Everything Politics

2004-05-26T12:09:00.000-07:00

I haven’t been posting for awhile but I thought I’d come back and give my thoughts on the President’s speech on Monday night. First off, I listened to the speech on the radio and did not watch it on television. I have heard the speech analyzed to death by some of my favorite talk show hosts. Still, I feel I can be impartial in providing my personal thoughts on the speech. In my view, this speech showed the President at this best, half pragmatist, half visionary.

The visionary half of the President is in regards to his view of what a post 9/11 world needs to look like in order to keep America safe. This was the ultimate and, I think, connecting reason for both Afghanistan and Iraq. All the other reasons given by the President were clear and concise. There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein has supported terrorists and has had a burgeoning weapons program for many years. Even though his power may have been dormant at this time, it is clear that he has sought and continues to seek to gain it back at some future event. Leaving him in power after the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington would have been beyond the pale.

But the President’s vision expands beyond this point. The President seems to realize that the only way to stop terrorism is at the source. They need prosperity and freedom. They need democracy. They need what we in America enjoy without question. In fact, they need what we in America take for granted. Many people consider this Pollyannaish but many people felt the goal of total defeat of the Soviet Union was Pollyannaish also and that happened.

This is safe for America specifically because no genuine democracy has ever attacked another one and cutting off state support for terrorism is the best thing the President can do to keep our country safe. Will it work? I don’t know but considering some of the sacrifices in life and treasure our nation has made through the years attempting other far reaching endeavors that have come to fruition, I think the only country who could make it happen is ours.

That being said, the President is also a pragmatist. This is obvious because he has, in effect, begun to move the US towards the semblance of an exit strategy in Iraq. I’m sure that at this point, the President doesn’t know if Democracy will, in fact, work in that nation and he wants to give the country an opportunity to sink or swim. I’m not going to micro-analyze the way the President plans to hand over sovereignty to Iraqi people because I am not someone skilled in the arts of military or diplomacy. I don’t know if this plan will work. I do know that this whole episode has been a learning experience for the United States of America and I hope that we have learned many lessons from it. We are trying to do something that has never been done before. Mistakes have been and will continue to be made. That is the nature of this war which is unlike any we have ever fought before. Good Luck Mr. President! Good Luck America!

2004-05-20T09:25:00.000-07:00

Good Morning everyone (on the West Coast that is!). Not much blogging today. I did want to alert you all to a Bill Cosby Speech given to the NAACP. Cosby is a well known leftist but has occasional bouts with common sense. This may have been one of those times! It's worth checking out. Be back later!

2004-05-19T12:54:00.000-07:00

Thanks to James Taranto's Best of the Web column. Here is a fantastic blog listing the Good News in Iraq.

2004-05-19T10:29:00.000-07:00

Frank Gaffney writes this today:

It is now safe to conclude as well that Saddam bequeathed a frightening legacy to post-liberation Iraq: the Weapons of Mass Destruction still at large in Iraq. The alternative thesis – namely, that the only two WMDs left in the entire country were employed in the (fortunately) failed IED attacks involving sarin and mustard gas conducted in recent days – is preposterous on its face.

Seems pretty obvious to me!

2004-05-19T10:13:00.000-07:00

Walid Phares has an excellent piece about the reaction in the Arab world to the Prison Scandal. Here is my favorite quote from this column:

In Beirut, amazement was mostly about George W. Bush addressing Arab TV. Lebanese were certainly disgusted by the aired images but they were stunned by the fact that a U.S. President was "talking" to Arab citizens. The region is infested with worse ugliness than the prison scandal, yet no one can remember any Arab leader addressing his people about abuse.

"Our dictators never showed up on any media, at anytime, for any picture" said many Syrians, "despite 28 years of horrors in their detention centers." Thousands of citizens were tortured in al Mazza, the Syrian equivalent of Abu Ghraib, yet no one lifted a finger. Many in the region have their own horror pictures, but who will publish them as long as no Americans were involved?

Dr. Phares ends the column with this thought:

Maybe the evil done to prisoners in Iraq, will uncover the wider evil in the whole region?

2004-05-19T09:50:00.000-07:00

The Scandal coming out of Iraq continues to expand. Why, pray tell, isn't the UN Oil for Food scandal making more Arabs angry than the Iraqi prison scandal? Could it be that this scandal does not involve Americans and people who report directly to George W. Bush? Could it be that this scandal serves as a very real reason why the French and the Russians didn't go along with us on this war? Cladia Rosset has been a one woman recking ball on this one and will probably write a book about it. Here is her latest column.

2004-05-19T09:46:00.000-07:00

Tech Central Station has a pretty great article by James Pinkerton today. Pinkerton isn't always as solid a "conservative" as many people would like. It seems like he may have sold his soul to be a part of the Washington and New York City cocktail parties. He finds a similarity between 1988 (Bush-41 v Dukakis) and this year. It's an excellent article and makes many good points. By the way, Tech Central Station is worth looking at from time to time.

2004-05-19T01:01:00.000-07:00

Well, all. I'm new at this blogging thing so please bear with me until I get my feet wet here. Let me know what you think (or even that you are reading!) by emailing me at GmbyMan@aol.com! Thanks!

2004-05-19T00:55:00.000-07:00

The Washington Post has an article today entitled US Faces Growing Fears of Failure. Is the American press rooting agains the US in the war on terror? I'm serious about this. There have been enough signs of good news in this fight in Iraq and elsewhere that this title could easily be written another way. I am certain that the less savvy of Americans looks at this every day and just wishes we would give up and get out. That is exactly the wrong way to look at this situation but it is exactly what the Washington Post and others would like us to do.

Look, I have no problem with people reporting on the facts as they see them and there are negative signs coming out of Iraq. Clearly, the prison scandals are negative but that isn't reason to abandon the country to civil war, is it?

I am convinced that THIS war in Iraq IS the war on terror. We are not just fighting Iraqi insurgents but we also fighting the Iranian, the Syrians, al Q'aida and other terrorist types. We are in this and we need to win. Even suggesting facing failure does nothing to help the cause.

2004-05-19T00:45:00.000-07:00

President Bush's biggest fan, John Podhoretz of the New York Post suggests that President Bush make the bold move of expanding the number of troops in the military and in Iraq. I'm inclined to agree with him. I believe our country has the capacity to increase the size of troop strength in the military by 25-35%. I don't think a draft is a good idea but they could increase their recruitment goals. Do it!

2004-05-19T00:35:00.000-07:00

This man is Manmohan Singh.

According to the AP, he is the new Prime Minister of India. Based on the story, he seems far better than Sonia Ghandi, who was slated to take the post but decided against it. India is the model in the under developed world for moving towards Democracy. It is always a good idea to watch what's going on there.

2004-05-19T00:32:00.000-07:00

The New York Times keeps up their attempt to keep the public interested in Abu Ghraib today in this article today. Maybe it's just me but why, exactly, is the Red Cross the major authority on the Iraqi prison scandal? That seems somewhat odd to me. If someone could let me in on this, I'd appreciate it!

2004-05-19T00:27:00.000-07:00

Bill Safire can be a grumpy old man. Today, however, he has written with his usual high level of credibility about Iraq in the New York Times. Here is the whole column and copyright below:

May 19, 2004
OP-ED COLUMNIST
Sarin? What Sarin?
By WILLIAM SAFIRE

You probably missed the news because it didn't get much play, but a small, crude weapon of mass destruction may have been used by Saddam's terrorists in Iraq this week.
The apparent weapon was sarin gas, a highly toxic nerve agent that causes victims to choke to death. Developed by the Nazis, it has been used in the past by terrorists in Japan to kill a dozen subway riders and panic thousands, and by Saddam Hussein, who produced tons of it to kill Iraqi Kurds.
Rigged as an "improvised explosive device," or roadside bomb, the 155-millimeter howitzer shell was accidentally detonated by a U.S. ordnance team. Two men were treated for what an Army spokesman called "minor exposure" to the nerve gas.
You never saw such a rush to dismiss this as not news. U.N. weapons inspectors whose reputations rest on denial of Saddam's W.M.D. pooh-poohed the report. "It doesn't strike me as a big deal," said David Kay.
"Sarin Bomb Is Likely a Leftover From the 80's" was USA Today's Page 10 brushoff; maybe the terrorists didn't know their shell was loaded with sarin. Besides, say our lionized apostles of defeat, a poison-gas bomb does not a "stockpile" make. Even the Defense Department, on the defensive, strained not to appear alarmist, saying confirmation was needed for the field tests.
In this rush to misjudgment, we can see an example of the "Four Noes" that have become the defeatists' platform.
The first "no" is no stockpiles of W.M.D., used to justify the war, were found. With the qualifier "so far" left out, the absence of evidence is taken to be evidence of absence. In weeks or years to come — when the pendulum has swung, and it becomes newsworthy to show how cut-and-runners in 2004 were mistaken — logic suggests we will see a rash of articles and blockbuster books to that end.
These may well reveal the successful concealment of W.M.D., as well as prewar shipments thereof to Syria and plans for production and missile delivery, by Saddam's Special Republican Guard and fedayeen, as part of his planned guerrilla war — the grandmother of all battles. The present story line of "Saddam was stupid, fooled by his generals" would then be replaced by "Saddam was shrewder than we thought."
This will be especially true for bacteriological weapons, which are small and easier to hide. In a sovereign and free Iraq, when germ-warfare scientists are fearful of being tried as prewar criminals, their impetus will be to sing — and point to caches of anthrax and other mass killers.
Defeatism's second "no" is no connection was made between Saddam and Al Qaeda or any of its terrorist affiliates. This is asserted as revealed truth with great fervor, despite an extensive listing of communications and meetings between Iraqi officials and terrorists submitted to Congress months ago.
Most damning is the rise to terror's top rank of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who escaped Afghanistan to receive medical treatment in Baghdad. He joined Ansar al-Islam, a Qaeda offshoot whose presence in Iraq to murder Kurds at Saddam's behest was noted in this space in the weeks after 9/11. His activity in Iraq was cited by President Bush six months before our invasion. Osama's disciple Zarqawi is now thought to be the televised beheader of a captive American.
The third "no" is no human-rights high ground can be claimed by us regarding Saddam's torture chambers because we mistreated Iraqi prisoners. This equates sleep deprivation with life deprivation, illegal individual humiliation with official mass murder. We flagellate ourselves for mistreatment by a few of our guards, who will be punished; he delightedly oversaw the shoveling of 300,000 innocent Iraqis into unmarked graves. Iraqis know the difference.
The fourth "no" is no Arab nation is culturally ready for political freedom and our attempt to impose democracy in Iraq is arrogant Wilsonian idealism.
In coming years, this will be blasted by revisionist reportage as an ignoble ethnic-racist slur. Iraqis will gain the power, with our help, to put down the terrorists and find their own brand of political equilibrium.
Will today's defeatists then admit they were wrong? That's a fifth "no."

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company | Home | Privacy Policy | Search | Corrections | Help | Back to Top

2004-05-19T00:17:00.000-07:00

Looks like it's sarin gas! Wonder what the "Bush Lied!!!!!" People will come up with now.

2004-05-19T00:08:00.000-07:00

Lately, I have been bugged. I'm not really sure if the President can do anything about it, but his critics have been teeing off on him. There is a bevy of good economic news. The economy was bound to return to form at some point and I am happy that we saw massive job increases in both March and April (and will again in May). Still, no one talks about this massively booming economy in a positive manner. Instead, it’s all doom and gloom about gas prices. I have to drive up and down the hill to work myself so I can relate. I hate having to spend $35.00 to fill up my tank; but the high gas prices are, in part, a side effect of growing economy. I have more to say but it is late now. I’ll try to blog first thing in the morning!

2004-05-19T00:04:00.000-07:00

Hello All. I am back again and will once again attempt to begin updating this more often. Sorry for the long pause between posts. I have a busy life and am trying to work through it. I'll try to post at least one thing a day (or at least, four or five things a week) to this blog as I find interesting facts while perusing the 'net. Thanks for your patience. All zero of you who read.

2004-02-02T01:27:00.000-08:00

Hi everyone. My latest college class is coming to an end and I will have time in the next coming days to post something new to the blog. BTW, anybody else find it interesting that Howard Dean has self destructed so thouroughly in the Democrat race for President? Didn't think so. While I still see George W. Bush as a winner in November, I have to admit that I am more scared of Kerry (for a variety of different reasons) than I was of Dean. Not only does Kerry make for a better candidate. He'd also be a worse President. He is little more than a Massachusetts Socialist. More on this as time goes on.

I think Kerry probably already has the nomination sewn up but what occurs on Tuesday will go a long way towards determing this for sure. Kerry is supposedly winning in at least four of the states. I think a Kerry clean sweep on Tuesday, ends the nomination process. If Kerry wins, outright, at least five, Edwards will probably hand around for a short time before conceding. If Kerry only wins four (or less), the race is still on.

2003-11-21T15:20:00.000-08:00

OK. Here goes. Earlier this year there was a big time hubbub over whether President Bush lied to get us into the war.

Now, I'm not completely convinced that the President and his advisors didn't believe the somewhat more sketchy information about uranium in Africa simply because they were personally convinced that we needed to go into Iraq and depose of Saddam Hussein (something which I agree with and can't say I wouldn't have done the same thing as the President did).

Now, in the end, it turns that the statement wasn't a lie but it was, perhaps, a slight stretching of the truth. I think that, in retrospect, the President and his advisors should have been more diligent in removing this from the speech.

That stated, the complete and idiotic eruption by the mainstream press (and by mainstream, I mean Tom Brokaw, Tim Russert, Chris Matthews, George Stephanapolous and all others who are not related to FOX and) was complete overkill and telling considering the lack of a story that the recent leaked memo from the CIA to Stephen Hayes of the Weekley Standard. The article states that the CIA found evidence of a working arrangement between Bin Laden's Al Q'aeda and Hussein's Baathist regime dating all the way back to 1990! Now, there are a couple of interesting things of note about this leaked memo.

For starters, the administration has been very cautious not to make a big deal out of it.... yet. Secondly, the press hasn't really mentioned it as of yet, though Newsweek did a big write up on it in an effort to dismiss the whole report as junk (to which Hayes has responded)

But for now, all I recommend is that people go and read the article. It makes a compelling case that there was a very real connection between Bin Laden and Hussein that should be looked into a lot closer than it has so far. The press is missing the boat on this one. The smoking gun may have just arrived.

2003-11-21T14:53:00.000-08:00

Hi all. I haven't been around for awhile as I have been attending school and moving into my new house. I am going to try to post at least one thing a day from here on out.

2003-08-02T23:59:00.000-07:00

I'll try to post something tomorrow evening but I can't guarantee anything. Life events take precedence!

2003-08-02T23:57:00.000-07:00

Hello all! Well, I suppose there's a possibility someone's reading this. Who knows! Who cares! I mean, blogging is kind of a sycophantic thing for a person to do anyway! Anyhow, I'm in the middle of a long stretch of working right now. Believe it or not, this is the weekend I work both Saturday and Sunday... which means..... CHA CHING!!!!! Woo Hoo.... $$$$$$. Ok, now that that's done (I am a greedy Republican, right, I'm supposed to get happy when I start rolling in dough, no?), let me just point out that the economy is starting it's upward descent.... As the tax cuts begin to kick in this Summer (followed by very large ones starting next year) it is going to take off like a rocket. 2.4% growth in the second quarter isn't bad and we are going to see the job market respond. I'll admit that this isn't the first time I've predicted this and I've been wrong before but there never has been a time in our nations history where rather large tax cuts (like the ones put into place by President Bush) haven't resulted in a booming economy for longer than the business cycle would normally allow it to boom. The economy has been on strong footing ever since Ronald Reagan cut taxes in 1981 and the President's tax cuts will probably extend that through 2010 or beyond. Thank God the people have had the foresight to elect Republicans!

2003-07-31T09:53:00.000-07:00

Speaking of the freedom hating People for the American Way (link below, I'm not going to post another way for these slimes, what a name, BTW), according to the Wall Street Journal Washington DC mayor, Anthony Williams, who favors vouchers in the district, is being slapped down by Ralph Neas. Neas wrote a letter to Mayor Williams when Mayor Williams agreed to meet with the pro-voucher American Legislative Exchage Council. Neas' letter to Williams, who is a democrat, states that "The Real Impact of School Choice" would lend a "veneer of bipartisan respectability to a group whose goals are destructive to the public interest and the people you serve."

In other words, "Mister Mayor, we are Democrats and as such as committed to large government solutions to problems and job security for teacher's unions. By suggesting a movement towards free market solutions to the school crisis in Washington DC instead of bitching and moaning about the 'lack of educational funding' and 'class size', you have left the Democrat plantation."

The Republican Party should really look at this voucher situation in Washington DC as an oppurtunity that we, unlike the Sociocrats, are more interested in teaching kids in inner schools than making sure certain incompetent teachers are able to travel to Bermuda every year on their three month vacations!!!

2003-07-31T08:11:00.000-07:00

For the purposes of those who do not know me, let me express my personal opinion on abortion. I believe abortion should be illegal except when the woman's life is in danger but I also think the legality of the procedure should be left up to the states. When nine un-elected clowns in robes on the Supreme Court usurped the legislative process by making abortion legal in all 50 states under Roe V Wade, they performed a bit of judicial activism which it is a shame has been allowed to stay on the books now for 30 years. I do not want the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v Wade so that abortion is illegal in all 50 states either. I believe there are places (the bible belt south, for instance) where abortion is an abomination and the largest sector of the electorate will vote to keep it illegal. On the other hand, it will probably always be legal in New York, California and many other states in the nation. I really don't have a problem with this though I will continue to support those that wish to fight to change people's minds on this process and make it an illegal procedure. I also think each state should make it's own laws regarding things like:

2nd and 3rd trimester (so called partial birth abortion) rules.
Parental Notification
Waiting periods
Education

We have seen a genocide for the last 30 years and it didn't have to be that way. This could have been handled on a state by state basis, such as the death penalty has been decided. When Roe V Wade is overturned, it will be a great day for justice in our nation!

2003-07-31T08:00:00.000-07:00

Hello all (all two or three of your that read this site!). I wish to bring your attention to this article from National Review's Byron York on the continuing judicial fight. It appears that the Democrats have added a third judge to their filibuster file in William Pryor the present Attorney General from Alabama and a nominee for the circuit court of appeals. He follows Pricilla Owens and Miguel Estrada in not being allowed a vote on the floor of the whole house by the obstructionist Democrats in the U.S. Senate. York, who is a conservative and in favor of these justices being confirmed, believes that the Republicans in the Senate, buoyed by a new campaign from the right wing Committee for Justice to portray the Senators on the judicial committee as anti-catholic for voting against AG Pryor, have crossed a line and are now playing the same games played by the Democrats.

If you read the article, you'll see what I mean and it is worth reading. York is a fantastic writer but in my view he is wrong on this. It is, in fact, true that if a person is a pentinent catholic, such as is AG Pryor, they are likely to be voted against by the Democrats who are in the back pocket of the abortion industry. The fact is that AG Pryor believes abortion is wrong. He believes this is the case on religious grounds but he also believes that Roe v Wade is wrong on constitutional grounds. People like Senator Charles Schumer seem to imply that he only believes the second thing above because of his belief in the first thing above. That is, he only believes it is unconstitutional because his religion tells him that the procedure in wrong. It is thinking like this that makes me believe that, whether intended or not, the Democrats on the Senate judicial committee have installed a religious test on the nominees.

I am happy that the committee for justice have taken this tact. It is a tact employeed regularly by the terrible, left wing People for the American Way and it is effective. Republicans are too damn nice to do things like this but they need to understand that this is the only way they are going to win this fight. They need to get down in the mud and fight for that in which they believe. The ends (getting strong conservative, scrict constructionist judges confirmed) DOES justify the means. Time to stand up and fight, boys (and girls!).

2003-07-30T09:27:00.000-07:00

I will be back either tonight or tomorrow but in the meantime I want to point you to the most commen sense conservative on the talk radio circuit today. Michael Medved is an observant jew with very eclecticly conservative viewpoints which are drawn from both the "religious right" and "libertarian" wings of the Republican party. I consider myself a member of the "libertarian" wing but I have sympathy for the "religious right" wing. Consider how many "wings" the Democrat Party has, I am glad that our party really only has two. Anyway, God Bless America and pray for our troops and our President!

2003-07-30T08:21:00.000-07:00

Anti-War Clown Continues to Lead Pack Amongst Democrats

Not safe to vote Democrat!

According to this story in the New York Post, Howard Dean now appears to be in a statistical dead heat in New Hampshire with John Kerry. In many ways, this is different than when John McCain defeated then governor George W. Bush in New Hampshire. Bush was assured to win South Carolina and be the big winner on Super Tuesday because of his southern roots. There are no strong southern candidates in this field. I expect Howard Dean to finish a strong second, or even first, in the Iowa caucas followed by a possible win in New Hampshire. At that point, he will become the Democrat nominee for President. I didn't think it could be done but President Bush's likely landslide will become a reality.

2003-07-30T08:01:00.000-07:00

Thank God He wasn't President on 9/11
Tax raising and Soft on Terrorism

Many Democrats are completely disenchanted with their choices for President (the so called "9 dwarfs") that they are attempting to pressure Al Gore into running for President in 2004.As a supporter of President Bush, I say, let him try. He won't, of course, because he knows he would lose. It does set up an interesting potential primary battle in 2008 in the Democrat field or Gore vs Clinton (Hillary, that is) though there are some who believe that Hillary will run in 2004. Like Gore, I don't believe the President has anything to worry about from Clinton and I'd like to see her run. In the meantime, I think it's just speculation not to concentrate on those who are running.

2003-07-29T15:40:00.000-07:00

Texas Democrats Pussy Foot out of State Again!!!!!

OK, so let me get this straight. In Texas, Democrats would rather flee the state than face the consequences that the VOTERS have placed in front of them. Consider this, Texas is the home to the President of the United States that fanatical leftists call the most conservative President in history. They have a fully Republican state legislature, a Republican governor and Lietenant Governor who won by landslides and two Republican Senators. Despite this fact, their Representatives in the House of Reprentatives are majority Democrat. Now, the people who control the state of Texas want to change this by re-drawing the state district lines. A perfectly reasonable suggestiong but rather than taking their medicine these asinine Democrats have just left the state for the second time!!!! If this isn't proof of the lack of trust that the Democrat Party has in you, the voter, nothing is.Remember, the Democrat Party is the party of the elite, not the working man. They are the ones who don't wish to play by the rules and if you read the story linked to above you will see that once again, they are relying on the courts to back them up. What a bunch of jokes. What scares me is that they may succeed in this endeavour. Remember, call on your elected officials to follow the rules. The best way to do this is by voting "R" in the booth!

2003-07-29T15:16:00.000-07:00

Howard Dean proposes to cancel your tax cuts!!!!!
Tax And Spend Leftist!!!!!

Alright so I'm trying for some hate mail from some left wing Dean lovers. BTW, if you wish to tell me what your pseudo marxist/socialist idiot candidate is going to do to drive our country's future into the sea, feel free to Email at the link to the right! I cherish hearing from you if you are a Dean-Leftist. I do hope he wins the Sociocrat nomination as I believe that despite my misgivings, President Bush is the best man for the job in America and wacko idiots like Howard Dean need to be sent to the McGovern/Mondale/Dukakis scrapheep of history. Run Dean run. Whenever news of some position Howard Dean comes up with, I will assure you that I will come on this website just in time to ridicule that position. Bring it on, Howard "the socialist Duck" Dean!

2003-07-29T14:38:00.000-07:00

This is from Nicholas Kristoff at the New York Times today:

I argued against invading Iraq, but Liberia presents a much more compelling case for intervention. The difference is not that Saddam slaughtered at most 1 percent of his population over the last 14 years, while Liberian warfare has killed more than 6 percent of its population so far. Nor is it that rescuing Liberia would bolster our international stature rather than devastate it.

No, the crucial differences lie elsewhere. First, Liberia has an urgency to it that Iraq did not: people are being hacked apart daily in Liberia, and if we do nothing, the conflict may spread across West Africa. Second, success can be more easily accomplished in Liberia, using just 1 or 2 percent of the number of troops we have in Iraq, mostly because Liberians desperately want us to intervene.

OK, so I get it Mr. Kristoff, even though we were technically still at war with Iraq. Even though we knew Iraq had (has?) weapons of mass destruction that they never destroyed openly. Even though we knew that Iraq had an attachment to terrorists, the case for invading Liberia where none of the above is happening has an "urgency". Perhaps to people in Africa but how does that affect the United States whom the marines are supposed to be fighting to protect!!!!

I am not a hawk on all issues but believe the U.S. military should only be used to protect and promote the interests of the United States and while overturning a despot like Charles Taylor wouldn't be the worse thing, we can't be the world's police force either and President Taylor really never has done anything to harm the interests of the United States of America except being an asshole (and a murdering one at that). Let them deal with their own problems. We have to keep a closer eye on Syria, Iran and North Korea. We should end the Fidel Casto regime in Cuba which bears a much stronger threat to the United States than Charles Taylor in Liberia.

Stop the invasion of Liberia Mr. President!!!!!!

2003-07-29T14:11:00.000-07:00

Running Again

Bill Simon has drawn papers to run for Governor against Gray Davis in the recall election. I happily supported Simon in last year's governor's race against Gray Davis and consider him a good choice to run against Barbara Boxer for Senator but I believe we need to elect someone who doesn't appear to have any higher aspirations and who would have no problem with being politically dead after three years. That person needs to be a true believer who will cut the fat in this state! Cut it out like a piece of prime rib. There is only one man for that job. His name is Tom McClintock. Support McClintock and send him money here.

2003-07-29T13:00:00.000-07:00

Typical Republican Pandering???

Telling them what they want to hear?

OK. Let's start with President Bush's Address to the Urban League. I am not counted on the list of people who wish to write off the black vote and as such I am in favor of some sort of outreach to black America. I think that within ten years, such a constant bombardement by conservatives towards black America could net a Republican president up to 30% of the black vote. The important part of this is that we do not pander to blacks by offering them "Democrat-Lite". We can not out "social program" the left and as such we will need to use the usual conservative tactic of preaching two things, empowerment and responsibility... aka freedom with consequences. The Republican message is that blacks need to do more things without government support and in return, the government will not try to take away their freedom and will do everything they can to bolster that freedom; however, if said blacks screw up (having a child out of wedlock, getting pregnant when aren't ready to have a baby, committing a crime, not being prepared when a job is lost), you have to deal with it on your own without help from the government.

This can have a very positive effect on the black psyche if you think about it. More police and expanding the right to bear arms in inner cities will go a long way towards keeping law abiding blacks from becoming victims (but it will also mean more black criminals will be placed in jail). Disempowering and dismantling the welfare state will mean that the incentive towards welfare and government dependency in the inner cities will be lessoned thus causing more blacks to be independent and not tied down by the government, but it will also mean the reliance on charities if you do become needy. I could keep going but you get the drift.

I applaud President Bush for reaching out to slightly less marxist leaning black organization like the Urban League instead of the utterly divisive NAACP. I also think that it was right for him to focus on those things that are the strengths of the Republican platform, School Choice, Tax Cuts, National Security. Having stated that, though, I took issue with this paragraph:

And as the economy expands, we've got to help Americans who find the greatest difficulty finding work. So I have proposed what we call re-employment accounts. The job-seeker would have an account up to $3,000 for job training or child care or transportation, or relocating to get a new job in a new city. If a worker find a new job quickly, within 13 weeks, he or she gets to keep the balance of the cash as a re-employment account. (Applause.) Congress needs to put this plan in effect. Congress needs to help those who are having trouble finding work.

Excuse me?!? So now on top of normal unemployment insurance we are going to be handing out $3,000 for child care and living expenses? Why do we provide for unemployment insurance? And what about asking people to exhaust their savings and live below their means if they are in an insecure job? We need to move away from handouts and people like President Bush have the support of people like me who wish to move away from those handouts.

Of course, I still adore the President but I have read the entire transcript from the President's speech and found that he didn't mention:

The positive effects of the 1996 welfare reform act in urban centers in our country including the moving of more people (often people "of color")off the welfare rolls and onto the work rolls. Coupled this with the arresting of out of wedlock births.
A moverments towards stopping crime in the inner cities with an empasis on locking up criminals, putting more police on the streets and arming law abiding citizens.
The terrible scourge of abortion and the fact that (planned parenthood founder)Margaret Sanger's original idea to use abortion to committ genocide against the black community has been coming true.
The fact that under the tax cuts of the 1980's, blacks benefitted even more than whites did and will benefit again under President Bush's tax cuts.
The need for the black community to strongly back Social Security private accounts to allow the black community to keep the wealth they have created to pass it on to their descendents instead of losing the money when they die. This is especially key because blacks, on average, have a slightly lower life span than whites and often pay more than whites into the social security system.

This is just a start but I think the President of the United States is the perfect spokesperson for moving the self sufficient black away from the "keep them all on the dole" Democrat Party and moving them towards the Republican Party. What we need to do is stop pandering and trying to hand out one program after another and trying to appeal to people who might agree with us instead of telling them that we "sort of" agree with them. We just don't do that as well as the left.

2003-07-29T12:58:00.000-07:00

Hello all. I'm back to give my perceptions of the world of politics. First, though, I wish to alert you to the play of both of my scoresheet baseball teams. They are both in first place!!!! My AL team is now 6 games up it's division and well on it's way to the playoffs. I probably have my work cut out for me in the playoffs in this league as the two other playoff bound teams are probably better than mine right now and I'll need some luck to win but stranger things have happened. My NL team is now up by 8 games!! They seem to have more of a chance at winning the league title. If you want to know more, feel free to EMail me at GmbyMan@aol.com

2003-07-29T00:12:00.000-07:00

Hello all, I'll be back with a whole bunch of new posts tomorrow. Sorry that it has been so long but I don't have to work tomorrow so everything is going to come out like vomit on this page! OK, perhaps that was a bad analagy! Anyway, there is a lot to talk about. See you then!

2003-07-25T09:05:00.000-07:00

I won't be posting anything until late Sunday at the earlist. I'm off to spend the weekend with my wife and son at my parents' house in Arizona. I hope all that are attending the Sacramento "Dump Davis" hoedown have a fun time! I really wish I could go but, alas, family matters take precedence. I'll be back soon!

2003-07-24T09:17:00.000-07:00

Michael King~ Great Man~ King of the Blogs

Michael King is well known as the most combative and interesting black conservative among the many who post and lurk at Free Republic. If you read his blog daily (or whenever it is posted) you will see his views on everything both racial and non racial in the world. He is a God fearing conservative and a believer in individual rights. He believes (as I do) that with some time, energy and a whole lot of money, Republicans can convince black men and women that conservatism is right for them. With people like Mr. King on the case, I have to believe it can be done!

2003-07-24T09:07:00.000-07:00

Alright, I finally got the Free Republic list of blogs up on the side of the page! With much thanks to Seamole for helping me with the formatting. I've really only just started to learn HTML and it isn't easy to figure out how to do certain things when you try it the first time. Anyone, please be sure to check out at least one of the side blogs every day. They are worth reading and by doing so, you will help to advance the cause of freedom. OK, perhaps that seems a little too idealistic and lofty but there is no doubt that leftist blogs extolling the virtues of Howard Dean and Noam Chomsky are all over the net and blogs like mine and others on the side roll are the only way to combat the anti-freedom left.

2003-07-24T08:17:00.000-07:00

Good Morning everyone. Can someone explain to me at GmbyMan@aol.com why the House of Representatives would reject the FCC's new rules for TV station ownership? This could lead to President Bush's first veto (it's about damn time!). For the first time, is President Bush to the right of Congressional Republicans? What else could this be. I am in favor of the rules such as I know what they are. If you can give me a detailed reason why this happened, email me @ GmbyMan@aol.com.

2003-07-24T00:47:00.000-07:00

BTW, did I happen to mention that the Governor of my great state is being recalled in a special election? What, you didn't hear? Yeh, Yeh, it's probably even at the top of the news in Baghdad! Anyway, I've decided to throw my support behind this man:

Tom McClintock

I consider Arnold Schwarzenegger and Richard Riordan both potentially tax and spend liberal Republicans. Bill Simon already lost and Darrell Issa seems to have some real ethical problems. So I like Tom. He got the most votes of any Republican in the state last time out in his run for State Controller. No, he didn't win but he got close. I have faith in his ability to cut the fat out of this budget and make this work with little or no tax increases. You can find out more about Tom McClintock or make a donation here.As you can see, he is already front and center in the attempt to repeal the illegal car tax that was levied against the people of California. We need to elect this man!

2003-07-24T00:27:00.000-07:00

Today on Adam Bishop's blog, he talked about Charlie Rangel's commentary on Hannity and Colmes that the "assasinations" of Uday and Qusay Hussein were illegal under the American law that prohibits our assinating leaders in other countries. What the hell is this guy, Rangel, talking about. Consider this, I have heard that Rangel is THE most powerful Socialist (er... Democrat) in New York state. Moreso than Senators Schumer or Clinton or anyone! If you are a leftist in the state of New York, how can you tolerate this joke leading your caucus? Or perhaps you agree with him? If so, email me @ Gmbyman@aol.com and let me know why it was illegal to kill these two slimeballs. I only wish they suffered more. They got off easy.

2003-07-24T00:14:00.000-07:00

As soon as I can figure out how to do it, I'm going to have a list on the side here of other blogs that I like, beginning with other blogs on Free Republic.Com. Below is a list of those blogs:
Adam Bishop
A Guy Named Rob
Alphabet City
The Angry Clam
Anna Z.
Ben's Views
Blogolution
The Blog That Care Forgot
Brazos Cantina
The Buzz Blog
Cathryn Crawford
Chad Fairbanks
Federal Review
Gary Cruse
Imal
MHGinTN
Michael King
Regnum Crucis
Redcloak's Romper Room
Republican Rants
Seamole
Southack
Sparta
The View from Arlen
William McKinley

2003-07-23T11:48:00.000-07:00

I've been busy lately with my life outside of cyberspace so I apologize if anyone is actually reading this. I did want to comment on a couple of quotes from leftists that I just finished reading from the Federilist Chronicle:

"You think you are
big enough, you little wimp, why don't you make me. I dare
you. You little fruitcake, you little fruitcake. I said you
are a fruitcake." -Pete Stark-Democrat, California

Do the reflexively democrat homosexuals know that a leader in their own midst speaks this way? As I mentioned previously, I have been reading Ann Coulter's new masterpiece, Treason, and I found that gay baiting was the rule of the day in the days of McCarthy. Apparently, McCarthy's assisstent, Roy Cohn, was an in-the-closet homosexual. This was mentioned several times by people who's goal it was to attack McCArthy. I'm not quite sure what Cohn's activities in the bedroon have to do with the activities of communists in the state department and elsewhere in government life but apparently it was a big deal to the left at the time. Stark keeps it up proving leftist Democrats haven't changed much in 50+ years. Quite "progressive", no?

"This recall (of California Gov. Gray Davis) by the
Taliban element of the Republican party will be defeated whenever
it is held." -California Democrat strategist Bob Mulholland

Why is this such a California tale? Anyhow, let me point out to Mr. Mulholland that there is no "Taliban element of the Republican Party". The proof of this is the overwhelming support for the United States' efforts to remove the REAL taliban by Republicans. In fact, if you examine closely who were opposed to this effort, you will find many more Democrats who felt this campaign was not an appropriate one. I could name a few of them if Mr. Mulholland would like. Give me one (JUST ONE!) Republican who believes in Sharia. Give me one Republican who feels the same way about women as does Bill Clinton (AKA, the Disgraced, Impeached, Accused Rapist, Known Adulterer, Known Sexual Harrassing former President Bill Clinton). Mr. Mulholland should be ashamed of himself. Perhaps those of us on the right should start talking about the "Stalinist" wing of the Democrat Party. Would Mr. Mulholland appreciate that? Perhaps he is a member of that wing and thus would not object. Defeat the left today!

2003-07-21T08:41:00.000-07:00

My Position on the Recall

Gray with his hero!

You know, something like this shouldn't be this tough. Gray Davis is an incomptent governor, the worst in the land, and as such he needs to go. The question comes with who will end up replacing him. The most likely candidate is this man:

Preparing for a political career?

Now does anyone really think Arnold can run the state of the California? Might he cave to the wishes of the left and raise taxes? Might his election encorage some Republicans who are now on right side of the fence as far as tax increases to cross over and vote for a ill advised tax increase? The caveat is that Arnold probably would be significantly better than who we have right now (the Un-Governor!) and I would be forced to support him if he emerges as the Republican front runner. Ok, I've talked myself into it. Let's recall Governor Low Beam!

2003-07-21T08:32:00.000-07:00

Another great article about and by Ward Connerly is here. You know, Connerly is hated even moreso than other blacks because of his specific brand of conservatism. I'd recommend reading the whole thing which can be found on the web here! God Bless him!

Ward Connerly responds to Rep. John Dingell
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

July 20th
On July 9, 2003, Ward Connerly--founder and director of the American Civil Rights Institute and the driving force behind California's abandonment of race-based college admissions--received the following letter from Congressman John D. Dingell of Michigan.

Mr. Connerly has asked that Rep. Dingell's letter, which is currently posted at the congressman's website, be given wide publicity, along with Mr. Connerly's response.

Since 1993, Mr. Connerly has been a member of the University of California Board of Regents and is credited with ending race-based admissions at UC. He also led California's successful Civil Rights Initiative (Proposition 209) in 1996. His associate Dr. Richard Ferrier, President of the Declaration Foundation, served as Vice-Chairman in the Proposition 209 campaign, which was strongly endorsed by Ambassador Alan Keyes.

Regent Connerly has been profiled on 60 Minutes, the cover of Parade magazine, the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Newsweek magazine, and virtually every major news magazine in America. He has also appeared on The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, Crossfire, Firing Line, Hannity & Colmes, The Crier Report, Meet the Press, Rivera Live, Dateline, Politically Incorrect, NBC Nightly News, CNN, and C-SPAN.

He is the head of a new ballot initiative in California, the Racial Privacy Initiative (RPI). RPI has qualified for the ballot. It would prohibit the state from forcing citizens to declare their race, and would block the collection of race-based data by state agencies. We encourage you to visit the website for the RPI at http://www.racialprivacy.org

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Congress of the United States
House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515-2215
July 9, 2003

Mr. Ward Connerly
American Civil Rights Coalition
P.O. Box 188350
Sacramento, CA 95818

Mr. Connerly:

The people of Michigan have a simple message to you: go home and stay there. We do not need you stirring up trouble where none exists.

Michiganders do not take kindly to your ignorant meddling in our affairs. We have no need for itinerant publicity seekers, non-resident troublemakers or self-aggrandizing out-of-state agitators. You have created enough mischief in your own state to last a lifetime.

We reject your "black vs. white" politics that were long ago discarded to the ash heap of history. Your brand of divisive racial politics has no place in Michigan, or in our society. So Mr. Connerly, take your message of hate and fear, division and destruction and leave. Go home and stay there, you're not welcome here.

With every good wish,

Sincerely yours,

S/signature
John D. Dingell
Member of Congress

This mailing was prepared, published, and mailed at taxpayer expense
This stationery printed on paper made of recycled fibers (much like the Congressman—WC observation)

***************************

July 21, 2003

The Honorable John D. Dingell
Member of Congress
House of Representatives
Washington D.C. 20515-2215

Congressman Dingel,

Thank you for such a warm and hospitable welcome to Michigan.

Amendment I of the United States Constitution is, in part, as follows:

"Congress shall make no law …abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peacefully to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Amendment XIV of the Constitution is, in part, as follows:

"All persons born and naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside…"

Over the years, the courts have consistently held that these Amendments, taken together, grant to all American citizens the right to travel freely, to express their views, and to participate in the affairs—short of exercising a vote—of any village and hamlet in the nation. For most, this is so well established as to be beyond question.
Perhaps, you are unaware that I am an American citizen—a distinction from which I derive the rights and privileges enumerated in the Constitutional Amendments noted above. It is quite clear from your reaction to the recent decisions handed down by the United States Supreme Court to sanction the use of racial preferences, notwithstanding Amendment XIV, that you have little regard for that Amendment; so I should not be surprised that you would also want to deny me the rights that I enjoy pursuant to the Constitution.

I am obliged to tell you, Congressman, that I, on the other hand, do believe in and honor the Constitution of this nation. And, it confirms that my right to visit Michigan, as a full-fledged American citizen and not simply as a tourist, is not contingent on your invitation. As a taxpaying U.S. citizen, anywhere I set foot on American soil is my "home," just as much as it is yours.

If you would grant me a waiver so that my tax dollars would not be used to support racial discrimination in the State of Michigan, I would more respectfully entertain your impudent advice. Absent that, the term arrogance does not begin to capture the essence of a United States Congressman advising an American citizen to refrain from participating in the affairs of his government. Ironically, your advice is the echo of southern segregationists who sought the comfort of states' rights to practice their discrimination against black Americans. Have you learned nothing about "civil rights" from that horrible chapter in our nation's history?

There is such an eerie similarity between them and you that it bears comment.

George Wallace, Lester Maddox and others who shared their rabid and abhorrent views believed in treating people differently on the basis of skin color…and so do you.

They wanted to practice their brand of racism free from the interference of "meddling, outside agitators"…and so do you.

They called those who disagreed with them and merely wanted to exercise their right to assemble "carpetbaggers" and "non-resident troublemakers" who were "stirring up trouble where none exists"…and so do you.

They were arrogant and intolerant bullies…and so are you.

Your letter is a prime example of why the texture of civil discourse in our nation is so coarse. It is an indication of why Members of Congress need the police to intervene to separate them from fighting. What a terrible example for our children and our grandchildren.
As a member of the Congress, you have the right, I suppose, to send narrow-minded and venomous letters, at taxpayers' expense, to anyone of your choosing. But, you ought to be ashamed of telling any American citizen to "go home and stay there." How dare you!

By promoting the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative, those of us who believe in this cause—I among them—are doing what the Constitution of Michigan allows; and you should not be seeking to abridge the right of American citizens to use processes allowed by law to implement their civic beliefs and values. Candidly, if you were true to the oath of office that you have sworn to defend and uphold, you would not be so content to look the other way while Jennifer Gratz, Barbara Grutter and Pat Hamacher were being discriminated against. You would object to the Supreme Court's defiance of the simple command of the 1964 Civil Rights Act that all Americans be treated equally "without regard to race, color or national origin."

The thought does not escape me, Congressman—and it should not you either—that some of my tax dollars contribute to your salary. That makes me an involuntary constituent of yours. Therefore, I must ask, do you treat all of your constituents with such contempt, arrogance and high-handedness, or do you reserve such treatment for the "uppity" ones who insist on using their civil rights to participate in public policymaking?

You say that I am not welcome in Michigan and that the "people of Michigan" don't want me there. I believe you represent the 15th Congressional District of Michigan and nothing else. Longevity has its way of creating delusions of grandeur, and I believe that has happened to you. In addition, I must ask whether you have run your "get out of town" sermon by the hundreds of other Michiganders who have called, written and emailed me to come to Michigan and assist in the restoration of the principle of "equal protection under the law?"

You have said I am "stirring up trouble where none exists." That certainly isn't what I hear from other prominent people in Michigan or what I have read in the dailies of your state. And, it is certainly inconsistent with my observations about Benton Harbor and other racial circumstances in Michigan. It defies credulity that you could be so out of touch with your state as to not recognize the racial tension that lies within, much of which has been engendered by racial preferences at the University of Michigan.

I note with great interest that Reverend Jesse Jackson has announced his intention to open an office of his Rainbow Coalition in Benton Harbor. Would you please be kind enough to send me a copy of your letter to him demanding that he "go home and stay there." I understand that he is also a non-resident of Michigan.

Since you so proudly posted your letter to me on your website, I trust that you will do the same with my response.

With equally good wishes.

Sincerely,

Ward Connerly

Declaration Foundation
809 Virginia Ave, SE • Washington, DC 20003
202-544-9555 • 202-544-9724 (fax) • info@declaration.net

2003-07-21T07:56:00.000-07:00

My HTML skills are coming around. I finally figured out how to put an undistorted picture of someone in there, eh? I'm trying

2003-07-21T07:42:00.000-07:00

The Real Black Leader

A truly great man!

The NAACP meeting last week in Miami garnered a great deal of attention. The truth is that gentlemen like Ward Connerly are the real black leaders in America. Mr. Connerly is pushing for a truly color blind society in California. For all it's faults, California has been a trail blozer in many arenas. Connerly's proposition would force staff at universities and other state run organizations to judge students exclusively by the content of their character. What could be more keeping in line with Martin Luther King than that. Here is the whole article from today's Washington Times:

Fall vote eyed for California ban on race-data collection
By Steve Sexton
Published July 21, 2003

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

California, a pioneer in outlawing affirmative action, will now decide whether to be the first to bar government agencies from collecting race data on application forms and other records — a ban that could come sooner than many expected.

The Racial Privacy Initiative has qualified for a statewide vote and is set to appear on the next state election ballot. Because of the effort under way to recall Gov. Gray Davis, Democrat, that ballot may come this fall, not during the state's Democratic Party primary next spring, as many had anticipated.

Organizers of the Davis recall say they are confident they have collected enough signatures to put the recall to a vote, which would come in October or November, barring legal challenges from the Democrat-led legislature.

Appearing alongside the recall would be the Racial Privacy Initiative, which would ban the classification of "any individual by race, ethnicity, color or national origin in the operation of public education, public contracting or public employment."

Republicans and Democrats agree that a fall vote would attract a more conservative electorate than one in March, which will have Democrats picking the party's presidential candidate.

"You have to believe that this starts as a huge favorite for passage," Republican strategist Dan Schnur said. "A fall ballot makes RPI's passage even more likely."

According to an April survey by the nonpartisan Field Poll, the initiative enjoys support of 48 percent the state's likely voters, with 33 percent opposed and 19 percent undecided.

Mr. Schnur said the Davis recall and RPI help each other by giving conservatives more incentive to head to the polls. Regardless of when the election is held, the two Republican-backed efforts have a greater chance of success if they appear together, he said.

California Democratic Party Chairman Art Torres agreed the chances of defeating RPI in a fall election are less than in a spring vote but said he is still optimistic it can be beaten.

The state's legislative analyst has begun to prepare an analysis of the financial implications of RPI, a signal that the nonpartisan office realizes RPI may soon face the voters.

When the initiative does go before California voters, it needs only majority support to be written into the state constitution.

Ward Connerly, the chief backer of the initiative, said he is firing up his campaign in expectation of a November election. Mr. Connerly is the man responsible for the passage of the state's 1996 affirmative-action ban in college admissions, state hiring and promotions, and government contracting.

Mr. Connerly said he has raised only $20,000 of the $1.5 million he hopes to spend on the campaign. The Davis recall, while providing a more friendly electorate for RPI, may also overshadow the initiative in the media, presenting a challenge for Mr. Connerly's cash-strapped campaign.

The April Field Poll found that familiarity with the initiative was low, with only 11 percent of polled voters expressing some awareness of it.

Mr. Schnur said RPI backers must make their initiative an issue among the candidates to replace Mr. Davis, which he says should be easy. But Mr. Connerly has lamented the tepid public support he has received from state Republican leaders to date.

Mr. Connerly, a member of the board of regents of the University of California, said he is pushing the initiative despite the opposition of his board colleagues because he believes the state should move from race consciousness to race blindness.

In addition, the race data do little to characterize individual citizens, particularly when races are being blurred by interracial marriages, he said. He cited the U.S. census as an example, noting that it now has 63 racial categories.

"The fact that the government is preoccupied with race allows this race consciousness to continue," Mr. Connerly said. "All of this nonsense will only end when we say race no longer has any currency."

The initiative is opposed by the state Democratic Party and the American Civil Liberties Union. Opponents object to restrictions on the collection of information, which they say can be particularly harmful in the area of health care.

Mr. Connerly said the initiative makes exceptions for health-related research.

2003-07-19T00:07:00.000-07:00

Adultery is NOT just between a man and his wife

Remember the Good Times

It's the same thing we heard during the Clinton scandal. Adultery is none of our business, it is only the business of the man and his wife. Bullpucky! I don't buy it because adultery is not good for society in general because it puts a strain on marriage. Marriages tend to break up over adultery and when adultery happens and marriages stay together, they are often not as strong as they once were. If all that Kobe did was cheat on his wife, he still deserves our condemnation. And I'm not even going to tell you what he deserves if it turns out he took advantage of this young girl. Let's not just give him a pass because he "seems" like a nice young man and he may not have raped someone. Committing adultery is still an awful offense, one that is forbidden in the Ten Commandments and should be frowned upon. Even if Kobe is innocent of the charges levied against him, he is far from being an innocent person. Perhaps this innocent, even moreso than what happened in the White House, will serve as a teacher to many children and others in the country that there is nothing positive that comes from a cheap fling. It's time people starting judging others on more than just legal matters. What Kobe did was wrong! Let's not forget that!

2003-07-18T08:49:00.000-07:00

Another Churchhill or Thatcher?

Tony Blair gave a wonderful presentation in front of the Congress yesterday. I did not see it live but watched it with great interest after returning home from work last night on C-Span. I have a transcript this morning but before I parse the speech. I wish to impart an observation. What a great freakin' speaker this guy is! I'm not sure if Britain realizes what kind of a great statesman they have in Prime Minister Blair, and judging by his very low approval ratings in Britain, I'm guessing they don't, but Blair is a great leader. Sometimes a great leader needs to do things which are politically unpopular because that thing is the right thing to do. Blair's decision to send British troops to Iraq is an example of this leadership. His continued and unwavering support for the goals of the United States of America around the world have made President Bush's campaign against terrorism slightly easier than it would have been otherwise. On behalf of myself and my family, I thank Prime Minister Blair for this stance. This stance is going to help to make our lives more secure, safe and free. Thank You Mr. Blair.

OK, onto the speech. If you'd like to read the whole thing, you can do so at the Wall Street Journal Website. First the good things which I agree with:

There never has been a time when the power of America was so necessary or so misunderstood, or when, except in the most general sense, a study of history provides so little instruction for our present day.

That bears repeating! The history of the world involves greater nations keeping their boot on weaker ones. The present day situation involves greater nations liberating weaker ones!!!!! Why is it so difficult for the left to understand this? Sure, the liberation has to occur at a time when the leaders of the nation being liberated are threatening in some way the greater nation but, nevertheless, freedom will continue to sweep the globe with American and British help.

the threat comes because in another part of our globe, there is shadow and darkness, where not all the world is free, where many millions suffer under brutal dictatorships, where a third of our planet lives in a poverty beyond anything even the poorest in our societies can imagine, and where a fanatical strain of religious extremism has arisen that is a mutation of the true and peaceful faith of Islam, and because in the combination of these afflictions, a new and deadly virus has emerged. The virus is terrorism, whose intent to inflict destruction is unconstrained by human feeling and whose capacity to inflict it is enlarged by technology.

Mr. Blair falls into the same trap that President Bush does here. Islam has proven itself NOT to be a "peaceful faith" no matter how much these men want to say it. Nations that practice totalitarian "Islamofascism" are nations that produce 99% of the terrorists in this world. The lack of freedom in these nations that breed this form of terrorism is but a symptom of the problem. There simply are very few people living in "Islamic" countries that are free. At some point, it is Islam itlelf that needs to take responsibility for the fascism that infuses it. Once a large number of these countries can prove to the world that freedom can flourish and tolerance can become a reality, we can conclude that Islam itself is a "peaceful faith".

Once thing, however, that PM Blair said here is true. There are still evil people in the world and societies which bring these evil people to power. This fact, alone, is why America (and by extension, Great Britain) needs to stay engaged in the world. People like Hussein in Iraq, Assad in Syria, Khamenei and the Ayatollahs in Iran, Kim in North Korea, Omar and Bin Laden in Afghanistan, Quadafi in Libya, Mugabe in Zimbabwe, Castro in Cuba and Chirac in France (j/k) are still out there and need to be met with the full strength and condemnation of the United States and it's allies. We need to be prepared to engage these people through whatever means necessary to keep the United States and, by extension, the rest of the world, safe. Good Call Mr. Blair.

The spread of freedom is the best security for the free. It is our last line of defense and our first line of attack.

And just as the terrorist seeks to divide humanity in hate, so we have to unify around an idea. And that idea is liberty.

We must find the strength to fight for this idea and the compassion to make it universal. Abraham Lincoln said, "Those that deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves."

And it is this sense of justice that makes moral the love of liberty.

Yes!!!!! Attention all you lefties (so called progressives; Yeah right!) out there. Mr. Blair has just thrown down the gauntlet against you. Whenever the free world is threatened by someone in the unfree world, we need to do what we can to remove the oppressors and make the oppressed free. Not just because we want to be nice to the people of the world but because "the spread of freedom is the best security of the free"!!!!!!! Wow!

The risk is that terrorism and states developing weapons of mass destruction come together, and when people say that risk is fanciful, I say we know the Taliban supported al Qaeda. We know Iraq, under Saddam, gave haven to and supported terrorists. We know there are states in the Middle East now actively funding and helping people who regard it as God's will in the act of suicide to take as many innocent lives with them on their way to God's judgment. Some of these states are desperately trying to acquire nuclear weapons. We know that companies and individuals with expertise sell it to the highest bidder. And we know that at least one state, North Korea, lets its people starve while spending billions of dollars on developing nuclear weapons and exporting the technology abroad. This isn't fantasy. It is 21st-century reality and it confronts us now.

Can we be sure that terrorism and weapons of mass destruction will join together? Let us say one thing: If we are wrong, we will have destroyed a threat that, at its least, is responsible for inhuman carnage and suffering. That is something I am confident history will forgive. But if our critics are wrong, if we are right, as I believe with every fiber of instinct and conviction I have that we are, and we do not act, then we will have hesitated in the face of this menace when we should have given leadership.

That is something history will not forgive.

If only President Clinton had thought this way before 9/11, eh? Or, heck, even NOW! You know, Blair is a big government socialist. A believer in the nanny state. This rhetoric, however, could have been spoken by Ronald Reagan himself. No wonder the left hates him!

And I believe any alliance must start with America and Europe. If Europe and America are together, the others will work with us. If we split, the rest will play around, play us off, and nothing but mischief will be the result of it.

The rest of PM Blair's speech deals with multilateralism, resurrecting the UN and Kyoto(!). This is the socialist part of PM Blair that I don't dig. It is the reason many on my side of the aisle predicted he would fold up his tent and go home at the first sign of French, EU and UN oppostition to the war in Iraq. The fact that he stayed and fought side by side with us is a sign that he is even more contradictory than we thought. I wish to inform PM Blair and all those in the EU, the United States of America is going to do what is must to assure ourselves security in the world. You can either follow or get out of the way because like the French and Germans in the diplomatic battle over Iraq, you will get run over if you stand in our way. We are going to do what we think is necessary to assure our own security. Mr. Blair showed that despite some of his words in this speech, he understands this better than most. He choose to follow our lead. He could have just as easily gotten out of the way which is what the French should have done. Instead they choose obstruction.
boycott France today!

Before I go, a word about Kyoto.

But frankly, we need to go beyond even Kyoto. And science and technology is the way. Climate change, deforestation, the voracious drain on natural resources cannot be ignored. Unchecked, these forces will hinder the economic development of the most vulnerable nations first, and ultimately all nations. So we must show the world that we are willing to step up to these challenges around the world and in our own backyards.

Strangely enough, I don't disagree with the PM on this. Except for one thing, the Kyoto Protocol is a joke and will go a long way towards hamstringing the very technological process that makes stopping environmental damage a feasable proposition. The United States has begun reforestation because it has been found that they can grow more food on less land. Less land is needed because technology has reduced the need for massive plants and massive farms. It is the exportation of this technology that is going to ensure the saving of the rain forest and the stopping of environmental damage across the world. Kyoto would move towards tying the arms of the United States in the world economy. This would actually have the effect of making the environment WORSE not better. I'm sure the President has explained this to the PM. I'm not sure why the PM insists on hitching his trailer to the Kyoto boondoggle. It's time fo the President to unsign our name from Kyoto and to ensure that the treaty never gets passed by our Senate. We can't kill our economy for political expediency!

2003-07-17T00:44:00.000-07:00

2003-07-15T00:32:00.000-07:00

See you tomorrow night!!!!

2003-07-15T00:09:00.000-07:00

I am Reading and will be away tomorrow....

Here is what I'm reading:

Ann Coulter has really riled up the left with this tome. I am looking forward to sinking my teeth into it tomorrow. Here are some interestingly critical columns about this book: Dorothy Rabinowitz practically rips Ann a new one. David Horowitz is critical in a nice and respectful way. While Bruce Walker writes an intriguing rebuttal. No doubt about it, Ann Coulter is a polarizing figure but I must say, she is not backing down from her claims in the book. Her claims are simply this, liberals are practically treasonous and have been for the entire the second half of the 20th Century (and before, she goes into detail on the communist insurgency in the FDR administration!). She also provides a defense of Joe McCarthy in the book. I love her book slander and if you haven't read this one yet, you are really missing something! She is really a fantastic writer and her columns appear every Thursday at Human Events.She's not for everyone, especially if you are on the left, I can see how she would anger such a person, but ah well. As a freedom loving conservative myself, I concur with her brand of writing and hope she keeps it up.

2003-07-14T23:23:00.000-07:00

Bin Laden and Hussein.... Blood Brothers?

Saddam Hussein... and

Osama Bin Laden

Blood Brothers?

I'm not sure why this story isn't receiving more coverage but the connection between mass murderers Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden has been made by a Judge who is presently in Iraq. According to the Tenneseean, Judge Gilbert S. Merritt has found documents to verify the connection between the two. Here is the article taken verbatim from the Tenneseean:

By GILBERT S. MERRITT
For The Tennessean Federal appellate Judge Gilbert S. Merritt of Nashville is in Iraq as one of 13 experts selected by the U.S. Justice Department to help rebuild Iraq's judicial system.

Merritt, 67, has made trips to Russia and India to work with their judicial systems. He has been sending periodic reports to The Tennessean about his experiences in Iraq and filed this dispatch recently:

Through an unusual set of circumstances, I have been given documentary evidence of the names and positions of the 600 closest people in Iraq to Saddam Hussein, as well as his ongoing relationship with Osama bin Laden.

I am looking at the document as I write this story from my hotel room overlooking the Tigris River in Baghdad.

One of the lawyers with whom I have been working for the past five weeks had come to me and asked me whether a list of the 600 people closest to Saddam Hussein would be of any value now to the Americans.

I said, yes, of course. He said that the list contained not only the names of the 55 ''deck of cards'' players who have already been revealed, but also 550 others.

When I began questioning him about the list, how he obtained it and what else it showed, he asked would it be of interest to the Americans to know that Saddam had an ongoing relationship with Osama bin Laden.

I said yes, the Americans have, so far as I am aware, have never been able to prove that relationship, but the president and others have said that they believe it exists. He said, ''Well, judge, there is no doubt it exists, and I will bring you the proof tomorrow.''

So today he brought me the proof, and there is no doubt in my mind that he is right.

The document shows that an Iraqi intelligence officer, Abid Al-Karim Muhamed Aswod, assigned to the Iraq embassy in Pakistan, is ''responsible for the coordination of activities with the Osama bin Laden group.''

The document shows that it was written over the signature of Uday Saddam Hussein, the son of Saddam Hussein. The story of how the document came about is as follows.

Saddam gave Uday authority to control all press and media outlets in Iraq. Uday was the publisher of the Babylon Daily Political Newspaper.

On the front page of the paper's four-page edition for Nov. 14, 2002, there was a picture of Osama bin Laden speaking, next to which was a picture of Saddam and his ''Revolutionary Council,'' together with stories about Israeli tanks attacking a group of Palestinians.

On the back page was a story headlined ''List of Honor.'' In a box below the headline was ''A list of men we publish for the public.'' The lead sentence refers to a list of ''regime persons'' with their names and positions.

The list has 600 names and titles in three columns. It contains, for example, the names of the important officials who are members of Saddam's family, such as Uday, and then other high officials, including the 55 American ''deck of cards'' Iraqi officials, some of whom have been apprehended.

Halfway down the middle column is written: ''Abid Al-Karim Muhamed Aswod, intelligence officer responsible for the coordination of activities with the Osama bin Laden group at the Iraqi embassy in Pakistan.'' (For more about the list, see accompanying article on this page.)

The lawyer who brought the newspaper to me, Samir, and another lawyer with whom I have been working, Zuhair, translated the Arabic words and described what had happened in Baghdad the day it was published.

Samir bought his paper at a newsstand at around 8 a.m. Within two hours, the Iraqi intelligence officers were going by every newsstand in Baghdad and confiscating the papers. They also went to the home of every person who they were told received a paper that day and confiscated it.

The other lawyer, Zuhair, who was the counsel for the Arab League in Baghdad, did not receive delivery of his paper that day. He called his vendor, who told him that there would be no paper that day, a singular occurrence he could not explain.

For the next 10 days, the paper was not published at all. Samir's newspaper was not confiscated and he retained it because it contained this interesting ''Honor Roll of 600'' of the people closest to the regime.

The only explanation for this strange set of events, according to the Iraqi lawyers, is that Uday, an impulsive and somewhat unbalanced individual, decided to publish this honor roll at a time when the regime was under worldwide verbal attack in the press, especially by us. It would, he thought, make them more loyal and supportive of the regime.

His father was furious, knowing that it revealed information about his supporters that should remain secret.

For example, at the same time this was published, Saddam was denying that he had any relationship with Osama. Therefore Saddam had all the papers confiscated, and he ordered that publication of the paper be stopped for 10 days.

That is the story of the ''Honor Roll of 600,'' and why I believe that President Bush was right when he alleged that Saddam was in cahoots with Osama and was coordinating activities with him.

It does not prove that they engaged together in any particular act of terror against the United States.

But it seems to me to be strong proof that the two were in contact and conspiring to perform terrorist acts.

Up until this time, I have been skeptical about these claims. Now I have changed my mind. There is, however, one big problem remaining: They are both still at large and the combined forces of the free world have been unable to find them.

Until we find and capture them, they will remain a threat — Saddam with the remnants of his army and supporters in combination with the worldwide terrorist organization of Osama bin Laden.

Why is this not front page news? Instead leftist media organizations are going apeshit over a few words in the State of the Union which haven't even been proven untrue!!!!

2003-07-14T10:44:00.000-07:00
Snubbed by the Democrats, Julian Bond blames the Republicans!
Tonight, in Miami, there is going to be a candidate's forum run by NAACP. This is, of course, a joke. Everyone knows that the NAACP will endorse anyone who wins the Democrat primary!
Apparently, even the candidates themselves know this. According to the Miami Herald, four of the nine candidates for Democrat nomination are not going to attend this "debate" format. John Edwards, Joe Liebermen, Dick Gephardt and Dennis Kucinich all pointed to scheduling problems. The truth is that whoever gets the nomination will be the benificiary of the NAACP and other "civil rights" grouips scaring blacks against voting Republicand and to vote Democratic. So why should they show up?
Bond showed his class on Sunday by saying that Republicans "appeal to that minority of Americans who reject democracy and equality,"Excuse me? The Republicans are the only party left who are really on the pursuit of a colorblind society. It is the Republicans who wish to put a stake through the heart of the very same race based quotas and preferences endorsed by the likes of you Mr. Bond!
Bond went on to decry the tax cuts, calling them a "death warrant for social programs for decades and decades to come." I disagree thoroughly with him and I have in fact posted a list of reasons why blacks should vote Republican on Free Republic.I'll list them again here:

Welfare programs are not much better than segragation and slavery. They keep many minorities just barely surviving. They also keep them dependant. What they do not do is empower them. The 1996 welfare reform bill helped stop the tide of children being born out of wedlock, a disease that grossly effects the black community. You should be worshipping at the alter of the Republican party!
The Republican party is the only one that wishes to give blacks who work all their life a chance to pass on a legacy to their children by privatizing part of social security. The Demo's oppose it. Considering actuary tables show that blacks will, on average, DIE before getting a single benefit from the present social security system (which then dies with them) why aren't you yelling at the democrats for this?
Taxcuts actually provide an incentive for people who aren't rich right now to become rich. Since, as you like to point out, many more whites than blacks are rich, this would affect blacks more positively than it would whites.
One of the main problems facing minorities (colored people? Time to change the name of your organization, no?) today is the scourge of crime. It is the Republicans who have always favored bringing MORE cops into the inner city as well as allowing LAW ABIDING citizens to arm themselves in those areas. It has always been Democrats who favor disarming law abiding citizens AND demogouging the cops by calling them racists.
The schools in the inner cities continue to fail miserably. This is despite the fact that they have been run by democrats for the last fifty years in literaly EVERY inner city in the country! The Republicans are the only party that pushes vouchers and school choice to give good parents in these areas a shot. The parents in these areas highly support school choice. Perhaps it is time for them to start voting Republican!!!!
The goal of the Republican party is to get this information out to the people. If they can use outreach to the inner cities to convince the achievers that exist there that the only way for them to become successful is to support the Republicans, it would go a long way towards signing the death warrant of the Democrat party! It's time to take the gloves off Republicans!

2003-07-13T17:47:00.000-07:00
Going into Iraq was the right thing to do...

...even if weapons aren't found and were never there.
INtelligence isn't an exact science and it is perhaps too early to say that there are no WMD in Iraq but if it is proven that there aren't any weapons, we still did the right thing. Here are some facts:

Saddam Hussein was affilitated with terrorists.
Saddam Hussein was known to have WMD prior to the inspectors leaving town in 1998. In fact, that was the reason why Bill Clinton bombed them in 1998 (or at least the reason Clinton gave).
Saddam Hussein had signed a cease fire agreement with the United States after the first Gulf War. He constantly broke the terms of this agreement by continuing to try to produce WMD and by shooting at American and British planes in the no fly zone.
The United States sought and acquired a new U.N. resolution which stated that Hussein had to either disarm or prove that he had already disarmed. It stated he needed to do so immedietely. It stated that not doing so would result in "serious consequences". This resolution passed by the skin of it's teeth... 15-0! Even Hussein ally Syria voted for it! He did nothing that was requested by the resolution.

After 9/11, no competent U.S. President could have allowed Saddam Hussein to stay in power. Now, we have overthrown Hussein and done so without seeing our troops incurr the wrath of Hussein's weapons. We have yet to find the weapons in the country. This, of course, does not mean that they aren't there and if we don't find them, they could just as easily by in Syria or Iran. Still, even if they don't exist anymore, President Bush did his job. He played the odds and now the possibility of democracy rising up in Iraq is upon us. Good Job Mr. President!!

2003-07-13T09:27:00.000-07:00
Rumsfeld claims uranium story not necessarily untrue

Maintaining information was true
On Sunday Donald Rumsfeld stated on This Week with George Stephanopoulos that he stood by the claim that Saddam Hussein had been seeknig uranium from Niger.
My personal opinion on this is that the point the President was making in the State of the Union may have been untrue but it is irrelevent to whether or not we were going to go to war with Hussein. OUr point was that Hussein could be dangerous, we were unsure how soon and how dangerous. After 9/11, it is clear that we cannot sweep down the road people who are threats to our country. We were right to go in and we'd do it again (as long as someone like George W. Bush is at the helm!)

2003-07-12T23:57:00.000-07:00
Nader Running for President Again????

Al Gore's favorite person?

According to the tegraph in Londan, Ralph Nader is running for President again! Or at least, he's very close to running. The Democrats have a distinct problem in the upcoming election. The country, as a whole, is four square behind the war effort. Given this fact, the Democrats have to nominate a candidate who voted in favor of the war. The hard left of the party, however, was very much against the President and the war and I have heard many state that they couldn't possibly vote for any candidate who supported the war. Given this, the Democratic candidate is going to have a hard time pleasing their left flank and Nader will be their Ross Perot again.
The thing that gets me is that Nader says this in the article:
This time around, he argues, Democrats could defeat him by adopting his message. "What are they complaining about?" he said. "If I'm a danger they can always take my agenda. And if liberals believe that a tongue-tied, timid Democrat can really beat Bush, then they can vote for him."
Let me make this clear Mr. Nader. You will never change a party from without, you have to do it from within. If you are to pull out a bunch of left wingers, those that remain in the party will tend to be more conservative and pull the Democrat party to the right! This is the effect of the Nader presidential run. It will be nice, though. I'm trying not to get overly confident, but this is good news for W.

2003-07-12T23:47:00.000-07:00
Check out this article by Amir Taheri. I think his conclusion is correct. Here it is:
the US should consider supporting the Iranian opposition movement and encouraging its latent democratic aspirations. But regime change in Tehran should not be perceived as an American project. It should remain an Iranian enterprise backed by the US and other democratic powers.
Whenever a country is ripe for revolution such as is the case in Iran, the we should sacrifice none of our own soldiers. Isn't it clear that Iran seeks a new government? We should lend moral support and that is all. As of now, I think it is obvious that a military internvention would be unwarranted.

2003-07-12T22:56:00.000-07:00
I culled this off the recent Federalist, from President Bush's speech in Africa:
"Christian men and women became blind to the clearest commands of their faith and added hypocrisy to injustice. A republic founded on equality for all became a prison for millions. ...All the generations of oppression under the laws of man could not crush the hope of freedom and defeat the purposes of God. In America, enslaved Africans learned the story of the exodus from Egypt and set their own hearts on a promised land of freedom. Enslaved Africans discovered a suffering Saviour and found he was more like themselves than their masters. Enslaved Africans heard the ringing promises of the Declaration of Independence and asked the self-evident question, then why not me?" --President George W. Bush on the historic tragedy of Western slave trade while visiting Goree Island, that infamous slave trade site
President Bush really cares about stuff like this. God bless him for it! Slavery was an awful thing but let's not forget that the United States stood up to this legacy. On July 1,1863 at Gettsburg, over 50,000 souls sacrificied their lives in the war between the states. The descendants of slaves are now calling for reparations. There were their reparations! Slavery was ended by that war! It is time for everyone to acknowledge that these descendants are much better off that they would have been had they stayed in the basket case known as Africa! It is time for the descendants of former slaves to thank their ancestors for what they endured and stop trying to collect money from their pain!

2003-07-12T22:28:00.000-07:00
I was just thinking about Ronald Reagan. He is now 92 years old, I believe, and with the onset of Alzheimer's, he doesn't have a clue what is going on in the world. I am hopeful that he knows how grateful we all are for him. Let us remember, we were hit on 9/11 by Osama Bin Laden and AL Q'aeda. Does anyone doubt that if the Soviet Union were around that what has transpired since that date wouldn't have been far worse?
I mean, do you really think that the Soviet Union wouldn't have helped out, behind the scenes, Bin Laden and his gang after they hit us on that date. The old, the enemy of my enemy is my friend theory. Ronald Reagan's success in defeating the Soviet Union made that all unnecessary. Thank God for Ronald Reagan. As it is, we are winning this war. I am thankful for the success we have experienced.

2002-12-07T23:39:00.000-08:00
Well, The Republicans didn't win every election. They lost this evening in the Lousiana Senate Race. In her attempt to bring down Mary Landrieu, Suzy Terrell came up just short. That gives the Republicans a 51-49 seat majority in the Senate (along with an overwhelming majority in the house) and that will mean that they will be able to get some things done... but not everything. They should be able to make the tax cuts permanent. They should be able to get a majority of Bush's judges through. They should be able to get a free market style prescription drug benefit passed. They should be able to keep missle defense on the table. They should be able to continue to support the President on the upcoming war with Iraq. I will be surprised if an overhaul of the tax system occurs in the next two years; or if they actually cut spending on anything; or if they move aggresively and succeed in partially privatizing Social Security. Still, let's be happy that we finally have something of an oppurtunity to get free market principles advanced to a certain extent in Washington. Things could certainly be worse. There is another election in 2004!!!!