.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}
Heavy-Handed Politics

"€œGod willing, with the force of God behind it, we shall soon experience a world
without the United States and Zionism."€ -- Iran President Ahmadi-Nejad

Friday, July 08, 2005

Illegal Immigrants Nabbed

Illegal Immigrants Nabbed After Speaking Loudly On Plane
Marshal Overhears Conversation, Alerts Authorities

Ten Mexican nationals were held at the Johnston County Jail on immigration violations after being taken off a Southwest Airlines flight into Raleigh-Durham International Airport on March 29.The men were aboard a flight from Las Vegas to Chicago when an air marshal overheard them bragging about successfully being smuggled across the border into the U.S., said Thomas O'Connell, of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

On the frontiers of junk science...

"The Group of Eight industrial nations are concluding this week's Scotland summit, and Britain's Royal Society is warning them that very soon the oceans will turn acidic and the fish will die. As the argument runs, over-population creates too many greenhouse gases, which, together with global warming, contribute to the acidity of the oceans, then the oceans die, and global chaos ensues. The answer -- abortion, naturally.

Amazingly (or not?), the global-warming doomsdayers have joined forces with population-control advocates, trotting out their fuzzy science in support of abortion -- particularly across Africa and the rest of the Third World. How the killing of African babies will save the oceans is never actually explained, but presumably abortion now means fewer greenhouse gases later. In its most elemental form, then, fewer Africans means better oceans. According to that logic, does the Royal Society propose that the G8 should allow the AIDS pandemic to run its course? Then again, ideologically driven "science" can't be troubled with consistency."


Democrats in Congress, by opposing CAFTA (the Central American Free Trade Agreement), are again joining the French -- this time on economic policy rather than foreign policy. Recent years have made it clear that the socialist and protectionist economic model of France has failed miserably. The model has the appearance of comfort and security -- lavish welfare programs, work weeks kept at 35 hours, and restrictions making it nearly impossible to fire employees -- but the result has been rampant unemployment and economic stagnation. Conversely, the European nations that are flourishing economically -- the UK and Eastern Europe -- have followed the Anglo-Saxon model of free markets and free trade.

The United States has the perfect opportunity to extend this model in our own hemisphere, encouraging freedom and prosperity for countless people in Central America. Why, then, are Democrats opposing CAFTA? Simply to stick it to the President? To scare people into voting for them? We've been over this countless times -- protectionist rhetoric easily scares people, but it makes no economic sense. Besides being good for Central America, CAFTA is needed to aid us in our competition with China and India. This time, however, perhaps even more important, there are geopolitical reasons to support CAFTA. For decades, we opposed communism in Central America. Now we have the opportunity to support these democracies as they develop increasingly free markets.

From The Federalist Patriot

The BIG lie...

"[The potential Supreme Court appointment of an extremist] means a minimum of 5,000 women a year will die. So all options are on the table. ... [Sandra Day O'Connor] has been a powerful voice for moderation. This is a philosophy her successor should embrace. ... We cannot go back to the dark days. Roe must remain the law of the land." --Sen. Barbara Boxer, citing a phony statistic (see below) while ignoring the very real statistic of more than 40 million unborn babies killed since 1973, when "moderation" became the "law of the land."

For the record, the current Supreme Court vote count regarding the central pro-abortion decision Roe v. Wade stands at 6-3 (including O'Connor). This means that even should President Bush select a nominee opposed to that flawed ruling, the matter will not be reversed. Dr. Bernard Nathanson, who co-founded the National Abortion Rights Action League, but has now expressed regret for his years of abortion activism, is the best expert source on the accuracy of that "5,000 women a year will die" figure -- it's made up.

Dr. Nathanson notes that the number comes from 1972 testimony before the Supreme Court about annual female deaths from illegal abortions, confessing, "We spoke of 5,000 to 10,000 deaths a year. I confess that I knew the figures were totally false...[but] it was a useful figure, widely accepted, so why go out of our way to correct it with honest statistics?" (Emphasis added.)


Let’s face the meaning of the Supreme Court’s 5-4 Kelo vs. City of New London decision: We have a fascist judicial system in place of a Constitution. We no longer have a Constitution, it has ceased to exist.

In justifying their abolition of private property rights, John Paul Stevens writing for the majority of Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, and himself – the Fascist Five – pronounced that “Local officials, not federal judges, know best in deciding whether a development project will benefit the community.”

Taking him at his word, a New Hampshire businessman named Logan Darrow Clements sent a written request last week to city officials of the town of Weare, seeking their approval to build a hotel at 34 Cilley Hill Road. Such approval would entail eminent domain condemnation proceedings authorizing the seizure of the private home currently at this address. The owner of the home is Supreme Court Justice David Souter.

The hotel is to be named The Lost Liberty Hotel. Mr. Clements argues that Mr. Souter clearly believes that the City of Weare has the legal authority to take land from one private owner and give it to another if the city will gain greater tax revenue and/or other economic benefits when the land is developed by the new owner.

The Lost Liberty Hotel, with a restaurant called The Just Desserts Café, will include a museum, open to the public, featuring an exhibit on the loss of freedom in America. Since the City of Weare will undoubtedly gain greater tax revenue and economic benefits from such a project located at 34 Cilley Hill Road than Mr. Souter’s private home, this justifies Mr. Souter’s loss of his land.

Mr. Clements points out to the city officials that The Lost Liberty Hotel project “must be built on this particular piece of land because it is a unique site being the home of someone largely responsible for destroying property rights for all Americans.”

There are only five members of Weare’s Board of Selectmen. “If three of them vote to use the power of eminent domain to take this land from Mr. Souter,” note Mr. Clements, “we can begin our hotel development."

Mr. Clements is currently raising investment capital for the Lost Liberty Hotel project. I can think of no investment in America worth supporting more than this. I urge you to consider doing so. He may be contacted at 310-593-4843, email logan@freestarmedia.com. His website is www.freestarmedia.com.

from TTP Intelligence Bulletin

The Reality of It

Perhaps he [Tony Blair] will start acting Churchillian at last. Evidence would be the shutting down of Wahhabi mosques, kicking Wahhabi imams out of England, and ending the financing of mosques by Wahhabi money from Saudi Arabia – for a start.

This could then move on to acknowledgement of the general proposition that Islam is a Religion of War until proven otherwise. The burden of proof has incontrovertibly shifted, the evidence too overwhelming. Islam is guilty until proven innocent, and must be treated accordingly.

Three months ago last March, close to 50,000 English protestors gathered in London’s Hyde Park to proclaim “George Bush, Uncle Sam, Iraq will be your Vietnam,” and other inanities. It will be some time before there is such a demonstration again. A demonstration demanding to Nuke Mecca is now more likely.

If the London Bombings of July 7 aren’t the terrorist straw that breaks Islam’s back, the attack is coming that will. The Terrorists of Islam are betting their religion on the moral restraint of their enemies. They forget that America nuked Japan and the Brits firebombed Dresden with no apologies. Any Moslem with any brains should be getting seriously afraid.

Americans and British are not Euro-pussies. Push and goad us far enough and the consequences will be catastrophic. Will July 7 be sufficient for the Brits? Will a similar attack in America be sufficient for us? Maybe – but certain is that one will come that will trigger a retaliatory tsunami that will wipe Mecca off the map.

It is the responsibility of Moslems to see that this trigger attack never occurs: that is the message George Bush has instructed his diplomats and intel agents to whisper in Moslem ears around the world.

---Jack Wheeler, ToThePoint

The voice of Africa


Hardly anybody bothers to ask ordinary poor Africans what they think about the G8 summit, so I did. On Sunday I went on an extended pub crawl around the Ngong Hills. First stop was the filling station outside Nairobi’s game park. ‘Aid won’t help us,’ said the petrol attendant. ‘Our leaders will steal it.’ ‘How do you know that?’ I asked. ‘I’m an African, I know,’ he said. ‘What do you think of Bob Geldof?’ His face brightened. ‘I love Bob Marley very much!’ ‘What about Bono?’ Blank stare. On the other side of the road a herd of buffalo waggled their ears as matatu taxis hurtled to and fro.

I drove on into the slum of Ongata Rongai. Fauvist signs advertising all imaginable human activities jostled with heaps of smoking rubbish, vegetable stalls and butcheries. I passed the Maximum Miracle Centre, Willy Fabricators, the Exciting Hotel and La Fairly Boutique. A drum-banging procession of men and women dressed as Old Testament prophets swayed by as I entered the Honey Pot Club and ordered Tuskers.

‘Yes I think Bob Geldof is a great man,’ roared Elias ole Mong’i above the plunky-plink of Congolese rumba music. ‘Why?’ I asked. ‘Because he’s fighting for the poor, that musician.’ I am incredulous, but the poor Kenyans who have heard of Geldof genuinely admire him. I asked Elias, ‘What would you do if you saw a Boomtown Rat?’ Blank stare. ‘Who’s Bono?’ Blank stare. Elias sells beaded Maasai artefacts to tourists in the city and feels he’s up and coming in the world. He agreed the G8 should forgive debts and double aid to Africa to help lift his home village on the slopes of Kilimanjaro out of the poverty which he blames on misrule by Kenya’s leaders since independence in 1963. ‘In my village they live in desperate poverty. All they know is God, who helps in time of drought and time of rain. Don’t keep us in darkness, but let the money be channelled to the people, not the leaders. Who benefits if you bring me £200 today and I don’t take it to the community? If tomorrow you bring £400, who benefits? We have greedy people in society. We elect leaders and they lie to you very good, but tomorrow they’ll never remember you.’ (Emphasis added.)

Read the rest here.

From The Spectator.co.uk
By Aidan Hartley

"Since their liberation from European colonialism, African governments have written the book on kleptocracy. Until its citizens begin to demand accountability within their own governments, until citizenship trumps tribalism, Africa will continue to suffer, and no amount of debt relief or foreign aid will correct this wretched status quo. Capitalism, anyone?"

"One single object...[will merit] the endless gratitude of the society: that of restraining the judges from usurping legislation." --Thomas Jefferson

Thursday, July 07, 2005


I missed this. Neal Boortz reports Joe Biden was on Face The Nation and when the name of Janice Rogers Brown came up, Biden was asked how the Senate Democrats could invoke the "extraordinary circumstances" clause on Judge Brown right after they actually voted to confirm her to a seat on an appeals court. Biden responded by reminding the television audience that appeals court justices "don't get to make new law," meaning, of course, that Supreme Court Justices do!

Boortz goes on to write:
Once again our Constitution, along with the basic structure of our federal government, has been changed! Changed not by Constitutional amendment, but by the machinations of politics on the floor of the United States Senate.

Our Constitution envisioned and established a bi-cameral legislature. We originally had the U.S. Senate which was established to represent the interests of State Governments before the federal government. The House of Representatives was established to represent the interests of the citizens of the various states. The 17th Amendment change this structure with the popular election of Senators. Now both the Senate and the House represent the people, and the 50 states are left with no official representation in Washington. This might explain why the federal government has become so strong at the expense of the states.

May I now introduce you to the third branch of what has become our tri-cameral legislature! The Supreme Court! Yes, in the eyes of Democrats the Supreme Court is now merely another element of the legislative branch of the Imperial Federal Government of the United States. Senate Democrat Joseph Biden was on Face the Nation this past Sunday pontificating on Bush's possible choices to replace Justice O'Connor. The name of Janice Rogers Brown came up. Biden was asked how the Senate Democrats could invoke the "extraordinary circumstances" clause on Judge Brown right after they actually voted to confirm her to a seat on an appeals court. Biden responded by reminding the television audience that appeals court justices "don't get to make new law," meaning, of course, that Supreme Court Justices do!

So .. there you go. Janice Rogers Brown might not be a good nominee to the Supreme Court because the Supreme Court is a law-making body! Now we have three! The Senate, controlled by the Republicans. The House, again controlled by the Republicans. And now the Supreme Court, controlled by the left, if not by Democrats. This is the only legislative entity the left controls in Washington and that control must be maintained at all costs!

Now, thanks to Senator Biden, you know what's at risk here. Democratic control of the third house of the U.S. Congress."


Bush stands firm on Kyoto pact
by James G. Lakely, Washington Times

"President Bush yesterday stood fast in his rejection of the Kyoto climate treaty, and the consensus document on climate change at this week's Group of Eight summit in Scotland is not likely to reflect the more urgent and radical view of many European powers."

My view: Are we in the midst of "global warming"? Maybe ....... or maybe not. More importantly, is it natural or man-made? I believe it is the the natural way of things. We have had warming periods, an ice age, a mini-ice age, all before the advent of cars (specifically SUV's), and factories, and the burning of fossil fuels.

Can we stop it? No.

One must also ask, "Why is Europe, the socialists, the liberal left, abroad, as well as those here in the U.S., and the environmentalists so keen on the U.S to sign onto the Kyoto?"

I agree with Neal Boortz:
For what has seemed like an eternity, the enviro-whackos have been jumping up and down screaming about how the Bush Administration is doing nothing about global warming. If only he would sign the much-vaunted Kyoto protocol, that would make everything better, we're told. But to this day, George Bush has refused to go along with it.

Democrats, including The Poodle and Bill Clinton have pushed the Kyoto agreement. Liberals talk about how our standing in the world is suffering because we won't go along with it. After all, most other countries, including England, have signed it.

Just why do you think so much of the world wants the U.S. to sign the Kyoto treaty? Because it would weaken the United States, that's why. Remember, a recent European poll showed that 58% of Europeans wanted to see the United States weakened economically and militarily worldwide. So .. on the one hand the world seems to want a weaker United States .. and that same world wants the U.S. to sign Kyoto. Duhhhhhh. Connect the dots people!

Yesterday, President Bush stepped out and said exactly why he has not obligated the United States to this disastrous nonsense environmental treaty.

Simply put, if the United States were to sign that agreement, it would destroy our economy. "I couldn't in good faith have signed Kyoto," said Bush. He also noted that China and India weren't part of the agreement...something you don't always hear about when the media talks about Kyoto. Bush also pointed out the obvious real problem, saying candidly: "We're hooked on oil from the Middle East, which is a national security problem and an economic security problem."

He also said more study was needed to prove whether or not human beings cause global warming. That's the kind of thing that causes anti-capitalist, environmental leftists to come completely unhinged. Good."

Oh where have you gone, Benon V. Sevan?

"Latest published reports claim that more than $21 billion may have been stolen from the U.N.-Iraq aid program between 1996 and 2003.

Benon V. Sevan, former director of the scandal-plagued Oil-for-Food Program, has left his home in New York and is now in his native Cyprus, say U.N. officials.

Sevan returned to his family home in the city of Nicosia in early June, and though he insists he will return to New York, he has refused to give any date."

Full story here.

McCain on London

It has been quite awhile since John McCain has said anything that I felt was even worth saying. With that being said, McCain actually made some sense in his interview on Fox News when interviewed about the London terror attacks.

You can read some of his comments in this report.

Births to foreign-born mothers rise

Births to foreign-born mothers on the rise, study finds
David B. Caruso, Associated Press
NEW YORK -— Nearly 23 percent of all people born in the U.S. in 2002 had a foreign-born mother — the largest percentage since a wave of immigration more than 90 years ago, a study of birth records by a private nonprofit group shows.The Center for Immigration Studies said the country has not seen as large a share of its children born to immigrants since 1910, when the number reached 22 percent as shiploads of Italians and eastern Europeans crowded America's port cities.

This time, Hispanics are the driving force, according to the study being released today. Nearly 1 in 10 births in the United States in 2002 were to women born in Mexico. Hispanics, as a whole, accounted for 59 percent of all births by immigrants.

The boom in second-generation Americans is bound to have an effect on the country that is equal, if not greater, than the sea-changes of the early 20th century, said Steven Camarota, the Center for Immigration Studies researcher who wrote the report.

He said the influx of immigrants in the early 1900s was curtailed significantly by a tightening of entry rules and two world wars, and that no such cutoff appears imminent now.

"It just tells you that we are headed into uncharted territory,'' Camarota said.

The Center for Immigration Studies, which favors restrictions on immigration, compiled the data from birth records collected by The National Center for Health Statistics. The records include both legal and illegal immigrants, but do not indicate where a child's father was born.

Children of immigrant mothers accounted for about 915,800 of the 4 million births in the United States in 2002. By comparison, 228,486 of the 3.7 million births in the U.S. in 1970 were to foreign-born mothers, or about 6 percent.

Camarota said the growing size of immigrant communities could slow their assimilation into American culture and make it more difficult "to have a cohesiveness of national vision.''

Pro-immigration groups rejected that argument.

"For 400 years, immigrants have come to our shores, worked hard, had families and built the most successful nation in history,'' said Frank Sharry, executive director of the National Immigration Forum.

"The notion that we are going to be the one group that does not become American is ridiculous,'' said Lisa Navarrete, a spokeswoman for the National Council of La Raza, a Hispanic advocacy group.

The push of immigrant communities into places that have not previously dealt with waves of newcomers, however, may create some temporary tensions, said William H. Frey, visiting fellow at the Brookings Institution.

The greatest changes in recent years have come in places like Gwinnett County, Ga., a part of metropolitan Atlanta that has seen its Hispanic population soar over the past decade. In 1990, about 9.3 percent of all children born in the county had a mother born outside the United States. By 2002, that number had jumped to 41.3 percent.

"There are some communities and state governments that will have challenges,'' Frey said, including retooling their school systems to deal with students who do not hear much English at home.

Fifteen counties in the United States reported having more than half of all births to an immigrant mom.

The leader was the borough of Queens, in New York City, with 67.7 percent. Other top homes to second-generation Americans included Los Angeles, with 56.3 percent, Miami-Dade County, with 58.9 percent, and Orange County, Calif., with 54.3 percent."

Wednesday, July 06, 2005


Has the abortion issue hurt the Democrats? James Taranto seems to think so, and has written a thoughtful piece on the The Roe Effect: The right to abortion has diminished the number of Democratic voters.

Without really coming out strongly for or against abortion, Taranto attempts to analyze the impact of the issue on both parties.
Roe v. Wade is a study in unanticipated consequences. By establishing a constitutional right to abortion, the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court no doubt thought they were settling the issue for good, accelerating a process of liberalization that was already under way in 1973. But instead of consensus, the result was polarization. The issue of abortion soon after, and for the first time, took a prominent place in national political campaigns. By 1980, both major political parties had adopted extreme positions--Republicans favoring a "pro-life" constitutional amendment to ban abortion, and Democrats opposing virtually all regulation on "pro-choice" grounds. Every presidential and vice-presidential nominee since then has toed the party line on abortion.

Polarization over abortion coincided with a period of Republican ascendancy. Since the parties split on abortion, the GOP has won five of seven presidential elections, and no Democrat has had a majority of the popular vote. Republicans took over the Senate in 1980, and both houses of Congress in 1994. Obviously, many other factors have contributed to Republican success, but it is hard to look at these results and conclude that abortion has been a winning issue for the Democrats. Thus, the politics of abortion has favored the party that opposes the court-imposed "consensus."

It's worth reading and can be read here at Opinion Journal.

Tuesday, July 05, 2005

Justice for Bolton

From the Wall Street Journal:
A lot of worthy names have been floated for the impending Supreme Court vacancy, and we'd like to add one more to the list: a distinguished public servant who graduated from the prestigious Yale Law School and is an expert in international law, an area that is particularly important in wartime.

We refer, of course, to John Bolton.

OK, it's a long shot, but wouldn't it be worth it just to see Voinovich cry again?"
Heh, heh. Wouldn't that be a hoot?

"The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence." --John Adams

"Government is instituted to protect property of every sort. ...[T]hat alone is a just government which impartially secures to every man, whatever is his own." --James Madison

"Let the Fourth of July always be a reminder that here in this land, for the first time, it was decided that man is born with certain God-given rights; that government is only a convenience created and managed by the people, with no powers of its own except those voluntarily granted to it by the people."
--- Pres. Ronald Reagan, 1981

"And it is no less true, that personal security and private property rest entirely upon the wisdom, the stability, and the integrity of the courts of justice." --Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution (1833)

Joseph Story was Associate Justice, U.S. Supreme Court and considered today "the foremost of American legal writers".

"I am well aware of the Toil and Blood and Treasure, that it will cost Us to maintain this Declaration, and support and defend these States. Yet through all the Gloom I can see the Rays of ravishing Light and Glory. I can see that the End is more than worth all the Means. And that Posterity will tryumph in that Days Transaction, even altho We should rue it, which I trust in God We shall not." --John Adams (1776)

Clearing the books in Africa by Jeffrey Sparshott, Washington Times
Uganda, a poor landlocked nation in East Africa, carried about $172 million in international debt when brutal dictator Idi Amin took power in 1971.

Monday, July 04, 2005

Biden: Filibuster for Janice Rogers Brown
Clinton: Americans Stingy With Foreign Aid
U.S.-Canada Border Shockingly Insecure
Bush Rejects Kyoto-style G8 Deal
Putin Calls for World Cooperation on Iraq

Our country! In her intercourse with foreign nations may she always be in the right; but our country, right or wrong. --- Stephen Decatur

G8 and Africa

Among Ordinary Africans, G-8 Seems Out of Touch
By Emily Wax
Washington Post
KOMOTHI KIRATINA, Kenya, -- Peter Kanans, a coffee farmer whose house has no running water and a leaking roof, said he had a message for the leaders of the world's richest countries who will meet at the G-8 summit next week: Unfair trade practices are enriching African officials and international coffee chains while village farmers grow steadily poorer.

"Like many hardworking Africans, I have a serious bone to pick with the G-8," said Kanans, a slender man of 60 who has a college education but wears shredded flip-flops. This year, Kanans said, his crop netted about $300 -- less than his brother in Delaware spends in two months on takeout cappuccinos.

"Even if they cancel the debt, even if they give our governments aid money, ordinary Africans will not benefit," he said. "That money will only make the corrupt people richer and Africans international beggars for decades to come."

On the world's poorest continent, however, feelings about debt relief and aid money are far more nuanced than many Westerners may realize. Africans interviewed this week, from farmers to artists to health workers, say they are grateful for the outpouring of sentiment, and glad to hear that glamorous musicians and actors are championing their cause and that college students are wearing bracelets with the slogan, "Make Poverty History."

But they also said there was a dangerous disconnect between what the industrialized nations see as solutions and what Africans believe they need. Instead of debt relief and more aid, many Africans said they wanted the G-8 to focus on ending corruption and on improving roads, courts, banking and secondary education.

Another useful step, many Africans said, would be to end Western countries' trade subsidies for their own farmers, which make it impossible for African industries to do much more than survive. Debt relief, some asserted, is actually hush money to get free trade advocates off the backs of European countries, the United States and Japan, which offer huge subsidies to their corn, cattle and cotton farmers and thus undercut African farmers' ability to enter the market.

Ousmane Sembene, the prominent Senegalese-born filmmaker, shocked a crowd of earnest young people in London during a talk in early June when he condemned the G-8 and the Live 8 concerts as "fake," and added: "African heads of state who buy into that idea of aid are all liars. The only way for us to come out of poverty is to work hard."

Sembene used the example of cotton, which African countries grow but none of the G-8 countries buy. Instead, he said, they subsidize their own cotton farmers and then dump used clothing on the African markets, crippling Africa's domestic clothing industries.

"We make great cotton in Africa, but the West won't buy it. Instead they are selling us rags," he said. "Everywhere you go in Africa, in the big cities, you would think that you were in a Salvation Army store."

Corruption is an issue that Africans raised repeatedly in discussions about aid and debt relief. In Kenya, many people said they felt betrayed by the new government, which was elected on an anti-corruption platform in 2002. After taking office in early 2003, some said, cabinet officials voted themselves a 172 percent salary increase, putting them among the world's highest-paid ministers."

Read the entire article here.

Sunday, July 03, 2005


Captain Ed at Captain's Quarters seems to be of the same mindset as myself on Africa in regards to the aid that has been given them.

The good Cap'n says:
After $568 billion has gone down the tubes in Africa -- an mind-boggling amount -- clearly that solution has been tried and found wanting. Money may be needed, but very obviously the conditions on the ground keep it from the uses that would rescue the continent from itself. Pushing more money into the existing political systems there only serves to keep despots in power and criminals in control of the aid we send. It is Oil-For-Food, only on a much grander scale.

......................The G8 will have to force Africa to reform itself, and unfortunately, there are only two ways to leverage that: money or force. Therefore, we have to prepare to spend some money in order to get the political reform African nations need to bootstrap themselves into self-sufficiency and out of the abject poverty into which their strongmen have consigned them.

Instead of looking at this as aid, perhaps it's better to look at it as financial incentives -- and we need to be tough about releasing the funds for it. No democracy, no money. Let those nations who truly reform benefit, and the pressure on others from the example will work its magic on their more recalcitrant neighbors. We may find that much less money will actually be needed to make that work, in the long run.
He has some other good info in his post along with some links. Go here to read it. See my earlier posts on Africa here , here, and here.

An emerging alliance with India

On June 19th I posted this: India's Bid for Naval Supremacy, Newest base most modern facility in Arabian Sea.

Kevin from Eckernet commented.......

Wouldn't worry about this too much. India buys much of it's military equipment from us....and is therefore dependent on us for help with maintenance and upgrades.

And India has long considered China it's long-term rival in the region.

Consider it a counter-weight to China.
Kevin may have made a good point. As many of us know, to this point in history, no democratic country has ever attacked another democratic country. With this in mind we have more to fear from an ever expanding communist China than we do an similarily expansionist India.

Michael Barone has an article, "An emerging alliance with India" where he writes on a positive note about a U.S. and India relationship. He scribes:
You didn't see it in the headlines this week, but it's likely to be more important in the long run than many things that received much more notice. The "it" in question is the New Framework for the U.S.-India Defense Relationship signed Monday by U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Indian Defense Minister Pranab Mukherjee. This agreement provides for increased cooperation on research and development of high-tech weaponry and joint and combined training exercises."
You can see the entire article here.

With the news of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor retiring, I thought this was a good time to post a link to John Leo's June 6th column "Time to Fix the Court".

Also from the Washington Times, "Liberals gird for Supreme struggle" by Charles Hurt.
A group of the most influential liberal court lobbyists gathered in a high-ceilinged room across the hall from the Senate chamber, within hours of Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's retirement announcement Friday."
Read the entire article here.

Mexico Catches, Then Releases Terror Suspect

"U.S. diplomats in Mexico City are still waiting for a complete clarification on events leading to the arrest of Amer Haykel, a British subject of Lebanese descent.

Mexican authorities arrested the tourist upon the request of U.S. officials who claim the man is on the no-fly list and might pose a danger to U.S. national security. Following his arrest Mexican officials described him as a 'simple backpack tourist who does not pose any danger to Mexico.'

According to one Mexican source the man claims he is a pilot on an innocent tour of the world. "