Tuesday, July 31, 2007

Are You Talkin' to Me Senator Biden?

One of the CNN You-Tube questions came from Jered Townsend from Clio, Michigan. the YouTube citizen questioner began. "To all the candidates, tell me your position on gun control, as myself and other Americans really want to know if our babies are safe." Townsend then pulled out his Bushmaster AR-15. "This is my 'baby,' purchased under the 1994 gun ban. Please tell me your views. Thank you."

Senator Biden chose to give a snide and smirky reply. Biden questioned the sanity of Jared, and then took one final jibe at Jared when he said
"I hope he doesn't come looking for me."

While Senator Biden thought he was being cute, and saying what the liberals want to hear, he never did answer the question posed to him. He never did tell his position on gun control. He just smirked his way right past the question.

H/T Michelle Malkin

Monday, July 30, 2007

Democrat Rules Shut Her Out

Tonight House votes intended to allow a chance for Heather's fix FISA to be brought up fell short on 2 different procedural votes. On one vote the only Dem to vote with her was Cong. Barrow. On the other vote Cong Lampson and Cong Taylor joined Cong Barrow.
She needs many more votes with her to succeed. Apparently most Democrats believe that gathering intelligence from foreign enemies is a partisan issue. All but one of the Democrats think that a 'Wild & Scenic' National Park in CN is more important than quickly gathering intelligence on our foreign enemies. Words fail me

Fox News Video

Saturday, July 28, 2007

Why didn't you do something?!

The conventional wisdom is that the 9/11 attacks were not thwarted because we had a collossal failure by the intelligence community. There has been a lot of hand wringing and finger wagging about a failure to 'connect the dots.' A 9/11 Commission wrote a report about these problems, and how ironic that one the members of this Commission, Jamie Gorelick, had been the architect of the legal wall constructed to stop cooperation and information sharing between CIA and FBI agents. Well, here we go again. The Director of National Intelligence wants Congress to write new law to replace the antiquated 1978 FISA law. I am at a loss of words to understand how gathering intelligence about enemies to the US can be a partisan issue. Those enemies who want to kill us do not give a big whoop whether the Democratic Party or Republican Party has the White House or the Congress. Moderate Republican, Heather Wilson is the sponsor of a bill in the House intended to fix FISA law. Will her bill come to a final vote before the August recess?
I have my doubts.

Here is an open letter from Heather about this issue.

Dear Friends,

Not too long ago, we had a briefing in the Intelligence Committee that made me so angry that, when it was over, I had to go back to my office and close my door for a bit to cool off and think.

We have a problem. It is a problem created because our foreign intelligence laws have not kept pace with changes in technology. And the failure of the Congress to act and fix the law is putting Americans at risk.

I have been in the forefront of trying to modernize our foreign intelligence laws while protecting American civil liberties since early last year.

America spies on our enemies and in the war on terrorism, intelligence is the first line of defense. We try to discover the plans and intentions of our enemies so that we can identify them and stop them before they strike.

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Law was written in 1978 and intended to protect the civil liberties of Americans. The law requires a warrant to collect intelligence off a wire in the United States. When the law was written, almost all international calls were over the air – bounced off satellites. Over the air or "radio" communications did not require a warrant, but there are procedures in place to mask or destroy information about Americans if our intelligence agencies inadvertently collect a U.S. call. In 1978, almost all local calls were over a wire. Now, because of changes in technology, the situation is completely reversed. Almost all long haul communications are over wires or fiber optic cables and most local calls are over the air.

The problem is that our intelligence agencies are forced to go to a judge and prove they have probable cause to get a warrant to listen to foreigners in foreign countries if the conversation is collected off a wire in the United States. Think about that. We are doing everything we can, taking tremendous risks to listen to some terrorist talking to another terrorist in the tribal areas of Pakistan and we can’t try to snag that communication off a wire in the US without a warrant.

This is not how the law was intended to work and it needs to be fixed.

So, I’ve been working on getting it fixed. When quiet conversations with my Democratic colleagues didn’t spur them to make the political decision to act, we started increasing the public pressure at hearings, press conferences and with motions to recommit and previous question votes. I have been meeting with my colleagues who are not on the intelligence committee and explaining to them why this matters and enlisting them in the fight.

There are some indications this week that our campaign is having an impact and we may be forcing the issue and getting it addressed.

Yesterday, we got another push in a letter from the Director of National Intelligence, Mike McConnell. He is a low key guy not prone to hyperbole or grandstanding. He is a career military officer and intelligence professional. Read his letter and you’ll see what I mean.

We have to fix FISA.

Wish you were here,

I hope I'm wrong, and the congresscritters™ in a brief moment of sanity, come to their senses and pass this much needed legislation.

Friday, July 27, 2007

Speaking abroad without bashing the USA

Last month Fred Thompson spoke to the Policy Exchange in London. I recommend you read the entire text, and one aspect of this speech that really caught my attention is that Fred did not apologize for any perceived wrongs committed by the US. Fred did not criticize the US for making mistakes and causing problems instead of dealing with problems in the world. What a refreshing difference there is between Fred and, oh take your pick, Bill Clinton, Al Gore, Jimmy Carter, John Kerry, et al. He was well received by these Brits because instead of pandering to their perceptions of the US he spoke about the problems that the US, UK, and the West must be ready to deal with. I won't cut and paste all of it, but here is just a sampling of the good parts.

In the long progress of the world toward liberty, it was not by chance that this lowly province of the Roman Empire became a great teacher of democracy and the model of self-government. And it wasn’t just luck that turned a troublesome British colony into the inspiration for all those who seek freedom. There is a reason why Britain and America were thrown together as partners in this world. The things that unite the American and British peoples? They don’t change with the names of leaders or with the passing of years.

It was Harold MacMillan who best summed up the shared experiences of British and American leaders in the last century. In his later years, Lord Stockton was asked what he considered the greatest challenge in all his years as a statesman. And in that English way, he put it in a word: “Events, my dear boy, events.”

We must conclude that the greatest test of leadership – in your country or mine, in this time or any other – can be simply stated. We must shape events, and not be left at their mercy. And in all things, to protect ourselves and to assure the peace, the great democracies of the world must stick together. We must be willing to make tough decisions today in order to avert bigger problems tomorrow. We must be prepared to meet threats before threats become tragedies.

Changes in leadership on both sides of the Atlantic will give us new opportunities. Often in the history of nations, leaders rise to meet the times. These times require those with the wisdom and courage to see past the next election cycle.

Many in Europe simply have a different view from that of the United States as to the threat of radical Islamic fundamentalism. They think that the threat is overblown. That despite September 11th, and July 7th and other attacks in Europe and elsewhere, America is the main target and therefore the problem is basically an American one. The fact that no weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq at a particular point in time resolves the matter for them. Also, they see no meaningful connection between terrorist groups and countries like Iran.

Admittedly, even some in America think that the threat is overblown, and that if we had not gone into Iraq, we’d have no terrorism problem.

However, most Americans feel differently. We understand that the Western world is in an international struggle with jihadists who see this struggle as part of a conflict that has gone on for centuries, and who won’t give up until Western countries are brought to their knees. I agree with this view. I believe that the forces of civilization must work together with common purpose to defeat the terrorists who for their own twisted purposes have murdered thousands, and who are trying to acquire technology to murder millions more.

When terrorists in their video performances pledge more and bigger attacks to come, against targets in both Europe and America, these are not to be shrugged off as idle boasts. They must be taken at their word.

When the president of Iran shares his nightmare visions before cheering crowds, those are not just the fanatic’s version of an empty applause line. The only safe assumption is that he means it. If we know anything from modern history, it is that when fanatical tyrants pledge to “wipe out” an entire nation, we should listen. We must gather our alliance, and do all in our power to make sure that such men do not gain the capability to carry out their evil ambitions.

It seems that the 2008 contest for POTUS has taken off earlier than ever before, and lately there have been a slew of blogs that are critical of a candidate's style, wife, son, dog, etc etc. I just thought I would post about a speech given to an audience that can't vote in the next election. A lot of people have been especially critical of Fred lately because he has not officially announced that he is running for POTUS. Does anybody want to talk about the substance of his speech to the Political Exchange in London? Can anyone remember that there really are important things in this world that actually do trump style. Just wonderin'.

Wednesday, July 25, 2007

Glenn Beck has jumped the shark or...

On the Glenn Beck show today he interviewed Congressman Dana Rohrabacher. The main topic of this interview is the prosecution of Ramos and Compean. There was a blog here recently about this prosecution, and the conclusion had been drawn that prosecutor Johhny Sutton had really schooled Laura Ingraham on the merits of the case.

Not .So.Fast.
According to Congressman Rohrabacher, the administration is stonewalling a Congressional investigation and is involved in a coverup over some things that occurred during this entire period of time. I recommend you read the entire transcript of this interview. Here is just a little sampling:
GLENN: How far does this -- I mean, what bothers me is I talked to Sutton and I said, you answer to Gonzales. Gonzales answers to Bush. It's the three of you. How far up the chain does this go?

SENATOR ROHRABACHER: Well, I'm sure this goes all the way up to the White House. There's no doubt about that. We have to remember this going the other direction, too. The other direction is the jurors, which are just us, you know, we the people make up juries. The jurors in this case, they kept the information about the second drug deal from the jury and they painted the drug dealer as a one-time guy who is trying to sell drugs to raise money for his sick mother and they've been -- Sutton who in testimony says, oh, the judge was the one who determined that that information wouldn't get to the jury. No, no, it was a prosecution motion for the judge not to let the jury hear that and so what we've got is a false picture, a lie being painted to the jury and now during this investigation they've tried to use those same tactics to prevent congress, my investigation, from getting the information that would get to the truth. They were denying us these documents saying, oh, we can't give you -- these are official documents by the department of homeland security. We can't get those. And the Department of Justice and Homeland Security denying this unless Ramos -- excuse me, unless Davila, the drug dealer, signs a waiver, a privacy act waiver. So we're not even supposed to be able to look at official government documents in overseeing the activity of these jokers.
SENATOR ROHRABACHER: And so I was cautious to begin with in this investigation, but clearly Ramos and Compean, they both have an unblemished record and those are both veterans. These are guys who served our country -- excuse me -- in the military. In fact, Ramos, I believe, is an officer in the Naval Reserve.

GLENN: I believe one of them was the border guard of the year, the year before.

SENATOR ROHRABACHER: He was nominated to be the border guard. The fact that he was nominated shows you they both basically -- and, of course, Johnny Sutton has seen fit to try to smear these guys. One of them had a family altercation two years ago. Sutton had to make that totally public as if the public won't understand that sometimes you have family altercations, they get out of hand. But it doesn't -- it wasn't part of his job. Had nothing to do with part of his job but instead they've been vilifying these men, trying to go out and shoot Mexicans, making sure if there was any blemish that everybody knew about it. That's the type of underhanded thing, and I would say Mr. Sutton and these guys are now in a desperate situation because we now have got -- they are trying to keep from the congress the information that we now have that they gave a free pass to this drug dealer even after he had been fingered for a second drug deal and then, of course, they lied about it to the jury.

I am a supporter of President Bush, and that is why I titled this piece "Glenn Beck has jumped the shark or..." If this is a coverup by the administration for the DHS, then IMO there is a bigger worry here with this than there is with Iraq. It seems that one constant with scandals is that the coverup is always the driving force behind the scandal. I have not come to any final conclusions about this case, but I wanted to post this, and hopefully get some thoughtful responses.

Sunday, July 22, 2007

Democrats want you to shut your pie-hole

There was a vote in the US Senate on the evening of July 19th on an amendment by Susan Collins. The purpose of the amendment was to provide limited immunity for reports of suspicious behavior and response. 60 yea votes were needed for passage, and it fell short by 3 votes. All 39 No votes were cast by Democrats.

The List:

Akaka (D-HI)
*Biden (D-DE)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brown (D-OH)
Byrd (D-WV)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Cardin (D-MD)
Carper (D-DE)
Casey (D-PA)
Dodd (D-CT)
*Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
*Harkin (D-IA)
Inouye (D-HI)
Kennedy (D-MA)
*Kerry (D-MA)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Kohl (D-WI)
*Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
*Levin (D-MI)
Lincoln (D-AR)
McCaskill (D-MO)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
*Pryor (D-AR)
*Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
*Rockefeller (D-WV)
Salazar (D-CO)
Sanders (I-VT)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Tester (D-MT)
Webb (D-VA)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wyden (D-OR)

I put an asterisk beside the name of each Senator who is up for reelection in 2008. Maybe some of them have a safe seat, but I think every one of them should called out for their vote. Every one of them should be asked to explain why they want everybody who reports suspicious behavior subjected to facing lawsuits filed against them by CAIR & company. History shows us that terrorist attacks are thwarted by reports of suspicious behavior from ordinary citizens. example: the Ft Dix six. We need to seize on every misstep these Democratic congresscritters up for reelection in '08 take, and call them out on them.

Saturday, July 14, 2007

Muslims are not half-wits who can respond only in violence

The title of this blog are words in a speech Ayaan Hirsi Ali gave recently to the National Press Club. They obviously fell on deaf ears when you read the editorial pages or opinion pieces written. The underlying reason why the lefties and wobbly Republicans like Lugar and Warner want to surrender is because they think the Muslims ARE half-wits who can respond only in violence. Many also believe the world's oceans are going to keep the violence from coming to our shores. IMO bigoted folks like this are wrong on both counts.

First thing is let us make a moral distinction between Muslims and Islamists. Ms Ali put it this way:

Muslims are diverse. Some, like Irshad Manji and Tawfiq Hamid, want to reform their faith. Others want to spread their beliefs through persuasion, violence or both. Others are apathetic and do not care much for politics. Others want to leave it and convert to Christianity, like Nonie Darwish, or become atheist, like me.

Islam unreformed, as a set of beliefs, is hostile to everything Western.

In a free society, if Jews, Protestants, and Catholics have their own schools, then Muslims should have theirs, too. But how long should we ignore that in Muslim schools in the West, kids are taught to believe that Jews are pigs and dogs? Or that they should distance themselves from unbelievers and jihad is a virtue? Isn't it odd that everywhere in Europe with large Muslim organizations, demands are made not to teach kids about the Holocaust, while in mosques and Muslim bookshops The Protocols of the Elders of Zion is distributed?

And what about in Muslim lands, where Jews, Catholics, and Protestants cannot have their own schools, or churches, or graveyards? If Muslims can proselytize in Vatican City, why can't Christians proselytize in Mecca? Why do we find this acceptable? If Christians, Jews, and Atheists take to the streets in large numbers to protest against their own elected governments in objection to the war in Iraq, to the war against terror, why don't Muslims march in equally large number against the beheadings of Western aid workers? Why don't Muslims stand up for their own? Why are Jews and Christians and Atheists in the West the ones fighting genocide in Darfur? Why does it pass unnoticed in Muslim lands when Shias kill Sunnis and Sunnis, Shias by the thousands? It doesn't add up, does it?

It is important to understand how radical islamists make absolutely no separate distinction between the church and the state. They are one and the same to these folks, and this is totally contrary to Western life. Ms Ali details the stark differences between the USA and Islamic countries in the world:

As a woman in the West I have access to education. I have a job, and I can change jobs as I wish. I can marry the man of my choice, or I can choose not to marry at all. If nature allows it, I can have any number of children I want. I can manipulate nature and freeze my eggs. I can have an abortion. I can own property. I can travel wherever I want. I can read whichever book, newspaper, or magazine I wish. I can watch any movie I want or go to the museum of my choice. I can have an opinion on the moral choices of others and express my opinion, even publish it. And I can change my mind as time goes by. I can establish a political party or join an existing one; I am free to change parties or give up my membership. I can vote. I can choose not to vote. I can stand for election to office or go into business. This is what makes the West so great.

In Muslim lands, except for a very lucky few, women are denied education, have no job, and are forced into marriage with strangers. In the name of Islam, women are denied the right to their bodies; they cannot choose whether to have children or how many to have. They have no rights to abortion, and often they die trying to get one. They cannot own property, trade, or travel without the risk of robbery or rape. Most women (and men) live in state and religious censorship on what to read (if they can read at all) and what films to watch, and they have hardly any museums or art they can enjoy. Of the 57 Muslim nations that are members of the OIC (Organization of the Islamic Conference), only two are democracies. Both are frail and corrupt, and both face the risk of being overtaken by the agents of pure Islam. Turkey has a safety check in the shape of the army and Indonesia none. In none of these countries--except for the usual show-pieces to delude the West--are women allowed to establish their own political parties, play a meaningful role in one, vote, or run for office.

This obsession with subjugating women is one of the things that makes Islam so low. And the agents of Islam--from Riyadh to Tehran, from Islamabad to Cairo--know that any improvement in the lives of women will lead to the demise of Islam and a disappearance of their power. This is why, among other things, they are so desperate to cage in women. This is why they also hate the West.

Please don't be fooled by the few shrill voices--in or out of the veil--that enjoy the status quo and betray their fellow women.

I know there is a war fatigue in the USA that has set in, but we need to think instead of responding like half-wits. It is madness to think that we can just stop fighting and then all of the islamist terrorists will stop fighting too. It doesn't work that way, and it never has. We also should not think we are in a global war against all Muslims. We need to make the moral distinction between a diverse large percentage of the world's population, (Muslims) and the politics of the radical islamists. All of the other great religions have reformed from their rudimentary beginning, and I still hold out hope for reform in Islam.

Monday, July 09, 2007

Scolding Western Journalists...to No Avail

Late last month Ayaan Hirsi Ali produced 2 short publications at AEI. One on June 19th was The Role of Journalism Today. The other one on June 25th was An Honor Worth Defending.

The June 19th article is about the odd feeling she had giving a speech at the National Press Club. In her speech she talked about defending freedom of expression, free press, and the rights of women. What felt odd to her is she noticed the embarrassment the western journalist felt at defending the very right from which they earn their bread.

She noticed the same sense of uneasiness in early 2006 among Western journalists, academics, politicians, and commentators on how to respond to the cartoons of Muhammad in Denmark. In fact, many seriously defended the assertion that Denmark had to apologize for the cartoons. This attitude was repeated in the fall of last year when the Pope quoted a Byzantine emperor who wrote that the founder of Islam spread his religion by the sword, and the New York Times urged the Pope to apologize.

It is not the end of history. The 21st century began with a battle of ideas, and this battle is about the values of the West versus those of Islam. Tony Blair and the Pope should not be embarrassed in saying it, and you should stop self-censoring. Islam and liberal democracy are incompatible; cultures and religions are not equal. And perhaps most important of all, Muslims are not half-wits who can respond only in violence.

I encourage anyone to read the entire publication. She writes about many good questions that she is often asked by people, and she writes some very interesting answers to these good questions. Her final paragraph is this admonition.

If we do not understand the differences between Islam and the West--why one is so great and the other so low--and we don't fight back and win this battle of ideas in order to preserve our civilization, in my view there is no point to your profession or mine.

Her second article is about the reaction in Pakistan to Sir Salmon Rushdie being honored by Queen Elizabeth II with knighthood.

Imagine if a crowd of Englishmen marched in London carrying effigies of Muhammad, peace be upon him, stacks of the Koran, miniatures of the Kaaba in Mecca and Saudi flags. Imagine if they then built a bonfire and hurled the items one at a time into that fire screaming "Long Live the Queen!" each time the flames shot up.

This would be the equivalent of what hardline Muslim students did in the eastern Pakistani city of Multan, to take just one example, when they burned effigies this week of Queen Elizabeth II and Salman Rushdie, chanting "Kill him! Kill him!" in response to his recently bestowed knighthood.

Westerners have too often shrugged their shoulders at the trashing of their icons--such as when the queen is burned in effigy--by the foot soldiers of tribal barbarism. This perceived weakness makes the foes of the West more ferocious and helps recruit more jihadists.

Instead the West should join together to vigorously defend its symbols and civilization that, with all its flaws, still offers the best life to the most people.

Strident demands for apologies from power holders should be met with stoicism. Not one inch should be given.

Governments like that of Pakistan, which encourage and even stoke the flames, ought to be brought to account instead of coddled. The United States and Britain ought to demand that Pakistan's religious affairs minister, Mohammed Ijaz ul-Haq, resign for saying, in the Pakistani Parliament: "The West is accusing Muslims of extremism and terrorism. If someone exploded a bomb on his body he would be right to do so unless the British government apologizes and withdraws the 'sir' title."

With this episode involving Sir Salman, the Nigerian playwright Wole Soyinka is absolutely right: It is a fatal mistake for the West to let the forces of intolerance "define the territory of insult." The West must stand its ground.

By knighting Salman Rushdie, the queen has honored the freedom of conscience and creativity cherished in the West, making her a symbol of the essence of our way of life.

I have a lot of respect for Ayaan Hirsi Ali, and unfortunately her admonitions are simply being directed at a segment of the West that have their heads stuck firmly in the sand like ostriches. I also think there is one type of target the press will stand their ground against and beat the drum against. That target is rich white middle-aged men like POTUS or CEO of Halliburton or Exxon. I also think there is an elitist bigotry wrapped in a fear by many western journalists that Muslims ARE half-wits who can only respond in violence.

We can not win any battles of ideas through the MSM, so I suggest we support somebody who, like Reagan, bypasses the MSM and speaks directly to the people.

Fred Thompson on Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Andrew West wrote an article about how Ayaan Hirsi Ali became a hero of the right because the left deserted her in hour of need. In the article ms Ali explain in her words:

‘I called it the paradox of the Left,’ she told The Guardian. ‘On the one hand they support ideals of equality and emancipation, but in this case they do nothing about it; they even facilitate the oppression.’

In one of the more disgraceful episodes in the recent history of the European Left, Dutch Labour chose the votes of primitive mullahs — and I make no apology for labelling them as such — and the communities over which they hold sway, instead of a passionate human rights campaigner. Hirsi Ali bolted first to a libertarian business Party and, following her resignation from Parliament, to a Right-wing think tank in the United States.

What a loss. She became a victim of the Left’s fatal embrace of cultural relativism over universal human rights.

The Left is not being ‘culturally sensitive’ when it argues we need to accept or even ‘understand’ cultures, be they in Central Asia or Central Australia, that challenge liberal and social democratic norms or accommodate violence in the community or the home — it is being dangerously indulgent and its adherents need to rethink their position, with Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s words ringing in their ears.

Fred understands Ayaan Hirsi Ali, and the message that she has for the world. This is just one more reason that I'm with Fred.

Saturday, July 07, 2007

Obama girl vs McCain Mama vs Hott 4 Hill!

On those really slow news days some dueling You Tube videos that have me ROFLMAO.

Behind curtain #1 we have Glenn Beck, Amber Lee Ettinger, Obama, and McCain, and old ladies.

Behind curtain #2 we have Taryn Southern, Hillary, and young students.

WARNING: If you open curtain #2 scenes of Hillary's face on Mt Rushmore my be too graphic for the weak hearted. I'm kind of sick & twisted like Glenn Beck.

Last Name Magic for POTUS

POTUS who have last name ending in “n”
George Washington
Thomas Jefferson
James Madison
Andrew Jackson
Martin Van Buren
William Henry Harrison
James Buchanan
Abraham Lincoln
Andrew Johnson
Benjamin Harrison
Woodrow Wilson
Harry Truman
Lyndon Johnson
Richard Nixon
Ronald Reagan
William J. Clinton
16 of POTUS have last name ending in “n”

POTUS who have last name ending in “r”
John Tyler
Zachary Taylor

Chester Arthur
Herbert Hoover
Dwight Eisenhower
Jimmy Carter
6 of POTUS have last name ending in “r”

POTUS who have last name ending in “e”
James Monroe
Millard Fillmore
Franklin Pierce
Calvin Coolidge
4 of POTUS have last name ending in “e”

POTUS who have last name ending in “t”
Ulysses S. Grant
Theodore Roosevelt
William H. Taft
Franklin D. Roosevelt
4 of POTUS have last name ending in “t”

POTUS who have last name ending in “s”
John Adams
John Quincy Adams
Rutherford B. Hayes
3 of POTUS have last name ending in “s”

POTUS who have last name ending in “d”
James Garfield
Grover Cleveland
Gerald Ford
3 of POTUS have last name ending in “d”

POTUS who have last name ending in “y”
William McKinley
John F. Kennedy
2 of POTUS have last name ending in “y”

POTUS who have last name ending in “h”
George H.W. Bush
George W. Bush
2 of POTUS have last name ending in “h”

POTUS who have last name ending in “k”
James Polk
1 of POTUS have last name ending in “k”

POTUS who have last name ending in “g”
Warren Harding
1 of POTUS have last name ending in “g”

0 of POTUS who have last name ending in “a”, “i”, “o”, or “l”

2008 candidates with the right ending to their last name
Joe Biden
Hillary Rodham Clinton
John McCain
Bill Richardson
Tommy Thompson
Fred Thompson

2008 candidates with the wrong ending to their last name
Barack Obama
Rudy Giuliani
George Pataki
Tom Tancredo
Chuck Hagel
Mike Gravel
Ron Paul
Sam Brownback
Mitt Romney
Newt Gingrich
Dennis Kucinich
John Edwards
Chris Dodd
Jim Gilmore
Al Gore
Mike Huckabee
Duncan Hunter

The other magic has to do with 10 of the 42 POTUS have the same last name. In 220 years from 1789 to 2009 we have had 20 years of Roosevelt, 12 years of Bush, 10 years of Johnson, 8 years of Adams, and 4+ years of Harrison. I personally do not want to see any more years of Clinton as POTUS. Maybe it is just coincidence, and there is not a “royal class” of Americans from whom POTUS is elected. I hope so. In any event I am pleased that my guy’s last name ends with the letter “n”. I’m with Fred.

Wednesday, July 04, 2007

Those who cure you will kill you

Today the London Times has an article about a senior British cleric, Canon Andrew White's conversation in Ammon, Jordan.
Canon White, who runs Baghdad’s only Anglican parish, said that he met the al-Qaeda leader on the fringes of a meeting about religious reconciliation held in Amman, the Jordanian capital.

Sunday, July 01, 2007

Gore vs Mother Nature... Mother Nature Wins

It's Sunday morning, and I click on the TV for Washington Journal on C-SPAN. I'm thinking that the terrorist attacks in the UK will be the morning topic. But noooooooo, instead they want callers to talk about man made global warming. I suppose in one respect it makes sense. After all it is Sunday morning, a time for church services, so the church of MMGW convened.

I do not argue with Al Gore or anybody else that says there have been natural disasters in terms of hurricanes, earthquakes, fires, floods, etc., and human activity and nature are intertwined to a certain extent. What I do argue with is the arrogant God-like assertions that Gore and others appear to make that we humans can accurately predict, forecast, and take corrective actions before a natural disaster occurs. In other words if we Americans will just shut down our economic engine then we won't have any future natural disaster facing us.

Sorry, Al, but it does not work that way today, yesterday, or tomorrow. We mere mortal western capitalists can not take control over nature. Nature will do its thing, and those who survive will take whatever action is required after the natural event has occurred. There are still secrets in this universe that are not yet revealed to us including a totally reliable model for predicting precisely what Mother Nature will do next. You want to pick a fight against an enemy you can beat. Try getting behind an effort to defeat radical islamists. just a thought.