Friday, June 24. 2005
Evils of the ACLU Darr in Intell. Conservative: For years the American Civil Liberties Union has pushed its agenda as to what the Constitution "really says," and what freedom "really means" through judicial extortion. In 1978, the Supreme Court exempted the ACLU from the "ambulance chasing" prohibitions that apply to nearly every other lawyer in the country. Over the years this has enabled the ACLU's legions of pro bono attorneys to specifically target various organizations they feel are vulnerable to their lawsuits, dredge the ranks of the "offended" until they can find someone who will agree to let the ACLU stick their name at the top of a case, and then attempt to force a group's acquiescence to their demands by threatening a costly legal case they usually cannot afford. Many who have dared to stand up against the ACLU might have won the battle in the court room, but lost the war as their organizations were driven into bankruptcy under crushing legal bills.
However, in the last few years the tide has started to turn. Alternate civil liberties groups, such as The American Center for Law and Justice, conservative radio commentators, and even some in the media, have drawn attention to the ACLU's pattern of abuses, fanatic beliefs and outright hypocrisy. For the first time the ACLU is faced with legitimate public outcry over their tactics, and slowly those who once would quietly give up their freedoms have been instilled with the will (and pro bono legal support) to fight. In addition, despite the efforts of obstructionist liberals in Congress, the court system is being given a much needed infusion of new judges who recognize that their interpretation of the Constitution should in some fashion be similar to those who wrote it. The ACLU understands its days of forcing Christianity, traditional values, and freedoms out of American public life are numbered.
Out of a sense of desperation and frustration toward this new threat, the ACLU has recently begun to change the target of their court cases to include the leaders of public groups and the private individuals who are leading the charge against them.
The best known case involves popular talk show host Sean Hannity. While interviewing volunteers of the Minuteman Project last April in Arizona, Hannity inadvertently crossed the US/Mexico border for a few minutes then immediately returned. It was a simple mistake and easily understood in light of the pathetic security of our borders. However the ACLU, which led the good fight by trying to obstruct the Minutemen and goad them into conflicts while enabling the rampant invasion of illegals into our nation, decided this was an offense that could not be tolerated. Apparently upset at Hannity's drawing interest to the good work of the Minutemen, Arizona State Rep. Kyrsten Sinema, under the auspices of the ACLU, demanded Hannity's arrest.
It is quite obvious that Sinema and the ACLU were not motivated out of a sense of respect for immigration law or fairness, but out of personal hatred toward Sean Hannity. The ACLU does not like what Hannity has to say, so what better way to silence him than by having him embarrassed and thrown in jail. But this is a larger issue than just the ACLU trying to embarrass Hannity. It is indicative of a terrifying new trend from the ACLU, where they are attempting to hold individual citizens legally liable for doing nothing more than thinking they are wrong. With large organizations starting to resist them, the ACLU must now found a new defenseless target unable to afford to fight them: private citizens.
There are several other cases in recent weeks which further illustrate this trend. In Tangipahoa Parish, Louisiana, the ACLU has called for the arrest of school teachers and administrators because the ACLU does not feel they adequately exorcised all Judeo-Christian influences from their classrooms and cafeterias. Read entire: Click here: The ACLU is Going Down, and Taking a Few of Us With it |
| |
Kelo - Another Viewpoint In contrast to the Barrister's hysteria and hyperventilation here last evening, Gwynnie would like to offer a more sober point of view. Gwynnie sought help from an old ex-lawyer, who dissected the news reports for her, noting that reading the court's opinions might bring about a different interpretation, because the MSM invariably got everything wrong. The old lawyer looked at the Fox News report, and will comment on extracts (shown in italics). He reminds us of the great property takings of the recent century: urban renewal and the interstate highway system, and of the fact that the people who did the construction of those projects made money at them. The Supremes (which her lawyer friend detests) said: New London could pursue private development under the Fifth Amendment, which allows governments to take private property if the land is for public use, since the project the city has in mind promises to bring more jobs and revenue. Under the ruling, residents still will be entitled to "just compensation" for their homes as provided under the Fifth Amendment. . . . New London has suffered the kind of economic woes afflicting urban areas across the country, with losses of residents and jobs. . . . City officials envision a commercial development including a riverfront hotel, health club and offices that would attract tourists to the Thames riverfront, complementing an adjoining Pfizer Corp. research center and a proposed Coast Guard museum.. . . A city council member who approved the development, said, "I am charged with doing what's best for the 26,000 people that live in New London. That to me was enacting the eminent domain process designed to revitalize a city ... with nowhere to go." Old lawyer says that maybe this is what city officials should be thinking about for the community good. Strong words are being used against the project: "It's a little shocking to believe you can lose your home in this country," said resident Bill Von Winkle, who said he would keep fighting the bulldozers in his working-class neighborhood. "I won't be going anywhere. Not my house. This is definitely not the last word." Yet eminent domain is settled law; the Supremes haven’t expanded anything here. Homes were lost for the interstate highways, Idlewild Airport (a.k.a. to you kidlets as JFK in Jamaica, NY), Lincoln Center, and many other projects that transformed their communities. This is a judgement best made locally, the Supremes are saying. "Promoting economic development is a traditional and long accepted function of government," Stevens wrote, adding that local officials are better positioned than federal judges to decide what's best for a community. . . . There is a local alternative: throw the dummies out of office (unless the community thinks they made the right decision). If the local dummies are too corrupt, make state law: At least eight states — Arkansas, Florida, Illinois, Kentucky, Maine, Montana, South Carolina and Washington — forbid the use of eminent domain for economic development unless it is to eliminate blight. Other states either expressly allow a taking for private economic purposes or have not spoken clearly to the question. . .
Continue reading ""
Thursday, June 23. 2005
A Rogue Court Mark Levin has it right tonight on the radio - we have a Rogue Supreme Court. Replacing Rehnquist will make no difference. There is a liberal/leftist majority on this court which sees no limit to federal power, and which sees no limits to its own powers in the Constitution. This is truly strange and deeply worrisome, and takes us one giant step closer to a Royal Govt., as did the California marijuana case on the Commerce Clause, which essentially pushed "delete" on the Commerce Clause (the case involved no commerce, and nothing interstate). Yes, I am beyond t-ed off - I am flabbergasted - in a sense, private property just ceased to exist. A freebie for Mark here. I need a drink. Two scotches later, I find this in the Daily Standard. And more details on Kelo here - thanks Michelle.
A Very Backward Supreme Ct. Decision (Kelo) The Lefties on the Court today expanded the Fifth Amendment, regarding eminent domain, to include hotel construction in CT. In my opinion, this is a return to feudalism, and essentially permits any reason for taking of property... including putting a Walmart on my farm. In CNN. What does the Left stand for? Expansion of Federal power, and destruction of the nation's power, traditions, morals, culture, and religion. It's simple. Text of decision here. Is this an argument for new blood on the Court? Sure is. Perhaps Breyer was inspired by British or French court cases (from the year 1325). Why the Sudden Fierce Anti-War Noises? Thanks, Powerline, for the intro to Irish Pennants - almost wrote Irish Penance - which has a good theory - the left wants us to lose before we can finally win: I suspect Democrats and liberal journalists are stepping up their criticisms because they fear they have only a few months more in which a precipitous American withdrawal could produce a Vietnam-like defeat. If, come January, American troops are still in Iraq in about their current strength, it'll be too late to prevent a glorious American victory, one which the whole unwilling world will not be able to deny. Here. and Why We will Win, by Max Boot, here.
Rove Speaks Out Worth reading, in Ankle-Biter (News Junkie is on vacation) And Fallacci nails it on Euristan in Powerline. I like her use of the word "servility"
Wednesday, June 22. 2005
War on Terror Gwynnie looked at Jeff Harrell's blog, Shape of Days, cited below and read the following:
"If we laid down every weapon held by every soldier and every armed civilian, if we completely foreswore violence and gave up our prosecution of the war tonight, our enemies would be unable to wage genocide against us. They simply wouldn’t have the ability. Yes, our enemies can attack us. They can kill Americans by the thousands. They can grievously wound our nation. But wipe us out? Three hundred million Americans? Even if that were their goal, even if they armed themselves with nuclear or other unconventional weapons, it simply wouldn’t be possible.
"While the immediate, day-to-day threat of terrorism is a matter of life and death for every American, what’s really at stake here, in the long term, is the destruction of our culture. To quote Abraham Lincoln, what we face is the possibility that government of the people, by the people and for the people might perish from the Earth."
Gee - they get first punch , and second, and third, and we won't do anything? How many lives is he willing to sacrifice, fifty million? A hundred? Does he know that others in this world depend on us? Their very lives? Man, is this guy ignorant! Wanna make a daisy garland and see if North Korea can land a nuke in it? Seriously, this is the liberal left speaking with characteristic hyperbole, and the MSM and a lot of Americans are buying it. Gwynnie wants to pare it down to its essence, but it is difficult to know what part of American culture is at risk and from what. Interrogating prisoners at Gitmo seems to be the 'from what'. What is at risk is our entire culture, as envisioned by Mr. Lincoln. Here's another Shape quote: This war, as much as any war in our nation’s history and more so than some, is a war of survival. If we choose not to fight, our culture will be overwhelmed by the totalitarian Islam that gathers like a wave in the poor corners of the earth, poised to surge out and bury the liberal democracies of the West. But on the other hand, if we fight this war too thoroughly and too well, our culture will vanish because we’ve chosen to abandon it. Now we have the essence: in the last fifty years the US Supreme Court has created new rights for criminal suspects (which some think might have gone too far). Let's not look at the issue of whether US burglars and wartime captives deserve the same treatment. If the US military is not nice to terrorists captured on the field of battle trying to kill US soldiers, the author is saying we will have abandoned our entire American culture, even that overwhelming portion of it which predates the newly discovered rights of criminal suspects. Here it is: Jeff is willing to accept millions of US deaths as well as the fall of the many governments we support and risk being "overwhelmed by totalitarian Islam" (his words) in order to extend US criminal rights to a handful of Islamist terrorists we are detaining to (1) gain actionable intelligence which will save Iraqi and Ameerican lives and (2) prevent their immediate return to the battle to try to kill more Americans. This guy needs a new dog food. His debate against Pierre LeGrand, Michelle malkin and Instapundit (see http://www.papadoc.net/2005/06/jeff-is-confused-about-this-war-and.html) is far more profound that Gwynnie can write, but she is amazed at the utter lack of logic. Even Corgis can see through it.
Continue reading ""
Tuesday, June 21. 2005
Why get bogged down in technical points of the Constitution? Mauro in USA Today: Conservatives who believe in a limited role for judges say the Supreme Court should stick to its knitting, namely interpreting the U.S. Constitution as written, and should ignore current fads here or abroad. But the counter-argument is strong. If globalization has flattened the world in terms of the economy and culture, isn't it time that our legal system also look beyond our borders? Are we so arrogant that we think we have nothing to learn from judges and lawmakers around the world who have faced the same issues we face? No, it isn't "about time," not until we decide to totally trash our Constitution, at which point there will be no limit to the power of the judiciary. I find Mauro's piece astonishing in its arrogance. Right Wing News has the same feeling.
And a comment from Gwynnie:
Gwynnie loves that amazing piece by Mauro where he says, no, confesses, that the whole fight is about power (psst – he wants it) and has nothing to do with a rule of law: “If globalization has flattened the world in terms of the economy and culture, isn't it time that our legal system also look beyond our borders? Are we so arrogant that we think we have nothing to learn from judges and lawmakers around the world who have faced the same issues we face?” Gwynnie completely agrees and says, OK, let's look at others' laws. Let's start with the 1st Amendment; I mean that's completely out of line with the laws of a majority of countries. Let's be a Christian country and make sure the press acts responsibly in accordance with our standards. No, wait, . . . maybe we should follow other countries on the rights of an accused. She wonders if Mauro knows that in precious France accused criminals are presumed guilty unless they can prove their innocence; that would be a fascinating change, and France is sooo civilized, too. She is not as certain about stoning naughty women or cutting off criminals’ hands, but surely we can get rid of our sick tort system and make losing plaintiffs pay the costs they impose on innocent defendants (vice versa, too) the way they do in England. Oh, and what about proclaiming our senators “Lords”? England does .... [ed. Bad dog, Gwynnie; that’s going too far. Imaging the corpusculent Teddy Kennedy, Lord Chappaquiddick! (See http://www.ytedk.com/intro.htm for the story)]
Monday, June 20. 2005
Auster and Brooks Pile on Bush OK, Bush isn't the Great Communicator. That is true. "Witless"? Not sure. Heart in the right place? Definitely. Raw deal from the media? For sure, but it's partially his fault - he doesn't court them or charm them. His bad. Throw them a quote from Sartre like JFK used to do and they'll eat out of your hand forever. Like, you'll be complex and groovy, like, can you dig it, dude? Just not that super-square no-fun Jesus dude all the time, ya see where I'm comin from, like? You have to understand the psychology of The Press: Because they just report, and don't DO, they have an inferiority issue. They compensate by wanting to feel like swashbucklers, macho guys, big drinkers and cutting-edge thinkers, etc. Feed their adolescent egos by flattering their intelligence: assume they believe there is a mini-Hemingway or Norman Mailer or Bob Woodward inside of each of 'em.
Chile - El Ano de La Mujer- The Year of the Woman Think Latin Americans aren't progressive? They just may beat America in electing the first Woman President and why not? Israel, UK, Pakistan, (all prime ministers) and others have done it. Oh Yeah, it's a woman's world, and I just want to be an Enjoli Woman! Does anyone remember that commercial from the 70's? It was a marketing strategy ahead of its time. BBC: Michelle Bachelet, who opinion polls suggest will become Chile's first female president in December, is breaking many political traditions. Not only is she a woman, but she calls herself a socialist, and she is a single parent with a 12-year-old daughter and two other grown children. Chile is often described as the economic miracle of Latin America and the economy is expected to expand more than 5% this year. Standing between Ms Bachelet and the presidential palace are two men. One is Joaquin Lavin, a Conservative candidate who narrowly lost the last presidential election. The other is a billionaire businessman, Sebastian Pinera, who entered the race in mid-May after a split in the Conservative Alliance. Nicaragua: Thousands of Protesters take to the streets in Managua Poverty, oppression and greed are the true foes of Democracy. Civil strife and chaos continues to be a way of life in Central America with a few exceptions like Costa Rica and Belize. efenews: Organizers said that the protest, called by a collection of social, political and business groups, attracted some 20,000 people.
"This march is the beginning of a civic struggle by the people of Nicaragua against the pact between Daniel Ortega and Arnoldo Aleman," said the former head of the country's top election body, Rosa Marina Zelaya.
Former President Ortega, the chief of the leftist Sandinista National Liberation Front (FSLN) and Aleman, also an ex-president and still head of the rightist Liberal Constitutionalist Party (PLC) even though he has been serving a sentence under house arrest for corruption, have banded together to fiercely oppose the administration of President Enrique Bolaños. The Bolaños administration had requested the OAS intervention as it battles both the Sandinistas and the Liberals over the control of courts and executive branch offices. Cuba: UN sends aid to Cuba I just do not understand how Fidel can claim a successful revolution and be unable to provide drinking water to the Cuban People. What good is a 93% literacy rate if you can't drink when you thirst, eat when you are hungry? Perhaps it is time for Fidel to let his pride stand down and accept that he has brought misery and oppression to this island nation. Let your people go. efe news: The initiative is designed to aid, at a cost of $3.7 million, children under 5, pregnant women and the elderly over the next three months, the UN office said in Havana on Friday.The drought devastating eastern Cuba has been described as the most severe in decades, drying up crops and killing tens of thousands head of cattle.
In addition, the drought, which Cuban officials say is hurting more than two million people across the country, has left one out of every six Cubans without drinking water.
Friday, June 17. 2005
Al Franken is a jerk If Minnesotans have forgotten Jesse Ventura, they should start taking gingko biloba to improve what clearly is severe memory loss. The thought of electing Al Franken as senator is so bizarre it isn't funny. Although he will most likely entertain the senators, he would be doing so at the cost of making the senate a laughingstock. which lately is not such an arduous task. What's next -- Robin Williams for president or perhaps Whoopi as first black female Commander and Chief. UGH! In the NYT: MINNEAPOLIS, June 13 - The swells who showed up before Al Franken's speech at a Democratic fund-raiser to down finger food and punch were thrilled to see him, all the more so because he continues to make threatening noises about running for the Senate here in 2008. A former writer and performer for "Saturday Night Live" and more recently a radio host on Air America, Mr. Franken has used his outsider status to hurl humor-based invective and indignation at the powers that be, but he is considering becoming part of what he so frequently assails. Click here: Comedian for Senator? Don't Laugh - New York Times
Ankle-Biter Gets It This mini-tantrum coming from the excellent Ankle-Biter is what many of us feel whenever we encounter the news: It pains me greatly to have to say this because it makes me feel like a rightwing crank when I do, but there’s no escaping it: the Left truly does hate America. They hate everything about it; it’s Judeo-Christian heritage; the God-given rights it protects for its citizens; its free markets; you name it, they hate it. It’s a harsh judgment and normally I couldn't care less what these fools think, but just consider the two big stories in the paranoid, angry little minds of the extreme Left, also known as the moonbats. Indeed. Self-hating Americans. Where do they all come from? They are relentless, because they have a religious-like mission, fueled with hate and self-righteousness.
Wednesday, June 15. 2005
Finally I guess Rove and Bush finally woke up after their long winter's nap. It's about time we heard some push-back from the White House. Long overdue.
Venezuela's National Guard and Army to collide The Devil's Excrement Today, local newspaper El Nacional reported that "the professional troop" which is composed of the soldiers from Sergeant down of the ninth command of the national guard in Amazonas State had taken over the command center as a way of giving support to the national guardsmen of the CORE-8 in Bolivar State which had been deactivated and who claimed they have been abused and humiliated by the Army.
Daniel has the low down on the Castro visit: Quizás valga aquí parafrasear la famosa expresión napoleónica:
esto de darle el nombre de Fidel a una promoción de oficiales venezolanos más que un error es una verdadera estupidez. translation-perhaps it is valuable to paraphrase the Napoleonic expression: Giving Fidel the opportunity to promote the graduating officers of Venezuela is more than an error it is true stupidity. Bolivian Indians demanding representation and it's about time. More on theh Bolivian uprising leading to the fall of a President
Tuesday, June 14. 2005
Mudcat tries to return country folk to the Dem fold Well, I'd be happy to hunt or fish with this old boy, but as the future of the Dems, I dunno. In Weekly Standard: Click here: Hunting Bubba
Monday, June 13. 2005
Bolivia facing a breakdown Civil War predicted in Bolivia. Chaos has started, the Indian factions are up in arms and Mesa has lost control and no one capable seems to be in the capital to take over and implement order. Latin America's problems increasing and the Bolivarian Revolution led by Hugo Chavez from Venezuela is lingering like a bad smell everywhere that political strife is taking place. For an update on all things going on in this land locked nation check out Publius Pundit who has done a great job researching the papers and blogs covering the situation.
Thursday, June 9. 2005
The president in Bolivia resigns and the President in Brazil holds a meeting about corruption and faces accusations of taking bribes. President Bush speaks at the OAS meeting in Florida and condemns Chavez in not so many words and proclaims that democracy is ahead for Cuba regardless of Castro's intentions to keep the "RED SICKLE" rolling. It's Salsa time in Latin America. News | canada.com networkLA PAZ, Bolivia (AP) - President Carlos Mesa, his 19-month-old government unraveling amid swelling street protests and a crippling blockade of the Bolivian capital, announced his resignation in a nationally televised address Lawmakers had hoped to calm tensions in a country where anti-globalization anger runs high. But the tax increase touched off fresh demands for the nationalization of the oil industry and a new constitution giving more clout to Indians, who represent about half the population. A historian turned politician, Mesa had no political sponsorship when he was thrust into the presidency in October 2003. He succeeded former President Gonzalo Sanchez de Lozada, who resigned after street protests over plans to export the country's natural gas reserves left at least 56 people dead
More Radical Chic? Is this still in fashion? Palling around with Fidel's friends in NYC? Disgusting. Michelle has story. How can this possibly be cool in 2005? Unless muderous psychopathic dictators are your cup of tea.
The Holy Roman Empire, Forestalled Gwynnie has been fascinated by the European Constitution controversy. It seems simple to her. A structure would be created under which the European kings and rulers are compelled to elect a supreme ruling body to which their sovereignty is subordinated and which is not accountable to the needs or desires of their own people. In return, the states of the electors are protected from external and interstate competition and strife. She recalls it all happened exactly that way once before. It lasted from 800 to 1806 AD and it was called the “Holy Roman Empire”. Because the emperor was not accountable to anybody except for being routinely confirmed by electors upon whom he devolved great riches, the succession of the emperor became largely hereditary and ended up for the last 400 years in the house of Hapsburg. Gwynnie thinks that it was clearly the intention of the French that the house of Chirac and the elites of France considered themselves uniquely suited to filling the lost role of the Habsburgs and leading a proud return to French rule of both the lands won and lost by Napoleon and also of his traditional opponent England. She thinks that a large part of the French “non” to the Constitution was the realization that France would not be ruling the EU, and would have no more than equal status to all those grubby little nations east of the Rhine and the Rhone, and south of the Pyrenees. Recall Monsieur Chirac’s comments February 18, 2003 (as translated from Le Monde): The French president, Jacques Chirac, denounced the ex East-European countries hoping to enter the EU on Monday evening, saying that they had "missed a good opportunity to shut up" by aligning themselves with the warlike position of the USA in the Iraqi crisis. "These countries have been at the same time, let's say, not very well brought up and a little careless of the dangers which come with a too-rapid alignment with the American position", said M. Chirac at the end of the special summit at Brussels. M. Chirac warned the candidate EU members that they were risking making their membership more difficult. "I find that Romania and Bulgaria have taken their decision to act this way too lightly, when their position as regards Europe is already very delicate. If they wanted to reduce their chances of EU membership they could not have found a better way", insisted the French president to the press.
"If, on the first important issue, they give their point of view independently of all consultation with the others who they wish to join, well, that's not very responsible behaviour. . . So I believe they have missed a good opportunity to shut up." Oui, realize your true inferior status and elect me emperor. I’ll let you into my club and agree to throw you some bones. Regarding France's refusal to adhere to the Maastricht Treaty requirement on budget deficit limits, French Prime Minister Jean-Pierre Raffarin had stated that creating jobs in France was his priority, not satisfying "this or that office or country!" -- by following rules France had once said were critical to the European Monetary Union. Gwynnie believes that that statement was France’s true “non”, and that last week’s vote was merely ratification by the French worker/parasites who thought the deficit crisis was a close call (imagine if France could be compelled to live up to its treaties)! Only the “little people . . .“
Wednesday, June 8. 2005
Abortion, Iraq, Morality, and a Strange New Political Grouping Is there any way to make sense of the emerging political alignments? It isn't Conservative exactly, in the usual sense. Bottum in First Things: The goal in either case is to restore confidence in—well, what, exactly? Not our own infallible rightness, surely. But neither can we live any longer with the notion of our own infallible wrongness. We need to restore belief in the possibility of being right. There’s a reason the leftist Christian magazine Sojourners started life in the 1970s as something called the Post-American. Many religious activists in those days seemed to have reached a point where they couldn’t tell an admirable patriotism from the murderous ideologies of nationalism—and, besides, if you squinted hard enough, social defeatism looked like a secular version of the Christian doctrine of Original Sin. The result was hardly what they hoped for: a cynical policy of Realpolitik abroad and a culture of death at home. In the new fusionism of the pro-life social conservatives and the foreign-policy neoconservatives, a number of traditional issues seem, if not to have disappeared, then at least to have gotten muted along the way. Where exactly is tax reform and social security and the balanced budget in all this? Where is much concern for economics, which once defined the root of American conservatism? Perhaps they are missing because, however important, they do not bear hard on the immediate question of social defeatism—on the deep changes that might reawaken and remoralize the nation. The one thing both the social conservatives and the neoconservatives know is that this project comes first. The angry isolationist paleoconservatives are probably right—this isn’t conservatism, in several older senses of the word. But so what? Call it the new moralism, if you like. Call it a masked liberalism or a kind of radicalism that has bizarrely seized the American scene. Mutter darkly, if you want, about the shotgun marriage of ex-socialists and modern puritans, the cynical political joining of imperial adventurers with reactionary Catholics and backwoods Evangelicals. These facts still remain: The sense of national purpose regained by forceful response to the attacks of September 11 could help summon the will to halt the slaughter of a million unborn children a year. And the energy of the pro-life fight—the fundamental moral cause of our time—may revitalize belief in the great American experiment. Read entire.
Tuesday, June 7. 2005
Kerry Flunks GPA Comparison After endless late-night jokes during the campaign mocking George W. Bush's supposed lack of brainpower, it turns out that Dubya actually maintained a slightly higher average during his time at Yale than John Kerry, and earned only one "D" as compared to Kerry's four (though neither man's academic record is especially praiseworthy). Kerry had declined to release his college transcript until just last month, and it seems we now know the reason for the delay. Comment from Editor: Now how long must we wait for his military records...but at this point, who really cares? (except the Mass. voters)...I just want to see Hillary's military records.
CT Forces More Folks to move to FLA Fairfield Co., CT: The only problem with living in New England is their Democratic legislatures. As a native Texan with central CT (Manchester) family roots, the weather up here is wonderfully variable; the folks are either interesting like the Yankee Farmer, or well-educated like The Barrister or genius writers like Bird Dog; the land is the old land of our fore-fathers; and the earth is our rock-studded, plow-breaking, back-breaking Yankee soil, and here in southwestern CT, in Fairfield County, we have the big boys, the ambitious smart guys, who work in NY but pay the bills for the State. But with every such tax increase, we have more people spending 179 days of the year out of state, in Florida and a bit in NY pied a terres or hotels for work, not to mention business travel (and vacations in the Seychelles for bonefishing and Patagonia for trout and London for the kids or grand-kids, etc.), to protect their inheritances and to help their families. Thus leaving more burden on the poor citizens with dry-cleaning shops and tire stores who loyally stay and must fish hatchery trout at home I suppose, or God knows what they do for fishing (not bluefish hopefully), or do not have the spare cash for a Jupiter Island home. Which I Thankfully do. Or, who knows, maybe they are so hard up that they do Redneck Golf and do not fish at all, which is a pathetic soul-destroying waste of time, in my opinion. But anyway - Hey, Hartford - you ain't getting a penny of this from me. We count those days, carefully, and our estate planners are way smarter than you, which is why they have real jobs in the real world, and you do not, or barely. Did you ever hear of "laptops?" So sorry, Hartford. And if you think CT is bad, read about RI, on Anchor Rising, here.
 Hillary Squawks
"There has never been an administration, I don't believe in our history, more intent upon consolidating and abusing power to further their own agenda," said Mrs. Clinton, whose own administration collected FBI files on opponents and had accusers audited by the IRS." No, not since she has been in there. Story here. It is called "projection." Regardless, I wish she were right about what she said. Would it be OK if the Repubs just forgot about their agenda, forgot about the election, and became re-born liberals? Would that be OK? Would you play nice, then? Pretty please, with sugar on top?
Five Things that really tick me off about the Repubs now 1. Immigration policy, which seems to be to ignore the issue, no doubt to pander to Hispanic voters. 2. Conservation. The Repubs should recapture the legacy of Teddy Roosevelt. I think they are missing a big pile of swing voters on this issue, especially in the Northeast and Northwest. But it's important anyway, regardless of vote calculations. Even if you write them off in national elections, they still have State parties that matter. 3. Balanced budget: There should have been a temporary war tax. Freedom isn't free. 4. Poor articulation of conservative principles - they have bully pulpits galore, which they could be using to convert the entire nation to reason, as FDR did with the Welfare State. There are lots of good folks, and younger folks, with their biases stuck in the mud of 1930s rhetoric, who might be curious about the Reagan vision of America - and the serious thinking behind it. 5. General political fearfulness; timidity in the face of liberal spin despite the wishes of the voters
More from Thompson An interview with Thompson, from Thompson at Large: "The left/right divide is not what it used to be — that's my point. Let me add that there many liberal Democrats are excellent on human rights issues. Back to your question: Have I moved right? What today is called liberalism is almost unrecognizable from the liberalism of the late 1960s. This is not to be nostalgic about the past — it's a question of being accurate. In his 1966 Cape Town speech, Bobby Kennedy declared himself unwaveringly opposed to communism because it exalts the state over the individual and over the family. He said the best way to oppose communism is to enlarge individual human freedom. Ronald Reagan understood this, but he added another element: increased defense spending as a means of bankrupting the Soviets. Powerful combination, and it worked.
Now what's interesting is that Bobby's speech about freedom is not one his brother is likely to make today. Not because Ted Kennedy is pro-Communist, but because it's a matter of record that he strongly favors increasing government control in and management of the economy and society as a whole.
The worldview that captured the imagination of left-liberals around the beginning and the middle of the twentieth century, the New Deal, has essentially exhausted itself. The New Deal was a sharp departure from the principles of limited constitutional government. We created a bureaucratic welfare state, and the results were terrific — assuming we were trying to foster generations of dependent citizens, broken families, and oppressive government regulations."
Read entire.
Monday, June 6. 2005
Zimbabwe and the African Crisis Yet another story which has received very little coverage in the US media about Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe's efforts to punish the urban poor for supporting the opposition candidate in the most recent election. In fact, the whole sad tale of the once-prosperous nation and its self-inflicted economic collapse has gone all but unreported in American news outlets, nor has the US government done anything other than issue its tepid disapproval of Mugabe's actions. We ignore Zimbabwe and the continent at our own risk. Sadly, Zimbabwe's story is not unique among the nations of sub-Saharan Africa. As many of the former so-called "third world nations" advanced out of poverty in the years 1970-2000 - much of southeast Asia for example, and many countries in Latin America - African nations actually saw their per capita incomes decline during this period, as explosive population growth overwhelmed small gains in productivity. Five years into the new millenium, the trend has only continued to accelerate, as the old, post-WWII categories of first world (the West and Japan), second (the old Communist bloc) and third (all the rest) give way to a new order in which sub-Saharan Africa increasingly occupies a category of its own. For example, of the 30 lowest-ranked nations in the world in terms of per capita income, sub-Saharan Africa alone accounts for 20 (with many of the remaining ten being small, isolated island nations with tiny populations or Palestinian territories). Of those nations with the highest birth rates, often a good indicator of education, urbanization and women's rights, African nations are almost uniformly far above every other country in the world with the exception of Afghanistan and Yemen. The population dynamics in particular are rarely considered in a geopolitical sense, yet what we are witnessing today is the greatest change in the distribution of human beings in history. From a population of roughly 100 million in 1900, Africa will grow to a projected 1.3 billion by 2020, while during the same time Europe's population will have less than doubled (from 400 million to under 700 million and shrinking). The future here is more or less set: already Nigeria has nearly as many 0-14 year olds as the entire European Union. The implications of such a massive population shift combined with increasing economic inequality is a recipe for unrest on a giant scale. The rapid spread of AIDS and the fact that Islam is gaining ground in southern Africa add additional explosive elements into the mix. The tension is already evident in the huge number of African emigrants desperate to enter Europe, yet what has happened thus far only represents the very beginning. The only question now is how Europe and the West will respond.
|
