Obama's Racial Issues

Saw these links at the Vodkapundit.

No doubt Slate is proud of moron Jacob Weisberg's piece. Not that there is any reason for Barry to lose, like his complete lack of experience, complete communist stance on money redistribution or any of that pantheon of other reasons that conservatives cringe about. Nope, it's just about race.

If it makes you feel better, you can rationalize Obama's missing 10-point lead on the basis of Clintonite sulkiness, his slowness in responding to attacks, or the concern that Obama may be too handsome, brilliant, and cool to be elected. But let's be honest: If you break the numbers down, the reason Obama isn't ahead right now is that he trails badly among one group, older white voters. He does so for a simple reason: the color of his skin.

Much evidence points to racial prejudice as a factor that could be large enough to cost Obama the election. That warning is written all over last month's CBS/New York Times poll, which is worth examining in detail if you want a quick grasp of white America's curious sense of racial grievance. In the poll, 26 percent of whites say they have been victims of discrimination. Twenty-seven percent say too much has been made of the problems facing black people. Twenty-four percent say the country isn't ready to elect a black president. Five percent of white voters acknowledge that they, personally, would not vote for a black candidate.

Not sure why the victim thing is relevant, but I'm sure if blacks were asked about who victimized them you'd get at least a similar reaction with whites as an antagonist. But any how, there is little doubt that race is a factor. You'd have to be blind or stupid to ignore it. Of course, Weisberg seems to completely forget the reversal of his topic, how many blacks will vote for Obama just because he's black and against McCain because he's white. Funny how that dichotomy seems to always be left out of the equation.

The best part is the "think of the children" canard.

Many have discoursed on what an Obama victory could mean for America. We would finally be able to see our legacy of slavery, segregation, and racism in the rearview mirror. Our kids would grow up thinking of prejudice as a nonfactor in their lives. The rest of the world would embrace a less fearful and more open post-post-9/11 America. But does it not follow that an Obama defeat would signify the opposite? If Obama loses, our children will grow up thinking of equal opportunity as a myth. His defeat would say that when handed a perfect opportunity to put the worst part of our history behind us, we chose not to. In this event, the world's judgment will be severe and inescapable: The United States had its day but, in the end, couldn't put its own self-interest ahead of its crazy irrationality over race.

What a pile of horse-shit. I love the fact that Obama will somehow cleanse the historical legacy of slavery, segregation and racism. How is that exactly? Those are things that definitely occurred, just having Barry as President won't make that go away, nothing will. And if your children are growing up thinking equal opportunity is a myth, then maybe you have no one to blame but yourself. A presidential election isn't about salving some pretended wounds, its about choosing the person right to direct our country for the next four years. That person is chosen by the majority, not by some made up contention that someone's children need some little push to have good self esteem.

The other link in that post is worth reading as well. George Will throwing darts at Barry "renewable resources" Obama.

Obama is (this is part of liberalism's catechism) leery of nuclear power. He also says -- and might say so even if Nevada were not a swing state -- that he distrusts the safety of Nevada's Yucca Mountain for storage of radioactive waste. Evidently he prefers today's situation -- nuclear waste stored at 126 inherently insecure above-ground sites in 39 states, within 75 miles of where more than 161 million Americans live.

But back to requiring this or that quota of energy from renewable sources. What will that involve? For conservatives, seeing is believing; for liberals, believing is seeing. Obama seems to believe that if a particular outcome is desirable, one can see how to require it. But how does that work? Details to follow, sometime after noon Jan. 20, 2009.

That bit cracked me up. I'd say it is funny, right up until I think about it and realize its true. Then, I get worried. Read the quotes from Will's piece. They have a creepy dictatorial tone.

Obama recently said that he would "require that 10 percent of our energy comes from renewable sources by the end of my first term -- more than double what we have now." Note the verb "require" and the adjective "renewable."

Require? He's not going to be king, so how is he going to require that we have this? Maybe he could legislate it with the assistance of a democrat controlled congress, but that still isn't his requiring.

Obama has also promised that "we will get 1 million 150-mile-per-gallon plug-in hybrids on our roads within six years." What a tranquilizing verb "get" is. This senator, who has never run so much as a Dairy Queen, is going to get a huge, complex industry to produce, and is going to get a million consumers to buy, these cars. How? Almost certainly by federal financial incentives for both -- billions of dollars of tax subsidies for automakers and billions more to bribe customers to buy cars they otherwise would spurn.

Again, this is another dictatorial statement, though you could take it more lightly if you remove any association with other statements.

I also don't see how Barry thinks this is going to work. Here in the Northeast these battery cars work, but they don't ever get mileage like that. And a plug-in car just moves the tail pipe somewhere else. Will goes on to discuss that. Personally, I won't drive one of these things. I don't like how they drive and I've seen them in the snow and I just don't want to end up that stuck that often.

Oh, and just a last stolen link to add from Vodkapundit. Here is Green Ego and Ham from Watchman's Words.

Heh. Got to love them when they do it well.

Russian Hypocrites

You have to love listening to the Russians. All you have to do is think Chechnya and you can recognize a hypocrite.

Georgia and Russia fought a brief war earlier this month over South Ossetia after Tbilisi sent in troops to try to retake the province by force, provoking a massive counter-attack by land, sea and air from Moscow.

"Today it is clear that after Georgia's aggression against South Ossetia (that) Georgian-South-Ossetian and Georgian-Abkhazian relations cannot be returned to their former state," upper house speaker Sergei Mironov said during the debate.

"The peoples of South Ossetia and Abkhazia have the right to get independence."

Well, I suppose there is little that Georgia can do about this, but the Russians should recognize that the rest of the world doesn't need to agree with their actions.

By this strategy I'm thinking that the US should be looking at a former Russian ally to crush and free just to the south of our border.

The Problem with Batman...

Now the simpering ladies of the press find Batman's voice to rough for them.

"His Batman rasps his lines in a voice that's deeper and hammier than ever," said NPR's David Edelstein.

The New Yorker's David Denby praised the urgency of Bale's Batman, but lamented that he "delivers his lines in a hoarse voice with an unvarying inflection."

What do they want? I suppose he could have a high whiny lisping voice, but do you think that would work with the dark persona and the fear that he uses as his tool?

Or I suppose they'd prefer Adam West's voice and measured tone. That will strike fear in a 3 year old, but do they actually think a criminal would be intimidated?

Maybe these dolts should actually understand what the story is about rather than fret that his voice is raspy and deep.

You're Either With Me or a Racist

Glad to see I'm not the only one tired of being called a racist because I happen to find BarryO an arrogant ultra Liberal elite.

And Maureen Dowd better watch out when she talks about Obama being proud. Apparently, that is code language and it takes David Gergen to translate that for us. Today on ABC's show This Week, Gergen told us that everyone with a southern heritage knows that when the McCain campaign juxtaposes Obama with Moses and calls him "The One" (something both Maureen Dowd and I have also done) that every southerner knows that that is just code for calling him "uppity." Really!? Does that mean that no one can ever point out that Obama seems quite arrogant and full of himself without Gergen saying that we're playing to subliminal racism? Baloney! Remember the trouble that Biden got in for saying that Obama was articulate? Apparently, that was also racist. What is it when a white guy like John Kerry was ridiculed for being arrogant? And just as there is no defense against this sort of attack where every word is a hidden attack of racism, there is no arguing against Gergen's logic here. He knows this because he's from the South so that gives him an extra spidey-sense to detect this sort of thing. If you disagree, it's either because you're not from the South and don't know whereof you speak or you're from the South and probably just sublimating your inner racist.

This is quite a gig that these people have. Basically, they've drawn the rules so that whatever you say about Obama, you can be called out for catering to racism. I know that the Democrats would like to make Obama immune from all criticism, but this is an election, dang it! Candidates criticize each other in elections and Republicans refuse to unilaterally disarm just because Obama had an African father.

Now it's some mysterious code that conservatives use to racially denigrate BarryO by calling him arrogant, but when BarryO uses an obvious racial statement about not looking like president's on dollar bills, he's saying what exactly?

Sen. Barack Obama's chief strategist conceded that the Democratic presidential candidate was referring to his race when he said Republicans were trying to scare voters by suggesting Obama "doesn't look like all those other presidents on the dollar bills."

He's not just playing the scare tactic but the guilt tactic. Not a difficult game considering that large numbers of liberal whites still find some internal guilt over slavery. But that's not playing a racial card is it? No can't be. And every time he throws one of those grenades into the crowd, McCain has to dive for cover.

Nice to see that BarryO is still not playing the negative campaign style he swore not to get into.

Never Talk to the Police

Seen at Schneier's.

I'm not finished listening to this, but I'm convinced.

Obama's Vote

Now you tell me, is this report on Barry in Iraq accurate or just willfully distorting the truth? One paragraph should be all that's needed.

The Illinois senator, who voted against the March 2003 war to topple Saddam Hussein, is in Iraq at a time when violence has fallen to a four-year low -- partly on the back of the controversial troop "surge" which he had strongly opposed.

Now where exactly did he make that vote? He wasn't in the senate, so how did he make that vote?

According the wiki page on him he didn't start his tenure until January 4, 2005.

Good ole fact checking at the AFP.

Canadian "Human Rights" Censorship Commision

Always wonderful to hear Canadian courts taking out free speech on the side of the loser that started the whole problem in the first place. It may not be nice to be cruel or really rude to a heckler, but as far as I'm concerned, if you don't want to hear it, don't start it.

He claims it was his dedication to his art that led to the events at Vancouver’s Zesty’s Restaurant on May 22, 2007; he wanted some hecklers to give the evening’s final open mic comic a break. He told Pajamas Media it’s something he’s done countless times before as an MC:

I’ve said some awfully derogatory remarks to people who show no respect to a live stage show. My remarks are meant to shock and silence an unruly, disruptive group or person. I have generally offended a few people over the years but I never regret it because it is a function of being in a live and dynamic show and my jabs never come unsolicited. I can be accused of acting in poor taste but I cannot be accused of hating.

The Vancouver Sun tried to sort out the “he saids” and “she saids” of the booze-fueled event, but only Earle agreed to speak on the record:

Earle said he was the show’s MC when [Lorna] Pardy and two of her friends walked in, sat in the booth closest to the stage, and began heckling him and other comics.

“Two of them started making out, flipping me the bird, and saying I hated lesbians,” he said.

Earle said Pardy misconstrued some of his remarks and took others out of context.

“They were drunk, they were being jerks, and I was very rude and visceral to them because, like I said, if you have a heckler, what you want to do is put them in their place by offending them, so I tried to hit them where it hurts and the only thing I had to key on was the fact that they were lesbians.”

Earle says the women threw drinks in his face, and he admits he broke Pardy’s sunglasses. It wasn’t pretty and it sure wasn’t comedy. The sorry situation sounds like a matter for the management, or maybe the police. But the British Columbia Human Rights Commission?

No doubt the comedian will lose to this thin-skinned harpy. Canadian justice at its finest no doubt.

This is the same commission that is trying to take Steyn out. Frankly the US should do something in response regarding things that originate in our land of freedom.

Read the rest.

Childish in Frisco

I constantly read news from California and nearly always come to the conclusion that they either need a spanking or a lecture on when it's time to grow up. Here is one that tops the list of stupidity.

San Francisco voters will be asked to decide whether to name a city sewage plant in honor of President Bush, after a satiric measure qualified for the November ballot Thursday.

Backers of the measure, who for several months circulated a petition to place the measure on the ballot, turned in more than 12,000 signatures on July 7, said organizer Brian McConnell. The Department of Elections on Thursday informed those supporters, the self-proclaimed Presidential Memorial Commission, that they had enough valid signatures - a minimum of 7,168 registered San Francisco voters - to qualify for the November ballot.

McConnell, who came up with the idea over beers with friends, often donned an Uncle Sam outfit to drum up support for the petition. The all-volunteer group of signature gatherers often carried around an American flag and blasted patriotic music from a boom box to attract attention. He said the campaign to pass the measure will be an equally grassroots effort.

The measure, if passed, would rename the Oceanside Water Pollution Control Plant the George W. Bush Sewage Plant. McConnell said the intent is to remember the Bush administration and what the group sees as the president's mistakes, including the war in Iraq.

Yes, the rest of the country gets you message loud and clear. If I can't have it my way I'll whine and call you names until you change.

Maybe the rest of the country should break down and make California a synonym for cry-baby.

Mayor Daley and Other Morons

SayUncle linked this, but he only spoke of one moron. The quoted morons in this are frightening.

“This is not really an issue about the Constitution, the Second Amendment. It’s really about personal safety,” Prof. Charles Ogletree of the Harvard University School of Law told The Final Call. “It’s about the integrity of a process where we don’t have peace. We have hundreds of millions of guns in the United States today, almost as many guns circulating as there are people.

“And that just tells me, that’s not an answer to the problem. It hasn’t been an answer in any other country in the universe. And I just hope that we don’t regret the day, that we’re applauding the fact that we’re armed like the criminals, but it doesn’t solve a problem, it just creates a bigger problem, accidental shootings and other risks, particularly to our children and our families,” said Prof. Ogletree.

Not just the world, but the UNIVERSE. Damn!

And it is about the constitution and allowing people to use their right to self-defense in this specific case with a firearm. He seems to think that the ownership of a firearm can have absolutely no affect on personal safety. Well, good for him, hope he never needs one when he doesn't have one. Personally, I'll exercise my right.

Then there is Mayor Daley:

Chicago Mayor Richard Daley called the ruling “very frightening” and vowed to vigorously fight any attempt to invalidate that city’s gun ban.

“Does this lead to everyone having a gun in our society?” Mr. Daley asked June 27, according to published reports. “If (the justices) think that’s the answer, then they’re greatly mistaken. Then why don’t we do away with the court system and go back to the Old West, you have a gun and I have a gun and we’ll settle it in the streets?” said Mr. Daley.

Sorry, the Supremes never made any decision about whether guns were the answer to violence. They merely answered the question of whether it was a constitutionally protected right. That is all they did. Daley may want to take a second and calm down and actually talk about what happened rather than whine about what the effect is.

Next Idiot:

The decision contained some bad news and some good news, D.C. officials said. “The bad news is no handgun in your home is going to remain in your home,” D.C. Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton told Pacifica Radio’s “Democracy Now!” “These handguns—first of all, handguns in the home, according to the data, are used primarily for suicides and for friend to friend domestic violence.”

They don't stay in the home? I've never seen any of mine move, so I'm a bit dubious as to their ability to move otherwise. Or maybe she means that a person could perform an illegal act and steel them. But wait there's more:

“This court, which calls itself a conservative, strict constructionist court, simply reached around that, called it a preamble and said the use of the words ‘militia’ and ‘people’ was about individual rights. When you look at all of the amendments, six other amendments, the word ‘people’ is used, it is referring collectively, usually to the states,” Ms. Norton said.

Collective rights? You've got to be kidding me. No other right is seen as a collective right. I agree with SayUncle, if DC reps are this stupid then they really shouldn't be allowed the rights of a state.

Tired of Apologies

I'm really tired of this political tactic of holding the candidate responsible for people's statements that aren't directly concerned with their campaign. I don't see any problem about them being asked about it, but when they have to do "damage control" related to someone else's remarks, that's just foolish.

But a day after a top McCain economic adviser dismissed the nation's struggles as a "mental recession," the presumptive Republican presidential nominee's message landed with a thud, as workers sat in stony silence.

McCain was already running into a stiff headwind because of an ailing economy, and his task became tougher after former Sen. Phil Gramm, R-Texas, suggested the United States has "become a nation of whiners."

Gramm, who has helped shape McCain's presidential campaign and is a close friend of the candidate, expressed no regret Thursday for the comments he made in an interview with the Washington Times, saying: "I'm not going to retract any of it. Every word I said was true."

The McCain campaign quickly shifted into damage-control mode, distancing the candidate from his friend's assessment.

Gramm "does not speak for me. I speak for me. I strongly disagree," McCain said in Belleville just as Gramm was wrapping up a discussion with The Wall Street Journal editorial board about the candidate's economic program.

Personally, I think McCain is wrong. This country has slowly crept into a country of whiners who can't see beyond their own desires and feelings. I find it fascinating though that he sounds like he's having to defend himself from the statement, which makes one wonder what the question really was.

As for the "mental recession" it sounds right to me, since most of the reported indicators show a slowed economy but not a recession. Should I also mention the fact that we'd have to have gone through three down quarters to qualify, and we haven't been through one yet? Maybe it's coming, but the mind set is sinking in that we are in collapse and people don't actually care to look at the facts.

I'd also like to throw the fear-mongering flag at the Dems who are now raving about the economy being so poor. Isn't that the same tactic that they themselves call fear-mongering when the Repubs use it with regards to National Security? Or is it ok to do that for the economy or global-warming? Sorry, both sides play the game, they just use different sticks.

Obsoleting the Second Amendment

I found this at the Volokh Conspiracy, they discuss legal stuff around it, but I think the writer of this article is completely clueless when attaching his descriptions of non-lethal defense mechanisms to the problems of self-defense.

The states impose carefully defined limitations on the use of deadly force in self-defense. (These rules are fairly uniform, state to state; most are based on the American Law Institute’s Model Penal Code of 1962.) A person may use only as much force as is “immediately necessary.” If a less lethal means of defense is available, the use of deadly force is illegal. Firearms are by law deadly force. (The police are given somewhat greater authority to use force, even aggressive force.)

Guns have been considered a primary weapon for self-defense. But now there are nonlethal alternatives — some not yet on the market — that can quickly disable an attacker even more reliably than a firearm can.

The best known of these are Tasers, handgun-shaped devices that fire a dart that delivers a painful electrical shock. A hit from a Taser causes an instant muscular spasm that can disable any attacker, no matter how determined. And the Taser works no matter where on the attacker’s body the dart hits. A bullet, in contrast, instantly disables only if it hits a couple of vulnerable spots, like the space between the eyes. A shot to the arm, the leg or even the torso may not stop an attacker.

First, it would have been nice if he had thought to discuss what "immediately necessary" means to the person being attacked. Being assailed in your home by an unknown entity with unknown intentions in an extremely short time span doesn't give one a lot of time to analyze what is reasonable or necessary. It also leaves other issues in the unknown which he completely ignores, such as is there a second assailant on the premise.

Which leads me to the next point of how very useless the taser is against multiple attackers. Especially if they have a gun. Yep, you tased the first scum bag, now the second is shooting at you. That taser is now worthless. But sure, we should have laws that leave you as the weakest in such a conflict. Makes sense when you lobotomize yourself and follow this guys logic.

Newer kinds of hand-held weapons that are less lethal than guns — many already in prototype — may be even more effective than Tasers. These include light lasers, designed to blind temporarily, and microwave beams that instantly cause the skin to feel as if it is on fire, but cause no lasting harm.

Of course, anyone who uses a gun in self-defense may argue that he would have used a less lethal weapon if he had had one at hand, but there was only the firearm. The problem with this argument is that the limited option is the person’s choice, and the law may not be blind to that choice

Another limited thought game. I'm sure those less than lethals will never have anyone figuring out a way to counter them. Never happens in any other contexts. Hackers never have figured how to get by firewalls (trojans, viruses etc.) The military has never had to obsolete weapons because some one has figured out a way to defeat them or get around them now have they?

If you are a surgeon and you leave your glasses behind on the way to the operating room, then botch a delicate procedure, you can’t convince a judge that the resulting death wasn’t your fault because you couldn’t see well. If, on your way to confront an intruder, you choose your gun rather than your more effective but less lethal weapon, you can hardly complain later about your limited options.

Incredibly poor analogy. Surgeons aren't awoken in the middle of the night with their life threatened in order to perform surgery. This is an argument so close to blaming the victim for the attack that its pathetic. If I'm attacked, why should I have to be the one showing extreme caution. I'm not acting illegally or seeking to harm anyone intentionally. I'm trying to protect my life and that of my family. If you have chosen to violate my rights you have chosen to lose yours.

Similarly, when a person shops for a weapon of self-defense, anticipating some day a confrontation with an attacker, his choice of a gun over something less lethal but more effective is a choice to limit his options in a confrontation.

Should we worry that by expecting people to use only nonlethal weapons in self-defense we would sacrifice our personal autonomy and safety? No. On the contrary, personal autonomy would be even more vigilantly protected.

I love the whole logic that the killer or thief has some right to life above your own. How is it that the victim has to respect the assailants rights over their own? I also would love to see his logic that these less-than-lethal weapons are more effective. I'm betting that someone racking their shotgun is more likely to have a non-lethal interaction with an assailant than their fingering their taser. And how exactly is personal autonomy more vigilantly protected? I don't see any justification of the point.

But I'll say where he's wrong, he misses the point that he assumes that all these non-lethals will cover all of the various scenarios that a person may be put into and he also assumes that a gun can't cover them all and do so more effectively. That is not a set of assumptions I wish to risk my life with.

The reason for this is a second limitation on the use of defensive force, what might be called the “proportionality” requirement. Typically, a defender can lawfully use deadly force only to prevent death, rape, kidnapping or bodily injury serious enough to cause long-term loss or impairment of a body part or organ. But a nondeadly weapon can be used to defend against any threat of unlawful force.

I always love the "proportionality" requirement. Generally a useless bit of logic in a situation where you are the one being attacked by an unknown assailant for unknown reasons. Makes you wonder what this dolt thinks is reasonable. Someone has broken into your home and you have to figure out if he's there to rape or kill or kidnap you. I wonder how he would determine such a thing? And since he never addressed any of the problems of the non-lethal defenses or the ability of the assailant to avoid such devices, how can he say that a gun isn't appropriate?

The writer also seems to avoid some very interesting trends away from his logic being enacted in states across the country. Even the most liberal states have decided that the extreme retreat requirements are not logical. The castle doctrines being further enacted in more and more states are reactions to such poor logic as this guy applies to what is reasonable for the defender.

This article's logic may be sufficient for those who have lots of money and live in nice places, but it completely ignores the realities of most of peoples lives.

Reruns

Someone tell me what is new here, because all I see is the MSM playing politics in rehashing information that isn't new merely to benefit a political agenda.

US interrogators questioning detainees at Guantanamo Bay Naval Base employed harsh techniques borrowed directly from the Communist Chinese during the Korean War, the New York Times reported Wednesday.

The daily reported that military trainers at Guantanamo in December 2002 based an entire interrogation class on a chart created from a 1957 Air Force study on Communist Chinese methods.

The harsh questioning techniques were used by the Chinese to obtain confessions from American prisoners, including many false ones, the daily reported.

The chart, made public at a June 17 US Senate hearing, detailed the effects of "coercive management techniques" such as "sleep deprivation," "prolonged constraint," and "exposure."

Oh, I suppose it must be that the MSM brain trust figured out that these previously reported methods once were used in Korea. Who cares?

Then they go to their master of intelligence Carl Levin for a quote:

"These were techniques to get false confessions," US Senator Carl Levin was quoted as saying in the Times.

"People say we need intelligence, and we do. But we don't need false intelligence," he said.

Being an expert on interrogations, or not, Carl makes the assumption that many in the MSM and the left keep making, that our intelligence services are full of people as stupid as they are. No Doubt Carl will be breaking out the fluffy pillows and giving those trying to kill us more hugs to make them happy and not want to kill us.

Idiots.

Military Credentials

Things like this always irritate me. There is no requirement for military service to be president and such criticism from fools like Clark should be turned back on themselves for application to their supported candidate. Note that Barry's credentials can't even stand near this type of criticism without looking completely pathetic.

The retired general Wesley Clark said McCain had not "held executive responsibility" and had not commanded troops in wartime.

McCain's experience in Vietnam, where he was a prisoner of war for five years, has seemed at times almost to grant him invulnerability to criticism of his security background. But on Sunday he was assailed by a fellow military man, a highly decorated one who was once the NATO supreme commander.

McCain frequently points out that he led "the largest squadron in the U.S. Navy," but Clark said on CBS television that that was not enough to support a claim to the presidency.

Clark might want to note that McCain has received the majority of the votes from his party to run for president, which is far more than Clark ever did in his lame ass run. Oh, and how much command experience does Barack "present" Obama have? NONE maybe?

I don't follow the McCain campaign counter that Barry doesn't follow his described "new" politician description. That's a true statement, but a different argument.

The usual lame Liberal arguments. Don't like that he has credentials? Well, just assure the public that they aren't really any good anyway.

Whining on FISA

Let the Whining begin!

"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance," Rep Trent Franks (R-AZ) intoned on the floor of the House of Representatives, purporting to invoke the authority of Thomas Jefferson on behalf of the FISA Amendments Act of 2008, which passed the House by a 293–129 vote yesterday.

If we wanted to pick nits, we could note that this is a misquotation, that Jefferson didn't write it, and that the "eternal vigilance" alluded to in that hoary aphorism is most assuredly not the government's unfettered power to eavesdrop on Americans' international communications without a warrant. But forget it, he's rolling. Why spoil such a rare bipartisan lovefest with quibbling over details?

Floor debate on the measure, which expands executive branch surveillance authority and provides retroactive amnesty for telecoms implicated in warrantless NSA wiretapping, consisted largely of mutual congratulation. Minority Whip Roy Blunt (R-MO) lauded the bill as a shining example of "what we can do when we come together," a sentiment echoed by Rep James Langevin (D-RI), who said that the compromise "illustrates what this House can do when it deliberates with care, holds steady against fearmongering, and acts in the best interests of the country and its citizens."

Hmm. I guess I'd say that if he doesn't want to pick nits he may wish to get his facts straight. First there isn't any expansion of power to the executive branch. He may wish to note that the power merely carries over from the last FISA legislation. And I still haven't heard any logical explanation for allowing the telecoms to be punished for good faith actions when required by the government.

You'd think this was a libertarian tirade, except its not. It's just poorly thought out whining.

Read it yourself. Then go out and get facts from someone that has a clue.

Nuclear Proliferation

Just to show how much damage a single person can do, here's a report on nuclear proliferation to the really bad guys.

The Bush administration and Western governments are voicing renewed fears that advanced nuclear-weapon designs may have been provided to Iran and North Korea through the smuggling network run by Pakistani nuclear scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan.

These fears have been stoked by evidence obtained by Swiss authorities who are prosecuting three European members of Mr. Khan's network in Bern, Western diplomats said.

Swiss President Pascal Couchepin announced last month that his government had destroyed computer files and other data seized from these men because they posed a national-security risk. The Swiss leader noted that the files contained "detailed construction plans for nuclear weapons, for ultracentrifuges to enrich weapons-grade uranium as well as for guided missile-delivery systems."

In 2003, the U.S. and allied governments broke up Mr. Khan's smuggling network, which had delivered centrifuge equipment for uranium-enrichment work to Tehran and Pyongyang and Chinese-based nuclear-weapons designs to Libya.

And this note on how the Pakistani government will now deal with Kahn.

U.S. counterproliferation officials said the intelligence highlighted why additional efforts needed to be made to interview Mr. Khan in Islamabad to get a greater understanding of his network's activities. Mr. Khan is under house arrest, but Pakistan's newly elected civilian government has suggested that the scientist could be released.

"We don't know for certain if Khan gave the designs to Iran or North Korea," said a U.S. counterproliferation official who worked extensively on the Libya case. "But why would you give them to the Libyans and not the North Koreans?"

Brilliant. Next they'll be giving him his computers back and sending him on trips to Iran.

Well, maybe he and Barry will have time to get together with the Ayatollahs next year.

Moron of the Year

I'm nominating Dennis Kucinich for again proving that someone standing in wings hasn't a clue as to what the audience is doing.

Rep. Dennis Kucinich, a former Democratic presidential candidate from Ohio, introduced a resolution to impeach President Bush into the House of Representatives on Tuesday.

Kucinich announced his intention to seek Bush's impeachment Monday night, when he read the lengthy document into the record.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has repeatedly said she would not support a resolution calling for Bush's impeachment, saying such a move was unlikely to succeed and would be divisive.

Most of the congressman's resolution deals with the Iraq war, contending that the president manufactured a false case for the war, violated U.S. and international law to invade Iraq, failed to provide troops with proper equipment and falsified casualty reports for political purposes.

Yes, the Iraq war, APPROVED by the senate was illegal. Sorry, if they weren't smart enough to do their due diligence and verify Bush's claims on the case for removing Sadam, then that doesn't make it illegal. And frankly, international law is irrelevant.

Pelosi is correct of the divisiveness of such a resolution. It was proven with force during the Clinton impeachment and that had more grounds in fact even if the reasoning wasn't very good. No doubt we'll be hearing cheers from the left wing losers on this one. No doubt this will churn up lots of Republican support in time for the elections should they decide to actually move ahead. Good plan Dennis Dipshit.

Kucinich also charges that Bush has illegally detained without charge both U.S. citizens and "foreign captives" and violated numerous U.S. laws through the use of "signing statements" declaring his intention to do so.

Other articles address global warming, voting rights, Medicare, the response to Hurricane Katrina and failure to comply with congressional subpoenas.

That list really should make you wonder. What didn't the president cause to go wrong? As for the signing statements, I don't like that they are used, but he isn't the first to use them and the legality of them is not in question. They just aren't the most honest method of dealing with legislation that doesn't pass the sniff test.

I hope Ohio is happy with this jackass. No doubt he's a star from their state.

Cap and Tax

Here's a wonderful new tax. It's also nice to see that it's being hidden as a market control mechanism.

An unprecedentedly radical government grab for control of the American economy will be debated this week when the Senate considers saving the planet by means of a cap-and-trade system to ration carbon emissions. The plan is co-authored (with John Warner) by Joe Lieberman, an ardent supporter of John McCain, who supports Lieberman's legislation and recently spoke about "the central facts of rising temperatures, rising waters and all the endless troubles that global warming will bring."

Speaking of endless troubles, "cap-and-trade" comes cloaked in reassuring rhetoric about the government merely creating a market, but government actually would create a scarcity so government could sell what it has made scarce. The Wall Street Journal underestimates cap-and-trade's perniciousness when it says the scheme would create a new right ("allowances") to produce carbon dioxide and would put a price on the right. Actually, because freedom is the silence of the law, that right has always existed in the absence of prohibitions. With cap-and-trade, government would create a right for itself -- an extraordinarily lucrative right to ration Americans' exercise of their traditional rights.

Well, McCain is proving his statement about not knowing anything about economics. This rotten egg will, with luck, die quietly in the senate.

If you want to read more on this type of silliness, go and read Krauthammer's Op-Ed. Here's a taste:

Only Monday, a British parliamentary committee proposed that every citizen be required to carry a carbon card that must be presented, under penalty of law, when buying gasoline, taking an airplane or using electricity. The card contains your yearly carbon ration to be drawn down with every purchase, every trip, every swipe.

There's no greater social power than the power to ration. And, other than rationing food, there is no greater instrument of social control than rationing energy, the currency of just about everything one does and uses in an advanced society.

What a brilliant solution. Wonder who is going to get damaged the most by such rationing? I'm also betting that the Brits will be considering taxing anyone who desires to go over their carbon ration. I've been told by a British friend that gasoline (petrol) is so expensive in Great Britain because they tax it at around 80% of the cost.

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.