The George Mason Republican Women

The Company You Keep

2008-03-14T07:44:00.000-07:00

Mama always told me choose your friends wisely because you're known by the company you keep. We should begin to look at the Presidential candidates in these terms in order to anticipate who could be staffing their government and who would be reflecting the rest of us in the White House and representing America to the rest of the world. The following are some quotes from a sermon delivererd at Howard University on January 15, 2006 by Jeremiah A. Wright, Jr., the spiritual advisor and pastor of candidate Barak Obama.
"We've got more black men in prison than there are in college...Racism is alive and well. Racism is how this country was founded and how this country is still run. No black man will ever be considered for president, no matter how hard you run Jesse [Jackson] and no black woman can ever be considered for anything outside what she can give with her body."
Mr. Obama has also used the statement about black men in prison-it is incorrect. The statement about black women is insulting, racisr, sexist, and ignores all the accomplished black women beginning with Condoleeza Rise.,
"America is still the No. 1 killer in the world. . . . We are deeply involved in the importing of drugs, the exporting of guns, and the training of professional killers . . . We bombed Cambodia, Iraq and Nicaragua, killing women and children while trying to get public opinion turned against Castro and Ghadhafi . . . We put [Nelson] Mandela in prison and supported apartheid the whole 27 years he was there. We believe in white supremacy and black inferiority and believe it more than we believe in God."
Among ther things, this ignores the U.S. economic boycott of apartheid South Africa that eventually freed Mandella.
"We supported Zionism shamelessly while ignoring the Palestinians and branding anybody who spoke out against it as being anti-Semitic. . . . We care nothing about human life if the end justifies the means. . . ."
"We started the AIDS virus . . . We are only able to maintain our level of living by making sure that Third World people live in grinding poverty. . . ."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120545277093135111.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries
This man has been Obama's preacher for more than 20 years. He married Barak and Michelle and baptized their children. We have seen his views reflected in the attitude toward America of Michelle Obama and it simply cannot be that the Senator does not share them as well. You can read similar views on any radical Islamist web site and Osama couldn't have said it better.

Letter to The Washington Post

2007-04-04T10:22:00.000-07:00

Ruth Marcus' April 4 editorial "Fox-in-the Henhouse Government"(http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/
article/2007/04/03/AR2007040301576.htmlwww.washingtonpost.com) is another in a long line of Post hatchet jobs on the Bush administration. OK lying to Congress is not a good thing, but the rest is merely allegation without context and Ms Marcus seems to think that any and all regulation is good, and any attempt to curtail or cut back on regulation is bad. That's a political position, not an indictment of bad behavior.
After reading the paper I searched the Post web site for any information on the recent resignation of Diane Feinstein from the Military Construction Appropriations Subcommittee she has been the ranking member or chair of the last six years. (http://leaningstraightup.com/2007/03/30/dianne-feinstein-
resigns-in-ethics-scandalnot-that)-the-media-cares/. Here Ms Marcus and the reporters of the Post could deal in facts that hardly need context to understand, and that does not deal with allegations, but actual violations of the law. It is a fact that well over one billion dollars, some in no-bid contracts, went to companies her husband controlled until 2005. Randy Duke Cunningham is spending significant time in jail for appropriating some two million dollars for his own use and that pales in comparison to the Feinstein caper.
Some questions Ms Marcus and her fellow reporters could answer: Is Ms Feinstein being investigated by the Justice Department? Should she also resign as head of the Rules Committee, which would have her, in effect, investigating herself for breach of Senate Rules? Was that assignment appropriate or just convenient? Is there some reason you do not think that Democrats ripping off the taxpayer is a negative or do you just believe that being a Republican is a felony? Is the preferred treatment merely another example of Media Bias?

Red v. Blue

2007-02-28T12:01:00.000-08:00

What's the difference between Republicans and Democrats? Rudy Giuliani summed it up very nicely in his appearance in our area this week. He recalled that he switched from the Democrat Party to the Republican, but he had an intermission when he called himself an Independent. This was his period of decision, and it was difficult since he admitted he had bought into the propaganda that Republicans do not care about the poor and disadvantaged.
He finally worked out that the Republican ideas of free markets, competition, and personal responsibility are universally good for all people and all institutions. He told the story of a New York Caritable group that made available 2,000 scholarships for private schools for children in the city's public school system. He became a believer in School Choice, that is competition, when 168,000 applications were filed.
The latest example is Medicare Part D. Despite some intiial problems and the issue of the doughnut hole, nearly 80% of seniors are enrolled and about that percentage approve of the program. Seniors have a multitude of choices (Dems said they'd be to dim to figure it all out) and the price has dropped 40% from the predicted cost (Dems want to have the feds set drug prices, which will limit choices and make the program more expensive). It is relevant to ask why they would do this. The answer lies with the issue of who trusts what and whom. Democrats think government and higher taxes are the answer to everything. Republicans think responsibility for solutions lies mainly with the citizens.
Mr. Giuliani is also a neo-con; a former Democrat who has seen the light and who is passionate about national defense. This is a movement that began with the election of Abraham Lincoln in 1860, and gained a new impetus in the late 1950's that lasts to the present. This is a process that is a thorn for Democrats as there has never been a sustained mass movement in their direction. These are people who are particularly despised by the left, because their life experiences and judgment brought them to different conclusions regarding government and civil society. In a word, Republicans are Right!

What Happened in January

2007-01-17T16:15:00.000-08:00

There are ironic military anniversaries this month that have resonance in the present. On the 14^th in 1943 Roosevelt met Churchill in Casablanca to discuss war strategy. This was nearly a decade after Churchill first warned his country and the world about the menace developing on the Continent, and it was the second year of U.S. participation in WWII. On the 17^th in 1991 the air attack on Iraq began in Operation Desert Storm. This is now remembered on the left and in the media as the “good” Iraq War. On the 28^th in 1973 Peace was declared in Vietnam, fourteen years after the first American soldiers were killed there. On the 30^th in 1968 the Viet Cong launched the Tet Offensive, which has become a mythical American military defeat.

It is mythical because the idea of a defeat is totally wrong. The battle, which began on the Lunar New Year, lasted about three weeks. At the end of that time the Viet Cong offensive military capability was decimated: they were never again able to initiate a credible attack. But, the belief that the outcome was just the reverse was reinforced, if not promulgated by Walter Cronkite and the media at the time. It was also the deciding factor in America's leaving Viet Nam in such a mess five years later.

During the 2004 presidential campaign Newsweeks’ Howard Fineman was heard to say on TV that “often when Cronkite said, ‘...and that’s the way it is,’ it wasn’t.” Tet was one of those “wasn’ts.” Even President Johnson must have believed Cronkite because he is reported to have commented that if he had lost Cronkite, he’d lost America. Apparently, no one in his administration thought to inform the American people otherwise.

On January 3, 2007 Prime Minister Tony Blair commented on the impact the media is having on the war in Iraq. He said, “[Islamic terrorists] have realized two things: the power of terrorism to cause chaos, to hinder and displace political progress especially through suicide missions, and the reluctance of Western opinion to countenance long campaigns, especially when the account it receives is via a modern media driven by the impact of pictures.” Saying that he believes it will take at least 20 years to defeat the extremists, he went on to point out that “…terrorism cannot be defeaterd by military means alone, but it can’t be defeated without it.”

In Vietnam the Necessary War self-described liberal 1960’s war protestor Michael Lind writes that, “The United States fought the war in Vietnam because of geopolitics, and forfeited the war because of domestic politics.”¹Today the left, with Ted Kennedy and Dennis Kucinich leading the way, is trying to repeat history. But, no matter how many comparisons are drawn between the two conflicts, the significant difference between Vietnam and Iraq holds great peril for the Middle East, for the United States and ultimately for the world. That difference is that under no circumstances were the communist Viet Cong, the North Vietnamese, or their patrons the Russians and the Chinese going to follow the departing troops back to America to attack our homeland. We know, as do the politicians who are advocating that we pull out of Iraq, whether immediately or euphemisitically in a phased withdrawal, that the Islamic extremists will do just that. We know because they have already done so.

Lind conlcudes the book’s preface by writing, “Let there be no doubt: There will be ‘Vietnams’ in America’s future…Preparing for the…unconventional wars of the twenty-first century will require both leaders and publics in the United States and allied countries to understand what the United States did wrong in Vietnam-and, no less important, to acknowledge what the United States did right.”²

Before 9/11 we had a decade full of warnings. For twelve years Saddam Hussein ignored U.N. sanctions and in fact used that organization to further enrich himself. In addition, during this time, he daily shot at our Air Force protecting the no-fly zone. There was never any question that one day, particularly if he succeeded in shooting down a plane, Saddam would have to be dealt with.

The desire of the extremists to attack within America and the ability to do so was clear with the first attempt to blow up the World Trade Center in February 1993. We then had the bombing of a U.S. Air Force barracks at Khobar Towers, the African Embassy bombings, the declaration of war against the United States by Osama bin Laden in 1996, and the attack on the USS Cole in 2000. Just as the English government ignored Churchill in the 1930’s, the American government pretended that these military attacks could be handled by cadres of FBI lawyers and decided not to take the hard decisions necessary to protect the future of the country.

Also on January 3, 2007 Gerald Ford, 38^th President of the United States was laid to rest in his hometown of Grand Rapids, Michigan. Since his death on December 26, 2006 pundits repeatedly re-assesed his 800 plus days in the White House with particular attention paid to his decision to pardon former President, Richard Nixon. For the most part, these pundits were the same media people and politcians who wanted nothing more than to see Nixon go to jail in 1974. Yet, with the perspective of thirty years they now acknowledge that having the “long national nightmare over” then was a good thing. At the time they called Ford, the consummate athlete, a klutz and stupid to boot.

If retrospect tells us that getting into Vietnam was necessary despite the mistakes that were made once there, can we not speculate that retrospect with give us the same assessment of Iraq. Will the passage of time and the passing of the need to secure political advantage for the next election bring some wisdom and a global perspective to what we have going on today?

Lind, Michael, Vietnam the Necessary War (New York: the Free Press, 1999) page xiv.
Lind, page xviii.

"I Believe..."

2007-01-14T08:12:00.000-08:00

"I believe that when America is willing to use her influence abroad, the American people are safer and the world is more secure. I believe that wealth does not come from government. It comes from the hard work of America’s workers, entrepreneurs and small businesses. I believe government closest to the people is more responsive and accountable. I believe government plays an important role in helping those who can’t help themselves. Yet we must always remember that when people are hurting, they need a caring person, not a government bureaucracy."
President George W. Bush
The Wall Street Journal, January 3, 2007

A New Plan-A Second Chance for Success

2007-01-12T05:32:00.000-08:00

The White House

January 10, 2007

The New Way Forward In Iraq

The President's New Iraq Strategy Is Rooted In Six Fundamental Elements:

Let the Iraqis lead;

Help Iraqis protect the population;

Isolate extremists;

Create space for political progress;

Diversify political and economic efforts; and

Situate the strategy in a regional approach.

Ø The Consequences Of Failure In Iraq Could Not Be Graver – The War On Terror Cannot Be Won If We Fail In Iraq. Our enemies throughout the Middle East are trying to defeat us in Iraq. If we step back now, the problems in Iraq will become more lethal, and make our troops fight an uglier battle than we are seeing today.

Key Elements Of The New Approach: Security

Iraqi:

· Publicly acknowledge all parties are responsible for quelling sectarian violence.

· Work with additional Coalition help to regain control of the capital and protect the Iraqi population.

· Deliver necessary Iraqi forces for Baghdad and protect those forces from political interference.

· Commit to intensify efforts to build balanced security forces throughout the nation that provide security even-handedly for all Iraqis.

· Plan and fund eventual demobilization program for militias.

Coalition:

· Agree that helping Iraqis to provide population security is necessary to enable accelerated transition and political progress.

· Provide additional military and civilian resources to accomplish this mission.

· Increase efforts to support tribes willing to help Iraqis fight Al Qaeda in Anbar.

· Accelerate and expand the embed program while minimizing risk to participants.

Both Coalition And Iraqi:

· Continue counter-terror operations against Al Qaeda and insurgent organizations.

· Take more vigorous action against death squad networks.

· Accelerate transition to Iraqi responsibility and increase Iraqi ownership.

· Increase Iraqi security force capacity – both size and effectiveness – from 10 to 13 Army divisions, 36 to 41 Army Brigades, and 112 to 132 Army Battalions.

Establish a National Operations Center, National Counterterrorism Force, and National Strike Force.

Reform the Ministry of Interior to increase transparency and accountability and transform the National Police.

Key Elements Of The New Approach: Political

Iraqi:

· The Government of Iraq commits to:

Reform its cabinet to provide even-handed service delivery.

Act on promised reconciliation initiatives (oil law, de-Baathification law, Provincial elections).

Give Coalition and ISF authority to pursue ALL extremists.

· All Iraqi leaders support reconciliation.

· Moderate coalition emerges as strong base of support for unity government.

Coalition:

· Support political moderates so they can take on the extremists.

o Build and sustain strategic partnerships with moderate Shi'a, Sunnis, and Kurds.

· Support the national compact and key elements of reconciliation with Iraqis in the lead.

· Diversify U.S. efforts to foster political accommodation outside Baghdad (more flexibility for local commanders and civilian leaders).

Expand and increase the flexibility of the Provincial Reconstruction Team (PRT) footprint.

Focus U.S. political, security, and economic resources at local level to open space for moderates, with initial priority to Baghdad and Anbar.

Both Coalition And Iraqi:

· Partnership between Prime Minister Maliki, Iraqi moderates, and the United States where all parties are clear on expectations and responsibilities.

· Strengthen the rule of law and combat corruption.

· Build on security gains to foster local and national political accommodations.

· Make Iraqi institutions even-handed, serving all of Iraq's communities on an impartial basis.

Key Elements Of The New Approach: Economic

Iraqi:

· Deliver economic resources and provide essential services to all areas and communities.

· Enact hydrocarbons law to promote investment, national unity, and reconciliation.

· Capitalize and execute jobs-producing programs.

· Match U.S. efforts to create jobs with longer term sustainable Iraqi programs.

· Focus more economic effort on relatively secure areas as a magnet for employment and growth.

Coalition:

· Refocus efforts to help Iraqis build capacity in areas vital to success of the government (e.g. budget execution, key ministries).

· Decentralize efforts to build Iraqi capacities outside the Green Zone.

Double the number of PRTs and civilians serving outside the Green Zone.

Establish PRT-capability within maneuver Brigade Combat Teams (BCTs).

· Greater integration of economic strategy with military effort.

Joint civil-military plans devised by PRT and BCT.

Remove legal and bureaucratic barriers to maximize cooperation and flexibility.

Key Elements Of The New Approach: Regional

Iraqi:

· Vigorously engage Arab states.

· Take the lead in establishing a regional forum to give support and help from the neighborhood.

· Counter negative foreign activity in Iraq.

· Increase efforts to counter PKK (Kurdistan Workers' Party).

Coalition:

· Intensify efforts to counter Iranian and Syrian influence inside Iraq.

· Increase military presence in the region.

· Strengthen defense ties with partner states in the region.

· Encourage Arab state support to Government of Iraq.

· Continue efforts to help manage relations between Iraq and Turkey.

· Continue to seek the region's full support in the War on Terror.

Both Coalition And Iraqi:

· Focus on the International Compact.

· Retain active U.N. engagement in Iraq – particularly for election support and constitutional review.

---

2006-10-14T12:35:00.000-07:00

Conventional wisdom has it that the Republicans will lose both the U.S. House and the Senate. There are even Republicans who have opined that this might be a good time to teach the Party a lesson and further that it will make it easier to keep the White House in 2008. This, then, is the time to see in black and white what could be facing the country.
Thomas P.M. Barnett, author of The Pentagon’s New Map and other writings on military strategy and tactics has been making presentations on these subjects for 15 years to DOD and other government personnel. In one session he apologized to part of his audience but stated that if “you were born before 1960” your perceptions are in the wrong century and you don’t get it. For one thing, the enemy we are facing operates to a great degree in cyberspace. Granted, Barnett is talking about military matters, and being older does not mean learning and adapting stops. Many of you reading this may take umbrage, but if there is evidence that neither learning nor adapting has taken place in people who could have government power we have a problem. It is, therefore, important to consider who will be in charge if the worst happens.
In the House: Way and Means, Charlie Rangel, born 1930, a member since 1971-Mr. Rangel has stated that none of Mr. Bush’s tax cuts should be continued. Energy and Commerce, John Dingell, born 1929, a member since 1955. Judiciary, John Conyers, born 1929, member since 1965-Mr. Conyers has his impeachment plans on the web. Appropriations, Dave Obey, born 1938, a member since 1969. Intelligence, Alcee Hastings who lost his job as a judge after taking bribes. In the Senate: Appropriations, Robert Byrd born 1917 member since 1953. Mr. Byrd is affectionately known as the “king of pork.” Armed Services, Carl Levin born 1934, member since 1979. Mr. Levin thinks we should pull out of Iraq immediately. Judiciary, Patrick Leahy born 1940, member since 1974. Mr. Leahy was booted off the Intelligence Committee in the 80’s for leaking classified material. The real point is that these are the same men , saying the same things, in the same positions of authority in the U.S. Congress who were voted out in 1994. The question is: do we go back a century or do we go forward?
British journalists for "The Economist" John Micklethwaith and Adrian Wooldridge wrote The Right Nation to explain Americans to Europeans, and the attitudes of Europeans to Americans. Begnning on page 277 they compare the congressional districts of Mrs. Pelosi and Mr. Hastert to illustrate the differences between liberal and conservative in America. Mr. Hastert’s constituents are family oriented, rally for causes, do not obsess about politics because their system is efficient and responsive, have positive attitudes, are solidly middle class, are opening churches, and are pro-growth. 70% plus own their own homes. Mrs. Pelosi's constituents protest, are political obsessives with dysfunctional government, have an aristocratic sensibility, are closing churches and are anti-growth. Less than 35% own their homes. The hub in San Francisco is beautiful but stagnating because it is losing population. The question is: what kind of an America do you want?
The ironies in today's Democrat Party and with its candidates abound. Nancy Pelosi says she is for tax cuts, but has voted against every one proposed in the last 11 years. The repeal of President Bush's tax cuts will include everyone now in the 10% bracket that was newly established. Their rate will go back to 15%. In additioon, the child credit will go down, and the marriage penalty break will be abolished. The only people hurt by these measures will be those in the middle class as the rich can afford the hit and the poor do not pay federal taxes. So much for Pelosi's middle class tax cuts.
The only rationale for impeaching the Commander in Chief during a war is to believe that there is no war. This belief that any problems we may have with radicals who fly airplanes into buildings can be taken care of by the FBI after the fact does not promote national security. At the least it leaves out the concept of "security." This attitude perfectly coincides with the Clinton administration's policies in the 90's that believed the whole thing is a law enforcement issue. Some Democrats say it is morally right to vote to send troops to battle and later say "never mind." Other candidates say we should have invaded Iran instead or bombed North Korea. Bob Casey, Democrat Senate candidate in Pennsylvania, perfectly recites Howard Dean's talking points on Iran, but when asked if he knows the name of that country's leader, had no idea. This proves that any dolt can memorize material, but having some idea of what you are talking about, particularly when it means committing troops, is a good thing.
Ohio Republican incumbent Senator, Mike Dewine, described his very liberal opponent, Congressman Sharrod Brown, as being all rhetoric and no results. Apparently, Mr. Brown has been in the House 12 years and only has his name on four bills (one renames a building and the other three deal with Taiwan). We should apply that yardstick to the Democrat Party as a whole. No other issue typifies the all rhetoric no results posture than prescription drugs for seniors. Democrats campaigned on this one issue for at least 30 of the 60 years they controlled the Congress, but never got it done. (Ya think it was just the issue they wanted?) Now that there is a program that after less than a year has nearly 90% of seniors paticipating and has an 85% approval rating among those seniors, the Democrats want to, in the words of Mrs. Pelosi, "blow it up." Who loses here-certainly not Mrs. Pelosi. The question then is do you vote for empty rhetoric, or proven results?
Go forward-go backward. Secure and prosperous America, of not. Rhetoric or results. Don't forget to vote!

AND NOW WE KINOW

2006-07-12T09:58:00.000-07:00

Robert Novak, who has been released by Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, is now telling his side of the Wilson-Plame story. http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=15988 His account, which appears online at Human Events and in print in the Washington Post, http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=15988 bears out his contention all along, namely that there was no there, there. Although he still does not divulge his primary source, that person who, in a long interview mentioned that Joe Wilson’s wife was instrumental in getting him the investigative gig, he writes that he got her name from a public source, Who’s Who in America. Joe Wilson paid to have his name and that of his wife listed in this publication. This is something else that has been known all along. And, though Novak names Carl Rove as a corroborating source as well as the public affairs person at the CIA at the time, Scooter Libby does not seem to be involved in the original affair at all, yet he’s the only one going to trial. Go figure.
About a week after Novak’s column appeared in September 2003, the Washington Post publisher took the entire editorial page to explain to his reader that the Post does not print classified material. Then the Post joined the New York Times and other Bush hating publications demanding a special prosecutor to investigate who leaked a CIA spy’s name-never mind that she was not. This is called having your cake and eating it too, or maybe just plain lying. But, the cake came back to bite when a precedent was set for jailing journalists in order to pursue a federal investigation. In the meantime, the Chris Matthews of the world, smelling blood and desperate to “get” George Bush, spittingly ratted on about the affair, sure it would get them renown as the Woodward of their time.
Millions of dollars have been and will continue to be spent on this matter and for what? The Post, along with other news sources, denied outing secret material but they have continued to do so with impunity. And then, when they are questioned, they whine. Valerie Plame is of no consequence to anyone except her husband, the out of work diplomat. After all she did provide him with a format for a book that earned them both millions of dollars. On the other hand, the NSA and money tracking operations leaks obviously have had dire consequences for us all.
Clarice Feldman writing for the American Thinker http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=5664 asks several question. The most important is, if Patrick Fitzgerald knew from the beginning who the sources were, why was Scooter Libby called to testify in the first place?
One has to wonder how far the bush-haters will go to “get” their man. Are they content to have the nation go down in flames to prove themselves correct in the belief that President Hillary will set it all right in 08? In that event, God help us all.

QUOTE OF THE DAY

2006-06-29T08:53:00.000-07:00

"The barometer for democracy is where you stand on women." Rola Dashti, candidate for the Kuwaiti Parliament. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/29/AR2006062900063.html The place of women in society and their rights therein has been a recurring theme of the Bush administration in the war on Islamic extremists. Mr. Bush has always linked the degree of women's suffrage to the establishment of democracy in the Middle East and in other areas. Though Ms. dashti has been waging her battle for suffrage since 1999, you cannot dismiss the influence on her country of that suffrage being in existence in neighboring Iraq. George Bush did that!

The New York Times Leak Update

2006-06-27T12:35:00.000-07:00

New York Times Leak Update

The Powerlineblog has published a New York Times Editorial-not an op-ed, but a company opinion from September 2001 that lays out how the Bush administration should deal with terror financing. http://powerlineblog.com/archives/014523.php Now here's some real irony for you. This is exactly what the times attacked in their outing of the program to tack terrorist finances. Maybe it's a new policy at the Times. Criticize the administration for not doing something, and then when they do it, out it as a secret program. The kokoburros at the dailykos and the rest of the left only have limited attention spans and will never think history is important.
We've also learned that the Times publicized a secret troop redeployment plan of General Casey’s. I wonder if someone on the General’s staff sold or gave that document to members of the Democrat Party, and if that is what was behind their contrived debate last week on pulling the troops out of Iraq. Are Kerry-Murtha-Levin also involved in espionage for their own political gain? If nothing else, it’s an interesting question.

FROM BUREAUCRATS TO MILLIONAIRES

2006-06-26T12:16:00.000-07:00

The Bush administration has been a real opportunity and boon to mid-level faceless federal bureaucrats, reaping millions for many. They portray themselves as whistle-blowers, write a book and rake in the money. What the media doesn’t comment on is their intermediate step of at the least being quasi-traitors to their country.
The bonanza began with Richard Clark, who wrote his book, testified before the 9/11 Commission, and is, appropriately, now teaching at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard. As my favorite vet (FV) says, Richard Clark is a bureaucrat who is mad that his superiors would not listen to his advice. Never mind that those who would not listen were in the Clinton administration. And, never mind that much of his testimony contradicted what he had written and said previously. He is still a genuine hero of the far left.
Next we have Valerie Plame and her house-husband, ex-low level state department employee, Joe Wilson. These two were not satisfied with just the book. They also wanted to be part of the “beautiful people” and so we were treated to their pictures on magazine covers. Never mind that the government has wasted millions investigating and now trying to prosecute a crime that never occurred.
For the succeeding NY-LA Times and WA Post reports we have not been told the bureaucrats names as yet. Things got a little dicier for the so-called whistlers when the President defended both the NSA surveillance programs and now the “follow the money” investigations. What with representative Peter King (R-NY) opining that both the snitches and the publisher and editor of the NY Times ought to be prosecuted and sent to jail, notoriety has become chancier. But, you can bet that as we get closer to the 08 elections we will hear from these people as well.
Today the President said when speaking of the latest flap about tracking terrorist money that, “...the disclosure is disgraceful [and] it makes it harder to win the war on terror.” For those who believe this will have no effect on the prosecution of the war, I suggest you recall the allegation that the U.S has employed secret prisons in Europe. Two Washington Post writers won Pulitzers for that reporting and it spurred an investigation by the European Council, the EU’s civil rights organization. The head investigator, Dick Marty, has “acknowledged he lacked proof,” but the investigation and the allegations have gone on. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/07/AR2006060700505.html In fact Mr. Marty said, “Even if proof, in the classical meaning of the term, is not as yet available...elements indicate that [they] did exist.” Apparently, he is still looking for his blue dress.
The significance of this is investigation is just that the new revelations concerning the money trail will spur on all the other little Martys in Europe and the far left, and the Democrats in this country to demand even more investigations. You can bet that the anti-Bush Marty- Murtha-Feingold cabal will be calling for a cease and desist of international money trailing and the pressure from Europe will increase exponentially. (As a side-light: Feingold wants to run for President-how can you trust someone who wants to cede all Presidential power to the Senate and not use all available tools to protect the country.)
I do not believe that the once venerable NY Times is on the side of America. Along with the Post et al who are so anxious to have their friends in control of the US Congress and into the White House in 08, they have apparently made a conscious decision that anything goes until that objective is met. Perhaps they believe they can fix it later. But then, much of the Democrat Party led by Howard Dean and “thedailyKos” do not believe we are in any kind of conflict, so for them no harm, no foul.
If your objective is to insure that this country gets hit with another terrorist attack, you might consider forcing the government to waste precious time and money investigation themselves. That would be deliberate treason. My guess is the bureaucrats can’t resist the money and fame that otherwise would be totally out of their karma. As for the news media publishing these programs, the Pulitzer and getting their friends elected is more important than winning the war.

Additional Murtha Sources

2006-06-22T13:19:00.000-07:00

Congressman Murtha's opponent in 2006 is Diana Irey. Mrs. Irey maintains she is getting support from active duty military who are upset with Murtha's stand on the war in Irag. Go to http://www.irey.com There is also an informative article in the Washington Times about Murtha. http://www.washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20060620-083859-8753r.htm

"Murtha's Second Act"

2006-06-22T11:41:00.000-07:00

Robert Novak writes in today’s Washington Post that Pennsylvania Representative John Murtha is experiencing a political second act, which his fellow Democrats find “...disturbing.” His appearance last weekend with Tim Russert is particularly upsetting for Murtha’s party considering his suggestion that U.S. troops be re-deployed to Okinawa. Murtha said, “...when I say Okinawa, I, I’m saying troops in Okinawa. When I say a timely response, you know, our fighters can fly from Okinawa very quickly. And-and-when they don’t know we’re coming.” Never mind that it is unclear whether he is talking about ground troops or the Air Force or both, and never mind that we are now re-deploying troops out of Okinawa at the insistence of the Okinawans and also because it makes strategic sense. A DOD spokesman said, “...it would take ‘under a month’ to send a 4,500-man Marine Expeditionary Force 6,000 nautical miles from Okinawa to Bahrain and then 600 more miles to Baghdad.” So much for quickly and quietly. Mr. Murtha is the one making no sense.
Mr. Novak went on to write that he, “... had forgotten that federal persecutors designated him {Murtha} an unindicted co-conspirator in the Abscam investigation 26 years ago.” Unlike the other seven congressmen who were caught taking bribes on film, were prosecuted and went to jail, Mr. Murtha did not take money from the fake Sheik in the FBI sting. He did indicate an interest in doing so and then bragged about his influence in the U.S. House. So, being a former Marine and a media designated war hero does not automatically make you an honest person. Former ace pilot in Vietnam, Randy “Duke “ Cunningham has obviously reminded us of that fact.
The first time I heard of John Murtha was while living on the Philadelphia Naval Shipyard (PNS) in the early 1990’s. In an effort to keep the shipyard off the Base Re-alignment and Closure list (BRAC), the U.S. Congress passed a law requiring the air craft carrier John F. Kennedy to Philadelphia for a three year overhaul. The JFK was built in the 60’s at the Norfolk Naval Base and had never been serviced anywhere else.
Some background is in order. PNS was built during the Civil War and was at that time a real deterrent from attack as even today it takes eight hours to get up the Delaware River from the coast. However, the shipyard was obsolete at least by the post WWII era, and the last ship was built there and launched in 1972. From that time onward, the U.S. Navy put as little as absolutely necessary into the facility hoping to close it down as it was nothing but a money pit without actually contributing to the goal of national security. By the early 90’s much of the place was in an advance state of decay with few people actually posted there. But, of interest to politicians of the area, it did employ a couple thousand union workers. Ironically, most of these people lived in New Jersey. Hence, the desire to keep it open!
I first learned the JFK was going to Philly when I was asked if I would like to ride up on her from Norfolk. So, full disclosure, I benefited from this deployment in that the ride on the JFK was great fun for me. As unused to politics as I was at the time, even I understood this was a giant waste of the taxpayers’ money. Just getting the ship up the Atlantic Coast and then up the Delaware River cost a fortune as the entire river had to be dredged to accommodate the huge ship. Even after the trip began, the Captain was not positive the JFK would clear the bridges.
My real distress was for the sailors and their families who were ordered to Philadelphia. At the time I volunteered at Navy Relief, an organization that sailors can go to when they have an emergency or are in financial trouble. And, boy, were they in trouble. There was no place to house the single sailors on the base so they were put in sleazy hotels at the airport, far from anything to do. I can remember some of the young men coming in nearly in tears because they could not afford to have their cars with them as the insurance often cost more per year than they had paid for the thing in the first place. So, in effect, they were stranded.
The young couples were in particular financial distress. Many were having to rent on the local economy and could not make ends meet. The Navy put a few nurses who worked at the base clinic in some hastily repaired apartments. I remember one young woman who also came in for help in tears. The sewer had backed up into her living room destroying most of everything she owned. She said to me, “I did not sign up for this.”
I asked the base commander, “Whose idea was this?’
He said, “Congressman John Murtha.”
I said, “Is he from Philadelphia?”
He said, “No, somewhere west of here.”
I said, “So what’s his interest in his place?”
He said, “Union workers and campaign contributions.”
Every time I hear that Murtha cannot be questioned or doubted because he is a real war hero, my blood pressure goes up. (Ann Coulter where are you?) And, every time I hear that he is a staunch defender of the military and of military personnel, I start foaming at the mouth. I know for sure that neither of these assertions is true. It is my opinion, that Murtha likes the military as a union job bank, but one is hard put to find an instance where he believes it should be used for national security.
The fact of his involvement in Abscam fits in perfectly with my opinion of Mr. Murtha. Novak writes that not getting indicted outright “...salvaged [Murtha’s] political career, but limited his public exposure...He speaks for attribution to few national or local reporters, hardly ever appears on television and rarely speaks in the House chamber” He should go back to that practice.

It's The Individual-Stupid!

2006-06-16T08:37:00.000-07:00

Kelsey Grammer is thinking of running for political office. He told a TV interviewer maybe he’ll try for the U.S. House of Representatives. When asked why he is a Republican he answered, “I believe the individual is sacred.” And that’s it, isn’t it? That is one of the main differences between Republicans and Democrats. To be a Democrat your primary identification must be as one of their approved groups. Women are great, but only some women. Lesbians are approved, but then that is all they can be. Women who stay at home to raise their kids are not approved. Democrats do not do the cookie baking stand by your man Tammy Wynette thing and whoever does has the same place in society as do women in, say, Saudi Arabia-that is none.
Organizationally it is easier to deal with and respond to people in groups: the larger the better. But, that is a socialist mentality and it is not only a poor way to organize a society, it is also the polar opposite of individual liberty. In fact it makes the concept of a pursuit of happiness for the masses irrelevant as it works against giving the most opportunity to the greatest possible number of citizens. For decades American Blacks have voted on the Democrat plantation. This has given a very few tremendous wealth and prestige, but has done almost nothing for poor blacks, whether living in an urban ghetto or in the rural south. As noted in an earlier post, blacks who are Democrats are good; blacks who are Republicans are at best Uncle Toms. Of all the groups Democrats recognize, those who receive the least tolerance for individuality and independent thinking are black-Americans.
The Washington Post Outlook section on June 11 ran an entire section titled “A Step by Step Guide for Democrats: How to reconnect with Voters and Realize Your Dreams of Victory.” (Bias? Nah.) http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/09/AR2006060901977.html In none of the six articles or the accompanying numerous quotes was the word individual or the concept of individuality mentioned. Responsibility was mentioned once in connection with Bill Clinton (now there’s an oxymoron for you), but you cannot endorse responsibility as a viable precept without a concept of individuality. It is individuals who must be responsible in order to build responsible and responsive institutions and societies.
On the other hand, there were not any policy prescriptions either. There was much looking for someone outside their ranks to blame. Twenty years ago it was Ronald Reagan, now, of course, it is George W. Bush. Minority leader, Nancy Pelosi, said on TV that the party delayed its planned presentation of the “Democrat New Direction for America,” their version of the Gingrich “Contract with America,” out of “...respect for President Bush and the troops.” In other words, the President went to Iraq and stepped on their news cycle. The Democrat search for a convenient bogeyman to blame for their inability to win elections is probably the only time they think in terms of the value of an individual.
There was much fussing about Iraq. Those on the far left, who are now in virtual control of the party, are very angry at all those who voted for the war, but they save their special enmity for those who voted affirmatively and now say it was a mistake. Enter John Kerry and Peter Beinart of The New Republic, whose basic message now regarding the war is “Nevermind!” Beinart in “Don’t be a Control Freak: Ask for Help” http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2006/06/09/AR2006060901999.tml posits that the Democrat party go back to emphasizing international cooperation and issues, such as “global warming or Guantanamo Bay.” He praises Bill Clinton for nudging the U.S. into action in the Balkans-never mind the man campaigned on intervening in 1992, but despite repeated urging did not act for four years. At the same time he dismisses “coalitions of the willing” where individual nations decide to join together for a specific cause. Beinart opts for strengthening, as in giving more money to, various international organizations. Apparently we are not giving enough of our tax dollars to the United Nations to either steal it or to pay peacekeeping soldiers to rape seven year olds.
Al From and Bruce Reed advocate a return to a centrist position. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/09/AR2006060902006.html They dub this “Clintonism” and insist it “...has never been about mushy compromise and electoral expedience.” Yet without a do-nothing Clinton White House there would have been no need for a Bush presidency. To bolster their idea, they give the Clintons credit for welfare reform and a balanced budget, which are, as we all know, Republican precepts. David Sirota, on the other hand, defines the center as being somewhere in San Francisco,http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/09/AR2006060902000.html emphasizing the Bob Shrum “people vs. the powerful” and saying nothing about the individual or the liberty of same. According to Michael Grunwald, “It makes sense to be skeptical of Shrum’s influence in the Democratic Party: he has an unblemished record of advising failed presidential candidates and making buckets of money doing so...” http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/09/AR2006060901977.html.
In “Always the Party of what Went Wronghttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/09/AR2006060902001.html The Post’s Dan Balz comments on the Democrat Party’s collective psychosis. They “...are experienced at assembling learned conferences to debate their future (while spending most of their time looking longingly at their past.)” In the last year alone they have had at least three national meetings to decide what they collectively believe, giving the distinct impression that their individual members are not allowed to have their own individual thoughts, but must hew to the party line. Not only that, but there is no single unifying theme for the members of the Democrat Party to rally around such as the Republicans have in individual liberty. “These are dark days for the Republican Party,” writes Grunwald who goes on to explain the schisms he sees in the GOP. But his analysis fails because he either refuses to see or simply cannot get beyond his own biases to see the fact that all those so-called schisms do unite around that one potent idea of individual liberty. Balz sums up by opining that “If...the Democrats fall short on Nov. 7 ...the first panel will convene at 9 a.m. on Nov. 8 at the Press Club. Live on C-SPAN. The topic: ‘Paradise Lost: How the GOP’s Midterm Victories Demonstrate the Enduring Power of the Democratic Message.” As a lover of the ironic and a C-PAN junkie, I am for sure looking forward to that program.
David Sirota, expanding on the Shrum theory does the usual free trade corporation and capitalism bashing. To dismiss this theory one needs only to look at those countries where capitalism, with individuals making individual choices, reigns and compare them with countries where that is not the case. Are people better off in the Sudan or in the USA? Adam Smith wrote in 1776 in The Wealth of Nations “Every individual necessarily labors to render the annual revenue of the society as great as he can. He generally indeed neither intends to promote the public interest, nor knows how much he is promoting it...By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it. I have never known much good done by those who affected to trade for the public good.”
This is all not to say that rugged individualism is the end all and be all of society. But, it is an idea that is part of the American psyche and that always has and hopefully always will appeal to American voters. When Democrats talk of inclusiveness and civil rights, they are talking about interest groups, not individuals, and specifically groups with lots of money for campaign donations.
As the Democrats ponder James Carville’s advice “...to moderate or at least play down their support for abortion, gay rights and gun control...” they might want to look at voters as individuals with individual issues. Now that I think of it they have gone at least part way to doing that by engineering the nomination of a Republican-James Webb- to compete with a Republican-George Allen-in the Virginia Senate race. We can judge real progress for the Democrats when they nominate a Republican to compete against a traditional Democrat.

FLAG DAY June 14

2006-06-06T22:09:00.000-07:00

Each year on June 14, we celebrate the birthday of the Stars and Stripes, which came into being on June 14, 1777. At that time, the Second Continental Congress authorized a new flag to symbolize the new Nation, the United States of America.
The Stars and Stripes first flew in a Flag Day celebration in Hartford, Connecticut in 1861, during the first summer of the Civil War. The first national observance of Flag Day occurred June 14, 1877, the centennial of the original flag resolution.
By the mid 1890’s the observance of Flag Day on June 14 was a popular event. Mayors and governors began to issue proclamations in their jurisdictions to celebrate this event.
In the years to follow, public sentiment for a national Flag Day observance greatly intensified. Numerous patriotic societies and veterans groups identified with the Flag Day movement. Since their main objective was to stimulate patriotism among the young, schools were the first to become involved in flag activities.
In 1916 President Woodrow Wilson issued a proclamation calling for a nationwide observance of Flag Day on June 14. It was not until 1949 that Congress made this day a permanent observance by resolving “That the 14th day of June of each year is hereby designated as Flag Day…” The measure was signed into law by President Harry Truman.
Although Flag Day is not celebrated as a Federal holiday, Americans everywhere continue to honor the history and heritage it represents.

Guest Lecturer

2006-05-25T07:10:00.000-07:00

THE FUTURE OF REPUBLICAN LEADERSHIP

We are stuck in a period of ordinary politics when we need to be transformed into a period of extraordinary politics and bold leadership to address the important issues of the day, including national issues such as global terrorism and energy independence to local issues such as traffic congestion. At the state and national levels we have bipartisan paralysis; condescending Democrats/liberals and sanctimonious Republicans/conservatives content to call each other names and fix blame but not willing to come together to solve problems. The paralysis benefits the Democrats because the Republicans are the majority party. In Virginia, the Republican led House and Senate can’t seem to work with each other. Republicans are bogged down on taxes, marriage and guns. While these issues play well with the Republican base, they turn off the vast majority of non-movement conservatives. Republican ascendance to power in Virginia has ebbed. The quality of our stewardship of the State and national governments is being questioned. We have little influence at the local level in Fairfax.

In Fairfax, Republicans are out of sync with the needs, wants and moods of the majority of voters. We received 38%.of the vote last November. As the party activists become more conservative and our candidates become more ideologically rigid, moderate Republican and independent voters either stay home or vote Democrat. It is also argued that conservative voters stay home because they are disillusioned Our vote totals and our volunteer numbers are declining rapidly. Last year, the most conservative Republican candidates were defeated by the largest margins. Our statewide candidates lost all magisterial districts. In Braddock District, Kilgore lost all precincts, Bolling won one precinct and McDonnell won three precincts. Our Delegate candidates lost all precincts except one.

Many of our leaders ignore these facts. It has been said that the problem with ideology is that it “edits reality and paralyzes thought”. Our conservative ideologues argue that we lost because our candidates were not conservative enough or they blame the down ticket losses on Kilgore and President Bush. Their solution is to get rid of the RINOs—Republicans with whom they don’t agree. Some extreme ideologues have taken to attacking Republican elected officials like Senator Devolites –Davis and others in the Press. These individuals give all Republicans a bad name. They should be repudiated! To those who hold such views, I say it is time to touch base with reality. The reality that counts is that which is in the minds of the voters. Those who justify their intransigence on the basis of their strict adherence to “conservative principles” need to realize that political success is the result of understanding what the voters need/want and finding ways to provide it to them. Purging the party of non-true-believers, staying home or forming another political party is a recipe for failure.

Conservatives assume that the Republican Party is conservative. But the Party of Lincoln has stood for many things at different times; from abolition of slavery to environmentalism under Teddy Roosevelt and anti-communism. The Republican Party and conservatism must now be self-corrected by prudence, reality and the need to relate better to the voters. Our issues need reframing and our candidates need to be of higher quality. The voters told us we have image, message, candidate and organization problems.

For our government and political parties to work, a stable consensus is required, not power and domination by an ideological elite. Our party must produce candidates who can gain broad based support from an increasingly diverse electorate. These candidates must be articulate and offer real solutions to our priority problems. We can’t continue to place ideology over competence and ignore the views of the majority of the voters. The only conclusion that should be drawn from our recent experience is that moderate and more extreme Republicans and conservatives need each other and that which divides them needs to be resolved or at least the issue positions that are taken need to be reframed to accommodate a much broader group of supporters. If the party continues to move to the right in a battle for intra-party control and power, it will only continue to lose elections and the ability to influence public policy. Our leverage is in the future not the past. The party with a strong vision for the future and sound ideas will form a majority and hold it until they lose control of that vision and stop offering solid problem-solving ideas. I believe that Republicans are in danger of losing their vision, their ideas and their control.

Larry Krakover

Culture of Corruption

2006-05-24T12:01:00.000-07:00

Thank you Mrs. “face-lift” of America Peolsi for that sound bite that aptly describes the mess at Fannie Mae, for which that organization will pay a record fine of $400 million. According to a Washington Post article, “Examining Fannie Mae” http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/23/AR2006052301751.html, executives at the shareholder owned, but quasi government operation that was set up to handle mortgages and facilitate the American housing industry “...allegedly rearranged the math,...even after accounting problems were found” to continue paying themselves the big bonuses and stock options previous managers had gotten. Despite a warning from then Fed Chief Alan Greenspan, who warned in testimony before Congress that “a sudden meltdown...could bring financial markets [down] with it,” and a multi-year haranguing by the Wall Street Journal, the top executives used their political clout, which the Post calls “one of the most sophisticated political machines” to “fend off closer regulation.”
A graph in the article titled ‘An Uncanny Coincidence’ shows that “...Fannie Mae’s reported earnings per share closely tracked the targets set for executives to receive maximum bonus payouts.” Another graph displays who got what. The teeny tiny black bit at the bottom represents their base salary—the remainder of the bar their options and bonuses. The biggest slice went to Franklin D, Raines, Chairman, chief executive officer and vice chair from 1998-2004, when he was forced to resign as the investigation proceeded, despite his best efforts to squash it. It looks as though his base salary was a couple hundred thousand, but the total payoff amounted to $24.2 million. Investigators said, “...those bonuses played a key role in the $10.6 billion accounting scandal...”
So just who are these people and how did they manage this three year rip-off? First the how. James A. Johnson, the former CEO and former aide to Walter Mondale, set up satellite offices throughout the country in order to be closer to where their business was being done. This arrangement could have been modeled after the way the Defense Department handles their big military contracts. In order to insure that they will continue, sub-contracts are let in every congressional district giving every national politician a stake in the success of the program. These satellite offices also served two other functions. They were early warning systems of possible criticism and they were effective as lobbying tools. “When [they] got wind in late 1998 about an idea among some Clinton staff members to require the company to pay to register its securities,” the company mobilized local officials who deluged the White House with protest calls. The matter was dropped. Mr. Johnson left the organization in 1999. The alleged illegal activity apparently took place after his departure and he is not accused of being involved.
Now, most importantly, the who. Mr. Johnson hired several people from the Reagan administration to handle publicity and lobbying. Robert Zoellick was executive vice president for affordable housing and left in 1997. Duane Duncan, who is currently the director of government and industry relations, was chief of staff to Republican Representative Richard Baker of Louisiana. According to the Post, Rep. Baker is Fannie Mae’s chief critic in the House. Can you say inside information?
Franklin D. Raines worked in the Carter administration and was the director of the Office of Management and Budget in the Clinton administration. That’s right-he handled the nation’s budget. YIKES!
Jamie Gorelick, vice chair for operations resigned in 2003. Now here’s a familiar name. When Ms Gorelick was the Inspector General at DOD she was, in the words of my Favorite Veteran (FV), universally hated. He said, “She didn’t listen.” From there she went to the number two position at Justice, where her most famous accomplishment was authoring the rule forbidding contact between intelligence gathering operations and FBI investigations. This turned out to be one of the main obstacles to dot connecting leading up to 9/11. She wasn’t listening to warnings regarding terrorism. She next appeared on the 9/11 Commission, part of whose job was to protect Ms. Gorelick from mean ole Attorney General John Ashcroft, who testified about that rule and its deleterious affects on national security. Now she, along with other Fannie Mae officers are going to be required to give back some of their ill-gotten bonus gains. Apparently, she wasn’t listening there either.
Others were profiled in the Post, but one of the more interesting is Walter Hubbell, who is currently a Senior Business analyst. He is a former intern in the Clinton administration, and wonderfully, the son of ex-con, ex Clinton Attorney General Web Hubbell.
The same edition of the Post has an article about the Enron case. Certainly if Ken Lay goes to jail, then so should the folks who were in on this scam. You can feel sympathy for people who invested and lost all their money with Enron, but at bottom the decision to do so was theirs. If Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, or their sister Sallie were to fail, the U.S. tax payer would be on the hook. We who had no responsibility for the mess would have no recourse but to pay. It would be a debacle that would make the savings and loan thing in the late eighties look like child’s play.
I cannot say I am surprised by all this. Two things I learned traveling around the world substitute teaching was that the character of an organization comes from the top, and the top normally hires like-minded personnel. I knew the day I walked into one school and the Principal and the Vice Principal were actually having a fistfight in the office, I was in for a bad day. Similarly, the nation was warned during the ’92 campaign, what with bimbo-alerts and promises of universal health care while failing to mention that federal taxes would have to be doubled. But, we collectively decided to take a vacation from history and hire a group of people who believed and still believe that the ends justify the means; that anything goes to stay in power. The ends at Fannie Mae wasn’t mortgage facilitation it was big bucks for the big guys. We should all be thankful to those who persisted in looking into this before those Clintonista means did us all in ---again. And oh yes, thanks again to Ms Pelosi who was so close to the Clinton administration we have to believe she knows what she’s talking about.

To Blog Or Not To Blog

2006-05-21T09:54:00.000-07:00

That is the question! Some dismiss the whole trend as irrelevant to themselves and to modern politics. I am here to say these people are wrong. I am certainly not posing myself as an expert. As many of you know I got into this serendipitously, and because of that fact, my arguments have not always been that cogent. But, last night, while trolling through C-Span, I found the answer and an exposition of the power of blogs.
Book TV is at a book fair and interviewing various publishers and authors. I caught the interview with Markos Moulitsas Zuniga, the originator in May 2002 of http://www.dailykos.com/ and the author of a new book Crashing the Gate: Netroots, Grassroots and the Rise of People Powered Politics. This blog gets between 600,000 and one million hits per day (it is even rated by Nielsen) and therefore, is a virtual community of like-minded political junkies. Some of these junkies, importantly without the participation of Mr. Zuniga, have organized a convention in Las Vegas this June to which they have invited various Democrat politicians. The invitees are going to attend and so are 1,500 readers of the Daily Kos. In effect, these people, whose connection began on a blog, have set up a political convention, outside the establishment. When asked if the Kos intends to affect the selection process or let it play out then influence the issues discussed, Mr. Zuniga replied, “the selection.” He will be the keynote speaker. Other speakers will include Virginia’s ex-governor, Mark Warner; retired and ex-Presidential candidate, Wesley Clark; Iowa governor, Tom Vilsak; and DNC Chairman, Howard Dean.
The Kos community, along with http://www.moveon.org/ and other blogs, are changing the face of politics in America. These groups are fed up with Washington Democrats, who they see as ineffective and wrong on the issues. Hillary Clinton is in this group-they do not like her (OK, we agree on something!). Their hero is Howard Dean, who jump started this movement in the 2004 Democrat primaries with his ability to tap the internet for volunteers and money and who is creating a huge controversy within his party. “Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean and the leader of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (Rahm Emmanuel) have clashed angrily in recent days in a dispute about how the party should spend its money in advance of this fall's midterm elections,” according to an article in the Washington Post.http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/10/AR2006051001927.html “...Dean and many state party chairmen...believe that the party needs to be rebuilt from the ground up...Dean has maintained that the party cannot strengthen itself over the long haul unless it competes everywhere.” The article was about an apparently violent and expletive deleted argument between Mr. Dean and Mr. Emmanuel over how to spend party funds. Mr. Emmanuel wants the money now to fund a Democrat take-over of the House of Representatives. Mr. Dean is looking toward the future. In subverting the entire Democrat Party establishment, Mr. Dean has probably taken the right road. It would be foolish of Republicans to believe that this does not affect them, as at the least, it will make the elephant look like a dinosaur to tomorrow’s voters.
The statement made by Mr. Zuniga during the interview that caught my attention had to do with how he says he became a Democrat. He says he spent three years in the Army during Desert Storm and was impressed with the communal structure of that organization that is designed to meet a common goal. He thinks all society should operate like this. This is not only antithetical to conservative values; it is really subversive for a free, democratic and capitalist society. After all, a military is dealing daily with issues of life and death, security and intelligence. In addition, every wholly socialist society has either failed outright, or at a minimum, has left the majority of its citizens behind. Mr. Zuniga says he is for opportunity and against the selfish conservative and capitalistic idea of individualism. Yet, the destruction of self-interest in socialist societies has always limited opportunities to the elite and never afforded it to the masses. Cuba may have universal health care (unless of course you are of African descent), but masses of Cubans have no job opportunities and cannot even afford new shoes. The Danny Glovers and the Harry Belafontes of this world, who have plenty of resources and who are not among the left-behind, find these ideas irresistible.
For a dose of some opposition thinking you can go to http://www.instapundit.com/, a blog begun by Glenn Reynolds in 2001. Unlike the daily Kos, Instapundit is not politically partisan, but it does espouse more conservative, often libertarian views. Mr. Reynolds has also written a book, Media, An Army of Davids: How Markets and Technology Empower Ordinary People to Beat Big Media, Big Government and Other Goliaths. This is more in tune with American society For a history of blogs you can go to http://www.law.yale.edu/outside/pdf/Public_Affairs/ylr50-2/Reynolds.pdf. In addition there is http://http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/, and those guys in jamies who brought down the mightly Dan Rather. It is a good idea to get some idea of how these blog creatures work in order to maximize their effectiveness for a specific purpose and of course it is always a good idea to know what the opposition is saying. Several printed publications, such as National Review have blogs, but again they are not conducting partisan grassroots operations, and this is what I am looking for and what the GOP needs.

.

My apologies with a Poem

2006-05-17T09:11:00.000-07:00

The editor of this blog had a mishap last week, namely a broken right leg. Unfortunately, some things that should have gotten done did not, and I apologise. The following is a thoughtful poem printed in today's Wall Stereet Journal by Ray Bradbury, author of Fahrenheit 451 among other books. America
By Ray Bradbury
We are the dream that other people dream.
The land where other people land
When late at night
They think on flight
And, flying here arrive
Where we fools dumbly thrive ourselves.

Refuse to see
We be what all the world would like to be.
Because we hive within this scheme
The obvious dream is blind to us.
We do not mind the miracle we are,
So stop our mouths with curses.
While all the world rehearses
Coming here to stay.
We busily make plans to go away.

How dumb! newcomers cry, arrived from Chad.
You’re mad! Iraqis shout,
We’d sell our souls if we could be you.
How come you cannot see the way we see you?
You tread a freedom forest as you please.
But, damn! You miss the forest for the trees.
Ten thousand wanderers a week
Engulf your shore,
You wonder what their shouting’s for,
And why so glad?

Run warm those souls: America is bad?
Sit down, stare in their faces, see!
You be the hoped-for thing a hopeless world would be.
In tides of immigrants that this year flow
You still remain the beckoning hearth they’d know.
In midnight beds with blueprint, plan and scheme
You are the dream that other people dream.

Black is Beautiful

2006-05-10T09:41:00.000-07:00

For the first time in history three black Americans are running for state wide office. If that isn’t enough, they’re all Republicans. This is so big even the Washington Post noted it and placed it on the front page. Ken Blackwell, current Ohio Secretary of State is running for Governor; Maryland’s Lieutenant Governor Michael Steele is running to fill a vacant Senate seat; and Pittsburgh Steeler great Lynn Swann is running for Governor of Pennsylvania. “Together, they embody a new chapter in the Republican Party’s often-failed efforts to appeal to African Americans, a strategy shaped by RNC Chairman Ken Mehlman,” according to a Post article titled “The Year of the Black Republican?"

Mehlman says, “We’ve gone from a model of outreach to a model of inclusion...Outreach is a top-down approach. Inclusion says, ‘Let’s find some really good people and encourage them to run for office’.”

Of course the Post points out their individual failings: Swann has no experience, Blackwell is-horrors-both a fiscal and a social conservative, and Steele is running in a state with a 28% black vote that is not friendly to Republicans. I thought the point of the civil rights movement was to get blacks a seat at the table. One of Steele’s campaign themes is to go that goal one better. He says blacks have gotten that seat at the lunch counter; he wants them to own the restaurant. Apparently liberals do not believe that message will resonate in Maryland.
Steele has already been attacked verbally, physically, and electronically. One of the staffers for the Democrat Senate Committee headed up by New York Senator Chuck Shumer hacked into Lt. Governor Steele’s financial records by stealing his identity. The said staffer was given community service for that felony. In addition he’s been called names we all thought had been banned from the English language and had oreo cookies thrown at him. All of this is going to make this year’s elections very interesting to watch. Will the party that boasts it is the party for minority parity going to resort to the very tactics it has falsely accused Republicans of using for the last 60 years, or will they actually engage on the issues. Considering their tactics so far, it doesn’t look promising.
Both Ken Blackwell and Lynn Swann are running on traditional Republican themes of lower taxes, less government inference in everyday life and both are doing so in states with slowed or at least slowing economies. Admittedly, it is the Republicans who have had charge of Ohio, which makes Mr. Blackwell’s job that much more difficult.
My Favorite Political Scientist (FSP), who lives in Philadelphia, says the Democrat incumbent, Ed Rendell, will win reelection even if he doesn’t win. FSP has some experience with Pennsylvania Democrat Party operations. In the 2004 elections he complained that several large union men who were inside the poll wearing Kerry stickers, handing out Kerry literature, and asking people after they voted for whom they had cast their ballots were breaking the law. One said to FPS, “How’d you like to have your face rearranged?” FPS replied “Make my day,” and called the police. (Despite his honored degree in Political Science from Penn sometimes FPS isn’t that smart) This kind of behavior combined with polls located in private homes, a Rendell canvassing of the state prison system for votes and out right ballot stuffing, will make it very difficult to pry the levers of power from the Democrat.
Nevertheless, it is a good thing the Republican Party has discovered that Black is Beautiful and this brings us to the “I’m not running, I want to be the football commissioner” Condoleezza Rice. There was a draft Condi movement at the Republican conference held earlier this year in Tennessee. There’s a web site dedicated to her candidacy (http://www.rice2008.com/). And, there’s the Dick Morris book Condi vs Hillary in which he posits that Condi is the only Republican candidate who can stop Hillary, a highly preferable outcome for 08. And, after all, she is Black and she is Beautiful.

Hoodwinked

2006-05-08T08:38:00.000-07:00

My favorite political scientist (FPS) believes the public is being hoodwinked on the immigration issue--by both sides. He fears that whatever solution comes out of this debate it will be detrimental to the future of this country because each side is conveniently sidestepping some critical element in order to make their argument more emotionally pleasing. And make no mistake, emotions, which can never settle a dispute with any clarity, are the dominant feature of this argument.
The media theme has been immigration is a GOP problem that is splitting the party. But, if my Democrat neighbors and friends are any indication of the grass roots of that party, the media has either missed the story or are deliberately not commenting on the fact that many Democrats are as rabidly against illegal immigration as anyone in the Republican Party. The May 1st declaration of "Rights" at the immigration protest rallies (held not coincidentally on the traditional Communist day of celebration), prompted one of my friends to say, spittingly, "They have no rights!" Another friend was really offended by the "today we march, tomorrow we vote," even though it is her fearless leader, Howard Dean http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060505/NEWS02/605050476&SearchID=73243946759897 who is challenging laws requiring voter ID cards that prove citizenship eligibility in Georgia and Indiana. This person also said something very interesting. She figures she should be on the "liberal" side of the issue, though she admitted she has no idea what that is, because as a card carrying Bush hater she should be opposed to whatever he advocates. However, she simply cannot stand the thought of the country being overrun by voting illegals, which puts her right in sync with the KKK marching in Georgia for the same reason.
The one area of some agreement is controlling the border. FPS, with many on the right, believes we should build a wall: close down the southern border as much as possible. Immigrant advocates will pay lip service to this idea until they are asked to specify what they mean, which is usually not doing anything differently than is done now. The main argument for this procedure is that if we have 20 million now, surely in another decade we’ll have twice that number. What those on the right who want every illegal deported ignore is that this is not going to happen. America is not going to watch a nightly news parade of young U.S. born children being deported to someplace they’ve never been and where they do not even speak the language; or having these same children dumped on the social welfare system when their parents are deported.
Many on the right also ignore the demographic situation playing out here and throughout the West, where a declining birth rate smacks right up against a rapidly rising retirement rate that is going to demand more resources than will possibly be available. Though the U.S. has less of a problem than Europe because we have a higher birth rate, we are still very sure we do not want a French economy with nearly 30% unemployment in some sectors-not to mention all those burning cars. Above all we cannot allow this argument to turn into a fight against all immigration. Some argue that we should increase the number of H1B visas for high tech and highly educated people, because importing illiteracy and poverty will only exacerbate our demographic problem.

Howard Dean, so impressed with the “protests,” says his party will ride this issue into the impeachment of Bush and to the White House in 08 if not before. But, there are some things he’s just not taking into consideration. First, assimilation. This is what has made America successful, and as we watch the ethnic unrest throughout Europe, we understand this is what Europeans have not learned to do. Newt Gingrich takes this up in his latest book Winning the Future, arguing that to qualify for citizenship every person must learn enough English to pass a test on American history and values.
The question about many of the illegals is, do they want to assimilate! On the front page of the Post today, “Vibrant Village Quieted as Salvadorans Go North”http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?node=admin/registration/manage&destination=password&nextstep=update tell s the story of one village from which most working age people have immigrated to the U.S. These immigrants support those left by sending a portion of their wages home. A significant part of the GNP of Mexico, over 20 billion dollars annually, is derived from this same source. Whereas earlier waves of immigrants to this country came to become Americans, that is a doubtful proposition with those here today. Even if individuals would protest this, they are drowned out by those on the far left who believe that the southwestern part of this country is a place called Aslan: a place that rightly belongs to Mexico and that needs to be repatriated. Just last week students at Montibello High School near Whittier California flew the Mexican flag on top of an upside down U.S. flag prompting massive protest on the internet. This behavior is encouraged by the leftists in Mexico, which will probably dominate the government after elections there this summer.
In this debate neither side listens to the other and instead of looking for solutions, spends all the time pointing fingers at the opposition. FPS believes building a wall is just the beginning. He agrees no one should have the privilege of citizenship without speaking the language and having an understanding of our history and form of government. He also agrees there should be a penalty for having broken the law by entering the country illegally in the form of a $5,000 fine. Now this is where FPS gets controversial. He thinks we should pull investment out of Europe and put it into infrastructure and business in Central and South America as our natural allies and business partners.
Though many current immigrants may not want to assimilate, for the most part their aims are peaceful-they’re not here to blow things up, but rather to earn a decent living for themselves and their families. One of the great ironies of this whole debate is what is happening in New Orleans. While Jessie Jackson, Al Sharpton, NBC’s Brian Williams, and the local politicians obsess about the poor blacks from the lower ninth ward who are not moving back to that hell-hole that provided them with no education, no opportunity, and no dignity (and why should they?), the people cleaning up there are immigrants from all over this country who piled into car pools and made their way to the disaster area in order to find work. These people echo one of the lines from the movie United 93. “No one is going to help us. We’ve got to do it ourselves.” That’s about as American as it gets.
That this issue is complicated goes without saying. The sad thing is that those who are genuinely looking not only for just answers, but for solutions that will spell progress for America in the future are taking this biggest hit. Number one is the President. He has been talking about this issue since 1995 and he has experience dealing with it both as the Texas Governor and in his present capacity. Both FPS and I agree with most of Mr. Bush’s proposals, but as long as we have demagogues involved in the discussion such as Howard Dean, Hugo Chaves (who funded parts of the protests), and the KKK there’s little hope of that. In the meantime, we may just be hoodwinking ourselves.

Irony Unbound

2006-05-01T12:59:00.000-07:00

The supreme irony wrapped up in the demonstrations last weekend held to compel U.S. intervention in Sudan and the May Day celebrations hoping to compel amnesty and citizenship for millions of Mexicans is almost too much to bear. Though the Washington Post in an article titled "Divisions Cast Aside in Cry for Darfur" maintains that the 10,000 who marched in Washington cut across party, ethnic and ideological lines, nevertheless, the organizers and many of the speakers were fierce and virulent Democrat opponents of President Bush and this administration. I happened to tune in when House minority leader, Nancy Pelosi was speaking. Here's a woman who not only wants to impeach the commander in chief during a war, but wants the U.S. to get out of Iraq ASAP, apparently, in order to have troops available to invade Sudan. And yet, it was the Bush team that negotiated a cease fire when the African Christians were the targets. Now we have Muslims slaughtering Muslims abetted by the Chinese who desperately need Sudanese oil. In an op. ed. in the Post on Sunday Robert Kagan of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace titled “League of Dictators?” made the case that Iran and Sudan are in some measure extensions of the 20th century conflict between free people and dictators. In that sense, just like the U.S. intervention in Vietnam, any action in Sudan is taking on China by proxy. I don't recall this nuance being discussed or even mentioned at the rally, but it is for sure a complicating factor. And, any intervention would surely invite some kind of reaction beyond Sudan. In addition, I cannot recall Ms Pelosi or any of her comrades having the same sympathy for those buried in the mass graves in Iraq. Do these people have some sort of secret criteria for sympathy and compassion that the rest of us just do not understand. Fast forward to Monday and many of the same people are marching or supporting the march of people who are in this country illegally. Between the Mexican flags and derogatory signs of the first marches, the rewriting of the National Anthem, the protests by Mexican unionists in Mexico City in support of illegals here, these people have turned a person, namely me, who was inclined to support the establishment of a immigrant worker program into a borderline fierce opponent of anything except securing the border. For once I seem to be in sync with the majority of Americans as most polls reflect this reality. But, once again Howard Dean has missed the boat. He's on the side of the marchers and he believes this will get him control of Congress and through that the ability to overturn the last election. The problem for Mr. Dean is his compadres in this matter. Number one is La Raza, a branch of which is not just after legalization, but secession of most of the western part of this country back to Mexico. La Raza receives several million dollars from U.S. taxpayers--I would like to know where that money goes and who votes for those appropriations. Number two is Hugo Chavez who is apparently helping with the funding and publicity for the marches. And number three is the likely next President of Mexico, the socialist anti-American Mayor of Mexico City, who has already declared that he will ally with Chavez. These people all have interests directly in opposition to those of this country and Howard Dean and his Democrat allies fit right (or should I say left) in with that agenda.

2006-04-25T07:27:00.000-07:00

Congressman Tom Davis with George Mason RWC delegates to the 2006 Virginia Federation Convention

Bush as Dissident

2006-04-24T13:33:00.000-07:00

Natan Sharansky, Soviet Gulag survivor, former Israeli deputy prime minister and current Knesset member, writes in today's Wall Street Journal that George W. Bush is a dissident President. "Political leaders made the rarest of dissidents. In a democracy, a leader's lifeline is the electorate's pulse...Bush is..an exception..a man fired by a deep belief in the universal appeal of freedom, its transformative power, and its critical connection to international peace and stability." Believing that President Bush sees this stance as a moral necessity and a backing away, as his political enemies call for, a moral failure, Sharansky, who shares this belief, supports Mr Bush. This entire argument takes me back to the afternoon of September 11, 2001 and the chorus from the left that began that day to wail about "why they hate us." The answer was always our cold war policy of supporting dictators, and poverty and lack of freedom in the Middle East. It seems to me that the great irony encompassing the relentless and endless criticism coming from the left is that Mr. Bush is addressing those concerns they all expressed from the beginning. The difference seems to be that he actually believes what he is saying and in what he is doing. Mr. Sharansky concludes with "Now that President Bush is increasingly alone in pushing for freedom, I can only hope that his dissident spirit will continue to persevere. For should that spirit break, evil will indeed triumph, and the consequences for our world would be disastrous." The President has said from the beginning, and reiterated today, this is a long battle, but victory is assured if the nation perseveres. The fate of the nation does not seem to matter to the left as much as their collective and personal ambitions. It is therefore, up to those of us who support this President and this administration to speak up, stand up, and be counted. President Bush talks about the consequences for our children and grandchildren--we should be thinking and acting on those concerns as well. LL

CAUTION - IMAGES FROM IRAQ: TOO GRAPHIC FOR NATIONAL MEDIA

2006-04-20T10:54:00.000-07:00

CAUTION - IMAGES FROM IRAQ: TOO GRAPHIC FOR NATIONAL MEDIA

2006-04-20T10:48:00.000-07:00