International Freedom Center...

There is quite a controversy brewing over the plans surrounding the memorial to be built at Ground Zero.

Read this editorial at the Wall Street Journal which "started it all".

A website called Take Back the Memorial is opposing the supposed agenda of the planners who wish to incorporate a whole historical lesson surrounding freedom and oppression. Some claim that the attacks of 9/11 are America's own fault. (Remember Ward Churchill who seemed to suggest that we deserved to be attacked?)

Two relevant, but apparently overlooked questions are much simpler.

Should federal tax dollars be spent on erecting this memorial?
By what section of the Constitution does the Congress of the United States derive the authority to commandeer my property for this project?

While I believe a memorial specifically designed to preserve the legacy of the 3000 people lost on that sad day should be constructed, I do not believe that the funding for such an initiative should come from the Federal Treasury.

Closing Gitmo...

Okay, so the appeasement crowd wants Gitmo closed because some guy who may or may not want to destroy America was forced to listen to 50-Cent while being denied air conditioning.

I've got an idea which would pave the way for the release of every single prisoner currently held by Marines in Gitmo in the very near future.

Military doctors will subcutaneously install a tracking device into each prisoner without his knowledge. We will then use satellite tracking systems to monitor the movements of each as they reimmerse themselves into the Arab world.

I see many advantages and zero negatives with this plan. Not only would we "restore our credibility" around the world (in Paris and Berlin, most importantly) by closing down the gulag of the 21st century, but we could also gain invaluable intel about the locations of various jihadis with whom some of the released prisoners would inevitably contact.

On the other hand, were some of the prisoners actually innocent, they would simply go about the rest of their lives, following the religion of peace and turning their heads while making excuses for the radicals who decapitate innocent people in their 'jihad'.

Reporting for duty...

In the aftermath of the 2004 election, have the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth been sued for either slander or libel?

If not, is it a valid inference that the stories they shared with America are true?

Corporate welfare...

Often, the left complains about corporate welfare dished out by Republicans in Congress. Primarily, the socialist left (which loves government subsidies to abortion clinics and public school teachers) claims that the GOP uses tax dollars to enrich their buddies who run large agricultural corporations.

Of course, any person with a shred of desire to live freely and independently abhors government intervention in the economic arena, but in this case I find it interesting to consider how we have arrived at a point where the federal government decides which goods ought be sold in a free market and which should not.

According to Thomas Sowell,

• Back in 1942, the Supreme Court authorized the vastly expanded powers of the federal government under Franklin D. Roosevelt's administration by declaring that a man who grew food for himself on his own land was somehow "affecting" prices of goods in interstate commerce and so the federal government had a right to regulate him.

Could this decision have been the actual birth of the agricultural subsidies that the Democrats tell us are the product of modern Republican cronyism?

US forgives debt of world...

From whom would you rather receive tips on your swing: Tiger Woods, or the weekend hacker at your local public course?

How about investment advice: residents of the neighborhood trailer park or someone with a sizable amount of assets who has demonstrated his ability to win where so many have lost?

George Bush, in his latest move to advance global socialism, agreed to forgive some $40,000,000,000 in debt previously held by the IMF and the World Bank (that Wolfowitz has recently become President of).

To illustrate the idiocy of the American left, consider this.

These countries that have defaulted on their loans, at the expense of US taxpayers, are the same ones who send representatives to the UN with ideas that the American left expects the rest of us to entertain and adopt.

If Kofi Annan and the rest of his buddies from Africa knew 1% of what they thought they did, or cared about humanity as they claim, Africa would not be nearly the war-torn, poverty ridden, and hunger ravaged corrupt cest pool it is.

Only can the mentally disabled left encourage everyone else to value the ideas of those who have proven absolutely no ability to achieve any advancement of humanity. To these people, the worth of a given idea comes not from its actual outcome in reality, but the loftiness of its goal.

The inventors, doctors, businessmen and scientists of America should forget the nonsense being preached by the left-wing, success hating journalists, professors, and career politicians.

Nagasaki report...

From the Mainiche Daily News:

• American George Weller was the first foreign reporter to enter Nagasaki following the U.S. atomic attack on the city on Aug. 9, 1945. Weller wrote a series of stories about what he saw in the city, but censors at the Occupation's General Headquarters refused to allow the material to be printed. Weller's stories, written in September 1945, can be found below.

10 Habits of losers...

Here are a series of columns from Doug Giles, written for those who can't get out of the funk of success and achievement:

1. Be a slacker.
2. Blame others.
3. Embrace hopelessness.
4. Follow others mindlessly.
5. Be a wet blanket.
6. Hang out with morons.
7. Be a self-obsessed me-monkey.
8. Stand for nothing.
9. Have an “it’s not my job” mentality.
10. Quit when the going gets tough.

Socialized medicine in Canada...

Many Americans falsely believe that health care is a "right", presumably covered by the 5th Amendment. More accurately stated, since most on the left don't bother to read the Constitution nor understand its intended implications, they simply feel that somewhere in there should be a section empowering the sick to demand services from medical professionals at someone else's expense.

Unfortunately for the socialists among us, Canada's system is failing miserably. Citing a recent Canadian Supreme Court ruling, Paul Jacob summarizes the situation this way:

• Canada is the only industrialized country that actually prohibits citizens from privately contracting for medical care. In other words, no matter how much money Canadians can afford to pay, they're stuck in the public's health care system waiting and waiting and waiting for care.
• In a case brought by Jacques Chaoulli, a Montreal family doctor, and George Zeliotis, a patient forced to wait a year to have his hip replaced, Canada's Supreme Court found that the evidence "shows that delays in the public health care system are widespread, and that, in some serious cases, patients die as a result of waiting lists for public health care."
  
  The court thus concluded that Canada's invasive, idiotic and totalitarian prohibition of private health insurance and medical care — of almost anything outside the government-run system — is unconstitutional. The long waiting periods in the government system violated the "life and personal security, inviolability and freedom" of patients under Quebec's charter of human rights and freedoms. So ruled the court.

As I recall, "Hillary care" would have similarly outlawed private medical care in all cases (except abortion). How can the left continue to deny history and ignore the facts of human nature?

Will the Democrat voters ever figure out the hypocrisy of the Democrat platform? (i.e. Terry Schiavo should be a family decision, yet all medical care should be managed and administered by the government...)

Second guessing...

For those who criticize the War in Iraq, often without offering ideas as to what we should be doing in its stead, I suggest reading this Washington Post column.

Then, try answering some of its core questions:

What would have happened had we not gone into Iraq?

Was a war with Saddam inevitable? (Draw a comparison to the lives that would have been saved had Hitler been taken out in the 30's instead of the 40's)

For the Americans who are so concerned about human genocide (i.e. Kosovo, Sudan, Somalia...), weren't we essentially obligated to end the torture chambers in Iraq?

Is "containment" of a mass murderer an acceptable policy? (Draw analogy to North Korea here, a favorite example of the mis-directing left who claims we should abandon Iraq in favor of more aggressive policy towards Kim Jung Il. If a dictator only kills his own people, is it our business to stop him?)

Would Saddam have ever given up his quest for WMD, especially if the world lost focus on him while targeting China or North Korea for "sanctions" or "deterrants"?

As we now know, Saddam was involved in secret deals with leaders of several countries, as well as the United Nations' corrupted 'Oil for Food' program(me). Is it really believable that the will of the 'international community' to deter and punish Saddam would have sustained very long? In fact, when we invaded Iraq, was the resolve of the world strengthening or weakening on the issue of sanctioning Iraq? (analogy here to Iran, how well are sanctions working there? If our policy is to prevent Iran from acquiring WMD, is it smarter to invade before or after they obtain the weapons in usable form? Draw another analogy here to the pacifism of Jimmy Carter in reference to the Shah of Iran. How well did that policy work for the United States?)

Organ donation...

If you are somebody who refuses to be an organ donor, should you be eligible to be a transplant recipient?

Porter Goss thinks we're idiots...

Here is an excerpt from an interview done by Time Magazine of Porter Goss, CIA chief:

• WHEN WILL WE GET OSAMA BIN LADEN? That is a question that goes far deeper than you know. In the chain that you need to successfully wrap up the war on terror, we have some weak links. And I find that until we strengthen all the links, we're probably not going to be able to bring Mr. bin Laden to justice. We are making very good progress on it. But when you go to the very difficult question of dealing with sanctuaries in sovereign states, you're dealing with a problem of our sense of international obligation, fair play. We have to find a way to work in a conventional world in unconventional ways that are acceptable to the international community.

CNN adds this nonsensical diatribe onto the end of their report of the interview:

• Goss did not say where he thinks bin Laden is, nor did he specify what country or countries he was referring to when he spoke of foreign sanctuaries. But American officials have long said they believed bin Laden was hiding in rugged mountains along the Afghan-Pakistani border.

I have two questions, one in response to each item.

1. If we didn't bother to respect the sovereignty of Iraq, and we seem uninterested in preserving our own as we get closer to passing CAFTA and FTAA, why bother claiming that the sovereignty of other nations actually carries any relevance to our government?

1a. Wouldn't it be more fair to state that bin Laden's value to the neo-con war mongers as a fugitive is much higher than as a prisoner?

2. Since the prior statements as to bin Laden's whereabouts have been common knowledge for some time now, why wouldn't Porter Goss have restated them if, in fact, they are still true?

(And by the way, most people who will read and/or hear about either or both of these stories are idiots who will take them at face value instead of thinking beyond what is written. Always think about what is NOT said/written when it comes to government officials giving speeches or interviews.)

Senator Turbin, contd...

A blog called 'One Hand Clapping' has posted some photos of the murder camps run under the Nazis, Soviets, and Cambodian regimes during recent decades. One member of the "tolerant" left had this comment:

• It is sick how you neocon fascists try to dodge the responsibility of Abu Ghraib and the US neoimperialistic and corporate abuse of democracy and social justice. how much does this blogger get paid by PNAC and the GOP to post this? where does his money come from? You just a front for a crypto-fascist neoconservative cabal and an an oil war masquerading as an endless crusade against “terrorism.”

  We need to stop the hate and regulate these “warbloggers” now. Write to your congressperson or senator today.

While I happen to agree with much of what this person had to say, the comment is very illustrative of the hatred and anger that froths forth from the far-left. So great is their hatred for this country that they don't even stop to understand that Mr. Bush and his cronies are just the current in a long line of Presidents who have overstepped their Constitutional boundaries while enacting their personal agendas from the White House.

Yes, our Republic is broken. We are being led by some of the most corrupt people known to American history. But let's not pretend that everything was running smoothly right up until the election of 2000.

What Durbin REALLY said...

I'm fed up with the claims from the left that Durbin "just read an FBI memo" or that he was simply drawing attention to a gross injustice being heaped upon innocent muslims who are being unfairly detained by the US military.

Here is the Senate record from Tuesday, June 14 2005.

Here are some excerpts, with my comments interjected:

• This Administration’s detention and interrogation policies are placing our troops at risk and making it harder to combat terrorism.

So, our troops would be safer if we released the prisoners being held at Gitmo back into the jihadi population?

How many German POWs did we release before Hitler's Army was crushed?

• Polls show that Muslims have positive attitudes toward the American people and our values. However, overall, favorable ratings toward the United States and its Government are very low. This is driven largely by the negative attitudes toward the policies of this administration.

So the Iraqis don't like us because we ended the terror reign of Saddam Hussein?
Have US Marines fed a single person into a paper shredder? Thrown one off of a roof top?

• Muslims respect our values, but we must convince them that our actions reflect these values.

This meaningless statement serves no purpose, other than to illustrate that people like Dick Durbin believe the terms 'values' and 'actions' can be separated. But, didn't we hear from John Kerry, the faithful Catholic, during the last campaign that values without action are useless?

Therefore, if muslims respect our values, as Dick says they do, that directly implies that muslims respect our actions. It simply cannot be one or the other.

Senator Dick goes on to describe his solutions to our terrible 'image crisis' around the world (i.e. France, Germany, Iran, at the United Nations, North Korea, al Jazeera...)

• We still would have the ability to hold detainees and to interrogate them aggressively. Members of al-Qaida would not be prisoners of war.
• We would be able to do everything we need to do to keep our country safe.
  
• The President could declare the United States will apply the Geneva Conventions to the war on terrorism.
  
• He could declare, as he should, that the United States will not, under any circumstances, subject any detainee to torture, or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment.

Instead of comparing rap music and panties on the head to Auschwitz and Soviet death marches, perhaps Senator Dick should stick to explaining himself and the simultaneous achievement of the aforementioned 4 strategies.

Tell us: how can we keep our country safe while interrogating aggressively people who are not prisoners of war, while obeying the Geneva Convention and giving detainees access to our overloaded federal court system?

The truth is that Senator Dick and the rest of the far left don't want the United States to prevent al-Qaeda from attacking America, because the far left thinks that America deserves to be punished for our standing atop the civilized world.

Osama bin Laden has himself explained that it is American weakness that fuels his forces, such as when he calls us paper tigers for running away from Mogadishu and Beirut. The time to run from these throat cutters has run out. We have no choice but to confront them head on, and to take decisive action in order to demonstrate to the world that American justice is swift, thorough, and severe.

More hypocrisy from the Democrats...

If the Democrat party really were interested in helping poor, disadvantaged children, they would encourage a resurrection of traditional families consisting of the mother and father living together in matrimony.

According to Rich Lowry:

• The proportion of out-of-wedlock births rose 600 percent from 1960 to 2000, and the divorce rate more than doubled between 1965 and 1980.
  
• Roughly 24 million children now live in homes where the biological father is absent — about one out of every three children.
• Three-quarters of cohabiting parents split up before their children reach age 16.
  

Further, I've researched the stats myself and posted them here before about the percentage of families in poverty being directly proportional to the family structure. Single parent families are twice as likely to live in poverty. That is factual, assuming one is willing to rely upon Census data.

And after 50 years of failure, one cannot seriously argue that government handouts to "needy" mothers have had nearly enough overall positive impacts on the terrible crises facing our children today. Kids are less educated than ever, growing fatter than ever, more likely to commit crimes and to repeat the cycle of government dependence for their own children than ever before.

Can anyone seriously contest the claim that the American left encourages and thrives on government dependence via welfare programs and other socialist policies?

Prison abuse...

in Dick Turbin's own backyard?

Excerpted from John in Carolina:

In a Chicago Tribune op-ed, MacArthur attorney Jean Maclean Snyder gave readers this graphic example of prisoner abuse at Cook County Jail:

(a) squad of 40 guards took over a maximum-security division of the jail in 1999 for the sole purpose of beating and terrorizing the prisoners. A jail investigator determined that the guards' misconduct was covered up by Cook County medical personnel, who filed false reports and refused or delayed treatment to the prisoners, and by the Cook County inspector general, who refused to cooperate with the investigation.

Snyder want on to describe a meeting with a prisoner who'd been beaten:

the whites of his eyes were nearly obscured by the red from blood vessels that had ruptured during the beating, and deep lacerations were held together by staples that had been applied to his scalp.

Chicago newspapers have reported and spoken out against the abuses in Cook County Jail.

Now they and the rest of the national media who've given voice to Senator Durbin's attack on the military need to ask him about his pal, Sheriff Sheahan, and Cook County Jail.

The new IRS form...

Here is the perfect tax for socialists, who may soon be receiving their 10-40(s) forms in the mail for processing.

Simply check the box, thereby rejecting the tax cuts "forced down your throat" by the Republican theocrats, and exercise your "right to privacy" to independently substitute whatever higher rate you wish.

That way, all the money you don't wish to keep for yourself, you can turn over to the government.

After all, government can spend the money better than greedy individuals, right?

Consider moving to Oklahoma...

Following up on the 7 places NOT to live in America if you love liberty, this Ralph Nader column I was reading mentions the Oklahoma GOP Platform for 2005 (MS Word format).

Nader's assessment of it goes as follows:

• Take the Oklahoma platform ‚ typical of several other state Republican Parties. It wants to privatize social security, eliminate the minimum wage, the income tax, all toll roads, institute a national sales tax, get rid of the U.S. Department of Education, and repeal much corporate regulation that protects consumers, workers and the environment.

  The Oklahoma Republican Party wants to get the U.S. out of the UN, eliminate funding for PBS and National Public Radio, and repeal the state tax on business inventory. They want to post the Ten Commandments in all public schools, oppose monetary foreign aid, only credits with which to buy U.S. goods.

  On the other hand, the Oklahoma Party wants to abolish many forms of corporate welfare such as tax holidays to attract industry and other subsidies and giveways so dear to the hearts and pockets of corporate Republicans. The state Party is opposed to Bush's Leave No Child Behind's budgets, testing, national teacher and student standards.

  Similar to their Texas counterparts, they want the U.S. out of the World Trade Organization, an end to the Office of Surgeon General, no limits on campaign contributions and no national health insurance. Lots of treaties they do not like, including the ones limiting nuclear proliferation and environmental devastation. They cannot stand the EPA, or the National Endowment for the Arts and the Endangered Species Act.

Here are some select excerpts from the platform, that the "corporate Republicans dominating the nation's capitol" "cannot accept but also cannot openly reject".

• We support the right of parents to rear, educate, discipline, nurture and spiritually train their children without government interference. We also support those who choose the vocation of Homemaking.
• We believe in the sanctity and value of human life from conception through natural death. We oppose abortion (including the use of RU-486 and partial birth abortion), infanticide, euthanasia and mercy killings, and the funding of such by the government. We support a Constitutional Amendment protecting innocent human life.
• Our Founding Fathers based our Constitution, Declaration of Independence, Bill of Rights and early laws on the Bible and traditional Judeo-Christian ethics and values. We believe these documents are the basis for law, order and behavior, allowing individuals, including government workers and officials, the freedom to involve God in all activities according to their consciences.
• We believe the religion clause of the First Amendment was meant to protect individuals’ freedom of religion, not remove religion from public life.
• We strongly encourage and support for the unity of our nation, the establishment of English as the official language.
  
• The traditional family unit, consisting of a (husband) man, (wife) woman and child(ren), is the foundation of our social structure. The Oklahoma Department of Education should uphold and teach this definition of family at all levels of public education.
• Parents and legal guardians are responsible and accountable for the education of their children.
• Parents have a Constitutional right to home school their children. We oppose any and all regulation of home schooling.
• We oppose any graduation and/or curriculum that includes required community service.
• Local school boards should maintain the right to choose curriculum and textbooks without state limitations. They further maintain the right to insert disclaimer statements into textbooks.
• We support curriculum that promotes national sovereignty and oppose one world government and global citizenship.
• Multiculturalism promotes cultural segregation and should not be taught. We respect different cultures and affirm that U.S. citizens of any race, creed, or culture are fully Americans, not hyphenated Americans.
• We believe that Oklahoma’s efforts to attract industry should be grounded upon the establishment of a favorable and friendly economic climate rather than upon tax and other governmental subsidies to individual businesses.
  
• We support the revision of corporate and business laws and regulations to encourage business and economic development while reflecting free market principals.[sp]
• We support a requirement that each vote cast in all elections be documented by a paper or other physical record.
• We believe that the judiciary should apply the law, and should not make law or policy by fiat. We support a strong review process for sitting justices.
• We believe that the United States Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and that no other laws will supersede it, including conventions and resolutions, rulings, mandates or any other laws or policies written by the United Nations or any other international organization.
• We support the right under the Second Amendment for Americans to keep and bear arms; therefore, we oppose any attempts, whether by law or regulation at any level of government, to restrict any law-abiding citizen’s right to keep and bear arms.
• We support the Tenth Amendment that states “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 use of U.S. agricultural products for foreign aid instead of money.
• Abolishment of the federal minimum wage.

It goes on from there, but it is sad that there is no real movement in Washington pushing the above agenda beyond its usage as campaign rhetoric.

The only possible salvation for our Republic lies within the above framework, where human beings are set free from the chains of oppression handed down by government agents which serve to accomplish nothing besides the handicapping of human creativity and advancement.

Unalienable right to revolution or secession...

Article X of the New Hampshire State Constitution says:

[Art.] 10. [Right of Revolution.] Government being instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security, of the whole community, and not for the private interest or emolument of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, whenever the ends of government are perverted, and public liberty manifestly endangered, and all other means of redress are ineffectual, the people may, and of right ought to reform the old, or establish a new government. The doctrine of nonresistance ag ainst arbitrary power, and oppression, is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind.

June 2, 1784

Further, I strongly suggest reading No Treason: The Constitution of no Authority.

The bottom line is that all human beings, regardless the country of origin, have and forever retain the right to resist oppressive government which seeks not to serve the People, but instead exists to solely for the betterment of the politicians themselves.

Politicians who do not hold the rights of private property and the defense thereof to be of vital importance, likely do not often grant import to the private ownership of the fruit of a man's labor nor his yearning to be free of government that hinders or prevents his efforts at self-determination.

Seven States where liberty loving People should not live.

The hate-America party...

According to the Washington Post:

• Sen. Dick Durbin refused to apologize Wednesday for comments he made on the Senate floor comparing the actions of American soldiers at Guantanamo Bay to Nazis, Soviet gulags and a "mad regime" like Khmer Rouge leader Pol Pot's in Cambodia.

"If I read this to you and did not tell you that it was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners in their control, you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime—Pol Pot or others—that had no concern for human beings." - Sen. Dick Durbin 06/15/2005

"I hate the Republicans and everything they stand for," former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean told Democrats gathered at a Manhattan hotel, in quotes picked up by the New York Daily News. - Newsmax

The important questions to ask at this point are:

What, exactly, do the Democrats "stand for"?

How do the Democrats get away with destroying our image around the world out of one side of their mouths while complaining that we aren't respected around the world out of the other?

UPDATE: Al Jazeera is off and running with the Durbin story. This is one more example of how the Democrats find themselves aligned with the enemies of America.

Nobody is that dumb...

Is it possible that George Bush is deliberately tanking his second term so that the Clinton/Bush stranglehold on the White House continues in 2008 when Hillary wins the election?

Evidence is piling up, and I just can't shake the notion.

After all, we could be doing a much better job in Iraq if we were willing to crush the enemy instead of providing him with prayer beads and access to reporters from Newsweek or Time.

He utterly refuses to patrol the Mexican border, despite the Minuteman project and the overwhelming data suggesting that an overwhelming majority of Americans don't want our homeland overrun by illegals who come here to bankrupt our social services.

He continues to overspend on socialist programs and huge centralizations of power in nearly every area of American society.

He has chosen to make Social Security his top domestic issue, which is a loser, instead of the Fair Tax plan, which would be a winner. Both are needed, but passage of the Fair Tax plan, combined with the repeal of the 16th amendment, could in and of itself stave off the collapse of social security for decades. On the other hand, social security reform will not make our tax code any simpler or more equitable.

Can the master plan be that George Bush is deliberately trying to make the GOP look so bad that the "swing voters" who decide all elections vote for Democrats on the notion that nothing could be worse than a GOP White House with a GOP Congress?

The bottom line is this: we have had enough of the Bush and Clinton families. Unfortunately, most Americans are spineless partisan hackers who have neither the ability, nor the inclination, to think critically about what our government is doing, and not doing, in our names.

Paul versus the "neocons"...

Perhaps we have a modern day David vs. Goliath, in the form of Ron Paul vs. the GOP.

Here is the text of a speech Ron Paul made yesterday in the United States House of Representatives.

No doubt, most "conservative" media heads will ignore it, or cast him aside with some buzz word like "isolationist" so that his opinion and the truths contained therein are lost in emotional, partisan rhetoric if ever heard at all.

Here are some of my favorite passages:

• Truly defensive wars never need a draft to recruit troops to fight.
• The early calls for patriotism and false claims generate initial support, but the people eventually tire.
• This early support, before the first costs are felt, is easily achieved. Since total victory may not come quickly, however, support by the people is gradually lost. When the war is questioned, the ill-conceived justifications for getting involved are reexamined and found to have been distorted. Frequently, the people discover they were lied to, so that politicians could gain support for a war that had nothing to do with national security.

  These discoveries and disenchantments come first to those directly exposed to danger in the front lines, where soldiers die or lose their limbs. Military families and friends bear the burden of grief, while the majority of citizens still hope the war will end or never affect them directly in any way. But as the casualties grow the message of suffering spreads, and questions remain unanswered concerning the real reason an offensive war was necessary in the first place.

It goes on from there, and clearly Rep. Paul has a firmer grasp on the psyche of the average American than does Rush Limbaugh or Karl Rove who think we are all mindless robots willing to bear unlimited burdens for the mere possibility of Iraqi "democracy".

Overall, Bush's war has turned out to be a failure, and the negative fallout appears to far outweigh some minor benefits that we may have made in the short term.

But as I've said for many months now, until our American homeland is secured from illegal entry at points both North and South, offensive wars in foreign lands cannot serve as preventitive actions vital to our national security strategy.

The 10th Amendment is not dead, yet...

Utah has recently passed a bill which could put their State education system in conflict with the No Child Left Behind bill passed in Washington years ago.

Check out ESR's take on what this all could mean.

How true...

"Programming today is a race between software engineers striving to build bigger and better idiot-proof programs, and the Universe trying to produce bigger and better idiots. So far, the Universe is winning." ~Rich Cook

Would the real 20th hijacker please stand up...

Supposedly, a man named Mohamed al Kahtani who is being held at Gitmo was supposed to be the "20th hijacker" on 9/11.

Up until recently, we had been told that a man named Zacarias Moussaoui was the "20th hijacker".

Why does it seem like whenever the Bush administration gets backed into a corner, or called upon to explain itself, it comes up with weak rhetoric about liberty or some vague reference to the 9/11 attacks?

Does the government actually know who it has at Gitmo and what value these people may provide?

Unclean infidels...

Diana West makes a good point about the "abuse" going on at Gitmo in this opinion piece found on Townhall. Specifically, she points out that by ordering the Marines to handle the Koran in certain specific manners, the US government is essentially accepting and validating the notion that non-Muslims are infidels.

• In effect, then, with its official policy of clean cloves and detainee towels, the United States military is promoting, enabling and accepting the Islamic concept of najis -- the unclean infidel -- a barbarous notion that has helped fuel the bloodlust of jihad and the non-Muslim subjugation of dhimmitude.

Furthermore, why isn't the ACLU protesting the federal government buying Korans and various other religous items for the prisoners in Gitmo?

Mistake acknowledged...

I incorrectly suggested that no Democrat voted to confirm Priscilla Owen last week in the United States Senate.

Actually, Senators Byrd and Landrieux both voted in favor of Ms. Owen.

Government, ACLU, and the internet

Should the government be interfering in the administration of the internet?

The Utah State legistlature has chosen to do just that. According to the Washington Post:

• The state attorney general must create a database of Web sites containing "material harmful to minors."

• Internet service providers must use filters -- checked annually by the Utah Division of Consumer Protection -- to keep children from seeing the sites. ISPs must offer the filters by 2006. If they don't, they risk paying fines up to $10,000 a day.
• Internet content publishers and ISPs would be subject to the state's harmful-to-minors law, which would expose them to felony charges if they violate it.

Here is how the ACLU characterizes the bill on their site:

• The state attorney general must create a database of Web sites containing "material harmful to minors."

• Internet service providers must use filters -- checked annually by the Utah Division of Consumer Protection -- to keep children from seeing the sites. ISPs must offer the filters by 2006. If they don't, they risk paying fines up to $10,000 a day.
• Internet content publishers and ISPs would be subject to the state's harmful-to-minors law, which would expose them to felony charges if they violate it.

The bottom line here is two-fold. One, I am very much opposed to the government regulating or in any way manipulating the content and communication traveling around the internet.

Second, I believe that the obligation to prevent children from viewing objectionable material on the internet lies with the parents.

If the Utah legislature gets its bill through, and it becomes law, the consumers will almost inevitably find higher prices awaiting them in the near future, while the porn peddlers will find ways to avoid being blocked.

When it comes to the internet, the government is way too big and slow to keep up with the speed by which development happens. It's a losing battle, and the government should stick to what it can realistically accomplish as opposed to what it believes it can hypothetically do "for the children".

The Christian left...

According to the folks on the left, there exists a "separation of church and state". When George Bush wants to make the murder of unborn children illegal, or using the power of the State to prevent the judicial homicide of Terry Schiavo, he is accused of trying to create a theocracy. The same goes for Roy Moore and any public office which dares to display a nativity scene at Christmas time.

Couldn't it be fair to say that the socialists who assume power in order to redistribute wealth to the people of their choosing are pushing a religous view point onto America?

After all, abortion isn't even directly discussed in the Bible, yet when the gals at NARAL hold their public events, we hear all about the Christian right wanting to push its views onto everybody else.

On the other hand, taxation and property are discussed all throughout the Bible, yet the Christian left is never charged with attempting a theocracy by playing Robin Hood. The religion of the Christian left says that no person should go without food, shelter nor medical care, and that everybody else is obligated to provide it for those who can not or choose not to do so for themselves.

As a matter of fact, the same could be said for the environmentalists who violate the First Amendment by trying to get all of society to worship the Earth as sacred religous symbols. Instead of applauding the technological advances made by using the resources the Earth offers man, they seek to halt achievements and thereby hinder men in their quest for knowledge and invention.

"Politicians never accuse you of 'greed' for wanting other people's money --- only for wanting to keep your own money." [Joseph Sobran]

Looking in the mirror is difficult...

While the Democrats continually preach that racist Republicans are the cause of black poverty, the real problem is the welfare state. Consider these facts presented by Walter Williams:

• Only 30 to 40 percent of black males graduate from high school.
• Across the U.S., black males represent up to 70 percent of prison populations.
  
  Department of Justice statistics for 2001 show that in nearly 80 percent of violent crimes against blacks, both the victim and the perpetrator were the same race.
• In 1960, only 28 percent of black females between the ages of 15 and 44 were never married. Today, it's 56 percent.
  
• In 1940, the illegitimacy rate among blacks was 19 percent, in 1960, 22 percent, and today, it's 70 percent.
• A study of 1880 family structure in Philadelphia shows that three-quarters of black families were nuclear families, comprised of two parents and children. In New York City in 1925, 85 percent of kin-related black households had two parents. In fact, according to Herbert Gutman in "The Black Family in Slavery and Freedom: 1750-1925," "Five in six children under the age of 6 lived with both parents."

Of course, black kids who don't go to school and wind up in jail don't often learn these facts, so they ignorantly fall for the lies of opportunist politicians who offer up the wealth of productive Americans in exchange for votes every election season.

Unfortunately for Democrats, the truth is coming out as blacks like Thomas Sowell, Star Parker, Bill Cosby, Condoleeza Rice, Clarence Thomas and Janice Rogers Brown emerge into the national spotlight.

President McKinley and Iraq...

When President McKinley decided that the American military should fight the Spanish forces in Cuba, he established a precedent which has carried forth until today.

Under the doctrine he established, Americans have subsuquently died in Korea, Vietnam, Somalia, Iraq, Lebanon, and various other places around the globe, though no clear danger to the American homeland was present.

According to the principles espoused by our founding fathers, the United States government was only supposed to employ the military for the defense of the country when it was under a direct threat.

At the end of the 19th century, our federal government lost its way and began operating outside of the enumerated powers given it via the Constitution.

Once again, the facts of the matter demonstrate why the federal government MUST be restrained to clearly written powers, with any power not explicitly given it retained by the States and/or the People who comprise the Republic.

Williams on Rush...

I wish Walter Williams would fill in for Rush every day.

Anyway, he just said something which triggered another though in my mind.

So often in debate, the socialists counter arguments about cutting welfare and social security by suggesting that fiscal conservatives are seeking a society where the "poor" are forced to be homeless.

However, on the other hand, the socialists reject the notion that everyone who receives welfare is a lazy bum who refuses to work.

Therefore, if both premises are accurate, the American economy is one in which poor people can work hard and try to make good decisions but would still end up living under a bridge if their welfare checks were taken away.

Why is this the case?

The failures of public education, the breakdown of the nuclear family and our collective unwillingness to assert its status as optimal, and the explosion of government services which have ingrained in Americans the notions that personal responsibility is a political slogan instead of a mental approach to the rigors of attendance at the School of Hard Knocks.

Big government in Texas...

A 12 year old girl has been removed from her parents because the parents have expressed their wishes to refuse radiation treatment for their daughter.

If the State cannot prevent a person from murdering a child in utero, according to the fictional Constitutional right to privacy, how in the world can the State step in and mandate radiation treatment?

Being the spouse of a 3-time cancer survivor, including two triumphs over non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, who dealt with radiation, I can attest to the difficulty the treatment inflicts on a fully grown woman, let alone whatever it must do to a child.

Not only do I support the parents in this case, whose right it is to make medical decisions for their minor child, but I must once again point out the conflict of interest between overzealous government bureaucrats and individual liberties. Does the government have an obligation to protect us from ourselves?

White, Christians only...

According to Howard Dean, the party of Colin Powell, Condoleeza Rice, Rod Paige, Clarence Thomas, and Mel Martinez is comprised almost exclusively of white Christians.

Janice Rogers Brown, daughter of a Southern sharecropper has just risen to the level of Justice for the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, which most understand to be the second highest court in America.

The loony left actually believes that Howard Dean is the man to save the Democrat party? This man will singlehandedly provide talk radio its highest ratings ever by virtue of his foot-in-mouth syndrome.

The death of the 4th amendment...

In the emotional aftermath of 9/11, the Congress passed the USA PATRIOT Act. While it expanded federal police powers, I think that only the most extreme civil libertarians were upset over its implications.

As it usually does, the federal government wants to expand its power even more as it continues to trample the Constitution.

According to the Miami Herald,

• "We've got to do everything we can to protect the homeland," Bush told the Associated Builders and Contractors at their conference in Washington. "And we are. We're doing a better job of collecting and analyzing intelligence and sharing intelligence."

Does that include granting power to the FBI to create and execute search warrants with no judicial review?

While conservatives were once in favor of States' rights and limited government, I wonder how any person can support a federal police state which offers Citizens no right to appeal or contest a warrant while mandating them to keep secret the fact that information was demanded by the FBI.

The knee-jerk Bushbots only response is to ask critics how their rights have been violated.

The obvious response now would be: how would we know? How do I know if the FBI has unilaterally obtained by bank or medical records, since my doctor and banker cannot tell me?

Failed policy...

Scads of news stories recently indicate that Hamas appears to be a favorite to win a majority of seats in the Palestinian Parliament. Here is one from the Washington Times (for those who reject everything printed in the MSM).

This presents the administration with an interesting dilemna, given the two following premises.

1. Our mission in Iraq and the larger middle east is to build "democracies"
2. Giving legitimacy to terrorists emboldens them and invites more terrorism
   

Should Hamas win, do we recognize them as the freely elected party, thereby giving them legitimacy?

Or do we ignore them, thereby demonstrating that we support Middle East "democracy" so long as the leaders who get elected are pro-America?

Perhaps President Bush will just change our mission in Iraq once again. Remember, it was once about WMD and the threat to the United States that Saddam Hussein posed through his connection to terrorists.

Freudian slip on social security...

Here is an interesting story I stumbled on accidentally during today's browsing.

• First, despite any propaganda you may have heard, there is no Social Security crisis. The program will be solvent for many years to come. According to last year's Social Security Trustee's Report, the program will be solvent until 2042.
  
  However, this estimate is on the conservative side. In 1994, Social Security was expected to be solvent until 2029. With a healthy, growing economy, one can expect the date of solvency to be pushed back even further.
  
  
• The latest economic figures were just released, and the news is not good.

Which is it? Is the crisis going to be averted because the economy is strong and healthy (a complete contradiction to the Democrat talking points of the past 5 years)?

Or is our economy slipping into a recession/depression, in which case the government will be unable to raise the funds to pay out the promised benefits since nobody will be working and earning income from which the federal government can acquire needed funds to sustain its pay as we go system?

Big government socialists insist that private accounts, like the ones the Congressmen use themselves, are much riskier than the treasury backed bonds which currently comprises the Social Security "trust fund".

If the stock market takes a huge downturn, and millions of Americans lose the savings they had acquired and placed in various stocks or bonds, the federal government will not be able to meet its obligations to pay Social Security payments, so it will be forced to print money and cause inflation.

Either way, government run retirement plans are both unconstitutional and socialist in nature. And in the eyes of Senate Democrats, saying that makes me a member of an extremist group made up of only .1% of all Americans.

Janice Rogers Brown...

Today in the Senate, there is a debate over Judicial Nominee Janice Brown. Should she be confirmed, she will serve on the 11th Circuit Court. That court has direct jurisdiction over Congress, which is precisely why the big government loving Democrats oppose her.

Dick Durbin considers her an extremist because she believes Social Security is a socialist program, and believes that bigger government directly equates to diminishing individual civil rights.

I guess Dick Durbin thinks the American patriots who defeated the British and wrote the Constitution were also extremists.

Senator Schumer believes that judge has no right to push her personal agenda on the People via judicial opinions. Yet he apparently believes that SCOTUS Justice Ginsburg is not similarly an extremist.

Senator Chucky also seems to believe that stare decisis is absolute, and that no subsuquent judge may dissent from existing case law. In that case, I suppose he feels that Brown v. Board of Education was wrong because it overruled Plessy v. Ferguson.

Senator Schister now claims that the "far right" needs extremists like Janice Brown on the court because conservatives cannot win in the arena of public opinion. Does he not know which party finds itself in the minority all across the country? Moreover, he contends that Andrew Sullivan is a conservative. This statement alone demostrates the incompetence of his understanding of the traditional conservatives in America who are desperate to be heard.

Sir, medicare IS a socialist program. Social security IS a socialist program. 2005 America IS about a welfare state in which activist courts and illegal Congressional acts give benefits to People who neither deserve them, nor have any Constitutional right to them.

He concludes by asking Republicans not to "march in lockstep" with President Bush's agenda, but to think for themselves. Which Democrat voted for Priscilla Owen last week? Answer: none.

School uniforms...

Right now on CSPAN-2, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals is hearing a case about a school in California where a student apparently got in trouble for wearing a t-shirt which "offended" some gay students.

Though I suspect the court will rule on the side of the gay mafia, who cannot tolerate criticism of their agenda, I believe the larger point is that public schools should immediately institute a dress code.

No sneakers, no t-shirts, no jeans and no hats. The job of students is to learn, not make political statements on their t-shirts, and not to go to school to participate in a fashion show.

More on medical marijuana...

From the Washington Post:

• The Supreme Court ruled today that states may not enact their own laws allowing medical use of marijuana.

  In a 6-3 decision, the court agreed with the Bush administration that the regulation of controlled substances, including marijuana, is the exclusive province of Congress.

  Eleven states have enacted laws allowing some form of marijuana administration for patients who, in the view of their physicians, might be helped by the drug.

  Backers of medical marijuana argued that such laws were purely local matters, not necessarily subject to federal regulation.

  The Bush administration said that the marijuana trade is part of an interstate market regulated under the Constitution as a form of interstate commerce.

  The court agreed in an opinion written by Justice John Paul Stevens, who said that the Controlled Substances Act of 1970 was a valid exercise of federal power by the Congress "even as applied to the troubling facts of this case."

  He noted that Congress is free to change the law to give the states more flexibility.

  A decision going the other way would have been a major shift in U.S. constitutional law.

Okay, I can see the interstate trafficing issue, and agree that such authority is specifically mentioned in the Constitution.

However, what business of Congress is it if I were to grow some plants in my house for personal use or for sale to my neighbors?

Optimistically, we have 3 Supremes who still may recognize the 9th and 10th amendments as part of the Constitution; those being O'Connor, Rehnquist, and Thomas. Where was the supposedly conservative Scalia on this issue?

Ultimately, this is a losing battle for opponents, because the American people will ultimately realize the futility of the War on Drugs and that marijuana actually can have a positive impact on terminally ill individuals.

I look for this issue to be one of many which rejuvenate the various State legislatures to reassert their power in our Republic. States are rejecting certain provisions in the No Child Left Behind Act. States are complaining about the Patriot Act. States are trying to assert sovereignty in the area of gay-marriage and abortion. Now, States are going to try to be heard when it comes to teh issue of medical marijuana.

For those who believe in the Constitution and its original intent, this decision is a very good thing, though at present it may not so appear.

Nothing happens in a vacuum...

I had a discussion with a vibrant and emotional leftist the other night, and I came away with one of two main thoughts.

One of his main themes was that corporate executives are crushing the American economy by taking such large salaries and bonuses from the company till.

I must say that I agree with the notion that selfish corporate executives are damaging the macroeconomy of this country with their actions.

I was told that the solution to the problems faced by the workers who find themselves closer to the bottom of the economic totem pole than the top was an immediate minimum wage hike. Not the sort of hike proposed by Ted Kennedy or Rick Santorum, which would raise the minimum wage a dollar or two. No, this person thinks the minimum wage should be raised to $15/hour.

I think there are several reasons why the minimum wage actually hurts the lower class people instead of helping them.

First, higher minimum wage laws encourage employers to hire workers who work "under the table" where wage laws don't apply. Many of these "under the table" workers end up being illegal aliens, and I see a direct correlation between the minimum wage and the rate of illegals coming into the country. More illegals mean more hospitals which go out of business, and greater strains on public education, services the lower class workers depend on very heavily.

Second, I tried to make the point that a raise in the minimum wage would lead directly to a corresponding hike in prices. After all, if the cost of producing a product doubles or triples, the cost must go up, according to the most basic economic theory.

Finally, it attempted to explain that some work just isn't really worth $10 or $15 per hour, though he didn't want to hear that, as do most on the left. In reality, the cashiers at Target or the hamburger flippers at Wendy's are supposed to be entry-level jobs designed for young individuals who are just starting out in the work world. Generally, these people are not indebted to car loans, mortgages, children, or other bills. These types of jobs are not meant for parents of children who are trying to support a family. (Though, you can read here how a two-parent family where both work full-time earning minimum wage would not be considered to be living in poverty by the U.S. Dept. of Labor)

Ultimately, the problems of the lower class cannot be solved by government interference in the economy. Only the individuals can do what is necessary to raise themselves up. Employers and corporate executives continue to act in their own best interests, while employees do not. This is the sole reason why the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

Capitalism only works when employees work to become more valuable entities and demand better wages from their employer. Just as the wealthy found ways to get around the imposition of the income tax via corporations, they will find ways to get around labor laws.

While the lower classes are holding their hands out waiting for someone to come along and tell them they are entitled to earn more than the value of the work they perform, they will continue to be the root of their own despair.

Only when individuals make a conscious choice to become more educated, more efficient, more skillful, and more valuable to employers will they actually become more economically stable. Until then, power hungry politicians will be happy to trade votes for some hollow promises based on economic theories that are completely unrealistic.

Socialized medicine...

If you think socialized medicine will work, answer me these questions.

If everybody gets health care, that means that no matter how much a person smokes, overeats, fails to exercise, or rots his body with drugs or alcohol, other Americans are expected to pick up the costs.

How is that right?

This is directly analagous to guaranteeing Americans a job. No matter how late someone shows up to work, or how little work he actually performs, other employees are obligated to accept wages that are too low so that the employer is able to pay the worker who produces little to no work.

Don't both of these scenarios violate the private property rights of employers and workers?

Do you recognize that the time a doctor spends treating a patient is a part of that doctor's life?

Doesn't that mean obligating a doctor to treat a patient means that the doctor becomes a slave to the State?

Dean puts foot in mouth again...

I was watching yesterday when Howard Dean made his now-famous statement alleging that most Republicans have never made an honest living. Here is how USA Today summarizes the latest episode in Howard Dean's recent history in national politics:

• Dean's comment came as he recalled conditions at crowded Ohio polling stations last fall. He wondered who could expect voters to work all day and then stand in line for eight hours to vote. "Well, Republicans, I guess, can do that because a lot of them have never made an honest living in their lives," he said, drawing some surprised "oohs" from his audience.
  
  ...
  
  Tracey Schmitt, spokeswoman for the Republican National Committee, called the "honest living" comment "mudslinging" and scored Dean for attacking the work ethic of "the record number of hardworking Americans who voted for President Bush." Democratic Party spokeswoman Karen Finney said Dean was referring to "Republican politicians and Republican leadership, not hardworking American people."

Dean seemed to suggest that the average Republican voter, and thus the majority of the aggregate number of Republican voters, was someone who has never made an honest living and who has difficulty finding the necessary time for casting a ballot.

Now, any person with a neutral viewpoint can recognize the fact that welfare recipients are much more likely to vote for Democrats. After all, which party keeps promising more government programs, higher minimum wages, and taxpayer funded retirement savings plans?

Overall, I think Howard Dean is ineffective among moderate Democrats, and ultimately I think he will be a major factor in the collapse of the Democrat party.

The most important point to be made in regards to this issue is as follows. Howard Dean and the Democrat party continue to insult the "average" American and insist that Republicans are all rich fatcats who take advantage of the disadvantaged lower and middle class. However, those of us who actually live in the real world that Howard Dean, Ted Kennedy, Chuck Schumer, and Hillary Clinton tell us about every day, we recognize that the majority of Republican voters are very similar to the majority of Democrat voters.

Consider that again. The majority of Republican voters are very similar to the majority of Democrat voters.

We have pets, children, mortgages, cars, bills, jobs, bosses, errands to run, hobbies and families.

Unfortunately, Howard Dean and the Democrat elites want 50.1% of the American voters to believe that Republican voters coast through life on the backs of the rest.

From a purely numerical standpoint, does it really make sense that the majority of Americans relax around their pools, counting bank statements while relying on the minority to do all the actual work everyday, especially when many in the minority are welfare recipients, students or retirees?

If all the men and women actually doing the work on a daily basis in America vote for Democrats, I have to wonder how so few people are able to accomplish so much.

The Realists...

I'm running for president in 2008




I've liked this guy since the early days of L&O.

Union demise...

I've been entertaining myself lately by listening/watching the Campaign for America's Future present its "Take Back America" event.

In keeping with tradition, they have once again laid out for all to see the absolute lack of new ideas to solve America's problems. The usual gaggle of talking heads featured speaker after speaker regurgitating the same old mantra about the virtues of union labor, socialized medicine, multiculturalism, and our failed foreign policies.

One thought stuck in my head, after hearing the 17th speaker blather on about the imminent resurgence of organized labor in America.

Let us look at some labor unions, and where they are today.

Steel worker unions: the American steel industry is virtually extinct. While plenty of blame exists to cover both the union and the owners, I think high labor costs must have contributed to the decisions of owners not to invest in new plants and equipment.

UAW: Ford and GM are at junk bond status, and the market shares of each have been decreasing for decades. What once were global industry leaders are quickly becoming historical footnotes.

NEA: The public schools are in shambles. In an effort to meet the standards of the NCLB act, schools are going to lower their standards even more than they previously had, so that the school can achieve the illusion of academic achievement. Teachers unions seem much more focused on innoculating their members from quality evaluation and free market competition than in actually educating the children in the schools.

Straight out of the communist playbook, and the Communist Goals of 1963 which state:

• 36) Infiltrate and gain control of more unions.

Now, I am not suggesting that once upon a time, labor unions were important and that corporate executives were taking advantage of employees in an extremely egregious manner.

However, I am saying that in 2005, the actual utility of labor unions to the modern American worker has been reduced to essentially nothing.

So long as the Democrat party ties its future to the promition of labor unions, both will edge closer to irrelevance, especially as the only viable alternative seems to be exporting manufacturing businesses to third world countries where slave laborers are exploitable.

As usual, a leftist idea has been turned on its head and has had the exact opposite of its stated intent. Instead of benefiting the American worker and ending the exploitation of workers, the American worker now finds himself with few useful skills, limited job opportunities outside the union, and the transferrence of slave labor from within the United States to outside the reach of the Constitution and the authority of the US government.

Free education for all...

The Campaign for America's Future wants you to feel that all children should be permitted to attend college, regardless the ability of their parents to pay. Specifically, they say:

• The Institute for America’s Future calls on the federal government to increase funding for higher education. Funding should occur in the form of grants and subsidized loans. It is a crime that a Pell Grant covered 84% of college costs in 1974 and now only covers 39%. States must also increase their support for institutions of higher learning, but given the recent financial crisis among states, it is the federal government that must play a lead role in supporting higher education.

In other words, they are socialists who believe in government education as well as some individuals being taxed to pay for the education of other people's children.

Since ability to pay is no longer a valid criteria to determine college eligibility, should aptitude or achievement be used?

Isn't it fair to say that if every kid should be allowed to attend college, whether or not they can pay, then every kid should be allowed to attend Yale whether or not they can pass the rigorous entrance standards?

Rainbow bridge...

Rainbow Bridge

[Thought I'd repost this today for some reason.]

Just this side of heaven is a place called Rainbow Bridge.

When an animal dies that has been especially close to someone here, that pet goes to Rainbow Bridge. There are meadows and hills for all of our special friends so they can run and play together. There is plenty of food, water and sunshine, and our friends are warm and comfortable.

All the animals who had been ill and old are restored to health and vigor; those who were hurt or maimed are made whole and strong again, just as we remember them in our dreams of days and times gone by. The animals are happy and content, except for one small thing; they each miss someone very special to them, who had to be left behind.

They all run and play together, but the day comes when one suddenly stops and looks into the distance. His bright eyes are intent; His eager body quivers. Suddenly he begins to run from the group, flying over the green grass, his legs carrying him faster and faster.

You have been spotted, and when you and your special friend finally meet, you cling together in joyous reunion, never to be parted again. The happy kisses rain upon your face; your hands again caress the beloved head, and you look once more into the trusting eyes of your pet, so long gone from your life but never absent from your heart.

Then you cross Rainbow Bridge together....

Larry and Bill shoot the breeze...

Bill Clinton appeared on the Larry King program last night, and had many interesting comments to make. Here are some of my thoughts after listening to the former President speak.

KING: New book out. I haven't read it yet. It's partly critical, but they ran -- one of the articles was that you want to be secretary-general of the U.N. True?

CLINTON: No. I like the U.N., you know. And I found it interesting working with it. And I tried to make it more efficient and accountable when I was president, in working with the people there. I really am honored to be doing this job for the secretary- general on the tsunami. I'm flattered that some people think I should be.

• Why weren't any of the "critical" issues posed to the former President so he could refute them?

KING: ... What do you make of the Mark Felt story? Is he an American hero?

CLINTON: I think he did a good thing. And I think it's -- it was an unusual circumstance. I think Felt believed that there was the chance that this whole thing would be covered up. Ordinarily, I think a law enforcement official shouldn't be leaking to the press because you should let criminal action take its course.

When he did that, he obviously believed there was a chance that the thing would be covered up. And there was some evidence -- we now know that there was also a problem with trying to use the FBI, and the IRS, and other agencies of the federal government for political purposes back then.

• Of course, there was no sinister use of either the FBI or the IRS during the 90's. In fact, I am relieved to find out that only Republican Presidents abuse the power of their office, while the good Democrats truly respect the office of the President and the associated responsibility that comes along with it.

[responding to a question about Hillary's future]

CLINTON: Yes, and she's good at it, you know? And she's got more patience for it than I think I might have had. I mean, she's really good at it.

• She's really good at what? Winning elections? The art of government? The science of appealing to enough people to get elected while not telling any of them what you really believe?
  
  "The government consists of a gang of men exactly like you and me. They have, taking one with another, no special talent for the business of government; they have only a talent for getting and holding office. Their principal device to that end is to search out groups who pant and pine for something they can't get and to promise to give it to them. Nine times out of ten that promise is worth nothing. The tenth time is made good by looting A to satisfy B. In other words, government is a broker in pillage, and every election is sort of an advance auction sale of stolen goods."[H. L. Mencken]
  

KING: She was a Goldwater Republican.

CLINTON: Yes, but -- she was a Goldwater Republican. And Hillary used to joke with me that Goldwater carried her hometown 3 to 1 and the others thought he was too liberal where she grew up. But you know, and we liked Barry Goldwater a lot.

• A clear attempt to paint Hillary as a moderate Democrat who actually believes in traditional conservative principles, an illusion which I believe is a total fabrication.

CLINTON: ... I mean, you know, this idea that somebody we disagree with on economic or social policy or something we have to turn into some kind of ogre or demon, I think, is a mistake.

• You mean like what your party is doing to Tom DeLay? Or the judicial nominees being sent up by President Bush? Or UN Ambassador nominee John Bolton? Or the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth? Or Trent Lott? Or Rush Limbaugh?

CLINTON: ... Most of the people I've known in politics, by the way, in this country and in other countries, before I became president and when I was in the White House, most of them have been good people. They'd been smart, hard-working, well-motivated, and they pretty well did what they believed was right.

So this image that most politicians are dumb, or lazy, or self- centered, or without conviction is simply not true. Whether they're conservative or liberal, Republican or Democrat, American or foreign, there was the occasional dumb person, the occasional lazy person, and the occasional crook, but they were very rare.

[but then later on...]

CLINTON: ... Working people have to eat more fast food restaurants and they eat out more.

• But, sir, I thought the vast majority of politicians were hard-working people. Are you telling me that the UN bureaucrats spend their lunch meetings in Manhattan at McDonald's?

CLINTON: [responding to a question about the Bush plan regarding the private accounts for a partial replacement to our current Social Security system] ... And we can make it solvent for not very much money.

• Not much money? I'm sorry sir, but most of us "working" folks happen to think that monetary discussions about spending billions of dollars does not fall into the category of "not much money".
  

KING: You supported the president when he went into Iraq. Do you still support him?

• What follows from Clinton is what I believe will be the strategy employed by all Democrats in the next election cycle or two. That is, divert any question about the future of Iraq to a rehashing of the original decision to invade Iraq, then summarize by saying something to the effect of "but we're there now so we have to see this thing through". Of course, Larry King, Katie Couric and the NY Times will never press a Democrat to specifically outline future plans for the next phase of the war in Iraq. [But, that is not media bias. Remember, the media is controlled by the far right.]

The definition of insanity: revisited...

From a CATO report, written by Lawrence Uzzell:

• The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), which the Bush administration claims as its proudest achievement in domestic policy, directly contradicts the principles of an "ownership society," which the administration is promoting in areas such as Social Security reform. The administration recognizes that the educational policies of the last four decades, a period of almost uninterrupted centralization, have failed, but its remedy is yet more centralization.

So according to Bush, the federal government should get out of the retirement savings business, and refocus its efforts on failed federal education policies? Sounds like par for the course...

Separate but equal...

In listening to Bill Simon speaking on C-SPAN at a Heritage Foundation event regarding immigration, a thought came to mind.

He uses the word assimilation often, and cites our failure to require the assimilation of immigrants into American as the real problem at the core of our increasingly factionalized society.

What our grandparents called assimilation, many of them facing it head on as they moved through the channels of Ellis Island, is now known as xenophobia.

Similarly, the same leftists who once fought against the concept of "separate but equal" now seem to champion the idea.

50 years ago, the left pushed for a uniform system of education which offered the same curriculum to all students. All students should be allowed to attend the same school so as to not segregate our youth according to race.

Now, they seem content with ethnically divided neighborhoods comprised of many people who cannot speak English, nor do many wish to learn the native language. Similarly, it is often the children of immigrants who would benefit most by escaping the failing public schools often found in the densely populated immigrant neighborhoods of urban areas in America. But alas, the Democrats oppose school choice, thereby opposing the increase of educational opportunities of the most needy among us.

Instead, we are now being told by the "tolerant" left that ballots and driver's licensing exams should be available in languages other than English. We are told that diversity is good, and that our American culture is of no greater worth than that of the immigrant who comes here in an attempt to escape the culture of his country of origin. (Of course, the leftists never mention why so many people want to come here when their countries and societies are no worse than ours...)

Are modern Democrats now actively promoting the principles behind the famous Plessy v Ferguson decision they once opposed?

Rose colored glasses...

The human mind is a very powerful force, although too many Americans seem willing to abrogate their ability to think to someone else, be it a boss, the government, advertisers, opinion polls, the media, or whomever else.

When individuals make up their mind about something, most become unwilling or unable to objectively consider information which may be contrary to their preconceived notion.

Case in point, those on the right who have made up their mind that George Bush is a good man of pure motives. Love him or hate him, most Americans simply refuse to give credit when it is due while the others refuse to criticize serious errors in judgment or policies which are misguided and potentially disastrous to America.

One of my main gripes with the current adminstration comes from its huge expansion of the federal government to act as a police agency while setting aside the basic civil liberties of Americans to be free from unwarranted search and seizure.

Specifically, I find the TSA to be a slap in the face to hard working Americans who are treated like criminals as they pass through airports day after day.

Similarly, I have major problems with those in the Justice Department who want executive authority to execute search and arrest warrants with no prior judicial review.

The administration has linked 9/11 and the terrorist "threat" into the mission statement or statement of purpose of virtually every federal agency, and because Americans have mostly lost virtually all sense of independence and individualism, most are more than willing to trade liberty for security, or the illusion thereof. Sadly, the administration has failed to connect the dots publicly about the role of the Border Patrol in the "War on Terror" while creating the Department of Homeland Security and the office of the Director of Central Intelligence and staffing each with experienced bureaucrats.

Have I discovered any egregious examples of overzealous federal employees, or any glaring examples of losses of civil rights by individuals? No, however, the number of small examples grows almost daily, each of which relatively insignificant in and of itself, but taken as a whole the picture looks rather grim for the future of individualism and limited government in America.

Do I consider bans on lighters on commercial aircraft to be a major infringement upon my civil rights? Do I consider the suspension of habeas corpus to violate my rights?

No, however incrementalism is a favorite tool of politicians, and I wonder which of our God-given rights will be the next target of the government. After all, most Americans have accepted the notions of federal gun ownership laws, obsessive taxation used for pork spending and income redistribution, limits on free speech during federal electoral campaigns, and 4th amendment violations of suspected criminals.

Whether or not George Bush actually is a "good", God-fearing American who loves his country and respects the Constitution is not the issue.

The real issue comes in the future when someone like Hillary Clinton assumes control over our federal executive branch. Can she be trusted to manage the FBI with its newly invented power to ignore the Constitutional protections of individual Americans?

If the 1990's were any indication of what we can expect from the far-left when it gains control of our federal government, I can only despair at the potential for disastrous policies which will be hoisted upon the People by men and women appointed to power within the various executive agencies and the federal courts.

The march continues...

Will 'big brother' ever get big enough? Will the morality police ever yield?

Grand jury indicts mother who hired stripper for son's birthday party

• Anette Pharris, 34, has been indicted by a grand jury on charges of contributing to the delinquency of a minor and involving a minor in obscene acts. The boy's father, the stripper and two others also face charges.

Every dollar spent prosecuting people like Ms. Pharris is one dollar not available for the pathetically undermanned Border Patrol.

I'd rather have illegal aliens deported than parents like this prosecuted.