A non-endorsement clause

Victor Davis Hanson [Wiki] is one of the clearest thinkers and writers of our time.

He has a contractual obligation to decline giving his endorsement for a candidate.

On Christmas night, at an hour in which most of us were enjoying a final nog, he penned (literary license) an essay regarding the presidential candidates.

The first paragraph:

What we are looking for?

A candidate who would not talk about reducing deficits, but promise instead surpluses to such a degree to buy down the national debt and so leave us less vulnerable to the Middle East, Chinese, Japanese, or European possession of trillions abroad; who would give someone some credit for taking out the two worse regimes in the Middle East and avoiding a reoccurrence of 9/11; who would state a simple principle that for every new spending initiative offered, a cut elsewhere or new tax increase would be promised to ensure no additional draw on the treasury; who would close the border to illegal immigration now, and explain that we can then bicker over other issues while the pool of illegal residents insidiously shrinks due to voluntary repatriation, intermarriage, deportations of criminals, and earned citizenship; who could craft some sort of bargain to drill oil offshore and in Alaska, build more refineries and nuclear power plants, and still toughen conservation standards and invest in alternate energy—and tell us exactly why and how and when we will be less dependent on foreign oil; and who could explain to us and the world abroad exactly how the US presence overseas leads to global peace and security, and do that both in daily impromptu and formal fashion.

(It's interesting to note that the doctor omits issues for many social conservatives--third rail items like Social Security, abortion, alternative families, etc. Given the passion of some single issues voters, I think Dr. Hanson left these for another day in order to focus on what all conservatives may agree on. Moreover, the issue of abortion and gay marriage should be returned to States' legislatures and SS can only be fixed by a willing Congress--issues that are not the primary purview of a president.)

He then goes on to analyze the various candidates by their statements and actions, Democrats first followed by Huckabee, Romney, Giuliani, McCain, and finally, Fred Thompson.

Methinks he's parsed his words most carefully regarding Thompson. Note the quasi-endorsement for VP:

Thompson. I never quite understood why the press charged someone 65/6, with non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma in remission, as “lazy.” He is not. The wonder is not that he is not as vigorous as Romney but that he is out on such a breakneck campaign at all. He seems the ideal Vice President candidate. That he could not meet the impossible pre-candidacy hype does not mean he won’t bounce back and run a strong second or third in the primaries.

It's my fervent wish that Dr. Hanson not receive a call from the legal department at NRO.

Tom Tancredo dropped out of the race on 20 December and has thrown his support behind Romney. When the inevitable time arrives that Duncan Hunter resigns the race he will throw his considerable weight behind Romney or Thompson--I can't see him endorsing Huckabee, McCain or Giuliani. So a lot will depend on the outcomes of the first few primaries.

A lot of citizens of modest means may dig deep into their pockets to fund Thompson and there are a lot of Red State folks that simply can't back a Northeastern politician.



Of course, having the stones to tell our left leaning loudmouths to STFU doesn't hurt a bit.

Happy New Year to all!

UPDATE

Fausta's Blog exposes MSM treachery and lazy^TMness.

Yeah! Let's toss the lazy^TM moniker where it belongs. I can almost picture the devoted DemOp at CNN sifting the words, editing for clarity.

The MSM channels Mad Magazine on Fred, and Sunday's items

When I was a kid I loved Mad Magazine. One of my favorite features was how they used to truncate really bad reviews of movies and books to make them sound glorious. Well, Fred's getting the same treatment from the MSM, only in reverse.

CNN and USA Today are taking a few select words from Fred:

"I'm not particularly interested in running for president," the former senator said at a campaign event in Burlington when challenged by a voter over his desire to be commander-in-chief.

"But I think I'd make a good president," Thompson continued. "I have the background, capability, and concern to do this and I'm doing it for the right reasons."

Here's the full transcript of what Fred actually said, which his people posted at Fred file:
[THIS IS A BEST-EFFORT TRANSCRIPT OF THE SPECIFIC QUESTION AND ANSWER]

Q: My only problem with you and why I haven't thrown all my support behind you is that I don't know if you have the desire to be President. If I caucus for you next week, are you still going to be there two months from now?

...In the first place I got in the race about the time people normally get into it historically. The fact of the matter is that others started the process a lot earlier this time than they normally do. I think it was for some of them when they were juniors in high school.

APPLAUSE

That is a very good question, not because it's difficult to answer, because, but I'm gonna answer it in a little different way than what you might expect.

In the first place, I wouldn't be here if I didn't. I wouldn't be doing this if i didn't. I grew up very modest circumstances. I left government, I and my family have made sacrifices for me to be sitting here today. I haven't had any income for a long time because I'm doing this. I figure that to be clean you've got to cut everything off. And I was doing speaking engagements and I had a contract to do a tv show, I had a contract with abc radio like I was talking about earlier and so forth. I guess a man would have to be a total fool to do all those things and to be leaving his family which is not a joyful thing at all if he didn't want to do it.

But I am not consumed by personal ambition. I will not be devastated if I don't do it. I want the people to have the best president that they can have.

When this talk first started, it didn't originate with me. There were a lot of people around the country both directly and through polls, liked the idea of me stepping up. And of course, you always look better at a distance, I guess.

But most of those people are still there and think its a good idea. But I approached it from the standpoint of a deal. A kind of a marriage. If one side of a marriage has to be really talked into the marriage, it probably ain't going to be a very good deal for either one of them. But if you mutually think that this is a good thing. In this case, if you think this is a good thing for the country, then you have an opportunity to do some wonderful things together.

I'm offering myself up. I'm saying that I have the background, the capability, and the concern to do this and I'm doing it for the right reasons. But I'm not particularly interested in running for president, but I think I'd make a good president.

Nowadays, the process has become much more important than it used to be.

I don't know that they ever asked George Washington a question like this. I don't know that they ever asked Dwight D. Eisenhower a question like this. But nowadays, it's all about fire in the belly. I'm not sure in the world we live in today it's a terribly good thing if a president has too much fire in the belly. I approach life differently than a lot of people. People, I guess, wonder how I've been as successful as I've been in everything I've done. I won two races in TN by 20 point margins, a state that Bill Clinton carried twice. I'd never run for office before. I've never had an acting lesson and I guess that's obvious by people who've watched me. But when they made a movie about a case that I had when I took on a corrupt state administration as a lawyer and beat them before a jury. They made a movie about it and I wound up playing myself in the movie and yeah I can do that.

And when I did it, I did it. Wasn't just a lark. Anything that's worth doing is worth doing well. But I've always been a little bit more laid back than most. I like to say that I'm only consumed by very, very few things and politics is not one of them. The welfare of our country and our kids and grandkids is one of them.

If people really want in their president a super type-a personality, someone who has gotten up every morning and gone to bed every night and been thinking about for years how they could achieve the Presidency of the United States, someone who can look you straight in the eye and say they enjoy every minute of campaigning, I ain't that guy. So I hope I've discussed that and hope I haven't talked you out of anything. I honestly want - I can't imagine a worse set of circumstances than achieving the presidency under false pretenses. I go out of my way to be myself because I do't want anybody to think they are getting something they are not getting. I'm not consumed by this process I'm not consumed with the notion of being President. I'm simply saying I'm willing to do what's necessary to achieve it if I'm in sync with the people and if the people want me or somebody like me. I'll do what I've always done in the rest of my life and I will take it on and do a good job and you'll have the disadvantage of having someone who probably can't jump up and click their heels three times but will tell you the truth and you'll know where the President stands at all times.

Maybe once USA Today and CNN graduate from Mad Magazine Journalism School they'll start reporting on candidates who actually answer questions, instead of those who don't take any questions at all.

That is, if their reporters actually get to the venue where the words were spoken. As Fred noticed,

Incidentally, the audience in Burlington broke into applause in the middle of my answer. The reporter wouldn't know that because she wasn't even there.

Smarmy. Not just out of context but out of order and it's written to reinforce the lazy^TM meme.

Now I want to pose a question and I sure would like your responses.

What would the state of our nation and world be if our MSM were not the victim of the Quiet Coup that filled its ranks with raving internationalist/socialists?

Would we still be at war? Would we have a Congress with ratings so low they aren't in the toilet--they've been flushed? Would Jesus be in our hearts and not performing day-labor landscaping?

I'd like to know what you think.

Christmas '07

Hope yours was better than this guy's

All the very best to you and yours.

Cautionary National Health Care Tales

Canada

The UK

From the UK Daily Mail

NHS tells cancer patient her care will stop if she buys extra drugs
By CHRIS BROOKE

A cancer patient yesterday condemned health chiefs as immoral for threatening to stop her free NHS care if she buys a drug to help her treatment.
Former nurse Colette Mills was told her health authority would not provide the "wonder drug" Avastin.

It also rejected her offer to pay the £4,000 a month bill for it herself.

Threat: Colette Mills has been told if she pays for extra drugs she will have to cover the cost of all her treatment
But the 58-year-old, who is having chemotherapy after breast cancer spread through her body, was shocked to discover if she bought the drug privately then she would be liable to pay the entire bill for all of her care - likely to reach £15,000 a month.

Mrs Mills and her husband Eric were forced to back down because they could not afford this.

Read it all here.

LINING UP THE SHOT

He shoots...HE SCORES!

From NewMediaJournal.us

Only one Republican candidate solidly represents all three fundamental Republican planks and that one candidate is the only candidate drafted by conservative voters. The most powerful conservatives in America are beginning to line up behind that candidate.

Staunch Iowa conservative congressman Steve King, famous for his maverick opposition to illegal immigration, just endorsed Thompson, stumping the political experts who predicted he would endorse Romney.

A little early Christmas.

For Christmas over there

Uncle Jimbo over at Black Five has generously created a Holiday YouTube for our troops with the intent to share.

BLACKFIVE TV- CHRISTMAS THANKS TO THE TROOPS
POSTED BY UNCLE JIMBO

I've been overseas for Christmas before, although thankfully not in a war zone. We have quite a few of our troops in harm's way this holiday season and we wanted to let them know how much that means to us. So we asked some of our fellow bloggers to film a message thanking everyone who makes it possible for us to sit safe by the fire. God Bless everyone serving America anywhere.

I, too, have been overseas at this time of year (more accurately at sea) and I can tell you all that being away from loved ones, even in great company, is saddening.

This technology wasn't around in my seasons away

So if you're sending a Christmas wish to a troop you may want to include the URL. Just copy and paste this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q_HEEuipmYM in your email.

--------------------------------------------

Downtime fun

Last Friday I was recuperating from minor surgeries performed on the previous day. All that extra time and Christmas looming I found JibJab for the first time as a user.

This is the result.

Don't send a lame Holiday eCard. Try JibJab Sendables!

This was generated from photos taken a couple years ago when the Turnettes could still smile for the camera

That was then; this is now


The Twin Tween Turnettes^TM turn twelve today!

(Say fast three times)

HAPPY BIRTHDAY GIRLS

Hey! Show 'em some love.

THE SUICIDE COIN

There are two sides to the civilizational suicide coin we are challenged with and both have the element of religiosity--ISLAM, the Will of Allah as noted by his prophet, Mohammed (the Perfect Man^TM) dictating how everyone must worship, organize society and submit and

SOCIALISM, the will of the People as espoused by Marx, et al, dictating how everyone must...well...pretty much the same thing as Islam but the main factor is to SUBMIT.

Hold yer hosses--I'm not advocating against religion, organized or otherwise. There is an element built into the vast majority of us that recognizes something larger than ourselves and yearns to understand more clearly, even the atheist's belief (that's belief, a form of faith, without true knowledge) that there is no God.

The forward thinking socialist, having understood that the common person's innate human nature has a selfish side, has made great inroads in the West by promoting the Welfare State. Much less rhetoric regarding the proletariat and much more about Social Security, Universal Health Care, etc. This tactic assures the common person's self-interests are met.

But that's not enough. No, another element must be introduced. Something truly bigger than any individual. Something bigger than any group or country or region or hemisphere--the Earth.

If the fate of the Earth isn't an issue great enough to grab your attention then nothing is.

It's our home planet. It has nurtured us. When the Earth acts up it's a clear sign that it is mad at us.

We must repent and pay homage and respect to the Earth. We must change our wicked ways; sacrifice our way of life; martyr ourselves and our children so our nonexistent children may enjoy the benefits of holy Gaia.

If you've read this far you're probably not drinking the KoolAid. But you may not have yet heard the words of those who would hold you to the ground, force your mouth open, and pour it in.

Following are excerpts from FRONTPAGEMAG.COM

The Global Warming Suicide Cult

By Don Feder
GrassTopsUSA.com | Wednesday, December 19, 2007

The Global Warming movement has been compared to a religion -- albeit one without God, but with a vision of sin and repentance, damnation and salvation.

Not quite.

Real religion is about improving the human condition by encouraging moral conduct in obedience to the will of God. The proponents of Global Warming are creating a suicide cult, which -- if followed to its logical conclusion -- will lead to human extinction.

...

Ultimately, the Global Warming crusade is a frontal assault on procreation, the family and the future of mankind.

In the December 9th edition of Medical Journal of Australia, Professor Barry Walters urges a one-time "baby levy" of $5,000, followed by an annual tax of $800 per child, on Australian families with more than two children.

"Every newborn baby in Australia represents a potent source of greenhouse gas emissions for an average of 80 years, not simply by breathing but by the profligate consumption of resources typical of our society," writes Walters, who calls childbearing "greenhouse unfriendly behavior."

...

"Human population growth is the paramount environmental issue," says Ric Oberlink, a spokesman for the ominous-sounding Californians for Population Stabilization. "Global warming is a very serious problem, but it is a subset of the overpopulation problem."

Ric (dropping the consonant is his contribution to conservation) claims the problem isn't just too many people, but too many Americans, who, by our evil nature, will consume too much energy over the course of our lives. Americans are "by far the most voracious consumers and the greatest producers of greenhouse gases per capita of any nation on earth," Ric remarks.

...

"The population explosion has severely disturbed the ecological relationships between human beings and the environment," the Sierra Club warns. "In recognition of the growing magnitude of this conservation issue, the Sierra Club supports a greatly increased program of education on the need for population control." The left is really into control.

Global Warming fanaticism seems to lend itself to self-loathing. In 1989, David Graber, then a biologist with the National Park Service, was quoted in the Los Angeles Times observing: "Human happiness and certainly human fecundity are not as important as a wild and healthy planet. I know social scientists who remind me that people are part of nature, but it isn't true... We have become a plague upon ourselves and upon Earth. Until such time as homo sapiens should decide to rejoin nature (by wearing natural fibers and living in trees?) some of us can only hope for the right virus to come along."

...

Is the right plague what Jacques Cousteau had in mind, when he wrote in 1991: "In order to stabilize world population, we must eliminate 350,000 people per day. It is a horrible thing to say, but its just as bad not to say it." A speaker at Gorbachev's 1996 State of the World Forum in San Francisco called for cutting the global population by 90%. He did not specify the method.

Yeah, that Mikhail Gorbachev, formerly red and now green.

Vaclav Klaus, president of the Czech Republic, argues that ambitious environmentalism is the biggest threat to freedom, democracy, the market economy and prosperity.

...

As someone who lived under communism for most of his life, I feel obliged to say that I see the biggest threat to freedom, democracy, the market economy and prosperity now in ambitious environmentalism, not in communism. This ideology wants to replace the free and spontaneous evolution of mankind by a sort of central (now global) planning.

Ready to line up for recycling a la Soylent Green?


"Soylent Green is people"

OK. I'm not Catholic and the Pope is not my ultimate arbiter for God. But I'm proud he has the stones to say this.

The above portion of the post is the obverse, the facia of the coin--the one that's daily in our face from draconian recycling laws to sin taxes. What of the other side?

Again, I find FRONTPAGEMAG.COM an invaluable resource.,

A Never-Ending War

By Jamie Glazov
FrontPageMagazine.com | Wednesday, December 19, 2007
...

FP: So what is your understanding of Islam? And who and what is exactly our enemy in this terror war?

Cappi: If anyone takes the time to read the Qur’an the answer to your question is simple and very obvious. For accuracy purposes I read three versions. They all agree in principle. The Qur’an is nothing like the Bible or New Testament. In no way and certainly not in substance or intent is it similar. By the way any belief system can be perverted to nefarious ends but if the system itself is fundamentally benign or moral any perversion of its philosophical premises can be righted. However, when the belief system itself is corrupt or evil no good can come from it. The Qur’an is just such a belief system: it is a “blueprint for war” and for the subjugation of the non-believer. To the extent it deals with any aspect of morality it is similar to the Judeo-Christian ethic but only if this ethic is not in conflict with the goals of Islam’s spread and world conquest.

The Qur’an is filled with endless directives compelling Muslims to convert, conquer or kill non-believers and to conquer the non-Islamic world. Further Islam dictates that the Qur’an must be accepted and followed literally. Apostasy is heresy and punishable by death. It is this belief system that throughout history has caused Muslims to endlessly embark on conquest. In 1400 years of history the only time the West has been at “peace” with Islam was from the end of the Ottoman Empire early in the 20th Century through the end of World War ll. The reason for Islam’s dormancy during this brief period was the overwhelming superiority of the West technologically and economically along with the impoverished and largely uneducated Islamic world. The difference made it impossible for Islam to confront the West in any way. The vast quantity of money flowing into the Middle East from the sale of oil after WWII has allowed Islam to buy what it needs to once again begin its quest. The modern jihad was born.

The oil money has funded the terrorists, the construction of endless mosques and madrassas- Islamic religious schools - throughout the West. Both school and mosque almost all preach the most extreme form of Islam – Wahhabism. Our “friends” the Saudis fund most of these activities.

Perhaps that was a long-winded way of saying that Islam itself is the enemy, not a number of terrorist groups. Terrorism is one of Islam’s tools but it is the religion of Islam that is at war with us. One might ask how can a religion be at war with countries? The brief answer lies in the fact that there is no separation of church and state in Islam. The law of Islam is Shari’ and it is derived from the Qur’an and Haddiths. Every Muslim country in the world is governed by Shari’a. (Turkey is an exception but even it does not violate Shari’a and in fact is suffering an internal struggle to adopt overthrow its secular laws in favor of Shari’a.)

The central theme found throughout the Qur’an and embodied in Shari’a is a concept of a very definite world order. There can exist, according to Islam only two states in the world: dar al Islam - the realm of Islam and dar al harb - the realm of war. If you are not part of Islam you are at war with Islam. The war can take any form, be it terrorism, subversion or economics.

Through Shari’a the religion of Islam and the state of Islam are one. For a Muslim there is no conflict in this regard. The absolute essential theme of every action of every Islamic nation and practicing Muslim is the establishment of Shari’a in every country in the world just as Mohammed commanded through the Qur’an. This has been a driving force for 1400 years.

We just don’t understand it or want to believe it.

Having said we are at war with Islam leaves a Western mind very unsettled. The statement smacks of bigotry or Islamophobia or intolerance at the least. And it is exactly this that is one of Islam’s best weapons against the Western cultures. We cannot deal with the thought of a religion as a mechanism for conquest, we cannot deal with the thought that there are citizens within the West that would, if they could, overthrow our way of life and institute a 7th Century mind set and form of government – remember the Taliban that is the ultimate Islamic goal on a worldwide scale. Because we cannot accept these things intellectually we only win some battles against terrorists but we are losing the broader war.

The premise of being at war with a religion flies in the face of everything we as a tolerant people have been taught and believe in our hearts. Although the premise is sad, the reality is what it is. The facts are what they are regardless of how unpleasant they may be. The challenge to the West is to be able to fight this war while protecting the individual Muslim that is not part of the insane literalism of Islam. And there are many frightened Muslims not part of this endless war. They are afraid to step forth for the consequences are often death. Even in Western countries killings of apostates is not uncommon.

Islamic family love

Aqsa Parvez
R.I.P.

'Nuf said?

Oh! the humanity!

The old saw in journalism goes "if it bleeds it leads".

Another bodily fluid was copiously flowing toward the end of the Bali conference last week (see Folly in Bali) but it didn't get a lot of press here.

From the Daily Mail:

If it weeps it creeps
me out.

"He wasn't just wiping his eyes, he was in floods of tears," said one observer.

"Three colleagues - one of them a woman - formed a protective group around him and escorted him out of the hall. It was all very dramatic."

Mr de Boer's breakdown came after nearly a fortnight of squabbling over proposals to cut carbon emissions.

Was he upset over the inevitability of climate change or that he clearly wasn't going to get his way?

From The American Thinker

When the story of our time is written -- as soon as future historians can stop laughing -- Al Gore will be Exhibit #1 for the unprecedented nuttiness of our politics.

In Florida in 2000, Al Gore just knew he was destined to win the presidency, just like Mom and Dad told him all those years ago. The Big Media were actually convinced that Gore had won before the votes came in, based on their usual dubious polls. It was only a question of how many recounts it would take to prove what they already knew, and how many rules had to be busted for Mr. Gore to assume his rightful place in history.

In Bush v Gore the US Supreme Court finally decided enough was enough, by a vote of 7-2. You don't get to replay the game until you win. The Supremes and George W. Bush have been ferociously hated for that ever since by our friends on the Left, who apparently never play card games. If you're allowed to deal the deck over and over again until you win, you're not playing poker, but some sort of childish game of self-delusion.

Which is not a bad description of Al Gore's new incarnation as the Steaming Green Messiah of Doom. "Steaming" not because it's hot in Oslo, where he received his Nobel Peace Prize, but because Al himself generates a whole lot more heat than light. If Mr. Gore's fury and rage could be turned into useful energy it would do much to wipe out his ample carbon footprint.

And if you find yourself with a week or so with nothing much else to do you may find the fully alphebetized list of Hysterical Headlines^TM a fun way to while away hours that you will never get back.

Is this the takedown of America?

Neither Islam nor the Russians can take us down--but together...

Russia warns of US missile shield retaliation
Article from: Agence France-Presse

From correspondents in Moscow
December 15, 2007 10:27pm

THE planned deployment of US interceptor missiles in Poland could trigger a missile strike by Russia if those missiles are ever used, the Russian army's chief of staff has warned.

"We are talking about the possibility of a retaliatory strike being triggered by the mistaken classification of an interceptor missile," Yury Baluyevsky said at a press conference broadcast on state television.

At a presser, no less. Another way to get the message to the Yanks.

It's a clear reminder that some things remain on a hair trigger.

Russian Mediterranean Naval Build-Up Challenges NATO Sixth Fleet Domination

David Eshel December 12, 2007

This week witnessed a great thrust by Russia to demonstrate its military strength, when Russian President Vladimir Putin alarmed Europe by finally declaring Russia's official rejection of the Conventional Armed Forces in Europe Treaty (CFE), (the treaty entered into force on July 17, 1992 limiting the number of combat elements that Russia could deploy along its borders with Europe). Immediately following this declaration, Russian Defense Minister Anatoly Serdyukov announced sending a sortie of six Russian warships to the Mediterranean, led by the Admiral Kuznetsov aircraft carrier. Other vessels escorting the carrier as part of the task force are Admiral Levchenko and Admiral Chabanenko anti-submarine ships, and the Sergei Osipov and Nikolai Chiker support ships. The group is expected to be joined by the flagship Moskva a guided missile cruiser and four additional ships as it arrives in the Mediterranean.

Our front and flanks are now going to have some firepower on our 6.

This presents an especially difficult problem if Israel decides to take action against the Iranian nuke facilities and we're called in to defend Israel against retaliation by Iran, Syria, Hezbollah and Hamas.

The Russians obviously want to stay in this game and they equally obviously believe their interests will gain in any US or Allied action.The latest published NIE has the Israelis alarmed:

DEBKAfile: Israeli minister warns “flawed” US intelligence on Iran nuke will lead to “Yom Kippur”
December 15, 2007, 9:37 PM (GMT+02:00)

Internal security minister and former Shin Bet head Avi Dichter was the first government member to publicly and harshly question the US National Intelligence Estimate which says Tehran no longer develops nuclear weapons. “We know the threat to be ongoing and palpable” for Israel and a whole region within the range of Iran’s ballistic missiles, i.e. Europe and North Africa.

Olmert is going to concession himself right out of office. The Israelis know that the only Land of Israel acceptable to the Palis is going to exist in history books.

The great question is who gains from a true conflagration in the ME?

As has been long noted "Russia plays chess while we play poker". Russia has no need to project naval power in the Med unless it is to threaten or thwart possible US and Israeli actions there.

Russia's fingerprints in the Jihad war extend to pre 9/11 days. Russians actually tipped UBL that we were listening to his sat phone calls in early 2001 and he promptly went ultra-low tech with literally horse and foot messaging.

There doesn't seem to be a limit on Putin's quest for power, either.

The Perils of Putinism
A non-transfer of power that makes Russia less stable.

Saturday, December 15, 2007 12:01 a.m. EST

Plans for a transition of power were unveiled this week in Russia. The news is that there won't be one.

Many Russians and foreign investors alike were cheered by Vladimir Putin's clearest signal yet of his intention to stay in charge beyond March's presidential elections. Shares soared on his endorsement Monday of longtime aide Dmitry Medvedev to nominally take his spot in the Kremlin. Shares jumped again a day later when the heir apparent returned the favor and pledged to name Mr. Putin as the next Prime Minister with, so everyone presumes, stronger powers than the next President.

This choreographed switcheroo is Putinism to a tee. The President and his men trample on civic freedoms and concentrate power in the name of "order" and "stability." With the economy growing on the back of oil approaching $100 a barrel, up from $15 when Mr. Putin took office in 2000, complaints are muted--sometimes by force. But of all people, Russians ought to have learned from history that personalizing and centralizing so much authority brings trouble down the road.

Back to this NIE that is generating so much ink and controversy. Some of the conspiracy theorizing and reaction makes sense.

What may not make sense are agenda driven bureaucrats in sensitive positions.

December 15, 2007
Author of NIE believes CIA's Priority should be 'Diversity'
Ed Lasky

The folly of relying on the "experts" who are responsible for the National Intelligence Estimate regarding Iran and its nuclear program is again on view. The Principle Deputy Director of National Intelligence, who was integral to the findings of that report and its publication and who has been defending it from criticism across the political spectrum and from around the world (save for Iran, Russia, and China-which reveals a lot about the shoddiness of the NIE report), last week addressed the need to reform our intelligence agencies. Commentary has a priceless quote:

On December 6, Donald Kerr, the PDDNI, that is, the Principal Deputy Director of National Intelligence, laid out his agency’s 500-day plan to set things right. “What is required, first and foremost,” he said in congressional testimony, “is integrating the foundational elements and removing the barriers — in the areas of policy, management/budgeting, technology and acquisition, information, collection and analysis, and culture.” To this end, we need “to promote and build an intelligence community (IC) identity or sense of ‘jointness’ by creating programs that provide for cross-agency work assignments and training.”

The 500-day plan enters almost immediately into a discussion of the vital importance of “Equal Opportunity and Diversity.” It offers high praise for the intelligence community’s Diversity Strategy Implementation Workshop, an event held this past October that was an “an important step in the accomplishment of the IC-wide EEO and Diversity Cross-Cutting Emphasis Area Plan (CCEAP) by providing each of the IC Agencies with the mechanisms and direction. . . .”

I won’t bore you with the rest, but it is an astonishing compendium of bureaucratic gibberish guaranteed either to put you to sleep if you simply read it, or to give you nightmares if you pause to think about its implications.

How cogent can advice be from a diversity advocate? Winning or losing doesn't matter as long as everybody can play in the game.

I think it is time for the Texas oil man to sit face to face with the former KGB man and look him in the eye again and say something Reaganesque. Or Churchillian. Something to indicate that a coming theater war need not go global and nuclear.

Holding a royal flush beats the word 'check' every time.

Folly in Bali

Dear friend,

Tomorrow I'm going to Bali, Indonesia to address the UN Climate Change Conference. In front of representatives from the world's countries, I will speak about the need for a visionary treaty to be completed, ratified and brought into effect everywhere in the world by 2010. I need you, your friends and family to sign this petition calling for a new, positive leadership role by our elected leaders. I will bring your signatures on stage with me as a clear demonstration of our resolve.

This petition shows our commitment to solutions to the climate crisis. Please add your voice today and urge your friends to add theirs. The time for action is now. Only together can we make the change.

Sincerely,

Which public airline did the Gorester fly on to reach the conference?

Never mind. Now he has a Nobel and can be honored, respected and listened to like Carter and Arafat. When he gets back to town he needs to be ridden out on a rail.

I watched a flick the other day from 1992. Hole in the Ozone Layer Warning. When's the last time you were updated on that crock?

December 14, 2007

Bali Finale Papers Pit Vision Against Precision

Marc Sheppard
On the very day Al Gore arrived in Bali with a petition avowing "support for a visionary global treaty to end the climate crisis," another petition (of sorts) was released attesting that any such efforts would prove "ultimately futile."

But in stark contrast to the Green Giant's appeal, which contained the "signatures" of nearly a quarter million internet denizens of indemonstrable education, it was more than 100 field-leading scientists that signed the letter to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon which began:

"It is not possible to stop climate change, a natural phenomenon that has affected humanity through the ages."

Yesterday, Gore's silly electronically-signed whine was presented to the waning UN Climate conference along with his requisite repent-or-perish speech, this time climaxing with these euphoric-applause and hoorah inspiring words:

"My own country the United States is principally responsible for obstructing progress here in Bali. We all know that."

The freshly minted Laureate was singling out the country he had once aspired to lead for its refusal to commit to unnecessary and unattainable greenhouse gas abatement goals throughout the 2 week climate festival. Of course, Japan and Canada had stood the same ground, as did "developing" nations China and India. But why quibble? There're plenty of accolades to go around.

That's right - three cheers for all nations responsible for gridlocking the progress of the world's worst idea since Hydrogen-filled blimps.

And the letter to be distributed to Bali revelers on this, the final day, signed by such scientific luminaries as World Federation of Scientists president Dr. Antonio Zichichi and the "Father of Climatology" himself, Dr. Reid Bryson, distinguishes itself from yesterday's "I Like Al" petition by explaining why.

Declaring the Summaries for Policy Makers the most widely read and quoted of IPCC reports, the climate authorities reiterate that they are prepared not by scientists but rather government representatives. Furthermore, they remind us, contrary to the impression the summaries leave with the reader:

"Recent observations of phenomena such as glacial retreats, sea-level rise and the migration of temperature-sensitive species are not evidence for abnormal climate change, for none of these changes has been shown to lie outside the bounds of known natural variability.

The average rate of warming of 0.1 to 0. 2 degrees Celsius per decade recorded by satellites during the late 20th century falls within known natural rates of warming and cooling over the last 10,000 years.

Leading scientists, including some senior IPCC representatives, acknowledge that today's computer models cannot predict climate. Consistent with this, and despite computer projections of temperature rises, there has been no net global warming since 1998. That the current temperature plateau follows a late 20th-century period of warming is consistent with the continuation today of natural multi-decadal or millennial climate cycling."

The dispatch, which rebukes the conference's disregard of Kyoto's failures in attempting to craft severe CO2 restrictions and trading markets, then concludes:

"Attempts to prevent global climate change from occurring are ultimately futile, and constitute a tragic misallocation of resources that would be better spent on humanity's real and pressing problems."

Bona fide experts, dispassionately relating facts and proffering cogent analysis will certainly assuage segments of the quivering heat-fearing masses lamenting a no-deal summit, right? After all, they do appear to react quite passionately to letters of Science.

Remember the hysterical mandatory emissions caps rally-cry letter -- signed by 200 likely less objective and categorically less distinguished scientists -- that was all the rage at the opening of the conference? And the wide and excited coverage it received from the greenhouse gasbag media-at-large?

Might the fortnight visitors to the Bali of the Folly Green Giant respond similarly to this letter, further authorized by physics legend Dr. Freeman Dyson and Dr. Edward J. Wegman, of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences? As the media is delirious with the same green fever, the degree of the letter's dissemination will provide a strong indicator.

Try this little experiment over the next few days: Google the words 200 Scientists Bali. Page through the results until you've properly appreciated the lay of the land. Now, replace 200 with 100 and repeat.

Any questions?

High noon in Iowa

The moment he stood out


Someday it will be understood by all that climate changes are a natural phenomena--that warming trends and cooling trends are driven by a variety of factors and not by the puny effects of mankind.

In today's world, however, there is a movement intent on foisting anthroprogenic global warming as a means toward changing our way of life on both an individual and sovereign national level.

McCain, Giuliani, and Romney have drunk the koolaid.

Thompson had the stones to place the blame for our abysmal state of education squarely on the NEA. I would have enjoyed one minute of Fred on the UN's efforts to destroy America and the developed world.

Hell's Angels

From WIKI:

The Hells Angels Motorcycle Club (HAMC) is a controversial world-wide motorcycle club whose members traditionally ride Harley-Davidson motorcycles. In the United States, and Canada, the Hells Angels are incorporated as the Hells Angels Motorcycle Corporation.

Both the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Criminal Intelligence Service Canada classify the Angels as one of the "big four" outlaw motorcycle gangs; contending that members carry out widespread violence, drug dealing, trafficking in stolen goods, and extortion.[1][2] Hells Angels advocates assert that this is a mischaracterization, and that they are victims of the "one-percenter" phenomenon, in which a criminal element that comprises one percent of an organization leads to the vilification of the remaining 99% of law-abiding members.

Sound familiar?

So...Do the 99% of benevolent H.A. go after the nasty 1% and clean up their ranks?

Maybe they could have an advocacy group. They could be called the Council on Hell's Angels Innocent Relations--CHAIR for short. CHAIR would obfuscate on behalf of the Angels, present the harmless face of them, and minimize the threat they pose to ordinary folk.

If ever there were angels sent up from what Christians and Jews understand as hell they would be Muslims. Despisers of freedom and the free will bestowed us by a loving G*d. Slavers most foul.

Our ancestors 800 years gone knew what we are now slowly learning. Too damn slowly. The Great Deceiver, the Prince of Hell, has a billion strong swarm of sworn enemies of peace and freedom. Their goal--plunge mankind into darkness. Their creed--shari'a--a law of whips and chains. Their method--myriad forms of jihad.

A mother helps strap an explosive vest on her son and 'blesses' him as he goes out to commit murder and mayhem of innocents. Is this not human sacrifice? How can any civilized person believe that people who advocate such are deserving of a sovereign state carved from a nation that is civilized?

No. Our forefathers knew what we are wont to know: Invite them to the light. Kill them if they make war. Put them in reservations if they do not accept civilization.

Mapping Shari'a

David Yerushalmi explains Mapping Shari'a to Michael Savage.

Just audio:

Here

Diversidarity

Some pickings from the Freedom/Justice and Defining Liberty Brigades.

Bill Whittle
11.28.07

Are you in favor of Freedom? Well, who isn’t?

What about Justice? Put me down for that too.

Everybody wants freedom, and everybody wants justice… but it occurs to me, if you really get down to brass tacks, that pure freedom and pure justice are mutually exclusive.

For example, if one was truly free, utterly at liberty to do whatever one wanted, whenever they wanted to do it, then that person would leave a vast wake of injustice. To walk wherever you wanted: trespassing. To take what you wanted: stealing (or rape if it was who you wanted). If you were absolutely, utterly free you could murder at will. Or perhaps just drive as fast as you want.

The fact that you are not able to do any of these things puts constraints on your liberty. It limits your freedom to act. Thank God.

Read it all at .ejectejecteject

Sigmund, Carl, and Alfred on 12.05.07 blogs commentary from an US perspective regarding an essay by David Goodhart.

She chose two excerpts in particular from The discomfort of strangers.

“…And therein lies one of the central dilemmas of political life in developed societies: sharing and solidarity can conflict with diversity. This is an especially acute dilemma for progressives who want plenty of both solidarity (high social cohesion and generous welfare paid out of a progressive tax system) and diversity (equal respect for a wide range of peoples, values and ways of life). The tension between the two values is a reminder that serious politics is about trade-offs. It also suggests that the left’s recent love affair with diversity may come at the expense of the values and even the people that it once championed….”

Moreover, modern liberal societies cannot be based on a simple assertion of group identity - the very idea of the rule of law, of equal legal treatment for everyone regardless of religion, wealth, gender or ethnicity, conflicts with it. On the other hand, if you deny the assumption that humans are social, group-based primates with constraints, however imprecise, on their willingness to share, you find yourself having to defend some implausible positions…”

and

“…When solidarity and diversity pull against each other, which side should public policy favour? Diversity can increasingly look after itself - the underlying drift of social and economic development favours it. Solidarity, on the other hand, thrives at times of adversity, hence its high point just after the second world war and its steady decline ever since as affluence, mobility, value diversity and (in some areas) immigration have loosened the ties of a common culture. Public policy should therefore tend to favour solidarity in four broad areas.

…Negotiating the tension between solidarity and diversity is at the heart of politics. But both left and right have, for different reasons, downplayed the issue. The left is reluctant to acknowledge a conflict between values it cherishes; it is ready to stress the erosion of community from “bad” forms of diversity, such as market individualism, but not from “good” forms of diversity, such as sexual freedom and immigration. And the right, in Britain at least, has sidestepped the conflict, partly because it is less interested in solidarity than the left, but also because it is still trying to prove that it is comfortable with diversity.”

But in my reading of the original text I find this gem:

Thinking about the conflict between solidarity and diversity is another way of asking a question as old as human society itself: who is my brother, with whom do I share mutual obligations? The traditional conservative, Burkean view is that our affinities ripple out from our families and localities to the nation, and not very far beyond. That view is pitted against a liberal universalist one that sees us in some sense equally obligated to all human beings, from Bolton to Burundi - an idea that is associated with the universalist aspects of Christianity and Islam, with Kantian universalism and with left-wing internationalism.

Goodhart is not wrong about "the universalist aspects of Christianity and Islam, with Kantian universalism and with left-wing internationalism".

But some juxtapositions are hard to compare. Consider: Catholic charities supported the four decade mission of Mother Teresa in Calcutta, ministering to the poor, the sick and dying, widows and orphans, few of which were Christian. Some, a relative few, saw her example and converted.

In the heart of Islam, the house of Saud commits millions to fund Madrassas that teach two subjects: The Quran (memorized by rote in Arabic) and the Wahhabist doctrinal interpretation of it--jihad.

Muslim charities worldwide and--gaak--Western governments including the US send aid money almost directly to Hamas. Hamas must be laughing at us.

Kant wrote of the great expansion of enlightenment to reach all mankind in rejection of the purely empirical theory of Hume. There must be a willingness to come to reason, not the coerced method of indoctrination as evidenced by 'left-wing internationalism', err...Marxism.

I only want equality under the law in a land that values freedom. I don't wish for any special treatment. Some diversity-based groups don't share this belief. They want a special status under the law and a different set of behaviors--formerly frowned upon--to be not just accepted but embraced and celebrated.


Gay Last Supper

In this era, with its celebration of diversity, it seems that the melting pot has become a stew pot with the lid on and the burner set at max. it's not constitutional for some groups to have elevated rights, and privileges still must be earned to be honored. Nothing illustrates this better than in-state tuition rates for illegal aliens (immigrant implies that one did more than swim a river or cross a desert). States that have passed these laws have elevated an illegal's rights to be above residents of the other 49.

"With liberty and justice for all".

Liberty meaning freedom to pursue your happiness within the constraints of the law.

Justice meaning equality under the law.

Eleven

"Society in every state is a blessing, but government even in its best state is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one; for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries by a government, which we might expect in a country without government, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer."

Thomas Paine, 1776

Eleven months to election '08.

Every candidate with a 'D' behind their names will introduce heightened calamity into our lives. Universal healthcare and global warming legislation are agendas to make us less free.

Choose right.

Mohammed & Marx

Rare to see video of Darwin Award presentation

God is Great, indeed.
Let's sort through a few things before I get started. Somehow in the last five decades, by accident or intent, Nazism has been commingled with the 'Far Right' in the political spectrum. As if Nazi was to the right of Christian Conservatives and staunch Republicans. Such thinking is polluted from years of propaganda. Propaganda from where?

Nazi is short for National Socialism and it differs from the Soviet style in its 'national' rather than 'international' designation. (The Soviet national anthem was The International.) This places Nazis correctly on the left. Brutal centralized government, lockstep adherence to ideology and leaders that stay in power for life are the hallmarks of the 'left' as in Cuba, N. Korea, maybe Venezuela after this weekend's elections there and...Nazi Germany.


There is no 'center'.
There are only the left and the right and degrees therein.

The right believe in personal freedom and responsibility. The left believe in ceding personal freedom and responsibility to a governing body.

The right generally adopt a live and let live stance while seeking justice for those miscreants who step over established societal norms. The left actively proselytize and seek to normalize what no sane society has ever tolerated.


The person who posted this gem wrote this to go along with it:

We, people of the EU, have a dream. Let us work together and make our dream come true.

I dont want much. All I want is a Socialist European Union! Once this is achieved, we will be able to help people across the world achieve Socialism and one day we will unite and form the Socialist World Republic!

May fortune smile at you, comrades!

For Solidarity, Equality, Freedom, Peace and Democracy!

For Socialism!
For our Socialist European Union!

So the ultimate example of the far right would not be a Nazi. It would be the fellow who moves his family to the forest and becomes what used to be designated a survivalist.

And the ultimate example of the left would be found where? Most likely in a university molding young minds. Because the left needs more adherents.

Is it nexus or parallel?

"The moment it stopped spreading..."
Adherents. Those that adhere. True believers or koolaid drinkers--it doesn't matter--when the power of the individual is handed to a commissar or a caliph it is not easily won back. It's simply easier to go along and try to better one's position within the system than to exit from it.

Tens of thousands of native Europeans are now making the choice to exit from Marx's dream but tens of millions stay and feed the beast that is now the EU. There are now millions of adherents of Islam in Europe.


Wafa Sultan throws down
National borders are being erased as new and artificial districts are being created. Ghettos of immigrants practice Sharia and commit outrageous acts of lawlessness against non-believers. Freedoms of speech and movement are now restricted in the UK and Western Europe.

Mohammed has lain with the daughter of Marx and Eurabia is their freedom killing issue. International socialism and Islam have, at their heart, the same, identical goal--universal enslavement to a perfect ideology. And that's just hunky dory to the adherents.

Hundreds of millions are 'going along' in Europe. A small fraction are opting out by emigration.

But a relative few are choosing the hard option. They're organizing for the war ahead. And for their efforts they're being labeled as Nazis.

European politics have always been fractious but now the left are marginalizing the few clear thinkers who still respect their freedoms. It has even infected the American blogosphere as witnessed in the contretemps between Little Green Footballs and Gates of Vienna and now spilling over elsewhere.

The Jihad war will continue long and horrible. Whatever their other beliefs may be I will ally with anyone who values freedom and hates slavery.