Patriot Premium

Now this is especially insulting:

A measure that would give veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan full four-year scholarships, dubbed a new G.I. Bill, also passed by a vote of 266-166, short of the two-thirds needed to override the promised veto by President Bush.

The added benefits would cost $52 billion over 10 years and would be paid for by a 0.5 percent surtax on individuals making more than $500,000 a year and couples making more than $1 million.

Calling the new tax a "patriot premium," Democrats argued that it was time for wealthy Americans to share in the sacrifice that troops are making in Iraq.

What in the Hell is that? Wealthy Americans have to share in the sacrifice? Not that any other American is, but let's make the rich pay for it as a punishment for being successful. Anyone else hearing the choir of social justice sung by elitist jackass'?

Iraq Exporting Terrorists

Another interesting bit from Max Boot.

One of the familiar tropes of the anti-war caucus is that Iraq had no links to terrorism prior to the American invasion but now it has become a breeding ground of terrorists who will destabilize other countries. The first part of the argument—the claim that Saddam-era Iraq was not linked to terrorism—should have been demolished by the recent Iraq Perspectives Project report. (Unfortunately, its findings were generally misreported by the MSM.) The second part of the argument—the claim that Iraq is exporting terrorism—has now come under serious assault from, of all people, the French.

In a blockbuster article, Elaine Sciolino of the New York Times yesterday reported that French security experts are retracting their earlier claims that, as then-Interior Minister Dominique de Villepin put it in 2005, Iraq-trained jihadists would “come back to France, armed with their experience, to carry out attacks.”

and

Sciolino, relying on interviews with French officials, offer four possible explanations for why the predicted terror surge has not occurred:

1. “The logistical challenges and expense of reaching Iraq … particularly with Syria’s making episodic efforts to halt the use of its territory as a transit route.”

2. “Iraqi insurgents currently neither need nor welcome European Muslims who lack military training and good Arabic-language skills — except if they are willing to conduct suicide missions.”

3. “ The fight in Iraq is no longer just a jihad against foreign occupiers, but also a confusing civil war pitting Muslim against Muslim. Many young people have family and ethnic ties to Pakistan or North Africa, making those places more attractive destinations, and further advancing those regions’ potential for recruiting and radicalizing young Muslims.”

4. “[L]aw enforcement authorities, particularly in countries like France, Italy and Spain, say they are convinced that their sweeping legal authority to eavesdrop, make arrests, hold suspects for long periods of time and win convictions on the vague charge of association with a terrorist enterprise has made it easier to take preventive action.”

All of those explanations seem plausible to me. But it strikes me that Sciolino is missing an important element of the puzzle: namely that the group that her newspaper insists on calling Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia (which the rest of the world knows as Al Qaeda in Iraq) is losing big time. It has been routed out of its strongholds in Anbar, Baghdad, and Diyala provinces and is now being hunted down in its last remaining lairs in Mosul and vicinity.

Wonder what dem is going to continue using the original thesis that we are less safe now, even though it appears even the French are admitting it isn't so?

If the Shoe Fits...

I don't recall disliking a presidential candidate as much, or as soon as I do Barry Obama. The issue here is related to his comments in response to Bush's speech in Israel.

The president said that "some seem to believe we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along." He went on to compare a willingness to meet with "terrorists and radicals" to the pre-World War II "appeasement" of Nazi Germany.

For starters, I haven't really seen Obama's stand on Iran or other state sponsors of terrorism as being real appeasement in the mode that was seen around Nazi Germany. That made me a little surprised that he went to such a whiny level on the President's speech.

An animated Obama, cheered on by a crowd gathered on the floor of a livestock arena, said he would be delighted if the presidential race turned into a conversation about which party is better suited to guide the nation's foreign policy.

"If George Bush and John McCain want to have a debate about protecting the United States of America, that is a debate that I'm happy to have anytime, anyplace, and that is a debate I will win because George Bush and John McCain have a lot to answer for," the Democratic front-runner said.

Funny that he chose a livestock arena for his speech to the herd that supports him. But that statement is just fluff. Where is the details of why his policy is better? I know politics is full of thin statements, but this is more watery than most. If he wants a debate, start by telling the citizenry why your policy is better than the present one? How is it that sitting down, with no preconditions, with sponsors of terrorism going to benefit this country? How does his sympathetic ear aid our country? I frankly don't give a shit about the world in this context because he isn't running for god, he's running to be the President of the United States. The US comes first.

This is the best that he could come up with:

With former senator Thomas A. Daschle (D-S.D.) looking on and a John Deere tractor parked nearby, Obama launched into a blunt critique of Bush's foreign policy record. His list of grievances included a war fought on the premise of weapons of mass destruction that were never found, the failure to capture bin Laden and turning Iran into the "greatest beneficiary" of the Iraq war.

Brilliant. Intelligence problems lead to action when their were no WMD, and that must be only Bush's fault, since the Clinton administration had no part in the destruction of our intelligence systems. But obviously that is all a foreign policy issue. Not sure how, but there it is.

Again the usual BS of the Dems whining about not capturing Bin Laden, as if that single activity was more important than stabilizing Iraq. And considering that Bin Laden isn't likely in any area where we can actually go without an international incident, how is that going to be of any assistance to our foreign policy?

I also would love to hear how Iran is the "greatest beneficiary" of the war in Iraq. Yes we took down their greatest competitor for hegemony in the middle east, but that far from benefits them with the US sitting astride a majority of their free access to the middle east, not to mention the rest of the world. And the sanction activities against Iran have been a boon to them as well I'm sure.

Then we could also compare Barry to another Dem foreign policy novice, Jimmy Carter. He had great success with Iran didn't he. And he's now the cheerleader for terrorists around the world.

He said McCain will "need to answer" for a strengthened al-Qaeda leadership, Hamas's control of the Gaza Strip, and Iran's ability to fund Hezbollah and pose "the greatest threat to America and Israel and the Middle East in a generation."

That is a bizarre statement. Why would McCain need to answer for that? It also shows some fundamental misunderstandings as to how Al-Qaeda works. Its a loose network of cells, not a hierarchical command structure. As for Hamas' control of the Gaza strip, is Obama actually trying to position that the election by the Palestinian people, which brought Hamas to power should have been discouraged rather then letting the Palestinians take a hand in their own destiny? The difference comes down to that Hamas is openly responsible for the actions in the Gaza strip and will have to deal with the citizens of that region for their actions. With them hidden from site the workings would be less obvious to the world and to the Palestinians. Holding those terrorists in the light shows them for what they really are.

As for Hezzbollah, they've been supported by Iran for longer than Bush has been in office, so I don't see how this administration, not to mention the McCain candidacy can be held responsible for that collusion. Saying that they are responsible doesn't make it a fact.

Then there is this from Max Boot:

David Brooks reports today that, like a lot of other Democrats, Barack Obama has become a born-again believer in the presidency of George H.W. Bush. The Democratic candidate tells Brooks: “I have enormous sympathy for the foreign policy of George H. W. Bush. I don’t have a lot of complaints about their handling of Desert Storm. I don’t have a lot of complaints with their handling of the fall of the Berlin Wall.”

This new-found admiration conveniently overlooks some decisions by the elder President Bush that were roundly and correctly criticized at the time by many liberals as well as conservatives: decisions such as the botched aftermath of the Gulf War, which resulted in Shiites and Kurds getting slaughtered after they heeded the President’s call to rise up; the notorious “Chicken Kiev” speech in which he urged Ukrainians to remain part of a dissolving Soviet Union; and the failure to intervene in Bosnia.

It's nice that Barry has admiration for a President who have huge foreign policy credentials from the start. It really puts Barry's lack of credentials in stark contrast.

Law Enforcement Data Mining

This article does have some merit, though personally I think the writer is oversimplifying the reality of such a database. He starts with describing how Mohammed Atta was a bad driver and then attempts to convince the reader that had his missing a court hearing and being placed on a bench warrant would have stopped 9/11.

What ideally should have happened is this: Once Atta failed to appear in Broward court, his bench warrant should have been entered into a statewide database that the Feds could have tapped into. That same database would have been connected into the NCIC and FCIC (for Florida) computer systems. In Palm Beach County, the officer who pulled Atta over a second time would have been made aware of the outstandng bench warrant. Gun drawn and having radioed for backup, the officer would have pulled Atta from the vehicle and brought him to the Palm Beach County Jail. His One Phone Call would have been made, and his car impounded.

At the impound yard, a curious investigator might have seen certain drawings, diagrams, blueprints, and notes. He might have seen flight manuals and textbooks and gotten more curious. A call to the FBI might have produced zip, zilch, nada, since the FBI and CIA were famously not talking regarding which baddie was and was not in the country at the time. So this is all just so much "woulda, shoulda, coulda."

First there is the thought that at that level of minutia it is unlikely that a database system would have pulled Atta out as anything more than a careless foreigner who failed to fix a ticket. Then the assumption that someone in the impound yard would have decided to investigate his car, which would be interesting since that would mean they would have to have some reason to pick that one out of all the other impounded cars, assuming of course that the impound yard is run by the police and not just a storage yard run by a contractor. Should I mention that in many states the police would need a warrant to search that car?

I know I'm not well versed in database technology, but what makes databases effective is knowing what is important. This level of detail isn't going to be very effective in finding a terrorist before the act. It could be helpful in finding and investigating associates after the fact, but it isn't going to be highly effective in prevention. Which gets us to this:

We have spent tens of billions of dollars on reactive antiterrorism gear. I am sure that is important for the residents of Fargo and other towns. Yet we have spent a comparatively paltry sum of cash on solutions that actually might stop terror before it happens. And one of those ingenious things that actually worked, Seisint founder Hank Asher's brilliant MATRIX system, remains mired in controversy and politics. Hank showed me MATRIX just a few short weeks after the 9/11 attacks. Using law enforcement data and commercial data, all of the commercial data available in the public domain, Asher's query produced Atta's photo -- and about 80 others, many of them fellow 9/11 hijackers, many of them associates of the 9/11 hijackers.

I guess I'm very skeptical on that contention. That far to easily strikes me as slight of hand. How much of that data existed before the 9/11 attacks? That just strikes me as a bit fishy. And another concern would have to be related to the false positives. What is done with all of those that get pulled up erroneously? Do we put a star next to their name and proceed to put them on the no fly list with Ted Kennedy? Make their lives further hell because some database of public "knowledge" defines them as suspect?

Then there is the question of how do you maintain all that information. What if Atta had fixed the ticket shortly after the bench warrant was issued? Would he be kept in the database or expunged? Where do you stop with the collection of minutia? What if it's a parking ticket and it gets blown away? Do we kick down that person's door in the middle of the night if they fit even loosely what someone has imagined as a threat?

This could indeed be a useful tool, but I would want to see it heavily vetted before use and then it should only be used as a supplementary tool for the LEO. If we start using it as the primary means of identifying risks, then many real ones will be overlooked.

Al-Qaeda Over Rated?

I found this article linked over at Schneier who thinks this is all so obvious. Unfortunately I think Sheehan is parsing his words carefully as one would expect from a politician.

"I reject the notion that Al Qaeda is waiting for 'the big one' or holding back an attack," Sheehan writes. "A terrorist cell capable of attacking doesn't sit and wait for some more opportune moment. It's not their style, nor is it in the best interest of their operational security. Delaying an attack gives law enforcement more time to detect a plot or penetrate the organization."

Terrorism is not about standing armies, mass movements, riots in the streets or even palace coups. It's about tiny groups that want to make a big bang. So you keep tracking cells and potential cells, and when you find them you destroy them. After Spanish police cornered leading members of the group that attacked trains in Madrid in 2004, they blew themselves up. The threat in Spain declined dramatically.

Indonesia is another case Sheehan and I talked about. Several high-profile associates of bin Laden were nailed there in the two years after 9/11, then sent off to secret CIA prisons for interrogation. The suspects are now at Guantánamo. But suicide bombings continued until police using forensic evidence—pieces of car bombs and pieces of the suicide bombers—tracked down Dr. Azahari bin Husin, "the Demolition Man," and the little group around him. In a November 2005 shootout the cops killed Dr. Azahari and crushed his cell. After that such attacks in Indonesia stopped.

Frankly, those don't sound like law enforcement actions to me. If it were, does anyone honestly believe that the Indonesians would have ended up at GITMO?

The real problem I find in all of this is that the assumption is that Al-Qaeda is the only player and that they themselves exist in a hierarchical structure. Cells many times are incompetent. It also should force the question as to why they appear to have been more incompetent after the 9/11 attacks. The Global War on Terror has many theaters and in many cases it is through organized intelligence that the theaters begin to cooperate and stop the terrorists.

It's not about standing armies? How is that? Or is it just that the writer has missed the point that the front line soldier in many cases is a law enforcement officer? War isn't always about two national players going at it in tanks and bombers. This ignorance of fourth generational warfare or asymmetrical warfare is fascinating. Cooperative efforts by nations to stop the violence of non-national actors has more the look and feel of a war action than a police activity.

Then there is the complete lack of understanding that theaters of war have attracted many of the most determined of the jihadists. Iraq and Afghanistan have pulled many of the determined terrorists into the fight in regions where the most able of fighters can deal with them. Another reason why those that act in Europe and elsewhere are appearing more incompetent. The best and most determined went where the major action was and left the more mediocre behind.

I also love these two statements in juxtaposition:

Sir David Omand, who used to head Britain's version of the National Security Agency and oversaw its entire intelligence establishment from the Cabinet Office earlier this decade, described terrorism as "one corner" of the global security threat posed by weapons proliferation and political instability. That in turn is only one of three major dangers facing the world over the next few years. The others are the deteriorating environment and a meltdown of the global economy. Putting terrorism in perspective, said Sir David, "leads naturally to a risk management approach, which is very different from what we've heard from Washington these last few years, which is to 'eliminate the threat'."

and

That's part of what makes Sheehan so refreshing. He knows there's a big risk that he'll be misinterpreted; he'll be called soft on terror by ass-covering bureaucrats, breathless reporters and fear-peddling politicians. And yet he charges ahead. He expects another attack sometime, somewhere. He hopes it won't be made to seem more apocalyptic than it is. "Don't overhype it, because that's what Al Qaeda wants you to do. Terrorism is about psychology." In the meantime, said Sheehan, finishing his fruit juice, "the relentless 24/7 job for people like me is to find and crush those guys."

Funny how Washington wants to "eliminate the threat" but Sheehan only wants to "crush those guys." Doesn't sound like much of a difference to me. It also fails to make the point that psychology works both ways. Terrorists are seeing more and more failures so the result is a weakened base of those wanting to perform terrorism.

Its just more evidence that those making these types of judgments are trying to do the calculations blindfolded and with their heads in the sand.

First Amendment Protections from Foreign Intrusion

This really needs to get some legs at the Federal level.

Albany, NY (May 1, 2008) — New York State Governor David Paterson yesterday signed the “Libel Terrorism Protection Act” (S.6687/A.9652), which on March 31 passed the state’s Assembly and Senate unanimously.

Also known as Rachel’s Law, the bill sponsored by Assemblyman Rory Lancman (D-Queens) and Senate Deputy Majority Leader Dean G. Skelos (R-Rockville Centre) will protect American journalists and authors from foreign lawsuits that infringe on First Amendment rights. The bill also received unprecedented support from Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver.

“New Yorkers must be able to speak out on issues of public concern without living in fear that they will be sued outside the United States, under legal standards inconsistent with our First Amendment rights,” said Governor Paterson. “This legislation will help ensure of the freedoms enjoyed by New York authors.”

Reflecting the New York legislation’s importance, U.S. Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.) on April 16 introduced a similar bill, the Freedom of Speech Protection Act (H.R. 5814), in the House of Represenatives.

The article notes the extreme silence this has received in the MSM. That is truly sad.

The ACLU on the other hand is working with vast amounts of money and lawyers to do what? Not defend freedoms in the US, but defend terrorists.

The ACLU has launched an initiative called the “John Adams Project.” The unmitigated gall in defaming one of history’s greatest Americans seems suspiciously flavored by the recent success of the HBO Adams miniseries. Yes, the PR machine hums along, no matter how laughable a stretch it is for the ACLU to link itself with great men. What is it? In a nutshell, the ACLU has assembled a “Dream Team” of attorneys with an $8.5 million budget to defend terrorists currently held at Guantanamo. Who’s the primary object of the ACLU’s affection? Khalid Sheik Mohammed.

The ACLU, true to form, impugns the professionalism and competence of men and women of infinitely more honor than their accusers by referring to tribunals as a “kangaroo courts.” But could the ACLU really be so scandalized that this mass murderer will stand before a military tribunal? Could the ACLU truly be standing up for his “fundamental rights?”

What is the true purpose of a multi-million-dollar campaign to get KSM off the hook?

The ACLU explains: “The ACLU chose to focus on Mohammed’s defense, Romero said, because he appears to be “the government’s top priority in the prosecution. And whether or not they are able to convict Khalid Sheik Mohammed under these rules may well determine the fate of the almost 300 other men who are detained at Guantanamo.”

Lovely perspective isn't it?

Chicago's Military

This is a bit frightening:

After a recent outbreak of gun-related violence, Mayor Richard Daley is now pushed into supporting a plan by new Police Superintendent Jody Weis to arm 13,000 Chicago police officers with assault rifles. Depending on how many weapons are eventually deployed, this may develop into the largest militarization of police patrol officers in United States history. If the department arms 10,000 of their officers with M4s, the police will have 9,900 more assault rifles in Chicago than the U.S. Marines presently have in Fallujah, Iraq.

Now that is perspective. Not a good one either.

Even the most basic rifle training is going to cost a day’s pay per officer, range staff, targets, hundreds of rounds of ammunition, and cleaning costs. Estimate the salary costs conservatively at $160 per officer per day, and you’re looking at salary training costs of over $2 million just for introductory familiarization with the weapons system and another $338,000 in ammunition costs (based upon a bare minimum of 200 rounds per officer at a cost of $130/1000 rounds and 13,000 officers). As ammunition prices continue to go upward, due in part to increased police demand, the cost of rifle ammunition in periodic weapons recertification will continue to rise.

I'd like to know if I can get on that ammo deal. That is incredibly cheap for .223. Cheapest I can find is Wolf at around $300/1000.

But you know the costs aren't relevant since it "FOR THE CHILDREN!" (Make certain you say it with the incipient screech of the liberal activist.)

This is quite troubling considering that this is the same government that doesn't want to allow citizens to legal possess firearms for their own defense. If one was prone to paranoia, this would be a cause for panic.

More Signs of Improvement in Iraq

This article from Long Wars Journal describes improvements in the areas that have been under the influence of the Madhi Army. Apparently the populations of these areas have come to loathe the Madhi army much in the way that Al-Qaida has changed the outlook of citizens in the Sunni districts.

Rusafa is a large district in central Baghdad bordered by the Tigris River to the southwest and Sadr City to the northeast. The district is predominantly Shia, but contains significant Sunni enclaves and a small Christian population, with a surprising number of openly practicing churches, according to Colonel Craig Collier, the commander of the 3rd Squadron, 89th Cavalry Regiment, 4th Brigade of the 10th Mountain Division. The 450 soldiers of the 3-89 Cav are responsible for the district’s security, in conjunction with thousands of Iraqi Army, Iraqi National Police, Iraqi Police, Kurdish private contractors, and Sons of Iraq (neighborhood watch).

Rusafa contains Baghdad’s largest and most famous markets, including the Shorja, Saria, and Bab al Sharji, some of which were the scenes of high-profile suicide bombings during the sectarian-fueled carnage of 2006-2007. Over the past year, and especially over the past six months, the district has calmed significantly. The predominant remaining threats are Mahdi Army mortar rounds aimed at the International Zone that fall short and suicide vest bombers and car bombs that target the markets and Coalition forces. Less successful suicide attacks occur maybe once a month, while once common highly successful “spectacular attacks” have become much less frequent.

Interestingly, much of the stabilization is being attributed to militia groups associated with the US and Iraqi militaries.

But Thornburg attributes most of the improvement in his area in southern Rusafa to the Sons of Iraq, the local neighborhood watchmen who are paid by the US. The Sons of Iraq program was started here seven months ago by local leaders and the 82nd Airborne, the unit last responsible for the southwestern half of Rusafa, which is essentially downtown Baghdad. Local Sons of Iraq leaders claim they were “the first Shia Awakening” against militias and al Qaeda.

“The SOI have exceeded expectations. They’ve turned one of the most violent areas of Baghdad into one of the most quiet,” said Thornburg. “Specifically, they are looking for Mahdi Army. They know who comes into their area, they man checkpoints 24 hours a day, they do vehicle searches, they question people and they patrol. The locals trust them and they are happy with them. They’ve earned a lot of wasta [respect] from the citizens, and the results speak for themselves. It’s a real success story.”

Well, this is just more stability for the Dems to call a civil war.

NH's Senatorial Challenge

This quote pretty much has stopped all consideration I may have had for voting for the Democrat for this race.

New Hampshire Senate candidate Jeanne Shaheen said the U.S. military should focus on fighting al-Qaida on the border of Afghanistan and Pakistan, instead of staying in Iraq.

"Our soldiers are in the middle of a civil war," Shaheen said Monday as she outlined her position on foreign policy at Saint Anselm College. "The war in Iraq is not about al-Qaida."

The former Democratic governor, running against Republican incumbent John Sununu, did not give a timetable for withdrawing U.S. troops. But she did say they should be taken out of Iraq as "soon as possible."

Apparently she maintains her cranium up the same orifice as Pelosi and Reid do. Wonder if anyone actually provides them with news or do they just let them out from under their rocks in the morning.

Let Him Talk

Talk like this is very instructive.

"This is not an attack on Jeremiah Wright," Wright told the Washington press corps Monday. "It has nothing to do with Senator Obama. It is an attack on the black church launched by people who know nothing about the African-American religious tradition."

Right.

Interesting that most news reports don't want to discuss his answers to all the questions.

Voter ID Requirement

The SCOTUS found that you can require voters to produce an approved version of ID in order to vote. Logical assistance for fraud prevention. I just find it strange to hear Souter whining about:

Indiana's voter ID law "threatens to impose nontrivial burdens on the voting rights of tens of thousands of the state's citizens," Souter said.

God lord, voting is a duty and a privilege. You'd think that this was an egregious attack on the common voter rather than a simple additional activity to vote. How about registering? Getting to the voting booth?

Feingold's Follies

God this guy's a complete jackass:

"As he begins the confirmation process to become the next commander of CENTCOM, General Petraeus must answer the most important question we face, which is not whether we are winning in Iraq, but why we are not defeating al Qaeda," Feingold warns.

Great take idiot. Petraeus has been the general specifically in Iraq, not the one with overall control of the middle east. In fact he is probably more qualified to fight the insurgent fights due to his much better understanding of asymmetrical warfare than his counterparts.

But no doubt Feingold will remain like the rest of the Democratic Leadership and maintain his head directly up his backside.

Democrat's Standard?

The Flatulent Fruit from Flint is ranting in support of anything Democrat. He's for Barack Waffles Obama, which no doubt is another strike against him. Here's a touch of his reasoned discourse.

I don't get to vote for President this primary season. I live in Michigan. The party leaders (both here and in D.C.) couldn't get their act together, and thus our votes will not be counted.

So, if you live in Pennsylvania, can you do me a favor? Will you please cast my vote -- and yours -- on Tuesday for Senator Barack Obama?

I haven't spoken publicly 'til now as to who I would vote for, primarily for two reasons: 1) Who cares?; and 2) I (and most people I know) don't give a rat's ass whose name is on the ballot in November, as long as there's a picture of JFK and FDR riding a donkey at the top of the ballot, and the word "Democratic" next to the candidate's name.

Seriously, I know so many people who don't care if the name under the Big "D" is Dancer, Prancer, Clinton or Blitzen. It can be Mickey Mouse, Donald Duck, Barry Obama or the Dalai Lama.

Yep, forget the issues, just look for the union (D). Not that there is a huge difference between HillBillary and the Obamessiah on the issues.

I know some of you will say, 'Mike, what have the Democrats done to deserve our vote?' That's a damn good question. In November of '06, the country loudly sent a message that we wanted the war to end. Yet the Democrats have done nothing. So why should we be so eager to line up happily behind them?

I'll tell you why. Because I can't stand one more friggin' minute of this administration and the permanent, irreversible damage it has done to our people and to this world. I'm almost at the point where I don't care if the Democrats don't have a backbone or a kneebone or a thought in their dizzy little heads. Just as long as their name ain't "Bush" and the word "Republican" is not beside theirs on the ballot, then that's good enough for me.

I, like the majority of Americans, have been pummeled senseless for 8 long years. That's why I will join millions of citizens and stagger into the voting booth come November, like a boxer in the 12th round, all bloodied and bruised with one eye swollen shut, looking for the only thing that matters -- that big "D" on the ballot.

Don't get me wrong. I lost my rose-colored glasses a long time ago.

Right. I love the rose-colored glasses statement. The problem with that is that he just strapped on another pair when endorsing Obama. Has Obama personally discussed any issues in detail? When he's not giving a speech he can hardly talk to a position. Well at least he got the part about the Dems doing nothing right. Though he seems to have missed the point that they control both houses and still can't get anything done. All that reaching across the aisle must be slowing down their progress.

Pennsylvania, the state that gave birth to this great country, has a chance to set things right. It has not had a moment to shine like this since 1787 when our Constitution was written there. In that Constitution, they wrote that a black man or woman was only "three fifths" human. On Tuesday, the good people of Pennsylvania have a chance for redemption.

Well that finale is pretty insulting. Imagine Pennsylvania was the birth place of the country, forgetting that the war of independence was fought throughout the colonies, the only important thing is where they signed the paper. And Pennsylvania needs redemption because the writers of the constitution (mostly from other states) held a different standard than we do today.

Don't bother reading it, he's ranting up his cavernous backside, like usual.

Morons Against Illegal Guns

Saw this last night. What a steaming pile.


Nice to again see affirmation of how truly clueless our political overlords think the rest of us are.

Bloomberg's Walmart Standard

This is pathetic. And it makes you wonder what Walmart gained in doing this. (Maybe trying to get a store in NY City finally?)

Mayor Bloomberg's national anti-gun campaign won a big victory at Wal-Mart on Monday - and inserted itself into the presidential race with a new TV ad.

Surrounded by Republican and Democratic mayors from dozens of cities, Bloomberg announced that Wal-Mart, the country's biggest gun seller, will put tight new controls on firearms sales - including videotaping every purchase - to keep them out of the hands of criminals.

"This partnership has the potential to set a new standard for gun dealers across the country," Bloomberg said. "We want customers and police officers to ask, does this dealer follow the Wal-Mart standard? And if not, why not?"

Why not? Because it isn't required by law and in fact I wouldn't buy from them for just these reasons. Video taping a legal purchaser is questionable at best for privacy reasons. The police have no say in whether a dealer uses the legal standard or some trumped up BS. The written law is all that is required and if they don't like it, well tough.

Of course Bloomjerk it trying to move the topic into the presidential campaign. Good for him. Since the topic is your typical loser for Dems, it will do them more damage than good. Like anyone believes Obama or Clinton are supporters of second amendment rights or even sportsman's right.

China's Rain Gods

I wonder if anyone else has tried this.

China is preparing an arsenal of rockets and aircraft to protect the Olympics opening ceremony from rain, hoping to disperse clouds before they can drench dignitaries at the roofless "bird's nest" stadium.

Officials believe there is a 47 percent probability of rain during the August 8 opening ceremony and a 6 percent chance of a heavy downpour and will try to drain humidity from clouds before they reach Beijing.

More than 100 staff at 21 stations surrounding the city will have 10 minutes' notice to fire rockets or cannons containing silver iodide at approaching clouds in the hope of making them rain before they reach the stadium. Three aircraft will also be on stand-by to drop catalysts to unleash rain from the clouds.

"We've worked with neighboring provinces on a contingency plan for rainstorm and other weather risks during the ceremonies," said Wang Yubin, the deputy chief of China's meteorological service assigned to the Olympics.

Violating the rights of the Dragons is pretty humorous. I'm certain that will bring them more luck.

Obama's Explanation

VDHanson deconstructs the wording of the original quote compared to his explanation.

Here is what Sen. Obama said:

"You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them...And they fell through the Clinton Administration, and the Bush Administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

Here is what Sen. Obama now says he said:

"So I said, 'Well, you know, when you're bitter you turn to what you can count on,' " he continued. "So people they vote about guns, or they take comfort from their faith and their family and their community. And they get mad about illegal immigrants who are coming over to this country or they get frustrated about, you know, how things are changing. That's a natural response."

Personally the most obvious one to me was what I think was the most political about this.

8. Note how there is sudddenly no "context" for the landscape of version #1: an elite Bay-area audience that is told stories about those Pennsylvanian gun-toting zealots.

Read the rest, though you probably already have the idea of what he really meant, and it has nothing to do with his explanation.

Murder Moratorium

Caught this linked at SayUncle. I have to say I found this in line with all of the rest of the symbolic legislation that has been wafting it's stench about as of late.

The Los Angeles City Council dropped plans Tuesday for a symbolic moratorium on killing, deciding instead to use the upcoming anniversary of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s assassination to promote peace.

Council members had been asked by a handful of activists to declare a 40-hour ban on murder and other violence, a concept one critic quickly derided as "silliness."

After a 45-minute debate, the council reworked its resolution, saying the city's opposition to homicides should last more than a single weekend.

"A moratorium on violence and killing is something we should support 365 days a year and every minute we live," said Councilman Richard Alarcon, who represents part of the San Fernando Valley.

The symbolic ban on homicides had been proposed by Los Angeles author and political commentator Earl Ofari Hutchinson, who had urged the city to make a bold statement about the recent increase in homicides.

Who in the hell thinks up this nonsense. I especially like the call for a 40-minute moratorium. You'd think the fact that most murder and violence is considered a felony would be evidence enough that society "disapproves" of it.

What's next? Symbolic demands against illness?

Morons.

Third Grade Thugs

A bit frightening:

Nine third grade students suspended at Center Elementary in Waycross for an alleged plot to attack their teacher.

"This plot was uncovered at the point that something dangerous was brought to the school," says Lt. Dwayne Caswell with Waycross Police.

Police say the students were hatching a plan to harm their teacher Friday morning. They even brought items from home to carry out the plan.

"They had a broken steak knife, a crystal paper weight, toy handcuffs, several items and tape and stuff," says Lt. Caswell.

Early Tuesday, the Waycross Police Department released photos of some of those items. They include the knife, handcuffs, and gloves.

Ware County School officials say a classmate told the principal about one of the students bringing a weapon to school. The discovery was later made that more students were in on the plot. The school says it’s a matter they are not taking lightly.

"Some might say 'They were young and in the third grade and how serious could it be?', but anytime our students' safety or our teachers' safety is compromised we obviously have to take that very seriously," says Theresa Martin with Ware County Schools.

I suppose if I were the teacher I'd be taking this quite seriously.

I'm going to blame this all on the liberalization of schools. Obviously that trend hasn't made schools any safer. Not that I have any further proof of a relationship, but it feels right.

Not Getting IT

Always entertaining is to read these committee highlights. I'm sure in many cases they aren't as shrill as this, though in the case of Comrade Markey, I'm sure it was even shriller.

Appearing before a House committee, the executives were pressed to explain why they should continue to get billions of dollars in tax breaks when they made $123 billion last year and motorists are paying record gasoline prices at the pump.

"On April Fool's Day, the biggest joke of all is being played on American families by Big Oil," Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass., said, aiming his remarks at the five executives sitting shoulder-to-shoulder in a congressional hearing room.

Clever and substantive. Or not.

What would bring lower prices? asked Rep. James Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin, the committee's ranking Republican

"We need access to all kinds of energy supply," replied Robert Malone, chairman of BP America, adding that 85 percent of the country's coastal waters are off limits to drilling.

But Markey wanted to know why the companies aren't investing more in energy projects other than oil and gas - or giving up some tax breaks so the money could be directed to promote renewable fuels and conservation and take pressure off oil and gas supplies.

"Why is Exxon Mobil resisting the renewable revolution," asked Markey, noting that the other four companies together have invested $3.5 billion in solar, wind and biodiesel projects.

OK. Let's see, OIL companies deal in OIL and make their profits from OIL, so they invest primarily in OIL technologies. I suppose Markey wasn't informed that these were OIL executives that he was going to lecture on how to run a successful business while handing out their product for free. I'd also conjecture that their investments in alternative energy has a fairly low return compared to, oh say, OIL.

"We face a new reality, volatility, high prices, greater competition for resources," said Peter Robertson, vice president of Chevron Corp., adding that he understands that "Americans see the pain" of $100-a-barrel oil.

Markey challenged the executives to pledge to invest 10 percent of their profits to develop renewable energy and give up $18 billion in tax breaks over 10 years so money could be funneled to support other energy and conservation.

They responded that their companies already are spending on alternative energy projects and argued that new taxes would dampen investment and could lead to even higher prices.

"Imposing punitive taxes on American energy companies, which already pay record taxes, will discourage the sustained investment needed to continue safeguarding U.S. energy security," said Simon. He said over the past five years Exxon Mobil's U.S. tax bill exceeded its U.S. earnings by $19 billion.

Markey was not impressed.

"These companies are defending billions of federal subsidies ... while reaping over a hundred billion dollars in profits in just the last year alone," he said. The companies are reaping "a windfall of revenue" while poor people have to choose between heating and eating because of high energy prices.

I always enjoy discussions of raising taxes on a highly profitable industry. Not that those taxes in the end aren't passed on to those that buy the product. But demanding that they invest in alternative energy isn't going to get you anywhere.

He did make one point there surprisingly. Oil subsidies with record profits just doesn't make any sense at all. Increasing their taxes just to hand that money back to them is silly. Even worse is taking my taxes and giving to the oilers to stabilize their profits is insulting.

Freedom of Information vs. Right to Privacy

Been reading several editorials on the topic with respect to newspapers receiving FOIA lists of Concealed Carry Permit owners. This is one of the best because it really shows the complete stupidity of the press in many places. Take this example:

Pitts said he was incensed by a column last March in The Roanoke Times that focused on concealed weapon permits as a way to highlight Sunshine Week, the annual observance of open government and public records laws. The Virginia newspaper's online version included a link to the state's more than 135,000 permit holders and their street addresses.

"I can hear the shocked indignation of gun-toters already: It's nobody's business but mine if I want to pack heat," wrote columnist Christian Trejbal. "Au contraire. Because the government handles the permitting, it is everyone's business."

The reaction was immediate. The newspaper pulled the link the next day, citing concerns that it might have included names that should not be public, according to a follow-up Roanoke Times article. An editorial noted the paper received complaints - some threatening - from thousands of readers.

"Prior to posting the database, we did not give sufficient thought to the possibility that the safety of certain individuals on the list, like law enforcement officials and crime victims, could potentially be compromised," Debbie Meade, president and publisher of The Roanoke Times, said last year in a statement that the newspaper rereleased Friday.

That last bit is complete horse-shit. They didn't think PERIOD. And there actions endangered many people. But they have the right to publish, so they must be right. Jackass.

By this paper's own standards people who had their information published should seek a FOIA request for tax information and addresses of all of those involved with this article and publication and post them on line. It would be their right, as the journalists claimed. Since obviously taxation and residency permits are within the government scope, the people have to right to ensure that they did it right. Wonder how they would take such actions when they were the ones whose privacy was violated. It certainly would be much less dangerous for them since no one would at risk would be exposed to a threat, but it would expose them to scrutiny that they probably don't want.

Though the Virginia newspaper is the one Pitts cites as fuel for his measure, NRA spokeswoman Ashley Varner said there have been at least partial listings of gun owners by newspapers in Tennessee, Ohio and New York in the past three years.

"We believe it's very important that law-abiding citizens in this country have their rights to privacy protected," Varner said.

Dalglish counters that she doesn't understand why concealed carry permits should be singled out for privacy when all other licenses - whether for beauticians, bars or barristers - are public.

Right, thats comparable. Bars, Beauticians, and Barristers are licensed to perform their profession. They want their licensing known as a proof that they are legitimate and thus will attract business. My having a concealed carry permit is meant to be something quietly allowed. The police don't seem to like open carry in a lot of places, so concealed carry is the only alternative.

"It's just dangerous to seal up state licenses," said Bill Rogers, executive director of the South Carolina Press Association, who has protested the bill at legislative hearings. "It's an argument on principle. Nothing good happens in secret when it comes to government."

Again, how is your right to know more important than my right to privacy and safety? How is it that you posses a right that is should be given credibility than my most basic rights. This is an appalling lack of perspective.

There is an argument that the publishing of a list of concealed carry permit holders opens them up to a threat of thefts. But in states where you require a permit to purchase or posses a gun this could be a different threat. Criminals could use such lists to look for targets that are less likely to be a threat by comparing their cased house with the list of gun owners. Take that even further with sexual predators. Talk about enabling the criminal. But hey, why should we worry.

Seeing these type of activity happening in SC, PA, NY, TN and VA as well as elsewhere, you'd think there would be more of an outcry.

What Do Ya Know....

Seems those Dems that went to Iraq in 2002 had their trip arranged and funded by Saddam. I can't wait to hear how they twist this into being "not an issue."

The Justice Department said Wednesday that Saddam Hussein’s principal foreign intelligence agency and an Iraqi-American man had organized and paid for a 2002 visit to Iraq by three House Democrats whose trip was harshly criticized by colleagues at the time.

The arrangements for the trip were described in the indictment of an Iraq-born former employee of a Detroit-area charity group who was charged Wednesday with accepting millions of dollars’ worth of Iraqi oil contracts in exchange for assisting the Iraqi spy agency in projects in the United States.

The indictment did not claim any wrongdoing by the three lawmakers, whose five-day trip to Iraq occurred in October 2002, five months before the American invasion.

Two continue to serve in the House: Jim McDermott of Washington State and Mike Thompson of California. The other, David E. Bonior of Michigan, has since retired from Congress.

“None of the Congressional representatives are accused of any wrongdoing, and we have no information whatsoever that any of them were aware of the involvement of the Iraqi Intelligence Service,” said Dean Boyd, a Justice spokesman.

No wrong doing, but between the incompetence of the state department approval and the obvious run against the standing Administrations policy, this just looks like no one bothered to enable a brain cell. Thompson certainly didn't enable any.

Mr. Thompson said in a statement that the trip was approved by the State Department and that “obviously, had there been any question at all regarding the sponsor of the trip or the funding, I would not have participated.”

The three-man Congressional delegation was criticized on its return to Washington as having undermined the Bush administration’s campaign to gather international support to disarm and later invade Iraq.

I'd say that Saddam's intelligence agencies succeeded magnificently in their plan to use these politicians. It didn't have the desired outcome, but they certainly were used.

Mr. Hanooti is suspected of having gone to work for the Iraqis in 1999 or 2000, specifically by publicizing efforts in the United States to lift international economic sanctions on Iraq. As part of that effort, the indictment said, he organized the October 2002 visit and accompanied the three lawmakers to Iraq.

In December 2002, the indictment said, the Iraqi government secretly arranged to allocate two million barrels of oil to Mr. Hanooti; he then turned over the rights to the oil to a company incorporated in Cyprus for an amount of money that was not identified in the court papers.

Wonder if any of that oil came from the "food for oil" program? That would make this even more humorous.

Obama's Foriegn Policy Stupidity

This WSJ Op-Ed pretty much lays it out.

The Obama campaign said it may be necessary to balance the Bush administration and the way it isolated hostile countries and alienated allies.

"I don't think [what Obama's proposing] is that much of a difference from what U.S. policy used to be." said Anthony Lake, a senior foreign-policy adviser to Sen. Obama and a national-security adviser to President Bill Clinton. "It's just different from what the other candidates are saying."

Sen. Obama has sought to cast his candidacy as a rebuke of the hawkish foreign-policy line he sees as having led to the Iraq invasion and the diplomatic stalemates undermining U.S. efforts to end Iran's and North Korea's nuclear programs.

Really? That's a pretty neat trick in ignoring even recent history. Maybe I'm not nuanced enough or smart enough to understand what he means.

In speeches, Sen. Obama has said Washington's global standing has plummeted in the past eight years, in part because of President Bush's unwillingness to directly engage leaders such as Mr. Ahmadinejad or North Korea's Kim Jong Il. Sen. Obama has said he would be willing to directly hold talks with these leaders during his first year to underpin efforts to stabilize the Middle East and Northeast Asia, provided proper preparations were made.

and

"The notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them...is ridiculous," Sen. Obama said in a debate last year. "One of the first things that I would do in terms of moving a diplomatic effort in the region forward is to send a signal that we need to talk to Iran and Syria."

Nope, I got it right.

The article further discusses how freely given talks with the likes of Ahmadinejad will in fact give him a boost for his next election.

Middle East experts said Obama's strategy holds potential pitfalls. In Iran, they said, Sen. Obama could strengthen Mr. Ahmadinejad if as U.S. president he moves too quickly to hold direct talks with Tehran's leader. They note Mr. Ahmadinejad is facing presidential elections in 2009 and could use a summit with Sen. Obama as proof of his enhanced stature. They said Mr. Ahmadinejad also could seek to sell to his people that talks with Washington were a direct result of his hard-line stance.

"If Obama comes into office in January 2009, I wouldn't advise him" to hold talks with Mr. Ahmadinejad quickly, said Karim Sadjadpour, an Iran specialist at Washington's Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, who said he is generally supportive of Sen. Obama's agenda. "Only two things can rehabilitate Ahmadinejad politically: bombing Iran or major efforts to engage" him ahead of the vote.

The article doesn't discuss the fact that such talks would also boost the terrorist groups like Al-Qaeda because it would boost Iran's standing in the region rather than balancing the power structure. The ability to stabilize Iraq and Afghanistan would become even more problematic. But then, there isn't much need to have concern on that since Obama just wants to play the Abandonista and pull out of Iraq.

Another reason not to vote for him.

The Geek Vote

Color me surprised:

Security moms are so 2004; if you're looking for a trendy swing demographic in the 2008 election cycle, consider those politically-engaged, online donation-making IT professionals. A new survey from the Computing Technology Industry Association (CompTIA) plumbs the views of the IT crowd and finds John McCain and Barack Obama in a dead heat for the geek vote.

According to the survey of 600 IT workers, which was conducted for CompTIA by Rasmussen Reports, McCain and Obama would each have won the support of 29 percent of respondents had the presidential election been held in early March. Hillary Clinton, at 13 percent, only narrowly edged out Mike Huckabee (11 percent) and scrappy libertarian Ron Paul (9 percent). A further 9 percent declared themselves undecided.

I work with a lot of geeks and most of them are flaming liberals. Maybe that has more to do with working in the Peoples Republic of Massachusetts than they being geeks.

It is a micro-poll, but interesting none the less.

This is thought provoking as well:

On the other side, a recent Pew poll found that Democratic-leaning voters who support Hillary Clinton were more likely than Obama voters to cross the aisle and support John McCain if their preferred candidate lost the nomination—though given the skewed racial and economic composition of the IT sector, inferences from general population polls should be drawn cautiously.

I wonder how many other professional sector polls occur.

Heller vs. DC was Really About...

You know when you really want to see what the fever swamp is thinking there is nothing like looking at Mother Jones. These people are precious.

But during oral arguments, Justice Anthony Kennedy and his conservative brethren seemed to fully embrace the gun lobby's favorite romantic myth that the founders, inspired by the image of the musket in the hands of a minuteman, wrote the Second Amendment to give Americans the right to take up arms to fight government tyranny. But what the founders really had in mind, according to some constitutional-law scholars, was the musket in the hands of a slave owner. That is, these scholars believe the founders enshrined the right to bear arms in the Constitution in part to enforce tyranny, not fight it.

Yep, the only reason Libertarians are looking to have the Second Amendment reviewed is because they must be racists.

Go read it if you really want laugh.

Over at Reason apparently it's a gay-rights case.

Gun Shot Detectors

Schneier thinks these are a good idea. Personally I think they are a wa