WE HAVE MOVED
Check out the new site here:
Bigger, Better and Uglier than ever!!!!!!!!!!
Let every nation know Whether it wishes us well or ill That we shall pay any price - bear any burden Meet any hardship - support any friend Oppose any foe to assure the survival And the success of liberty (John F. Kennedy 1961 Inaugural Address)
Check out the new site here:
I have some folks helping me work on some new stuff for the blog behind the scenes. It should be done in the next few days. So I will be unable to post for a little while.
"There is no known link or demonstrated link or any other kind of link at this point between the people here and any terror cell,"This completely contradicts the previous reports from ABC.
Federal agents have launched an investigation into a surge in the purchase of large quantities of disposable cell phones by individuals from the Middle East and Pakistan, ABC News has learned.
The phones -- which do not require purchasers to sign a contract or have a credit card -- have many legitimate uses, and are popular with people who have bad credit or for use as emergency phones tucked away in glove compartments or tackle boxes. But since they can be difficult or impossible to track, law enforcement officials say the phones are widely used by criminal gangs and terrorists.
...Law enforcement officials say the phones were used to detonate the bombs terrorists used in the Madrid train attacks in March 2004.
...The FBI is closely monitoring the potentially dangerous development, which came to light following recent large-quantity purchases in California and Texas, officials confirmed.
In one New Year's Eve transaction at a Target store in Hemet, Calif., 150 disposable tracfones were purchased. Suspicious store employees notified police, who called in the FBI, law enforcement sources said.In an earlier incident, at a Wal-mart store in Midland, Texas, on December 18, six individuals attempted to buy about 60 of the phones until store clerks became suspicious and notified the police. A Wal-mart spokesperson confirmed the incident.
LL of these large sales came RIGHT AFTER the NYTIMES NSA leak (12/15/05). Though this is circumstantial, it is HIGHLY SUGGESTIVE that the leak alerted the sleeper cells HERE (and perhaps elsewhere), and that they are adapting their SOP's as a result; thus, they are making it tougher for us to prevent an attack.The most amazing part of this story is the reaction from Glenn Greenwald.
If you’re interested in viewing the results of mixing sickly paranoia with abject stupidity -- or if you want to catch a glimpse of what our country will look like once the most rabid Bush followers have full reign over it -- I highly recommend this genuinely disturbing post from Michelle Malkin.but his commentors go much much farther than that:
Malkin should be on her knees "thanking" Jim Risen (as only a horrid little slut can do) for his expose of this practice.Or how about this reaction from Tbogg.
Malkin and her ilk deserve to be deported!
suspicious right-i suspect michelle is a double agent working for the chinese commies-
Michelle your cover is blown-i hope we're listening to all of her calls-it's for her own good
It's obvious somebody needs to ...
Since the Great Oklahoma Backpack Bomber Scare of 2005 went the way of Jack Abramoff's career, Michelle Malkin needed another threat to the homeland to get all nipply about and she found it in swarthy types buying cell phones. Quickly, Commisioner! Turn on the Crazy Ass Racist Bitch Signal!
I will give Malkin her due when she says that we all should be willing to report behaviour we thought was suspicious. I did, on one occasion right after 9/11. I have no idea if anything came of it but I am still glad I did. It may well be the case that, at least in the Texas incident ABC reports, there is some link between these bulk purchases and terrorism:
Plants Produce "greenhouse gasses!" That’s right NPR’s morning edition reported this morning that scientists in Europe have made an astonishing discovering. All leafy plants (that includes trees) produce methane. In fact they produce as much as ONE THIRD of all methane gas in the world.
At least that seems to be the general consensus.
Personally I think an attempt to block a nominee to the SCOTUS for ideological reasons is wrong. However this dance that is being performed is great for Democracy imo. Judge Alito is proving to the country just how much he knows about the law and demonstrating why he is qualified to serve on the court.
Like the bad lawyer he has proven himself to be, Schumer asked one question too many:
SCHUMER: Does the Constitution protect the right to free speech?
ALITO: Certainly it does. That's in the First Amendment.
SCHUMER: So why can't you answer the question of: Does the Constitution protect the right to an abortion the same way without talking about stare decisis, without talking about cases, et cetera?
ALITO: Because answering the question of whether the Constitution provides a right to free speech is simply responding to whether there is language in the First Amendment that says that the freedom of speech and freedom of the press can't be abridged. Asking about the issue of abortion has to do with the interpretation of certain provisions of the Constitution.
The NYT says Judge Alito did very well on the first day of questioning:
WASHINGTON, Jan. 10 - If Senate Democrats had set out to portray Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr. as extreme on issues ranging from abortion to government surveillance of citizens, they ran up against an elusive target on Tuesday: Samuel A. Alito Jr. For nearly eight hours, Judge Alito was placid, monochromatic and, it seemed, mostly untouchable.
It was beginning to look as if the Democrats had shown up to a knife fight without a knife yesterday.
It was beginning to look as if they'd just been woofing when it came to the Supreme Court confirmation hearings of Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr. That they'd written a check full of bluster that a lackluster series of questions couldn't cash.
If the Republicans want to maintain their majorities in The House and Senate they should take Hugh Hewitt's advice when selecting new leadership. If whoever they choose for Majority Leader is eventually tied to the Abramoff scandal it will be very hard for them to recover in 2006.
The Volokh Conspiracy offers some poll results mentioned in this CNN story that claims the American Public is growing more skeptical of the secret NSA program recently exposed in a series of NYT stories and James Risen's new book. I checked the article myself. You can click on a link for some of the poll questions. Here are the results they allow you to see.
Question: Do you think the Bush administration has gone too far, has been about right, or has not gone far enough in restricting people's civil liberties in order to fight terrorism?
Answers: About Right 40%, 19% Not Far Enough (editors note: Thats 59% who feel the Bush admin has done enough or not gone far enough)
38% Gone Too Far, and 3% No Opinion.
Question: As you may know, the Bush administration has been wiretapping telephone conversations between U.S. citizens living in the United States and suspected terrorists living in other countries without getting a court order allowing it to do so. How closely have you been following the news about this?
46% Somewhat Closely, 29% Very Closely, 16% Not Too Closely, and 9% Not At All,
and the final question:
Question: Do you think the Bush administration was right or wrong in wiretapping these conversations without obtaining a court order?
50% Right, 46% Wrong, and 4% No Opinion.
What the article does not tell us is who was sampled, what were their political affiliations, were there any more questions and what was the wording of those questions?
This is once again an example of the press not being transparent. Why won't they give us access to everything in the poll?
I for one would like to know how the 25% of the people who answered they were either not following this story very closely or not at all to question two answered questions 1 and 3. Does anyone else think this is important?
Don't you want to know how people who have basically admitted to being ignorant of the details of this story answered?
I don't know about the wisdom of this new proposed amendment to the 1934 communications act, but I agree with La Shawn Barber completely on this one. This is one of my pet peeves about the intraweb. Before starting this blog, I posted frequently on a few internet message boards, and I have played online video games for several years. It always amazed and infuriated me when people would not just cross but leap over the bounds of socially acceptable behavior simply because they were anonymous. Saying things they would never say in person for fear of a well deserved beating, or in the case of video games, intentionally harming other players for pure amusement. Taking pleasure from the other player’s pain / inconvenience / loss etc.
They were stupid, Patriotism gets you nothing but a body bag.
Whats worse than a career criminal drug addicted, drunken scumbag on crack?
Being a Democrat I am supposed to hate Republicans. Well I don't in fact I find myself agreeing with the GOP far more than the Democratic leadership these days. However The GOP is in charge of both houses of congress right now and as John Fund tells us today they are spending far more of our money on pork barrel spending projects than ever before. The latest culprit being "earmarked" projects.
So you know the tired mantra by now. "I support the troops I just don't support this war". Well Listen to the audio and read the transcript here from Smash who attended a town hall meeting this weekend with Congressman Filner in San Diego (my home town) and you tell me if Congressman Filner or his friendly audience was supporting Smash.
I wonder if the Indepundit would have the courage to confront the man who really
should be questioned about the Iraq war, that would be president Bush of course.
Michelle Malkin has the video that you absolutely have to watch One is of recently discharged Sgt. Mark Seavey who just came back from his deployment to Afghanistan. The other is a retired General reading a letter from the mother of a soldier who was killed in Iraq.
In this article posted yesterday for Time's online edition. Mr. Klein explains why Dems still don't get it when it comes to National Security.
But these concerns pale before the importance of the program. It would have been
a scandal if the NSA had not been using these tools to track down the bad guys.
There is evidence that the information harvested helped foil several plots and
disrupt al-Qaeda operations.
There is also evidence, according to U.S. intelligence officials, that since the New York Times broke the story, the terrorists have modified their behavior, hampering our efforts to keep track of them—but also, on the plus side, hampering their ability to communicate with one another.
The latest version of the absolutely necessary Patriot Act, which updates
the laws regulating the war on terrorism and contains civil-liberties
improvements over the first edition, was nearly killed by a stampede of Senate
Democrats. Most polls indicate that a strong majority of Americans favor the
act, and I suspect that a strong majority would favor the NSA program as well,
if its details were declassified and made known.
In fact, liberal Democrats are about as far from the American
mainstream on these issues as Republicans were when they invaded the privacy of
Terri Schiavo's family in the right-to-die case last year.
But there is a difference. National security is a far more important
issue, and until the Democrats make clear that they will err on the side of
aggressiveness in the war against al-Qaeda, they will probably not regain the
majority in Congress or the country.
Can it be any clearer? If any other President asked us to put national security
first, even the worse civil rights abusers in our history, the lunatic left
would align themselves with America first. But this is Bush - the object of
their undying hate.
Professor Brooks appeared on Hugh Hewitt's radio program last week to discuss a recent editorial she had written for the LA Times. In the Editorial Professor Brooks raises the possibility of GWB being impeached if the Dems somehow gain control of the congress in 2006. She also suggests there is some merit to the Dems claims. She specifically and repeatedly mentions the recent NSA story.
the NSA wiretapping scandal, is in some ways, the least of it.It seems to me that that looks more like a technicality than for instance, possibly deliberately misleading people about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq
Then why did she make that the focus of virtually her entire article?
She also admits pretty quickly that she is not an expert on the subject and can't really say with any authority if what the Bush admin did was any violation of the law at all. Read this telling exchange:
HH: So they specifically reserved the question to one side, and the foreign intelligence surveillance court appeals board, in In Re Sealed Case number 2, also said no, the president has the authority to do this. So given that the federal authority...RB: Well, you know, Hugh, I mean, you've got the case law at your fingertips, and I'm not going to challenge you on it, because I don't. And this is actually why, as I said a few minutes ago, this seems like the least of it to me. I mean, this seems to me to be an open question. You know, I'm not an expert on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or the case law behind it. I don't know.
Ok so she admits she really doesn't know what she is talking about fine. Now this brings me to the part of the interview that I took exceptional issue with. I have a serious problem with people who make outlandish claims that have already been demonstrably and repeatedly proven false. Call me crazy but it just makes me see red when people do this and even more so when they get away with it. I am just funny that way. Here is where Professor Brooks repeats the tired meme of "there are no links between
possibly deliberately misleading people about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, links between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda, potential violation of federal law on interrogations and detentions policy, and speaking specifically of the torture statute in the war crimes statute.
now anyone who wants to know and anyone who has read the 9/11 report, anyone who has read The Connection by Stephen F. Hayes or any of his 2 dozen or so articles on this topic know that there is no dispute. Saddam Hussein gave money, and training, held meetings, publicly praised (including the 9/11 attacks) and gave safe harbor to numerous terrorists. There are mountains of documentary evidence, including photos, documents, and witnesses supporting this.
Again call me crazy but I just expect a College professor to know what she is talking about before making an outlandish claim like this in one of the largest newspapers in the country or on a national radio show.
So I felt compelled to call Hugh that day and point it out. I also felt compelled to comment on Professor Brooks' blog and gave her some reference material so she can no longer claim ignorance of the facts. Here are my Comments on Professor Brooks blog:
I actually called in that day to gloat about the
win over USC but also to comment on your apparent complete ignorance of the numerous documented ties between Saddam and Al Qaeda. as well as various other well known terrorist organizations. Texas
Or are you one of the people who believe Abu Sayyaf leaders called Iraqi intelligence agents to discuss their night out bowling?
In case you have missed the over 2 dozen articles Stephen F. Hayes has written on the topic here are a few samples. Pay particular attention to the last one where he documents that Saddam trained THOUSANDS of terrorists in
during the 4 years prior to the invasion. This particular claim has been confirmed by 11 government officials. Iraq
Mr. Hayes writes:
“The photographs and documents on Iraqi training camps come from a collection of some 2 million "exploitable items" captured in postwar
and Iraq . They include handwritten notes, typed documents, audiotapes, videotapes, compact discs, floppy discs, and computer hard drives.” Afghanistan
Now you may have been ignorant before but that excuse is gone for you professor Brooks. I truly hope you are honest enough to leave this particular falsehood out of your repertoire in future articles or interviews on national radio programs.
Hugh suggested he would have her back on the program. I hope he asks her specifically about the ties between Saddam and Al Qaeda. She seems like a nice lady, and she did not come across as a partisan hack or ideologue. I hope she has the intellectual honesty to admit she was wrong.
First of all for Ted Kennedy to question anyone’s credibility is a joke. Take a look at his editorial in today's Washington Post.
As you may notice Kennedy fails to address Alito's qualifications for the court at all. There is good reason for that. The man is one of the most qualified judges to be nominated to the court in the last 50 years. Alito just received the ABA's highest rating of "Well Qualified" for the job.
First Kennedy takes Issue with Alito's 1990 job application for a position in the AG's office under Ed Meese. In that application Alito stated his "deep disagreement with
So What? Do you think Justice Ginsberg (who was an ACLU attorney before her appointment to the SCOTUS) had strong views on the
Newsflash Judges are people too. People have political and philosophical views especially people who work in politics and government.
#2 Kennedy suggests Alito's membership in the Concerned Alumni of Princeton some how disqualifies him for the job. Is he serious?
#3 Kennedy cites Alito's failure to recuse himself in a 2002 case in which three Vanguard companies were named parties. Kennedy of course fails to mention any specifics about the case. Maybe this is damning maybe it isn't but I would bet dimes to donuts if it was Kennedy would have been far more specific.
"But in case after case involving the actions of U.S. marshals, IRS agents and other government officials, he has sided with the government and against the citizens, even when his fellow judges have told him he was off-base."
And finally #5 Kennedy says: His promise to leave his personal beliefs behind when he became a judge : That's what he told me in 1990 he would do.
and claims Alito's appearing and speaking at Federalist Society meetings somehow betrayed that promise.
IS THIS ALL KENNEDY"S GOT?
Because if it is Alito is going to sail through confirmation just like Roberts did. Justifiably so.
If you haven't read Mark Steyn's piece yet do it right now.
Most people reading this have strong stomachs, so let me lay it out as baldly as I can: Much of what we loosely call the Western world will not survive this century, and much of it will effectively disappear within our lifetimes, including many if not most Western European countries.
Yet while Islamism is the enemy, it's not what this thing's about. Radical Islam is an opportunistic infection, like AIDS: It's not the HIV that kills you, it's the pneumonia you get when your body's too weak to fight it off.
They know they can never win on the battlefield, but they figure there's an excellent chance they can drag things out until Western civilization collapses in on itself and Islam inherits by default.
That's what the war's about: our lack of civilizational confidence. As a famous Arnold Toynbee quote puts it: "Civilizations die from suicide, not murder"--as can be seen throughout much of "the Western world" right now. The progressive agenda--lavish social welfare, abortion, secularism, multiculturalism--is collectively the real suicide bomb.
"Replacement" fertility rate--i.e., the number you need for merely a stable population, not getting any bigger, not getting any smaller--is 2.1 babies per woman. Some countries are well above that: the global fertility leader, Somalia, is 6.91, Niger 6.83, Afghanistan 6.78, Yemen 6.75. Notice what those nations have in common?
Scroll way down to the bottom of the Hot One Hundred top breeders and you'll eventually find the United States, hovering just at replacement rate with 2.07 births per woman. Ireland is 1.87, New Zealand 1.79, Australia 1.76. But Canada's fertility rate is down to 1.5, well below replacement rate; Germany and Austria are at 1.3, the brink of the death spiral; Russia and Italy are at 1.2; Spain 1.1, about half replacement rate. That's to say, Spain's population is halving every generation. By 2050, Italy's population will have fallen by 22%, Bulgaria's by 36%, Estonia's by 52%.
By 2050, there will be 100 million fewer Europeans, 100 million more Americans--and mostly red-state Americans.
Just to recap those bald statistics: In 1970, the developed world had twice as big a share of the global population as the Muslim world: 30% to 15%. By 2000, they were the same: each had about 20%.
According to a poll taken in 2004, over 60% of British Muslims want to live under Shariah--in the United Kingdom.
If a population "at odds with the modern world" is the fastest-breeding group on the planet--if there are more Muslim nations, more fundamentalist Muslims within those nations, more and more Muslims within non-Muslim nations, and more and more Muslims represented in more and more transnational institutions--how safe a bet is the survival of the "modern world"?
So as Steyn says this is a battle of attrition fought more in the bedroom than on the battlefield. I agree completely.
Which brings me to something I have been thinking about and contemplating posting on for quite some time. One of the strengths of the United States over the last 2 centuries has been its ability to take immigrants and incorporate them into society hence the nick name "the melting pot". Unlike European countries or any other country in the world for that matter, immigrants to the
Now here is the unfortunate twist. Due to our fairly recent immigration policy we have created an entire generation of immigrants mostly from Mexico but to a lesser extent from all over Central and South America who still consider themselves "Mexican" or "Brazilian" or El Salvadoran". Only because we have forced them to.
I am completely against illegal immigration but our country thrives on immigrants. Like it or not these people are here to stay. They are not going home next week, or next year or six years from now as President Bush would like us to believe. So why don't we embrace them?
Why don't we encourage them to become Americans?
No matter how poorly considered the law to have been they have broken it and need to be penalized but that penalty needs to also be handed out with a path toward citizenship that can be earned.
Why am I bringing this up now and how in the heck does it relate to Mark's article?
Well The fact is
We share a common history being discovered, and colonized by the Europeans. Hell the entire
So my answer to Mark Steyn's dilemma begins with the "Americanization" of our existing 12 million or so Mexicans, Guatemalans, El Salvadorans, et al. Secondly I suggest we encourage more "LEGAL" immigration from these countries and give them preferential status over European, Middle Eastern, and African immigrants. The next step is making a serious effort to end the kleptocracy governments of
We should encourage the Mexican government to send us their citizens for the foreseeable future. We will welcome them with open arms but they will be our citizens, and as a condition of this new Mexican friendly immigration policy we should require and even subsidize Mexican schools to teach every Mexican child English. As that becomes established we should extend this policy farther south.
Sounds like a long term strategy doesn’t it?
As Mark pointed out the Islamists are thinking long term.
The fact is the people of
And again to draw from Mr. Steyn's article:
In July 2003, speaking to the U.S. Congress, Tony Blair remarked: "As
knows, all predominant power seems for a time invincible but, in fact, it is transient. The question is: What do you leave behind?" Britain
In a related article check out this post titled The Other War at Freedom Folks. If you haven't figured it out already, my suggestion would partially address this problem as well. We will still need much better border enforcement but it should effectively stop the flood of hard working, legitimate immigrants and leave only the criminal elements to police.
instead of looking South Heliopause is looking north WAY NORTH. Something I am also very in favor of btw.
I have read and linked to them you should to!
This article by Mark Steyn is the early must read of the year. Not only do you need to read it you need to show it to every left wing moonbat you know. It might, just might slap a few of them in the face hard enough to wake them up to the real imminent threat the western world is facing.
Most people reading this have strong stomachs, so let me lay it out
as baldly as I can: Much of what we loosely call the Western world will not survive this century, and much of it will effectively disappear within our lifetimes, including many if not most Western European countries. There'll probably still be a geographical area on the map marked as Italy or the Netherlands--probably--just as in Istanbul there's still a building called St. Sophia's Cathedral. But it's not a cathedral; it's merely a designation for a piece of real estate. Likewise, Italy and the Netherlands will merely be designations for real estate. The challenge for those who reckon Western civilization is on balance better than the alternatives is to figure out a way to save at least some parts of the West.
That's what the war's about: our lack of civilizational confidence.
As a famous Arnold Toynbee quote puts it: "Civilizations die from suicide, not murder"--as can be seen throughout much of "the Western world" right now. The progressive agenda--lavish social welfare, abortion, secularism, multiculturalism--is collectively the real suicide bomb. Take multiculturalism. The great thing about multiculturalism is that it doesn't involve knowing anything about other cultures--the capital of Bhutan, the principal exports of Malawi, who cares? All it requires is feeling good about other cultures. It's fundamentally a fraud, and I would argue was subliminally accepted on that basis. Most adherents to the idea that all cultures are equal don't want to live in anything but an advanced Western society. Multiculturalism means your kid has to learn some wretched native dirge for the school holiday concert instead of getting to sing "Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer" or that your holistic masseuse uses techniques developed from Native American spirituality, but not that you or anyone you care about should have to live in an African or Native American society. It's a quintessential piece of progressive humbug.