legislation was passed and immediately signed by President Bush that demotes the former State of Louisiana to federal territory status. During the response to Hurricane Katrina, the local government left almost 500 buses unused, waited an additional 24 hours to order evacuation while President Bush begged them to get the people out, and over 2/3rds of the New Orleans Police Department abandoned their jobs and left the city in chaos.
"It is clear that the government of Louisiana and the city of New Orleans have completely failed their populations. In response to this complete collapse of government I have been forced to take decisive action to rectify the situation.", said President Bush is a Rose Garden ceremony. Other officials expressed similar sentiments. Former Sen. Mary Landrieu was ushered out of the Capitol building after the vote as the area is no longer entitled to Senate representation. An unconfirmed report states that she had to be removed for threatening to punch her colleagues while she should have been working instead.
Department of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff stated that "it was clear from the response that Louisiana just can't handle their own business so it became necessary to take over for them." New Orleans has a long history of political corruption and as the hurricane stated to bear down on the city, Mayor Nagin was quoted as saying, "You want me to do something? I'm only the mayor; I'm just here to line my pockets!"
Federal agencies and offices were ordered to remove the current American flag and replace it with a flag that contained only 49 stars to signify the demotion of the Louisiana territory.
Posted by John Bambenek at 12:55 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack
September 3, 2005
Hurricane Katrina: How to Cause Nationwide Race Riots
From Drudge:
KANYE WEST ON NBC FUNDRAISER: 'GEORGE BUSH DOESN'T CARE ABOUT BLACK PEOPLE... They're saying black families are looting and white families are just looking for food...they're giving the (Army) permission to shoot us'... Actor Mike Myers asked people to donate... then Kanye West went on a tirade about Iraq...
Jesse Jackson:
"How can blacks be locked out of the leadership, and trapped in the suffering?"
I now present you a picture of the man who was most responsible for the rescue and evacuation planning for New Orleans, Mayor Nagin.
The fact that he's black doesn't matter though. There are people out there goading the race card. The CBC got close but didn't go there. Kanye West ran off his mouth on broadcast TV during fundraising, and you've got Jesse Jackson. There is a point where blacks nationwide say it's go time. Let's be honest, it is New Orleans and there is racism, but this is not pointing out the flaws, this is goading a race riot.
Posted by John Bambenek at 8:30 AM | Comments (4) | TrackBack
September 2, 2005
Hurricane Katrina: Some on the Right are Being Stupid Too
I just got this from the Minuteman Project:
TAKE ACTION: We weren't expecting this sudden need. There's no way to plan for such a time as this -- but nevertheless, we MUST take action now. We can't leave our borders unprotected -- but having to start our operation early means we're having to start without having all of the funds in place that we planned for. Click Here to help with your best contribution now:
Now, I do think we need to secure the border (as well as liberalize the number of immigrants we allow in legally) but using Katrina to try to push that agenda and then stump for donations is beyond the pale. There are more important things then immigrants getting into the country. We've had open borders for years now; a few more weeks won't hurt. A few more weeks in New Orleans, however, will kill. The money needs to go to Katrina first.
Posted by John Bambenek at 7:09 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
Hurricane Katrina: Who's to Blame
There is a rush to blame the Katrina catastrophe on someone, and while there are those on the Left engaging in political corpse chucking at the Bush administration what is missed is where the failures actually were here (hint: they were local). Kyoto had nothing to do with this. Racism had nothing to do with this. Iraq had nothing to do with this. Federal spending had nothing to do with this. Poor and/or non-existent planning and poor execution had everything to do with this. (See debunking of stupid claims here and here)
People think the levees should have been upgraded but funding was cut. Those levees were still to protect against category 3 hurricanes. 15 foot walls do not protect against 22 foot waves. New Orleans and Louisiana knew the problem and they planned for it. The problem is they largely didn't follow their own plan and left gaping holes. Protection against cat 5 hurricanes simply was not available, and the technology was about 25 years off, if it was going to work at all.
You can view the plans here. The plan clearly indicated that evacuation was the plan; they obviously just didn't carry through on that plan. As a result, they had to make up things as they went, improvising the Superdome as a shelter despite the lack of any functioning facilities or supplies.
The overall strategy for dealing with a catastrophic hurricane is to evacuate as much of the at risk population as possible from the path of the storm and relocate them to a place of relative safety outside the projected high water mark of the storm surge flooding and hurricane force winds.
(see also this story on people stealing busses sitting in lots to get out)
That is an AP picture of a school bus parking lot. Note the array of flooded out buses neatly in lines? The million dollar question is why they are still there. If they were used in the evacuation, as they should have been, those buses would be in Baton Rouge right now. (Or at least ferrying people out of New Orleans). They KNEW the problem they'd have if a hurricane like that hit, and the city and state government did nothing to alleviate it. Instead, they made a last-minute half-baked decision to use the Superdome Thunderdome as a "refuge of last chance". The floodwalls or work on the floodwalls don't mean jack. The disaster plan took the problem into account. Flooded buildings are a pain, but can be repaired. You would have no disaster if no one was in the city at the time.
That brings us to point two. The evacuation plan was to start once the threat of a strong category 3 or better hurricane is in the Gulf. Katrina made it to the Gulf on August 27th, the day the President declared a state of emergency in Louisiana. When was the mandatory evacuation ordered? After Katrina became a Cat 5 at 10am on the 28th. Katrina made landfall as a Cat 4 at 6:15 am on the 29th giving people less than 24 hours to evacuate. On the 27th, if not before they should have initiated their emergency plans, got shelters and buses ready. Instead they ended up with almost 60,000 people at the Superdome with no way out.
Point three. The emergency plan has two large gaping holes. It included no contingencies for riots and no contingencies to bring food and supplies INTO the city. The plan called to keep moving people out. However, because of the damage there was little or no way to get in, and the few ways rescuers were able to get in were impeded by the looting and rioting. (Food notwithstanding. People were trying to "boatjack" rescuers.) These two holes played into each other, with people beginning more and more to choose the side of the criminal element because there was no plan to help them from the outside in place.
People may say, well they didn't anticipate rioting. Let's be honest a second. In this country, we riot when the home team wins a championship. What the (expletive) did you expect when you had 100,000 some odd poor, starving people in a corrupt who are neck deep in sewage? Rescue operations had to be stopped so that basic security can be established to provide an escape corridor. You have hardened criminals on one side, and desperate people that have joined them because they're the only hope for survival now. You can't rescue 100,000 people with helicopters. You'd also be hard-pressed to expect them to behave while loading up buses 100 at a time. We needed to then begin a massive call up of the National Guard to step in. Sure, some were in Iraq, but 70% was available, not including all the other states in the area. What can be criticized is why it took so long for those units to get to New Orleans (and some haven't arrived yet). By the way, activation in this case is a matter for a governor, not the President. A serious look should be taken at Guard readiness in those states when this is over.
President Bush noticed the crisis coming 24 hours before New Orleans and Louisiana stepped up to do something about it. It isn't the federal governments job to step in and run states. That's why Louisiana has the Office of Homeland Security and Emergency Preparedness. They had a crap plan and didn't follow it and now we all have to play clean up. While all are quick to blame Bush and Republicans, they ought to take a good hard look at the state and local governments who wrote the plan, left the holes, and failed to do what the could to stop this from getting out of control.
Posted by John Bambenek at 3:02 PM | Comments (12) | TrackBack
September 1, 2005
The Left on Katrina: Well they were Red States Anyway
In this time of national crisis, it is once again shown that there are those who instead of united to help are using the event to push their ideologies and their hate. I present this unfiltered defecation on the United States from the Left.
"And nothing about the president's demeanor yesterday - which seemed casual to the point of carelessness - suggested that he understood the depth of the current crisis." New York Times Lead Editorial – 9/1/01 (A day after saying "But this seems like the wrong moment to dwell on fault-finding")
"Now we are all learning what it’s like to reap the whirlwind of fossil fuel dependence which Barbour and his cronies have encouraged. Our destructive addiction has given us a catastrophic war in the Middle East and--now--Katrina is giving our nation a glimpse of the climate chaos we are bequeathing our children." Robert F. Kennedy Jr. (Bush made the hurricanes! We'll skip past Prof. Gray and Prof. Emanuel who are experts in the field who say this is crap.)
"Two things happened in one day that tell much about the abysmal failure of the Bush administration to get a handle on poverty in America. The first was the tragic and disgraceful shots of hordes of New Orleans residents scurrying down the city’s Hurricane ravaged streets with their arms loaded with food, clothes, appliances, and in some cases guns, that they looted from stores and shops." Earl Hutchinson. (Now Bush is responsible for those who choose a life of crime).
"The president's 35-minute Air Force One flyover of Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama was the perfect metaphor for his entire presidency: detached, disconnected, and disengaged. Preferring to take in America's suffering -- whether caused by the war in Iraq or Hurricane Katrina -- from a distance. In this case, 2,500 feet." Arianna Huffington (As opposed to Arianna watching the destruction from a distance of 2500 miles).
"OK, you billionaires who have taken advantage of the very unchristian greed fest that is the hallmark of the Bush administration, it's time to step up and give some of that money back. CEO's should pony up and pay for the recovery of New Orleans, Gulfport, Biloxi, and the rest of the hurricane-devastated Deep South." Robert Smith on why he can't afford to help because he has to pay for his son's education at Rice.
Posted by John Bambenek at 9:15 AM | Comments (6) | TrackBack
This is not Compensation; This is Revenge
recent bit of news about the Catholic sex abuse scandal and the dioceses that have filed for bankruptcy. Namely, the court ruled that all assets are fair game, including those in the parishes (which the Bishop has little control of), and presumably Catholic Charities if run by the diocese.
Stockton attorney Larry Drivon, who represents hundreds of Californians suing the Catholic Church over childhood sexual abuse, said the Spokane ruling sends a warning to other Catholic dioceses considering bankruptcy to avoid payment of multimillion-dollar jury verdicts in sex-abuse cases."They are not going to get anywhere in bankruptcy," he said. "This is exactly what we've been saying since Day One, that all of the Catholic assets within the diocese are available to pay these plaintiffs," Drivon said.
Drivon said the ruling also meant that money held in restricted funds within dioceses for special projects, such as construction of a cathedral, can be used to pay judgments in sex-abuse cases, contradicting what some church officials have told donors.
"They have told their parishioners, 'Don't worry about the funds that you gave us for the cathedral, because these funds are separate and cannot be used for lawsuits.' Well, they can," Drivon said.
I want to be sympathetic, I really do. They do deserve just compensation. But this no longer appears to be an issue of compensation; it appears to be an attack to eliminate the very existence of the Church in those areas. Never mind money that was meant to feed the homeless or money that was donated for specific reasons; now the plaintiff lawyers want it all.
Posted by John Bambenek at 8:19 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
August 31, 2005
What is it with Democrats who like to Dance on the Dead?
Robert Kennedy Jr. today demonstrated why the Kennedy family has gone all down hill since JFK. He suggests on the HuffPo that Hurricane Katrina was caused by the Mississippi Governor's "anti-kyoto" and "anti-environmental" stances. The tone is almost giddy that this leftist can link dead bodies in some religious way to a Republican. We'll have to wait a few more weeks for their to be protests at their graves organized by Code Pink.
This is the problem with the Democratic party and the left in general, they can't simply try to make a point and convince people. What they do instead is gloat on any bad news and link it to some Republican policy. Tsunamis; Republicans fault. Hurricanes; Republicans fault. Train bombing in Spain; Republicans fault. Hollywood's deplorable movies; Republicans fault.
You ever wonder why they keep losing elections? They're still blaming Bush for every problem that comes along and then systematically ignoring all the good news out there. (See Good News from Iraq, or increased home ownership, and the list goes on).
Right now more and more people are seeing the Democrats and the Left for what they are, despicable elitists who have a sneering disdain for the "common man" and all things American. They could care less about America, the poor, the hungry, they just want power and they're pissed off at the voters for not giving it to them. This is just the latest episode of their downfall.
Posted by John Bambenek at 8:37 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack
August 30, 2005
Carnival of Life Debut!
Tim and I over at Pro-Life blogs are debuting the Carnival of Life. If you have posts on pro-life issues submit them.
Posted by John Bambenek at 9:29 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
August 29, 2005
Impeachment: This is Getting Out of Hand
Pat Buchanan proves why he's irrelevant
Why is everyones solution to every policy disagreement impeachment? I dunno, here's a crazy idea, campaign on the idea. The voters buy it, you win. The voters don't buy it, you go home and cry to momma. Illegal immigration is a problem, but I have this crazy opinion that we should reserve impeachment for.... oh, I don't know... "high crimes and misdemeanors".
Posted by John Bambenek at 5:14 PM | Comments (5) | TrackBack
Misuse of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve
With rising oil prices and Hurricane Katrina, there are the usual calls for tapping the
Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR). Sen. Schumer asked Bush to release oil to "ease higher prices" which shows that he doesn't understand the point of having the reserve to begin with.
The reserve was established in 1975 after the Arab oil embargo as a means of protection when countries decide to hit us in our oil supply. Taking that protection away now would make any such efforts much greater in effect and much more appealing. The SPR was never intended nor should be used as a means of price manipulation of the gas markets in the United States.
First, let's say you get a 20 cent reduction in gas prices by tapping the reserve. Would it even be politically feasible to back off until the reserve was gone and bring that 20 cent reduction back? Doubtful. Gas prices have been inflated for a long time now and it is not likely that the price is going to come down that much in the near future, not until regulators allow the construction of more refineries.
Second, it takes 15 days from the order until the oil starts to hit the markets. The SPR can only sustain its highest rate of drawdown for 90 days and will be completed depleted in 180 days. The price affect is negligible during periods of drawdown and there are no instant real effects (save psychological). What the SPR is good for is dealing with supply cutoffs, not dealing with price manipulation. Maximum drawdown would only supply the United States with a maximum of 20% of its oil consumption per day. That would be good for dealing with a disruption of oil supplies by a hurricane not to counteract long-term market pressures.
With Venezuela threatening an oil embargo and the situation as it is in Iraq, tapping the only source of protection to our oil supplies by foreign manipulators is only encouraging them to go ahead and attack our oil supplies.
Posted by John Bambenek at 2:28 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
August 27, 2005
The Left's War on Home Ownership
One of the top articles on Drudge is a link to an article that said Greenspan warned the US is heading for a housing price crash. The problem is this is somewhat of a wild mischaracterization of what Greenspan said. You can read the text of Greenspan’s speech here. Here is the appropriate quote from Greenspan:
The developing protectionism regarding trade and our reluctance to place fiscal policy on a more sustainable path are threatening what may well be our most valued policy asset: the increased flexibility of our economy, which has fostered our extraordinary resilience to shocks. If we can maintain an adequate degree of flexibility, some of America's economic imbalances, most notably the large current account deficit and the housing boom, can be rectified by adjustments in prices, interest rates, and exchange rates rather than through more- wrenching changes in output, incomes, and employment.
Here is what the Times Online characterized this as:
WALL STREET shuddered yesterday after Alan Greenspan, the United States’ central banker, warned American homebuyers that they risk a crash if they continue to drive property prices higher. He said that the US house-price spiral had become an economic imbalance, threatening stability like the country’s trade gap or its budget deficit.In a pre-retirement speech to fellow central bankers at Jackson Hole, Wyoming, Mr. Greenspan said that people were investing in houses as if they were a one-way bet, not allowing for the risk of price falls. He said “history had not dealt kindly” with investors who kept ignoring risks.
Those on the left are quite literally hoping for a housing crash so that they can gloat. They are wishing misery on their fellow man. And we have a British media outlet toeing the party line. There are those waging a war against middle class people owning homes. Is it because they cannot succeed when people become affluent? You make the call.
The quote about ignoring risks was in a section of his talk having nothing to do with housing. This very liberal interpretation of his talk is nothing but scare-mongering intended to talk down the economy.
However, no where in his speech does he mention a housing price crash. Adjustments sure. Markets go up and down. What the impression that those on the Left are trying to generate is to make people afraid that if they buy a house at $100,000, it’ll be worth $15,000 after a crash. Isn’t going to happen. Housing is too essential of a resource where it can become worthless. The market will fluctuate, houses may become more difficult to sell but there isn’t a housing crash coming. Even if housing prices take an extremely unlike 20% hit, what does that mean? People will continue to pay on their mortgages and the market will go up again giving them their value back.
It pays to remember that the much celebrated dot-com bust happened just a few years ago and the market is about at where it was before that crash. If you invested in a Dow Jones Index fund in 1928 before the Great Depression and stayed in the market 30 years, you still beat inflation. The sky is not falling, people just need to be reasonable about their debt loads which is something to take greater concern in.
Posted by John Bambenek at 3:26 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
August 26, 2005
Abortion Advocates Fight Against Choice
Abortion advocates are in a fight over the current HHS appropriations bill and whether hospitals, doctors, and medical personnel can be forced to be involved in abortion or risk losing any federal funds they may receive. This comes on the heels of a lawsuit filed by the State of California to overturn such provisions.
Here is another example of the "pro-choice" crowd fighting against the choice of medical providers in what services they want to provide and attempting to nullify their consciences. They argue that they aren't pro-abortion but then insist that every doctor must be jumping to perform abortions on demand. Any provider who refuses on the basis of conscience to provide any abortion-related services will likely face a revocation of their licenses.
The pro-abortion crowd not only wants to prevent medical providers from having a choice on what services they provide, they also want to exclude the religious from not only public life but even private jobs (with the ACLU trying to eliminate tax exemption for churches). If you're religious not only do they not want to allow you the choice to follow your conscience, they want to prevent your choice of profession.
So much for choice.
Posted by John Bambenek at 12:44 PM | Comments (5) | TrackBack
Column Up: Barack Obama - Falling Star
My First column at the DI is up.
Posted by John Bambenek at 12:02 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
August 25, 2005
The ACLU Declares Jihad on Abstinence Education
In a direct attack against common sense, the ACLU has waged a relentless war against teaching kids the simple fact that if you don’t have sex, you don’t get pregnant or get STDs. The ACLU applauded a recent decision by the federal government to suspend funding to Silver Ring Thing because it was using the money to evangelize and convert people. While they are very correct that this was a misuse of funds, it is part of a larger campaign to kick abstinence education out of the schools as inherently religious. In fact, a recent study by Rep. Waxman (that has been debunked) cited religion as a primary concern about these programs. The ACLU agrees.
They cite evidence that abstinence education programs do not work. History disproves this as we haven’t had anything close to the rates of single mothers, teenage pregnancies, or STD infections before sex-ed was taught in schools. For centuries, if not millennia, telling people to reserve sex for marriage worked. If they want proof, look back 100 years. Abstinence works every time it’s tried.
The irony is that while suggesting there is proof that abstinence education does not work, Planned Parenthood (through their research arm) has inadvertently shown that sex-ed and easy access to birth control has not slowed unintended pregnancies, reduced abortion, or reduced STD infections. Their recent report says:
“54% of women having abortions used a contraceptive method during the month they became pregnant. 76% of pill users and 49% of condom users reported using the methods inconsistently, while 13% of pill users and 14% of condom users reported correct use.”
Easy access to contraception has INCREASED the rate of infections of AIDS in Africa. Condoms are unable to protect against the single biggest cause of cervical cancer, HPV. Sex-ed in schools is based around teaching children “Hey, its ok, go out, have fun, just use a condom and you’ll be ok.” There is no attempt to deal with the emotional maturity issues regarding sex which leaves children so unprepared that the rate of kids committing suicide increases with sexual activity. They talk about moral programming and how it is ineffective at teaching youth abstinence, but rely on moral programming to teach them to use condoms.
The facts are these: abstinence education works and throwing condoms at kids doesn’t. If you aren’t ready to be a daddy you might want to think about not having sex which is the only effective way to not become one.
Thanks to OTB, Stop The ACLU, Basil's Blog
Posted by John Bambenek at 11:31 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack
Anti-War Protestors Tormenting Iraq War Wounded
CNSNews has broken the story on anti-war protesters outside Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington D.C. This is the facility where those with significant injuries are sent to from the battlefield. They are there holding up signs such as "Maimed for Lies" and "Enlist here and die for Halliburton". The organization organizing this is Code Pink, the same organization that has funded terrorists with the apparent knowledge of Rep. Waxman.
For the most part the anti-war crowd doesn't see a problem with this, mostly because it garners attention which is what they are seeking. They think by kicking around a few wounded soldiers that they'll be able to change people's minds about the war. They also seem to think that the wounded are oblivious to the debate on the Iraq war and for that matter the rest of the nation. This war has been debated 24x7 since about 14 months before we went in to Iraq. The rush to war included having the Army camp out for months in Kuwait waiting for the order and turning away Iraqis who wanted to surrender.
Everyone knows what the war has cost because the press covers it endlessly. These protesters are looking for more than that, they want some gimmick, some stunt that will convince people because all of their arguments have been rejected or disproved. They need the one mother of a slain soldier in Crawford and conveniently ignore the approximately 1900 other mothers who aren't protesting and do support the troops. They aren't covering that the insurgency is over and the remainder of fighting is mostly people from Iran and Syria and the targets are Iraqis.
That brings us to Walter Reed where to point is precisely to irritate people and get press. Should the protest somewhere else? Absolutely and they know it. If the Pentagon has to sneak people into Walter Reed it is because of those protesters trying to dance all over the body in celebration that they have another club to try to go after the President with. In closing, I have to wonder what these people do for a living because I don't have time to run out to a VA hospital and be kicking around wounded soldiers for fun.
Posted by John Bambenek at 8:24 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
August 24, 2005
The Words You Are Looking For Are "I'm Sorry"
Can no one apologize anymore? Two words: "I'm sorry". How about "I apologize"?
Posted by John Bambenek at 1:02 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
Democratic Party Crackup Coming: Stay-Tuned
At the Daily Kos, they're upset with the DLC. They don't think the DLC is Left enough and they're tired of it. So a few days ago they had this to say:
Two more weeks, folks, before we take them on, head on.No calls for a truce will be brooked. The DLC has used those pauses in the past to bide their time between offensives. Appeals to party unity will fall on deaf ears (it's summer of a non-election year, the perfect time to sort out internal disagreements).
We need to make the DLC radioactive. And we will. With everyone's help, we really can. Stay tuned.
I'm not sure whether this is childish ranting or the real McCoy but it'll be interesting to see how it plays out. This is a similar attitude displayed by MoveOn when they said, "We bought it, we paid for it, it's ours". (About the Democratic Party).
Posted by John Bambenek at 8:01 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
August 16, 2005
McCain-Feingold Imagery
Awesome.
Posted by John Bambenek at 5:30 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
NARAL: All Legitimacy Left Behind
NARAL has hit rock-bottom...
And they've started to dig.
They pulled the commercial but are still insisting Roberts supports violence against abortion clinics. Read more from Culture & Cosmos below.
=================
NARAL Website Still Portrays Judge John Roberts as Defender of Violence
Despite their decision to pull a misleading television ad that accuses Judge John G. Roberts of defending violence against abortion clinics, NARAL Pro-Choice America remains strongly opposed to Roberts' nomination to the Supreme Court. Their website, ProChoiceAmerica.org, features a special section devoted to providing talking points and other documents designed to hurt Roberts' confirmation chances including one that continues to portray him as a defender of clinic violence.
NARAL has come under intense criticism for a recent television ad that implied that Roberts defended the perpetrators of 1998 bombing of a Birmingham, Ala. abortion clinic. The accusation stems from an amicus curiae brief Roberts co-authored seven years before the bombing when he was Deputy Solicitor General in the administration of President George H.W. Bush. In a brief for the case Bray v. Alexandria Women's Health Clinic, Roberts argued that protestors at an abortion clinic could not be prosecuted under a Civil War era civil rights law. In his oral argument before the Supreme Court, Roberts makes it clear that the protesters should be prosecuted for any state laws they violated such as trespassing, disturbing the peace or inciting a riot.
The ad came under a barrage of criticism, including from supporters of abortion like Frances Kissling, president of "Catholics" for a Free Choice. After a letter denouncing it was sent to NARAL by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, who is pro-abortion, the ad was pulled. In a letter to Specter, NARAL president Nancy Keenan did not apologize for the ad's content but did say she regretted "that many people have misconstrued our recent advertisement about Mr. Roberts' record."
The day after pulling the ad, NARAL communications director David E. Seldin announced he was resigning immediately. In an e-mail to coworkers he said, "I've been thinking for a while that I would most likely leave after the Supreme Court nomination fight was over, and by leaving now I can spend the next two weeks in Cape Cod with my family relaxing, instead of trying to find a place with good cell phone reception." A Washington Post report said Seldin was among a group of Democrats who thought they should be tougher on Roberts.
Despite pulling the ad, NARAL is using the same rhetoric as the ad in its online campaign to stop confirmation of Roberts saying he "argued in support of the violent clinic protesters at Operation Rescue who have tried to block women's access to basic health care services with bombs and threats of murder." The document accuses Roberts of being "so driven by ideology that he will excuse lawless conduct against women and other Americans."
In a list of talking points on the website, NARAL says that the "Bush administration owes it to the American public to disclose all relevant information about John Roberts, including his taxes, records from his job as Deputy Solicitor General, and the radical right's role in his selection."
Copyright 2005---Culture of Life Foundation.
Permission granted for unlimited use. Credit required.
Culture of Life Foundation
1413 K Street, NW, Suite 1000
Washington DC 20005
Phone: (202) 289-2500
Fax: (202) 289-2502
E-mail: clf@culture-of-life.org
Website: http://www.culture-of-life.org
Posted by John Bambenek at 2:46 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
August 11, 2005
I was Wrong About NARAL & Planned Parenthood
I'm probably one of the few bloggers on the net that will admit when he was wrong, and I was wrong about Planned Parenthood and NARAL, and in general the Left as a whole. To lie requires intent. When they said John Roberts supports clinic bombers and extremists they did not intend to deceive. They sincerely believe that anyone against abortion is ipso facto a clinic bomber, terrorist, and extremist. They aren't lying because they believe if you are against abortion, you are an extreme terrorist.
Even though poll, after poll, after poll, after poll say that the majority or near a majority are pro-life, they continue to label anyone pro-life as extreme. Anyone who dares speaks out against abortion is a clinic bomber to them and they consider any form of picketing as a form of violence and constitute criminal activity on par with the Mafia or the Klan.
While they believe violence against clinics is evil, they celebrate violence against non-violent protestors. Even the implication of violence against abortion providers must be stopped. (Hint: Any pro-life group that felt threatened by PP's cartoon can just take the lawsuit against the Nuremberg Files, change the name, and re-file it). They insist they are trying to protect minors but they protect them against having their child rapist boyfriends arrested for their crimes.
So in the end, they aren't lying. They sincerely believe in what they are saying. The problem is that their sense of reality is gone. The next time someone talks to you about the "divisiveness" in American politics, point them Left. It wasn't the GOP that brackets out ideas and groups as unacceptable.
Posted by John Bambenek at 2:22 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
August 10, 2005
The Left: No Lies Left Behind
In defiance of the truth, NARAL is still insisting that John Roberts supports clinic bombers despite FactCheck debunking the claim, and even the NARAL President saying John Roberts doesn't support clinic violence.
It also seems that the New York Times got into the fray about lying about John Roberts and his involvement in the Schiavo case which got a White House letter correcting the record.
The problem with John Roberts is that there is too little to attack him on. People have had to resort to checking adoption records for dirt (Hint: the only dirt you'd find is on the biological parents… next time try divorce records). NARAL, the NYT, and the MoveOn fringe have resorted to making up claims out of thin air and running ads, much like they had to lie to seniors about Social Security to get them to show up to lambaste Rep. Johnson on how privatizing Social Security is going to take away their checks. (Hint: That's also a lie, no proposal is going to affect anyone receiving benefits or remotely close to receiving them).
When the Left has resorted to outright lying, they can complain about not having a message all the want. We know the message, give them control, sit down, shut up, surrender your money, and don't ask questions. That's why the best they can do is almost win an election.
HT: Pro-life blogs, Blogs for Bush, OTB Traffic Jam with some good posts on the subject.
Posted by John Bambenek at 5:35 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
August 9, 2005
Home Loans for Illegal Aliens
It has become recent news that some banks have started to make home loans to illegal aliens. They live here, work here, and want homes. On one hand it makes sense, you have an untapped market of consumers. On the other hand there is one big risk, deportation. Some of the big banks recognize this which has left these kinds of loans in the hands of smaller banks.
With legal residents, you have some degree of assurance that they'll be around in the long-term. Sure, something might happen, but odds are you'll be able to get something out of them if push comes to shove, at least some of the time. With illegal aliens, if they get deported the chances of recouping any losses on that mortgage leave the country with them.
The economic problem comes in that those risks need to be balanced with higher costs to cover those risks. The only unpredictable feature is if there is a push to start enforcing immigration law. DeLay and Tarcedo have made illegal immigration campaign issues and it won't take many terrorist attacks on US soil to convince people we need to secure the borders. All the sudden those loans become losses. If the banks price the loans appropriately the risk may be mitigated, if they don't it could be a problem.
Bad loans have a high coincidence level with depressions. When banks loss lots of money very bad economic things happen. Because this is an untapped and "shady" market to get into, odds are those banks aren't taking the appropriate steps. Combine that with other factors that may come in to play later (housing bubble burst, economic downturn, consumers starting to default on their already high debt loads, all those interest-only home loans coming due) and it could be a recipe for a financial nightmare.
Posted by John Bambenek at 4:27 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
Dean Clues in...
He says the DNC needs a message... that much is true.
But the problem is, they already have one and it has been rejected.
Posted by John Bambenek at 11:35 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
August 8, 2005
The Great Union Breakup: Getting Dirty Money out of Politics
It appears that soon I will be forced into the Communist Party of Champaign an NEA labor union. Sure, this only applies to visiting academic professionals, not permanent ones, but this arrangement isn’t going to last long. Out of 350 people eligible to vote, 62 voted yes, 41 voted no, and about 250 people didn’t vote. This groundswell has apparently justified the raiding of paychecks to send the Democratic campaigns everywhere.
The only comfort about this prospect (besides the fact that I look stunning in a Soviet military uniform which I will don once forced into this union) is that the AFL-CIO is cracking up. While pundits insist that the union breakup won’t hurt the DNC, one of the key issues that has sent three of the biggest unions out was over political campaigning. The Change to Win Coalition says it’s time for the AFL-CIO to start focusing on member issues instead of on politicians. The coalition seems to be giving way to the fact that about 1/3rd of member households are Republican and are getting tired of there money going to Democrats. Of course this is going to hurt Democrats.
The purpose of a labor union is not political campaigning, it is to represent workers needs to their employers. You want to change politics, join a PAC. As an example, the NEA at their recent annual meeting came up with a list of action items. Almost none of the 90+ items had anything to do with education (the E in NEA). More items had to do with Social Security, a program that none or almost none of the members of the NEA are eligible for because they are in pensions systems and exempt from Social Security contributions, than with education. The NEA is less of an organization having to do with education than a political action committee supporting the DNC.
Hopefully, the AFL-CIO crackup will lead unions to realize that if they want to attract new members they need to be organizations that deal with workplace issues and employers alone. If people wanted to join MoveOn, they would. The rest of us don’t take kindly to having our money taken away out of our control supporting policies we find abhorrent (the last story down about a lawsuit being allowed to procede against a union for forcing a member to financially support abortion groups against their conscience) with union bosses skimming off the top. Either represent us in collective bargaining, or stop wasting our time and money. Breaking up the behemoth of corrupt national unions is a good first step to getting big money out of politics.
Posted by John Bambenek at 8:59 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
July 17, 2005
What is Cooper Hiding?
Top Cheney Aide Among Sources in CIA Story
On Sunday, Cooper also said there may have been other sources for that information. He declined to elaborate.
What are Matt Cooper and Judith Miller hiding? Rove waived confidentiality... allegedly so did Libby. Who are the other sources they are trying to protect?
Karl Rove waived confidentiality and testified in front of the Grand Jury without hiding behind the 5th Amendment. The waiver was signed in 2003. Judith Miller went to jail because she was protecting someone, and that is not Rove.
Today, Cooper indicated there may be other sourced but he won't talk abuot that. The question is, who are those sourced and why is the press stonewalling.
Posted by John Bambenek at 1:40 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
July 15, 2005
DNC: Making Quotes Up Out of Thin Air?
I just got these quotes in e-mail from the DNC (I'm on their e-mail list). They're below.
Facts:
1) She is not a CIA agent.
2) She was NOC, but should have been taken off when she came back to work in the states.
3) She didn't keep her own career very secret.
4) She did in fact get her husband a job to try to hatchet the President.
5) Every piece of evidence so far indicated this wasn't a leak. At WORST it was a loose tounge. When you want to leak something, you don't wait for a reporter to come call you to talk about Social Security.
Now the DNC, apparently where all disaffected Republicans go to rant about the party, has compiled a list of submissions from their website from self-admitted Republicans. I call BS. Usually when someone starts by saying they are a Republican or Independent and then rails against the GOP, they usually aren't Republican. Of course, no one is identified by full name, so we'll never know for sure but it is interesting that no one went on record with their full name.
Democrats demanded Ashcroft recuse and have an independent prosecution, now that isn't enough. They proclaim a guilty verdict before the Grand Jury is even done. They want an investigation but then decide that doesn't fit them when the facts change.
Nice try, by every indication of the DNC, looks like there is nothing here.
"I switched to Republican over 30 years ago, but now feel increasingly betrayed by and ashamed of the power-crazy dishonesty and the distorted values of the current leadership of the GOP. Tom DeLay does not speak or stand for most American Republicans. Neither does Karl Rove, who should be fired and severely punished if indications are correct. Can we trust you, Mr. President? Please give us the real, open truth." Jeb E., Palo Alto, CA
"I am a registered and disappointed Republican. Don't make this situation worse - 'fess up and fix the problem." Karen H., Fort Collins, CO
"I am a registered Republican and want this current administration to admit the fault and fire Rove now! Decent Americans lose their jobs over less." Alice C., Wilmington, DE
"I vote for whoever I think will do the best job -- Democrat, Republican, Independent -- and this is the time for elected officials to do their best job: honor their word, honor their country, and honor those they govern by upholding not only the law but what is moral and right. In this case, it is to remove whoever is responsible for leaking the CIA agent's identity." Nancy O., Van Buren, AR
"As a registered Republican, I join with those that say enough is enough! Time to clean house!" Tim M., Milan, OH
"I am registered Republican. However, the behavior of this administration isn't part of my Republican Party. Start by taking responsibility for both the good and the bad decisions of the administration. ... Mr. Rove has now stepped over the line. President Bush, like his father, needs to request Mr. Rove's resignation." Ed S., Newport Beach, CA
"As a registered Republican, the recent revelations regarding Karl Rove's role in the leak of a CIA operative's identity has me greatly concerned. I am sure that a great majority of Americans would agree that now is not the time for silence and evasive actions on the part of the administration. Please address this issue immediately so that our country can move forward, united in the truth, and so that we can move on to focusing on the many challenges and opportunities of our times. Thank you." Diane W., Ephrata, CA
"I was a good Republican for all my life, but can no longer stomach the people that excuse the behavior of those who squelch any and all who question and think for themselves. Please stand up and do what is right." Lana H., Fort Worth. TX
"Truth is an awesome thing. As an American whose husband and son have served in our military I wonder if you could possibly condone a leak of information which jeopardizes our national security. I would like to see the Republican Party speak honestly as they used to speak when I was a registered Republican. We seem to be emulating the Nixon era ... I can no longer support the Republican party." MaryKay D., Columbus, OH
"As a registered Republican I am concerned about the failure of the Bush administration to follow through with its promise with anyone who comprises the security of a CIA agent and our country. Karl Rove has gone too far and must resign or be dismissed." Jan O., Yorba Linda, CA
"As a Republican ... I have to insist that the president and my party affiliates in Washington tend to the accountability of Karl Rove or face yourselves the possibility of being called part of a cover-up conspiracy. You are ELECTED officials entrusted to the security of all Americans. For God's sake get responsible." Marilynne R., Glendale, AZ
"As a lifelong Republican, who has been voting and supporting this great country for close to 50 years, I am outraged that a member of your administration would damage this nation's interests for petty, partisan, political reasons. Mr. Rove and anyone else involved in this despicable act should be fired ..." Donald E., Pittsfield, MA
"As a registered Republican, I'm shocked that Karl Rove would sink so low as to reveal our CIA agents. It is really time to ask Karl Rove to resign to spare this president further embarrassment." Charles B., Sarasota, FL
"I have been a Republican almost from birth. No more, no more!!! This latest group of Republicans have disgraced the memory of all noble Republicans that preceded them. I am a city trustee in Illinois and speak loudly and regularly at counsel meetings regarding the Bush ethics and to date have thoroughly convinced several other members to take a closer and more focused look at the way the Bush administration has controlled the rhetoric regarding most issues." Dave B., Mount Olive, IL
Posted by John Bambenek at 9:45 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
July 14, 2005
That's All They Got?
That's all they got? Novak calls, tells him how he thinks it went down and Rove responds, "I heard that, too". That's even thinner than Cooper's testimony.
Posted by John Bambenek at 10:31 PM | Comments (5) | TrackBack
NYTimes Has New "Exclusive" Details on Plame Case
On front page of Drudge Report is the claim that the NYTimes has new and exclusive details on the Plame case. Of course, they wouldn't want to share them first with the prosecutor investigating the case nor would they want to recuse themselves from reporting on it considering one of their own reporters is in jail for refusing to cooperate with the prosecutor and come clean. They fault the White House for clamming up, but they are faultless for doing the same thing about their own involvement... go figure.
Maybe they'll be coming out with the source they used, because it isn't Rove that Judith Miller is sitting in jail to protect. More likely, they'll continue their attack on the White House in an attempt to be objective or something.
Maybe they realize that if Rove committed a crime by releasing the name (a fact far from proven) that they ALSO committed a crime by printing that same name. It takes 2 to tango... if Rove goes down, so does the MSM because in the end, they are just as guilty.
Posted by John Bambenek at 10:17 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Let's See What Joseph Wilson has to Hide
I've just FOIA'd his personnel records from the State Department... we'll see what's in them.
Posted by John Bambenek at 8:33 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
July 12, 2005
The Unasked Question about the Plame Affair
With all the discussion about whether or not Rove was the one who outed Plame, there seems to be something that gets missed. First, the Democrats and Moonbats at the New York Times chide the White House for being silent on the Rove issue, but they leave out the fact that the special prosecutor they demanded asked them to keep quiet so he can do his job. More front page lies from the newspaper of record.
Rove isn't the target, it appears he didn't do anything illegal, and there is indication that Plame isn't even a covert agent considering her frequent trips to Langley.
What does remain unasked is why did the CIA sent a retired ambassador with no known investigative experience, no particular expertise in WMD, with a known bone to pick with the Administration before such a trip, who had been forced into early retirement at 48 (when the earliest retirement age is 50), who is clearly a partisan, and the trip was the idea of the man's wife who he certainly made no attempts to hide her name or their marriage?
As an aside, once again, most the world knows that a good deal of our espionage takes place out of the embassies. No foreign government would seriously consider the wife of an ambassador as being a safe individual to have discussions with. She'd be suspect in any country she stepped foot in if that countries intelligence agency had any.
After the Senate investigated the matter it found out that Wilson was a liar, and that after "drinking sweet mint tea and meeting with dozens of people" (as he himself put it), he didn't even bother to file a report. Even the claims made by Wilson have been exposed as lies.
All of that aside, why did the CIA endorse a trip of a left-wing partisan hack at the request of his wife to do a hatchet job against the President of the United States which ended up peddling lies? And why hasn't intelligence reform addressed that issue? Several serious studies of the issue by in the US and overseas have indicated that Bush was correct about Saddam's desire for yellowcake. What broke down to send a less-than-stellar ex-foreign service officer who has unexplained money to go on a CIA funded trip to hatchet the President?
If Kerry were President and the same thing happened the other way around, heads would be rolling and the NYT would have front page coverage of the bloodbath.
Posts on the subject: Rightsided, National Review, Polipundit, Captain's Quarters, Think Regress Progress, Daily Kos, etc.
Posted by John Bambenek at 10:18 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
July 11, 2005
A Picture You Should See
Michelle Malkin has a post that includes a bloodied police officer who was assaulted by a mob who disabled their car and then jumped them. Next time you are at a conference like IIMPR and people ask why IndyMedia isn't taken as seriously, it might be because they gloat when their comrades attack cops.
Posted by John Bambenek at 2:42 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
July 7, 2005
Curious What Democrats Mean During the Judicial Debate?
This handy translation table will help you sort it out.
Hat Tip: Dawn Eden
Posted by John Bambenek at 11:10 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
July 6, 2005
On Environmentalist Support for Alternative Energy
Not even windmills are environmentally friendly enough for some environmentalists...
Posted by John Bambenek at 11:55 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
July 5, 2005
Intellectual Bankruptcy - How the Left Doesn't Get Economics
I get a copy of Foreign Policy now as a Christmas present from last year (yes, I asked for it). Each issue comes in and some of the stuff is good... some of the other stuff is just intellectually bankrupt. In the May/June issue, for instance, it had a 2-page little montage on the disease distribution of the world and were the pharmaceutical companies send their medicines. The conclusion they want you to draw is clear, the companies do little/nothing about disease in say, Africa and that they should.
One problem with that philosophy, who pays for it? Business in capitalistic environments have costs that they pass on in the form of prices. Companies can't simply send products to non-paying customers without reimbursement. FP seems to think they should just suck it up and flip the bill themselves. They don't understand simple economics.
1) Companies have limited funds to work with.
2) Companies produce products. Those products have costs, usually defined. They pass those costs on in their entirety to the consumers of those products. Companies that cannot set their prices to cover costs has a technical name: bankrupt.
3) When articifcal costs are imposed on companies they have two choices, cut other costs or increase prices. The easiest cost to cut is obviously payroll.
4) Every tax, every fee, every regulation, every law, and every obligation is passed on and on and on to the only entity not able to pass on costs. The consumer. Specifically the middle-class to poor consumer.
By suggesting that a business should just suck up a cost will lead to either layoffs, increased prices (with an attendant increase cost of living), or more likely both. In the pharmaceutical industry, this does nothing but raise the cost of medical care on everyone.
In the July/August issue there is a debate on the best way to move forward with environmental policy between Carl Pope and Bjorn Lomborg. Bjorn takes a more priority-based pragmatic approach, and Carl Pope seems to say businesses and governments are stupid and should wise up.
Carl's first sign of silliness came with this comment:
Instead of pursuing new solutions such as hybrid cars, the United States invades Iraq, bullies Venezuela, and rattles its sabers at Iran.
First, in the largest economy in the world in the most powerful nation in the world there are never choices as simple as do we go to war or do we build hybrids. There is waiting lists and crazy money to be had with hybrid cars. Every car manufacturer is playing catch up and no amount of government proding will help. The incentives are there, and they're making them as fast as they can because they want the money now, not later.
Later he suggests there should be a carbon tax on pollution emiters to make the business pay for the damage they cause. Hint, the businesses won't pay because they can't be made to pay. They will either layoff employees, increase prices, or both. When dealing with this sector you are talking about power which everyone pays for, or manufacturing which consumers eventually pay for. It will entail in instant increase of cost-of-living and increase poverty.
This kind of naive thought that you can make businesses pay for anything is nothing less than intellectually bankrupt. It has the feel-good effect of "making the rich pay" but in realty only pays the obligation straight on the heads of the poor like an anvil from the sky. It's time to get past the corporate/rich bigotry that only leads to punishing the poor and get some real solutions.
Posted by John Bambenek at 9:32 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
July 1, 2005
And Chaos Will Reign
It would have been much better for Rehnquist to retire first or at the same time, as a conservative replacement for Rehnquist doesn't change anything. O'Connor is the 5th vote for legal abortion, which means the hearings will be all about one issue, and one issue alone. Abortion. The Democrats will not compromise or yield on that issue which means filibusters and character assasination. It means no replacement will be forthcoming anytime soon.
If you thought the Bork treatment is bad... you ain't seen nothing yet. This will be the ugliest fight to take place in the Senate for a long long time.
Posted by John Bambenek at 11:57 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
June 29, 2005
Which is it, was Outing Plame a Big Deal or Not?
The NYT writes:
The case was about the "outing" of an agent - supposedly covert, but working openly at C.I.A. headquarters - in Robert Novak's column two years ago by unnamed administration officials angry at her husband's prewar Iraq criticism.
To show its purity, the Bush Justice Department appointed a special counsel to find any violation of the 1982 Intelligence Identities Protection Act. That law prohibits anyone from knowingly revealing the name of a covert agent that the C.I.A. is taking "affirmative measures" to conceal. The revelation must be, like that of the 70's turncoat Philip Agee - "in the course of a pattern" intending to harm United States intelligence.
Evidently no such serious crime took place. After spending two years and thousands of F.B.I. agent-hours and millions of dollars that could better have been directed against terrorism and identity theft, the prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald, admits his investigation has been stalled since last October. We have seen no indictment under the identities protection act.
What evidence of serious crime does he have that makes the testimony of Judith Miller of The New York Times and Matthew Cooper of Time magazine so urgent? We don't know - eight pages of his contempt demand are secret - but some legal minds think he is falling back on the Martha Stewart Theory of Prosecution. That is: if the underlying crime has not been committed, justify the investigation by indicting a big name for giving false information.
However, the Democrats have a portion of their old website that was dedicated to Plamegate (the cached version is here and I'm not sure for how long). It includes several quotes from the NYT and other papers about how horrible and terrible Plamegate was. Well which is it?
The NYT, when they didn't think they had any skin in the game, was talking up the crisis as worse than Watergate. But when it turns out that one of their own reporters can finger the culprit, they start singing a new tune. Which part is the spin? The first part, spinning for the benefit of the Left, or the second part, spinning to cover their complicity. You make the call.
Posted by John Bambenek at 11:22 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
June 25, 2005
A Party Concerned With Consolidating Party and Establishing One-Party Rule
Posted by John Bambenek at 9:47 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
June 23, 2005
No Need To Resign For Calling a Duck a Duck
So Karl Rove suggested that liberals and some Democrats treat the War on Terror as a law enforcement action and they demand a resignation. They equate Dick Durbin's stunt and subsequent non-apology ("I'm sorry if you misunderstood me") and say Karl Rove should go through the ringer.
The problem is he was just telling it like it is. The following is the list of Senators that demand trials that are illegal under the Geneva Conventions:
And of course, Hillary, Bill, Kennedy, and others. When you talk about how we need to try these guys in the criminal system when we caught them on the field of battle, you might just have to forgive them for thinking you view this as you wanting to treat this as a criminal action.
They cry foul when Rove suggested their concerns are at understanding the terrorists, yet their OWN 2004 party platform says that is what they want. Quote: Increasing public diplomacy to promote understanding and prevent terrorist recruitment. At the core of this conflict is a fundamental struggle of ideas: democracy and tolerance against those who would use any means and attack any target to impose their narrow views.
The fact of the matter is, Rove was 100% spot-on, and the Democrats know it's a loser to face their views head on.
Posted by John Bambenek at 6:12 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBack
June 22, 2005
The Case Against DeLay: Case Studies in Falling Apart
You've heard the story. DeLay (along with 2 other Democrat congressman, but you wouldn't know that from the press) took trips that were paid for on Abramoff's (a lobbyist) credit card. The newest problem is that the FEC and lawyers for the House of Representatives OK's the setup.
So not only is DeLay being singled out for something that Democrats were on the same trip and did, but for taking a trip that the FEC and the lawyers for the House also OK'd as legit.
Now over 200 Representatives are running around getting their travel docs straight over a made up scandal. If you want the ethics committee to investigate something, maybe they should start with why they are giving apparently bad advice.
Posted by John Bambenek at 11:39 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
June 21, 2005
NYT Krugman Exposes Republican Corruption... Except It Is Democrats Involved
The Krugman Truth Squad has the latest on Krugman's Friday column that exposes rampant corruption in Ohio. He names names and calles them Republicans. Problem is... turns out they are Democrats.
Oops.
Posted by John Bambenek at 9:53 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
June 20, 2005
Forgeries Abound!
Just when you thought it couldn't get worse for the MSM, it does. Captain's Quarters has the latest on the fake Downing Street Memo that was distributed and the subject of those "make-believe" impeachment hearings and the usual rancorous thundering from the left. Turns out that by the author's OWN ADMISSION that the documents are not originals typed on an old typewriter and the originals were burned making it impossible to authenticate anything. This is not a rumor going around, this is what the author, Michael Smith himself, said to the AP. As CQ makes clear there is a difference between fakes and frauds. The documents are clearly fakes as the author himself states. But that certainly calls into question whether they are frauds as well.
That brings us to story two. Remember the Dishonorable Traitor Dick Durbin calling the US Military nazis based on a FBI memo? Turns out that Durbin was also lying about the memo too. Myopic Zeal brings the quote from Fox News that states:
One knowledgeable official familiar with the memo cited by Durbin as well as other memos said the FBI agent made no such allegation and that the memo described only someone chained to the floor. Anything beyond that is simply an interpretation, the official said.
So it looks like Durbin also was lying about the comments of a confidential memo because he knows they probably won't release it and he'll get away with it (much the same is true in the Downing Street Memos, they can't release it so they can be mischaracterized without the government being able to adequately defend). Blogs for Censure is up and running calling for the Dishonorable Traitor Dick Durbin to be censured. I don't think he should be censured... I think every GOP commercial should feature this man's comments and if Democrats don't explicitly condemn it, they should be ipso facto unqualified for any office anywhere in this nation.
Enough is enough. There is plenty to criticize about America. The Democrats have moved beyond that to make up stories to criticize. First it was Dan Rather, then Isikoff, the Amnesty International, then the Downing Street Memo, now a U.S. Senator. The entire party has made it clear to the nation they are not interested in constructive solutions, they are interested in fabricating charges. It's time to throw them out of office. I don't want censure... as an Illinois vote, I want a recall.
Posted by John Bambenek at 11:12 AM | Comments (5) | TrackBack
June 17, 2005
I Invoke Godwin's Law
Much has already been said about Durbin unable to vocalize any intelligent contribution on what prisoner treatment should be and instead calls the US military a bunch of Nazis. Michelle Malkin beat me to doing some comparisons on what exactly was the prison conditions in those regimes.
I don't want to give the man much more space except to say this:
1) Thanks for telling us what the Democratic party is. The party that hates the military, that hates the country, and that has no contribution except flaming.
2) Thanks for showing us the Democrats have no grip on reality and no desire to contribute to the process of governing.
That being said, it's time to ignore them and leave them behind. If they don't want to run with the big dogs they can remain on the porch and piss with the puppies. They've been given enough attention, let the temper tantruming kids kick and scream in their room... alone.
Posted by John Bambenek at 1:54 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
June 16, 2005
Anti-Union??
Unions unhappy with AFL-CIO Organizing needs more emphasis, new coalition says
Pulaski said the governor's anti-union initiatives include a measure that would make teachers wait five years rather than two years to achieve tenure.
Another would force unions to obtain members' consent before using their dues for political purposes.
A third would authorize a panel of retired judges to redraw state legislative boundary lines.
The first isn't directed at unions at all but teachers and making it harder to get tenure where they can't be fired.
I could buy the second, but that doesn't attack the power of the union, that enables the member to have MORE of a say in the union... why is democracy bad.
The third is the most ludicrous of them all. What in the world does legislative boundary lines have to do with unions at all?
Sloppy writing? Maybe. A B&W session because they have nothing better to say? Probably.
Posted by John Bambenek at 10:42 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
May 23, 2005
You Knew It Was Coming
Senators Avert Showdown Over Filibusters
You knew this was coming. 14 Senators (7 from each party) got together and decided how the filibuster thing was going to play. Many of the nominees will now get their nods and head to the bench. It's unclear who will not get the nod, and the 7 Dems agree not to filibuster except in extreme circumstances. (Would that be if Clearance Thomas gets appointed to Chief Justice, what about if Alberto Gonzales gets nominated, who knows). I don't blame them for cutting the deal, it was too easy for so few to get that many more cookies for having that kind of power on a heated issue. Not to mention the press time the GOP centrists will get with the liberals swooning over them, and both sides having what could be a face-saving out.
I'm not broken up about this too much. We'll see how it plays but I would rather have actually SEEN a filibuster take place before all this went down. The true test will be what happens when there are Supreme Court vacancies, then we'll see what this deal really means.
Posted by John Bambenek at 8:51 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
May 20, 2005
Where Can I Find the "With us or Against Us" Speech by Bush
I'm trying to find the actual transcript of that speech... where can I find it?
UPDATE: Found it, missed it the first time I looked through the 9/20 speech.
Posted by John Bambenek at 9:48 AM | Comments (5) | TrackBack
May 13, 2005
Divisiveness
People (usually the Left) complain about the divided country and how Republicans are wedging groups against other groups. But then you hear Democrats refusing to visit family in red states and so on.
The next time a Democrat complains that Bush is promoting divisiveness, point out Buy Blue which is a website dedicated to getting people to buy only to "approved" companies that donate only to their candidates.
Now I have no problem with this. People SHOULD exercise their consumer choice, but I'm just pointing out the irony. The only reason the nation is so bitterly divided is because THEY made it so.
Posted by John Bambenek at 8:57 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack
May 5, 2005
Democrats Fail to Squash IRS Investigation
RealClear Politics has this on the investigation of the IRS and Cisneros by Robert Novak. (Hat Tip: PoliPundit)
In short, the Democrats (Sens. Dorgan, Durbin, Kerry) tried to slip in a rider on an appropriations bill to kill a report coming out that may indicate that Cisneros was protected by the Clinton administration. Novak suggests that the report indicates that "the worst suspicions about the IRS will be confirmed". Just in time to talk about tax reform... :)
Posted by John Bambenek at 10:01 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBack
DNC Takes a Shot at Delay, Hit Themselves
The whole Delay thing amuses me. Not because he took some junkets paid for by someone else, because quite frankly I'm sure there is plenty of that to go around, but because the people making charges are guilty themselves of it. This amuses me greatly because let's be honest, these people take paycuts for these jobs... there are perks. There is enough corruption to go around in the House, and if the DNC wants to pick that fight, they'll be taking it on the chin too, starting with Pelosi.
Posted by John Bambenek at 9:46 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
ACLU Opposes Tax Exemption of All Churches
ACLU Opposes Tax Exemption of All Churches ...But They Support It For Satanic Witches
Just reading the two statements above should wake up the Christians on both the left and right! And after learning this myself, the question came to me....how could anyone say this organization is not anti-Christian? I know all of you are wanting to see the evidence yourself, and while I don't have the official policy to refer you to, I have learned this information from a very well respected author, William Donahue, in his book Twilight of Libery/The Legacy of The ACLU. Donahue has attained their policy guide and is one of the most trusted experts on the ACLU.
So let the story telling begin....
We will start out with the ACLU's official policy on the tax exemption of Churches. Policy #92, "Religious Bodies' Tax Exemption"...it states, The ACLU opposes the tax-exemption of all churches..."Source
During the 1988 presidential campaign the ACLU was brought under the spotlight. Michael Dukakis, the democrat nominee, proudly stated, "I'm a card-carrying member of the American Civil Liberties Union." These words would soon come back to haunt him. I will not focus too much on this campaign other than using it as evidence of the ACLU's position on the tax exemption of churches. However, Dukakis's association with this group proved to be a major factor in his defeat.
During the first debate, Peter Jennings of ABC asked George Bush why he continued to make an issue out of Dukakis's membership in the ACLU. Bush replied that he didn't like most of the ACLU's positions and offered four of them. We will just focus on the one we are talking about right now. Bush said, "I don't think they're right to try to take away the tax exemption of the Catholic Church."
The ACLU don't deny their position! Norman Dorsen, president of the American Civil Liberties Union from 1976 to 1991, refuted Bush's statements, and said that the ACLU opposes tax exemption for all churches, not just the Catholic Church.Source
Here is a little more history on the issue from Twilight of Liberty.
"ACLU
founder Roger Baldwin once told me that the ACLU's desire to strip the churches of their tax exempt status was "very foolish." But in 1969, some nineteen years after Baldwin stepped down as executive director, the Union adopted its first policy opposing "tax exemption for church property which is used exclusively for religious purposes.' In the latest policy on this subject, it makes no difference to the Union whether church property is not used exclusively for religious purposes, all are denied: "The ACLU opposes tax benefits for religious bodies", seven examples are listed for clarification, including the benefit of tax exemption."Source
"In
1970, the year after the ACLU issued its first policy opposing the tax exempt status for churches, it accepted the advice of church and state extremist Leo Pfeffer and drafted a brief opposing tax exemptions in Waltz v. Tax Commission. In 1987, the ACLU Foundation and the New York Civil Liberties Union
filed an amicus brief in support of Abortion Rights Mobilization to
secure standing in a suit challenging the tax exempt status of the
Catholic Church. The Catholic Church was charged with violating its
tax-exempt status by taking a stand against abortion."Source
Meanwhile with the Witches
"While
the ACLU was taking aim at the Catholic Church's tax exempt status, the Union affiliate in Providence, Rhode Island, came out in favor of a tax exemption for Satanists."Source
They went and got a tax administator to rule that a coven of witches
were entitled the same tax-exemption as churches had. This is pure
hypocrisy. The ACLU's involvement in this case clearly shows that they will defend the rights of the occult. Many Christians wonder why they are not as acommodating to our interests.
Now if we were to follow some misguided philosphy of the seperation of church and state, one might could rationalize their policy on a church's tax exempt status. One could also rationalize a posistion of tax exemption to all religions. But their is no logical reasoning that one could take to defend both of these positions. It is pure hypocrisy, and proof that the ACLU is an enemy of Christianity.
I question their tax exempt-status! I think it's time for Christians on the left and right to wake up to the ACLU's agenda!
SIGN THE PETITION TO GET THE ACLU OFF THE TAXPAYER'S DOLE
This was a Stop The ACLU Blogburst. If you would like to join please Email me!
Sites Already on Board:
Freedom Of Thought
Mad Tech
Respublica
The Wide Awakes
Angry Republican Mom
Kender's Musings
American Patriots
What Attitude Problem?
Life Trek
Gribbit's Word
Def Conservative
An American Housewife
A Tic In The Mind's Eye
Cao's Blog
Regular Ron
Freedom Of
Is This Life?
Patriots For Bush
California Conservative 4 Truth
NIF
Obiter Dictum
PBS Watch
Xtreme Right Wing
Daily Inklings
Miss Patriot
Jack Lewis.net
Conservative Dialysis
Conservative Angst
Kill Righty
American Warmonger
Birth Of A Neo-Con
The Nose On Your Face
The View From Firehouse
Ogre's View
Fundamentally right
Conservative Rant
My Political Soap Box
Common Sense Runs Wild
Redstate Rant
Time Hath Found Us
American Dinosaur
Merri Musings
And Rightly So
We
are trying to raise money for full page ads and eventually commercials
exposing the ACLU's radical agenda. Help us out! Buy a bumper sticker!
Click Below To See Our Store!
Please stop by the ACLUBulldozer online store and pick up a bumper sticker or t-shirt. All proceeds go to advertising for a national march on state ACLU offices. Help put an end to the evils of the Most Dangerous Organization in America
Posted by John Bambenek at 6:40 PM | Comments (5) | TrackBack
April 27, 2005
The Truth about the Filibuster
PoliBlogger is a Political Science professor that goes through each of the objections of getting rid of the filibuster and eviscerates them. Checks and balances means between the branches, not within them. The filibuster appears to have come in 1806, not at the founding, and the Democrats are impeding debate, not encouraging it by refusing to actually let the votes get on the calendar, not filibustering the actual floor vote.
I still think the GOP should make them actually do a filibuster, but this information helps get to the truth of so much garbage being spewed by the left on this issue.
Posted by John Bambenek at 12:09 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
April 25, 2005
Are Bush's Judges Being Confirmed As Often as Prior Presidents?
Here's a graph from The Economist (Hat Tip: Prof. Bainbridge
Posted by John Bambenek at 6:20 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
April 21, 2005
The Pettiness of Politics
Clinton impeachment was retaliation for Nixon, says retiring congressman
Now, I know the terms Republican and Conservative are essentially interchangeable in the MSM, but let's be frank. The Democrats are crooks. So are the Republicans. But at least the Republicans are my kind of crooks. (That was humor). They occasionally through out a policy that resembles something like conservativism.
Hyde, being honest because he's leaving admits how petty politicians are. You slight them, they find a way to slight you back. Now Clinton made the job easy by perjuring himself, but that's not why they went after him. They went after him from revenge making asses of themselves and a mockery of the system. Being a *insert your favorite insult here* doesn't tend to work out for you so well.
That's the thing about the fillibusters, and why we should make them do one before getting rid of it. This favor will be returned when they eventually get back in power (and the ebb and flow of politics suggest they will) (for that matter, Republicans running on the platform of decisive leadership and failing to deliver might bode poorly for their future as well).
--------
Posted by John Bambenek at 11:20 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Hubba Hubba
I didn't get this til later, but one of the parents of the kids killed at Columbine testified in front of Congress and laid blame not on the NRA. Read it.
--------
Posted by John Bambenek at 5:45 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Howard Dean - No New Ideas, Same Old BS
Howard Dean warns of danger in Iraq pullout
Between a speech he delivered without notes and a question-answer session, Dean regaled an appreciative audience for nearly 90 minutes without once raising his voice, as he did after last year's Iowa primary election. But he did draw howls of laughter by mimicking a drug-snorting Rush Limbaugh.
That's your modern Democrat. They don't have anything intelligent to say and all they can do is find dirt on people who disagree to try to shut them up. It's not unlike the blog that does nothing but out gay Republicans (i.e. Jeff Gannon), or the constant mudslinging at Tom DeLay that has done nothing but expose the fact he does things almost every other member in Congress does. They were the ones in the streets a few blocks from the crumbling Berlin Wall saying everything is fine, go home, nothing to see here.
They've lost and the only thing that mitigates that loss is the fact most Republicans refuse to act like the majority party and actually do something we like to call her as "lead".
--------
Posted by John Bambenek at 9:10 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
April 19, 2005
DeLay Criticizes Justice Kennedy - Outrage at 10
DeLay Slams Supreme Court Justice
I don't know if I'd consider saying that a US Supreme Court Justice uses international "law" to decide what the US Constitution means is outrageous is really slamming. Not like asking a Supreme Court Justice in public if he sodomizes his wife which apparently isn't news worthy or a slam according to the MSM.
I'm sure come morning all the left will be up in arms yet again with claims that DeLay is asking for violence against judges...
--------
Posted by John Bambenek at 11:05 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
April 13, 2005
More on Kerry blowing an Agent's Cover
Apparently, according to Michelle Malkin, this isn't the first time that name made it out into the open. So I guess the AP had it wrong.
--------
Posted by John Bambenek at 9:03 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
April 12, 2005
Kerry Blows Undercover Agent's Cover
Senators May Have Blown Cover of CIA Agent
1) Why does this have to come from Asia? If it does, you know it can't be good.
2) Will they make the same stink about Fultongate as they did about Plamegate?
--------
Posted by John Bambenek at 9:35 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
April 11, 2005
Rove Bootlegged Fagrenheit 9/11
From Byron York at National Review:
I plead guilty to violating the copyright laws of the United States by watching a bootleg DVD, Rove answered with a grin. I refuse to enrich [Moore], he added, giving the clear impression that he had a rather low opinion of the filmmaker.
Awesome.
--------
Posted by John Bambenek at 3:06 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Hey Dean, is this a Democratic Value?
--------
Posted by John Bambenek at 1:17 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack