What is a Hate Crime? The Christian - Newsom Murders.

The Chicago Tribune’s Howard Witt writes a fair article about the Christian/Newsom abduction, rape and murders. But there is a weak ending. Referencing the statistics he notes that

Blacks are also the overwhelming majority of victims of attacks recorded by the FBI as hate crimes. In 2005, blacks were the victims in 68 percent of nearly 5,000 hate-crime incidents nationwide, while whites were the victims in 20 percent of the cases. Whites accounted for 60 percent of known hate-crime offenders, while blacks accounted for 20 percent.

But earlier in the article he notes that the police in Knoxville insist that the Christian/Newsom murders were not hate crimes because:

We know from our investigation that the people charged in this case were friends with white people, socialized with white people, dated white people. So not only is there no evidence of any racial animus, there's evidence to the contrary

This “some of my best friends are white” excuse does not pass the laugh test. There is virtually no police department in the country that is willing to face the prospect of inflaming racial tensions by claiming a black-on-white crime is racially motivated. In fact, I am surprised that the “official” percentage of white victims of hate crimes is as high as 20%.

Mary Newsom disagrees with the police

"If this wasn't a hate crime, then I don't know how you would define a hate crime," said Mary Newsom, Christopher's mother. "It may have started out as a carjacking, but what it developed into was blacks hating whites. To do the things they did, they would have to hate them to do that."

Here's another statistic from the article:

In 2005, there were more than 645,000 victims of cross-racial violent crimes between blacks and whites in the U.S. In 90 percent of those crimes, black offenders attacked white victims.

At its core, the creation of a special category of “hate crimes” is pernicious because it sets up the criminal justice system not just a determiner of facts but as mind readers. Once we have determined that "A" killed "B," and did so in a particularly brutal manner, that should be the end of the mind reading exercise. Yes, the degree of culpability can be determined: was the act pre-meditated or committed in a moment of passion? Those are facts that can be determined. But introducing the issue of the race of the murderer and his victim is, at its root, racist and has no place in a society whose goal is to become color blind. This should be especially important to the black community because it has a 90% chance (see above statistic) of being accused of a hate crime once the fear of inflaming racial tensions wears off.

That said, I agree with Mary Newsom. No one does what was done to Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom unless a deep hatred is involved. And the only thing the criminals knew about this couple was the color of their skin. Justice must be served.

Liberals: Can we surrender to Trinidad now?

"JohnHuang2" puts the Kennedy Terror Plot in perspective (excerpt):

Regarding the plot to blow up New York's JFK airport, there's good news and bad news. The good news -- the plotters were caught. The bad news (for liberals) -- the plotters were caught. It's now five years and nine months of BusHitler's "incompetent" and "failed" 'Global Bumper Sticker On Terror' but there's still been no terrorist attack on U.S. soil -- leaving al-Qaeda and the Democrats feeling very frustrated these days.

Showing that he can be tough on terrorists, John Edwards swiftly responded to news of the plot by calling for shutting down Guantanamo. The Guantanamoron said the plot shows Bush is losing the war on bumper stickers. But in a hopeful sign, Chuck Schumer did not call for more gun control.

The plotters have names like Abdul Kadir, Kareem Ibrihim and Abdul Nur -- hmmmm, I wonder what religion they practice? Any ideas? It took the media only hours and hours after the story broke to admit (a) the 'suspects' had Muslim-sounding names and (b) the 'suspects' were Muslims. Wouldn't want to rush to conclusions. Could be those militant Presbyterians again -- you just never know.

The plotters planned to blow up the airport, kill thousands and bring down the U.S. economy -- a clear sign we should try harder to welcome these alien 'guest workers.' They were just doing the work Americans won't do. Actually, one of these lunatics happens to be a U.S. citizen -- 63-year-old Russell "Mohammed" Defreitas, who's apparently not among the "moderate" U.S. Muslims the Pew pollsters keep telling us exist. Liberals spent all last week touting the Pew poll as proving American Islam is brimming with 'moderates' because only one in four young U.S. Muslims want to murder all of us. Over 200,000 U.S. Muslims are cool with suicide bombing but liberals insist it's Wal-Mart we should get our pants soiled over.

Kill Bill

The “important people” are unhappy with the fate of the immigration bill. They believe a majority of American wanted it, and why not? Everybody they know supported it!

But the bill has been pulled and is temporarily dead. The truth is, Republican heavyweights, Democrats and the MSM were going to ram this bill through Congress despite public opposition, until the strength of that opposition was gauged and even the Bigfeet of both parties realized that they political lives were in danger.

Michael Yon Photoblogging from Iraq

Despite the British press reports that make their own soldiers out to be cowering on bases in Basra, truck after truck of them here were in high spirits. News flash: Those reports are false. Derelict media coverage is another aspect of this war British and American soldiers share, and it rankles here in the southern part of Iraq as deeply as it does everywhere else. Practically no one writes about the Brits down here. Important pages in history remain unwritten, while policy decisions are based on the public perception that all is lost here. That this public perception is based on what I have called “The Green Gator Phenomenon” is an irony that is noted, but not appreciated.

Be sure to read about the Green Gator Phenomenon. But before you do, ask yourself: what color are gators?

Billions for New Orleans

The federal government has spent billion on New Orleans following Katrina and is planning on spending billions more.

Senator Landrieu (D-Louisiana) is asking the taxpayers to spend an additional $250 billion to “rebuild New Orleans.” This is a sizeable sum of money. Spending $250 billion over the next ten years means spending $792 every second of every minute of every hour of every day … even in the dead of night, even on Sunday mornings for the next ten years.

Looking at it another way, New Orleans official population in 2000 was 484,674. That means every man, woman and child in New Orleans will get $516,528. But New Orleans population has fallen quite a bit since then and is now estimated at 187,525. So each current resident will get $1,335,000. That’s a pretty good sum even considering these inflationary times. For a family of four, that works out to $5.34 million.

New Orleans has 188,521 homes. For that money each home will be “renovated” at a cost of $1.33 million. That seems a little excessive, but perhaps things cost a little bit more in New Orleans than they do in Tidewater Virginia.

I grant you that people lie with statistics all the time and we may not be entirely fair to Senator Landrieu (D-Louisiana). New Orleans is a special circumstance and all that. But the people who ask for - and appropriate - these kinds of sums as if $250 billion is mere pocket change and spending $1.2 million per person is reasonable – tell us that people in Washington look at the money flowing into the Treasury as monopoly money. It is not. It is worked for by real people and who give up a large part of their lives to earn the money that is pissed away by people like Senator Landrieu (D-Louisiana).

Hat tip to Dennis Gartman.

Clinton: Marriage Saved by Faith, Power Lust

In a rare public discussion of her husband's infidelity, Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton said Monday that she probably could not have gotten through her marital troubles without relying on her faith in God and her insatiable lust for power.

Clinton stood by her decision to stay in the marriage in the aftermath of former President Clinton's admission that he had an affair, as she considered it God's will as well as a path to becoming the most powerful woman on earth.

"I am very grateful that I had a grounding in faith that gave me the courage and the strength to do what I thought was right, regardless of what the world thought," Clinton said during a forum where the three leading Democratic presidential candidates talked about faith and values. "And as president, my position of unquestioned authority will allow me to continue ignoring the world's opinion. I can't wait!" she gloated.

"I'm not sure I would have gotten through it without my faith," she said in response to a question about how she dealt with the infidelity. "The fact that it locked in the 'cuckolded wives vote' didn't hurt, either," she chuckled darkly.

"Hillary finds your lack of faith disturbing."
Clinton said she's "been tested in ways that are both publicly known and those that are not so well known or not known at all." She said it's those times when her personal faith, the prayers of others, and knowing enough political dirt to make Congress her bitch have sustained her.

A rare display of candor via IMAO.

Frank J. Asks

Now that the immigration bill was defeated, do you think this will hurt Republicans with the illegal immigrant vote?

TIME Blames Bush for Iranian Crackdown

Tehran’s jailing of Haleh Esfandiari, a 67-year old grandmother who holds dual Iranian-American citizenship, as well as the interrogation of others with similar papers, is evidence that Washington’s latest attempt to foist change on Iran is backfiring — as Iranian democracy advocates had warned. The Bush Administration had trumpeted its $61.1 million democracy program, including Farsi-language broadcasts into Iran, education and cultural exchanges and $20 million worth of support for “civil society, human rights, democratic reform and related outreach” as an important effort. However, sources tell TIME that several key Iranian reformers had repeatedly warned U.S. officials through back channels that the pro-democracy program was bound to expose them as vulnerable targets for a government crackdown whether they took Washington’s funds or not.

Iranian civil rights activists contacted by TIME say that the cases against the Iranian-Americans have fostered the most repressive atmosphere inside Iran in years, making democracy advocates terrified to work or even speak on the telephone.

Thanks to Little Green Footballs.

Sexual Segregation in Saudi Arabia: Et tu, Starbucks?

Naive me... I had assumed Starbucks - with its high-minded CEO who has received an award for "ethics in business" from Notre Dame and its general do-gooder, post-hippie ethos - was on the more progressive side of corporations and that they would never (heaven forfend!) engage in practices like segregation.

Yet they do. Sexual segregation. According to a fascinating front page article in the LAT today by Megan Stack, the Starbucks in Saudi Arabia have a small women's only section accessed through a back door. The full bore Starbucks that we all know and sort of love is for men only. And Stack knows of what she speaks. She spent months walking around that medieval center of psychopathic misogyny in a black abaya.

[...]

Starbucks and the others are enabling the system by allowing one half of Saudi society to live modern or semi-modern lives while treating the other half like chattel.

Starbucks has no problem with subjugating women as long as it's profitable.

Iowahawk for President

Fear Not, America, For I Have Deigned To Lead You

Some planks in his platform:

I will make securing the border my top priority. Unfortunately, the Congress has been slow to approve funding for fences and other barriers to illegal immigration. That's why I have proposed wacky Roadrunner-style misdirection signs along the border that read "ESTADOS UNIDOS -- THIS WAY."
[...]
To further help reduce the nation's carbon footprint, I will order the Environmental Protection Agency to bulldoze the mansions of Al Gore, John Edwards, John Kerry, and Laurie David, and convert them to more eco-friendly use as free public drag strips. And for all serious environmentalists willing to make the ultimate Green sacrifice, I will offer discounted funerals with hybrid hearses, and framed federal carbon credits for their surviving families and animal companions.

London's Swinging Again - Like a Scimitar!

Iowahawk special:

ed. - found in a trashbin in Trafalgar Square: first draft of Time Out London's suck-up to their new religious overlords]

By Michael Hodges, Time Out London

Islam -- it’s the capital’s hottest lifestyle trend! A growing religion, based on noble traditions and compassionate principles, yet infidels sometimes get the wrong impression because of ignorance and misunderstanding and the occasional subway bomb. Here Time Out argues that an Islamic London would be ab fab!

The expectant crowd ululates as the open-backed lorry drives slowly around the Picadilly Circus – known since the Islamic revolution of 2021 as The Mohammad Sidique Khan Roundabout – nudges its way through the thousands gathered. The loudspeakers blare: "Good news! By order of Sultan Charles, Islamic RAF bombers have finally destroyed the criminal Zionist entity!" The lorry spills a load of Cadbury bars in the street and the celebration erupts, with cheers of ‘Allahu akbar’ ...

Farfetched? According to current demographic trends, this sweets-filled celebration is only part of the fun awaiting future Londoners with Islam becoming the hottest trend to hit the city since Beatlemania. Unfortunately, like the rock 'n' roll Teddy Boys of the 50's, the scootering Mods of the 60's, and the safety pinned-Punks of 70's, London's cutting-edge Islamic fashionistas are causing panic and hysteria among uptight Tory squares. Loosen up daddy-o, it's time to set the record straight about Britain's Fab Four Million!

For a start, Islam is not an alien religion to London. At the end of World War I the city sat at the heart of a vast Empire that had 160 million Muslim subjects. Forty years later and the end of that Empire, mass immigration brought millions of Muslims to these shores. Today, London has made a dramatic comeback and is poised once again to be the seat of a new Empire with millions of Muslim subjects. Well done, England!

According to the 2001 census there are 607,083 Muslims living in London (310,477 males and 296,606 sub-males). By 2012, the Muslim Council of Britain estimates that the Muslim population of suburbs like Bennyhill, Fishwife, Swineham Forest and Snotney will be 250,000, not counting the lads who will be in Pakistan training for martyrdom operations.

This growth has strained London's mosques, many of which have come dangerously close to male-female prayer contact due to overcrowding. Luckily there are plans afoot to build the UKs biggest mosque – capable of welcoming 40,000 worshippers – near the 2012 Olympic site, which itself could also make an even bigger mosque if you think about it. This has prompted predictable outrage from some of Fleet Street's reactionary and ill-informed tabloids. No wonder Muslim disillusionment and explosion are at an all time high.

But rather than fear the inevitable changes and possible detonations this will bring to London, or buy in to a racist representation of all Muslims as terrorists, we should recognise both what Islam has given this city already, and the advantages it would bring across a wide range of areas in the future.

Public health
On the surface, Islamic health doesn’t look good: the 2001 census showed that 24 per cent of Muslim women and 21 per cent of Muslim men suffered long-term illness and disability. But these are factors of social conditions rather than religion, such as back and forehead infections from social self-flagellation. In fact, Islam offers Londoners potential health benefits: the Muslim act of prayer is designed to keep worshippers fit, their joints supple and, at five times a day, their tummies trim. It's like Pilates -- with eternal paradise awaiting for buff shahids!

Alcohol imposes huge health costs on British society. Thankfully alcohol is haram, or forbidden, to Muslims. Turning all the city’s pubs into juice bars or prayer work-out gyms would have a massive positive effect on public health. Forbid alcohol throughout the country, and you’d avoid many of the 22,000 alcohol-related deaths recorded each year, with only a minimum increase in alcohol-related deaths imposed by London's roaming squads of virtue bobbies.

Also forbidden in Islam: pre-marital sex, adultery, and homosexuality. This will obviously help reduce London's appallingly high rates of sexually transmitted disease. And during public executions for the guilty, vigorous aerobic stone-throwing will help build upper-body definition.

Just think of it -- instead of a decadent nation of tubby gay pub sots, England will be a happy sultanate filled with believers with the hardbodies to shame Posh 'n' Becks! UK boys will have the six pack abs to impress any celestial virgin, and beneath their burqas UK girls will have the trim figures to fetch a 20-goat dowry for their families!

Read the rest.

Michelle malking Blogs the Immigration Bill

Kill The Bill...Update: Down, but not quite dead.

Fred Thompson Raises Funds

$352,323 in 48 Hours. Not bad.

The REAL Che Guevera

He’s the ultimate symbol of radical chic but was Che Guevara really a homophobic, racist square who personally ordered the jailing and executions of innocent men, women and children?

That’s according to Humberto Fontova, the author of “Exposing the Real Che Guevara and the Useful Idiots Who Idolize Him,” who claims that Guevara probably would have imprisoned or punished most of his celebrity fans, from Johnny Depp to Angelina Jolie.

Among the book’s claims:

- Twice, Che plotted terrorist attacks against New York City. In November 1962, the FBI cracked a terrorist plot by Cuban agents who targeted Macy’s, Gimbel’s, Bloomingdale’s and Grand Central Terminal. They planned to blow up those landmarks with 12 incendiary devices and 500 kilos of TNT the day after Thanksgiving. Several months before visiting New York in December 1964 and being feted by the toast of the city’s intelligentsia, Che hatched a plan with the Black Liberation Army to blow up the Statue of Liberty, the Liberty Bell and the Washington Monument. The plotters were infiltrated in 1965 by a sharp-eyed NYPD cadet.

- Che detested rock and roll and railed against “long hairs,” “lazy youths,” and homosexuals. At one point, he wrote that the young must always “listen carefully - and with the utmost respect – to the advice of their elders who held governmental authority.”

- Che sidelined black Cubans and mocked those who were part of the revolutionary movement. He once told radio host Luis Pons, “We’re going to do for blacks exactly what blacks did for the revolution. By which I mean: nothing.”

- Che personally ordered 700 executions by firing squad, which he supervised at his jungle headquarters in Cuba. He also hosted book burnings, torching thousands of books owned by suspect intellectuals and librarians.

Promise breakers

It becomes ever more amazing to see the lengths to which proponents of the Bush/Kennedy/McCain immigration “reform” compromise bill will go in their increasingly desperate effort to gain passage.

Consider Thursday’s defeat of an amendment requiring that Congress certify that all current laws on the books regarding border security and immigration are being enforced before any new amnesty-like processes can begin for the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants in this country. Offered by Republican Sens. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma and Jim DeMint of South Carolina, the amendment was defeated 54-42.

Some important names are found among the 54 senators who voted against the amendment, including Democratic presidential candidates Joseph Biden of Delaware, Hillary Clinton of New York and Barack Obama of Illinois.

Among Republican presidential hopefuls, Sam Brownback of Kansas voted against the amendment, and John McCain of Arizona missed the vote.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada and Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy of Vermont also opposed the amendment, as did the Judiciary Committee’s ranking minority member, Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania.

It seems especially peculiar to see men and women who aspire to become the chief enforcer of the law, as well as the two leading members of the committee with jurisdiction over federal courts, opposing a measure that simply required that existing statutes be enforced.

In light of this vote, it is legitimate to now wonder whether there are any other laws these solons would vote to not enforce. Indeed, we wonder whether, in light of this seemingly new precedent, there are any promises these lawmakers have made or will make that can be trusted. True, any law can be repealed, but that’s not the same thing as declining to enforce one that remains on the books. Bankers call such an action defaulting on a loan, and they frequently impose rather unpleasant consequences on consumers who break their promises.

Gore criticizes Bush for ignoring Iraq's ties to terrorism

You Tube video.
Here is what many Democrats were saying before 9/11:

Bill Clinton: "[M]ark my words, [Saddam] will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them. ... Iraq [is] a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists, drug traffickers, or organized criminals who travel the world among us unnoticed. If we fail to respond today, Saddam, and all those who would follow in his footsteps, will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act with impunity. ... Some day, some way, I guarantee you he'll use the arsenal."

Bill Clinton on ODF: "Our purpose is clear: We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program. ... Saddam must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons. Earlier today I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors. ...

I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again." (That was Bill Clinton two years before 9/11 announcing Operation Desert Fox -- if Iraq did not have, or was not developing WMD, then what was Clinton attacking? Oh, that's right, "baby formula" and "aspirin" factories.)

Democrat Leaders under Bill Clinton: In 1998, the U.S. Congress passed, and President Bill Clinton signed, the Iraq Liberation Act. That Act stated, "It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq, and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime." This legislation passed the House by a vote of 360 to 38, and it passed the Senate without a single vote in opposition.

Albert Gore: "Saddam's ability to produce and deliver weapons of mass destruction poses a grave threat ... to the security of the world."

Madeleine Albright, Clinton Secretary of State: "We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and the security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction. ... Iraq is a long way from Ohio, but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risk that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."

Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Advisor and Classified Document Thief: "[Saddam will] use those weapons of mass destruction again as he has ten times since 1983." Harry Reid: "The problem is not nuclear testing; it is nuclear weapons. ... The number of Third World countries with nuclear capabilities seems to grow daily. Saddam Hussein's near success with developing a nuclear weapon should be an eye-opener for us all. [Saddam] is too dangerous of a man to be given carte blanche with weapons of mass destruction."

Dick Durbin: "One of the most compelling threats we in this country face today is the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Threat assessments regularly warn us of the possibility that...Iraq...may acquire or develop nuclear weapons. [Saddam's] chemical and biological weapons capabilities are frightening."

John Kerry: "If you don't believe...Saddam Hussein is a threat with nuclear weapons, then you shouldn't vote for me."

John Edwards: "Serving on the Intelligence Committee and seeing day after day, week after week, briefings on Saddam's weapons of mass destruction and his plans on using those weapons, he cannot be allowed to have nuclear weapons, it's just that simple. The whole world changes if Saddam ever has nuclear weapons."

Nancy Pelosi: "Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology, which is a threat to countries in the region, and he has made a mockery of the weapons-inspection process."

Sens. Levin, Lieberman, Lautenberg, Dodd, Kerrey, Feinstein, Mikulski, Daschle, Breaux, Johnson, Inouye, Landrieu, Ford and Kerry in a letter to Bill Clinton: "We urge you, after consulting with Congress and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions, including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."

Democrat leaders after 9/11: After President Bush was sworn into office in 2001, his administration was handed eight years worth of intelligence analysis and policy positions from the Clinton years -- you know, the years of appeasement when Saddam was tolerated, when opportunities to take out Osama bin Ladin were ignored, as was the presence of an al-Qa'ida terrorist cell in the U.S. -- which reared its head on 9/11. In the weeks prior to the invasion of Iraq, Democrats, who had access to the same intelligence used by the Bush administration (much of which was compiled under the Clinton administration), were clear about the threat of Iraq's WMD capability.

Ted Kennedy: "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."

Harry Reid: "Saddam has thumbed his nose at the world community and I think the President is approaching this in the right fashion."

John Kerry: "I will be voting to give the president of the U.S. the authority to use force if necessary to disarm Saddam because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security. ... Without question we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. ... These weapons represent an unacceptable threat."

Hillary Clinton: "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock. His missile-delivery capability, his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists including al-Qa'ida members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. ... I can support the President because I think it is in the long-term interests of our national security."

Carl Levin: "We begin with a common belief that Saddam Hussein...is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." Jay Rockefeller: "There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons. We have always underestimated the progress Saddam has been able to make in the development of WMD."

Joe Biden: "We know he continues to attempt to gain access to additional capability, including nuclear capability." Evan Bayh: "I support the President. The lesson we learned since 9/11 is that we can't wait to be attacked again, particularly with WMD."

Al Gore: "We know that he has stored nuclear supplies, secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."

Bob Graham: "We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has and has had for a number of years a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."

Nancy Pelosi: "Saddam Hussein certainly has chemical and biological weapons, there is no question about that."

The Bill Sleeps with the Fishes

From Hugh Hewitt:

As surely as Sonny Corleone was left for dead at that toll plaza, McCain-Kennedy will not become law in anything like its current form. Even the author of the grand compromise, John Kyl, voted against cloture. As far as John Kyl is concerned, I think we have enough good stuff in the bank to get through this little episode. The fact that he voted the right way tonight means he can remain our favorite Senator. He’s certainly in no danger of having Trent Lott steal his place in our hearts.

And what is the media reward to the Republican Party for this insanely misguided misadventure? MSNCB.com now leads with the headline, “Bush-backed immigration bill stalls in Senate.” Thank you Senator McCain for so courageously once again reaching across the aisle and getting your party yet another stick in the eye.

As far as the putative Republican crack-up is concerned, allow me to offer a dissenting theory. I have never seen the Republican Party more united than in its hatred for this bill. On one side you have George Bush, Lindsey Graham, Trent Lott and John McCain. On the other side, you have virtually every other Republican in America save the Wall Street Journal editorial board. 30 million people united against roughly 13 individuals - when you think about it, that’s pretty good unity.

Mark Steyn dissects Senate Minority Whip Trent Lott's floor speech today on the immigration bill.

Some excerpts:

...people like Trent Lott are in large part responsible for the debark last November, in that he embodies, both in his generally witless remarks, but also in the idea that he forms part of this permanent governing class, everything that he Republican base came to loathe about the Republican Congress.
[...]
..the idea that somehow it’s a great thing that Congress is just passing so-called comprehensive bills, regardless of whether any of these Senators have read them, I don’t think that’s a good idea. And if he wants to vote to dissolve Congress, then Amen.
[...]
But in this situation, you have a situation where both parties in a two-party system are at odds with the vast majority of the American public. And if bipartisanship means that the two parties agree to gang up on the citizenry of this country, then I’d rather have none of it.
[...]
Republican Senators, this is what they loathe about them, that they become clubby, process bores, and the process, their love of the process overrides everything else. You know, people have reservations about this bill, and objections to this bill, because the only thing that matters about it, which is this immediate, instant, probationary legal status it confers on millions and millions of people, plus the attendant implications of that for their extended families.
[...]
That’s bipartisanship at the very definition of it. The Republicans agree with Ted Kennedy. That’s the official version of bipartisanship in the United States Senate.
[...]
the interesting thing about immigration, I think, is that in some ways, this is not seen by the Republican base, and indeed, large numbers of the Democratic Party, too, as primarily an immigration issue. It’s seen as a criminal issue, it’s seen as an assault on sovereignty. And I think that’s what the Republicans don’t get, that they’re looking at it, people like Trent Lott look at it as a way of making a technical adjustment to an existing situation. And I think, for example, Harry Reid’s reference to 12 million undocumented Americans, as he put it, that’s a term I’ve been using as a joke for five years, ever since people started introducing this phrase of undocumented workers. I’ve been making jokes about fine, upstanding members of the undocumented American community. It’s an absurd proposition.

The REAL Environment in the Raw: Mt. Skaptar

On this day (+1) in 1783, weeks of rumbling beneath Mt. Skaptar, a volcano in southern Iceland, ended with a roar. And what a roar it was. Across a line of over 10 miles, the earth split as in an earthquake in a movie. But instead of leaving a small canyon or valley, the rift in the earth poured forth massive amounts of molten lava and hazy blue gases.

Over the next two months, it spewed out enough molten stuff to cover the entire island of Manhattan with a lava cover a mile high. (That would be five times taller than the Empire State Building...just in case you went to graduate school.) Looking for a place to go, the lava filled up riverbeds, harbors, seabeds and it melted centuries-old glaciers. Thousands of people were either burned to death by the lava or drowned in the floods it caused. The lava alone would have caused this to be rated one of history's great calamities. But then there was the haze.

The heavy, blue, sulphur-smelling haze spewed forth from the fissure and hung like a low cloud that grew and grew until it spread from Iceland southward to Gilbralter. And it hung there. And as it did, there were reports of cattle dying in the field because their flesh had begun to eat them alive. (Now where did I hear that before?)

Some humans had a similar experience. Many more developed sudden open sores, sudden loss of hair and bleeding gums, finally dying in the streets.

Then things started to get bad. Leaves fell off the trees and plants. Birds, rabbits and other wildlife began to die, often rotting as they fell. Then the fish began to die, rising to the surface, often partially decomposed. (I hope you're not reading this at breakfast.)

Now there was no food and those remaining people and animals began to starve. Thankfully, the winds began to shift, the volcano began to still and the dying began to stop....finally!

To mark the day, sympathize with someone from the "Save the Endangered Left-handed "Snail Darter Club" and hoist a spring water and something natural, while you note the latest study implies it must be the actions of man that upsets nature's gentle balance.

From Cashin's Comments by Art Cashin.

CITGO CHANGING NAME

I received this via an e-mail. I can't vouch for it's reliability, but thought I would post it and someone could check it out.

Chavez of Venezula is NOW getting a Russian Weapons Factory built by Putin.

The RUSSIANS are building an AK-47 Kalashnikov Assault Rifle factory in Venezuela, to give armament support to Communist Rebel groups throughout the Americas.

Chavez NOW has IRANIANS operating his oil refineries in Venezuela for him.
It is likely only a matter of time, if not already, before Chavez has Iranian built LONG RANGE missiles, with a variety of warhead types aimed at: Guess Who?

CITGO is NOW in the process of Changing Its Name to PETRO EXPRESS due to the loss of gasoline sales in the USA due to the recent publicity of ownership by Chavez of Venezuela.

Every dollar you spend with CITGO or PETRO EXPRESS gasoline will be used against you, your basic human rights, and your freedoms. He will start wars here in the Americas that will probably be the death of millions of free people.

THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT because Chavez is starting to feel the loss of revenue from his holdings. HE OWNS CITGO. This is a very important move that everyone
should be aware of.

ANNOUNCED JUST RECENTLY, CITGO, BEING AWARE THAT SALES ARE DOWN DUE TO U.S. CUSTOMERS NOT WANTING TO BUY FROM "CITGO-CHAVEZ", HAVE STARTED TO CHANGE THE NAME OF SOME OF THEIR STORES TO: "PETRO EXPRESS"

DO NOT BUY FROM "PETRO EXPRESS" EITHER!!!

"PETRO EXPRESS" IS ALSO 100% OWNED BY "CHAVEZ."

KEEP THIS MEMO GOING SO THAT EVERYONE KNOWS WHAT IS HAPPENING.

BOYCOTT "CITGO" AND "PETRO EXPRESS".............MAK E SURE THIS
IS PASSED ON TO EVERYONE YOUR YOUR E-MAIL LIST IN THE UNITED STATES AND OUTSIDE OF AMERICA

Why Do Air Marshals Think Flight 327 Was a Probe or Dry Run?

Patterico has blogged extensively on the likelihood that Middle Eastern men made either a “dry run” or “probe” in preparation for more attacks on the US.

Here he brings in opinion of three air marshals who believe that Flight 327 from Detroit to Los Angeles was deliberately targeted by a “band” from Syria. The issue was raised by an article written by Audrey Hudson in the Washington Times who complained that the Department of Homeland Security botched the investigation.

God must be watching over the United States because the ineptness of those whose jobs it is to protect us from terror attacks appear to be only slightly less stupid than those who are planning such attacks. Thank God for stupid enemies.

From one of the air marshals:

In my 10 years of experience as a law enforcement officer — five of those as an air marshal — I trained for thousands of hours using many operational plans that were obtained from terror camps and anti-terrorism intelligence, read dozens of these terrorism intelligence reports, and I flew hundreds of mission. I also have an extensive, discipline-free history as an outspoken representative of the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association (FLEOA) and national security whistleblower who exposes the truth without fear of vindictive senior federal executives. The actions of the Syrians were like young children testing the limits of their parents’ patience. In this case, they went as far as they could to test the temperament of the flight attendants and air marshals without giving anyone enough probable cause to make an arrest. It was an easy task for them to expose the air marshals and the flight deck, only to then act polite and ignorantly dumbfounded when met by authorities at the gate. The fact that the band leader was involved in a prior aviation security incident and the majority of the rest of the band had positive hits during records checks should be enough for anyone to be convinced these individuals were not just having fun and games in a thin tube at 35,000 feet going 500 miles per hour.

And if you read the comments, you will find Phil who believes that drunk drivers are a greater threat than terrorists. After all, they kill more people ... at least so far. (In Baghdad, the situation appears a little different, but that’s another topic.) But that's a situation that terrorists plan to correct. Then, who knows, perhaps the drunks will organize to regain their coveted number one spot. And Phil will regain his talking point.

Conservative Groups are Conservative, Liberal Groups are ... Not.

According to Senator Schumer, groups like the Heritage Foundation and the Federalist Society are conservative. But Liberal groups like MALDEF [Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund], and NAPABA [National Asian Pacific American Bar Association] are non-ideological.

We report, you decide.

Powerline puts the issue in perspective:

But, as Schumer surely understands, the fact that MALDEF is an Hispanic American organization does not mean it lacks "an ideological hue." The ideology of an organization, if any, is determined by the views it espouses (and arguably the views of its members), not its racial or ethnic composition. MALDEF has consistently espoused left-liberal positions. The Federal Society, by contrast, does not espouse any views, and the views of its members are probably more ideologically diverse than those of MALDEF.

Schumer is playing an old and intellectually dishonest game -- ascribing an ideological agenda to his opponents while denying that his allies have one. It's a game favored by some modern liberals, but one that suggests a totalitarian mindset.

John Gibson & Ron Paul Supporters ..World Trade Center Conspiracy Nuts.

Funny and crazy.

Here's more from Flopping Aces.

As one commenter said:

It would be one thing if they were just crazy nobodies, which they are, with kooky theories.

But their mania feeds into this whole idiotic notion that the War on Terror is somehow not real, that there is no threat, that there's no need to worry about it at all.

And of course worse that they think their own government would murder it's citizens.

All of this makes the war take that much longer to win with many more innocent lives lost as a result.

Your Right To Leer ... or ... How Much Projection Can You Handle?

It appears, at least from the pictures, that Fred Thompson has a very attractive wife. Now some Liberal feminist nutcase has accused him of “leering” at his wife during a Republican even in Richmond, Virginia. Exhibit “A” is the picture found on the link.

Read Dr. Helen’s comments and the comments that follow.


Ace of Spades finds:
Left Very, Very Upset Fred Thompson Finds His Wife Sexually Attractive

Day By Day

Baby boomers heap insincere praise on the "greatest generation."

David Gelernter in the Opinion Journal:

Too Much, Too Late
Baby boomers heap insincere praise on the "greatest generation."

BY DAVID GELERNTER
Friday, June 4, 2004 12:01 a.m. EDT

My political credo is simple and many people share it: I am against phonies. A cultural establishment that (on the whole) doesn't give a damn about World War II or its veterans thinks it can undo a half-century of indifference verging on contempt by repeating a silly phrase ("the greatest generation") like a magic spell while deploying fulsome praise like carpet bombing.

The campaign is especially intense among members of the 1960s generation who once chose to treat all present and former soldiers like dirt and are willing at long last to risk some friendly words about World War II veterans, now that most are safely underground and guaranteed not to talk back, enjoy their celebrity or start acting like they own the joint. A quick glance at the famous Hemingway B.S. detector shows the needle pegged at Maximum, where it's been all week, from Memorial Day through the D-Day anniversary run-up.

Read the whole thing.

If Today's Media Reported the Normandy Landings on "D" Day.

Very realistic.

Heritage Foundation on the Immigration Bill

Thoughtful commentary on the "rush."

BUSH'S AMERICA: ROACH MOTEL

Republicans' defense of President Bush's immigration bill is more enraging than their defense of Harriet Miers. Back then, Bush's conservative base was accused of being sexist for opposing an unqualified woman's nomination to the highest court in the land. Now we're racists for not wanting to grant amnesty to millions of illegal aliens.

I don't know why conservatives like Linda Chavez have to argue like liberals by smearing their opponents as racists. Oh wait, now I remember! Their arguments are as strong as liberals' arguments usually are.

Apart from abortion, no subject produces so much disingenuousness as America's immigration policy, both legal and illegal. For nearly 50 years, Americans have been intentionally lied to about our immigration laws.

In 1965, Teddy Kennedy overhauled immigration law with the specific purpose of effecting a dramatic change in the nation's demographics. Bobby Kennedy had civil rights, so Teddy needed something big: He would preside over a civil rights bill for the entire Third World! My word, but that man could drink in those days.

With his 1965 immigration act, Kennedy embarked on entirely transforming American culture for no good reason. (You know how people always say the same arguments against illegal immigrants today were once made about the Irish to show how silly those arguments are? If only the U.S. Senate had had an "Irish Need Not Apply" sign!)

Until that point, immigration law basically took a laissez-faire approach, with country quotas attempting to replicate the traditional immigration patterns. Most immigrants to America had historically come from Great Britain, Germany and Scandinavian countries. Consequently, immigration quotas roughly reflected that balance, with smaller numbers of immigrants admitted from other countries.

But in an angry, long-awaited payback to WASPs, Kennedy decided he was going to radically transform the racial composition of the country. Instead of taking 15 immigrants from England and three from China, America would henceforth take three from England and 15 from China. Payback's a bitch, Daughters of the American Revolution!

Some of those hardworking immigrants who just want a chance to succeed were arrested in a plot to blow up JFK Airport last week.

Most immigrants still come from a handful of countries; Kennedy simply changed which countries those would be. In 2005, according to the Department of Homeland Security, the overwhelming majority of immigrants came from only 10 countries, none of which had sent a lot of immigrants to America for the country's first 200 years: Mexico (161,445), India (84,681), China (69,967), the Philippines (60,748), Cuba (36,261), Vietnam (32,784), the Dominican Republic (27,504), Korea (26,562), Colombia (25,571) and Ukraine (22,761).

In 1960, whites were 90 percent of the country. The Census Bureau recently estimated that whites already account for less than two-thirds of the population and will be a minority by 2050. Other estimates put that day much sooner.

One may assume the new majority will not be such compassionate overlords as the white majority has been. If this sort of drastic change were legally imposed on any group other than white Americans, it would be called genocide. Yet whites are called racists merely for mentioning the fact that current immigration law is intentionally designed to reduce their percentage in the population.

We needed to have "more discussion" about Iraq for nearly two years before finally invading. When will we be allowed to begin discussion of a government policy enacted by stealth 40 years ago specifically intended to decimate one particular ethnic group in our own country?

If liberals think Iraqis are genetically incapable of pulling off even the most rudimentary form of democracy, why do they believe 50 million Mexicans will magically become good Americans, imbued in the nation's history and culture, upon crossing the Rio Grande? Maybe we should dunk Iraqis in the Rio and see what happens.

And as long as we're adopting an open borders policy for immigration, how about opening the borders for emigration? As it stands, anyone can come in and start plotting terrorist attacks or collecting government services right away. But the rest of us can never escape having to pay for it.

You can leave the country, you can renounce your citizenship — but you still owe taxes for 10 years. The government does not allow us to stop supporting welfare recipients in America, millions more of whom it plans to import under Bush's bill. That's not a free market — it's a roach motel.

If these free-marketeers at The Wall Street Journal want the free movement of people, how about letting us freely leave after they've wrecked the country?

In Samuel P. Huntington's book "Who Are We? The Challenges to America's National Identity," he asks: "Would America be the America it is today if in the 17th and 18th centuries it had been settled not by British Protestants but by French, Spanish or Portuguese Catholics? The answer is no. It would not be America; it would be Quebec, Mexico or Brazil."

I don't want to live in Mexico, Quebec or Brazil. But now I guess I have no choice, since "open borders" means I can never leave.

Double Standard Example ... one of billions and billions.

In his book No Excuses, Shrum alleges that John Edwards told him, apropos of homosexuals, "I'm not comfortable around those people." In an interview with CNN's Wolf Blitzer, Elizabeth Edwards clarified that her husband was speaking of being made to feel uncomfortable when a gay friend of hers expressed a desire to "snake" her "awfully cute" fiancé.

A question: How are Edwards' former colleagues at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill have reacted to such remarks, if he were still at UNC? How are they reacting?

Democratic presidential hopeful John Edwards gestures at Google headquarters in Mountain View, Calif., Wednesday, May 30, 2007. (AP Photo/Paul Sakuma)
Related Audio:
Mudslinging and Dirty Politics: Should Christians Go into Politics?
John Edwards' Campaign Manager on "Support the Troops, End the War" Message
Are they denouncing him for his "violent, heterosexist comments"? Are they decrying him as being a "perfect example" of "white, heterosexual, Christian male privilege"? Are they saying he ought to be investigated?

Are they hinting darkly that Edwards should be made to feel marked or threatened or vulnerable?

No? Why not? That's exactly what happened in 2004 to a UNC-CH student who said similar things in an English classroom, in response to an instructor's question-begging discussion topic of "Why do heterosexual men feel threatened by homosexuals?"

Jonah Goldberg on the immigration debate

Philosophically and politically, I am on the side of every pro-immigration movement of the last two centuries. We’re a better country because of previous waves of immigrants.

But since the 1980s, the debate has changed. Whereas in the past the debate was about what our policy should be, today the argument is really about whether we should have a policy at all. Because if you don’t care about enforcing existing immigration laws, you’re really saying that you’re not in favor of having any immigration laws at all. It is difficult to think of another sphere of public policy in which liberals would be nearly so cavalier about lawbreaking.

The most important immigration policy is to enforce the policy, whatever it is. Then, if it’s not working, you can change it. But by turning a blind eye to illegality while spouting empty rhetoric, you incite populist rage from citizens who don’t like being played for suckers.

If I had my druthers, in 2001, Bush would have pursued a real clampdown on illegal immigration while at the same time expanding legal immigration, including from Mexico. I don’t even mind the idea of a one-time amnesty for illegals, if in fact it is a one-time deal. But again, a system in which we declare it’s a one-time amnesty but mean nothing of the sort means that we have no policy at all.

The White House says it cares about enforcement, but Bush’s credibility — indeed all of Washington’s credibility — on illegal immigration is simply nonexistent. Bush and his supporters have bought into the idea that being pro-enforcement is anti-immigrant, which is why every move he makes on the issue is the political equivalent of Foghorn Leghorn trying to walk through a field of garden rakes. Conservatives dislike being called bigots and yahoos by liberals. They’re even more vexed when such barbs come from the leader of their own party.

But those same conservatives have stepped on their own garden rakes because they’ve allowed themselves to be cast as the villains in one of America’s greatest stories.

I am a legal immigrant; so are my brothers and sisters. I have no problem with immigration. But where I disagree with Jonah is that we have not "allowed" ourselves to be cast as villains by the Left: they have done it all themselves. And, frankly Jonah, I would like to know who are these "conservative voices on immigration I wish would shut up." Tom Tancredo? Here's his position:

“The American people have made themselves clear: our borders must be secured and our laws must be enforced before any guest worker plan can go into effect.

Does this sound like someone who wants to end - for ever and all time - immigration? This sentence puts the priorities in the right order: secure the borders and then create a guest worker program.

Virginian Pilot Continues Irrelevancy

The Virginian Pilot has long been a despicable rag. It’s self professed slogan "True to the Democratic Party in victory or defeat" was proudly proclaimed on its masthead. But you could at least assume that its headline stories were … you know … headline stories.

But like the News of the World headlines about two headed babies from Pluto, the Pilot has headlines like “Is Michael Vick friendly to a fault?" (you can't buy that kind of boot licking any other place) or today’s : "Are illegal immigrants really more prone to crime?" by Gillian Gaynair.

A large part of her article is devoted to depicting people concerned about illegal immigrants as nativist know-nothings. Her “source” for this is the Immigration Policy Center.

Concerns about immigrant criminality tend to increase during peaks in immigration, according to some researchers. The United States has experienced explosive immigration since the 1990s, with Latin Americans and Asians accounting for most of the newcomers. About 12 million immigrants are here illegally, according to an estimate by the Pew Hispanic Center. Most are from Mexico.

The Sept. 11, 2001, attacks were the “watershed moment” for those anxious about immigrants and crime, said Walter A. Ewing, a research associate with the Washington-based Immigration Policy Center, which researches immigrants’ contributions to the United States.
“It’s even easier now for people with anti-immigrant sentiments to prey upon the fears and insecurities of Americans,” Ewing said.

The Immigration Policy Center is not a research organization, it is an out-and-out advocacy group that promotes illegal immigration and files lawsuits on behalf of illegal immigrants.

But at the end she concludes that we don’t know enough to answer her question.

But here’s one answer: illegal immigrants, or illegal aliens, whatever you want to call them have all committed one more crime than people who are legal residents: they came here illegally, they are here illegally and the question that should really be asked is: when will this stop?

A Hundred Years Ago; Things My Brother Sent Me.

THE YEAR 1907

This will boggle your mind, I know it did mine!
The year is 1907.
One hundred years ago.
What a difference a century makes!
Here are some of the U.S. Statistics for the Year 1907 :
************************************ � �

The average life expectancy in the U.S. Was 47 years old.

Only 14 percent of the homes in the U.S. Had a bathtub.

Only 8 percent of the homes had a telephone.

A three-minute call from Denver to New York City
Cost eleven dollars.

There were only 8,000 cars in the U.S. , and only 144 miles of paved roads.

The maximum speed limit in most cities was 10 mph.

Alabama, Mississippi, Iowa, and Tennessee were each more
Heavily populated than California .

With a mere 1.4 million people, California was only the 21st
Most populous state in the Union .

The tallest structure in the world was the Eiffel Tower !

The average wage in the U.S. Was 22 Cents per hour.

The average U.S. Worker made between $200 and $400 �per year .

A competent accountant could expect to earn $2000 per year,
A dentist made $2,500 per year,
A veterinarian $1,500 per year,
And a mechanical engineer about $5,000 per year.

More than 95 percent of all births in the U.S. Took place at HOME .

Ninety percent of all U.S. Doctors had NO COLLEGE EDUCATION!
Instead, they attended so-called medical schools, many of which
Were condemned in the press AND the government as "substandard."

Sugar cost four cents a pound.

Eggs were fourteen cents a dozen.

Coffee was fifteen cents a pound.

Most women only washed their hair once a month , and used
Borax or egg yolks for shampoo.

Canada passed a law that prohibited poor people from
Entering into their country for any reason.

Five leading causes of death in the U.S. Were:
1. Pneumonia and influenza
2. Tuberculosis
3. Diarrhea
4. Heart disease
5. Stroke

The American flag had 45 stars.
Arizona, Oklahoma, New Mexico, Hawaii, and
Alaska hadn't been admitted to the Union yet.

The population of Las Vegas , Nevada, was only 30!!!!

Crossword puzzles, canned beer, and ice tea
Hadn't been invented yet.

There was no Mother's Day or Father's Day.

Two out of every 10 U.S. Adults couldn't read or write.

Only 6 percent of all Americans had graduated from high school.

Marijuana, heroin, and morphine were all available over
The counter at the local corner drugstores. Back then pharmacists
Said, "Heroin clears the complexion, gives buoyancy to the mind,
Regulates the stomach and bowels, and is, in fact, a perfect guardian
Of health." �


There were about 230 reported Murders in the ENTIRE � U.S.A. !

Bill, Hillary & InfoUSA

Since he left office in 2001, former president Bill Clinton has been paid $3.3 million by infoUSA, an Omaha, Neb., company that has been identified as a key provider of specially designed databases that have been sold to criminals who use the detailed information to defraud the unsuspecting elderly.

The consulting fees to the former president were only part of the largess infoUSA showered on the former president.

Vinod Gupta, the CEO of infoUSA, lent the Clintons the company's jet, which took them to places like Switzerland, Hawaii, Jamaica and Mexico. The jet service was worth a staggering $900,000.

It gets worse after that.

Stop the World Right Now ... This is the Perfect Environment

The Virginian Pilot’s headline today warns us about the illegal aliens entering our borders. No, you little genius you, of course it’s not about Islamofascists who want to kill us or illegal immigrant by the millions driving drunk and committing mayhem. Remember, this is the Virginian Pilot.

The invader is the Chinese mitten crab. Which the Pilot explains is a delicacy in China but an interloper in Virginia waters and MUST BE ERADICATED. Would that the half-cracked staff at the Pilot were half as concerned about people who would kill us as crustaceans that are good to eat.

But why this headline grabbing attention? A slow news day? Perhaps, but it also reflects a posture that pervades the all the “good environmentalists” that work at newspapers like the Pilot: they want to stop the world. For them the Chesapeake Bay the way it is now (or perhaps as it was 100 years ago) is the way it ought to be, world without end, Amen.

Ditto for all aspects of the environment, especially the temperature of the earth. They want to earth to remain in stasis, like fly trapped in amber. Anything that changes this is BAD and must be resisted, uprooted, destroyed. If anything is about turning back the clock, it’s Environmentalism with a capital “E.”

Michael Griffin, NASA Administrator, had a great comment during an interview on PBS, a quote that has been reproduced on the Internet (see here):

“I would ask which human beings - where and when - are to be accorded the privilege of deciding that this particular climate that we have right here today, right now is the best climate for all other human beings. I think that's a rather arrogant position for people to take.”

And that applies not just to the climate but all aspects of the environment. We live in a world that is constantly changing. This should be obvious especially to the mossbacks that inhabit the Pilot because they are a shrinking breed as newspapers lose customers to new and better means of communication.

But arrogance goes with the territory if you write for a newspaper. You get it with your company ID badge.

“Say Goodnight Gracie.”

Sandy Berger and the Clinton Cover-Up - Why It Matters

Sandy Burger gave up his law license to stop an investigation. Ron Cass asks why.

On May 17th, Sandy Berger, President Bill Clinton's National Security Adviser, voluntarily gave up his law license and with it the right to practice law. That is a stunning move for an accomplished lawyer, one of the nation's most influential public officials. Someone should take note. In fact, everyone should.

Berger previously entered a deal with the Department of Justice after he was caught stealing and destroying highly sensitive classified material regarding the Clinton Administration's handling of terrorism issues. That deal allowed him to avoid jail time, pay a modest fine, and keep his law license. It also allowed him to avoid full explanation of what he had taken and why he had taken it.

What information was worth risking his reputation, his career, and his freedom to keep hidden? And who was he risking that for?

Recently, the Board of the DC Bar, which had granted Berger his license, began asking those questions. There was only one way to stop that investigation, to keep from answering questions about what he did and why he did it, to keep the Bar from questioning his colleagues in the Clinton Administration about what had been in the documents Berger destroyed.

Berger took that step, surrendering his license, and stopping the investigation.

Ordinarily, anyone who has spent the time, effort, and money needed to master one of the "learned professions" fights with the utmost determination to keep his license. That is not merely a ticket to practice your chosen profession - it is also a badge of honor and accomplishment. Ask any doctor or lawyer, any architect or CPA, any professional at all, what it means to give that up.

That Berger didn't fight speaks volumes.

This in a mystery that has not been explored yet.

Things I Get in the Mail

Shorter Adam Cohen on Clarence Thomas:

NY Times: Liberals are good people. Conservatives are bad people. Clarence Thomas, who is black and grew up under modest circumstances, and once was liberal himself, should be the first one to realize this. Instead, not only is he conservative, but he hangs around with bad people like Rush Limbaugh. This is an enigma, and an especially troubling one now that the Court is moving in Thomas's direction.

Continuing Silence On al-Qaeda Torture By Our MSM

Curt at Flopping Aces asks:

And think about this. If it had not been for sites such as The Smoking Gun, and the conservative blogs, these pictures and stories would never had been known by the wider populace. Which begs the question what else do we not know about events in our history? Just imagine what was left out of newspapers by the leftists inside the MSM 30 years ago.

Dartmouth Hosts "Important Human Hair Exhibit"

What can I say? I have looked through the press materials about this...well, farce is the mildest word that comes to mind. “Major Public Art Project Explores Globalization through Human Hair”—Right. And I, as Dorothy Parker said, am Marie of Roumania. Why not “Major Public Art Project Explores Globalization through Human Sneakers”? or “Major Public Art Project Explores Globalization through Human Nail Clippings”? Or (the most accurate) “Major Public Art Project Explores Globalization through Human Fatuousness”?

Let me begin with a minor quibble. What makes this silly exhibitionist prank a “major” anything? “Major” in this context means “important,” “unusually significant,” whereas this exercise in academic avant-gardisme is simply one more tired effort to come up with a whisper, a wrinkle, a soupcon of novelty in the barren field of “conceptual art.” The only thing “major” about Dartmouth’s hairy hangings has to do with the major fraud perpetrated upon the innocent public who might, in its innocence and good will, betake itself to this exhibition in hope of enlightenment, aesthetic refreshment, or at least some smattering of visual intelligence. One of the things that is so depressing about “the green house” (why the lower case letters? why?) is the concomitant collusion of Dartmouth in this latest instance of cynical cultural exploitation.

Four hundred and thirty pounds of human hair, 40,000 haircuts, and one “avant-garde Chinese artist”—what nonsense!

I have never been a fan of modern art although I'm certainly willing to give it a chance. That is why I have toured the MOMA in New York and viewed that art collected by Don Marron, formerly Chairman of PaineWebber at it's corporate headquarters. What surprised me was that up-close and personal, modern art is even uglier than viewed at a distance.

To quote one critic: One of the most striking qualities of contemporary art is its ability to shock, outrage and provoke its audience. Given that definition, the snuff videos of Islamofascist are much better than the ugly "pictures" hung on museum walls or being exhibited at Dartmouth.

Deporting illegals who commit crimes — that’s a good idea.

Reminiscent if the illegal immigrant who killed two girls in Virginia Beach, this time we have:

An illegal immigrant faces multiple charges after police say he hit and killed a pedestrian in east Charlotte and then left the scene.

Luciano Melendres, 30, is charged with felony hit-and-run, driving while impaired, driving with a revoked license, driving without liability insurance and driving with fictitious tags.

Officers say Melendres, a native of Mexico, hit and killed 32-year-old Danny Sims while he was crossing Albemarle Road near Farm Pond Lane around 10:30 p.m. Sunday. They say Melendres fled the scene in a green Ford Expedition, but a witness called 911 as she followed the sport utility vehicle and directed officers to a home on Jason’s Forest Drive, just two miles from the crash scene. Police arrested Melendres a short time later.

Melendres was just convicted last week on a DWI charge from a March 16, 2006, incident. He was sentenced to probation, alcohol assessment and treatment and community service and was ordered to pay court costs and have a breathalyzer device installed on his vehicle. Police said they didn’t find the device during an initial look inside.

N.C. Rep. Sue Myrick, a proponent of immigration reform, says the only thing that would keep such illegal immigrants off the streets after drinking is to deport them once they’re convicted of DWI.

And, no, it's not just another DWI.

The True Genesis of Amnesty International

A fascinating look at the founding of Amnesty International. Not how the legend has it.

New Hampshire Dhimmitude Watch

From LGF:

In Amherst, New Hampshire, parents are getting the jump on the impending caliphate and teaching their children to welcome their new Islamic overlords: ‘Open tent’ at Amherst Middle School.

The Belmont Club on Supporters of Chavez

A number of British personalities, including journalist John Pilger wrote the Guardian to announce their support for Chavez's shutdown of opposition TV stations. "We believe that the decision of the Venezuelan government not to renew the broadcasting licence of RCTV when it expires on May 27 ... is legitimate given that RCTV has used its access to the public airwaves to repeatedly call for the overthrow of the democratically elected government of President Hugo Chávez."
[...]
All over the world, in the Middle East, Southwest Asia, Africa, Asia and even in Western Europe people are being forced by crisis to choose their sides. The century widely expected to contain no greater peril than the Y2K bug is already forcing people to discover what civilians in Iraq know already: that you can be left hanging in the middle like Jimmy carter. We are left with choices between evils without the leadership to create space for maneuver.

And from the comments:

...somewhere in one of Josephine Tey's detective novels - I believe it is The Daughter of Time - her protagonist, Detective Grant speculates on the mental processes of criminals. One thing he claims is that your burglar or whatever can reason very well from A to B, but not from B to C.

In other words, he knows that if he blows the safe door (A)he gets the money" (B)"but he can't or prefers not to reason to (C):"as soon as he tries to spend the money he'll be caught. Your common Kos frother can reason from (A)"if we get power" to (B) "we can shut Rush up", but not to (C)"then others will have the power to shut me up."

With others I think the reasoning is more complex. Some might simply reason that therefore power must never be reliquished at any cost. I think most liberals take refuge in legalistic hypocrisy; "The Fairness Doctrine censors nobody, in fact it gives everyone a fair chance" simply ignoring the real effects. Or some varient of "the public owns the airways, and therefore a legal right exists to enforce...blah, blah, blah."

Finally, of course, since by definition to be a liberal is to be the best, and indeed, only possible defender of freedom (never defined) anything done by liberals by definition advances freedom, even if that means not advancing freedom at all. Rather like "People's Democracies" were, by definition, democratic. This is why many liberals will point you at dictionary definitions of the word "liberal" as if that meant anything.

All The News That's Fit To Print

Plan to blow up JFK Airpirt and land on page 37 of the NY Times. Getting no respect department.

From The Corner at NR:

The Grey Lady finally gets to the JFK plot today ... on page 37. Page One, meanwhile, features such cutting-edge news as: "In a New India, An Old Industry Buoys Peasants" (about brick making), "After Sanctions, Doctors Get Drug Company Pay," and, of course, "Fingers That Keep the Most Treasured Violins Fit." Good to see the Upper West Side still has its finger on America's pulse.

Mark Steyn: Prancing for Darfur

What would you prefer: doing something effective about the genocide in Darfur or feeling good about yourself by dancing for Darfur? The "concerned" in Salt Lake City chose number 2.

Michael Ledeen's Darfur post from yesterday has stuck in my mind all day. It's one of the saddest things I've read on this site, and it's entirely correct:

The killers largely operate from helicopters and small fixed wing aircraft. We could destroy them all in an hour or so. But that would be "wrong," because it would violate the current hymnal.

Go tell the victims. Explain why sanctions are better, because it makes the Western politicians feel pious.

Recently I interviewed Don Cheadle, who starred in that marvelous film Hotel Rwanda a year or two back. He's now written a book about Darfur. Very nice fellow. But he doesn't seem to appreciate that the big lesson of Rwanda is that the thugs understand very clearly that whenever the west starts working through the UN it sends the message: We're not serious. Indeed, we're so unserious we're going to "solve" this problem through a process which gives mass murderers the one thing you need if you want to kill hundreds of thousands of people - time.

So Cheadle's book proposes all kinds of things you the citizen can do for Darfur - write your Congressman, send a letter to the local paper, etc. There's a lot of it about. A week or two back, the following caught my eye:

On Sunday, April 29, Salt Lake Saves Darfur invites the greater Salt Lake community of compassion to join with us as we honor the fallen and suffering Darfuris in a day of films, discussion and dance with a Sudanese dance troupe.

Very nice. But wouldn't it make more sense to try the Ledeen solution and save the Sudanese dance troupe for the post-victory party? "Salt Lake Saves Darfur" looks like doing wonders for "the greater Salt Lake community of compassion" but rather less for the people of Darfur. There is a grotesque narcissism in the determination of the Save Darfur campaign to embrace every strategy except the one that would actually save Darfur while there's anyone still left to save. The reality seems to be that these groups prefer to go the ineffectual dance-troupe route because it makes them - the "community of compassion" - the focus of things.

Comparative Torture 101

At Human Events Mac Johnson discusses the strange torture of "torture."

...the definition of torture seems to have undergone a remarkable and elastic expansion in the hands of a crusading press (not that the press would approve of being called “crusading,” which might be deemed offensive to non-Christians). Human rights are apparently quite precious indeed when defending them offers a chance to criticize the United States. And more than one observer has claimed that the United States use of “torture” has robbed her of any moral authority she had when the “so-called” War on Terror began. Allegedly, America is now little better than Al Qaeda.

Strange then, that the recent discovery in Iraq (which has no relationship to the so-called War on Terror), of a graphic how-to guide to torture, published by Al Qaeda for the training of its operatives, has received so little coverage by the usually human-rights obsessed mainstream media. The guide, done in comic book form for the benefit of illiterate dungeon masters, was found in an actual torture facility -- a dank, filthy hole of a basement, complete with chains hanging from the ceiling and a variety of whips, pliers, blowtorches, power drills, hammers, meat cleavers, vices and electrocution devices laid out nearby.

[...]
Recommended Al Qaeda Torture Technique #1: “Eye Removal”

Alleged American “Torture” Technique #1: Majid Khan, a Pakistani associate of Khalid Sheik Mohammed being held at Guantanamo Bay, has made a “Statement of Torture” to a military tribunal (reported by the BBC) that he was “psychologically tortured” by the United States by being given new eyeglasses with the wrong prescription. The unfortunate Mr. Khan also “produced a list of further examples of psychological torture, which included the provision of ‘cheap, branded, unscented soap’, the prison newsletter, noisy fans and half-inflated balls in the recreation room that ‘hardly bounce’.” This torture was so intolerable that Khan twice attempted to commit suicide by chewing through one of his arteries. Clearly, we are the ones that are unbalanced.

Jonah Goldberg on Fred Thompson

Johan begins by quoting IMAO: Fred Thompson Facts. A must read!

...there’s no denying that Fred Thompson has one of the most profound personality cults we’ve seen in politics for a long time. While traveling around the country in recent months, I’ve been amazed at how many rank-and-file Republicans see Thompson as a secular savior, as if Thompson were designed by GOP-friendly alien scientists as some sort of Super Candidate.

For some skeptical observers, this has resulted in comparisons to retired General Wes Clark, the Democrats’ onetime man on a white horse. “Fred Thompson is to the Republicans in ’08 as Wes Clark was to the Democrats in ’04,” writes Jason Zengerle of The New Republic. “In other words, the highpoint of his campaign will be the day he gets in the race, because once he’s a serious candidate — and not just the fevered daydream of a dissatisfied base — voters will realize he’s not all that.”

On the surface, there’s merit to the comparison. Wes Clark, as I wrote in ’04, was the “Johnny Bravo” candidate. That’s a reference to the Brady Bunch episode where Greg Brady is picked to be a rock star, not because of his musical talent but because he fit into the glitzy costume that rock promoters had already created. Clark, with his admirable military record and perceived “toughness” in foreign policy, seemed like the ideal candidate to beat Bush in ’04.

Similarly, Thompson seems to be what Republicans are yearning for. But there’s a key distinction. Wes Clark was a candidate for Democrats who wanted to beat Bush. Thompson’s appeal is based partly on a desire for victory, but there’s also a desire to get beyond Bush.

First and foremost, Thompson’s articulateness shouldn't be underestimated. He shares with Ronald Reagan — another actor-politician — an ability to communicate ideas in folksy, almost conversational ways without losing important nuance or meaning.

Most Republicans won’t admit it, but Bush’s trouble articulating his views — compounded by a terrible communications operation (save for standout Press Secretary Tony Snow) — is a major irritation on the Right. There’s a reason that IMAO’s No. 1 “Fred Thompson Fact” is “Fred Thompson has on multiple occasions pronounced ‘nuclear’ correctly.”

[...]

There are other important differences between Clark and Thompson. As a candidate, Clark was a dud. He couldn’t explain the necessary flip-flops and contortions required to fit his record with the demands of the Democratic party’s base, and the more he talked, the less likable and presidential he seemed. Thompson’s record isn’t a perfect fit for the GOP base either, but Thompson, unlike Clark, is a very capable politician who won his senate seat by the largest margin in Tennessee history. And the more he talks, the more likable and presidential he appears.

Thompson’s approval ratings may never be higher than on the day before he announces. We don’t know the man very well, but we know the character. And as long as he stays in character, it’s unlikely his ratings will drop anytime soon.

Democrats Hide Pet Projects From Voters

That's right, punish those Republicans by voting them out of office. Where's that knife so I can cut off my nose to spite my face.

The Faked "Consensus" on Global Warming

The June 2nd Edition of Canada’s Financial Post, Lawrence Solomon, the Executive Director of the Urban Renaissance Institute and Consumer Policy Institute, proves that the much touted “consensus” that man is making the globe warmer is a scam, a fib, a great big piece of propaganda to fool the rubes.

"Only an insignificant fraction of scientists deny the global warming crisis. The time for debate is over. The science is settled."

So said Al Gore ... in 1992. Amazingly, he made his claims despite much evidence of their falsity. A Gallup poll at the time reported that 53% of scientists actively involved in global climate research did not believe global warming had occurred; 30% weren't sure; and only 17% believed global warming had begun. Even a Greenpeace poll showed 47% of climatologists didn't think a runaway greenhouse effect was imminent; only 36% thought it possible and a mere 13% thought it probable.

Today, Al Gore is making the same claims of a scientific consensus, as do the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and hundreds of government agencies and environmental groups around the world. But the claims of a scientific consensus remain unsubstantiated. They have only become louder and more frequent.
[...]
Somewhere along the way, I stopped believing that a scientific consensus exists on climate change. Certainly there is no consensus at the very top echelons of scientists -- the ranks from which I have been drawing my subjects -- and certainly there is no consensus among astrophysicists and other solar scientists, several of whom I have profiled. If anything, the majority view among these subsets of the scientific community may run in the opposite direction. Not only do most of my interviewees either discount or disparage the conventional wisdom as represented by the IPCC, many say their peers generally consider it to have little or no credibility. In one case, a top scientist told me that, to his knowledge, no respected scientist in his field accepts the IPCC position.

What of the one claim that we hear over and over again, that 2,000 or 2,500 of the world's top scientists endorse the IPCC position? I asked the IPCC for their names, to gauge their views. "The 2,500 or so scientists you are referring to are reviewers from countries all over the world," the IPCC Secretariat responded. "The list with their names and contacts will be attached to future IPCC publications, which will hopefully be on-line in the second half of 2007."

An IPCC reviewer does not assess the IPCC's comprehensive findings. He might only review one small part of one study that later becomes one small input to the published IPCC report. Far from endorsing the IPCC reports, some reviewers, offended at what they considered a sham review process, have demanded that the IPCC remove their names from the list of reviewers. One even threatened legal action when the IPCC refused.

Of course no one is claiming that there are no scientists who believe in man-made global warming. But the claims of “consensus” are a sham and even those scientists who believe that mankind is warming the planet are expressing concern that the hype will cause them to be discredited as evidence for or against man-made global warming develops.

This is a serious problem, because the result of this will be drastic and widespread rules and regulations that attempt to deal with a non-existent problem. But these laws and regulations, while they may not affect the world’s climate at all, will have a dramatic impact on its people. The effect is predictable: it will cost the people of developed countries thousands of dollars per year. But the most catastrophic effect will be on the world’s poorest people who may find themselves starving in mass famines at the worst or, prevented from climbing out of their poverty at best.

This will not affect those who, like al Gore, actually profit from the cultivation of this huge lie. From any mass movement, someone benefits. After all, Hitler benefited from the destruction of World War 1 and Germany’s defeat. But the rest of us, non-politicians who wish to live our lives as good stewards of the earth, will be saddled with a hugely expensive “answer” to a non-problem.

I’m on the side of Michael Griffin, NASA Administrator, who stated that it is “arrogant” of some people to assume that our climate can be changed by humans and that the climate we have is the optimal climate of all time for everybody and we need to – in effect – try to stop any further change.

“I would ask which human beings - where and when - are to be accorded the privilege of deciding that this particular climate that we have right here today, right now is the best climate for all other human beings. I think that's a rather arrogant position for people to take.”

It appears that Al Gore, his allies in Congress and the press, and the climate hucksters at the IPCC are trying to decide for all of us. The fact that they cannot succeed will not stop them from doing incalculable damage.

Rangel and the vast majority of other congressional Democrats hoping, perhaps even praying, that the U.S. loses this war.

From Investors Business Daily: Apocalypse ASAP!

Democratic leaders are making it increasingly clear they'll let nothing prevent the U.S. from losing the war against al-Qaida and other terrorists in Iraq — not even victory.

For them, defeat in Iraq cannot come too soon. They are that convinced a failed war blamed on President Bush would be a political gold mine in 2008.

As if to prevent anyone in America from starting to think things might be going better in Iraq, House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles Rangel declared in a visit to the New York Daily News editorial board last week that "the president knows it's over."

Calling the commander in chief "the joke of America," Rangel of New York added: "The president is in the 15th round. He's lost every round."

When one of Congress' most powerful committee chairmen makes such remarks, it may get under the skin of a few politicians on the other side of the aisle; but the chief effect Rangel's wisecracks have comes when they get translated into Arabic and Farsi, and al-Qaida's operatives and sympathizers hear them.

Rewriting History the MSM Way.

Let’s face it, isn’t the most common theme of all background reports on the Iraq war that Bush “twisted” the intelligence about WMDs just so he could start a war in the Middle East. The rationale for his desire to do that varies from “”oil,” to avenging Saddam’s attempt to assassinate his daddy, to whatever fantasy the spinners weave at the moment.

What’s really amazing about this attempt to rewrite the history is that it’s so blatant. Reminiscent of the Soviet’s editing of pictures of the men surrounding Stalin. When one dropped out of favor and was “liquidated” he was airbrushed out of the picture.

You have to be an idiot not to remember, as Jeff Goldstein does:

Examine, if you will, what the anti-war press has done here in trying to shape the overarching narrative of Iraq. First, it has placed the blame on the Administration for its failure NOT to dismiss CIA intel about WMDs—shared by virtually every intelligence service in the world, and backed to this day by several reports (the “stockpiles” have never been found, but the ability to quickly make and mobilize weapons has)—spinning that, with the help of furiously backpeddling and cowardly Democrats (with certain exceptions, Bob Kerrey and Joe Lieberman notable among them), into the suggestion that Bush, having weighed the bulk of the intelligence, “lied” about WMDs and “misled” us into war. Of course, Congress had access to that same intelligence—and it was a Democratic administration that, too, was certain about Saddam’s danger—but that fact is consistently bracketed from the Iraq war narrative as it has been consistently pushed by Democrats and the press.

The popular press is still able to try to re-shape our memories; to airbrush the ghosts away. Do I really remember all the leading Democrats – from Clinton to the lowest rank and filer – warning us of the dangers of a nuclear armed Saddam who was furiously developing and stockpiling WMDs? Or was I mistaken, and is the reality that the CIA, all the world’s intelligence services and the Democrats were yelling at the top of their voices: “Stop! There are not WMDs in Iraq! Saddam has no interest in nukes!”

Yeah, that must be it because the Virginian Pilot and the NY Times tell me so. Who am I going to believe, them or my lying eyes?

The people who oppose this war should be able to do so honestly. The fact that they are lying about the background of this war tells me that the facts are not on their side. And people who tell lies to further their cause are not to be trusted.

More Debunking Of The Global Warming Hysteria

From Flopping Aces, the Wall Street Journal and Glenn Beck:

A new study released this week by the National Center for Policy Analysis, "Climate Science: Climate Change and Its Impacts", is taking the Environazi's to task once again. Here is an editorial from the WSJ which breaks it down a bit:

It concludes that "the science does not support claims of drastic increases in global temperatures over the 21rst century, nor does it support claims of human influence on weather events and other secondary effects of climate change."

George Will: Out of the Shadows

George Will has comments on the immigration debate:

Sensible immigration policy must arise from more than monomania about the disturbing fact that at least 12 million immigrants are here illegally. Affirming the rule of law is, however, where to begin because when a large and somewhat cohesive cohort succeeds in living in defiance of the law, the scofflaw spirit can have myriad manifestations. Writing in last summer's City Journal, Heather Mac Donald of the Manhattan Institute gave a sobering example:

"Protecting one form of lawbreaking may require protecting others as well. The city of Maywood in Los Angeles County declared itself a sanctuary zone for illegal aliens this year. Then it got rid of its drunk-driving checkpoints, because they were nabbing too many illegal aliens. Next, this 96 percent Latino city, almost half of whose adult population lacks a ninth-grade education, disbanded its police traffic division entirely, so that illegals wouldn't need to worry about having their cars towed for being unlicensed."

Mac Donald says that although some data suggest that many Hispanic immigrants live in increasing cultural and linguistic self-segregation, clearly some have assimilated in the sense of acquiring one of the nation's unpleasant current attributes, the entitlement mentality: We are here, therefore we are entitled to be here.

[...]

The immigration debate, which may become even more heated when Congress reconvenes after getting an earful from constituents during the Memorial Day recess, would be confusing enough without today's fog of careless language. Journalism and political rhetoric about immigration are ludicrously reliant on the trope "out of the shadows."

At the announcement of the compromise legislation, Ted Kennedy said it would bring illegal immigrants "out of the shadows." The next day, the lead paragraph of The Washington Post's page-one news story said the compromise would bring illegal immigrants "out of society's shadows." The White House fact sheet said, earnestly but ungrammatically, that under the legislation, "The undocumented worker comes out of the shadows to acknowledge they [sic] have broken the law."

This rhetoric reached comic absurdity when CNN interviewed Chuy Arias of Los Angeles. He said on camera that he has been here illegally for 12 years. Referring to him, with the delicacy that serves a political agenda, as an "undocumented worker," today's synonym for "illegal immigrant," CNN's reporter said Arias was eager to "come out of the shadows."

So, Arias can simultaneously be "in the shadows" and discussing his illegal status on worldwide television. Who knew?

Read the whole thing.

And if you have a problem with this, Joe Klein - self proclaimed media know-it-all - thinks you are an ignorant redneck anti-Mexican race baiter.

If you scroll down to the comments after the interview you will find this gem:


Klein dismisses as foolish, for example, not just Victor Davis Hanson, Bernard Lewis, or mark Steyn, but all three. Really, what can you say to such a writer?What can I say?

"Ordinarily he was insane, but he had lucid moments when he was merely stupid."
Heinrich Heine

Iraq as It Is . . .

There are actually two countries between Iran and Syria. One is Iraq, a land caught between al-Qaeda terrorists and Iranian-supported Shiite extremists. Iraq is a country facing a complex set of challenges, run by imperfect leaders with various agendas, protected by many courageous security forces hindered by sectarian elements among them. It is a country in which American forces are essential to establishing and securing order and are succeeding in that task. It is a country where there are no easy solutions, but where success is possible if Americans and Iraqis show the necessary determination and skill.

The other country between Iran and Syria might be called "MyRaq." (For this coinage, we are indebted to our friend Joel Rayburn.) This is a different country entirely--a land that exists only in the imaginations of various American political leaders in Washington and in the Green Zone. In MyRaq, the problems are fairly simple and solutions are obvious, although they differ from one MyRaq to another:

Sunni and Shiite MyRaqis simply hate each other and want to kill each other as they have for centuries. Violence in MyRaq cannot be controlled because it is the reflection of irrational hatred.


American troops are seen as occupiers in MyRaq. They are the irritant that drives the violence. If only the U.S. withdrew, the MyRaqis would stop killing one another and the war would end.


MyRaq must find its own solutions to its problems. Real peace can result only from political accommodations that the MyRaqi leaders have so far been unwilling to make, largely because the presence of American forces has allowed them to duck making the hard calls.


MyRaqis are a bunch of welfare queens who won't do anything for themselves as long as Americans are willing to do it for them. If we want the MyRaqis to establish and maintain security, we've got to pull back and force them to do it. We can leave some training teams to help them work better, but MyRaqi Security Forces should be doing all the heavy lifting in the MyBaghdad Security Plan and throughout the country.


Problems in MyRaq come from MyRanian (and MySyrian) influence and intervention. MyRan (a fictitious country that deserves a study of its own) is acting out of self-defense in MyRaq, fearful of an overbearing America that refuses to address its legitimate concerns. Diplomatic overtures toward MyRan would reduce MyRanian interference in MyRaq, leading to peace.


MyRaq is an artificial country whose boundaries have no meaning to its people. It should be partitioned into three states--MyKurdistan, MySunnistan, and MyShiitestan--which would then be peaceful and stable. After all, MyRaq was divided into three vilayets when under Ottoman control and we all know how stable it was then.
Unfortunately, the problems facing Iraq--and their solutions--are far more complex.

Chris Dodd’s Hateful Campaign Blogger

The Democrats keep repeating that the radical Left is not really part of their party. If that's so, why do they make a pattern of hiring people for their blogs who are hate-mongers who use foul language?

Several months ago Michelle Malkin and many other conservative bloggers exposed the offensive and explicit language Amanda Marcotte used on her blog prior to joining the John Edwards campaign. Miraculously, when she worked under the title of “John Edwards campaign blogger” we didn’t see her dirty prose being used.

As I will document in this post, “Emboldened” blogger turned Chris Dodd campaign blogger Matt Browner-Hamlin has a similar past as Marcotte. While blogging at “Emboldended,” a Baltimore Group blog, Mr. Browner-Hamlin used very explicit language to villify his political opponents.

***

Ironically, in a post titled “The truth about misogynists” Mr. Browner-Hamlin saw fit to label Ann Althouse as an “asshole” and “fuckwit.” He also used the same words to describe Glenn Reynolds of Instapundit and Ace of Ace of Spades because of “anti-woman” language he accuses them of using:

Read the rest.

Make no mistake, these people ARE the modern Democrat Party.