Media Bias or Sloppy Reporting?

Share

As I listened to and watched various “news” shows yesterday I could not help but notice one recurring theme as they related the spiff between California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and his home town of Graz, Austria. The tease for these stories was that the city of Graz was removing Schwarzenegger’s name from a stadium in addition to removing any and all references to the body-builter, turned actor, turned Governor from advertisements for the city. That’s fine as news teases go. Let’s face it, a tease it just that: it’s intended to wet your appetite for the story so it exaggerates, amplifies and titillates without providing any specific details.

The problem occurred when they actually did the story. Each story was that the city had taken the initiative to divorce itself from Schwarzenegger due to his refusal to grant clemency to the recently executed, Stanley Williams. They went on to say that many of Schwarzenegger’s fellow countrymen had been agitating for this separation for some time now. Not a single “news” story bothered to tell the truth about this incident.

The fact is that many of Schwarzenegger’s countrymen have developed rather strong feelings against him over his pro-capital punishment position. This did not begin with the execution of Stanley Williams, rather it has been a constant source of animosity for quite some time. The protests came to the fore once again in the weeks leading up to Williams’ execution, hence Schwarzenegger sent a formal legal demand that the city remove his name from the stadium, cease and desist any use of his name in the city’s advertisement and he returned the “ring of honour” that was presented to him during a ceremony in 1999 by the city of Graz. Furthermore, this action was to be completed by year’s end.

The point is that Schwarzenegger precipitated this action, not the city of Graz. In fact, the mayor attempted to quell the situation by assuring Schwarzenegger that many of the people of Graz still support him and wanted him to keep the ring. Schwarzenegger refused. Therefore, the city of Graz was required to take the aforementioned actions as a matter of law.

Democrats and the Politics of Hatred

Share

The following is a letter received from my friend and fellow patriot, Ted Hayes regarding a grave injustice being visited upon Dome Village. Dome Village, for those who do not know, is a charitable organization founded and operated by Ted Hayes, helping LA’s homeless community. The problem is that Ted happens to be a Republican and this has come to the attention of one, Milton Sidly, a Democrat, who owns the property currently housing Dome Village. Mr. Sidly, like many Democrats, is so consumed by his hatred of Republicans that in his zeal to harm his political enemy, he takes actions without giving a minute’s concern for the consequences thereof. This sounds shocking similar to the behaviour of Democrats in Congress as regards George Bush, the War on Terror and the War in Iraq.

I do not publish this with the hopes of forcing Mr. Sidly to change his heart and mind. I am a firm believer in the rights of property owners to do with their property whatever they choose. My purpose is simply to bring this matter to the attention of all of those who care about fundamental fairness and human compassion. This transcends politics; or at least it should.

Mr. Sidly’s actions are well within his legal rights, but it cannot be denied that he is committing a grave injustice towards countless innocent people for no other reason than his hatred of Republicans.

Hello Everyone,

Dome Village has been given a sudden "eviction" notice by the property of 847 Golden Avenue in the form of rent hike from $2,500 dollars plus a $10,000 annual tax fee, to $18,330 per month.

Obviously, JHUSA does not have that kind of money, and even if we did, we would not pay such an outrageous amount of rent.

Also, the property owner has made it clear that he will not receive our money, even if we did have it, because he is absolutely resolute that Dome Village is to leave his property.

This stealth "eviction" is not a consequence of JHUSA not paying the $2,500 per month rent, but rather his political bias, prejudice and racism.

You see, the eviction came two days (Tuesday, December 13,2005) after he had viewed an Los Angeles Times article in the California Section B-3, dated Sunday, December 11,2005, in which I expressed my political persuasion of being a Republican to the Bel Air Womens Republican Club the day before.

During several telephone conversations the property owner clearly stated that the reason for the sudden rent hike was the fact that I proclaimed myself a Republican loyal to the ideals of our party.

In fact, among many other mad statements from this ardent Democrat-liberal was his challenge of, "If you are such a Republican and the Republicans care so much about you, then let the Republicans help you from now on. This Democrat is tired of supporting Ted Hayes." Something to that effect.

It is evident that the eviction is based on the political bias and prejudice of Mr. Milton Sidly, who is actually punishing the homeless residents of Dome Village (* single men and women, children and senior citizens, families, and pets) as well as attempting to weaken the Justiceville movement to end homelessness, as well as "cool-down" the effective political profession of Ted Hayes.

Ironically, the United States of America is fighting, killing and dying in places like Afghanistan and Iraq that the peoples of those lands are free to their political expression without the fear of retaliation from government, vigilantes, individuals, employers or property owners.

Yet, here in the land of the free and home of the brave, I can't freely express my political views without having to suffer consequences from a land owner to whom my organization has faithfully paid rent of $2,500 and annual fee of $10,000 taxes. This bigotry and racism has no place in the this country nor anywhere else in the world.

Also, what is strikingly disturbing, according to Democrats, it appears that being a Republican is already bad enough in and of itself, but to be Republican and BLACK is the worse thing that a person can be or do. It is wickedness!

What is this phenomenon, that American Black people are not allowed to be openly Republican?

I know that there are many Black folks who are "closet" Republican because they fear retribution from friends, family members, work associates and employers.

It is as though it was Republicans and not Democrats who held us a slaves; fought the government to keep us a slaves; placed us under the oppression of Jim Crow laws; denied us the right to vote; and destroyed the Black communities with the last forty years of indoctrinating us with Socialist philosophy of the welfare state.

Frankly, the disdain should be the very opposite, that being a Black Democrat is odious. In other words, knowing the truth of these two political parties, the question can be asked, "How can a Black be or remain a Democrat."

In light of our beloved nations racial history, it is racist for anyone Democrat, especially White Democrats to denigrate any Blacks who freely chooses to return or be a part of the Political party - REPUBLICAN that freed our ancestry from slavery by the shed blood, maiming and death of their young men.

What is so frightening about a Black Republican? I know and so do you.

We are determined to fight back.

We will open our first volleys of return fire this Thursday morning, December 22,2005 at 10:00 AM at the Dome Village located at 847 Golden Avenue, when we will expose the political prejudice and racism of this Democrat who is simply keeping with the line of his party.

I will keep you updated as we proceed.

Thank you for your continued support, interest and vigilance against terrorism, including psychological terrorism that Black Republicans feel from Democrats.

Ted

Sacred Cows

Share

The Left has always had it's "sacred cows." "Sacred cow" refers to any person or policy that is held to be above criticism. The list has included Margarett Sanger, Martin Luther King, Jr., Jesse Jackson, Social Security and other social welfare programs, the Minimum Wage, Rent-Control and Gays. This list is of course, not exhaustive for there have been many more "sacred cows" whose usefullness to the Left is fleeting and short-lived: Cindy Sheehan, Richard Clark, Joe Wilson and the families of 9/11 victims who criticised the Bush administration.

The Left loves its "sacred cows" because it allows them to be nasty and polemical, making wildly irresponsible and irrational personal and political attacks while remaining free from criticism or objection. That's right, not only can one not criticise Leftist "sacred cows," one may not even disagree with them; for mere disagreement is itself, painted as a vicious personal attack. This is rather odd considering the fact that the Left is always first to claim that nothing and no one is above criticism.

The new popular "sacred cow" is Congressman John Murtha (D-Pa), who has called for a pull-out in Iraq coupled with personal attacks against both the President and Vice-President. Note the civil nature of the following quote from Murtha referring to the Vice-President, "I like guys who got five deferments and [have] never been there and send people to war, and then don't like to hear suggestions about what needs to be done."

Republicans who have criticised Murtha's policy positions on the war - setting aside his personal attacks on the President and Vice-President - have been vilified for having the audacity to criticise as "decroated Vietnam War veteran." With all due respect to his service in Vietnam, the fact remains that Congressman Murtha is a politician today. He has proposed a policy that many people find foolish and irresponsible. Many of those who currently serve in the military view any retreat in the face of danger as the epitome of cowardice. Are those who disagree with Congressman Murtha, barred from voicing their disagreement with and criticism of his ideas? If we listen to Democrats and their willing accomplices in the media the answer is a resounding, "yes."

Why the United States Invaded Iraq

Share

I was going to write a brief piece dilineating the specific issues as outlined by the President and Congress as justifications for the use of military force in Iraq. This seemed necessary as Democrats have repeatedly stated that the only reason given for the war was the belief that Iraq possessed "stockpiles" of WMD. I've decided instead to let the facts speak for themselves. Here is the entire text of the Congressional declaration of war with Iraq:

IRAQ WAR RESOLUTION 107th CONGRESS2d SessionH. J. RES.
114October 10, 2002

JOINT RESOLUTION To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.

Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq's war of aggression against and illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the national security of the United States and enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq;

Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism;

Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;

Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;

Whereas in Public Law 105-235 (August 14, 1998), Congress concluded that Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in `material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations' and urged the President `to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations';

Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolution of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;

Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;

Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of United States citizens;

Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001, underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself;

Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 (1990) and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 (1991), repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 (1991), and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949 (1994);

Whereas in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1), Congress has authorized the President `to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolution 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677';

Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it `supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1),' that Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and `constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region,' and that Congress, `supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688';

Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;

Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United States to `work with the United Nations Security Council to meet our common challenge' posed by Iraq and to `work for the necessary resolutions,' while also making clear that `the Security Council resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and security will be met, or action will be unavoidable';

Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it is in the national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary;

Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40); and

Whereas it is in the national security interests of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region: Now, therefore, be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.This joint resolution may be cited as the `Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002'.

SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS. The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to--

(1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and

(2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to--

(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and

(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION- In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that--

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and

(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

(c) War Powers Resolution Requirements-

(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.

(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this joint resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

SEC. 4. REPORTS TO CONGRESS. (a) REPORTS- The President shall, at least once every 60 days, submit to the Congress a report on matters relevant to this joint resolution, including actions taken pursuant to the exercise of authority granted in section 3 and the status of planning for efforts that are expected to be required after such actions are completed, including those actions described in section 7 of the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338).

(b) SINGLE CONSOLIDATED REPORT- To the extent that the submission of any report described in subsection (a) coincides with the submission of any other report on matters relevant to this joint resolution otherwise required to be submitted to Congress pursuant to the reporting requirements of the War Powers Resolution (Public Law 93-148), all such reports may be submitted as a single consolidated report to the Congress.

(c) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION- To the extent that the information required by section 3 of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) is included in the report required by this section, such report shall be considered as meeting the requirements of section 3 of such resolution.

Need I say more?

Just a Thought

Share

A typical exchange with a devout Leftist, George Bush-hater goes as follows:

Leftist: "Bush lied about WMD to take America to war"

Answer: Aactually he simply relied upon and reiterated the same claims made by the former administration, various members of the Democratic party and numerous foreign leaders."

Leftist: "But Bush is the one who took us to war over it."

Now, I could be wrong, but its seems to me that what they are saying is that Bush is to be vilified because he acted in the face of a perceived threat to US national security. What they would prefer is that their leaders merely voiced grave concern about such things while doing absolutely nothing. Never mind the fact that in the face of such dangers the President, and Congress for that matter, is duty bound to act on America's behalf. Failure to do so could justifiably be ruled official nonfeasance. I admit however that the only authority I have for this position is little thing called the Constitution of the United States of America (Article II, Section 2 and Article I, Section 8, respectively).

Let me see if I understand this: Bush should have acted in the interest answering a perceived threat to US national security (attacks on 9/11) based upon intelligence information which everyone reasonably believed to be inaccurate yet he should not have acted in the interest of answering a perceived threat to US national security (Iraq WMD) based upon intelligence information which everyone reasonably believed to be accurate.

I have but one question for those who maintain the "Bush lied about WMD" theory: If the President is evil enough to have lied about the existence of WMD apparently feeling so strongly about it that he participated in a grand international conspiracy to manufacture false intelligence, long before he was elected to the office of the President, wouldn't we have found stockpiles of WMD by now? I mean, surely they would have ensured that WMD were planted sporadically about Iraq where they could be "found" by investigators after the invasion. Just a thought.

Marx is Crying

Share

Sometimes the most important news out of Europe is the news that American “journalists” chose to ignore. Funny how it happens that whenever foreign world leaders criticise the Bush administration, US reporters are falling over themselves to get the word out. They look like a crowd of screaming teenage girls trying to get a look at the Beattles. But let a group of foreign leaders move in the direction of America and they are either ignored or tagged as “puppets” of the Bush administration. Case in point, the election in Germany.

The US media has chosen to ignore this election. It simply doesn’t fit with their view of how things ought to be. The German people voted for Merkel’s Conservative coalition over Schroeder’s Socialists. How dare they!! Schroeder couldn’t just bow out gracefully of course. He had to take the expected cheap shots at Bush and Blair. He criticised what he referred to as “Anglo-Saxon economic policies,” which is to say, economic policies tilted in favour of limited government and free enterprise. This is understandable since Schroeder and Chirac have pushed the European Union further in the direction of unabashed Socialism.

I have often said that the best cure for Socialism is, Socialism. It seems the European people are slowly leaning this lesson as well.

Hurricane Katrina: Questions and Answers

Share

It’s time for a crash course in US government and current events my friends. Any questions?

Q – Why did it take so long for the federal government to respond?
A – Actually this was the fastest federal response to any natural disaster in US history. You have to keep in mind that prior to the levies breaking, President Bush was on the phone urging the Mayor to evacuate the city. The President also urged the Governor to declare a state-of-emergency. This is the first step to obtaining federal assistance. The Mayor later ordered an evacuation yet, in hindsight, it was already too late to be effective. Additionally the feds began preparing for a response two days before Katrina made landfall.
Q – Two questions. Why didn’t Bush order the evacuation or force the Mayor to do so and if the feds were in place two days before why did it take 24hours for the relief to reach the victims?
A – I’m glad you asked. The federal government has no authority over State and local governments. The only time the feds can assume such control is in cases of national security yet they still have to work with State and Local officials. Barring a national security crisis, the feds can only make recommendations. As for the time-lag in getting relief to the victims. Understand that the staging areas were at a distance from the coast. This was simple logic. Had they been in the expected disaster area prior to the event they would have been wiped away along with everything else thus defeating the purpose. What was not anticipated were the logistical problems associated with getting the aid to the victims in the wake of the levies breaking. Additionally, it did not take 24hours for the feds to respond. It took several hours for the Governor to request federal assistance.
Q – Why didn’t the feds simply take control of the situation? Didn’t they see that the people were suffering? Why all the bureaucracy and red-tape?
A – Let me answer these in reverse order. The fact that there is a separation of power between federal and state governments is not bureaucracy. This is a reasonable and legitimate system designed to safeguard the rights and liberties guaranteed by the Constitution. There are specific limits placed upon federal authority and for good reason. We live in a system wherein laws rule rather than men. You should thank God or accident of birth for that. I personally do not want to live under the rule of a dictator, benevolent or otherwise. The feds (Bush) saw the problem but lacked the requisite authority to respond without a specific request from the state. In case you are wondering, the answer is, “No.” Bush could not assume control under the guise of a national security crisis. Sorry but the ends do not justify the means.
Q – Couldn’t Bush have ordered the National Guard into action then? He does have control over the military doesn’t he?
A – Yes and No. The National Guard are State troops. The federal government has control over federal troops, Army, Navy, Airforce and Marines. The Coast Guard is actually a police agency and therefore free to perform any and all actions (i.e. search and rescue) which fall under its charter. Hence when performing their chartered duties, No specific federal or state order is required. The National Guard receives its orders from the State and can only be controlled by the feds if the State so authorises it. Again, in cases of national security, the feds may assume control absent permission from the State. Federal troops cannot be tasked within a State without permission from the State government. Additionally, they cannot perform police functions. This is the Posse Comitatas rule.
Q – Well, I don’t know about all the laws but one thing is clear: if we cant handle something like this how are we going to handle something like a dirty bomb?
A – Excellent point. This was a natural disaster and as such it is within the jurisdiction of the state. For this reason the federal government could not act in the absence of State permission. On the other hand, a terrorist attack such as a dirty bomb is a national security issue and is automatically within the jurisdiction of the federal government under the Constitution. The feds would not have to wait for State approval to do such things as federalizing the National Guard and implementing a disaster relief plan. I have heard this comparison several times over the weekend so I’m happy to have had an opportunity to respond to it.
Q – That’s all fine and good but you have to admit that there was a lot of red-tape that contributed to the delay in getting help to the victims.
A – That’s actually a statement, not a question but I’ll accept it. This may simply be a matter of semantics but I’m not sure what you mean by red-tape. I’m certain that there was considerable disorganization in the immediate aftermath of the events. There was little or no interagency communication and at that point, no aerial recon had been performed. Hence the first-responders were flying blind and therefore unaware of the scope of the disaster, the exact location of victims and the best access routes to the victims they aware of. They first had to gather intelligence. Second, workout a plan of action. Third, they had to workout the logistics. I’m not sure how many of you are familiar with the military but what you call red-tape (in most cases), the military calls intelligence gathering, effective planning and logistics.

That’s all the time we have for now but please keep those questions coming.

Is Louisiana A State?

Share

Watching the coverage of the devastation caused by Katrina, I am left in a state of absolute befuddlement over the dirth of knowledge and basic common sense of the reporters, residents, victims and politicians.

America is a unique nation in the world. It is the only nation that is not a nation-state. While Europe is making an attempt to replicate it, American remains the only country that is actually a union of independent and sovereign states. Fifty of them to be precise.

Each state in this country functions with a great degree of independence and self-sufficiency, although there are those who have been trying to destroy that systems in favour of a centralized federal collectivism. When a disaster strikes a state, other than an attack from foreign entities such as happened in New York, it is primarily the responsibility of the state to respond. State and local officials are to assess the situation and marshal that their resources to meet the challenge. This includes, but is not limited to, calling up the state’s National Guard, instituting search and rescue operations, establishing order and security and providing for the basic necessities of life (food, water, shelter and medical assistance). If need be a state-of-emergency may be declared and federal assistance requested. In this case, the Governor MUST make a specific request from the federal government for same. So my first question is, why are people acting as if the President was in control of the State of Louisiana? Does Louisiana not have its own system of government? Where is the Governor and the state’s legislature?

Being a sovereign state, the federal government cannot simply barge in and take control of matters based solely on its belief that it can do better. Even though that is true in the current situation – once the feds took over the situation stabilized – we remain a nation of laws, not of men. Based on the feelings, and I do mean feelings (no one has shut up long enough to think), expressed thus far, many seem to believe that state government is irrelevant and laws exists only when convenient.

Shall we simply declare all state government obsolete and turn over total control to the feds? Shall we make it an official policy that the Rule of Law is the standard in American unless of course the Law is inconvenient? Some may say that this is exactly what has been done for the past several years. If we look and listen to the manner in which people have responded and complained about the situation if Louisiana, this is exactly what most people want.

What the Senate Should Ask John Roberts

Share

Now that we know who President Bush’s Supreme Court nominee is, the buzz has now started over what he thinks. Not about the Constitution mind you. The Democrats and their Leftist brethren are concerned with his views on “key issues”, particularly Abortion.

When will Americans dispense with the notion that a Supreme Court nominee’s personal views on any one or one hundred issues is relevant to his/her qualifications as a Supreme Court Justice. What does matter is the nominee’s view on the Constitution. Namely, does the nominee view the Constitution as a “living, breathing document” or a contract between the people and their government. If a nominee chooses the former, he/she is unfit to serve on the Supreme Court. The U.S. Supreme Court that is. Such a person would be well-suited for the Supreme Court of France or Canada.

This “living, breathing document” nonsense is what has led the Court to engage in Constitutional Amendment via judicial fiat. The Court’s duty is to decide cases based solely on the U.S. Constitution; not personal feelings, public opinion, judicial precedent, or the interests of social justice. Where the Constitution is silent, the court has no authority on the issue. When the court is engaged in judicial review, which is to say, reviewing Acts of the legislature, they are to base such review, again, on the Constitution. Where no Constitutional authority can be found, the court must find the Act unconstitutional. Prior court decisions are not part of the Constitution and have no more authority than one gives them. These decisions may not serve as the basis for deciding cases before the court however the court may take judicial notice thereof and make adequate reference to same.

With that said, I don’t care how a judge feels about a specific issue. All I need know is how he/she views the Constitution. For it is clear to me that anyone who views the Constitution as a “living, breathing document” naturally believes that the Court has the authority to create laws and rights where non exists; that the Court must step in and act when the legislature has failed to do so. Those who hold this view do so because they believe, like the late Senator Fullbright, that the Constitution unduly limits their ability to do for the people what they know is best. This is not social justice. This is judicial tyranny.

Do we really want people on the Supreme Court who believe that their world-view must take the place of and fill the perceived holes in the Constitution of the United States of America?

The Left's Indecent "Dissent"

Share

With all of the caterwauling over the U.S. prison facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, it seems necessary to visit the facts for just a moment.

If you have ever read Alice in Wonderland, you are familiar with the following exchange between Alice and Humpty Dumpty concerning the obvious meaning of words:

“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it
means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”

“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”

“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master—that’s all.” —Louis Carrol, Alice in Wonderland.

Humpty Dumpty’s philosophy is the epitome of how Leftists argue this and all other issues. So maybe we should come to an accurate understanding of certain terms used and often misused, in this debate.

Guantamamo Bay – This is not a prison facility. It is a U.S. Naval/Air station that has exited since February 1903 wherein a prison facility was erected in 2001 for the sole purpose of detaining and interrogating known terror suspects and Illegal Enemy Combatants. Leftists understand the distinction however their calls for the closure of “Guantanamo Bay” as opposed to the “prison facility” on the base, is a relic of Cold War socialist hostility towards U.S. power. Many Leftists have never been comfortable with the U.S. presence in Cuba and this feeling grew more strident in the wake of the 1959 communist revolution which ushered in the dictatorship of Fidel Castro. Leftists generally believe that the treaty(s) that originally gave the U.S. the right to reside in Guantanamo Bay, were, as a result of revolution, moot. In their view the base should have been vacated and returned to Cuba. The U.S. on the other hand has continued to pay the Cuban Government the agreed upon lease amount on an annual basis. There is no evidence that Castro’s government has ever cashed the checks.

Illegal Enemy Combatant – This is not an Enemy Prisoner of War. This is an individual captured while engaged in combat with U.S. forces who cannot be readily identified with the warring nation. Illegal Enemy Combatants do not fight while wearing uniforms or openly carrying weapons. Additionally their targets include both military personnel as well as known civilian non-combatants. They masquerade as civilians for strategic purposes; conducting war by subterfuge. For this reason they are not covered under the Geneva Conventions respecting the treatment of “Prisoners of War.” Leftists seek to have these individuals classified as Prisoners of War based in part on a flawed use of Article 4, Section 2 which states that Prisoners of War includes “members of militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied…” What they fail to accept is that Section 2 goes on to state that such persons must be a) commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates, b) have a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance, c) carry arms openly, and d) conduct their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war. Absent their meeting these criteria, the only legitimate classification for said persons is that of Illegal Enemy Combatants. While the U.S. does not torture persons held under its authority, the primary reason for making this distinction is to combat the belief that such persons must be afforded the jurisprudential protections applicable to Prisoners of War which includes, but is not limited to, the privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus (See Geneva Conventions, Article 3, Section 1(d)).

Torture – There is considerable reluctance on the part of the Left to define this word. The problem with applying a definition is that the definition limits the duplicitous, Humpty Dumpty manner in which they choose to argue. A word that means nothing ultimately means everything. In brief, “torture”, is the intentional infliction of great physical pain and/or extraordinary mental distress. I will presume that anyone reading this is of at least average intelligence therefore I will not condescend to define “great physical pain and/or extraordinary mental distress.” The Left however believes or perhaps pretends to believe that “torture” includes anything that a detainee finds unpleasant. Needless to say, this deliberate use of ambiguity is convenient for anyone wishing to make a political statement. Unfortunately it also aids and abets this country’s enemies in the process by creating the impression that the U.S. is exactly the same as its enemies yesterday and today. Note that members of Al Queda (among others) have been instructed to make false accusations of torture against their captors. Although any and all such accusations must be thoroughly investigated, it is appalling that the Left elects to uncritically accept them as unequivocal truth.

It appears that the Left’s abhorrence of definitions impedes their ability to understand that there is a difference between a question and an accusation. They level accusations against the U.S. government and when met with criticism they retreat into the fortress of victimhood while asking, “Do we not have the right to question our government?” Accusing another of a wrong is not a question. One’s opponent need not answer. For when an accusation is made the burden of proof rests with the accuser to prove it, not the accused to disprove it. Yet with every passing day this administration is asked to disprove accusations of “torture” which are all too often the fanciful elevation of any inconvenience to the level of horrors visited upon the prisoners at Auschwitz.

While I would like to believe that Leftists have America’s best interests at heart, that their sole purpose for accusing the U.S. government of crimes against humanity and comparing the U.S. government to the Soviets, Nazi’s and Pol Pot is to force a policy shift in the interests of improving America’s image around the world, reason, logic, facts and evidence leads me to another, rather disheartening conclusion. When considering the totality of their baseless accusations, virulent protestations and feigned outrages, one can only conclude that their views on this matter are shaped by their hatred of the current administration. It seems rather obvious that their desire to harm the Bush administration is more important that their desire to seek the truth. Many Leftists understand that the consequences of their actions include increasing the danger faced by U.S. forces and fomenting the hateful passions of America’s enemies the world over yet it does not seem to matter. George Bush, his administrations and to a lesser degree America, is the enemy and in that respect the Left’s behaviour is right out of the Sun Tzu/Machiavellian playbook, “Whatever weakens your enemy strengthens you.”

Deep Delusions

Share

Many in the media are salivating over the recent revelation by former FBI official, W. Mark Felt, that he was in fact the “Deep Throat” mentioned by Woodward and Bernstein in their Washington Post article which ultimately lead to the resignation of President Richard Nixon more than 30 years ago. I am not amazed that they would be so giddy over this after all, they get the opportunity to relive the glory days when they could present stories under the veil of “objectivity” and “journalistic integrity” while knowing full well that they were largely nothing more than 60’s era Leftists activists sans Bohemian attire. No, what amazes me is the fact that they are still attempting to present this entire matter as a disinterested search for truth in the interest of rooting out corruption in government. Pardon me if I seem a tad incredulous.

This is not to say that the actions of President Nixon were consistent with our expectations of same where government officials are concerned. But were those actions any different than those of William J. Clinton, John F. Kennedy, Lindon B. Johnson, Harry S. Truman and Franklin D. Roosevelt? In short, the answer is a resounding, No! Anyone who believes that the media is interested in finding and redressing corruption in government need only consider their utter desertion from the battlefield during the Clinton era. Rather than investigating numerous issues of impropriety, the media establishment (with the obvious exception of those referred to as “conservative media”) spent this period reacting to and investigating the motives of those who made charges against the Clintons and the Clinton Administration.

The fact is, the media establishment is as partisan today as it was yesteryear. They continue to wear the mask of “journalistic objectivity” which is nothing more than a euphemism for the intellectual dishonesty that they so flagrantly perpetrate upon the public mind.

Make no mistake about it, the identity of “Deep Throat” is a legitimate news story. But the continued spin which paints W. Mark Felt’s actions as well of those of Woodward and Bernstein, as courageous and heroic, is an insult to the intelligence of anyone with an IQ above room temperature.

Dictators Among Us

Share

When considering some of the judicial decisions handed down recently, particularly from the federal bench, I am laboring to understand both why and how we have allowed the judicial branch of government to become our omnipotent dictators.

Much of this stems from the idea that it is the duty of the Supreme Court to “interpret” the Constitution. Well, I have read the Constitution several times, together with the Federalist as well as a host of available data from the framers and I am at a loss to find any reference to the Supreme Court being solely vested with the power to “interpret” the Constitution. [Please note that when I use the word “Constitution” I include both the original document and the amendments thereto as amendments once ratified become part of the document as though included in the original draft thereof.]

Perhaps we can begin with the word “interpret”. The term embodies such acts as explaining that which is unclear, generally foreign, in terms common to the listener. Am I to understand then that the Constitution was written in language so ambiguous, so foreign to the predominantly English-speaking American people that they should require a cadre of all-seeing, all-knowing wise men/women to “interpret” or translate it?

Unfortunately this term, as used in this case, is intended to mean that the Supreme Court is vested with the authority to “reinterpret” the Constitution in a manner more conducive to our times. This view places the Supreme Court, and in fact the whole of the judiciary, in the roll of dictator, rather than impartial arbiter. A dictator maintains power by being both unaccountable to the people and unimpeded in ambitions by the law, for the dictator can, whenever the laws stand in opposition to his goals, change the law by force of will. Clearly our judiciary in more ways than not, are unaccountable to the governed and whenever they find that the law, whether it be the Constitution or acts of legislators, is inconsistent with their views on “social justice” and desires for same, have the power and the consent of their Leftist enablers to reinterpret the law. We are no longer governed by the Rule of Law. We are now governed by the Rule of Lawmakers.

This development was feared by members of the original Constitutional Convention who raised objections to the “authority of the proposed Supreme Court”:

“The authority of the proposed Supreme Court of the United States,
which is to be a separate and independent body, will be superior to that of the
legislature. The power of construing the laws according to the spirit of the
Constitution will enable that court to mould them into whatever shape it may
think proper; especially as its decisions will not be in any manner subject to
the revision or correction of the legislative body. This is as unprecedented as
it is dangerous…..the errors and usurpations of the Supreme Court of the United
States will be uncontrollable and remediless.”

It is interesting to note that Alexander Hamilton dismissed these objections as “made up of false reasoning upon misconceived facts.” It is then to our advantage that Hamilton’s view did not carry. The Supreme Court was not vested with any power to construe the Constitution beyond the expressed letter of the law and when the desires of the people or the acts of legislators are at variance with the Constitution, the Constitution shall be the superior.

Were it the intention of the framers to place the Supreme Court in a superior position to the Constitution, there would have been no need for Article V which delineates the amendment process. They could simply have dispensed with the debates regarding the propriety of super majorities and simply made it possible to change this document with a mere vote of five.

The Constitution was not written to be an unalterable document covering every conceivable issue known or to come. Rather, it was intended to be the guide. The Framers understood that times would come when changes would be necessary and had the wisdom and the humility to include a procedure for accomplishing such changes. This procedure did not include any mention of the judiciary.

Just as the Renaissance led the people to understand that they had unwittingly surrendered their own innate common sense and sound judgment to men of the cloth, we must also take control of our lives and dispense with the idea that the Constitution is such a sacred and ambiguous document that it should only be read and can only be understood by lawyers in black robes.

Paved With Good Intentions

Share

It seems that all that can be said of the incident in the Atlanta courtroom has already been said. I still however feel the need to weigh-in on this matter.

This situation occurred not because an assailant was bent on committing an act of violence. That is to be expected. Rather, the fault lies with those who, for reasons other than a concern for public safety, allowed this individual to be inadequately guarded. Simply stated, the guard was a small stature female deputy escorting an unrestrained male suspect of considerable size with a known propensity for violent behavior. Why? Because, there are people in our world who live with the delusion that men and women are equal in every respect. It is delusional because, guided by the simple definition of delusion – maintaining a belief despite clear and convincing evidence to the contrary – common sense should have told them that this deputy was severely outmatched. It would have been inadvisable to place a male deputy of equal size in this situation. As the evidence of the past week shows, it was criminal to place a much smaller female deputy there.

Despite their lofty intentions we are yet again confronted with the logical result of the policies of Leftists. Yet again, I fear that they will refuse to learn from experience.

Leftist Double-Speak

Share

Democrats love euphemisms. Their latest is the use of the expression “roll-back” to describe the action of increasing Federal tax rates.

They find it irritating that we refer to the “roll-back” as a tax increase because in times past, they were able to use words in the manner most suitable to their position. Humpty-Dumpty would be proud of this Looking Glass dialect.

Now some are pointing to the fact that when W came into office in 2001, he signed an executive order that cancelled one signed previously by Clinton. Clinton’s EO, which was intended to drastically cut arsenic levels in drinking water, was signed in the last two weeks of his presidency, or 7-years and 50 weeks after he took office. It is important to note that when W singed an EO canceling Clinton’s the Clinton EO had not yet been implemented. Therefore, arsenic levels were not increased by W rather they were simply frozen at their existing levels. Had the Clinton EO been implemented (even partially) it would be correct to refer to W’s action as an increase in arsenic levels.

By contrast the 2001 Tax Cut has already been implemented. Any “roll-back” would result in an actual increase in the Federal tax rate. This means that one would be paying more after the “roll-back” than one is paying at the current rates.

If this is confusing to you, you can now appreciate the logic of Leftist double-speak.

So That's Why O'Neal Was Fired

Share

I watched with a sense of absolute befuddlement on Saturday morning as Tucker Carlson interviewed former Treasury Secretary, Paul O’Neall.

O’Neall argued that it is the responsibility of “society” (government in his view) to care for people because they will not care for themselves, to wit retirement planning. He stated that those who have been successful should have their resources tapped so as to provide upwards of a $1 million dollar retirement nest-egg for their fellow citizens. Thankfully Carlson took him to task on this issue but I am shocked and amazed that O’Neall made the argument to begin with.

Paul O’Neall was the most outspoken Treasury Secretary every, in my recollection but he was outspoken with a purpose. He often made the case that it was not the government’s responsibility to provide for people what they can and should provide for themselves. Yet following a trip he undertook with Bono, of the Irish band U2, O’Neall became more and more accommodating to the leftist view of such matters. He backed away from his support of tax cuts and even softened his views on Social Security reform. It was not surprising then that he was the first of George W. Bush’s cabinet members to be given the Presidential walking-papers. O’Neall was invited to leave his post and amid the typical leftist conspiracy theories, the soon faded into the back-drop. Book notwithstanding.

One of the main reasons that most people are so unconcerned with saving for their own future is that they live under the illusion that some else will be there to do it for them. Charity begins with the individual. The only major role for the government in this matter is to incentivise more private charity and personal responsibility. Big-government cradle-to-grave programs are anathema to that objective.