Republicans largely kept their mouths shut this year as Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.) scheduled hearing after hearing and sent letter after letter from his post as chairman of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee.
On Tuesday, they finally made some noise.
Rep. Tom Davis (Va.), the ranking Republican on Waxman's committee, drew the line during an press conference protesting a scheduled vote to issue a subpoena for Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.
Politico.com is co-host of the Republican presidential debate on May 3rd, and candidates will be answering our readers’ favorite questions. Click here to submit yours.
"This isn't even a close call," Davis said of the threatened subpoena. "This is way over the line."
Waxman wants Rice to testify under oath about President Bush's now-infamous claims that Iraq tried to buy enriched uranium from Niger. He has scheduled the vote for Wednesday.
But Davis and others said Tuesday the Rice subpoena would be a gross abuse of the committee's jurisdiction.
"This is not only an overreach; it's disruptive," Davis said. "This is nothing but a partisan witch hunt."
His remarks coincide with a coordinated assault by Republicans in the House, criticizing Waxman on a range of topics because of his determination to question Rice, one leadership aide said.
Davis, who worked closely with Waxman when he himself chaired the committee, argued that Waxman is threatening the subpoena solely in order forcing Rice to raise her right hand and take an oath before a bank of television cameras that would then broadcast the politically damaging image around the world.
Republican Reps. Darrell Issa of California, Christopher Shays of Connecticut and Lamar Smith of Texas joined the Virginia Republican on Tuesday to protest this latest attempt to call the secretary of state before the committee.
Members of the minority deliberately kept their mouths shut during the first months of this year, so their protests would have more weight when they came, GOP leadership aides have said. This signals the end of that truce.
The secretary of state has a busy schedule, Smith argued, and she should not be compelled to appear before the oversight panel, which potentially includes days of preparation.
"I thought to myself, that's too much," Smith said.
Waxman is investigating President Bush 2003 State of the Union claim that agents for Saddam Hussein tried to buy materials for a nuclear weapon in Niger, a claim that is now widely held to be false.
The Republicans emphasized past investigations of this question by other national and international organizations and said the committee's current inquiry belabors the point.
"This is not about trying to protect the administration," said Shays, who was a consistent critic of the White House and his own leadership during the Republicans' tenure in the majority.
Davis conceded that his staff contacted the State Department after Waxman scheduled the session to vote on subpoenas and that officials at State are concerned about the impact Rice's testimony would have politically and practically on her schedule.
The four Republicans were less defiant of the other three subpoenas the House will vote on Wednesday in a series of separate, although somewhat related, investigations.
These include subpoenas for former White House Chief of Staff Andy Card, for emails from the Republican National Committee and for a list of contacts from the White House between administration officials and a defense contractor in the Duke Cunningham bribery scandal.
"I think it's a fishing expedition," Davis said of Waxman's possible subpoena of RNC emails, "but I think he has every right to do that."
Republicans are now circulating Waxman quotes from his tenure as the ranking Democrat under a former Government Reform chairman, Rep. Dan Burton (R-Ind.), to help frame the debate in their favor.
In 1997, for example, Waxman said, "It makes no sense to direct multiple Congressional committees to investigate the same abuses -- Multiple investigations are duplicative and wasteful." That, Davis argued, is exactly what the oversight chairman is doing.
"The very thing Henry Waxman complained about, he's becoming," Shays said.
The committee did not respond to an email asking for comment.
Waxman has full subpoena authority, and has used the tool a limited number of times so far.
He scheduled Wednesday's vote because the State Department, the RNC and the White House have not provided him and his committee with all the information they asked for, according to a collection of letters he sent top administration officials last week.
Davis said he and Waxman have had a productive working relationship in the past and expects that to continue moving forward, hinting, "I don't know what pressure he's under from his leadership."
But this marks a stark turn in their relationship and a departure for Republicans, who, to this point, have stood by as Waxman peels back layer-upon-layer of potential malfeasance and mismanagement in the current Republican administration.
Thursday, April 26, 2007
White House Faces Sweeping Congressional Oversight
Thursday 26 April 2007
Congress took unprecedented action against the Bush administration Wednesday, using its sweeping powers to vigorously pursue testimony and documents from key White House officials and agencies on issues that have mired the administration in at least a half-dozen scandals.
Covering a broad range of topics including allegations of widespread corruption, two Congressional committees authorized subpoenas - one for Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice to compel her to testify about how a now-discredited 2003 claim that Iraq sought yellowcake uranium from the African country of Niger made its way into President Bush's State of the Union address. Subpoenas were also approved for the Republican National Committee to secure thousands of emails missing from an RNC server used by White House officials, and to require testimony by top officials of the RNC.
Additionally, the House Judiciary Committee granted immunity to former Justice Department official Monica Goodling, and approved a subpoena to force her to testify before Congress about her role and the role of White House officials in the firings of eight US attorneys last year. In an interview Tuesday on the program "Hardball," David Iglesias, the former US attorney from New Mexico, said Goodling "holds the keys to the kingdom" and could very well implicate key officials in the White House in the firings if she testifies. Iglesias was fired last year by the Department of Justice under questionable circumstances.
The Judiciary Committee, chaired by Rep. John Conyers (D-Michigan), also approved a subpoena for Sara Taylor, a deputy to White House political adviser Karl Rove. Rove is said to have played a major role in the US attorney firings, and his use of an RNC email account to conduct official White House business has come under fire. The RNC said it lost thousands of emails Rove had sent over the past few years. The emails may shed further light on the nature of Rove's involvement in the firings and a number of other issues Congress is looking into.
Congress took unprecedented action against the Bush administration Wednesday, using its sweeping powers to vigorously pursue testimony and documents from key White House officials and agencies on issues that have mired the administration in at least a half-dozen scandals.
Covering a broad range of topics including allegations of widespread corruption, two Congressional committees authorized subpoenas - one for Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice to compel her to testify about how a now-discredited 2003 claim that Iraq sought yellowcake uranium from the African country of Niger made its way into President Bush's State of the Union address. Subpoenas were also approved for the Republican National Committee to secure thousands of emails missing from an RNC server used by White House officials, and to require testimony by top officials of the RNC.
Additionally, the House Judiciary Committee granted immunity to former Justice Department official Monica Goodling, and approved a subpoena to force her to testify before Congress about her role and the role of White House officials in the firings of eight US attorneys last year. In an interview Tuesday on the program "Hardball," David Iglesias, the former US attorney from New Mexico, said Goodling "holds the keys to the kingdom" and could very well implicate key officials in the White House in the firings if she testifies. Iglesias was fired last year by the Department of Justice under questionable circumstances.
The Judiciary Committee, chaired by Rep. John Conyers (D-Michigan), also approved a subpoena for Sara Taylor, a deputy to White House political adviser Karl Rove. Rove is said to have played a major role in the US attorney firings, and his use of an RNC email account to conduct official White House business has come under fire. The RNC said it lost thousands of emails Rove had sent over the past few years. The emails may shed further light on the nature of Rove's involvement in the firings and a number of other issues Congress is looking into.
Rice Signals Rejection of House Subpoena
OSLO, Norway (AP) -- Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Thursday she has already answered the questions she has been subpoenaed to answer before a congressional committee and suggested she is not inclined to comply with the order.
Rice said she would respond by mail to questions from the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee on the Bush administration's prewar claims about Saddam Hussein seeking weapons of mass destruction, but signaled she would not appear in person."I am more than happy to answer them again in a letter," she told reporters in Oslo, where she is attending a meeting of NATO foreign ministers.
The comments were her first reaction to a subpoena issued on Wednesday by the committee chaired by Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif.Rice said she respected the oversight function of the legislative branch, but maintained she had already testified in person and under oath about claims that Iraq had sought uranium from Africa during her confirmation hearing for the job of secretary of state."I addressed these questions, almost the same questions, during my confirmation hearing," she said.
"This is an issue that has been answered and answered and answered."Rice noted that she had been serving as President Bush's national security adviser during the period covered by the panel's questions and stressed the administration's position that presidential aides not confirmed by the Senate cannot be forced to testify before Congress under the doctrine of executive privilege.
"This all took place in my role as national security adviser," she said. "There is a constitutional principle. There is a separation of powers and advisers to the president under that constitutional principle are not generally required to go and testify in Congress."
"So, I think we have to observe and uphold the constitutional principle, but I also observe and uphold the obligation of Congress to conduct its oversight role, I respect that. But I think I have more than answered these questions, and answered them directly to Congressman Waxman."
Comment: In other words..."Piss up a rope." The only female in the bunch and she has more balls than any of them.
Source
Rice said she would respond by mail to questions from the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee on the Bush administration's prewar claims about Saddam Hussein seeking weapons of mass destruction, but signaled she would not appear in person."I am more than happy to answer them again in a letter," she told reporters in Oslo, where she is attending a meeting of NATO foreign ministers.
The comments were her first reaction to a subpoena issued on Wednesday by the committee chaired by Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif.Rice said she respected the oversight function of the legislative branch, but maintained she had already testified in person and under oath about claims that Iraq had sought uranium from Africa during her confirmation hearing for the job of secretary of state."I addressed these questions, almost the same questions, during my confirmation hearing," she said.
"This is an issue that has been answered and answered and answered."Rice noted that she had been serving as President Bush's national security adviser during the period covered by the panel's questions and stressed the administration's position that presidential aides not confirmed by the Senate cannot be forced to testify before Congress under the doctrine of executive privilege.
"This all took place in my role as national security adviser," she said. "There is a constitutional principle. There is a separation of powers and advisers to the president under that constitutional principle are not generally required to go and testify in Congress."
"So, I think we have to observe and uphold the constitutional principle, but I also observe and uphold the obligation of Congress to conduct its oversight role, I respect that. But I think I have more than answered these questions, and answered them directly to Congressman Waxman."
Comment: In other words..."Piss up a rope." The only female in the bunch and she has more balls than any of them.
Source
House panel votes to subpoena Rice on Iraq
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. Democratic lawmakers voted on Wednesday to subpoena Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to testify about administration justifications for the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003.On a party-line vote of 21-10, the House of Representatives' Oversight and Government Reform Committee directed Rice to appear before the panel next month.
Republicans accused Democrats of a "fishing expedition." But Democrats said they want Rice to explain what she knew about administration's warnings, later proven false, that Iraq had sought uranium from Niger for nuclear arms."There was one person in the White House who had primary responsibility to get the intelligence about Iraq right -- and that was Secretary Rice who was then President George W. Bush's national security adviser," said committee Chairman Henry Waxman, a California Democrat.
"The American public was misled about the threat posed by Iraq, and this committee is going to do its part to find out why," Waxman said.
Comment: Good old "Bi-Partisanship" in action. Source
Republicans accused Democrats of a "fishing expedition." But Democrats said they want Rice to explain what she knew about administration's warnings, later proven false, that Iraq had sought uranium from Niger for nuclear arms."There was one person in the White House who had primary responsibility to get the intelligence about Iraq right -- and that was Secretary Rice who was then President George W. Bush's national security adviser," said committee Chairman Henry Waxman, a California Democrat.
"The American public was misled about the threat posed by Iraq, and this committee is going to do its part to find out why," Waxman said.
Comment: Good old "Bi-Partisanship" in action. Source
Waxman Takes Center Stage as Chief Investigator
The diminutive Henry A. Waxman is a towering figure on Capitol Hill these days.
As chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, the veteran Democratic congressman from California has broad jurisdiction and sweeping subpoena power over a wide spectrum of the federal government -- and corporate America, too.
He's a reformer, an advocate, a showman. And "he understands the investigative process," said Norm Ornstein, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.S ince claiming the committee gavel in the new Democratic-controlled Congress, Waxman has opened investigations into potential Hatch Act violations by political appointees at the General Services Administration, requested all the e-mails on the Republican National Committee servers written by White House staff members and reviewed contracting in Iraq, among other hot spots.
Along the way, he has commanded an A-list of witnesses who not only help him ferret out information but also invariably guarantee a stream of headlines.
It was a full house, for instance, in his committee room when Valerie Plame, the former clandestine CIA operative-turned-public celebrity, made her congressional debut last month. Backed by subpoena power, though he has yet to use it, Waxman has sought to question Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and top White House political adviser Karl Rove, among other administration officials. Republicans, now in the minority, are necessarily leery of Waxman.
And already, GOP aides have begun circulating opposition research on him, trying to paint him as an overzealous liberal whose investigations are little more than a partisan scheme. Waxman, who has been traveling over the congressional spring break, has been unavailable for an interview. Over the years, he worked closely with Rep. Tom Davis when the Virginia Republican was the committee's chairman. And Davis, now the committee's ranking member, has refrained from publicly criticizing Waxman since Democrats took power."At the end of the day, Chairman Waxman will be judged on whether he has made government better," said Davis spokesman David Marin. "The overriding question will be: Is this about making government more effective, or is this about embarrassing the administration?"
Nonetheless, in the evolving showdown between President Bush and congressional Democrats over a range of pressing issues, from the war in Iraq to the controversial sacking of eight U.S. attorneys, Waxman is a powerful weapon in the majority's arsenal, if only because of his committee's ability to force members of an administration, stoked in secrecy, to answer questions at a nationally televised hearing.
"There was a tremendous need for oversight," said Rep. Howard Berman (D-Calif.), who goes back with Waxman to their days as members of the Young Democrats at UCLA in the late 1950s and early 1960s. "He is just the guy to do it."Read the rest here.
As chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, the veteran Democratic congressman from California has broad jurisdiction and sweeping subpoena power over a wide spectrum of the federal government -- and corporate America, too.
He's a reformer, an advocate, a showman. And "he understands the investigative process," said Norm Ornstein, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.S ince claiming the committee gavel in the new Democratic-controlled Congress, Waxman has opened investigations into potential Hatch Act violations by political appointees at the General Services Administration, requested all the e-mails on the Republican National Committee servers written by White House staff members and reviewed contracting in Iraq, among other hot spots.
Along the way, he has commanded an A-list of witnesses who not only help him ferret out information but also invariably guarantee a stream of headlines.
It was a full house, for instance, in his committee room when Valerie Plame, the former clandestine CIA operative-turned-public celebrity, made her congressional debut last month. Backed by subpoena power, though he has yet to use it, Waxman has sought to question Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and top White House political adviser Karl Rove, among other administration officials. Republicans, now in the minority, are necessarily leery of Waxman.
And already, GOP aides have begun circulating opposition research on him, trying to paint him as an overzealous liberal whose investigations are little more than a partisan scheme. Waxman, who has been traveling over the congressional spring break, has been unavailable for an interview. Over the years, he worked closely with Rep. Tom Davis when the Virginia Republican was the committee's chairman. And Davis, now the committee's ranking member, has refrained from publicly criticizing Waxman since Democrats took power."At the end of the day, Chairman Waxman will be judged on whether he has made government better," said Davis spokesman David Marin. "The overriding question will be: Is this about making government more effective, or is this about embarrassing the administration?"
Nonetheless, in the evolving showdown between President Bush and congressional Democrats over a range of pressing issues, from the war in Iraq to the controversial sacking of eight U.S. attorneys, Waxman is a powerful weapon in the majority's arsenal, if only because of his committee's ability to force members of an administration, stoked in secrecy, to answer questions at a nationally televised hearing.
"There was a tremendous need for oversight," said Rep. Howard Berman (D-Calif.), who goes back with Waxman to their days as members of the Young Democrats at UCLA in the late 1950s and early 1960s. "He is just the guy to do it."Read the rest here.
Dems: More lawyers needed for Bush probes
House Democrats are set to bring in private sector lawyers -- at a cost of up to $225,000 over the next nine months -- to help committee staff investigate the Bush administration.
House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers Jr., Michigan Democrat, has drawn up a contract with Washington law firm Arnold & Porter for help in his investigation of the firing of eight federal prosecutors last year, according to an unsigned copy of the contract obtained by The Washington Times.
The contract specifies that Arnold & Porter will subcontract with another firm, Deloitte & Touche, to "assist Democratic members of the Committee on the Judiciary with issues related to the termination of U.S. attorneys by the Bush administration, possible misrepresentations to Congress, interfering with investigations and matter related thereto."
The House Judiciary Committee already has as many as 30 paid staff positions, not including staff of subcommittees, aides said.
The committee's contract is for a sum "not to exceed $25,000 per month, plus authorized traveling expenses," and is set to expire Dec. 31, 2007. The contract specifies that Irvin B. Nathan, a partner at Arnold & Porter, will be "principally responsible" for the contract.
The contract also specifies that two Deloitte & Touche employees -- Michael Zeldin, a former independent special prosecutor in the early 1990s, and David K. Gilles, a former Treasury Department official -- will become part of the House investigation.
Republicans denounced the move as "scandal-mongering." "It doesn't take a quarter-million dollars and an army of lawyers to conclude that U.S. attorneys serve at the pleasure of the president, unless you're a Democrat with a political dog-and-pony show to produce," said Brian Kennedy, a spokesman for House Minority Leader John A. Boehner, Ohio Republican. "If the goal is to distract from the fact that Democrats have no long-term agenda, they're going to need an outside PR firm, not lawyers," Mr. Kennedy said.
Rep. Rahm Emmanuel, Illinois Democrat, defended Mr. Conyers' decision. "He has said to the White House, 'We want the truth. Help us,'" said Mr. Emmanuel, who chairs the House Democratic Caucus. "Our goal here is to get to the truth, and every day is a new day when it comes to the White House and their story." Read the rest at the source.
House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers Jr., Michigan Democrat, has drawn up a contract with Washington law firm Arnold & Porter for help in his investigation of the firing of eight federal prosecutors last year, according to an unsigned copy of the contract obtained by The Washington Times.
The contract specifies that Arnold & Porter will subcontract with another firm, Deloitte & Touche, to "assist Democratic members of the Committee on the Judiciary with issues related to the termination of U.S. attorneys by the Bush administration, possible misrepresentations to Congress, interfering with investigations and matter related thereto."
The House Judiciary Committee already has as many as 30 paid staff positions, not including staff of subcommittees, aides said.
The committee's contract is for a sum "not to exceed $25,000 per month, plus authorized traveling expenses," and is set to expire Dec. 31, 2007. The contract specifies that Irvin B. Nathan, a partner at Arnold & Porter, will be "principally responsible" for the contract.
The contract also specifies that two Deloitte & Touche employees -- Michael Zeldin, a former independent special prosecutor in the early 1990s, and David K. Gilles, a former Treasury Department official -- will become part of the House investigation.
Republicans denounced the move as "scandal-mongering." "It doesn't take a quarter-million dollars and an army of lawyers to conclude that U.S. attorneys serve at the pleasure of the president, unless you're a Democrat with a political dog-and-pony show to produce," said Brian Kennedy, a spokesman for House Minority Leader John A. Boehner, Ohio Republican. "If the goal is to distract from the fact that Democrats have no long-term agenda, they're going to need an outside PR firm, not lawyers," Mr. Kennedy said.
Rep. Rahm Emmanuel, Illinois Democrat, defended Mr. Conyers' decision. "He has said to the White House, 'We want the truth. Help us,'" said Mr. Emmanuel, who chairs the House Democratic Caucus. "Our goal here is to get to the truth, and every day is a new day when it comes to the White House and their story." Read the rest at the source.
Wednesday, April 18, 2007
Video: Tammy Bruce exposes far-left outlets’ hit list on everyone to their right
If you’re a center-left, centrist, center-right or conservative and you’ve uttered an opinion in public, chances are far far left loss leaders Media Matters and Air America have a dossier on you.
Radio talk show host and friend of Hot Air Tammy Bruce appeared on last night’s “O’Reilly Factor” to talk about far-left outlets (*cough* Media Matters *cough*) who have a hit list on conservatives and moderate/not-so-far to the left Democrats.
Tammy explained the elaborate ruse these far-left individuals use to get national news outlets to get their message out. How does Tammy know? She used to do it herself when she was president of the Los Angeles NOW chapter.
Relevance: Media Matters had a staffer whose job was to record Don Imus and listen for gaffes. He found one, alerted the media, and the rest is history. For icing on the cake, the Soros-funded group tried to convince everyone that Imus is a conservative. Imus is to Media Matters’ political right, but then again so is the entire country.
See video here.
Radio talk show host and friend of Hot Air Tammy Bruce appeared on last night’s “O’Reilly Factor” to talk about far-left outlets (*cough* Media Matters *cough*) who have a hit list on conservatives and moderate/not-so-far to the left Democrats.
Tammy explained the elaborate ruse these far-left individuals use to get national news outlets to get their message out. How does Tammy know? She used to do it herself when she was president of the Los Angeles NOW chapter.
Relevance: Media Matters had a staffer whose job was to record Don Imus and listen for gaffes. He found one, alerted the media, and the rest is history. For icing on the cake, the Soros-funded group tried to convince everyone that Imus is a conservative. Imus is to Media Matters’ political right, but then again so is the entire country.
See video here.
Friday, April 13, 2007
I'm Proud to be an American...until I read Crap like this...
U.S. Corporations Lobby Against New Protections for Chinese Workers
Labor rights advocates say U.S. multinational corporations have aggressively lobbied to weaken key provisions in a new Chinese law that would expand rights and protections for Chinese workers.
"U.S. corporations have used their considerable power and influence there to weaken the labor laws that are being proposed," said Ellen David Friedman, a U.S. labor organizer who's worked with developing trade union groups in China. "They are in essence acknowledging that what they have liked about doing business in China is the very, very cheap labor and the low level of enforcement."
The Chinese government is drafting a new labor law, expected to be finalized in the next few weeks, in response to increasing worker unrest over low and unpaid wages and poor working conditions. Labor rights advocates say the new law will provide Chinese workers with minimal protections that are commonplace in developed countries, including enforceable contracts, the role of unions to negotiate on behalf of employees and severance payments.
When the Chinese government announced the new labor law last year, American corporate trade groups were quick to object to many of the law's provisions.
The American Chamber of Commerce in Shanghai known as AmCham said the law was "a step backwards" and laid out what it called "fundamental defects" in the law in a 42-page document submitted to the Chinese government. The group argued that current Chinese labor law was sufficient for protecting Chinese workers if the laws were properly enforced.
Read here for the rest.
Thursday, April 12, 2007
When "Ho" Is Protected by the First Amendment According to Rev. Al
On his show tonight (April 11,2007), Bill O’Reilly asked Al Sharpton if he was going to go after the rap music “stars” who consistently denigrate women and glamorize violence. The Rev told Bill that after “getting rid of Mr. Imus”, his National Action Network will “start looking” at some of the corporations that backed Imus. Sharpton claimed that some of those corporations also own some of the record companies. Sharpton told O’Reilly that this was “just the beginning of a long war” to deal with this type of language and behavior.
But in March 2005 Sharpton defended the content of rap music while condemning the violence surrounding the industry. He made it quite clear that it was “not about the lyrics” but the violence committed by the rap artists. Sharpton even went so far as to invoke the rap artists’ First Amendment rights to rap and sing about violent acts. Here are some of Sharpton's comments during the March 9, 2005 interview on CNN...
I'm not talking about lyrics. I'm not talking about content. I'm talking about when an artist engages in violence that the FCC and advertising and radio stations have the right, as we do in sports, to say wait a minute, you cannot conduct yourself in that way, and say that you're going to use federally-regulated airwaves to promote your albums if you are, in fact, engaging in violence. Not singing about it, not rapping about it, but do a violent act.
And if they're going to rap about it and sing about it, they have the First Amendment right. But if they do it, they don't have the right then to expect the airwaves to say that it's conduct that we're going to promote.
They have the right to talk about the violence they come from. I come from that violence, but I do not have the right to go out and engage in violence, and then ask the federal airwaves to allow me to continue in my career like it's nothing. Are we saying these kids are nothing? We saw the FCC outrage over Janet Jackson's flashing at the Super Bowl. We're not going to be outraged about actual shootings in front of radio stations?
Again now, I'm not talking about content. I'm talking about actual acts of violence. Are we condoning them by not putting a standard in the business?
In an April 2005 interview on Hannity and Colmes, Sharpton again defended the lyrics using the First Amendment.
HANNITY: You know what bothers me? You know, I guess there's a lot of ways in life that you can make money, Reverend Al. There's a lot of ways you can make money, but when you do it on human misery this way, it's just like some of the more violent rap lyrics that degrade women, degrade, you know, humanity the way they do. Refer to women the way they do. It's amazing to me that — why do people patronize, you know...
SHARPTON: I think the issue is patronage. I mean, I've said that I'm against rewarding people for violent acts. But people have the right to say what they want or do what they want. We also have the right to boycott it. The First Amendment also means you can...
So degrading women by word is protected by the First Amendment if the words are part of Rap Music lyrics? It’s okay to use the “N-word” as long as it is in rap music format? If Imus had "rapped" his comments would there still be an uproar? Would Sharpton defend the statements using the First Amendment excuse? Would Sharpton still be calling for getting rid of Imus?
The hypocrisy underwhelms me…
Me too, Robin. And, those spineless weinees at MSNBC should be ashamed of themselves.
But in March 2005 Sharpton defended the content of rap music while condemning the violence surrounding the industry. He made it quite clear that it was “not about the lyrics” but the violence committed by the rap artists. Sharpton even went so far as to invoke the rap artists’ First Amendment rights to rap and sing about violent acts. Here are some of Sharpton's comments during the March 9, 2005 interview on CNN...
I'm not talking about lyrics. I'm not talking about content. I'm talking about when an artist engages in violence that the FCC and advertising and radio stations have the right, as we do in sports, to say wait a minute, you cannot conduct yourself in that way, and say that you're going to use federally-regulated airwaves to promote your albums if you are, in fact, engaging in violence. Not singing about it, not rapping about it, but do a violent act.
And if they're going to rap about it and sing about it, they have the First Amendment right. But if they do it, they don't have the right then to expect the airwaves to say that it's conduct that we're going to promote.
They have the right to talk about the violence they come from. I come from that violence, but I do not have the right to go out and engage in violence, and then ask the federal airwaves to allow me to continue in my career like it's nothing. Are we saying these kids are nothing? We saw the FCC outrage over Janet Jackson's flashing at the Super Bowl. We're not going to be outraged about actual shootings in front of radio stations?
Again now, I'm not talking about content. I'm talking about actual acts of violence. Are we condoning them by not putting a standard in the business?
In an April 2005 interview on Hannity and Colmes, Sharpton again defended the lyrics using the First Amendment.
HANNITY: You know what bothers me? You know, I guess there's a lot of ways in life that you can make money, Reverend Al. There's a lot of ways you can make money, but when you do it on human misery this way, it's just like some of the more violent rap lyrics that degrade women, degrade, you know, humanity the way they do. Refer to women the way they do. It's amazing to me that — why do people patronize, you know...
SHARPTON: I think the issue is patronage. I mean, I've said that I'm against rewarding people for violent acts. But people have the right to say what they want or do what they want. We also have the right to boycott it. The First Amendment also means you can...
So degrading women by word is protected by the First Amendment if the words are part of Rap Music lyrics? It’s okay to use the “N-word” as long as it is in rap music format? If Imus had "rapped" his comments would there still be an uproar? Would Sharpton defend the statements using the First Amendment excuse? Would Sharpton still be calling for getting rid of Imus?
The hypocrisy underwhelms me…
Me too, Robin. And, those spineless weinees at MSNBC should be ashamed of themselves.
Tuesday, April 10, 2007
Do African Americans have the Patent on Racial Epithets?
The suspension by CBS and MSNBC of Don Imus’s morning show over some insensitive things Imus said is a blatant example of the double standard to which society appears to be placidly subscribing. In the land of the free and home of the brave, where the first amendment guarantees everyone the same degree of free speech, there are certain things that those of the Caucasian persuasion are not allowed to say. And if they do say certain things, then their punishment is swift, vicious and unforgiving, regardless of any apology that may be proffered, as the hapless Imus has just found out.
Imus was referring to players of a black women’s basketball team as “nappy haired hos” on his radio show when the wrath of God descended upon him. God’s wrath came to Imus in the form of the Rev. Al Sharpton, arguably the most racist person in America, who demanded that the talk show host be fired for his impolitic remarks. And in true form, everyone caved to Sharpton’s ridiculous demands.
So what is it with all the hip-hop rap stars raking in millions with “songs” about their “bitches and hos”, rhapsodizing over misogynous and racist behavior and freely using the “N” word, while people like Sharpton engage in a deafening silence. Is it okay for black men to say these things about black (or white) women, but it isn’t okay for white men to use these terms? Do black people have a patent on racial epithets that when used by people of other races constitutes a copyright infringement?
It would almost appear to be the case, given the degree of outrage aimed at Imus for his unfortunate commentary.
But let’s look at the other side of the coin, shall we? I recall a certain firebrand civil rights leader referring to New York City as “Hymietown” because of its large Jewish community and there wasn’t nearly the degree of shock and outrage as that displayed over Imus’s words. I would venture that this nameless civil rights leader’s remarks were much more “hateful” than Imus’s, as they were used to impugn an entire ethno-religious group that has long been persecuted. Yet today this civil rights leader is still out extorting money from corporations with threats of racially based boycotts unless certain donations are ponied up.
Then there is the case of the Rev. Louis Farrakhan, leader of America’s Black Muslim movement, who is constantly ranting about “the evil Jew” to his parishioners. Shouldn’t some sort of action be taken against the hateful invective emanating from him? Or is it because Farrakhan is black that he is exempt from the standards of deportment that apply to the rest of society.
More alarmingly, for Sharpton to insist that Imus be fired, is a pure case of the pot calling the kettle black (no pun intended), as Sharpton himself has his own history of racist misadventures, not the least of which is the Tamara Brawley affair, which found Sharpton a willing collaborator in the attempted framing of a group of white men for the non-existent rape of a black woman.
People like Sharpton make their living keeping the fires of racial hatred burning and acting as an apologist for racist acts and words that emanate from their own community. In fact, there is a school of thought that maintains it is impossible for African Americans to be racist, as they have been victims. To them acts of racism can only be committed by whites.
So long as we all agree to this sham we are establishing a double standard that does a disservice to both blacks and whites. It’s time that the likes of Sharpton be exposed for what they really are: cynical race baiters who thrive on keeping hatred and mistrust between the races alive.
Imus apologized. Enough already.
Imus was referring to players of a black women’s basketball team as “nappy haired hos” on his radio show when the wrath of God descended upon him. God’s wrath came to Imus in the form of the Rev. Al Sharpton, arguably the most racist person in America, who demanded that the talk show host be fired for his impolitic remarks. And in true form, everyone caved to Sharpton’s ridiculous demands.
So what is it with all the hip-hop rap stars raking in millions with “songs” about their “bitches and hos”, rhapsodizing over misogynous and racist behavior and freely using the “N” word, while people like Sharpton engage in a deafening silence. Is it okay for black men to say these things about black (or white) women, but it isn’t okay for white men to use these terms? Do black people have a patent on racial epithets that when used by people of other races constitutes a copyright infringement?
It would almost appear to be the case, given the degree of outrage aimed at Imus for his unfortunate commentary.
But let’s look at the other side of the coin, shall we? I recall a certain firebrand civil rights leader referring to New York City as “Hymietown” because of its large Jewish community and there wasn’t nearly the degree of shock and outrage as that displayed over Imus’s words. I would venture that this nameless civil rights leader’s remarks were much more “hateful” than Imus’s, as they were used to impugn an entire ethno-religious group that has long been persecuted. Yet today this civil rights leader is still out extorting money from corporations with threats of racially based boycotts unless certain donations are ponied up.
Then there is the case of the Rev. Louis Farrakhan, leader of America’s Black Muslim movement, who is constantly ranting about “the evil Jew” to his parishioners. Shouldn’t some sort of action be taken against the hateful invective emanating from him? Or is it because Farrakhan is black that he is exempt from the standards of deportment that apply to the rest of society.
More alarmingly, for Sharpton to insist that Imus be fired, is a pure case of the pot calling the kettle black (no pun intended), as Sharpton himself has his own history of racist misadventures, not the least of which is the Tamara Brawley affair, which found Sharpton a willing collaborator in the attempted framing of a group of white men for the non-existent rape of a black woman.
People like Sharpton make their living keeping the fires of racial hatred burning and acting as an apologist for racist acts and words that emanate from their own community. In fact, there is a school of thought that maintains it is impossible for African Americans to be racist, as they have been victims. To them acts of racism can only be committed by whites.
So long as we all agree to this sham we are establishing a double standard that does a disservice to both blacks and whites. It’s time that the likes of Sharpton be exposed for what they really are: cynical race baiters who thrive on keeping hatred and mistrust between the races alive.
Imus apologized. Enough already.
Thursday, April 05, 2007
Terror at Sixteen Feet
There was a time, back before Bush's Reign of Terror, when groups of sweaty, Middle Eastern males could chant “Allahu Ackbar” in a crowded airport without attracting so much as a second glance from fellow travellers. It appears those days are long gone. That’s the lesson six Muslim holy men learned last fall when they were forcibly removed from United Airways Flight 300 flight for attempting to turn a typically boring experience into a fun-filled and educational adventure for everyone.
No one knows for sure why the passengers of Flight 300 were so nervous about flying with Muslims. It's truly a mystery. But the whole thing stinks worse than human flesh being consumed by burning jet fuel to me. As an American, I’m embarassed and ashamed for the way the Imams were treated. I imagine they must’ve felt a little like the Muslim passengers of United Airlines Flight 93, whose private moment of quiet prayer was rudely interrupted by intolerant Americans pounding on the cockpit door.
Todd Beamer and his Merry Band of Bigots may have escaped justice, but the nameless John and Jane Does of Flight 300 won’t get off so easy. Lawsuits are currently being filed against those who reported the befuddled Imams to the airport gestapo. It’s not about the money, though. It’s not even about teaching people to think twice before inconveniencing any Muslim travellers who just happen to be gleefully slashing a flight attendant’s throat open with a box cutter in accordance with the Holy Quran. It’s about insuring that all fliers, Muslim and and non-Muslim alike, are treated fairly and equally by everyone, right up until the moment the plane hits the ground.
Thanks to BlameBush. Very well written.
No one knows for sure why the passengers of Flight 300 were so nervous about flying with Muslims. It's truly a mystery. But the whole thing stinks worse than human flesh being consumed by burning jet fuel to me. As an American, I’m embarassed and ashamed for the way the Imams were treated. I imagine they must’ve felt a little like the Muslim passengers of United Airlines Flight 93, whose private moment of quiet prayer was rudely interrupted by intolerant Americans pounding on the cockpit door.
Todd Beamer and his Merry Band of Bigots may have escaped justice, but the nameless John and Jane Does of Flight 300 won’t get off so easy. Lawsuits are currently being filed against those who reported the befuddled Imams to the airport gestapo. It’s not about the money, though. It’s not even about teaching people to think twice before inconveniencing any Muslim travellers who just happen to be gleefully slashing a flight attendant’s throat open with a box cutter in accordance with the Holy Quran. It’s about insuring that all fliers, Muslim and and non-Muslim alike, are treated fairly and equally by everyone, right up until the moment the plane hits the ground.
Thanks to BlameBush. Very well written.
Friday, March 30, 2007
New Missile can Fully Protect Israel from Iran
Recent modifications made to the Arrow enable Israel's ballistic missile defense system to successfully intercept and destroy any ballistic missile in the Middle East, including nuclear-capable missiles under development by Iran, Arieh Herzog, the head of the Defense Ministry's Homa Missile Defense Agency, has told The Jerusalem Post.
In a rare interview that will appear in full in Monday's Post, Herzog provides an inside look at the decision-making process behind Israel's missile defense systems, led by the Israeli- and American-developed Arrow missile, one of the only operational ballistic missile defense systems in the world.
On Monday, the IAF successfully tested a newly modified Arrow interceptor.
Iran and Syria, Herzog said, were investing unprecedented amounts of money in long-range ballistic missile capabilities - with the help of North Korea - and had all but given up building modern air forces.
"The Iranians are continually increasing the range of their missiles," he said. "They are buying technology and in some cases even complete systems from North Korea and other countries."
Herzog also said that while there might be missile systems in Iranian hands that the Arrow could not intercept, all of the ballistic missiles "currently operational" in the Islamic Republic could be destroyed by the Israeli defense system.
"Our Arrow operational system can without a doubt deal with all of the operational threats in the Middle East, particularly in Iran and Syria," he declared.
A branch of the Defense Ministry's Research and Development Directorate, Homa - Hebrew for "Fortress Wall" - was established in 1991 and given a mandate to oversee the development, procurement and integration of missile defense systems, once needed against crude Iraqi Scud missiles and now to face advanced long-range Iranian Shihabs.
Herzog said he favored selling the Arrow to Israel's allies. Countries that have expressed interest include Turkey and South Korea. At the moment, however, the sale of the system is not on the table and this would only change following a joint decision by Israel and the US.
"If it would be possible to sell the system, I would be in favor," he said. "But this is a government decision that needs to be made by Israel together with the United States."
Discussing the Second Lebanon War, Herzog said a missile defense system that was effective against the short-range Katyusha - close to 4,000 struck northern Israel - could have changed the outcome in Israel's favor.
"Active protection can dramatically reduce the number of casualties," he said, adding that this would also provide the government with improved "diplomatic maneuverability."
Such a system also serves as a deterrent. "If someone thinks that a large percentage of his missiles will be intercepted, he will think twice before attacking," Herzog said.
In a rare interview that will appear in full in Monday's Post, Herzog provides an inside look at the decision-making process behind Israel's missile defense systems, led by the Israeli- and American-developed Arrow missile, one of the only operational ballistic missile defense systems in the world.
On Monday, the IAF successfully tested a newly modified Arrow interceptor.
Iran and Syria, Herzog said, were investing unprecedented amounts of money in long-range ballistic missile capabilities - with the help of North Korea - and had all but given up building modern air forces.
"The Iranians are continually increasing the range of their missiles," he said. "They are buying technology and in some cases even complete systems from North Korea and other countries."
Herzog also said that while there might be missile systems in Iranian hands that the Arrow could not intercept, all of the ballistic missiles "currently operational" in the Islamic Republic could be destroyed by the Israeli defense system.
"Our Arrow operational system can without a doubt deal with all of the operational threats in the Middle East, particularly in Iran and Syria," he declared.
A branch of the Defense Ministry's Research and Development Directorate, Homa - Hebrew for "Fortress Wall" - was established in 1991 and given a mandate to oversee the development, procurement and integration of missile defense systems, once needed against crude Iraqi Scud missiles and now to face advanced long-range Iranian Shihabs.
Herzog said he favored selling the Arrow to Israel's allies. Countries that have expressed interest include Turkey and South Korea. At the moment, however, the sale of the system is not on the table and this would only change following a joint decision by Israel and the US.
"If it would be possible to sell the system, I would be in favor," he said. "But this is a government decision that needs to be made by Israel together with the United States."
Discussing the Second Lebanon War, Herzog said a missile defense system that was effective against the short-range Katyusha - close to 4,000 struck northern Israel - could have changed the outcome in Israel's favor.
"Active protection can dramatically reduce the number of casualties," he said, adding that this would also provide the government with improved "diplomatic maneuverability."
Such a system also serves as a deterrent. "If someone thinks that a large percentage of his missiles will be intercepted, he will think twice before attacking," Herzog said.
Monday, March 26, 2007
Wednesday, March 07, 2007
Chernobyl - Now
A girl by the name of Elena took a motorbike ride to Chernobyl and put up this website. This is absolutely mesmerizing; each photo more interesting than the one before.
Click the Title.
I was in Sardinia when this happened. They warned us about the radiation cloud coming our way. Came right over where I lived. Maybe that's why I can't give blood now.
They ask me if I lived in Europe before such and such date. When I say yes, they say...Buh-Bye.
I didn't realize the vehicles and helicopters couldn't be de-contaminated. Also didn't realize so many people died.
Click the Title.
I was in Sardinia when this happened. They warned us about the radiation cloud coming our way. Came right over where I lived. Maybe that's why I can't give blood now.
They ask me if I lived in Europe before such and such date. When I say yes, they say...Buh-Bye.
I didn't realize the vehicles and helicopters couldn't be de-contaminated. Also didn't realize so many people died.
Monday, March 05, 2007
Thursday, March 01, 2007
Let em eat Tofu!
I love Ann,
Even right-wingers who know that "global warming" is a crock do not seem to grasp what the tree-huggers are demanding. Liberals want mass starvation and human devastation.
Forget the lunacy of people claiming to tell us the precise temperature of planet Earth in 1918 based on tree rings. Or the fact that in the '70s liberals were issuing similarly dire warnings about "global cooling."
Simply consider what noted climatologists Al Gore and Melissa Etheridge are demanding that we do to combat their nutty conjectures about "global warming." They want us to starve the productive sector of fossil fuel and allow the world's factories to grind to a halt. This means an end to material growth and a cataclysmic reduction in wealth.
There are more reputable scientists defending astrology than defending "global warming," but liberals simply announce that the debate has been resolved in their favor and demand that we shut down all production.
They think they can live in a world of only Malibu and East Hampton -- with no Trentons or Detroits. It does not occur to them that someone has to manufacture the tiles and steel and glass and solar panels that go into those "eco-friendly" mansions, and someone has to truck it all to their beachfront properties, and someone else has to transport all the workers there to build it. (And then someone has to drive the fleets of trucks delivering the pachysandra and bottled water every day.)
Liberals are already comfortably ensconced in their beachfront estates, which they expect to be unaffected by their negative growth prescriptions for the rest of us.
There was more energy consumed in the manufacture, construction and maintenance of Leonardo DiCaprio's Malibu home than is needed to light the entire city of Albuquerque, where there are surely several men who can actually act. But he has solar panels to warm his house six degrees on chilly Malibu nights.
Liberals haven't the foggiest idea how the industrial world works. They act as if America could reduce its vast energy consumption by using fluorescent bulbs and driving hybrid cars rather than SUVs. They have no idea how light miraculously appears when they flick a switch or what allows them to go to the bathroom indoors in winter -- luxuries Americans are not likely to abandon because Leo DiCaprio had solar panels trucked into his Malibu estate.
Our lives depend on fossil fuel. Steel plants, chemical plants, rubber plants, pharmaceutical plants, glass plants, paper plants -- those run on energy. There are no Mother Earth nursery designs in stylish organic cotton without gas-belching factories, ships and trucks, and temperature-controlled, well-lighted stores. Windmills can't even produce enough energy to manufacture a windmill.
Because of the industrialization of agriculture -- using massive amounts of fossil fuel -- only 2 percent of Americans work in farming. And yet they produce enough food to feed all 300 million Americans, with plenty left over for export. When are liberals going to break the news to their friends in Darfur that they all have to starve to death to save the planet?
"Global warming" is the left's pagan rage against mankind. If we can't produce industrial waste, then we can't produce. Some of us -- not the ones with mansions in Malibu and Nashville is my guess -- are going to have to die. To say we need to reduce our energy consumption is like saying we need to reduce our oxygen consumption.
Liberals have always had a thing about eliminating humans. Stalin wanted to eliminate the kulaks and Ukranians, vegetarian atheist Adolf Hitler wanted to eliminate the Jews, Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger wanted to eliminate poor blacks, DDT opponent Rachel Carson wanted to eliminate Africans (introduction to her book "Silent Spring" written by ... Al Gore!), and population-control guru Paul Ehrlich wants to eliminate all humans.
But global warming is the most insane, psychotic idea liberals have ever concocted to kill off "useless eaters." If we have to live in a pure "natural" environment like the Indians, then our entire transcontinental nation can only support about 1 million human beings. Sorry, fellas -- 299 million of you are going to have to go.
Proving that the "global warming" campaign is nothing but hatred of humanity, these are the exact same people who destroyed the nuclear power industry in this country 30 years ago.
If we accept for purposes of argument their claim that the only way the human race can survive is with clean energy that doesn't emit carbon dioxide, environmentalists waited until they had safely destroyed the nuclear power industry to tell us that. This proves they never intended for us to survive.
"Global warming" is the liberal's stalking horse for their ultimate fantasy: The whole U.S. will look like Amagansett, with no one living in it except their even-tempered maids (for "diversity"), themselves and their coterie (all, presumably, living in solar-heated mansions, except the maids who will do without electricity altogether). The entire fuel-guzzling, tacky, beer-drinking, NASCAR-watching middle class with their over-large families will simply have to die.
It seems not to have occurred to the jet set that when California is as poor as Mexico, they might have trouble finding a maid. Without trucking, packaging, manufacturing, shipping and refrigeration in their Bel-Air fantasy world, they'll be chasing the rear-end of an animal every time their stomachs growl and killing small animals for pelts to keep their genitals warm.
Even right-wingers who know that "global warming" is a crock do not seem to grasp what the tree-huggers are demanding. Liberals want mass starvation and human devastation.
Forget the lunacy of people claiming to tell us the precise temperature of planet Earth in 1918 based on tree rings. Or the fact that in the '70s liberals were issuing similarly dire warnings about "global cooling."
Simply consider what noted climatologists Al Gore and Melissa Etheridge are demanding that we do to combat their nutty conjectures about "global warming." They want us to starve the productive sector of fossil fuel and allow the world's factories to grind to a halt. This means an end to material growth and a cataclysmic reduction in wealth.
There are more reputable scientists defending astrology than defending "global warming," but liberals simply announce that the debate has been resolved in their favor and demand that we shut down all production.
They think they can live in a world of only Malibu and East Hampton -- with no Trentons or Detroits. It does not occur to them that someone has to manufacture the tiles and steel and glass and solar panels that go into those "eco-friendly" mansions, and someone has to truck it all to their beachfront properties, and someone else has to transport all the workers there to build it. (And then someone has to drive the fleets of trucks delivering the pachysandra and bottled water every day.)
Liberals are already comfortably ensconced in their beachfront estates, which they expect to be unaffected by their negative growth prescriptions for the rest of us.
There was more energy consumed in the manufacture, construction and maintenance of Leonardo DiCaprio's Malibu home than is needed to light the entire city of Albuquerque, where there are surely several men who can actually act. But he has solar panels to warm his house six degrees on chilly Malibu nights.
Liberals haven't the foggiest idea how the industrial world works. They act as if America could reduce its vast energy consumption by using fluorescent bulbs and driving hybrid cars rather than SUVs. They have no idea how light miraculously appears when they flick a switch or what allows them to go to the bathroom indoors in winter -- luxuries Americans are not likely to abandon because Leo DiCaprio had solar panels trucked into his Malibu estate.
Our lives depend on fossil fuel. Steel plants, chemical plants, rubber plants, pharmaceutical plants, glass plants, paper plants -- those run on energy. There are no Mother Earth nursery designs in stylish organic cotton without gas-belching factories, ships and trucks, and temperature-controlled, well-lighted stores. Windmills can't even produce enough energy to manufacture a windmill.
Because of the industrialization of agriculture -- using massive amounts of fossil fuel -- only 2 percent of Americans work in farming. And yet they produce enough food to feed all 300 million Americans, with plenty left over for export. When are liberals going to break the news to their friends in Darfur that they all have to starve to death to save the planet?
"Global warming" is the left's pagan rage against mankind. If we can't produce industrial waste, then we can't produce. Some of us -- not the ones with mansions in Malibu and Nashville is my guess -- are going to have to die. To say we need to reduce our energy consumption is like saying we need to reduce our oxygen consumption.
Liberals have always had a thing about eliminating humans. Stalin wanted to eliminate the kulaks and Ukranians, vegetarian atheist Adolf Hitler wanted to eliminate the Jews, Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger wanted to eliminate poor blacks, DDT opponent Rachel Carson wanted to eliminate Africans (introduction to her book "Silent Spring" written by ... Al Gore!), and population-control guru Paul Ehrlich wants to eliminate all humans.
But global warming is the most insane, psychotic idea liberals have ever concocted to kill off "useless eaters." If we have to live in a pure "natural" environment like the Indians, then our entire transcontinental nation can only support about 1 million human beings. Sorry, fellas -- 299 million of you are going to have to go.
Proving that the "global warming" campaign is nothing but hatred of humanity, these are the exact same people who destroyed the nuclear power industry in this country 30 years ago.
If we accept for purposes of argument their claim that the only way the human race can survive is with clean energy that doesn't emit carbon dioxide, environmentalists waited until they had safely destroyed the nuclear power industry to tell us that. This proves they never intended for us to survive.
"Global warming" is the liberal's stalking horse for their ultimate fantasy: The whole U.S. will look like Amagansett, with no one living in it except their even-tempered maids (for "diversity"), themselves and their coterie (all, presumably, living in solar-heated mansions, except the maids who will do without electricity altogether). The entire fuel-guzzling, tacky, beer-drinking, NASCAR-watching middle class with their over-large families will simply have to die.
It seems not to have occurred to the jet set that when California is as poor as Mexico, they might have trouble finding a maid. Without trucking, packaging, manufacturing, shipping and refrigeration in their Bel-Air fantasy world, they'll be chasing the rear-end of an animal every time their stomachs growl and killing small animals for pelts to keep their genitals warm.
Monday, February 19, 2007
Breaking Deep: The Official 11 Point Plan For Victory In Iraq
EXCLUSIVE: THE FULL 11 POINT PLAN FOR VICTORY IN IRAQ by General David Petraeus Commander of all U.S. Forces in Iraq, Admiral William Fallon, Centcom Commander, Middle East, and Ryan C. Crocker, U.S. Ambassador to Iraq.
This is the 11 point plan that the men in charge of U.S. Victory in Iraq have submitted to The White House, The Pentagon and the State Department, and which will serve as the blueprint for victory in Iraq. It has been brought to me and confirmed by sources both inside and outside of the Military.
This plan allays a principle fear of both John McCain and mine that we would be just sending in reinforcements without a specific battle plan, and our young American servicemen would just be rolling around waiting to get blown up, or sitting around waiting to get mortared. This is a masterful, aggressive and detailed battle plan unfolding, which makes the fuzzy headed and entirely politically motived Congressional actions being taken by the Democrats particularly absurd, annoying, damaging, and undermining of the U.S. Military and the Nation’s best interests.
1. U.S. troops are to be gradually pulled back from all Iraqi cities and towns and sent to seal the borders with Iran and Syria. The real insurgency is not indigenous to Iraq, but being pumped in through Iran and Syria.
2. Ramadi and Baghdad will be two of a handful of initial principle exceptions, as major U.S supported military engagements are in process in Baghadad and gearing up in Ramadi.
3. Iraqi Military Units meeting standards of “militia cleansing” ( ie militia free ) and ideologically dedicated to a United Iraq will be upgraded to Elite Status and given full operational autonomy.
4. Generals and leaders from Saddam’s Baath party, many out of work for three years, will be encouraged to rejoin the military enticed with high-pay and bonuses designed to serve as retrograde pay for their time off. The Baath party generals will be key to victory in Al Anbar Province, as I will lay out later today or tomorrow.
5. The state of security in each Area of Operations will dictate the tempo of U.S. pullback from towns to the Iranian and Syrian borders.
6. A massive assault is shortly due to be launched on Ramadi, the capital of Al Qaeda, and the remnants of the Sunni Insurgency, in Iraq. Ramadi has degenerated to a sort of post-modern trench warfare, Marines and Soldiers locked away in a variety of new urban outposts, while all the schools have finally been closed and it is nigh on impossible for the average citizen to conduct his daily life. The deadlock must be broken, and Al Qaeda must finally be ejected.
7. We will be “firing” most of the Sunni Tribal chieftans who we had been relying on as our major allies in fighting Al Qaeda in Al Anbar. The young chieftains were just absolutely no match for the superior Al Qaeda warriors, and outside of Ramadi their roles will be replaced by the new Baathist Generals brought into the mix. Al Qaeda had been going in for the kill on the Sunni tribes in the last few months, and we are employing such aggressive action to turn it around. I will shortly give a scoop as to how we are going to use the locals inside Ramadi itself.
8. Massively step up talks with, and put pressure on, those Sunni tribal leaders we have not been able to bring over to our side. Saudi Arabia will be involved with this.
9. Immediate, highly visible Infrastructure improvement first focused on the peaceful and cooperative areas of Mosul, Amara and Karbala. The idea is to make other areas around jealous of the rapidly modernizing cities, in order to incent them to tow the line of cooperation with the new Iraqi Government.
Such improvements will include, but are not limited to dozens of new bridges being built to accommodate the literally trebling of auto ownership in Iraq since the liberation; the building of many new hospitals to modern standards of medicine ( Ever been to an Iraqi hospital? Just stay home where it’s cleaner and send someone to fetch some drugs ); a massive campaign for fresh American private sector investment, and a raising of all school standards, with a centerpiece of several new universities being built.
10. Electoral Reform: The old system of national parties selecting candidates for positions was believed to have unfairly tipped the balance in favor of the Shiites and led to too many Pro-Iranian, Pro-Achmedinejad candidates ( like the nutbag terrorist Al Sadr ) receiving too many seats in the parliament. A new system of local candidates simply stepping forward and adding their name to the ballot will instead prevail.
11. And finally, a census will be taken. Believe it or not, we do not who is where nor how many of them there are.
This is the official, mostly secret 11 Point Plan for Success.
Starting tomorrow I will begin giving you the blow by blow updates on actual on the ground progress and upcoming, releasable, tactical plans.
By Pat Dollard
This is the 11 point plan that the men in charge of U.S. Victory in Iraq have submitted to The White House, The Pentagon and the State Department, and which will serve as the blueprint for victory in Iraq. It has been brought to me and confirmed by sources both inside and outside of the Military.
This plan allays a principle fear of both John McCain and mine that we would be just sending in reinforcements without a specific battle plan, and our young American servicemen would just be rolling around waiting to get blown up, or sitting around waiting to get mortared. This is a masterful, aggressive and detailed battle plan unfolding, which makes the fuzzy headed and entirely politically motived Congressional actions being taken by the Democrats particularly absurd, annoying, damaging, and undermining of the U.S. Military and the Nation’s best interests.
1. U.S. troops are to be gradually pulled back from all Iraqi cities and towns and sent to seal the borders with Iran and Syria. The real insurgency is not indigenous to Iraq, but being pumped in through Iran and Syria.
2. Ramadi and Baghdad will be two of a handful of initial principle exceptions, as major U.S supported military engagements are in process in Baghadad and gearing up in Ramadi.
3. Iraqi Military Units meeting standards of “militia cleansing” ( ie militia free ) and ideologically dedicated to a United Iraq will be upgraded to Elite Status and given full operational autonomy.
4. Generals and leaders from Saddam’s Baath party, many out of work for three years, will be encouraged to rejoin the military enticed with high-pay and bonuses designed to serve as retrograde pay for their time off. The Baath party generals will be key to victory in Al Anbar Province, as I will lay out later today or tomorrow.
5. The state of security in each Area of Operations will dictate the tempo of U.S. pullback from towns to the Iranian and Syrian borders.
6. A massive assault is shortly due to be launched on Ramadi, the capital of Al Qaeda, and the remnants of the Sunni Insurgency, in Iraq. Ramadi has degenerated to a sort of post-modern trench warfare, Marines and Soldiers locked away in a variety of new urban outposts, while all the schools have finally been closed and it is nigh on impossible for the average citizen to conduct his daily life. The deadlock must be broken, and Al Qaeda must finally be ejected.
7. We will be “firing” most of the Sunni Tribal chieftans who we had been relying on as our major allies in fighting Al Qaeda in Al Anbar. The young chieftains were just absolutely no match for the superior Al Qaeda warriors, and outside of Ramadi their roles will be replaced by the new Baathist Generals brought into the mix. Al Qaeda had been going in for the kill on the Sunni tribes in the last few months, and we are employing such aggressive action to turn it around. I will shortly give a scoop as to how we are going to use the locals inside Ramadi itself.
8. Massively step up talks with, and put pressure on, those Sunni tribal leaders we have not been able to bring over to our side. Saudi Arabia will be involved with this.
9. Immediate, highly visible Infrastructure improvement first focused on the peaceful and cooperative areas of Mosul, Amara and Karbala. The idea is to make other areas around jealous of the rapidly modernizing cities, in order to incent them to tow the line of cooperation with the new Iraqi Government.
Such improvements will include, but are not limited to dozens of new bridges being built to accommodate the literally trebling of auto ownership in Iraq since the liberation; the building of many new hospitals to modern standards of medicine ( Ever been to an Iraqi hospital? Just stay home where it’s cleaner and send someone to fetch some drugs ); a massive campaign for fresh American private sector investment, and a raising of all school standards, with a centerpiece of several new universities being built.
10. Electoral Reform: The old system of national parties selecting candidates for positions was believed to have unfairly tipped the balance in favor of the Shiites and led to too many Pro-Iranian, Pro-Achmedinejad candidates ( like the nutbag terrorist Al Sadr ) receiving too many seats in the parliament. A new system of local candidates simply stepping forward and adding their name to the ballot will instead prevail.
11. And finally, a census will be taken. Believe it or not, we do not who is where nor how many of them there are.
This is the official, mostly secret 11 Point Plan for Success.
Starting tomorrow I will begin giving you the blow by blow updates on actual on the ground progress and upcoming, releasable, tactical plans.
By Pat Dollard
Tuesday, February 13, 2007
What happens to the Dog you just don't want anymore?
From the best of "Craigslist:"
"I am posting this (and it is long) because I think our society needs a huge "Wake-up" call. As a shelter manager, I am going to share a little insight with you all...a view from the inside if you will. First off, this is a forum to for adoption and/or rehoming as clearly stated in the rules. All of you breeders/sellers on craigslist should not only be flagged (and I hope the good people on craigslist will continue to do so with blind fury), but you should be made to work in the "back" of an animal shelter for just one day. Maybe if you saw the life drain from a few sad, lost, confused eyes, you would change your mind about breeding and selling to people you don't even know…that puppy you just sold will most likely end up in my shelter when it's not a cute little puppy anymore. So how would you feel if you knew that there's about a 90% chance that dog will never walk out of the shelter it is going to be dumped at? Purebred or not! About 50% of all of the dogs that are "owner surrenders" or "strays", that come into my shelter are purebred dogs. The most common excuses I hear are; "We are moving and we can't take our dog (or cat)." Really? Where are you moving too that doesn't allow pets? Or they say "The dog got bigger than we thought it would". How big did you think a German Shepherd would get? "We don't have time for her…". Really? I work a 10-12 hour day and still have time for my 6 dogs! "She's tearing up our yard…". How about making her a part of your family? They always tell me "We just don't want to have to stress about finding a place for her…we know she'll get adopted, she's a good dog". Odds are your pet won't get adopted & how stressful do you think being in a shelter is? Well, let me tell you…your pet has 72 hours to find a new family from the moment you drop it off…sometimes a little longer if the shelter isn't full and your dog manages to stay completely healthy…if it sniffles, it dies. Your pet will be confined to a small run/kennel in a room with about 25 other barking or crying animals. It will have to relieve itself where it eats and sleeps. It will be depressed and it will cry constantly for the family that abandoned it. If your pet is lucky, I will have enough volunteers in that day to take him/her for a walk. If I don't, your pet won't get any attention besides having a bowl of food slid under the kennel door and the waste sprayed out of its pen with a high-powered hose. If your dog is big, black or any of the "Bully" breeds (pit bull, rottie, mastiff, etc…) it was pretty much dead when you walked it through the front door. Those dogs just don't get adopted. If your dog doesn't get adopted within its 72 hours and the shelter is full, it will be destroyed. If the shelter isn't full and your dog is good enough, and of a desirable enough breed…it may get a stay of execution…not for long though. Most get very kennel protective after about a week and are destroyed for showing aggression…even the sweetest dogs will turn in this environment. If your pet makes it over all of those hurdles…chances are it will get kennel cough or an upper respiratory infection and will be destroyed because shelters just don't have the funds to pay for even a $100 treatment. Here's a little euthanasia 101 for those of you that have never witnessed a perfectly healthy, scared animal being "put-down". First, your pet will be taken from its kennel on a leash…they always look like they think they are going for a walk…happy, wagging their tails. Until they get to "The Room", every one of them freaks out and puts on the breaks when we get to the door…it must smell like death or they can feel the sad souls that are left in there, it's strange, but it happens with every one of them. Your dog or cat will be restrained, held down by 1 or 2 vet techs depending on the size and how freaked out they are. Then a euthanasia tech or a vet will start the process…they will find a vein in the front leg and inject a lethal dose of the "pink stuff". Hopefully your pet doesn't panic from being restrained and jerk… I've seen the needles tear out of a leg and been covered with the resulting blood and deafened by the yelps and screams. They all don't just "go to sleep", sometimes spasm for a while, gasp for air and defecate on themselves. When it all ends, your pets corpse will be stacked like firewood in a large freezer in the back with all of the other animals that were killed…waiting to be picked up like garbage. What happens next? Cremated? Taken to the dump? Rendered into pet food? You'll never know and it probably won't even cross your mind…it was just an animal and you can always buy another one right?
I hope that those of you that have read this are bawling your eyes out and can't get the pictures out of your head…I do everyday on the way home from work. I hate my job, I hate that it exists & I hate that it will always be there unless you people make some changes and realize that the lives you are affecting go much farther than the pets you dump at a shelter. Between 9 and 11 MILLION animals die every year in shelters and only you can stop it. I do my best to save every life I can but rescues are always full, and there are more animals coming in everyday than there are homes.
My point to all of this…DON'T BREED OR BUY WHILE SHELTER PETS DIE!
Hate me or flag me if you want to…the truth hurts and reality is what it is…I just hope I maybe changed one persons mind about breeding their dog, taking their loving pet to a shelter, or buying a dog. I hope that someone will walk into my shelter and say "I saw this thing on craigslist and it made me want adopt"…that would make it all worth it."
"I am posting this (and it is long) because I think our society needs a huge "Wake-up" call. As a shelter manager, I am going to share a little insight with you all...a view from the inside if you will. First off, this is a forum to for adoption and/or rehoming as clearly stated in the rules. All of you breeders/sellers on craigslist should not only be flagged (and I hope the good people on craigslist will continue to do so with blind fury), but you should be made to work in the "back" of an animal shelter for just one day. Maybe if you saw the life drain from a few sad, lost, confused eyes, you would change your mind about breeding and selling to people you don't even know…that puppy you just sold will most likely end up in my shelter when it's not a cute little puppy anymore. So how would you feel if you knew that there's about a 90% chance that dog will never walk out of the shelter it is going to be dumped at? Purebred or not! About 50% of all of the dogs that are "owner surrenders" or "strays", that come into my shelter are purebred dogs. The most common excuses I hear are; "We are moving and we can't take our dog (or cat)." Really? Where are you moving too that doesn't allow pets? Or they say "The dog got bigger than we thought it would". How big did you think a German Shepherd would get? "We don't have time for her…". Really? I work a 10-12 hour day and still have time for my 6 dogs! "She's tearing up our yard…". How about making her a part of your family? They always tell me "We just don't want to have to stress about finding a place for her…we know she'll get adopted, she's a good dog". Odds are your pet won't get adopted & how stressful do you think being in a shelter is? Well, let me tell you…your pet has 72 hours to find a new family from the moment you drop it off…sometimes a little longer if the shelter isn't full and your dog manages to stay completely healthy…if it sniffles, it dies. Your pet will be confined to a small run/kennel in a room with about 25 other barking or crying animals. It will have to relieve itself where it eats and sleeps. It will be depressed and it will cry constantly for the family that abandoned it. If your pet is lucky, I will have enough volunteers in that day to take him/her for a walk. If I don't, your pet won't get any attention besides having a bowl of food slid under the kennel door and the waste sprayed out of its pen with a high-powered hose. If your dog is big, black or any of the "Bully" breeds (pit bull, rottie, mastiff, etc…) it was pretty much dead when you walked it through the front door. Those dogs just don't get adopted. If your dog doesn't get adopted within its 72 hours and the shelter is full, it will be destroyed. If the shelter isn't full and your dog is good enough, and of a desirable enough breed…it may get a stay of execution…not for long though. Most get very kennel protective after about a week and are destroyed for showing aggression…even the sweetest dogs will turn in this environment. If your pet makes it over all of those hurdles…chances are it will get kennel cough or an upper respiratory infection and will be destroyed because shelters just don't have the funds to pay for even a $100 treatment. Here's a little euthanasia 101 for those of you that have never witnessed a perfectly healthy, scared animal being "put-down". First, your pet will be taken from its kennel on a leash…they always look like they think they are going for a walk…happy, wagging their tails. Until they get to "The Room", every one of them freaks out and puts on the breaks when we get to the door…it must smell like death or they can feel the sad souls that are left in there, it's strange, but it happens with every one of them. Your dog or cat will be restrained, held down by 1 or 2 vet techs depending on the size and how freaked out they are. Then a euthanasia tech or a vet will start the process…they will find a vein in the front leg and inject a lethal dose of the "pink stuff". Hopefully your pet doesn't panic from being restrained and jerk… I've seen the needles tear out of a leg and been covered with the resulting blood and deafened by the yelps and screams. They all don't just "go to sleep", sometimes spasm for a while, gasp for air and defecate on themselves. When it all ends, your pets corpse will be stacked like firewood in a large freezer in the back with all of the other animals that were killed…waiting to be picked up like garbage. What happens next? Cremated? Taken to the dump? Rendered into pet food? You'll never know and it probably won't even cross your mind…it was just an animal and you can always buy another one right?
I hope that those of you that have read this are bawling your eyes out and can't get the pictures out of your head…I do everyday on the way home from work. I hate my job, I hate that it exists & I hate that it will always be there unless you people make some changes and realize that the lives you are affecting go much farther than the pets you dump at a shelter. Between 9 and 11 MILLION animals die every year in shelters and only you can stop it. I do my best to save every life I can but rescues are always full, and there are more animals coming in everyday than there are homes.
My point to all of this…DON'T BREED OR BUY WHILE SHELTER PETS DIE!
Hate me or flag me if you want to…the truth hurts and reality is what it is…I just hope I maybe changed one persons mind about breeding their dog, taking their loving pet to a shelter, or buying a dog. I hope that someone will walk into my shelter and say "I saw this thing on craigslist and it made me want adopt"…that would make it all worth it."
Monday, February 05, 2007
Indict the NY Times and Bill Keller for Treason
Rather than going after the specific individuals involved, the federal government indicted the Arthur Andersen accounting firm for its role in the Enron scandal. This corporate death sentence sealed the firm's fate and it shut down. Ostensibly, there was a vital public interest in destroying that venerable firm, thousands of jobs, and the partnership equity built up by career employees who never did anything wrong.
If failing to unmask a corporate cover-up is a crime against the public worthy of corporate execution, then what about revealing critical secrets about vital, and legal, counter-terrorism programs? There was no purpose to blowing the lid on the SWIFT financial surveillance program except to degrade its effectiveness. And now that SWIFT has stopped cooperating with American authorities, this highly effective (and, according to politicians on both sides of the aisle, indispensable) program is finished. The Justice Department should indict the Times for treason and let it share Arthur Andersen's fate.
Additionally, we're constantly lectured by liberals that the war on terror needs to be more about intelligence and law enforcement than military power. And it needs to be more about cooperating with our allies. And we need to track their money trails. Democrats should be made to take a stand on this issue, in which a critical program was shut down and cooperation with Europe was kneecapped by a brazenly anti-American newspaper. If the Senate is so preoccupied with meaningless resolutions, then how about one condemning the Times.
Comment: I see the N.Y. Times attacking American policy everyday. We roll over and take it. Like sheep.
Just criticizing Bush and his politics doesn't make you anymore patriotic than the next person, maybe even more so. But, there is a fine line that can easily be crossed. The N.Y. Times is responsible for doing just that.
If failing to unmask a corporate cover-up is a crime against the public worthy of corporate execution, then what about revealing critical secrets about vital, and legal, counter-terrorism programs? There was no purpose to blowing the lid on the SWIFT financial surveillance program except to degrade its effectiveness. And now that SWIFT has stopped cooperating with American authorities, this highly effective (and, according to politicians on both sides of the aisle, indispensable) program is finished. The Justice Department should indict the Times for treason and let it share Arthur Andersen's fate.
Additionally, we're constantly lectured by liberals that the war on terror needs to be more about intelligence and law enforcement than military power. And it needs to be more about cooperating with our allies. And we need to track their money trails. Democrats should be made to take a stand on this issue, in which a critical program was shut down and cooperation with Europe was kneecapped by a brazenly anti-American newspaper. If the Senate is so preoccupied with meaningless resolutions, then how about one condemning the Times.
Comment: I see the N.Y. Times attacking American policy everyday. We roll over and take it. Like sheep.
Just criticizing Bush and his politics doesn't make you anymore patriotic than the next person, maybe even more so. But, there is a fine line that can easily be crossed. The N.Y. Times is responsible for doing just that.
Friday, February 02, 2007
The Dog Meat Trade
Yeah, there actually is such a thing!
Despite a national law banning the practice,
1,370 dogs are slaughtered every day and over 500,000 dogs die annually for the dog meat trade in the Philippines. Click here for a brief history.
What can you do?
Your participation is critical to the success of this campaign!
OUR GOAL is to obtain OVER 50,000 signatures by JUNE 30, 2007. House Bill 2991 is expected to be addressed by Congress in July 2007. It is obvious that the only way we can ensure that dogs in the Philippines are protected is to place the Philippine government under the international spotlight.
I signed up.
Despite a national law banning the practice,
1,370 dogs are slaughtered every day and over 500,000 dogs die annually for the dog meat trade in the Philippines. Click here for a brief history.
What can you do?
Your participation is critical to the success of this campaign!
OUR GOAL is to obtain OVER 50,000 signatures by JUNE 30, 2007. House Bill 2991 is expected to be addressed by Congress in July 2007. It is obvious that the only way we can ensure that dogs in the Philippines are protected is to place the Philippine government under the international spotlight.
I signed up.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)