Liberally Conservative

"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in the United States where men were free....... ~Ronald Reagan~

Friday, June 30, 2006

New York Times - Wrongfully Wrapped in the First Amendment

I have read the Wall Street Journal for my whole adult life, or since I began college at the ripe age of 17. That was a very long time ago. The WSJ, has always provided me with business information, news and opinion in an objective, honest manner. Many papers have changed over the years but the WSJ has been a constant daily force in my life. Why? I trust it.
xxx
The Wall Street Journal may be conservative newsprint to some, it is a free market, capitalist media outlet. They don't always agree with either side of the political spectrum and they print it. By doing so they demonstrate their objectivity over a broad spectrum with a conservative constant. You will find commentary and opinion from the far left many times.
xxx
Today the WSJ has used it's Review and Outlook page (editorial) to explain the New York Times decision to print the SWIFT program of tracking financial aspects of al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups. They also explain how the WSJ printed similar news. The difference is striking and one media giant exposes another for what it is. Anti-Bush, anti-Conservative, pro-left with an agenda beyond reporting news accurately.
xxx
The New York Times and editor Bill Keller has wrapped it's defense of exposing a classified, terrorist fighting operation in the first amendment. It has also attempted to align itself with the Wall Street Journal for printing similar news. Here is what the WSJ has to say. (Paraphrased and Outlined)
xxx
'Not everything is fit to print. There is to be regard for at least probable factual accuracy, for danger to innocent lives, for human decencies, and even, if cautiously, for nonpartisan considerations of the national interest."
xxx We should make clear that the News and Editorial sections of the Journal are separate, with different editors. The Journal story on Treasury's antiterror methods was a product of the News department, and these columns had no say in the decision to publish. We have reported the story ourselves, however, and the facts are that the Times's decision was notably different from the Journal's.
  • Tony Fratto, Treasury's Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs, he first contacted the Times some two months ago. Mr. Fratto went on to ask the Times not to publish such a story on grounds that it would damage this useful terror-tracking method.
  • Secretary John Snow invited Times Executive Editor Bill Keller to his Treasury office to deliver the same message. Later still, Mr. Fratto says, Tom Kean and Lee Hamilton, the leaders of the 9/11 Commission, made the same request of Mr. Keller. Democratic Congressman John Murtha and Director of National Intelligence John Negroponte also urged the newspaper not to publish the story.
  • Mr. Fratto says he believed "they had about 80% of the story, but they had about 30% of it wrong."
  • Would the Journal have published the story had we discovered it as the Times did, and had the Administration asked us not to? Speaking for the editorial columns, our answer is probably not. Mr. Keller's argument that the terrorists surely knew about the Swift monitoring is his own leap of faith. The terror financiers might have known the U.S. could track money from the U.S., but they might not have known the U.S. could follow the money from, say, Saudi Arabia. The first thing an al Qaeda financier would have done when the story broke is check if his bank was part of Swift.
  • Just as dubious is the defense in a Times editorial this week that "The Swift story bears no resemblance to security breaches, like disclosure of troop locations, that would clearly compromise the immediate safety of specific individuals." In this asymmetric war against terrorists, intelligence and financial tracking are the equivalent of troop movements. They are America's main weapons.

I am a principled individual and I gravitate to the WSJ for news because I believe it to be principled as well. On the other hand, the New York Times consistently leads the way in agenda based news and they have a propensity to "leak" classified information that would, in fact, aid and abet terrorist organization. Not only does the New York Time lack principle, they lack courage.

The Wall Street Journal continues:

We suspect that the Times has tried to use the Journal as its political heatshield precisely because it knows our editors have more credibility on these matters. As Alexander Bickel wrote, the relationship between government and the press in the free society is an inevitable and essential contest. The government needs a certain amount of secrecy to function, especially on national security, and the press in its watchdog role tries to discover what it can. The government can't expect total secrecy, Bickel writes, "but the game similarly calls on the press to consider the responsibilities that its position implies. Not everything is fit to print." The obligation of the press is to take the government seriously when it makes a request not to publish. Is the motive mainly political? How important are the national security concerns? And how do those concerns balance against the public's right to know?

The problem with the Times is that millions of Americans no longer believe that its editors would make those calculations in anything close to good faith. We certainly don't. On issue after issue, it has become clear that the Times believes the U.S. is not really at war, and in any case the Bush Administration lacks the legitimacy to wage it. So, for example, it promulgates a double standard on "leaks," deploring them in the case of Valerie Plame and demanding a special counsel when the leaker was presumably someone in the White House and the journalist a conservative columnist. But then it hails as heroic and public-spirited the leak to the Times itself that revealed the National Security Agency's al Qaeda wiretaps. Perhaps Mr. Keller has been listening to his boss, Times Publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr., who in a recent commencement address apologized to the graduates because his generation "had seen the horrors and futility of war and smelled the stench of corruption in government. "Our children, we vowed, would never know that. So, well, sorry. It wasn't supposed to be this way," the publisher continued. "You weren't supposed to be graduating into an America fighting a misbegotten war in a foreign land. You weren't supposed to be graduating into a world where we are still fighting for fundamental human rights," and so on. Forgive us if we conclude that a newspaper led by someone who speaks this way to college seniors has as a major goal not winning the war on terror but obstructing it.
xxx
These words demonstrate the agenda ridden Times for it's hypocrisy and aim to destroy the Bush administration even with it's own lack of credibility. Bill Keller is treasonous and will get off the hook because of the U.S. Constitution and the First Amendment. In the end, Mr. Keller and the New York Times are incompetent and dangerous. Keller attached himself to the Wall Street Journal because they have the credibility he and his newspaper lack.

You are viewing a post on the old Liberally Conservative site. Click here to find this post on the new site.

Thursday, June 29, 2006

Read Their Lips - No New Taxes

George H. W. Bush, aka Bush 41, promised, "No New Taxes" in his bid for reelection. What we got was a tax hike and the unscrupulous Bill Clinton. Fortunately a Republican congress applied "The Contract With America" and innovation in the high tech boom made for a great economy. It also made the politicians and Clinton administration look smart.
xxx
As Johnny Carson said years ago, "Who Do You Trust?" or "Whom Do You Trust?" Today's congressional Republicans have turned soft to conservative principles, they lack the intestinal fortitude to stop the flood of earmarks, and mimic their so called rivals on the left.
xxx
As sure as the sun will rise in the East, if the liberals gain power in the House or Senate, a tax increase proposal will appear on the horizon. Only a President with a sense for free market economies will veto such a proposal. Unfortunately the earmarking will continue and probably grow, increasing big federal government.
xxx
Politicians are only creative when the decision making is easy. They don't have to know economics, they only have to satisfy the lobbyists who pave the way for their election and then, reelection. It's easy, buy your way in, move into a nice home near D.C. and plan to be a career politician, riding on taxpayers money.
xxxx
Tim Kaine, the new Democratic Governor from Virginia, vowed during his campaign not to raise taxes. So much for that, he recently called for a tax increase even with a hugh surplus of $1.5 billion. The $1 billion tax increase proposal was defeated although many Republicans voted for it.
xxx
Former Democratic Virginia Governor, Mark Warner, has 2008 presidential ambitions. Warner also campaigned against higher taxes but won approval of his own tax hike. The Wall Street Journal reported on a study of economic growth and taxes. The following is what they found:
xxx
A new study from the American Shareholders Association examined the 10-year forecast for economic growth and federal revenue collections for the period 1997-2006. And over these years, it found, the CBO underestimated tax revenue collections by a cumulative $800 billion. The forecasting faux pas is actually larger because those estimates excluded the impact of at least three major tax cuts (in 1997, 2001 and 2003) that subsequently passed Congress. These tax cuts were estimated by the wizards at Joint Tax to deplete federal tax collections by an additional $1.24 trillion through 2006, according to the Shareholders Association study. So if you add those together, CBO and JTC have managed to underestimate revenues by $2.04 trillion over the past decade. Here's one way to appreciate how large this error is: It would be as if CBO forgot to count all the federal income tax payments made by every resident of Florida for an entire decade. Tied to their outdated forecasting models, these agencies refuse to acknowledge that there is any Laffer Curve effect from changes in tax rates that help the economy grow and revenues increase. Thus CBO also managed to project a decade ago that the U.S. economy would be $1.3 trillion smaller today than it actually is.
xxx
Misinformation and more good money chasing the bad. This is just one more example of waste and a nice excuse for politicians to promise not to raise taxes before they do.

You are viewing a post on the old Liberally Conservative site. Click here to find this post on the new site.

Wednesday, June 28, 2006

Wictory Wednesday Presents Senator George Allen

This week Wictory Wednesday is supporting the reelection of Senator George Allen of Virginia. Sen. Allen has been a consistent supporter of conservative values in the Senate, earning a place in the ranks of the American Conservative Union's Best and Brightest. Sen. Allen is a supporter of fiscal conservativism and introduced legislations to require a balanced budget. He also supported a law that would dock congressmen's paychecks if they failed to produce a budget by October 1st. The idea that legislators should be penalized for failure to do the few things they must do is one that should be whole-heartedly supported. While Senator Allen does support accountability for school systems and supporting programs that succeed, support for school choice is notably lacking. There is no better accountability than allowing people to leave failing schools, taking tax dollars with them. Illegal immigration is an issue many legislators are running away from while Senator Allen has the courage to take a stand. He understands what should be common-sense, immigrating legally is a good thing, immigrating illegally is a bad thing. It is obvious that decades of not enforcing immigration law hasn't worked and perhaps it's time we give law and order a chance. We don't need to demean the people who came here while the government basically said it wouldn't enforce the law, but that doesn't mean blanket amnesty… or for that matter, lavishing rewards on illegal immigrants. Lastly, while it has become chic for members of Congress to suggest it's time to surrender to America's enemies and to proclaim that America is the cause of every world problem, Senator Allen understands that no victory came through surrender. The war on terror and Iraq are difficult problems that lesser men run away from by planting their heads in the sand. Winning the War in Iraq takes time and with plans for troop reductions under way, it's clear that "stay the course" is not only a strategy, but a strategy that's working. Please considering donating to Sen. Allen's reelection campaign or volunteering your time.
xxx This has been a production of the Wictory Wednesday blogburst. If you would like to join Wictory Wednesday, please see this post or contact John Bambenek at jcb.blog@gmail.com.
xxx
The following sites are members of the Wictory Wednesday team: xx

You are viewing a post on the old Liberally Conservative site. Click here to find this post on the new site.

FairTax Blogburst

by TD of The Right Track With any proposal, sooner or later the naysayers start their doom-and-gloom predictions. The FairTax proposal is no exception. There are those out there whining and crying about how "it won't really work that way", despite the fact that the current income tax system isn't working the way it's supposed to work. I suppose their fear is exchanging the devil they know for the devil they don't know. In this article, I'll highlight some of their worries and attempt to dispel them. A national sales tax will create a huge black market. Among all the arguments to be made against the FairTax, perhaps this one holds the least water. Arguments are made that this "black market" will spring up, with people "illegally trading DVDs, cigarettes, canned foods" yada yada yada. OK, illegally trading? What's illegal today about trading those items? Nothing! So what's the problem? "They'll be avoiding the tax!” And that's bad, why? My wife buys romance novels at a used book store now. She'd be avoiding the tax, too. She's also reading books that everyone else read weeks or months ago. I say, "Come on, black market!" Only the market won't be black. It can be right in a store front, advertising used books, consignment shops for clothes, furniture, camping equipment, you name it! A whole new type of business will emerge! That will be great for the economy, right? Right! The national sales tax will give government another reason to make cash purchases illegal. Those making this argument claim that paying with cash will make it easier to avoid paying the tax. This is simply ridiculous. Number one, most businesses are run by honest, dependable people. It's not the business owner that's being taxed, remember, it's the purchaser of goods and services. With penalties for those who attempt to cheat the system, the onus is on the business to be open and above-board in collecting and paying the tax. The businesses will keep a small percentage of what they collect in order to offset their expenses in collecting and reporting the tax! While the consumer might hope for a break from the tax, it would be the rare businessman who would collude with the consumer in his scheme to avoid the tax! The tax will be used to track your entire financial life. Coming so closely after the previous argument, you have to laugh. First folks are going to pay with cash to avoid the tax, then the tax will be used to track your entire financial life. Unbelievable. How so? You're not filing a return, are you? To do this, the government would have to:

1. Obtain records of your purchases from retail or service center outlets 2. Obtain records of your purchases from your financial institution 3. Collate the records in order to see what went where 4. Have a really good reason to waste their time doing this But remember, the tax applies to new goods and services only. Don't want the government to know you bought that new Humvee? Get last year's model from a used car dealer. Want a couple of evening gowns? Hit the new consignment shop that just opened up a few blocks from your work. But do you know why the government won't track your entire financial life? Simply put, you're not that big a deal. Sorry to deflate your ego, but why would the government care to delve into your personal finances? They don't care what you spend money on, as long as they get their cut! Simply put, any tax scheme can run rampant over the American people without diligent and unceasing attention on the part of the American taxpayer. It is up to you and I to keep our government on a short leash. We must realize that there are no free rides. When the government gives you something, they have to take something away from you first in order to do so. As author Edward Abbey said, "A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against its government." TD The FairTax Blogburst is jointly produced by Terry of The Right Track Blog and Jonathan of Publius Rendezvous. If you would like to host the weekly postings on your blog, please e-mail Terry. You will be added to our mailing list and blogroll.

You are viewing a post on the old Liberally Conservative site. Click here to find this post on the new site.

Tuesday, June 27, 2006

European Case Against Rendition - A Water Downed Argument?

Wikipedia provides the following definition and descriptiion of rendition:

Rendition In law, rendition is a "surrender" or "handing over" of persons or property, particularly from one jurisdiction to another. For criminal suspects, extradition is the most common type of rendition. Rendition can also be seen as the act of handing over, after the request for extradition has taken place. Extraordinary rendition This term is not defined in international law. Its use is often criticized as euphemistic. For example, a New York Times editorial mentions the "practice known in bureaucratese by the creepy euphemism 'extraordinary rendition.'"
xxx
Bob Herbert of the New York Times wrote: "an American policy that is known as extraordinary rendition. That's a euphemism. What it means is that the United States seizes individuals, presumably terror suspects, and sends them off without even a nod in the direction of due process to countries known to practice torture. Gerard Baker of The Times commented that this "must rank as euphemism of the year.
xxx
[In] 2005 it became notorious as the term used by the US to describe what it does when it hands over terrorist suspects and other enemies to third countries that are rather less scrupulous about human rights than we are."
xxx
As we have seen the New York Times places most things secret and valuable in fighting terrorism about as low as whale dung and sympathizes with terrorist "rights", due process and doesn't mind printing classified information on it's front page under first amendment protection.x
xxx
Mr. Terry Davis is secretary general of the Council of Europe has also taken time out to blast the United States and refers to international law, Europe and in particular France as protectors of freedom and law. Davis writes the following in today’s Wall Street Journal: Contrary to the belief of some people, the European Convention on Human Rights is not a collection of lax, ineffectual and utopian principles. It is a body of international law, which was drafted in difficult and uncertain times and has been tested in courts ever since. The convention balances the rights and freedoms of individuals against the interest of the larger community. It allows for a robust, effective and fair response to the threats faced by society, including from terrorism. In Europe, we reject the bogus choice between our security and our freedom.
xxx
This ruling by a Council of Europe body has been repeatedly used by the highest officials in the U.S. State Department to try to prove that so-called extraordinary renditions are justified and lawful under international law, including European human-rights laws. I am disappointed because this is nothing less than obfuscation.
xxx
Carlos did not disappear, nor did he end up in some Caribbean gulag. He was taken to Paris and brought before a judge, with the right to a lawyer and a fair trial. This was because he was arrested on the basis of a valid arrest warrant, issued before his capture on the basis of his alleged involvement in a car-bomb attack, which killed two people and injured 70 people in Paris. An arrest warrant is a piece of paper signed by a judge. This may not seem much, but it makes all the difference. This is the stuff our freedom is made of. The Commission on Human Rights acknowledged that Carlos may have been arrested and transferred to France in an unusual manner, but this did not change their views on the lawfulness of his detention. And this proves another very important point.
xxx
Mr. Davis is using the topic of rendition on the French handling of the arrest of Carlos the Jackal in 1994. He supports his argument by rulings of the European Council on Human Rights. Davis writes in reference to Condoleeza Rice:
xxx
What Condoleezza Rice's colleagues systematically -- perhaps deliberately? -- omit in their analogies between the capture of Carlos and so-called extraordinary renditions of al Qaeda terrorist suspects are a few basic and very important details.
xxx
Mr. Davis is discussing one person, presumably working alone, not a network of groups backed by al-Qaeda with the sole objective of killing innocent people and whole countries based on religious fanaticism and hatred.
xxx
This is more bluster of international law, which does not dictate policies nor overrides the laws and Constitution of the United States. More and more we see Europe and the United Nations attempting to spoon feed America what foreign governments and institutions feel is right for us.
xxx
Europe and the United Nations should clean up their own miserable back yards before preaching to the one country that is paying the ultimate price to fight terrorism. Editors and publishers should quit aiding and abetting terrorists and not decide what the public should know at the same time we inform the enemy.

You are viewing a post on the old Liberally Conservative site. Click here to find this post on the new site.

Monday, June 26, 2006

Warren Buffett - Two-Face With His Money

"Warren Buffett, the chairman and chief executive officer of Berkshire Hathaway Inc., will give most of his $44 billion in Berkshire stock to the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, entrusting his philanthropic legacy to the only person richer than him," Bloomberg reports. The New York Sun reports, Mr. Buffett could have let the government take its share of his estate after he dies. But just as Mr. Buffett has accumulated his vast wealth without paying much personal income tax, he has found a way to avoid the tax man in this maneuver as well, even writing in his letter to Bill and Melinda Gates that a condition of the gift is that the foundation "must continue to satisfy legal requirements qualifying my gifts as charitable and not subject to gift or other taxes." On the estate tax, watch what Mr. Buffett does, not what he says. The Gates Foundation isn't the only recipient of his largesse--three foundations headed by Mr. Buffett's three children, Susan, Howard, and Peter, will get hundreds of millions of dollars. Tax documents show that in 2004, Peter Buffett and his wife Jennifer each took a $40,000 a year salary for what they reported was 30 hours a week each of work on the foundation.
xxx
Much like John Kerry (D-MA), Mr. Buffet is for the tax before he is against it. Unlike Mr. Kerry, who marries into money, Mr. Buffet uses the tax code to grow his wealth.

You are viewing a post on the old Liberally Conservative site. Click here to find this post on the new site.

Juan Williams Not So SWIFT

Juan Williams is the NPR Senior Correspondent who appears on FOX News Sunday with Chris Wallace as part of the panel discussing political events. Williams never fails to come off like and uneducated buffoon, lacking knowledge and pertinent facts to subject matter he contests. Listening to Williams never fails to make we question if he is completely ignorant or his ingrained belief system is simply warped.
xxx
Williams still condemns the Swift Boat rift for Kerry's demise in the 2004 Presidential election. However, this Sunday Mr. Williams defended The New York Times for releasing another classified program called Swift.
xxx
SWIFT is the financial industry-owned co-operative supplying secure, standardised messaging services and interface software to 7,800 financial institutions in more than 200 countries. Following is a statement from SWIFT:
xxx
In the aftermath of the September 11th attacks, SWIFT responded to compulsory subpoenas for limited sets of data from the Office of Foreign Assets Control of the United States Department of the Treasury.
xxx
SWIFT's fundamental principle has been to preserve the confidentiality of our users’ data while complying with the lawful obligations in countries where we operate. Striking that balance has guided SWIFT through this process with the United States Department of the Treasury.
xxx
SWIFT negotiated with the U.S. Treasury over the scope and oversight of the subpoenas. Through this process, SWIFT received significant protections and assurances as to the purpose, confidentiality, oversight and control of the limited sets of data produced under the subpoenas.
xxx
Independent audit controls provide additional assurance that these protections are fully complied with.All of these actions have been undertaken with advice from international and U.S. legal counsel and following our longstanding procedures on compliance, established by our Board.
xxx
Stuart Levey, Under Secretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence at the Treasury has publicly explained the role of SWIFT and fighting terrorism. Investigators at Treasury “type in” their database queries along with an explanation justifying the request.
xxx
Onsite auditors from SWIFT monitor those requests realtime and block them if they appear abusive or unjustified. And then, after the fact, there are two sets of auditors who review all the investigations; one set at SWIFT and another group at Booze Allen the independent consulting firm. So that answers the question “why is the spying so limited?” that I asked yesterday: because there are controls in place and oversight.
xxx
Williams openly defended the New Times decision to publish the details of the classified program to track terrorist banking transactions. It was clearly explained to Williams this program was used to identify the financial tracking of specific terrorist groups.
xxx
Williams insisted it is great the program was identified by the media, that it would be helpful in stopping terrorists from using international banking to transfer funds to kill people. Williams was unable to distinguish "identify" vs. openly communicating to terrorist groups how their fund movement is tracked.
xx
Juan Williams supports revealing classified programs "in the public interest" and fails to see the public interest is served because programs such as SWIFT exist.

You are viewing a post on the old Liberally Conservative site. Click here to find this post on the new site.

Saturday, June 24, 2006

Moon Bat of The Week Award!

Representative John Murtha (D-PA)
xx
On NBC's "Meet the Press" last Sunday, Rep. John Murtha repeated his call for "redeploying" U.S. troops from Iraq with something new -- and disturbing to fellow Democrats. Asked by moderator Tim Russert about sites for redeployment, Murtha replied: "We can go to Okinawa. ... We can redeploy there almost instantly." "Well, it -- you know, they -- when I say Okinawa, I, I'm saying troops in Okinawa. When I say a timely response, you know, our fighters can fly from Okinawa very quickly. And -- and -- when they don't know we're coming." A Pentagon spokesman says it would take "under a month" to prepare and send a 4,500-man Marine Expeditionary Force 6,000 nautical miles from Okinawa to Bahrain and then 600 more miles to Baghdad.
xxx
We also offer a previous post on some Murtha history, which corroborates our weekly honor for the Pennsylvania representative.

You are viewing a post on the old Liberally Conservative site. Click here to find this post on the new site.

Friday, June 23, 2006

Iraq Amnesty Plan - Who Are We Fighting For?

Anyone visiting this blog knows my unquestioned support of the Bush administration, my conservative beliefs and support for the worldwide war on terror. Below I posted about public criticism from Afghan President Hamid Karzai concerning U.S. and coalition troops. It's my belief he is caving in to public pressure and putting aside private meetings to air his grievances, legitimate or not.
xxx
Now the Iraq government is going to announce a 28-point amnesty plan to insurgents in an attempt to quell violence.
xxx
The TimesOnline is reporting: The 28-point package for national reconciliation will offer Iraqi resistance groups inclusion in the political process and an amnesty for their prisoners if they renounce violence and lay down their arms. The Government will promise a finite, UN-approved timeline for the withdrawal of all foreign troops from Iraq; a halt to US operations against insurgent strongholds; an end to human rights violations, including those by coalition troops; and compensation for victims of attacks by terrorists or Iraqi and coalition forces. It will pledge to take action against Shia militias and death squads. It will also offer to review the process of “de-Baathification” and financial compensation for the thousands of Sunnis who were purged from senior jobs in the Armed Forces and Civil Service after the fall of Saddam Hussein. The deal, which has been seen by The Times, aims to divide Iraqi insurgents from foreign fighters linked to al-Qaeda. It builds on months of secret talks involving Jalal al-Talabani, the Iraqi President, Zalmay Khalilzad, the US Ambassador, and seven Sunni insurgent groups. But one big potential obstacle is whether the US would be willing to grant an amnesty to insurgents who have killed US soldiers but who are not members of extreme groups such as al-Qaeda. The Bush Administration is thought to be split on the issue. “This is very hard for us, particularly at a time when American servicemen are facing prosecution for alleged war crimes — and others are being captured and tortured,” a senior US official said. With 2,500 US soldiers having died in Iraq, to grant an amnesty would be a “huge political football” before the November mid-term elections in the US, he said. But he added: “This is what we did after the Second World War, after the Civil War, after the War of Independence. It may be unpalatable and unsavoury but it is how wars end.” The draft marks the first time the Iraqi Government has endorsed a fixed timeline for the withdrawal of coalition forces from Iraq, a key demand of the Sunni insurgency. xxx Does this mean the closing down of Guantanamo Bay, and how does a reconciliation provide amnesty to insurgents who have killed innocent civilians and recently tortured U.S. troops? What has happened to rule of law? Looking back on previous wars when we are fighting non-uniformed insurgents who are not applying rules of war seems like hypocrisy and giving in to the enemy. What happened to the refusal to negotiate with terrorists? Iraqi or al-Qaeda, an insurgent is a terrorist and this plan is highly suspect.
xxx
Comparing alleged atrocities of U.S. troops to the tactics of insurgents and then providing amnesty to the insurgents while military personnel face court martials and prison terms, in some cases the death penalty.
xxx
The following statement makes one wonder who liberated who and where is any appreciation to the United States: (Blue italics for emphasis)
xxx
The Government (Iraqi) intends to form a committee to distinguish between groups that can be considered legitimate resistance and those that are beyond the pale. “For those that defended their country against foreign troops, we need to open a new page . . . They did not mean to destabilise Iraq. They were defending Iraqi soil,” said Adnan Ali, a senior member of the Dawa party of Nouri al Maliki, the Prime Minister.
xxx
When did these Iraqi "defenders" decide fighting the troops that liberated Iraq from tyranny was a just cause and legitimate? Were these "fighters" also killing civilians? Where is the line drawn?

You are viewing a post on the old Liberally Conservative site. Click here to find this post on the new site.

President Hamid Karzai Misguided, Off Base

Afghanistan President, Hamid Karzai, is publicly condemning U.S. troops and comparing the Taliban with normal Afghan citizens. He is also succumbing to outcries that are in line with speeches from the al-Qaeda number two, Ayman al Zawahiri, who fought for political support among Afghans yesterday with a three-minute videotape posted on the Internet. The tape aimed to exploit the rising discontent reflected in anti-foreigner riots in Kabul on May 29, sparked when a U.S. military truck killed several Afghans in a traffic accident.
xxx
"I direct my speech today to my Muslim brothers in Kabul who lived the bitter events yesterday and saw by their own eyes a new proof of the criminal acts of the American forces," Zawahiri declared. He urged Afghans to revolt against "the infidel forces that are invading Muslim lands."
xxx
"I strongly believe ...that we must engage strategically in disarming terrorism by stopping their sources of supply of money, training, equipment and motivation," Karzai said.
xxx
"It is not acceptable for us that in all this fighting, Afghans are dying," said Karzai, who faces rising public anger on that issue.
xxx
It seems U.S. and coalition forces are dying also, in defense of Karzai's country. Karzai runs a country whose economy is dependent on poppy agriculture and is the number one worldwide source for drug production related to that industry.
xxx
Publicly blaming foreign countries who are on the ground isn't the diplomatic thing to do, and seems unproductive. It also plays into the hands of citizens who are openly protesting against the same people, coalition forces, who are necessary in the survival of a free and democratic Afghanistan.
xxx
Further, Karzai recently visited Iran and wasn't timid about having photo-ops with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Photo-ops with a neighboring country President who calls for the anhilation of Israel and America while criticizing U.S. Troops publicly won't endear Karzai to the young men and women doing the heavy lifting to sustain freedom. Karzai should do more publicly to calm the anti-West sentiments developing in his country.

You are viewing a post on the old Liberally Conservative site. Click here to find this post on the new site.

Thursday, June 22, 2006

Remembering ABSCAM and John Murtha

I decided to do some background checking on John Murtha (D-PA) who is calling for immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops in Iraq, and suggesting redeployment to Okinawa.
xxx
In my research I ran across a January story from the Cybercast News Service. Murtha seems totally out of touch with reality and is considered a well-decorated war hero from the Vietnam hero. Like John Kerry (D-MA), Murtha refuses to make is military record public.
xxx
Abscam (short for "Arab scam") was the FBI’s sting operation that led to the arrest of several congressmen for accepting bribes in the late 70’s, early 80’s. John Murtha (D-PA) had a role in ABSCAM as an un-indicted co-conspirator. xxx Murtha has denied any wrongdoing, but one of Murtha's former allies, a Democratic congressman who served on the House Ethics Committee in 1981 and says he lobbied colleagues not to censure Murtha, and now believes Murtha lied to him about his role in Abscam. CNS writes the following: (blue italics used for emphasis). xxx Murtha was one of eight members of Congress lured to a Washington, D.C., townhouse by a team of FBI agents posing as representatives of a fictitious Arab sheik. They handed out briefcases filled with $50,000 in return for helping the sheik gain residency in the United States. Noting that Murtha "is not squeaky clean," the Brattleboro, Vt., Reformer reported that the congressman "did not take the cash" offered by the agents. Instead, "he asked the fake sheik to consider investing some money in his struggling home town, Johnstown." xxx Murtha was named as an un-indicted co-conspirator and testified against two House colleagues. xxx A videotape of a Jan. 7, 1980 Abscam-related meeting involving Murtha shows that the congressman's rejection of the offered bribe was less than definite. "I'm not interested. I'm sorry," Murtha told the FBI agent, but added that he meant "at this point.”
xxx
"You know, we do business for a while, maybe I'll be interested, maybe I won't," Murtha said on the FBI videotape. The congressman told the undercover FBI agent that he was a member of the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct and acknowledged: "If you get into heat with politicians, there's no amount of money that can help." A July 30, 1981, article in the Washington Post quoted a committee source as saying that several allegations of misconduct against Murtha were rejected on a "near party-line vote." Since the panel was made up of six Democrats and six Republicans, seven votes were needed to file any charges. xxx Serving on the House panel in 1981 was Rep. Don Bailey (D-Pa.), who told Cybercast News Service that he was responsible for preventing the committee from punishing Murtha. "I saved his (posterior)," Bailey said.
xxx
"I worked hard, and I argued," and members of the committee "agreed with me," Bailey stated. "Part of my argument was that the FBI was overdoing it and there wasn't evidence that [Murtha] was doing anything wrong."
xxx
In 2002, Murtha's ethics again became an issue in the congressional election. Bailey issued a public letter, the contents of which have been published on the Internet and confirmed by Bailey. In the letter, Bailey admits that his opinion about Murtha's involvement in Abscam had dramatically changed by 2002.
xxx
"I was, to be honest, critical about how you misled me about Abscam where you convinced me you had voluntarily told federal agents about the offer of money to you," Bailey wrote Murtha in the letter.
xxx
"I learned later, after I had successfully defeated the ethics charges against you, that you had merely manipulated the system to cooperate with federal agents to avoid prosecution," Bailey added.
xxx
Even more interesting than the ABSCAM issue concerning Murtha is what Bailey has to say in his letter about Murtha's military record.
xxx
You clearly indicated to me in a moment of weakness, that you hadn’t deserved the purple hearts and there was no confusion on that. You may deny that all you wish - but you and I know that that conversation took place. Please apologize now. xxx You may fool a few reporters into believing that merely because you got some perfunctory paperwork made out by a friend, that that means you earned the purple hearts. But even if you were awarded the medals later, there should be affidavits from witnesses. These things should be easy to get - where are they? xxx I bet they don’t exist Jack because you are the one who’s lying. Luckily there’s one easy way to settle all this. Call a press conference. Explain where you were and what you were doing when you got the purple hearts. Explain who was with you and treated your wounds, but most important Jack describe your wounds or the lack thereof, as you did for me, years ago. xxx I am absolutely certain that you won’t do that - because, though you may have manipulated some paperwork that says you were awarded the medals (for political purposes) you can’t produce the witnesses or documents to show any wounds or circumstances under which they occurred. xxx Unless the Marine Corps gives out medals for unsubstantiated non-combat related telltale scratches, procured for use in political campaign - then show me the money Jack - because there should at least be evidence by affidavit, or record of the scratches, that’s what getting a purple heart requires - show me.
xxx
You may be able to take advantage of a few Washington reporters who don’t have sufficient experience to understand - but you can’t fool combat veterans of the Vietnam war by hiding behind “Unit” losses - we’re used to those stories. I have my orders describing my combat awards Jack - to back up my DD-214. Where’s your’s? And Jack - don’t ever call me a liar.

Sincerely,

Don Bailey

Jack (John Murtha) won't release his military records, like John Kerry he won't sign off on SF-180. Kerry and Murtha like to pretend they are war heroes, at the expense of those who died in Vietnam and those who serve and die today.

You are viewing a post on the old Liberally Conservative site. Click here to find this post on the new site.

Wednesday, June 21, 2006

Cindy Sheehan Crawls Out From Under Rock

Peacenik and still not playing with a full deck of cards, Cindy Sheehan has appeared in Vienna, Austria to demonstrate to the world she is an embarrassment to her family, herself and the United States.
xxx
With signs of President George W. Bush stating, "World's # 1 Terrorist", Ms. Sheehan is mourning the death of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the mastermind behind hundreds of bombings, kidnappings and beheadings in Iraq.
xxx
We wonder if she is being sponsored by MoveOn.org, The Daily Kos or the DNC, other groups who are fervently unhinged and misguided in thought and mind about today's reality.

You are viewing a post on the old Liberally Conservative site. Click here to find this post on the new site.

Illegal Immigrants Set Free in Ohio

Local police said they intercepted 20 illegal Mexican immigrants, but were ordered by immigration officials to let them go free.
xxx Belmont County Sheriff Fred Thompson said his officers were instructed by federal immigration services to let all 20 illegal immigrants go free, and said his department has no choice but to follow the orders from immigration officials.
xxx Thompson said officers stopped a van at 3 a.m. Tuesday which was traveling the wrong direction on Interstate 470 in St. Clairsville.
xxx The officer discovered 20 illegal Mexican immigrants inside the van, including three who were previously deported. The officer immediately contacted immigration officials, who told him to let all 20 immigrants go.
xxx "Once we find out they are illegals, it's like pat them on the back of the head and tell them, 'Go on down the road; you'll probably get stopped again,'" Thompson said. xxx The immigrants told the officer they were traveling through Ohio to obtain work in Manassas, Va.
xxx Calls to Citizenship and Immigration Services as well as Immigration and Customs Enforcement have not been returned. xxx Source: wtov9.com

You are viewing a post on the old Liberally Conservative site. Click here to find this post on the new site.

FairTax Blogburst

by TD of The Right Track

xxx As I see it, the main problem with the Income Tax is that it is virtually impossible to enforce completely and fairly. Compliance with the Income Tax depends on taxpayer truthfulness, which generally is motivated either by a) good character, or b) fear of an IRS audit. With the FairTax, the tax is collected when the money is spent, from everyone, with greatly reduced opportunities for non-compliance by the public.
xxx For instance, what about the criminal element in our country? Have you ever heard of the Mafia? Or the drug dealer? Do you think that these people report 100% of their income? Of course not! They get out of paying a huge percentage of their actual tax bill by the simple expedient of not reporting all of their income. But these same individuals still have to pay utility bills, purchase prescription drugs, visit doctors, and buy food. And if they believe in the “high life” of new cars, fancy clothes and jewelry, and new homes, they’re going to pay more than “Joe Six-pack” who chooses to drive a used car, or purchase a home that’s not brand new.
xxx And it’s not just individuals who are managing to avoid paying taxes these days. Everyone in America has heard of the rush to move American companies “offshore”, whether in whole or in part. Think about it — have you ever seen an American-flagged commercial vessel? Oh sure, we’ve got our warships, but what about commercial boats that carry cargo or cruise passengers? Most of these are flying the flag of Liberia or Panama — low-tax nations.
xxx In the mid-1950s, about 33% of all income taxes collected were paid by American corporations. Today that number is down to approximately 10%. From “The FairTax Book” by Boortz and Linder:
xxx “That plunge is a major factor in our recent soaring deficits. Indeed, international corporations are essentially “voluntary” taxpayers today, paying only that amount in taxes that they believe will avoid attracting embarrassing news coverage. These corporations believe that our draconian tax structures make their actions necessary. The OFCs [offshore financial centers, or banks - TD] make their plans feasible” [Emphasis added - TD]
xxx Boortz and Linder make the point that if we eliminated all taxes on capital and labor, (which the FairTax does), the United States would become the world’s tax haven.
xxx We have the most stable economy, the most liquid and trusted markets, and the highest rates of labor productivity in the world — and the trillions of dollars in those OFCs would flow back home to the United States for the very reason they found themselves offshore to start with.
xxx And we’re not just talking about American businesses coming home, we’re talking about wooing corporations based in other countries into America. Think of the economic benefits! More productivity, lower unemployment, higher wages, and all occurring within a tax system that allows you at least partly to choose whether to pay taxes! Buy it new, pay a tax, buy it used and don’t!
xxx The FairTax Blogburst is jointly produced by Terry of
The Right Track Blog and Jonathan of Publius Rendezvous. If you would like to host the weekly postings on your blog, please e-mail Terry or Jonathan. You will be added to our mailing list and blogroll.

You are viewing a post on the old Liberally Conservative site. Click here to find this post on the new site.

Tuesday, June 20, 2006

Bear Imitates Goldilocks

The Chicago Tribune reports:
xxx
WEST VANCOUVER, CANADA -- It was a real-life version of "Goldilocks and the Three Bears"--only in reverse--when a woman came home to find a young bear eating oatmeal in her kitchen.
xxx
The bear apparently entered through an open sliding glass door, broke a ceramic food container and started eating, West Vancouver police Sgt. Paul Skelton said.
xxx
"It sounds like a nursery rhyme, doesn't it?" Skelton said. "At least we have a health-conscious bear on our hands.
xxx
"Three officers who went to the home Thursday couldn't get the bear to budge, so they let it finish its meal.
xxx
"The bear didn't appear to be aggressive and wasn't destroying the house, so they just let it do what it was doing," Skelton said. The bear finally left.

You are viewing a post on the old Liberally Conservative site. Click here to find this post on the new site.

War On Terror - A Double Standard

The cries to shut down Guantanamo Bay, leaks about CIA rendition and secret prisons overseas, debates on when to "cut and run" from Iraq, liberal outcry at their belief al-Qaeda was never in Iraq. Liberally biased media enjoys writing about beheadings and the massacre of civilians in Iraq and then blaming Donald Rumsfeld and George W. Bush. Little is written about progress, the new government or the liberating of over 50 million in Iraq and Afghanistan. It's an election year so the liberals in congress want to debate the "war in Iraq" and not call it a war on terror. The feckless John Murtha and John Kerry, self-proclaimed war heroes don't mind committing troops to the "war" effort until they change their mind for political, self-serving reasons. Who is the U.S. military fighting in the Middle East? Who is this scum that commits suicides while blowing up people shopping in markets and praying in a mosque? What kind of two-legged parasite tortures and chops the head off of contractors? xxx The answer is very simple. They are bottom dweller’s who attack U.S. and coalition troops, torture them, kill them and toss their lifeless bodies in the street. It's difficult to come up with adjectives to describe insurgents, foreign fighters, al-Qaeda but to simply call them for what they are - terrorists.
xxx
The bodies of two U.S. soldiers have been found, and a senior Iraqi military official said Tuesday they belong to men who went missing last week after a deadly insurgent attack on a traffic checkpoint.
xxx
An uncle for one of the fallen soldiers said, "the U.S. should have paid a ransom for the two soldiers from money seized from Saddam Hussein. "I think the U.S. was too slow to react to this. Because the U.S. did not have a plan in place, my nephew has paid with his life."
xxx
Obviously speaking with emotion this gentleman can't believe negotiating or paying ransoms will reduce terrorist violence. This is war with an enemy without a flag or specific country. We don't pay ransoms. 8,000 troops were sent out with air support to find these two young heroes; the uncle is misguided in his comments. I have a 20-year-old son finishing up Military Police school and is currently thinking about airborne training. We have had discussions about Iraq, Afghanistan and the possibilities of serious consequences when traveling to war zones. Up to now my son is unfettered. This may be testosterone speaking, youth or simply true patriotism. simply patriotism. I must respect my son's decision. xxx If my son meets a faith similar to the two soldiers in Iraq my reaction would be despair and horror, to say the least. Blaming others at this point wouldn’t make any sense, young men and women are volunteering for duty in the armed forces, they must understand the possible consequences and we must support their decisions with respect and awe. xxx "We give the good news ... to the Islamic nation that we have carried God's verdict by slaughtering the two captured crusaders," said a statement in the name of the Mujahedeen Shura Council, which groups five insurgent organizations including al Qaeda in Iraq. The use of the word "slaughtered" suggested the insurgents had beheaded the two U.S. soldiers who were abducted after an attack on their checkpoint south of Baghdad Friday.
xxx
These killings were "barbaric." Should we be surprised, terrorists are barbarians to say the very least. They have no value for life and demonstrate this with each beheading, with each suicide bomb.
xxx
May GOD be with the parents of these fallen soldiers and GOD speed to our brave soldiers wherever they are stationed.
xxx
When politicians vote to send troops into harms way, they must have the intestinal fortitude to support our armed forces publicly. The likes of John Murtha and John Kerry are no better than the terrorists our young men and women are fighting. Our forces should not stand down until the mission is successfully accomplished.
xxx
Murtha, Kerry and their gutless colleagues should stand up for our troops or shut up and stand down.

You are viewing a post on the old Liberally Conservative site. Click here to find this post on the new site.

Monday, June 19, 2006

Reverse Discrimination Gets Thumped - Touché

The Wall Street Journal reports: A federal judge in Phoenix this month said that Northern Arizona University owes $1.4 million to a group of professors who have been pursuing justice through the courts since 1995. The 40 teachers, all white men, argued that they were discriminated against when the public university gave raises to minority and female faculty members in the early 1990s but not to white males. Not only that -- the plaintiffs said in a Title VII civil-rights suit -- the salary bumps resulted in some favored faculty members earning more than white men in comparable positions. The lawsuit and its outcome are yet another striking illustration of the perils of affirmative action, with its often contorted logic of redress and blame and its tendency to commit exactly the sort of discrimination that it was designed to prevent. What happened here? The professors' victory, it should be said, is not a sweeping defeat of affirmative action, and the plaintiffs didn't ask for one. The university maintains that when it raised pay for certain faculty it was simply following a federal mandate to eliminate race or gender wage disparities. What got the school in trouble was not "catch up" payments per se but the way it made them.
xxx
Fuzzy math, former school president needs a lesson in statistics:
xxx
In 1993, the university's then-president, Eugene M. Hughes, assumed there had been discrimination, based partly on a study he'd commissioned. The study used salaries at other schools to help determine a theoretical median wage that should prevail at Northern Arizona. A lot of white males there fell below the median, but the significant finding for President Hughes was the one that showed minorities and women under a "predicted" par. The initial study ignored factors such as whether people held doctorates. At any rate, the study's own figures indicated that white faculty were earning only about $87 a year more than minorities, and men were making about $751 more than women. Mr. Hughes's solution: raises of up to $3,000 for minorities and $2,400 for women. White men got nada.

You are viewing a post on the old Liberally Conservative site. Click here to find this post on the new site.

Sunday, June 18, 2006

A Father's Day Message

Happy Father's Day
xxx
It's in our State and U.S. Constitutions as well as settled law. Parents, children and families have profound rights to equal access to those natural and important factors of life.
xxx
When we have brought children into our lives, in a marriage or outside of it, we as parents have an obligation to protect our rights to be parents. Our children have rights to be parented. As parents, we have no legitimate excuses to avoid the obligation of being directly involved in those precious moments of our children's growth.
xxx
We must put, first things first, because parenting and watching our children grow and develop is the greatest reward you may ever receive. It is our right and our responsibility.
xxx
Nurture your child, be a parent. Attend the school open house, be a parent. Attend your child’s recital, soccer game, scouting event. Be a parent. Show your child their importance, recognize their accomplishments. The reward is a lifetime of memories for you both.
xxx
When your child makes something in school, cherish it. Display the hand made cards, the school project, and the award received. Show your appreciation; demonstrate your child’s value. Reward them with your attention and receive a lifetime of memories.
xxx
Skip Sunday football and attend your child’s swim meet. Ignore self-gratification and attend to the needs of your child. Recognize their achievements no matter how simple or small. Show you care. Make memories and be a parent.
xxx
There is no greater right than the right to be a parent. Show value to these rights, value your child and teach them self-worth. Be a parent. If you must, turn over every stone, research every law. Invoke your rights as a parent. IT'S YOUR DUTY!
xxx
Be A Parent, Be A Father!

You are viewing a post on the old Liberally Conservative site. Click here to find this post on the new site.

Saturday, June 17, 2006

Moon Bat(s) of The Week Award!

The Democratic Party,
Their Left-Wing Base,
and the Leftist Media
xxx
Looking back at the rants of the left-wing and pathetic Democrats, recent news events have dimmed the light at the political tunnel for the group without a plan.
  • Democrats failed to win a breakthrough victory in the California 50th special election.
  • U.S. forces with a precision air strike killed Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, on the same day that Iraqis finished forming a government. Zarqawi.
  • Special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald announced that he would not seek an indictment of Karl Rove. Michael Barone writes: Historians may regard it as a curious thing that the left and the press have been so determined to fit current events into templates based on events that occurred 30 to 40 years ago. The people who effectively framed the issues raised by Vietnam and Watergate did something like the opposite; they insisted that Vietnam was not a reprise of World War II or Korea and that Watergate was something different from the operations J. Edgar Hoover conducted for Franklin Roosevelt or John Kennedy. Journalists in the 1940s, '50s and early '60s tended to believe they had a duty to buttress Americans' faith in their leaders and their government. Journalists since Vietnam and Watergate have tended to believe that they have a duty to undermine such faith, especially when the wrong party is in office.

You are viewing a post on the old Liberally Conservative site. Click here to find this post on the new site.

Thursday, June 15, 2006

Porker of The Month - Senator Robert Byrd (D-WVA)

Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW) named Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W. Va.) Porker of the Month for his legacy as the “King of Pork.” Mr. Byrd today becomes the longest-serving Senator in U.S. history.
xxx Sen. Byrd has sat on the Appropriations Committee since 1959, his first year in the Senate. He is former chairman and currently Ranking Member. CAGW began tracking federal pork with its Pig Book in 1991. Since 1991, West Virginia has received $2.95 billion in pork. Projects added in the Senate (those most likely attributed to Sen. Byrd) total $1.2 billion. The state has ranked in the top 4 in pork per capita every year since 2001. CAGW dubbed him the “King of Pork” in 1999 when West Virginia became the first state to garner $1 billion in pork in the collective Pig Book database.
xxx CAGW’s “Byrd Droppings” has chronicled 33 projects in West Virginia named after Sen. Byrd, including the Robert C. Byrd Green Bank Telescope, the Robert C. Byrd Highway, and the Robert C. Byrd Hardwood Technologies Center. Federal law prohibits the naming of federal structures after sitting members of Congress. Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) calls the practice a violation of campaign finance laws because it is “the equivalent of a government payment for a campaign billboard.”
xxx Other West Virginia highlights from the Pig Book include: $16.8 million for the Institute for Software Research (2002); $3.6 million for the Appalachian Fruit Laboratory in Kearneysville (2005); $3.5 million for the National Tracing Center in Martinsburg (2002); $2.7 million for the Wood Education and Resource Center (2004); $1.7 million to equip West Liberty State College residence halls with Internet access (2003); $250,000 for the National Center for Cool and Coldwater Aquaculture (2000); $160,000 for poultry litter composting (2004); and $95,000 for the West Virginia State Museum for its Civil War regimental flag collection (2002).
xxx Sen. Byrd often cites West Virginia’s poor economy to justify his pork. The state now has the third-lowest personal income per capita in the country. Evidently, decades of raiding the federal treasury has helped Sen. Byrd get re-elected but has failed to improve the lot of West Virginians.
xxx Sen. Byrd carries a copy of the Constitution with him at all times. Yet the 10th Amendment restricts the federal government to its enumerated powers. Sen. Byrd embodies the abuse warned against by the Founding Fathers. Thomas Jefferson told James Madison that his plan to improve roads for national mail delivery “will be a scene of eternal scramble among the members, who can get the most money wasted in their State; and they will always get most who are meanest.”
xxx Sen. Byrd makes no apologies for his pork, once saying “West Virginia has always had four friends: God Almighty; Sears Roebuck; Carter’s Liver Pills; and Robert C. Byrd.” He has played a major role in an explosion of earmarking that is now at the center of multiple corruption scandals. For his legacy of narcissism and waste, for violating the spirit and letter of the Constitution, and for resisting budget reforms, CAGW names the “King of Pork” Sen. Robert Byrd Porker of the Month for June 2006.

You are viewing a post on the old Liberally Conservative site. Click here to find this post on the new site.

Wednesday, June 14, 2006

The Democrat's Agenda - Er..Uh..Maybe Not

The time to criticize the Republicans’ “culture of corruption,” a Democratic refrain for nearly a year, is at an end, Pelosi said; Democrats need to begin promoting their own vision of America. “Now it’s time to talk about us. Enough of the Republicans. It’s time for us to talk about what are the priorities we’d like to see addressed, if we have the opportunity,” Pelosi said in an interview with The Hill on Wednesday. Democrats have been struggling for months to devise a unified message to take to voters, debating whether to be general or detailed, to come out early or late, or to present a succinct list of points like the GOP’s 1994 Contract With America. Pelosi has been seen as favoring an early message, while Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-Ill.) and Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), who head up the campaign committees for House and Senate Democrats, have argued for focusing on Republican misdeeds. “What we have to do is define ourselves so that Republicans do not define us. This is a define-or-be-defined business that we’re in, so you can’t leave it out in the open,” Pelosi said. “These are not full-blown initiatives,” she cautioned, “[but] they are a beginning to differentiate from the Republicans’ misguided priorities of taking us deeply into debt, bringing up divisive social issues instead and raising those issues instead of raising the minimum wage.” “You can’t name a Democratic bill that’s come to [a vote] in the House of Representatives. That’s just not right. … I would hope that we could find common ground [with President Bush and Hill Republicans] because I do believe bipartisanship is important.” Actually it's surprising that the Democrat's in the House or Senate sponsored a bill. Their too busy ranting to the press about the "corrupt" Republicans and Karl Rove. “I’m even hard put to say what our agenda will be when we win, so I’m certainly not going into the politics of the caucus,” she said. “That is as unimportant an issue to me right now as it could be.”
In the end Pelosi admits she can't tell us what the Democrat's agenda is, except for gaining power. We have said it over and over again...The Democrat's have no plan they can identify with. The are fighting amongst themselves, they can't come to terms with their left-wing, crackpot base, and they are inept at doing anything substantive except complaining about Republicans.

You are viewing a post on the old Liberally Conservative site. Click here to find this post on the new site.

An Inconvenient Truth - Al Gore Junk Scientist!

"Scientists have an independent obligation to respect and present the truth as they see it," Al Gore sensibly asserts in his film "An Inconvenient Truth", state Al Gore in his alarmist movie about global warning.
xxx
Tom Harris writes a guest column at NewsMax, providing detail and statements from actual scientists who study global warming specifically. Unlike Gore's fictional details in his movie, the real experts have quite differing opinions and aren't receptive to the "Father of the Internet" and his bogus alarmist claims.
xxx
Professor Bob Carter of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University, in Australia gives what, for many Canadians, is a surprising assessment: "Gore's circumstantial arguments are so weak that they are pathetic. It is simply incredible that they, and his film, are commanding public attention." Appearing before the Commons Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development last year, Carleton University paleoclimatologist Professor Tim Patterson testified, "There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years." Patterson asked the committee, "On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century's modest warming?" Dr. Boris Winterhalter, former marine researcher at the Geological Survey of Finland and professor in marine geology, University of Helsinki, takes apart Gore's dramatic display of Antarctic glaciers collapsing into the sea. "The breaking glacier wall is a normally occurring phenomenon which is due to the normal advance of a glacier," says Winterhalter. "In Antarctica the temperature is low enough to prohibit melting of the ice front, so if the ice is grounded, it has to break off in beautiful ice cascades. If the water is deep enough icebergs will form." Dr. Wibjörn Karlén, emeritus professor, Dept. of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden, admits, "Some small areas in the Antarctic Peninsula have broken up recently, just like it has done back in time. The temperature in this part of Antarctica has increased recently, probably because of a small change in the position of the low pressure systems." But Karlén clarifies that the 'mass balance' of Antarctica is positive - more snow is accumulating than melting off. As a result, Ball explains, there is an increase in the 'calving' of icebergs as the ice dome of Antarctica is growing and flowing to the oceans. When Greenland and Antarctica are assessed together, "their mass balance is considered to possibly increase the sea level by 0.03 mm/year - not much of an effect," Karlén concludes. The Antarctica has survived warm and cold events over millions of years. A meltdown is simply not a realistic scenario in the foreseeable future.
xxx
Conclusion: Professor Carter does not pull his punches about Gore's activism, "The man is an embarrassment to US science and its many fine practitioners, a lot of whom know (but feel unable to state publicly) that his propaganda crusade is mostly based on junk science."

You are viewing a post on the old Liberally Conservative site. Click here to find this post on the new site.

Chicken Liver Kerry - 500 Days and Counting

Sunday, January 30th, 2005 - John Kerry on Meet the Press:

MR. RUSSERT: Many people who've been criticizing you have said: Senator, if you would just do one thing and that is sign Form 180, which would allow historians and journalists complete access to all your military records. Thus far, you have gotten the records, released them through your campaign. They say you should not be the filter. Sign Form 180 and let the historians....

SEN. KERRY: I'd be happy to put the records out. We put all the records out that I had been sent by the military. Then at the last moment, they sent some more stuff, which had some things that weren't even relevant to the record. So when we get - I'm going to sit down with them and make sure that they are clear and I am clear as to what is in the record and what isn't in the record and we'll put it out. I have no problem with that.

MR. RUSSERT: Would you sign Form 180?

SEN. KERRY: But everything, Tim...

MR. RUSSERT: Would you sign Form 180?

SEN. KERRY: Yes, I will.

John Kerry, treasonous politician from Massachusetts, is nothing less than a liar. He will stop at nothing to make himself look like a war hero in Vietnam where he fabricated injuries and put himself in for medals.

Now, after 500 days, Kerry still has not made full disclosure of his military records, which would either prove or disprove self-anointed "hero" status to the American public. Kerry has lived a lie his entire adult life.

Kerry voted for the Iraq war before he voted against it. He voted against a major piece of legislation authorizing protection for our troops in combat. Kerry isn't finished.

Kerry has now has now introduced an amendment to the Defense Authorization bill that would require U.S. troops to be withdrawn from Iraq by the end of the year. Kerry doesn't know a thing about military strategy and war planning. Kerry is gutless and is simply propelling himself into the limelight with another non-starter. In fact, Kerry is once again undermining the safety of troops in combat zones by telegraphing military planning to the enemy through legislation and press releases.

This isn't the first time Kerry has called for troop withdrawal from Iraq. On October 26, 2005 Kerry called for the withdrawal of 20,000 troops from Iraq by year's end as the first step in a proposal that would significantly reduce U.S. military forces in the region over the next 15 months.

"The way forward in Iraq is not to pull out precipitously or merely promise to stay 'as long as it takes,' " Kerry said during an address at Georgetown University. "We must instead simultaneously pursue both a political settlement and the withdrawal of American combat forces."

Kerry likes to hear himself talk, but only provides gibberish. Kerry shot himself in the gluteus maximus and received a purple heart for his effort. Now this gutless wonder, liberal two face would like to gain political points at the expense of ground troops fighting for democracy in the Middle East.

You are viewing a post on the old Liberally Conservative site. Click here to find this post on the new site.

Tuesday, June 13, 2006

Karl Rove is Free and Joe Wilson is a Liar!

David Corn at The Nation, wrote in July 2003: xxx

Did senior Bush officials blow the cover of a US intelligence officer working covertly in a field of vital importance to national security--and break the law--in order to strike at a Bush administration critic and intimidate others? It sure looks that way, if conservative journalist Bob Novak can be trusted. The sources for Novak's assertion about Wilson's wife appear to be "two senior administration officials." Without acknowledging whether she is a deep-cover CIA employee, Wilson says, "Naming her this way would have compromised every operation, every relationship, every network with which she had been associated in her entire career. This is the stuff of Kim Philby and Aldrich Ames." This is not only a possible breach of national security; it is a potential violation of law. Under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982, it is a crime for anyone who has access to classified information to disclose intentionally information identifying a covert agent. The punishment for such an offense is a fine of up to $50,000 and/or up to ten years in prison.
xxx
Wilson said he would like to "get Karl Rove frog-marched out of the White House in handcuffs."
xxx
Today Rove's lawyer, Robert Luskin, told the Times that the prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald, had formally advised Rove that he will not be charged.
xxx
Wilson must be choking on his frog legs! I'll have mine with a chilled Sauvignon Blanc, thank you.

You are viewing a post on the old Liberally Conservative site. Click here to find this post on the new site.