.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

Saturday, July 16, 2005

"National defense is one of the cardinal duties of a statesman."
--John Adams

Hear! Hear! Stand Up Oh Silent Ones

From The Washington Times
British official tells Muslims to stand up to terrorism

Britain's most senior policeman called on the country's Muslim community yesterday to end its "denial" about extremists in its midst and to engage actively in the fight against terrorism.

Muslim leaders have expressed shock that four British-born Muslims were the perpetrators of last week's attacks in London, which left at least 54 persons dead.

But Metropolitan Police Commissioner Ian Blair said Muslims could do more to help find those plotting further atrocities.

The Muslim community, and Muslim leaders, have come under some criticism since 9/11 for not being outspoken enough about terrorism. HeavyHanded has always agreed with this criticism, but HeavyHanded has also felt that the criticism was coming from a rather (too) small segment of the world community.

There has not been enough outrage expressed by the Muslim community as a whole, nor has there been enough pressure from the world community through criticism in order to get Muslims to denounce terrorism more openly and vehemently.

But let's be honest. Even if there was a lot more outrage expressed by Muslims and Muslim leaders, this would not be enough. Anyone can openly denounce such acts, but still secretly support these very same acts. As the saying goes, "talk is cheap".

Christianity has gone through a reformation. Islam has not. Islam has so many different interpretations, no central figurehead, no continuity. Imams and clerics all over the world can be preaching different ideas, preaching hate, preaching jihad, preaching death, and there is no religious figurehead or religious body to tell them to stop.

It then falls upon the "silent majority" (?) of Mulims to stand up to the hatred that is being spread and preached; and falls upon each soverign nation to legislate, and eradicate this kind of behavior from their respective countries.

But with a continued silence from the silent majority in the worldwide Muslim community and an insane, run amok environment of political correctness that neuters a countries ability to take a necessary firm stand against its enemies, we're doomed for destruction.
"It matters little that 'the overwhelming majority of Muslims are not terrorists,' to quote a familiar Western mantra. It matters a great deal that most terrorists are Muslims. The sooner Western leaders and Western media begin stating what is obvious to most people, the quicker the real root cause can be dealt with."
--Cal Thomas

"[T]errorists celebrate the suffering of the innocent. ...[T]errorists murder in the name of a totalitarian ideology that hates freedom, rejects tolerance and despises all dissent. ...[T]he aim of the terrorists is to remake the Middle East in their own grim image of tyranny and oppression by toppling governments, by exporting terror, by forcing free nations to retreat and withdraw. ... These kinds of people who blow up subways and buses are not people you can negotiate with, or reason with, or appease. In the face of such adversaries there is only one course of action: We will continue to take the fight to the enemy, and we will fight until this enemy is defeated." --President George W. Bush

"[Y]ou are dealing with an enemy that does not want anything specific, and cannot be talked back into reason through anger management or round-table discussions. Or, rather, this enemy does want something specific: to take full control of your lives, dictate every single move you make round the clock and, if you dare resist, he will feel it is his divine duty to kill you." --Amir Taheri

It all seems so clear. What's not to understand? "This has nothing to do with Israeli 'occupation' of 'Palestinian lands,' America's 'unilateral invasion' of Iraq, 'torture' of prisoners at Guantanamo or Abu Ghraib, the widening 'income gap,' or any of the other litany of complaints that the terror apologists trot out. Islamist terrorism arises from religious fanaticism and hatred, plain and simple."

News from the Swamp...

From the Federalist Patriot

Swamp News on Supreme Court

"In the Executive Branch, President Bush has spent this week working the phones and holding meetings with Senate leaders over potential nominees to fill the most recent vacancy on the Supreme Court. He has in fact so far talked with 60 senators, which makes this consultation one for the books for its openness and candor. Still, Vermont Senator Pat Leahy and his buddies are convinced it's not enough. "There has to be more consultation," whined Leahy.

Let's be clear: Despite what Senator Leahy thinks, the President is not obligated in any way to share names or consult with senators before he announces his appointee. Apparently, New York Senator Chuck Schumer missed this civics lesson, too. "For consultation to work...the president should suggest some names and get the opinion of those of us in the Senate." He then suggested a meeting at Camp David or a dinner at the White House. Here in our editorial shop, we think Chuck is just angling for some free chow. Still, it got us to wondering: If the President did indeed feed these folks, would they finally quit their caterwauling?"

Swamp News on John Bolton
"While the ruckus over the pending O'Connor vacancy continues to consume the Swamp, the fate of John Bolton remains unanswered. Bolton has signaled that he would accept a recess appointment as ambassador to the Untied Nations, even if it means a truncated term that ends in December 2006 and could weaken his effectiveness."

Swamp News on Federal Budget Deficit
"Elsewhere, in another vindication of President Bush's tax cuts that isn't likely to be reported on the six o'clock news, the Congressional Budget Office noted that the federal-budget deficit will shrink by close to $100 billion from fiscal year 2004. A jump in individual and corporate tax revenue -- imagine that! -- is the cause, but economists are quick to note that this alone will not eliminate the deficit entirely. Spending has to come down as well if permanent gains are to be realized. Still, it's a far cry better than what Taxachusetts John had in mind."

On this issue, King Banaian at SCSUScholars posts :
"The economy is awash in tax revenues both at theFederal and state levels. This is the problem we always find with budget deficit forecasts: They do not reflect correctly the part of the deficit that is due to the structure of the budget versus the deficit caused by low output. Two good years of economic growth have helped greatly in getting Mr. Bush's modest proposal to halve the budget deficit (as a share of GDP) become reality, as Jed Graham notes, but things could be a lot better.
while the economy's momentum has led to a surge in tax revenues, progress in reducing the deficit depends on spending restraint. On that front, some remain disappointed.

At the moment, Congress is spending the money almost "as fast as it comes in," Riedl said.

Through the first nine months of fiscal 2005, federal spending rose $128 billion, or 7.4%, to $1.85 trillion. Spending on defense and nondefense has risen at similar rates, CBO says.
(Here's CBO's latest projection.) The standardized budget deficit for 2005 is projected to be $310 billion. If we come in at $325 it means the rest has to come from government reductions in spending or tax increases. Thus the debate on whether the current wave of tax collections is evidence of supply-side economics or just fortuitous timing."

Swamp News on Border Patrol

"We were encouraged last year when the Senate vowed to fund 2,000 additional Border Patrol agents and space for 8,000 more illegal-alien detainees. Thursday, however, the Senate reneged. The upper chamber's passage of the Homeland Security spending bill funded only 1,000 new agents and space for only 2,240 additional detainees. Last-minute amendments to restore funding to promised levels both failed -- thanks in part to a vote cast by Hillary Clinton, who made her latest political splash with tough comments against illegal immigration. John Kerry, who once illegally crossed into Cambodia, and possible '08 presidential contender Joe Biden, also voted against the amended increases."

HeavyHanded provides you with the list of senators who voted FOR the funding of 2000 additional border patrol agents and additional space for detaining illegal aliens. They are:
Allard (R-CO), Allen (R-VA), Bennett (R-UT), Bingaman (D-NM), Brownback (R-KS), Bunning (R-KY), Burns (R-MT), Burr (R-NC), Chambliss (R-GA), Coburn (R-OK), Cornyn (R-TX), Craig (R-ID), Crapo (R-ID), DeMint (R-SC), Dole (R-NC), Domenici (R-NM), Ensign (R-NV), Enzi (R-WY), Frist (R-TN), Graham (R-SC), Grassley (R-IA), Hagel (R-NE), Hatch (R-UT), Hutchison (R-TX), Isakson (R-GA), Kyl (R-AZ), Martinez (R-FL), McCain (R-AZ), McConnell (R-KY), Murkowski (R-AK), Roberts (R-KS), Salazar (D-CO), Sessions (R-AL), Shelby (R-AL), Sununu (R-NH), Thomas (R-WY), Thune (R-SD), Warner (R-VA).

Swamp News on Eminent Domain
New and notable legislation: Rep. Denny Rehberg introduced the Private Property Protection Act (HR 3083), a response to the Supremes' draconian Kelo v. City of New London decision of three weeks ago. The bill would prohibit the federal government from using eminent domain for economic development as well as prohibit state and local government from using federal funds in such instances. Rep. Marilyn Musgrave introduced HR 1678, which would extend higher expensing limits for small businesses another two years."

Nuke Threats

Add this latest threat to the long list of threats by the Chinese:

Chinese general shakes nukes at U.S. by Bill Gertz
A senior general in the Chinese army threatened to use nuclear arms against the United States in a conflict over the Taiwan Strait, prompting the Bush administration to call the remarks "highly irresponsible."


Our politics fiddles while London burns.

Appeals ruling approves tribunal

By Jerry Seper, Washington Times

Geneva Conventions protections for prisoners of war do not apply to members of the al Qaeda terrorist network, a federal appeals court panel ruled yesterday, giving the Bush administration the green light for a military trial of Osama bin Laden's personal chauffeur.

In a major victory for President Bush, the three-judge panel of the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit said a joint resolution passed by Congress in the wake of the September 11 attacks authorized the president to use military commissions to try enemy combatants, including Yemeni national Salim Ahmed Hamdan.

London terror search goes global

By Brian Murphy

LEEDS, England -- Police in Cairo have detained a biochemist who studied in the United States and taught at a university in Leeds -- the home base for at least three of the London bombers. Investigators in Britain raided an Islamic book shop and the Egyptian's home, searching for explosives and other evidence yesterday.

In another sign of the investigation's widening global reach, Metropolitan Police Commissioner Ian Blair said authorities were trying to determine whether any of the four "foot soldiers" -- suicide bombers who ranged in age from 18 to 30 -- had ties with Pakistan-based cells of the al Qaeda terror network.

From The Washington Times

An Innocent Man

From Opinion Journal

Let's conduct a little thought experiment, shall we? Suppose that people in Washington generally had the sense that Karl Rove was soon to be indicted in the Valerie Plame kerfuffle. How would they react?

It seems to us the White House would be working to distance itself from Rove, possibly planning for him to make a quiet exit, much as John Kerry's campaign "disappeared" Joe Wilson last summer when Wilson's credibility fell apart. The Democrats, on the other hand, would act high-minded and talk of "letting the process work," at least as long as Rove remained on the job. An actual indictment, after all, would do maximal political damage to the Bush administration.

Instead, the White House (which knows a lot more about the investigation than any of us) is confidently standing behind Rove, while the Democrats are waging a hysterical attack that would be premature if it were based on anything real. Partisan Democrats don't want to talk about the facts of the case (facts are irrelevant, as a former Enron adviser insists) or about the law. They just want to pound the table and insist that Rove is metaphysically guilty.

The New York Times, the Washington Post and the Associated Press all report that, as the AP puts it, Rove "originally learned about the operative [Plame] from the news media and not government sources, according to a person briefed on the testimony," apparently a lawyer friendly to the White House. According to the Times account, Rove was the second source for Bob Novak's column identifying Plame's role in arranging Wilson's trip to Niger:

Mr. Rove has told investigators that he learned from the columnist the name of the C.I.A. officer, who was referred to by her maiden name, Valerie Plame, and the circumstances in which her husband, former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, traveled to Africa to investigate possible uranium sales to Iraq, the person said.

After hearing Mr. Novak's account, the person who has been briefed on the matter said, Mr. Rove told the columnist: "I heard that, too." . . .

On Oct. 1, 2003, Mr. Novak wrote another column in which he described calling two officials who were his sources for the earlier column. The first source, whose identity has not been revealed, provided the outlines of the story and was described by Mr. Novak as "no partisan gunslinger." Mr. Novak wrote that when he called a second official for confirmation, the source said, "Oh, you know about it."

That second source was Mr. Rove, the person briefed on the matter said.

If this account is accurate, then Rove simply confirmed a fact that was already in circulation. He no more "outed" Plame than Wilson did when he peddled his "outing" allegation to various left-wing journalists after Novak's column ran.

Meanwhile, the Washington Times quotes an erstwhile colleague of Plame's who casts further doubt on the Democratic narrative:

A former CIA covert agent who supervised Mrs. Plame early in her career yesterday took issue with her identification as an "undercover agent," saying that she worked for more than five years at the agency's headquarters in Langley and that most of her neighbors and friends knew that she was a CIA employee.

"She made no bones about the fact that she was an agency employee and her husband was a diplomat," Fred Rustmann, a covert agent from 1966 to 1990, told The Washington Times.

"Her neighbors knew this, her friends knew this, his friends knew this. A lot of blame could be put on to central cover staff and the agency because they weren't minding the store here. . . . The agency never changed her cover status."

Mr. Rustmann, who spent 20 of his 24 years in the agency under "nonofficial cover"--also known as a NOC, the same status as the wife of Mr. Wilson--also said that she worked under extremely light cover.

In addition, Mrs. Plame hadn't been out as an NOC since 1997, when she returned from her last assignment, married Mr. Wilson and had twins, USA Today reported yesterday.

In an interview with CNN yesterday, Wilson acknowledged, "My wife was not a clandestine officer the day that Bob Novak blew her identity," though he refused to say anything about her career before that day. As we noted yesterday, though, the source for that USA Today report was none other than Wilson himself, in his book, which apparently no one bothered to read until now."

Friday, July 15, 2005

Postings have been light. I apologize. I had to go out of town for a wake and funeral. Hopefully things will be back to normal.

Thursday, July 14, 2005

From Opinion Journal

Metaphor Alert

From Reuters dispatch:

"What this thing has been for the past two years has been a cover-up, a cover-up of the . . . web of lies that underpin the justification for going to war in Iraq," said Plame's husband, Joseph Wilson, a career foreign service officer who served in the Clinton White House.

"And to a certain extent, this cover-up is becoming unraveled. That's why you see the White House stonewalling," Wilson told NBC's "Today" show.

The Reuters item begins by describing Wilson as "the husband of a CIA agent whose identity was revealed illegally." Apparently the guys at Reuters, who still haven't been able to determine if 9/11 was an act of terrorism, already know how the investigation is going to turn out."

This Seems to Settle It
"Unless we're missing something, Joe Wilson has disproved his own accusation that someone in the Bush administration violated the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, USA Today reports:

The alleged crime at the heart of a controversy that has consumed official Washington--the "outing" of a CIA officer--may not have been a crime at all under federal law, little-noticed details in a book by the agent's husband suggest.

In The Politics of Truth, former ambassador Joseph Wilson writes that he and his future wife both returned from overseas assignments in June 1997. Neither spouse, a reading of the book indicates, was again stationed overseas. They appear to have remained in Washington, D.C., where they married and became parents of twins.

This meant that Plame would have been stationed in the U.S. for six years before Bob Novak published his column citing her two years ago today. As USA Today notes:

The column's date is important because the law against unmasking the identities of U.S. spies says a "covert agent" must have been on an overseas assignment "within the last five years." The assignment also must be long-term, not a short trip or temporary post, two experts on the law say.

All the Democrats who are braying for Karl Rove's head can't be very confident that he's committed a crime. If they were, they would wait for an indictment, which would be a genuine embarrassment to the administration."

From Opinion Journal

Tuesday, July 12, 2005

The EU's War on Terror
"European Union states that have not adopted EU rules aimed at reducing noise in crowded cities will face court action if they fail to act soon, the bloc's executive said," Reuters reports:

The European Commission said it was initiating legal action against 11 states which had failed to incorporate the rules into national noise pollution legislation, which should have been done by July 2004.

The states are Austria, Belgium, the Czech Republic, Finland, France, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Portugal and Britain.

No doubt the threat of a fine will prevent future incidents of loudness like those in London last week. (From Opinion Journal.)

House bill restricts Patriot Act powers
by Stephen Dinan
The Washington Times

The chairman of the House Judiciary Committee yesterday introduced an extension of the USA Patriot Act that denies President Bush the expanded powers, such as "administrative subpoenas," he has been seeking.

HeavyHanded thinks this is unfortunate. I would like some honest person to show me a long itemized list of actual documented cases, that is verifiable, of all the cases of government abuse stemming from these new broader powers gained thru the Patriot Act.

NAACP to target private business
by Brian DeBose, The Washington Times
The NAACP will target private companies as part of its economic agenda, seeking reparations from corporations with historical ties to slavery and boycotting companies that refuse to participate in its annual business diversity report card.


Well, we finally got past the G8 Summit and the intercontinental jam session [called Live8]. Was it (the Live 8 concert) worth it? What did it accomplish? How much money was raised for the sick and dying in Africa?

It raised no money ............ none, natta, zero, zilch. Jonah Goldberg writes:
"Live8 was intended to raise consciousness and exert political pressure on the G8 summiteers. No one was allowed to actually raise money for the masses of starving people in Africa. None of the dollars spent on the concert by fans, corporate sponsors, or television networks will reach Africa. Charities couldn't rattle tin cups outside the porta-potties and concession stands."
(Emphasis added.) This was solely an effort to "raise awareness". Goldberg goes on to write:
"Very smart people have been trying really, really hard to make poverty history for a long time. Heck, they've been working very hard to make Africa just ever-so-slightly less hellish for a very long time. Debt relief is probably part of a potential solution, but without ending Africa's tendency to produce horrible, greedy dictatorships, debt relief is more akin to paying off a drug addict's credit cards. Even if the concert-goers were speaking with a single voice, they weren't saying anything of much use, except 'we care' -- and aren't we special people for it? Geldof summed up the attitude perfectly when he said, 'Something must be done, even if it doesn't work.' This concert was an exercise in boosting the self-esteem of the audience."
This is what "todays" true liberal does - pointing out problems, but wants and expects someone else to take care of the problem (i.e, foot the bill). "By doing their part" they can go to bed at night with a clear conscience knowing they have made a "real contribution".

From the Gipper

"There is a temptation to see the terrorist act as simply the erratic work of a small group of fanatics. We make this mistake at great peril, for the attacks on America, her citizens, her allies, and other democratic nations in recent years do form a pattern of terrorism that has strategic implications and political goals. And only by moving our focus from the tactical to the strategic perspective, only by identifying the pattern of terror and those behind it, can we hope to put into force a strategy to deal with it." --Ronald Reagan

"Unless we win this war, 9/11 was just the beginning. And that is why we cannot fight an uncivilized, evil and merciless enemy the same way we have fought our previous wars. And if this means we have to take extraordinary steps to get information that will save American lives, if this means we must imprison captured terrorists indefinitely, then so be it. There is much at stake here in terms of freedom and lives and a livable world. And we will lose it all if our leaders knuckle under to the whining and complaining and the irrational demands of some people in the Congress, and the news media and other public places who refuse to face reality." --Lyn Nofziger

Lyn Nofziger has been political adviser and press secretary to Ronald Reagan intermittently since 1966. A partner in the consulting and political analysis firm of Nofziger-Bragg Communications, Nofziger is now a political and governmental consultant. He was the assistant to President Reagan for political affairs from January 1981 to January 1982, and press secretary to Reagan from June to December 1980.

He also served in various capacities on Reagan’s campaign committees, including deputy chairman for finance, press secretary, convention director and director of communications.

"[F]amily dissolution has been gradual and incremental, occurring almost without our notice. First, we demonized men and made women into martyrs and victims. We didn't do this halfheartedly, but with gusto. We codified the concept 'men bad, women good' with laws that gave women supremacy over men: child custody awards in divorce; acceptance of drive-by, sperm-bank impregnation and single motherhood; and finally, special status in new laws such as the 'Violence Against Women Act.' Violence against women, though indefensible, is presumably no more unacceptable a crime than violence against men. Nevertheless, we created a special law just for women -- funded by taxpayers -- that institutionalized female victimhood and cemented the image of man as predator." --Kathleen Parker

"Kathleen Parker has contributed to more than a dozen newspapers and magazines during her 20 years as a journalist. She began her twice-weekly commentary column in 1987 as a staff writer for The Orlando Sentinel. After entering into syndication in 1995, her column rocketed in popularity and now appears in more than 300 papers nationwide.

Parker's column focuses on social issues related to family, children and gender.

In addition to her syndicated column, Parker is director of the School of Written Expression at the Buckley School of Public Speaking and Persuasion in Camden, South Carolina."

Monday, July 11, 2005

Who said the United States should remain in Iraq until peace can be maintained by the Iraqi people, saying the mission was part of the "long struggle against terrorism" by the U.S.?

Has President Bush presented this idea before.? Yes. In fact, he has presented this idea in many of his speeches. Has he been ridiculed by the left, and the media (as if there is any difference) for taking this position? Yes. All the time.

Take a look at "A Mad Look at the 2008 Campaign" from Opinion Journal. "Sen. Hillary Clinton was in Aspen, Colo., over the weekend, where she engaged in a little gentle Bush-bashing, reports the Associated Press:
"I sometimes feel that Alfred E. Neuman is in charge in Washington," Clinton said referring to the freckle-faced Mad magazine character. She drew a laugh from crowd when she described Bush's attitude toward tough issues with Neuman's catchphrase: "What, me worry?"
The idea here seems to be that President Bush isn't very bright. Wow, that's original. Yet it is Sen. Clinton who seems to be unaware that President Bush won't be her opponent in 2008. Didn't she learn about the 22nd Amendment at Yale Law School? On the other hand, she did have some sensible things to say about Iraq:
She said the United States should remain in Iraq until peace can be maintained by the Iraqi people, saying the mission was part of the "long struggle against terrorism" by the U.S.
Apparently she hasn't gotten the memo about how Iraq has nothing to do with terrorism. Oddest of all was this AP headline: "Hillary Issues Call to Save Mt. Everest." Is this really an issue she thinks will resonate with the American voter?"

HeavyHanded is wondering what are the chances that Hillary "Rob 'em" Clinton will be chastised by the left for taking this position? Slim, ..... or none ?

James Taranto of Opinion Journal takes a swipe at the New York Times (they are such an easy target):

"Not long ago, Karl Rove upset many liberals by suggesting that they aren't serious about fighting terrorism. Among those taking offense were the editorialists at the New York Times, who declared on June 25:
The president and his supporters continue to duck behind 9/11 whenever they feel pressure about what is happening in Iraq. The most cynical recent example was Karl Rove's absurd and offensive declaration this week that conservatives and liberals had different reactions to 9/11.
Today the Times weighs in against expanding the USA Patriot Act to allow terror investigators to use a procedure called an administrative subpoena to gather information. We gather that conservatives by and large support this proposal while liberals oppose it, which itself would be evidence that Rove was right. But our jaw dropped when we read this paragraph:
The bill's defenders note that administrative subpoenas are already allowed in other kinds of investigations. But these are generally in highly regulated areas, like Medicaid billing. The administrative subpoena power in the new bill would apply to anything the F.B.I. deemed related to alleged foreign intelligence or terrorism, and could, in practice, give the F.B.I. access to almost any private records it wanted.
So in the Times' view, it's worth making some compromises on civil liberties when something really weighty is at stake, like Medicaid funding. But terrorism just doesn't rise to that level of importance."

Chinese labor for oil drilling eyed in Colorado

Canadian oil giant EnCana is considering bringing in Chinese companies to construct and operate drilling rigs in the Colorado Rockies, as the region struggles to keep up with demand and rising energy prices. EnCana, a major player in the Piceance Basin of western Colorado, said Chinese labor is cheap and the workers are well-educated. The move would be scrutinized in Washington, where politicians are uneasy about allowing Chinese workers to acquire access to U.S.-based oil and gas facilities.

"I am totally against the Chinese government running the jobs in our country," said Rep. John Salazar, Colorado Democrat, whose district is most affected by drilling. "With the Chinese government getting involved, it's not even a competitive business model."

Mr. Salazar and other U.S. lawmakers already are concerned about the China National Offshore Oil Corp.'s interest in buying the U.S. oil and gas conglomerate Unocal Corp. The House voted June 30 to block China's cash bid of $18.5 billion. The 398-15 vote came hours after China cited U.S. "political interference" in what it called a purely commercial matter. Washington Times full article here.

"The debate over freedom of religion has turned into a debate over freedom from religion. Religious men and women founded America, and for centuries, religious faith was considered by nearly everyone to be a key to good citizenship. The Founding Fathers would not allow religion to govern the state, but they appreciated the way religion governed the private lives of good citizens." --Suzanne Fields

Suzanne Fields writes a twice weekly column for the Washington Times and is syndicated nationally by the Los Angeles Times syndicate. She writes on a wide range of topics at the intersection of politics and culture.

She is the author of Like Father, Like Daughter: How Father Shapes the Woman His Daughter Becomes (Little Brown, 1983). Her column appears in more than 30 newspapers including the Cleveland Plain Dealer, Atlanta Journal-Constitution, St. Paul Pioneer Press, Boston Herald, Ft. Worth Star Telegram, and Albany Times.

"If 'Thou shalt not covet' and 'Thou shalt not steal' were not commandments of Heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society before it can be civilized or made free." --John Adams

Sunday, July 10, 2005


We don't know who President George W. Bush will nominate to succeed Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. But this is certain: Democrats will smear the nominee.

It will not matter how personally honorable, how intellectually honest, how legally profound this nominee is. Indeed, the greater the individual, the greater the personal attacks will be.


There are three reasons. Read the rest here.


One of the reasons why so many immigrants to America became producers of wealth is because they left their clans and tribes behind and came here as individuals eager to seek their fortunes. America’s freedom permitted them to exercise their ambitions, their ingenuity, their drive to achieve success. No one goes to Africa to do what immigrants to America do.

Then there is the problem of government corruption, which is endemic to Africa. For example, according to Dr. Ayittey, in Nigeria between 1970 and 2000 more than $35 billion in oil revenues disappeared into the Nigerian government’s coffers. Nobody knows what happened to the money. In Zaire, Mobutu Sese Seko accumulated a fortune of $10 billion. He could have written a personal check to pay off his country’s foreign debt of $7 billion.

Full article.

CAFTA's Covert Opponent: China

In the Multi Fiber Arrangement world of quota-free trade in yarns, fabrics, and finished textiles, the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) represents a direct threat to China’s growing power—indeed, its near-monopoly—in world textile production. If passed, CAFTA would enhance the competitiveness of Central American factories that pay higher wages than China and predominantly use U.S. cotton. But if CAFTA fails, U.S. cotton exports to Central America will come to an end, while U.S. imports of Chinese textiles—with little or no U.S. content—soar. Full article.

The G8 Summit

At the G8 Summit, "Tony Blair and other European leaders initially hoped to shame the U.S. into making a stronger commitment to rein in carbon emissions. But their main weapon in this fight—the fact that the other seven nations (Britain, Russia, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, and Canada) have ratified the Kyoto Protocol and thereby committed themselves to tough carbon emissions reductions—is rapidly falling apart. According to the European Environment Agency and other sources, carbon emissions among these nations are on the rise and most are not on track to meet their commitments under Kyoto."

More Money Down the Drain

The G8 agreed to make a bad policy worse by doubling the money sent to corrupt African governments. The conventional wisdom is that terrorism in both Africa and the Middle East reflects, in part, a lack of economic development.

Western leaders clearly remain ignorant of the fact that the undeveloped world's hopes rest with an injection of full-blooded capitalism rather than another dose of the same old socialist medicine. Their inability to learn obvious lessons doesn't bode well for the continued prosecution of their war on terror -- wherever that terror is felt.


Taliban terrorists said yesterday they had beheaded the last U.S. commando missing in Afghanistan, while the Pentagon said it had no information to support the claim and that the search for the man was still on.

"We are still conducting a search hoping our missing service member is alive, as we have no proof telling us otherwise," said Lt. Col. Jerry O'Hara.

But Taliban spokesman Mullah Latif Hakimi said via satellite telephone that the missing Navy SEAL, the last of a four-man team missing since June 28 in Kunar province, was dead and his body dumped on a hillside.

"We killed him using a knife and chopped off his head," the spokesman for the terror group said. "He is wearing red clothes. We got the information we wanted from him during the interrogation."

Déjà vu

N. Korea Agrees to Rejoin Six-Nation Nuclear Talks
It seems like I have read these headlines before.


Bill Kristol thinks Alberto Gonzales will be put forward by President Bush to be Chief Justice after William Rehnquist steps down. Rehnquist is rumored to be announcing his resignation soon.

Brits Gave Asylum to Paris Train Bomber

A suspected Islamic terrorist who was granted asylum in Britain in 1995 after allegedly bombing the Paris Metro was finally extradited to France just last month, in a case that some say shows the lax attitude that left Britain vulnerable to Thursday's train bombing attacks. Full article.

Bill Clinton: John Kerry Soft on National Security

Ex-President Bill Clinton criticized Sen. John Kerry on Friday, saying he lost his presidential bid last year because he was soft on national security. Full article.

Downed US Seals Got Too Close To Bin Laden?

"THE first sign of trouble was a radio message requesting immediate extraction. A four-man team of US Navy Seal commandos had run into heavy enemy fire on a remote, thickly forested trail in the mountains of eastern Afghanistan.

Trouble turned to disaster when a US special forces helicopter carrying 16 men was shot down as it landed at the scene, killing all on board. Almost two weeks later, a mission that led to the worst US combat losses in Afghanistan since the invasion in 2001 has turned into an extraordinary manhunt. It has also opened an intriguing new front in the coalition’s battle against terrorism."

Britain Fear New attacks - Terror alert highest ever

"BRITAIN’S terrorist alert has been raised to its highest-ever level because the London rush-hour bombers are alive and planning another attack, The Times has learnt.

Security services, military and police are on “severe specific” alert — the second highest status and higher than after the September 11 atrocities — after it emerged that the terrorists who killed as many as 70 people were not suicide bombers."

Moral Confusion

From the WSJ Opinion Journal, after ripping into the New York Times for it's morally corrupt editorials, it offers this contrast:

'It Must Be Won'
For a counterpoint to the preceding item, check out this op-ed piece from today:

Words of condemnation and solidarity are fine and great in their symbolic value, but they are not enough unless backed by practical measures in cooperation with Britain and the rest of the civilized world to defeat the evil forces of terrorism.

To win the war against terror, and it must be won, we need to understand the terrorists' strategy and tactics. First they need a motive, second an operational capability to carry out attacks, and third an aim. The last is almost impossible to identify in the case of Al-Qaeda, since it is not clear what constitutes a strategic "victory" for them. . . . Al-Qaeda's terrorists have no respect for human life.

The author of this article was Adel Darwish, and the newspaper was the Arab News. What does it tell us that a Saudi newspaper has more moral clarity than the New York Times?