Terry Schiavo and the Oscars

Betweeen the Terry Schiavo case, the Oscar Awards, a replay of the Bill Maher show I watched last night, and Clint Eastwood's "Million Dollar Baby", I began to rethink my opinion on euthanasia and the whole issue about the right to die.

On his show, Bill Maher brought up the film "Whose Life is it Anyway?", suggesting that a person's life and the decision to end it is his, and his alone. While I agree that a person should always retain the right to conduct his life according to his own desires so long as he does not harm another person, the case of Terry Schiavo is different because somebody else is making the decision for her.

While Tucker Carlson conceded that the police do not arrest people who take their own life, he added that studies of countries which have legalized euthanasia show a trend of pressure being put on family and relatives of the elderly, infirmed or retarded people to end their lives. I don't want to live in a society where elderly people are seen as a burden on society and that they should be sacrificed to make room for the youth.

On the other hand, it is a fact that the hospital bed being occupied by Terry Schiavo could be used by other people, and that at some point, health care and hospitals do have to play the numbers game, both in terms of the numbers of beds and doctors available, but also who is paying the bills for the patients.

I believe that so long as Mrs. Schiavo and her family can pay her bills, she should be permitted to stay in the hospital and receive care. However, if and when tax dollars are being used to pay for patient care (ignoring my belief that using tax dollars in such a manner amounts to theft), responsible people such as hospital administrators and legislators must carefully and objectively weigh the cost/benefit equation when deciding who receives taxpayer funded care and who must be denied coverage.

Again setting aside my objection to taxpayer funded health care, should the case be that the State of Florida is paying for Mrs. Schiavo's care, I believe the difficult decision must be made that by keeping her alive many more people are being denied care and therefore the prevailing consideration must be to the many and not to the individual.

Sadly, the ideologically driven political right seems to blindly support Mrs. Schiavo's right to life without considering the opportunity costs of denying medical care to possibly dozens or hundreds of other people. Of course, these same people want to expand the right to life to mean the right to taxpayer funded health care, more evidence of the growth of "big government conservatism".

REAL ID Act starting to unravel

According to this post at Malkin's blog:

• The Real ID Act allows states to give temporary drivers' licenses to:

  -illegal aliens who have been granted a hearing for asylum,
  -illegal aliens who have applications pending for temporary protected status, and
  -illegal aliens who have applied for amnesty under the 245(i) program.

Yet, MM still "strongly supports" the bill, though she admits it would be better without loopholes.

I don't get what the bill accomplishes with the aforementioned loopholes included other than to force American Citizens and legal residents to conform with the precursors of the inevitable National ID card.

What is so difficult about stipulating that only people known to be here legally may acquire driver's licenses? Not people who want to be here legally, not those who apply to be legal, not those whose status is not known, but only those people who were born here or those who have gone through the processes to gain official legal residence status.

Socialists scared of Google

According to Reuters:

• France's national library has raised a "war cry" over plans by Google to put books from some of the world's great libraries on the Internet and wants to ensure the project does not lead a domination of American ideas.

  Jean-Noel Jeanneney, who heads France's national library and is a noted historian, says Google's choice of works is likely to favor Anglo-Saxon ideas and the English language.

Of course, this exemplifies the socialist mindset to a tee. This frog expects Google to limit its sale of advertisements by deliberately not serving up certain books. Since Msr. Jeanneney doesn't explain capitalism, allow me to explain it in a nutshell. Google couldn't care less in what language the book is written or the subject of its content. Google wants web traffic and will do whatever it can to get it.

From the UK, PcPRO adds that:

• Jeanneney admits that equivalent French projects can't compete with the resources of Google. Instead, he calls upon the European Union to make `a generous budget' available to run a parallel project to digitise Europe's libraries and provide a cultural counterbalance.

No surprise here, socialists running to the government to solve problems for the People. Is Msr. Jeanneney so pessimistic as to conclude that no Frenchmen are capable of duplicating Google's technology? Do private investors not exist who would be willing to fund a worthy business model organized by able and talented people who wish to compete with Google?

Balanced budgets and illegal aliens

The answers to our nation's broken tax system, our ever expanding debt, and the invasion by illegal aliens lie right in front of our faces. As usual, the Constitution tells us exactly how to solve the problems.

Originally, federal spending was restricted to paying for only those specific government functions listed in the Constitution, and the agencies needed to carry out those responsibilities. In order to keep spending in check, the tax burden for the federal government was shared proportionally among the States according to population.

Since the State with the most Congressional votes was also the State responsible for the largest share of the tax burden, costs were naturally kept in check.

I reject the idea that we need a balanced budget amendment added to the Constitution. Repealing the 16th amendment and returning to our foundation would be simpler and more effective.

Those who argue in favor of a National Sales Tax, as I have until recently, do so based on a faulty premise. As the Constitution really exists as an agreement between States rather than between individuals, virtually no power was originally given to the federal government to interfere in the lives of individual Americans (eminent domain and encarceration/execution according to "due process" are two exceptions). The "Fair Tax" people agree to the premise that the federal government ought to have the power to tax individual Americans. I say it does not.

I firmly believe that the IRS must be eliminated and all federal revenue be acquired via a once-annual transfer of funds from each State into the federal treasury. States would be free to levy taxes against its own people in any manner it wishes, and would be responsible for a proportionate share of the federal budget according to the total number of persons inhabiting the State.

Notice the distinction between inhabitants and Citizens. If a State like California had to figure the illegal aliens living in their State into their total population, thereby impacting their tax liability, I believe the illegal alien problem would go away within weeks.

Any Congressmen who oppose this plan are clearly more interested in controlling your money while enriching themselves and their friends than they are in upholding our Constitution or preserving our Republic.

The problem with my plan is that Americans are bound and determined to continue electing Democrats and Republicans to office expecting the politicians to finally act differently than they have for decades. It won't happen. The only chance we have to salvage our once great country is to replace every member of the US Congress except Ron Paul and Tom Tancredo with men and women who believe in the founding principles of our nation and who are more afraid of the American People than the corporate lobbyists.

23 February

1945

1980

U-S-A, U-S-A, U-S-A...

Eminent Domain follow-up

Today's Washington Times has a follow-up on the SCOTUS case yesterday about eminent domain. It concludes this way:

• Several justices appeared critical. As he started his argument, Mr. Horton said the "principle purpose of the takings clause is to provide just compensation." Before he could finish, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor interrupted, saying, "But it has to be for a valid public use."
  
  Justice O'Connor then asked whether a city could force the sale of a Motel 6 if the city thought that "if it had a Ritz-Carlton it would get higher taxes."
  
  Added Justice Antonin Scalia: "Taking property from someone who doesn't want to sell it, does that count for nothing?"

I pray that the Lord reaches into the souls of 5 Justices and supplies the wisdom to uphold private property rights in America.

Should we alienate Russia?

The following appears on Senator McCain's website:

• “In 2003 I warned of a ‘creeping coup’ in Russia against the forces of democracy and market capitalism in Russia,” McCain said. “Since then, Russia has actually moved backward. Mr. Putin has moved to eliminate the popular election of Russia’s 89 regional governors, has cracked down on independent media, continued his repression of business executives who oppose his government, and is reasserting the Kremlin’s old-style central control. The coup is no longer creeping – it is galloping.”

If you substitute "Bush" for "Putin" and "America" for "Russia", does the statement still hold true?

Here is Pat Buchanan's take on the subject, which first drew my attention to the McCain quotation.

Here is an article from 3 weeks ago called "The Accidental Autocrat" on some site called Ocnus.net.

Here is an article called "Different Era, but Same Talk" on LewRockwell.com.

Fear and loathing in Mainz

From Ronald Reagan's farewell address:

• You spend a lot of time going by too fast in a car someone else is driving, and seeing the people through tinted glass - the parents holding up a child, and the wave you saw too late and couldn't return. And so many times I wanted to stop and reach out from behind the glass, and connect.
  

From the Financial Times, talking about President Bush's visit to Germany today (found at Lew Rockwell):

• In a contemporary echo of the Lady Godiva legend, anyone living on the route of the presidential motorcade is being discouraged from taking a peek at the 60- to 80-strong column of vehicles conveying the US president. In police leaflets, residents have been asked to keep their windows shut and stay clear of balconies “to avoid misunderstandings”.

  Stores and restaurants in the “red zone”, the high-security area centred on Mainz's electoral palace, have been advised to close for the day as part of the biggest security operation in the country's postwar history. “They told us we could stay open if we liked but that nobody would be allowed in the area. It did not seem to make much business sense,” said Bozo Vukoja, owner of the Am-Fischtor Croatian restaurant in the red zone.

  Neither driving nor parking will be allowed in the zone, where garages have been emptied, mailboxes unbolted and 1,300 manhole covers sealed.

James Bovard says this:

• The notion that people cannot even look at the motorcade without putting Bush in peril sounds like the president is suffering from medieval superstitions. Mainz was the home of Gutenberg, whose invention did so much to liberate the modern mind. On the other hand, with Bush’s obsession with secrecy and keeping people in the dark, he might hold the invention of the printing press against Mainz.

Representative Maurice Hinchey (D-NY)

I happened to catch a bit of CNN this afternoon, and Rep. Hinchey was being interviewed about his recent commentary regarding the origin of the famous memos which ultimately lead to what has come to be known as "Rathergate". Mr. Hinchey said that there exists a possibility that a GOP operative gave CBS the memos in an attempt to discredit and embarass the news agency.

Mr. Hinchey said repeatedly that his theory is nothing more than random speculation, and while listening between the lines, I heard him say two very disturbing things.

First, he excused CBS News for their lack of journalistic ethics, suggesting that the ultimate responsibility for what CBS airs on its news broadcast lies elsewhere. In this case, Hinchey seemed to argue that CBS was not culpable whereas Karl Rove may well be the one to blame for the erroneous report.

Second, Rep. Hinchey suggested that the US Congress should investigate "Rathergate". Perhaps his idea was innocent, however I am very suspect of any government investigation of media or news broadcasts. Was he suggesting that perhaps the government should analyze the content and credibility of the nightly news? Does Mr. Hinchey not believe the people who run CBS News and the NY Times understand the importance of journalistic integrity?

Rep. Hinchey seems to think the media bias in America is to the right.

Here is the entry on Sounding the Trumpet.

LGF has the transcript here.

Does the Supreme Court understand eminent domain?

At the end of Federalist Paper No. 62, Publius (in this case, it is not known whether the author was Madison or Hamilton) explains the dangers of a nation governed by laws which are considered mutable and flexible.

• The internal effects of a mutable policy are still more calamitous. It poisons the blessing of liberty itself. It will be of little avail to the people, that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood; if they be repealed or revised before they are promulgated, or undergo such incessant changes that no man, who knows what the law is to-day, can guess what it will be to-morrow. Law is defined to be a rule of action; but how can that be a rule, which is little known, and less fixed?
  
  Another effect of public instability is the unreasonable advantage it gives to the sagacious, the enterprising, and the moneyed few over the industrious and uniformed mass of the people. Every new regulation concerning commerce or revenue, or in any way affecting the value of the different species of property, presents a new harvest to those who watch the change, and can trace its consequences; a harvest, reared not by themselves, but by the toils and cares of the great body of their fellow-citizens. This is a state of things in which it may be said with some truth that laws are made for the FEW, not for the MANY.

Do these two paragraphs summarize the current status of American politics? The wealthy among us give large donations to politicians and the parties, and in turn the legislators enact favorable legislation, thereby helping the wealthy to amass an even larger concentration of the wealth in our economy, which they then donate to politicians and parties...and the cycle continues.

In recent decades, the scheme has progressed beyond inserting certain loopholes in the tax code or granting no-bid contracts to particular private corporations to something much more sinister.

Today in the Supreme Court of the United States, a case is being heard which will have a tremendous impact on the future of our republic. In towns and cities all across the country, local government officials have taken it upon themselves to use the various eminent domain laws to transfer property from one private owner to another.

As originally intended, the eminent domain provision was meant to provide the ability of the government to commandeer private property for "public use" such as building a fire station, a military base, a post office or a courthouse.

I don't think for one second that the men who wrote the Constitution thought that the term "public use" would be stretched to mean higher tax revenues, but that is just the argument being presented to the Supreme Court. These local politicians have gotten so power hungry as to believe that they have the ability to transfer property from one owner to a developer or a corporation so that the tax revenues generated from the property are higher, and therefore the public will benefit via increased funding for roads, schools, parks, libraries, and so on.

If the Supreme Court goes along with this, I believe that the entire concept of private property will have been declared dead, and along with it will soon follow our entire Bill of Rights, because the concept of individual liberty hinges almost solely on the right to own property.

George Bush the globalist

According to Wired News:

• "NATO is a vital relationship for the United States and for Europe. A strong Europe is very important to the United States, and I really meant that," Bush said after breakfast with British Prime Minister Tony Blair, his closest European ally.

Why is NATO vital for America? After all, wasn't NATO originally formed as a multinational treaty meant to be a deterrent for further Russian aggression against Western Europe? Does such a threat remain today?

In his speech yesterday, President Bush made several references to these global organizations and he seemed to do so with a laudatory tone In addition to his repeated mantra of late regarding his Wilsonian vision of global freedom and international democracy, Mr. Bush repeatedly cited all sorts of Unconstitutional acts undertaken by himself and past Presidents.

• NATO's growing security mission [in Afghanistan] is commanded by a Turkish General

[The same Turkey who rejected US requests to use its land for the Iraq invasion.]

• In Iran, the free world shares a common goal: For the sake of peace, the Iranian regime must end its support for terrorism, and must not develop nuclear weapons.

[Is this a direct slap at Russia, since Putin clearly does not share the goal of Iran being nuclear free?]

• The spread of freedom has helped to resolve old disputes, and the enlargement of NATO and the European Union have made partners out of former rivals.

[Not to mention, the EU has a larger combined economy than the United States. Why is that a good thing, Mr. Bush? Tell us, please.]

• America supports WTO membership for Russia, because meeting WTO standards will strengthen the gains of freedom and prosperity in that country.

[America supports the WTO? Why?]

• We must reject anti-Semitism from any source

[Does that mean America is finally going to withdraw from the heavily anti-Semitic United Nations and allow it to collapse?]

• Our alliance is determined to promote development, and integrate developing nations into the world economy. And the measure of our success must be the results we achieve, not merely the resources we spend.
  

[On the contrary, Mr. Bush, the level of our involvement must be measured against the Constitution. The US Congress may only levy taxes in order to fulfill those specifically enumerated powers in the Constitution. By all means, Mr. President, feel free to contribute YOUR money to the aid of developing nations, but I'd prefer to invest in my own developing family.]

• Together, we created the Monterrey Consensus, which links new aid from developed nations to real reform in developing ones.
• Through the Millennium Challenge Account, my nation is increasing our aid to developing nations that govern justly, expand economic freedom, and invest in the education and health of their people.
• As we meet today, American and European personnel are aiding the victims of the tsunami in Asia. Our combined financial commitment to tsunami relief and reconstruction is nearly $4 billion. We're working through the Global Fund to combat AIDS and other diseases across the world. And America's Emergency Plan has focused additional resources on nations where the needs are greatest.

[From where does the federal government derive its power to use tax dollars for international charity missions?]

In conclusion, President Bush said this:

• America holds these values because of ideals long held on this continent. We proudly stand in the tradition of the Magna Carta, the Declaration of the Rights of Man, and the North Atlantic Treaty. The signers of that Treaty pledged "To safeguard the freedom, common heritage, and civilization of their peoples, founded on the principles of democracy, individual liberty, and the rule of law." In this new century, the United States and Europe reaffirm that commitment, and renew our great alliance of freedom.

I have a difficult time identifying a single law passed by the United States Congress and signed by President Bush in the past 4 years which actually preserves and protects the individual liberty of American Citizens or our God-given rights as codified in our Constitution.

How long can the American sheeple continue following in lock step people like George Bush who are so obviously working towards the one world government via intermediate steps like the UN, the WTO, NATO, the World Bank, the ICC, NAFTA, the Monterrey Consensus, the Millennium Challenge Account, the "War on AIDS", Tsunami relief, GATT, the Kyoto protocol or any of the other countless entangling alliances in which the United States finds itself today?

The General Welfare clause

In Federalist Paper No.41, James Madison responds to critics who claim the "general welfare" clause amounts to an unbridled power to tax and spend. He says:

• Some, who have not denied the necessity of the power of taxation, have grounded a very fierce attack against the Constitution, on the language in which it is defined. It has been urged and echoed, that the power ``to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States,'' amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction.

Clearly, as he points out, the "general welfare" clause could be abused in two separate ways, both would be tremendously damaging to our republic.

First, politicians could use this clause to levy taxes upon the States in order to pay for federal projects and initiatives not explicitly granted the federal government in the Constitution. Later in 1817, when James Madison was President, he vetoed just such a bill, called the "Federal Public Works Bill".

Second, politicians could overrule certain rights of the people by declaring that a certain piece legislation was designed to promote the welfare of the country. For example, as Madison says, promoting the general welfare might be construed to mean suppression of certain expressions of speech. Ought then the federal government have to power to tax in order to suppress speech, so long as the government justified the tax as promoting the general welfare?

The truth is that the "general welfare" clause meant then what it means now. It means the federal government has the power to establish agencies and offices by which it carries out the direct responsibilities granted it elsewhere in the Constitution. In other words, the "general welfare" clause has no meaning independent of another clause elsewhere in the Constitution.

America's one party system

When a supposedly free and open political system ceases to consist of legitimate opposition, the resulting government becomes more totalitarian and less representative. I fear that just such a transformation has crept into American politics during the past few decades.

According to MSNBC,

• Former Presidents George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton spent time with child survivors of Asia’s tsunami on Monday.

On Meet the Press yesterday, John McCain threw his support behind Hillary Clinton:

• I have no doubt that Senator Clinton would make a good president.

In fact, the Democrat party and the Republican party agree with one another on many more points than they would have you believe, and unfortunately neither of them seem to be very interested in practicing the Constitution as intended or in honoring the God-given freedoms bestowed upon the American people by God.

1. Both seem to agree that the federal government can and should mandate Americans to contribute to government managed retirement accounts.
2. Both parties have gone along with a federal entitlement plan to distribute prescription drugs to senior citizens.
3. Both parties seem to favor foreign military intervention into situations where no direct threat to the United States exists (Bosnia, Somalia, Desert Storm, Vietnam, post Saddam Iraq).
4. Both parties have found justification in the Constitution for sending tax dollars around the world for charity purposes.
5. Neither can decipher the 9th and 10th amendments clearly enough to understand that the federal government was never meant to establish "appropriate" cultural or social standards for the country.

The list goes on and on, but the point soon becomes clear. The campaign rhetoric we get from our politicians paints a picture of bitter partisan divide along rigid ideological lines. Unfortunately, in too many cases, these politicians argue from Unconstitutional premises, thereby making both sides of the debate illegal and illegitimate.

An Asian catch-22

According to this story from World Net Daily:

• Five members of the House of Representatives, led by Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colo., want to renew debate about President Jimmy Carter's unilateral 1979 decision to sever ties with the elected government of Taiwan in an effort to curry favor with mainland China.
  
  A resolution was introduced in the House Wednesday calling for the Bush administration to scrap its "one China" policy and resume full, formal diplomatic relations with Taiwan.

This article in the Washington Post says:

• The United States and Japan will declare Saturday for the first time in a joint agreement that Taiwan is a mutual security concern, according to a draft of the document. Analysts called the move a demonstration of Japan's willingness to confront the rapidly growing might of China.

The Pakistan Daily Times offers this response from the Chinese perspective:

• China denounced on Thursday a CIA assessment saying that its arms buildup is tilting the balance of power in the Taiwan Straits, and said the comments sent the wrong signal to Taiwan, the self-governing island it claims as its own.

All of this comes on the heels of the recent North Korean admission regarding its nuclear weapons, and its subsuquent demand for bilateral talks with the United States.

I believe that the Chinese government would be able to exert the necessary pressure on the North Koreans in exchange for giving up its nuclear weapons. On the other hand, any U.S. involvement would result in little more than monetary payoffs for non-agression guarantees.

However, how will China's position on North Korean nuclear weapons change after the U.S. and Japan side with Taiwan tomorrow? Are those American and Japanese declarations of unity with Taiwan a response to a lackluster and half-hearted Chinese involvement in the 6-party talks of recent years?

Kyoto hypocrisy, what did you expect?

From the New York Times:

• The pressure, he says, should be on the United States, which generates a fifth of the world's greenhouse gases

From the Chicago Tribune:

• Trenberth said the Kyoto treaty's effectiveness was diminished by President Bush's rejection of it in 2001. That took the nation with the most emissions--about a quarter of the world total--out of the process.

From the Los Angeles Times:

• Nearly eight years after it was negotiated, the Kyoto Protocol to curtail greenhouse gases believed to cause global warming goes into effect today without the participation of the country that produces roughly a fourth of the world's heat-trapping exhaust: the United States.

Each of these stories paints the United States as the world's biggest polluter, but notice how the figures they use are aggregated. Out of all the pollution, we are responsible for 25% of it.

Now, think back to the tsunami relief efforts. Remember Jan Egeland who said our contributions weren't enough because the per capita rate versus our GDP was too low?

Let's compare apples to apples for a moment. In the whole world, America is the single largest philanthropist and is the single largest source of greenhouse gases. Doesn't that make sense?

What would the reaction be if we cut our emissions and/or bought our emission credits by closing the government funded art museums, AIDS research facilities, and welfare offices? No more ships and planes to Africa loaded with food and medicine. No more money for Palestinian relief efforts. No more hospitalization and schooling for illegal aliens.

What's the real reason behind the leftist agenda pushing America into global environmental treaties? Why won't the media report the story fairly and in appropriate context? Do these leftists think a Marxist America will be able to provide assistance to the world, more so than the quasi-capitalist America that exists today?

From the Washington Post:

• Australia and the United States have refused to join. Bush administration officials said the treaty would hurt the economy and is ineffective and discriminatory because large, rapidly industrializing countries such as China and India escape the limits. Moreover, they say, many countries, including Japan and several in the European Union, are unlikely to meet their emission-control targets and will have to buy "credits" -- most likely from Russia, which will have plenty to sell because many of its industrial plants shut down during the economic meltdown in the 1990s.

This leaves the United States with two choices if we were to sign onto the treaty:
1.Meet the emission standards and guarantee India and China "catch up" to us economically, or
2. Pay Russia for the privelege of remaining the global economic leader.

It looks to me like the Kyoto treaty is another front for global communism.

Is treason still a crime?

From the Seattle Post-Intelligencer:

• A man accused of trying to sell night vision lenses stolen from NBC News pleaded guilty Monday to federal charges including violating the embargo on exports to Iran.
  
  

  The lenses did not go to Iran, but Erik Kyriacou agreed to sell them to a federal undercover agent who said he was acting on behalf of a customer there, prosecutors said.

If this isn't "aiding the enemy", is anything?

The United States of the Offended (Part:472961)

If you are an anti-war college professor who received complaints from students because of the materials posted on your door, you receive protection from the school administration.

On the other hand, if you sell food to college students and some complain about the name on the menu of some of the products, the school abridges your right to run your business as you see fit.

Not to mention, if you are a police officer, you had better not eat a banana at an MLK parade, because by doing so, you make the reference between blacks and apes.

Big Brother gets hijacked

Well, I guess it wasn't all black helicopter conspiracy theorists after all. As this NBC news story explains:

• Criminals posing as legitimate businesses have accessed critical personal data stored by ChoicePoint Inc., a firm that maintains databases of background information on virtually every U.S. citizen, MSNBC.com has learned.

  The incident involves a wide swath of consumer data, including names, addresses, Social Security numbers, credit reports and other information. ChoicePoint aggregates and sells such personal information to government agencies and private companies.

H.R. 776

Title: To provide that human life shall be deemed to exist from conception.

Author: Ron Paul

Total # of cosponsors: 2 (Rep Bartlett, Roscoe G. [MD-6], Rep Garrett, Scott [NJ-5])

A grand total of 3 members of the United States House of Representatives have attached their names to this bill.

I don't understand how the sheeple continue to believe that the GOP is really a "pro-life" party.

Isn't it obvious that both the Rats and the Rhinos want the abortion debate to rage on endlessly so that each can continually capitalize on it, election after election?

RFID tags and National ID cards

Listening to the Michael Savage show last Friday night with fill-in host Rick Roberts made me sick. Not only was he in favor of both of these, but he was unable to articulate his reasoning to anyone who disagreed with his position. In typical fashion, anyone who disagreed with him was anti-American or just not smart enough to understand the circumstances. (I thought the intellectual elitists were on the left?)

First, on the subject of the RFID tags, the concensus opinion seemed to favor equipping teachers with hand-held devices to monitor students. I'd bet that many of these teachers are challenged by VCRs so, of course, extensive training will be required for the "technologically challenged" teachers. Several questions came to my mind while listening to the discussion.

• Will these cards stop a Beslan, Russia style attack?
• Can't teachers monitor the halls between classes?
• Don't we expect a teacher to notice an empty seat in his classroom?
• What happens if a student loses his card, does the school go to some emergency status where police are immediately dispatched? Might not kids do this intentionally for entertainment?

One can only assume that after this programs has been declared a "success", it will be expanded to middle school and high school kids.

• What happens if a student gives his card to a friend to hold while he goes outside/home?
  

As for HR 418, I have only a few simple issues.

• Why must I have a Social Security number to drive a car?
• Can we next expect internal checkpoints where people are required to show their license?
• How can the American sheep think we are "free" when we can be compelled to prove our innocence at any time to government agents? Isn't the burden of proof supposed to be on the government to prove that a person is guilty? (See this story about a man who had his property seized by police but wasn't arrested "because of a lack of probable cause.")

As can best be illustrated by the Social Security number, a government program like this only moves in one direction. Therefore, it is basically a foregone conclusion that the RFID tags will soon be issued to students of all ages, and may even have to be worn 24 hours per day.

No doubt exists in my mind that the US Government wants to have a system or a combination of several systems by which it monitors and logs every movement of every person within the country. (Assuming it doesn't exist already.)

Of course, enough Americans remain who resist "Big Brother", so the only way the government can ever get to a total police state is via small and seemingly trivial steps, such as RFID tags and federal "standards" for State documents such as driver's licenses.

Those who value liberty over government provided security must stand against these measures. We must see our leaders for who they are and the future they envision for America. Most certainly the America envisioned by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison is not shared by the Bush and Clinton families.

Fuzzy math from Mr. Bush

According to George Bush, the Social Security program needs to be reformed (instead of eliminated, as I would prefer). From an official White House page:

• Doing nothing to fix our Social Security system will cost us, as well as our children and grandchildren, an estimated $10.4 trillion, according to the Social Security Trustees. The longer we wait to take action, the more difficult and expensive the changes will be.
• As a result of these demographic changes, the current system will not be able to afford to pay the benefits scheduled for our children and grandchildren without enormous payroll tax increases or huge benefit cuts.
• To ensure its long-term future, Social Security needs to be fixed soon.

And, as we all know, his primary solution consists of gradually phasing in "private" accounts into which workers may direct a percentage of the SS tax. (How the American sheeple think "freedom" means the mandatory obligation to participate in government managed retirement savings programs is beyond me.)

While the SS "crisis" must be addressed now, according to Mr. Bush, any change to the prescription drug benefit that was added to Medicare in the last term will be vetoed by the President. (How ironic would it be should President Bush use his first veto to block an attempt at curtailing federal spending?)

While the White House put out this press release which denies a huge rise in expected costs of the drug benefit over the next 10 years versus original WH estimates, Rick Santorum said this morning on Face the Nation that all numbers are just estimates, and that we should wait and see what happens after the program actually gets implemented next year. (Given his comments on this issue and his statement that he does not wish to see an end to the Social Security program, he is off my list of potential candidates for whom I would vote.)

From this official White House release:

• In December 2003, President Bush signed into law the Medicare Modernization Act, which the Congressional Budget Office scored as costing $395 billion over the 10 year period the President discussed (2004 to 2013).
• The Medicare Actuaries later estimated that the Act's 10 year cost for the period 2004-2013 would be $534 billion(only a 35% increase). The Congressional Budget Office continued to estimate $395 billion for the same time frame.
  
• The 2004-2013 CMS net estimate of Federal spending on the Medicare prescription drug benefit is virtually unchanged from previous estimates. (Which is meaningless because the program won't be implemented until 2006) Last year, CMS estimated the cost of the first 10 years of the program (2004-2013) at $511 billion, and this year, they believe that cost to be $518 billion.
  
• The 2006-2015 CMS net estimate of Federal spending on the Medicare prescription drug benefit is $723 billion.

So, in short, what we have here is a President who wants to privatize Social Security because it will be financially instable in 30-40 years, yet at the same time he categorically refuses to consider legislation which alters in any way his Medicare drug benefit program, even though it may become financially burdensome in the next 10 years.

The people who stand to gain the most from the current President's policies on Social Security reform and Medicare drug benefits are Wall Street and major pharmaceutical companies.

Sadly, I fear that Savage may have been onto something last week when he discussed a possible "agreement" between the Bushes and the Clintons. Think about it, should Hillary win in 2008, by 2012 when she comes up for reelection, a Bush or a Clinton would have been in the White House for 32 consecutive years.

Is it really that unfair to suggest that the Democrat party had no real candidates in 2004 because the Clintons have been running the DNC? Likewise, in 2008 when the GOP has no real big name to field at the top of its ticket, will it be that unfair to suggest the Bushes are at least partly responsible? After all, the GOP is rapidly splitting itself in half between the party loyalists, and those of principle who are disgusted by the current spending spree and the lack of border security.

Why has George Bush gone so far out of his way to sing the accolades of his predecessor, such as at the unveiling of President Clinton's portrait or the opening of his library?

When in doubt

I found this quote here.

In the name of the best within you, do not sacrifice this world to those who are its worst. In the name of the values that keep you alive, do not let your vision of man be distorted by the ugly, the cowardly, the mindless in those who have never achieved his title. Do not lose your knowledge that man’s proper estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind and a step that travels unlimited roads. Do not let your fire go out, spark by irreplaceable spark, in the hopeless swamps of the approximate, the not-quite, the not-yet, the not-at-all. Do not let the hero in your soul perish, in lonely frustration for the life you deserved, but have never been able to reach. Check your road and the nature of your battle. The world you desired can be won, it exists, it is real, it is possible, it’s yours. - Ayn Rand

Another I like along the same lines is the following by Ralph Waldo Emerson:

The characteristic of heroism is its persistency. All men have wandering impulses, fits, and starts of generosity. But when you have chosen your part, abide by it, and do not weakly try to reconcile yourself with the world. The heroic cannot be the common, nor the common the heroic. Yet we have the weakness to expect the sympathy of people in those actions whose excellence is that they outrun sympathy, and appeal to a tardy justice. If you would serve your brother, because it is fit for you to serve him, do not take back your words when you find that prudent people do not commend you. Adhere to your own act, and congratulate yourself if you have done something strange and extravagant, and broken the monotony of a decorous age. It was a high counsel that I once heard given to a young person, -- "Always do what you are afraid to do." A simple, manly character need never make an apology, but should regard its past action with the calmness of Phocion, when he admitted that the event of the battle was happy, yet did not regret his dissuasion from the battle.

He who hesistates...

An outrage is sweeping through Los Angeles, again, about police brutality after officers killed a 13 year old boy after chasing him for hours.

On the other hand, 3 police officers in Florida were shot this morning after responding to a domestic assault case. One officer died as a result.

I predict we'll hear more from the ACLU about the civil rights of the dead 13-year-old would be gang member in L.A. than the rights of the dead police officer in Florida.

I guess in 2005 America a dead cop is preferable to a dead criminal.

Middle East hypocrisy

In today's column, Pat Buchanan makes two separate but interconnected points.

• In his Inaugural, President Bush described Sept. 11 as "a day of fire ... when freedom came under attack." But was it really freedom that was under attack on 9-11? Was bin Laden really saying, "Give up your freedom!"? Or was he saying, "Get out of our world!"?
  

We have been told ad nauseam that the "muslim radicals" hate American freedoms and that they are seeking to overthrow western civilization in their global jihad, the goal of which being the establishment of a worldwide islamic state. There may very well be millions of jihadists across the globe, but do they actually have the capability to bring down the American government in exchange for one of their own making? While the government may collapse in the face of a terrible financial disaster or a WMD attack, I believe that unless our government completely eliminates our 2nd amendment rights and confiscates our guns, no force on Earth has the ability to conquer this land.

So, perhaps it would be more appropriate for King George and his mouthpieces to say that the islamic terrorists attacked the American government rather than the American people. In his "open letter to America", bin Laden holds the American people accountable for the actions of our government since we elect our leaders. Though I wish bin Laden's assertion were true, I hardly think our government has truly represented the People for several decades.

• Democracy is America's panacea. But if the abdication of the kings, sheiks, sultans and autocrats in Morocco, Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Oman and the Gulf states would be good for America, why is the fall of these royal houses and of Hosni Mubarak in Egypt also sought by bin Laden and the Muslim Brotherhood?

Now, we were told within days of the recent election that Americans voted according to "moral" values, that "evangelicals" were the key component in swinging the election to Bush. Supposedly, we were told, most Americans felt it appropriate to vote for leaders who more closely emulate their own beliefs on a variety of issues.

Apparently, according to George Bush a government elected by people who follow and accept "his" version of Christianity is both legitimate and appropriate. At the same time, as recently as his Inaugural address, Mr. Bush has told us that "America will not pretend that jailed dissidents prefer their chains, or that women welcome humiliation and servitude, or that any human being aspires to live at the mercy of bullies."

Oh, no? Then explain to me how people who willingly vote for Democrats and their socialist policies don't prefer chains of servitude via excess taxation. Tell me how those Democrat voters aren't willing to live under bullies in exchange for an illusion of financial security and stability.

Later in that speech, Mr. Bush goes on to say "In America's ideal of freedom, the public interest depends on private character - on integrity, and tolerance toward others, and the rule of conscience in our own lives. Self-government relies, in the end, on the governing of the self. That edifice of character is built in families, supported by communities with standards, and sustained in our national life by the truths of Sinai, the Sermon on the Mount, the words of the Koran, and the varied faiths of our people."

Now, he refers to "truths" in the Koran apparently as one of many sources of wisdom which guide Americans, most recently many of whom guided Mr. Bush back into the White House. However, as evidenced by the large number of people who call themselves Christians who voted for John Kerry, the interpretation and understanding of spiritual texts varies widely among a population.

So while George Bush thinks the Bible teaches "his" version of faith, he also thinks that the Koran teaches "his" version of truth. However, it seems that the recent election in Iraq demonstrated that the majority of muslims there understand their holy text to guide them toward theocracy.

Why is it acceptable for George Bush to use the Christian faith to empower himself by claiming it substantiates and vindicates his policies, while he deems it unacceptable for muslims to use their faith to establish what they view as their proper leadership?

By what authority does George Bush decide what the Koran teaches? How will Mr. Bush respond if the majority of the muslims in Iraq choose a theocratic state? What happens when if we overthrow the mullahs in Iran and thereby pave the way for an even more radical government?

The other day I watched "Dirty War" on HBO, and right at the end, a man was being interviewed by British authorities. They asked him if he understood that the British gov't had to retalliate for the attack that had been carried out in London.

He calmly responded that he fully expected a retalliation. He explained to his interviewers that western military action against muslims has two effects. It both divides the west and unifies the muslims.

What took so long, Williams?

Walter Williams has finally gotten around to pointing out that neither the US Government nor corporations can conduct charity, for they do not give money of their own, instead they hand out taxpayer or shareholder funds.

I guess that Walter Williams is not on the White House payroll, ala Armstrong Williams, etc...

I said the same thing here.

"Elections" in Iraq

Roughly half of eligible Americans voted for President on 2 November 2004 yet nearly 80% of eligible Iraqis may have voted last week in the first such event in the past 50 years. What are we to make of this?

This article lays out some very interesting information about various people involved in the Iraqi elections.

According to the Washington Post(bold added for emphasis):

• Funded by U.S. taxpayers, the Baghdad office of the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs stands at the ambitious heart of the American effort to make Iraq a model democracy in the Arab world. In the 13 months it has operated in the country, the institute has tutored political aspirants from all of Iraq's major parties, trained about 10,000 domestic election observers and nurtured thousands of ordinary citizens seeking to build the institutions that form the backbone of free societies.
  
  The work[ is in many ways entirely routine for the institute -- as it is for the two other Washington-based organizations that are here advising on the architecture of democracy: the International Republican Institute (IRI), which declined requests for an interview, and the International Foundation for Election Systems (IFES), which along with the United Nations is providing crucial technical assistance to Iraq's electoral commission.

Take a look at the IRI Board of Directors. And the Board of Directors of NDI. And that of IFES. All three contain some extremely powerful people from many layers of American politics and business.

According to the 2003 biennial Report of IFES for the year ending 30 September 2003, the US gov't contributed just under $27 million, with $5.3 million being paid in salaries.

According to the NDI site:

• The Democratic Century Fund is supported annually by corporations, foundations, labor unions, individuals and alumni dedicated to the growth of democracy worldwide. These private contributions supplement funding provided to NDI by the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), United Nations Development Programme, and the World Bank, as well as the governments of the US (U.S. Agency for International Development), Canada (Canadian International Development Agency), Ireland (Irish Aid), Japan, Netherlands, United Kingdom and other governments.

From their 2003 Annual report:

• IRI receives funding from corporations, foundations and individuals dedicated to advancing democracy worldwide. These private contributions supplement funding provided to IRI by the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and U.S. Department of State.

Conversations with God

Boortz talked about this yesterday and today. I really liked it. Both times.

Sunday afternoon I picked up Conversations with God, Book II and started reading. I happened upon a particular passage that fairly summed up my own feelings, and I thought I would share it with you here. The passage opens with Neale Donald Walsh talking to God:

Do we need to return to religion? Is that the missing link?

Return to spirituality. Forget about religion.

That statement is going to anger a lot of people.

People will react to this entire book with anger . . unless they do not.

Why do You say, forget religion?

Because it is not good for you. Understand that in order for organized religion to succeed, it has to make people believe they need it. In order for people to put faith in something else, they must first lose faith in themselves. So the first task or organized religion is to make you lose faith in yourself. The second task is to make you see that it has the answers you do not. And the third and most important task is to make you accept its answers without question.

If you question, you start to think! If you think, you start to go back to that Source Within. Religion can't have you do that, because you're liable to come up with an answer different from what it has contrived. So religion must make you doubt your Self; must make you doubt your own ability to think straight.

The problem for religion is that every so often this backfires -- for if you cannot accept without doubt your own thoughts, how can you not doubt the new ideas about God which religion has given you?

Pretty soon you even doubt My existence -- which, ironically, you never doubted before. When you were living by your intuitive knowing, you may not have had Me all figured out, but you definitely knew I was there!

It is religion which has created agnostics.

Any clear thinker who looks at what religion has done must assume that religion has no God! For it is religion which has filled the hearts of men with fear of God, where once man loved That Which is in all its splendor.

It is religion which has ordered men to bow down before God, where once man rose up in joyful outreach.

It is religion which has burdened man with worries about God's wrath, where once man sought God to lighten his burden.

It is religion which told man to be ashamed of his body and its most natural functions, where once man celebrated those functions as the greatest gift of life!

It is religion which taught you that you must have an intermediary in order to reach God, where once you thought yourself t be reaching God by the simple living of your life in goodness and in truth.

And it is religion which commanded humans to adore God, where once humans adored God because it was impossible not to.

Everywhere religion has gone it has created disunity -- which is the opposite of God.

There is so much more, but I'm not going to copy Walsh's entire book here. Read this particular dialogue for yourself. You'll find it starting on page 247. Those of you who are deeply troubled, even outraged by what Walsh has written .... these books could do you some good.

Lieutenant General James Mattis

Remember the outcry when Lt. General Mattis said he enjoyed shooting scumbags who force their women to wear burkas?

Here's what he said to his Marines as they prepared to invade Iraq in March 2003:

For decades, Saddam Hussein has tortured, imprisoned, raped and murdered the Iraqi people; invaded neighboring countries without provocation; and threatened the world with weapons of mass destruction. The time has come to end his reign of terror. On your young shoulders rest the hopes of mankind.

When I give you the word, together we will cross the Line of Departure, close with those forces that choose to fight, and destroy them. Our fight is not with the Iraqi people, nor is it with members of the Iraqi army who choose to surrender. While we will move swiftly and aggressively against those who resist, we will treat all others with decency, demonstrating chivalry and soldierly compassion for people who have endured a lifetime under Saddam's oppression. Chemical attacks, treachery, and the use of the innocent as human shields can be expected, as can unethical tactics. Take it all in stride. Be the hunter, not the hunted: never allow your unit to be caught with its guard down. Use good judgment and act in the best interest of our Nation. "You are part of the world's most feared and trusted force. Engage your brain before you engage your weapon. Share your courage with each other as we enter the uncertain terrain north of the Line of Departure. Keep faith with your comrades on your left and right and Marine Air overhead. Fight with a happy heart and strong spirit.

For the mission's sake, our country's sake, and the sake of the men who carried the Division's colors in past battles — who fought for life and never lost their nerve — carry out you mission and keep your honor clean. Demonstrate to the world that there is 'No Better Friend, No Worse Enemy' than a U.S. Marine.

I heard this on the Laura Ingraham show yesterday, and found the text at NRO.

Left media in California Bash Cops

Quick: You find yourself in a bad situation and are in need of help. You have time for one phone call. Do you call the police or the ACLU?

Right Wing News has 2 stories highlighted regarding the recent police shooting of a 13 year-old boy by the LAPD. Here's how they conclude the post:

• Instead of carping about the police, who's asking what this kid's parent was doing while he was hanging out with gang members? Why aren't we hearing calls for the police to crack down on the gangs? Actually, at this point, I'd settle for hearing less from people like Maxine Waters, who apparently places a higher value on the life of a 13 year-old car thief/potential copkiller than on the lives of the police who are putting their necks on the line every night to protect LA...

Eason Jordan

I have been ignoring this story because it seems to be nothing new, just more of the same old military bashing by the MSM establishment.

Over at Powerline,they have responded to a reader who thinks the whole situation has been blown out of proportion by overzealous bloggers.

Frankly, some of the journalists in Iraq deserve to be shot, for their reports (at least the ones which make the newspapers and television) are overwhelmingly sympathetic to our enemy.

I doubt the story itself is true, but perhaps the lesson will be learned that the fewer reporters and journalists we have in the middle of a war zone the better off we'll all be.

The Liberty Amendment

Instead of talking about relatively minor issues, not to those with which the federal government has no legitimate business, like the "Gay Marriage" Amendment, Americans should begin speaking out in favor of a renewed debate of the Bricker Amendment, and the Liberty Amendment.

From Downsize DC:

• The 10th Amendment reads:

  The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

  The 10th Amendment had once confined the federal government to only those functions listed in the Constitution -- primarily courts and national defense, and a few other minor functions. But the court-created doctrine of "compelling state interest" opened the flood-gates for politicians to do practically anything they want, with the federal personal income tax providing most of the required funding.

  This means that any attempt to downsize and decentralize government must eliminate the income tax and restore the full power and effect of the 10th Amendment. It must also provide a transition period for the federal government to eliminate and privatize failed programs, and to permit state governments to adopt functions that properly belong in their sphere, prior to ending the income tax.

  The Liberty Amendment does all of these things. The Liberty Amendment reads…

  Section 1: The government of the United States shall not engage in any business, professional, commercial, financial, or industrial enterprise, except as specified in the Constitution.

  Section 2: The constitution or laws of any state, or the laws of the United States, shall not be subject to the terms of any foreign or domestic agreement which would abrogate this amendment.

  Section 3: The activities of the United States government which violate the intent and purposes of this amendment shall, within a period of three years from the date of ratification of this amendment, be liquidated and the properties and facilities affected shall be sold.

  Section 4: Three years after the ratification of this amendment the sixteenth article of amendments to the Constitution of the United States shall stand repealed and thereafter Congress shall not levy taxes on personal incomes, estates, and/or gifts.

Half full or half empty?

While the budget proposed by George Bush seems to be a step in the right direction, it still leaves much to be desired.

From the Oregon Daily Emerald via the CAGW Waste Blog:

• On Wednesday, in his State of the Union address, President Bush said his 2006 budget will eliminate more than 150 government programs because of either inefficiency or duplication of services.

  "The principle here is clear," he said. "Taxpayer dollars must be spent wisely or not at all."

  That's a good line. What boggles me is how he said it with a straight face right before transitioning into No Child Left Behind -- talk about a waste of money.

Fair Tax supporters beware

Ron Paul introduced the following bill on 26 January 2005.

H.J.RES.14 : Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relative to abolishing personal income, estate, and gift taxes and prohibiting the United States Government from engaging in business in competition with its citizens.

It currently has one co-sponsor, a man from Arizona named Jeff Flake.

As irrelevant as this may seem, it is anything but for those who support the "Fair Tax" plan. A national retail sales tax plan can only work if the IRS is eliminated and the 16th amendment is repealed. Anything short of the trifecta will leave the American people worse off than before, and would make the Fair Tax bill a trojan horse worse than any we've ever seen.

According to the lack of support for H.R. 14, it appears as though the "conservative" House of Representatives isn't all that interested in eliminating the personal income tax.

Wolf in Sheep's Clothing

James Sensenbrenner's bill H.R. 418

• To establish and rapidly implement regulations for State driver's license and identification document security standards, to prevent terrorists from abusing the asylum laws of the United States, to unify terrorism-related grounds for inadmissibility and removal, and to ensure expeditious construction of the San Diego border fence.

National ID cards being handed down by Republicans. I can absolutely say that I am not the least bit surprised.

The Constitution does not empower the federal government to monitor travel within the country, so far as I can see. I don't even find the clause which suggests a federal power to mandate States to adopt the practice of issuing licenses, let alone by which criteria they must do so. Whatever happened to anonymous travel within this country?

Mr. Sensenbrenner should focus on executing his duties as outlined in the Constitution, namely repelling invasion by setting immigration policies and standards which reflect 2005 realities.

Further, the Congress should declare War with Mexico, and at the very least establish funding for a wall between Mexico and the U.S.

This man had the nerve to appear on Rush's radio show today, championing the proposal as a landmark initiative in keeping the People safe from a repeat 9/11 attack. He made the claim, suggesting that using foreign passports would have raised suspicion, so the terrorists instead used driver's licenses.

Hey Jim, our ridiculous ban on racial profiling would have prevented any detention of the hijackers anyhow, so even if suspicions would have been raised, the authorities would not have been able to do anything because they fear ACLU lawsuits.

When Rep. Sensenbrenner made his case for the bill, which will come to the floor of the House tomorrow, Roger Hedgcock bit hook, line, and sinker, making him an incompetent fool or a part of the elite oligarchy and a GOP kool-aid drinker.

George Bush and the Texas Rangers

From yesterday's press briefing by Scott McClellan:

• Q Second question, any further response from the President on the allegations concerning his knowledge of steroid use by the Rangers?
  
  MR. McCLELLAN: Yes, I talked to him, and he wasn't aware of that at the time, if there was. But he -- he has recognized for some time that steroids is a growing problem in professional sports, particularly Major League Baseball. That's why the President has made addressing the issue a priority in his administration, because the use of steroids or performance-enhancing drugs sends the wrong message to our children. And it also has harmful effects on those who use it. And the President commends Major League Baseball and the players' union for working together to take an important step to address the issue by expanding drug-testing programs and increasing penalties.
  
  

So the man who now sits atop the free world as the most powerful elected official "wasn't aware" of any drug use on his baseball team?

At what point was it, precisely, that he "recognized" the growing problem with steroid use in MLB?

How can he be expected to manage a $2,500,000,000,000 budget when he couldn't figure out the drug habits of his 25 players?

Either Bush has flat out lied to us, via his Press Secretary, or he has demonstrated that he lacked sufficient management skills needed to run a Major League Baseball team. Why do we the People accept either one?

Answer: because the media distracts us with tales about Michael Jackson and networks feed us endless hours full of mindnumbing "reality TV" shows.

Why should we worry about the solvency of Social Security or our federal deficits when "the Donald" is going to fire somebody tonight?

Bigots in Boston?

According to Fox News:

• The "anti-racist education" program in place at Newton Public Schools in Newton, Mass., a wealthy, liberal niche of the Bay State, has angered some parents who believe the school district is more concerned about political correctness than teaching math skills.
  
  According to benchmarks for middle school education, the top objective for the district's math teachers is to teach "respect for human differences." The objective is for students to "live out the system-wide core value of 'respect for human differences' by demonstrating anti-racist/anti-bias behaviors."

I'm very confused. I thought racism only existed in Alabama and Texas. How did this come to be a problem in the Boston area?

It depends on the definition of terrorism

At FrontpageMag, Daniel Pipes writes the following:

• Anyone following the investigation into the mid-January slaughter of the Armanious family (husband, wife, two young daughters), Copts living in Jersey City, N.J., knows who the presumptive suspects are: Islamists furious at a Christian Egyptian immigrant who dares engage in Internet polemics against Islam and who attempts to convert Muslims to Christianity.
  
  The authorities, however, have blinded themselves to the extensive circumstantial evidence, insisting that “no facts at this point” substantiate a religious motive for the murders.

Why is our President willing to send 1oo's of thousands of Americans into the Middle East to combat "terrrorism" while our officials here at home refuse to identify domestic terror attacks as such?

Has the ACLU such a stranglehold on our courts and law enforcement that only white, Christian males can be suspected of and charged with "hate crimes"?

Which is more dangerous to our Republic, the islamic radical or the modern American leftist?

"Bush's" Budget

Devvy wonders where in the Constitution does the President derive the power to "submit" a budget to Congress.

The bottom line remains that our Constitutional Republic is broken and our elected officials play games and make deals with our money. As a result of the 17th Amendment, and the perpetuation of the myth that Americans have a "right" to vote for our federal officials, our nation is on a high speed collision course with bankruptcy.

Most of us are asleep at the wheel, more interested in gay "marriage" or the latest Hollywood divorce.

From her article:

• For the gimee-gimee crowd who believe their pet wants are covered under the "general welfare" clause of the Constitution, they should pay attention to the words by the man who wrote it, James Madison, also known as 'The Father of the Constitution' when he said: "With respect to the words 'general welfare,' I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers (enumerated in the Constitution) connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators."

What does Michelle Malkin think about Bush's budget, specifically that it only funds 10% of the 2000 Border Patrol agents that Bush had promised us? Go see for yourself...

GOP Judicial Nominations

Recently, Fox News reported that:

• A judge declared Friday that a law banning same-sex marriage violates the state constitution, a first-of-its-kind ruling in New York that would clear the way for gay couples to wed if it survives on appeal.

That Judge has been a member of a NY State Supreme Court, the trial level in NY State, since 2002 when she ran unopposed.

• Running unopposed, Ling-Cohan, a Democrat, is also the nominee of the Republican, Liberal and Working Family parties.

Hopefully President Bush will make better decisions when his turn comes to replace US Supreme Court Justices.

However, given that the new Attorney General of the United States said during his confirmation hearing in front of the Senate Judiciary committee that he considers Roe v Wade to be "settled law", and that he would support an extension of the "assault weapons" ban, I'm not overly optimistic...

Will we ever "turn the corner"?

Since 9/11 and through the Presidential campaign season, President Bush (and his mouthpieces like Rush, Hannity, Armstrong Williams, the WSJ...) told the American people that the American economy is "turning the corner".

From Patridiot Watch:

• "We have turned a corner, and we are not turning back," said Bush.

From a speech given on 30 July 2004:

• "When it comes to creating jobs for America's workers, we are turning the corner and we are not turning back."

3 months have passed since the election, the rhetoric has faded, and reality about the future of America's economy is beginning to emerge. Aside from my recent post which suggested that the war in Iraq is more about saving the dollar than the Iraqi people, the American macroeconomy appears to be in big trouble. The unabated flow of illegal aliens into this country has direct and undeniable damage to the labor market (not to mention our schools, health care, prison populations, law enforcement and basic infrastructure), while American companies simultaneously ship business and whole industries overseas.

The bottom line seems to be that the supply side of the American labor market has become so large that talented employees are not in high demand, and that the majority may not see salary increases that meet or exceed the inflation rate for the foreseeable future.

Here's an interesting story from the Chicago Tribune:.

• More than three years into the economic recovery, U.S. workers' hourly wages continue to decline, adjusted for inflation, with little hope of a dramatic turnaround anytime soon.
  
  
• Beyond the temporary factors contributing to a sluggish recovery from the recession of 2001, some believe that globalization, the movement of jobs offshore and the declining influence of trade unions could be putting pay envelopes on a permanent diet. Some companies have concluded that the past practice of boosting wages faster than inflation is no longer needed to keep employees from leaving. It may never, in fact, be needed again.

The Chicago Tribune article also references a recent piece in the Workplace Management magazine, which the CT describes as "a leading trade journal for human resources executives". That article, found here (free subscription required), says:

• If your salary-increase budget for 2005 is much higher than 3 percent, you’re probably overspending. New survey data indicate that increases at large companies will average 3.5 percent next year, marking the fourth consecutive year of increases below the 4 percent average that characterized budgets before the economic downturn.
  
• Across all sectors, wages followed productivity and profits down into the trough of the 2001 recession, but have not joined them in recovery. As the economic expansion now enters its fourth year, flat wages can no longer be explained entirely by lags in the labor market. The uncoupling of wages from productivity and profits in this business cycle now raises the question of whether the downward shift in pay marks the beginning of a permanent trend.
• The flat budgets and falling real wages of the past few years have now surfaced in low national savings rates, high personal debt and the 3.4 percent decline in median household income since 2000. Labor’s share of the profits generated in this recovery is the lowest on record. With corporate expectations for revenue growth and profitability now drifting down from the peaks reported earlier this year, pay levels and living standards may be stuck where they are for some time to come.

The article goes on from there, and it presents a very different picture than what George Bush and the Republican party offers on Meet the Press and what the Wall Street Journal tells us on its editorial page.

Remember, this article's intended audience is the people who make decisions which affect the future of many people, most Americans in fact. It would be wise to get an idea what is being talked about in the meetings to which most of us are not invited. Go read the article in its entirety.

Start demanding real answers from your Congresspeople about the immigration problem. Our Republic is collapsing, and the oligarchs at the top are doing nothing to stop it from happening. We the People have the ultimate power in this Republic, so long as the ballot boxes are opened every other November. We must set aside petty partisan politics, awaken ourselves to reality, and we must not be afraid to cast aside each and every member of Congress who continues to fail in his or her obligation to uphold the duty he assumed upon accepting the office of Representative or Senator.

In this column, Frosty Woolridge lays out the 10 reasons why we must stop illegal immigration now. Number one is the absolute most important, and it applies to every thing we do as human beings.

America has been on the brink of disaster many times before, and there we find ourselves once again. Never has it been said that our system of government can operate as intended without the watchful eye of the People, nor has it been said that liberty comes with a small pricetag. But the time for this generation to decide what it will leave for its kids is right now, and the time for debate is coming to a close rapidly.

European Immigration reform

Apparently some countries in Europe have figured out that border security and immigration standards are important to national security.

Originally seen at Michelle Malkin's site. Res Ipsa Loquitor has this to say.

Here's a Washington Times story about Holland's reform, and an IHT story on British reform.

A first in American politics?

From Snopes:

• An ex-congressman who had sex with a subordinate won clemency from a president who had sex with a subordinate, then was hired by a clergyman who had sex with a subordinate.

Don't blame Jesse Jackson or Bill Clinton for contributing to the breakdown of morality in American society.

Much ado about Jonah Goldberg?

I read this post at Lew Rockwell's blog, and found a very amusing debate being had between a History prof at Univ. of Michigan and Mr. Goldberg.

JG took a shot at the Prof in this column, the Prof responded here, JG responded here,...

This guy has put together a nice timeline which outlines the history of the exchanges.

American MSM Defeated Again

Last week Ted Kennedy compared the war in Iraq to the Vietnam conflict into which his brother involved the United States.

However, the Senator forgot to mention one slight difference this time around. American media is no longer dominated by the "big 3" networks, and their left-wing anchors, namely Walter Cronkite.

Even before the invasion was launched in March 2003, the MSM has been telling us how much of a disaster the war would become. Don't get me wrong, every one of the 1400 dead and 10,000 wounded Americans represents tragedy and sacrifice for his family and our nation, but certainly the doom and gloom predictions proclaimed by the MSM were grossly exaggerated.

Even in the run-up to the recent election in Iraq, our media elites were warning of a pending disaster and that widespread chaos and turmoil would disrupt the voting. The islamic murderers in Iraq warned that any person who attempted to vote would be killed. Once again, they were all wrong.

I believe that the islamic murderers believed that they could defeat America in the same manner in which the NVA was able to do 30 years ago. In both cases, the enemy lost the military end of the war, but won the public relations battle within the American media.

Unfortunately for them, the islamic murderers were not successful. They discounted the power of 24 hour cable news, and the same internet they used to disseminate propoganda was used against them to refute it.

Make no mistake, much progress has yet to be made in Iraq, and there will almost surely be more violence and destruction. Yet, with the first free election in the past 50 years now in the rear-view mirror, the biggest test has been met while the effort and sacrifice of Americans seems to have been vindicated. The US military will remain prominent in Iraq, but I believe that from this point forward, its role will diminish steadily over time.

Dramatic and wide-spread reform throughout the Middle East may now be a reality for people who have been ruled for generations, and in some cases centuries, by dictators, tyrants, oligarchs, and royalty.

Fortunately for those who seek liberty and desire self-rule, the success or failure of the difficult tests ahead lie not with the American media or the Democrat party, but with the individuals themselves.

Gitmo and the Constitution

Of course, by now everybody with a heartbeat and active brain waves has heard that a judge has ruled that detainees being held in Cuba by the US gov't have a right to habeas corpus.

Though the judge in this case, Joyce Green, likely thinks she has done a great service for humanity and that she has demonstrated to the world how equal application of the law works in America, she may have opened up a Pandora's box.

Extending rights that are enumerated in the United States Constitution to foreign fighters captured by US troops on a battlefield may sound good to the far left globalist movement, but many larger problems could and may arise.

Let us suppose Judge Green's next ruling extends the right to counsel to prisoners being held in Iran. What then?

Do US judges suddenly have the power to determine who has the privelege of voting in Saudi Arabia?

May US judges establish minimum wages laws for Chinese industry? Must the US Army enforce those laws?

Apparently Judge Green has failed to adequately consider her history and legal precedent. Both the Sedition Act of 1918 and the internment camps used during WW2 have been upheld, were eventually repealed and exist no longer. More importantly, compensations have been made to the "victims" of each who were unfairly or unnecessarily considered criminals.

As much as I don't trust the Bush administration and its abuse of legitimate civil liberties against Americans, Judge Green's ruling will take our military in the wrong direction. Instead of taking prisoners captive, and holding them for the duration of the war to prevent "repatriation" with their brothers-in-arms, people will be executed to make sure none of them ever reach the inside of a courtroom, especially one presided over by a Judge like Joyce Green.

Iraqi Oil and the U.S. Dollar

I do not for one minute pretend to be any sort of expert or scholar of international currency trading, petroleum development, or Middle East politics. I do, however, have a nagging thought in my mind about the current war in Iraq.

The US government is telling the American people that we are engaged in a "War on Terror" against radicals and various government which harbor and/or foster them and their allies. However, President Bush simply refuses to close the border between Mexico, instead opting to deploy 150,000+ troops to the Middle East. He tells us that we must fight the "terrorists" on offense, and that waiting at home to be struck again is doomed for failure. I don't necessarily disagree, but wouldn't the best idea be to do both?

After all, with our armed forces spread around the globe in Korea, Germany, the Balkans, the Middle East and elsewhere, our homeland must be a more appealing target than it's been for many years. I believe that the only responsible way to fight this "War on Terror" includes BOTH strong border security at home, heightened deportation and detention power for local and State police, reduced or suspended immigration and international military action when and where we have actionable intelligence and opportunities to disrupt the plans and sanctuaries of our enemies.

At a cost of 1400 dead and 10,000 wounded Americans, as well as who knows how many dead Iraqi civilians and would-be policemen, the Iraqi people recently had a chance to vote in a their first free and fair election in 50 years. Hopefully, that election will send strong signals to other Arab leaders and their people who also may prefer the ballot box to the bomb belt or the torture chamber.

In recent years, Israel has built miles of fence line effectively cutting off parts of Gaza from the "Palestinians", who until the construction of the fence had easy access to heavily concentrated Jewish areas, which often provided attractive targets to the suicide bombers of al-Aqsa and Hamas.

Repeatedly, the United Nations Security Council has moved to sanction Israel for the fence, yet the United States has vetoed the measure each and every time, raising an interesting question, and the crucial one to understanding why the facts being told by President Bush just don't add up to the logical conclusion he offers.

Why doesn't America build a fence between Mexico and our precious homeland? If it's good enough for Israel, what possible reason could we have for not following their example of an idea that has turned out to be an overwhelming, though not perfect, solution to the problem they face?

There must be another reason for the wars we are fighting in the Middle East right now...

In April 1997, a study was released by the James A Baker Institute at Rice University. It said the following:

• While the U.S. and Western allies can respond effectively to outright military adventurism in the Gulf region, fashioning effectual policy responses to internal instability or anti-Western ideological movements will be far more difficult.

According to CNN, in a story released on 30 October 2000:

• A U.N. panel on Monday approved Iraq's plan to receive oil-export payments in Europe's single currency after Baghdad decided to move the start date back a week.

As explained here:

• Were France, Germany, Russia and a number of OPEC oil countries to now shift even a small portion of their dollar reserves into euro to buy bonds of Germany or France or the like, the United States would face a strategic crisis beyond any of the postwar period.

According to Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty:

• Iraq is going ahead with its plans to stop using the U.S. dollar in its oil business in spite of warnings the move makes no financial sense.

Likewise, CBS news reported on 22 December 2000:

• In the last two months, Sadam Hussein has caused international turmoil by demanding payment for its oil in euros rather than dollars, the industry's accepted form of payment.

On 23 August 2002:

• Iran's proposal to receive payments for crude oil sales to Europe in euros instead of U.S. dollars is based primarily on economics, Iranian and industry sources said.
  
  But politics are still likely to be a factor in any decision, they said, as Iran uses the opportunity to hit back at the U.S. government, which recently labeled it part of an "axis of evil."
  
  The proposal, which is now being reviewed by the Central Bank of Iran, is likely to be approved if presented to the country's parliament, a parliamentary representative said.

Late in October of 2002,

• The US State Department has pushed back its planned meeting with Iraqi opposition leaders on exploiting Iraq's oil and gas reserves after a US military offensive removes Saddam Hussein from power to early December.

On 1 December 2002, BBC said:

• Communist North Korea has said it will stop using American dollars from Sunday and start using euros instead.

In an article dated 16 February 2003, the Guardian restated the fact that Saddam had been selling his oil, via the Oil for Food program for Euros instead of dollars for more than 2 years. It also noted the following, referring to the NY bank holding the funds on behalf of the United Nations:

• The Iraqi account, held at BNP Paribas, has also been earning a higher rate of interest in euros than it would have in dollars.

In conclusion, let's analyze who might win and lose with a strong dollar.

England -Though Tony Blair recently called on George Bush to get on the global warming bandwagon, British is resisiting the European Union and therefore perhaps the Euro is not as important to the British gov't as it is to Paris or Berlin.

"New" Europe - Many of these countries are less than enthused about the development of the European Union as well. Since many were Soviet bloc states, the pain and suffering of socialist governments rings all too fresh in the minds of the Eastern European countries.

Australia - With much stronger ties to London and Washington than other countries, and having watched PM John Howard win reelection, it seems that the Aussies are among a minority of nations whose people still yearn for liberty and individual freedom.

George Soros - Again, myself not being overly knowledgeable of currency markets, I'm really not sure about this man and how he makes his money. However, it has been said that he made part of his mega-fortune by orchestrating the collapse of the British Pound years ago, and therefore, in the absence of conflicting evidence, I can only assume that he would be willing to try the same thing to America and the dollar. Remember, Soros is not an American, and by no means can he be considered an American nationalist.

France/Germany/Russia - All have struggling economies, and are unable to lift themselves up to compete on the global stage with America, Japan, or China. It may be that these governments chose instead to hurt the American economy, thereby bringing us down to them since they can't rise up. Further, Paris and Berlin are major factors in the drive towards the European Union and any strengthening of the Euro can only help the credibility of the EU and its proponents.

Does any of this look familiar, as in those who favored the war in Iraq and those who did not?