OK, not exactly, but the general idea is there.
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/K/KERRY_HEALTH_CARE?SITE=TXCLU&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
Yes, he would want the Federal government to pay for this if people couldn't afford it. Yes, he'd repeal the Bush tax cuts for people earning over $200,000 (said cuts also known as the "Great Economic Growth Engine That Foiled a Terrorist-Attack Induced Recession") to help pay for this. Yes, Karl Marx would be proud.
I'm completely stunned that Democrats can say things like this and not be called out on it. How abysmally bad at math are reporters, anyway? A cynic might say that as long as a politician tows the Leftist line, they get a free pass to say whatever they want without someone pointing out how idiotic they sound. That's what a cynic might say, but since I'm not one, I won't.
Forget the math for a minute (as hard as that might be). Forget the pass that the Demos get from the MSM (because that's just old news). Does the average American realize that Kerry's talking about socialism here? And can someone - anyone - please point out to me a free society that has successfully chosen and implemented socialism and is better off for it?
The Demos whine about the big government that Republicans want. The Republicans whine about the big government that Demos want. I've got a solution: let's elect some Federalists and have no big government. After all, with both classes of kleptocrats unhappy, isn't that the definition of a good compromise?
Monday, July 31, 2006
Saturday, July 29, 2006
Terrorism at Home, Again
I'm puzzled why this is being considered a crime of hate, as this story quotes, and not terrorism. Since I couldn't post the link, here's the body of the story:
Muslim charged in Seattle Jewish slaying
By Daisuke Wakabayashi Sat Jul 29, 4:16 AM ET
SEATTLE (Reuters) - A lone gunman burst into a Jewish organization in downtown Seattle on Friday, killing one woman and wounding five others in what authorities were calling a hate crime.
The gunman, Naveed Afzal Haq, 31, was arrested without a struggle at the Jewish Federation of Greater Seattle, where the shooting took place. He was later charged by Seattle police with one count of murder and five counts of attempted murder.
Haq is a U.S. citizen, police said, and their initial conversation with him by phone while he was inside the building indicated that he was a Muslim.
Police would not disclose the content of the conversation, but Amy Wasser-Simpson, the federation's vice president, told the Seattle Times in a story on its Web site the man got past security at the building and shouted, "I'm a Muslim American; I'm angry at Israel," before he began shooting.
"This was a purposeful, hateful act as far as we know, by an individual acting alone," said Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels at a news conference, adding "This is a crime of hate."
Authorities said they were "taking every precaution" in searching for explosives and additional suspects and were monitoring the city's synagogues and Jewish organizations.
"We are also protecting mosques, because there is always the concern of retaliatory crime," said Seattle Police Chief Gil Kerlikowske.
Seattle police alerted its officers earlier this week about carefully monitoring synagogues, temples and mosques, but Kerlikowske said it had received no specific threats.
The FBI was working with local authorities on the case.
FEDERATION HAD PRO-ISRAEL RALLY
Police first responded to reports of shots fired and a possible hostage situation at the center shortly after 4 p.m., when there were about 18 people in the offices.
Haq, described by a 911 caller as a man in his 30s or 40s, surrendered to police unarmed, but authorities found his weapon, a large-caliber, semi-automatic handgun, inside the building, according to Kerlikowske.
A hospital spokeswoman said three of the victims are in critical condition. The surviving women range in age from 23 to 43, including one who is pregnant. The fatal victim was only identified as a white female.
The federation, a group covering the Jewish community around the Puget Sound, had organized a large rally last weekend to demonstrate support for Israel in its fight against Hizbollah in southern Lebanon.
"I express our collective shock and dismay over the attack that has left five of our colleagues wounded and to share our extraordinary sadness for the loss of one of our colleagues," Robin Boehler, federation chair, said.
The Pacific Northwest chapter of the Anti-Defamation League said earlier this year that anti-Semitic incidents were on the rise because of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and activities by white supremacists.
In 1999, white supremacist Buford Furrow went on a shooting rampage at a Jewish community center outside Los Angeles, wounding five people including children. Later that day, he shot and killed a Filipino mail carrier.
(Additional reporting by Dan Whitcomb and Mary Milliken in Los Angeles)
OK, it's me again. Did you get all of that? I'll have more to say below. And here's more on the story from the Chicago Tribune, again, without any consideration for calling this terrorism:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/la-na-shooting29jul29,1,7810639.story?coll=chi-news-hed
I guess my point is this: at what point would we call a Muslim gunman walking into the Jewish Federation's offices (or a synagogue, or a Bar Mitzvah) and shooting the place up an act of terrorism? Does more than one person have to die? Does it have to become a regular occurrence? Doesn't it fit the common criteria of a terrorist act - "religious" in nature, designed to kill as many people as possible and inflict a sense of fear in the community?
The worst part of that Reuters piece (well, there's two really bad parts, keep reading) was the nauseating comment from the Police Chief. Thanks, Chief, I'm glad to hear you're going to be protecting mosques. You know how those militant Jews and Christians have a history of bloody, vengeful rampages when Muslims kill them. Think of all the retributive violence that happened after 9/11, right? And when you're done thinking of it, give me an example - one would be enough - of that happening after 9/11. I won't hold my breath.
And what in the name of the Eternal does the last paragraph have to do with anything? It is completely inconsistent with the second to last paragraph (which explicitly notes the conflict in the Middle East), and almost seems as if the authors of this piece wanted to say: yes, he was Muslim, but look! There's all sorts of people who hate the Jews! This guy back in 1999 did the same thing!
Well, Dear Reader, say a prayer for the families of those whose loved ones were shot, and a prayer for this Republic, that this type of terrorism doesn't become common. I'd love to hear the terrorist-loving apologists explain this one away, although I guess the ones at Reuters already did.
Muslim charged in Seattle Jewish slaying
By Daisuke Wakabayashi Sat Jul 29, 4:16 AM ET
SEATTLE (Reuters) - A lone gunman burst into a Jewish organization in downtown Seattle on Friday, killing one woman and wounding five others in what authorities were calling a hate crime.
The gunman, Naveed Afzal Haq, 31, was arrested without a struggle at the Jewish Federation of Greater Seattle, where the shooting took place. He was later charged by Seattle police with one count of murder and five counts of attempted murder.
Haq is a U.S. citizen, police said, and their initial conversation with him by phone while he was inside the building indicated that he was a Muslim.
Police would not disclose the content of the conversation, but Amy Wasser-Simpson, the federation's vice president, told the Seattle Times in a story on its Web site the man got past security at the building and shouted, "I'm a Muslim American; I'm angry at Israel," before he began shooting.
"This was a purposeful, hateful act as far as we know, by an individual acting alone," said Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels at a news conference, adding "This is a crime of hate."
Authorities said they were "taking every precaution" in searching for explosives and additional suspects and were monitoring the city's synagogues and Jewish organizations.
"We are also protecting mosques, because there is always the concern of retaliatory crime," said Seattle Police Chief Gil Kerlikowske.
Seattle police alerted its officers earlier this week about carefully monitoring synagogues, temples and mosques, but Kerlikowske said it had received no specific threats.
The FBI was working with local authorities on the case.
FEDERATION HAD PRO-ISRAEL RALLY
Police first responded to reports of shots fired and a possible hostage situation at the center shortly after 4 p.m., when there were about 18 people in the offices.
Haq, described by a 911 caller as a man in his 30s or 40s, surrendered to police unarmed, but authorities found his weapon, a large-caliber, semi-automatic handgun, inside the building, according to Kerlikowske.
A hospital spokeswoman said three of the victims are in critical condition. The surviving women range in age from 23 to 43, including one who is pregnant. The fatal victim was only identified as a white female.
The federation, a group covering the Jewish community around the Puget Sound, had organized a large rally last weekend to demonstrate support for Israel in its fight against Hizbollah in southern Lebanon.
"I express our collective shock and dismay over the attack that has left five of our colleagues wounded and to share our extraordinary sadness for the loss of one of our colleagues," Robin Boehler, federation chair, said.
The Pacific Northwest chapter of the Anti-Defamation League said earlier this year that anti-Semitic incidents were on the rise because of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and activities by white supremacists.
In 1999, white supremacist Buford Furrow went on a shooting rampage at a Jewish community center outside Los Angeles, wounding five people including children. Later that day, he shot and killed a Filipino mail carrier.
(Additional reporting by Dan Whitcomb and Mary Milliken in Los Angeles)
OK, it's me again. Did you get all of that? I'll have more to say below. And here's more on the story from the Chicago Tribune, again, without any consideration for calling this terrorism:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/la-na-shooting29jul29,1,7810639.story?coll=chi-news-hed
I guess my point is this: at what point would we call a Muslim gunman walking into the Jewish Federation's offices (or a synagogue, or a Bar Mitzvah) and shooting the place up an act of terrorism? Does more than one person have to die? Does it have to become a regular occurrence? Doesn't it fit the common criteria of a terrorist act - "religious" in nature, designed to kill as many people as possible and inflict a sense of fear in the community?
The worst part of that Reuters piece (well, there's two really bad parts, keep reading) was the nauseating comment from the Police Chief. Thanks, Chief, I'm glad to hear you're going to be protecting mosques. You know how those militant Jews and Christians have a history of bloody, vengeful rampages when Muslims kill them. Think of all the retributive violence that happened after 9/11, right? And when you're done thinking of it, give me an example - one would be enough - of that happening after 9/11. I won't hold my breath.
And what in the name of the Eternal does the last paragraph have to do with anything? It is completely inconsistent with the second to last paragraph (which explicitly notes the conflict in the Middle East), and almost seems as if the authors of this piece wanted to say: yes, he was Muslim, but look! There's all sorts of people who hate the Jews! This guy back in 1999 did the same thing!
Well, Dear Reader, say a prayer for the families of those whose loved ones were shot, and a prayer for this Republic, that this type of terrorism doesn't become common. I'd love to hear the terrorist-loving apologists explain this one away, although I guess the ones at Reuters already did.
Wednesday, July 26, 2006
A Moral Cause
I've been reading Richard Carwardine's Lincoln: A Life of Purpose and Power with great interest and enjoyment. First, the book is very readable and focuses on Lincoln's public life as an Illinois politician through his rise as a national figure and his ascension to the Presidency.
I would strongly recommend it for open-minded fans of American history (I say open minded for this reason: if you think Lincoln was a tyrant, or responsible for 600,000 deaths, or trampled on the Constitution, you're probably not in the right place to appreciate the work). It paints a very compelling portrait of a man who at once desires to avoid war and fighting, and yet takes the opportunity whenever he can to inspire people to recognize that "peculiar institution" as inconsistent with the intention of the founders (frequently quoting the Declaration) and also to recognize the decision before the citizenry: either a nation that progresses under the spirit of '76 or back-slides into tyranny.
The author provides an insight into the time, and the challenges facing the loose affiliation that would become the Republican party. It was a party that was created to accomplish minimally one end: arrest the spread of slavery into the Western territories. Most Republicans were content to let slavery run its course in slave-holding states (for they were convinced, as Lincoln himself said in his many speeches, that "right makes might," and that it was an institution that wasn't long for this world).
But here's the important point: this was a clearly defined moment in history, when a moral decision between Liberty and Tyranny had to be made, and the world is clearly better for our 16th President. There are moments like this throughout history, but they are only evident with the clarity of hindsight.
What will be our generation's defining moment of moral decision making? Will the threat of fascism once again awaken free people everywhere to stand united and fight against a back-sliding of civilization? More sinister an enemy is the atrophy of our collective morality and disregard for Christian virtue - manifested in a noticeably more dependent and less self-governing citizenry. These are the two enemies of Liberty as I see them in the summer of 2006, and although I fear that things will get worse before they get better, I pray I am wrong.
But if I am right, may the Author of Liberty help us and grant us the courage to dedicate ourselves to His work; bless us and protect us until we accomplish our purposes as He sees fit; and send us His Holy Spirit that we may communicate the danger and rally good people everywhere to the cause of righteousness and Freedom.
I would strongly recommend it for open-minded fans of American history (I say open minded for this reason: if you think Lincoln was a tyrant, or responsible for 600,000 deaths, or trampled on the Constitution, you're probably not in the right place to appreciate the work). It paints a very compelling portrait of a man who at once desires to avoid war and fighting, and yet takes the opportunity whenever he can to inspire people to recognize that "peculiar institution" as inconsistent with the intention of the founders (frequently quoting the Declaration) and also to recognize the decision before the citizenry: either a nation that progresses under the spirit of '76 or back-slides into tyranny.
The author provides an insight into the time, and the challenges facing the loose affiliation that would become the Republican party. It was a party that was created to accomplish minimally one end: arrest the spread of slavery into the Western territories. Most Republicans were content to let slavery run its course in slave-holding states (for they were convinced, as Lincoln himself said in his many speeches, that "right makes might," and that it was an institution that wasn't long for this world).
But here's the important point: this was a clearly defined moment in history, when a moral decision between Liberty and Tyranny had to be made, and the world is clearly better for our 16th President. There are moments like this throughout history, but they are only evident with the clarity of hindsight.
What will be our generation's defining moment of moral decision making? Will the threat of fascism once again awaken free people everywhere to stand united and fight against a back-sliding of civilization? More sinister an enemy is the atrophy of our collective morality and disregard for Christian virtue - manifested in a noticeably more dependent and less self-governing citizenry. These are the two enemies of Liberty as I see them in the summer of 2006, and although I fear that things will get worse before they get better, I pray I am wrong.
But if I am right, may the Author of Liberty help us and grant us the courage to dedicate ourselves to His work; bless us and protect us until we accomplish our purposes as He sees fit; and send us His Holy Spirit that we may communicate the danger and rally good people everywhere to the cause of righteousness and Freedom.
Friday, July 21, 2006
Annie Get Your Gun
I really enjoy Ann Coulter - she's got such a way with words.
http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/welcome.cgi
I have a hard time finding fault with her conclusions. If you use what the Left says and does as your basis for judgment, it's hard to come to a different conclusion.
For an analysis of what the intentions of Israel might be with respect to Lebannon, check out Jonah Goldberg's piece, which I'm linking to at the Chicago Tribune:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-0607200041jul20,1,5967039.story?coll=chi-opinionfront-hed
For what it's worth, I hope he's right, and that they follow through on it.
http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/welcome.cgi
I have a hard time finding fault with her conclusions. If you use what the Left says and does as your basis for judgment, it's hard to come to a different conclusion.
For an analysis of what the intentions of Israel might be with respect to Lebannon, check out Jonah Goldberg's piece, which I'm linking to at the Chicago Tribune:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-0607200041jul20,1,5967039.story?coll=chi-opinionfront-hed
For what it's worth, I hope he's right, and that they follow through on it.
Wednesday, July 19, 2006
Trying Out a New Look
Well, dear Reader, I've switched up the format here just a little bit. I think I might like this template better than the other. But check me out, ever the unilateralist (and here you just thought I was a Monarchist), I'm springing it on my brothers without warning! If they nix it, we'll go back to the other format. Or we'll litigate. I don't know, we'll see.
I'm going to brush up on my WWI history, because what's been happening in the Middle East for the last week or so has that familiar, awful, runaway-train feel to it. There's probably a dozen different ways to think about the strategy at play in the Israel/Hezbollah conflict, and I've already got a bit of a headache, so maybe I'll take a shot at it tomorrow.
Other than that, wait a second...
Bush vetoed a bill sent to him by Congress! Bush vetoed a bill sent to him by Congress! Was he distracted when they brought it to him to sign? Could it have been an accident? Aw, who cares? What great news!
OK, I'm going to say it. Since when is upholding the Constitution strictly the role of the Judiciary? Aren't all elected officials, and the other Branches, bound by it? And my last question: why couldn't he have vetoed any of the other Constitutionally inconsistent garbage that has come across his desk (McCain-Feingold, for starters, anyone)?
I'd make a list, but I've got to get up in the morning and put in a full day.
I'm going to brush up on my WWI history, because what's been happening in the Middle East for the last week or so has that familiar, awful, runaway-train feel to it. There's probably a dozen different ways to think about the strategy at play in the Israel/Hezbollah conflict, and I've already got a bit of a headache, so maybe I'll take a shot at it tomorrow.
Other than that, wait a second...
Bush vetoed a bill sent to him by Congress! Bush vetoed a bill sent to him by Congress! Was he distracted when they brought it to him to sign? Could it have been an accident? Aw, who cares? What great news!
OK, I'm going to say it. Since when is upholding the Constitution strictly the role of the Judiciary? Aren't all elected officials, and the other Branches, bound by it? And my last question: why couldn't he have vetoed any of the other Constitutionally inconsistent garbage that has come across his desk (McCain-Feingold, for starters, anyone)?
I'd make a list, but I've got to get up in the morning and put in a full day.
Saturday, July 15, 2006
A New Direction?
It's my understanding that the Democrat Party is rolling out something of a... what, platform? And here I already thought they had one. I haven't read it (well, either the old one or the "new" one), but anybody who has been conscious over the last 25 years knows the drill (appeasement, abortion on demand, more taxes, more government, less liberty, etc.).
Here's the funny thing: the Democrats aren't the only ones in need of a new direction. Conservatives, as distinct and different animals from Republicans, are in need of leadership, direction, and a backbone, for starters. The last Presidential candidate who ran as a real Conservative pretty much humiliated... that other guy who no one remembers any more. Every namby-pamby "compassionate" conservative who has represented the GOP since then has either lost (see: 41) or just squeaked by (see: 43).
Looking ahead to elections in 2008, the GOP front runners are Zell Miller and Joe Lieberman. No, wait. Um... yes, I've got it. John McCain and Rudy Giuliani. But let me ask you - are there material differences among those four names? I for one am puzzled by the dearth of strong Conservative prospects. There are a few, and maybe as 2008 nears they'll become more "household names" (Human Events polls show Tom Tancredo of Colorado as usually the favorite), but I wouldn't wait too long. Money raised today (and McCain is raising it) will be indispensable in campaigning once the season begins.
There's a line of thinking that goes something like this, and I'm unsure if it is right or not: a "moderate" Republican would be good for the Conservative movement because it might finally mobilize the base. True, we have seen Conservatives band together in rejection of some of Bush's less than conservative moments (Harriet Miers, among others, anyone?), but I'd rather see another Reagan in the White House.
Here's the funny thing: the Democrats aren't the only ones in need of a new direction. Conservatives, as distinct and different animals from Republicans, are in need of leadership, direction, and a backbone, for starters. The last Presidential candidate who ran as a real Conservative pretty much humiliated... that other guy who no one remembers any more. Every namby-pamby "compassionate" conservative who has represented the GOP since then has either lost (see: 41) or just squeaked by (see: 43).
Looking ahead to elections in 2008, the GOP front runners are Zell Miller and Joe Lieberman. No, wait. Um... yes, I've got it. John McCain and Rudy Giuliani. But let me ask you - are there material differences among those four names? I for one am puzzled by the dearth of strong Conservative prospects. There are a few, and maybe as 2008 nears they'll become more "household names" (Human Events polls show Tom Tancredo of Colorado as usually the favorite), but I wouldn't wait too long. Money raised today (and McCain is raising it) will be indispensable in campaigning once the season begins.
There's a line of thinking that goes something like this, and I'm unsure if it is right or not: a "moderate" Republican would be good for the Conservative movement because it might finally mobilize the base. True, we have seen Conservatives band together in rejection of some of Bush's less than conservative moments (Harriet Miers, among others, anyone?), but I'd rather see another Reagan in the White House.
Tuesday, July 11, 2006
Buried News Worth Noting
I heard the first of this on the Dennis Prager show yesterday and indeed had to look for the story as it wasn't one of the day's top headlines.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/2757923.stm
Although the striking capabilities of the Japanese self-defense forces might be questionable, that they are considering it, and discussing how this may conflict with their constitution is a rather big deal.
Japan is really a sleeping giant in the Far East, and her neighbors might be wise to avoid waking her. According to Alan Axelrod in his new book, Profiles in Audacity, until Truman made the decision to drop the bomb, the Japanese people had never surrendered. As in ever. Conventional wisdom was that this wasn't even part of their culture.
Since the end of the war, the Japanese have been constitutionally limited to maintaining self-defense forces only. Prager's point on his talk show was that Japan's statement yesterday, although directed at North Korea, was intended for China. No doubt the Japanese are considering every option available. Israel could offer them some pointers, I'm certain, on first strikes against hostile neighbors. Imagine for a moment that Israel hadn't hit Saddam's reactors, and he had developed the bomb. What a different world we'd be living in right now.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/2757923.stm
Although the striking capabilities of the Japanese self-defense forces might be questionable, that they are considering it, and discussing how this may conflict with their constitution is a rather big deal.
Japan is really a sleeping giant in the Far East, and her neighbors might be wise to avoid waking her. According to Alan Axelrod in his new book, Profiles in Audacity, until Truman made the decision to drop the bomb, the Japanese people had never surrendered. As in ever. Conventional wisdom was that this wasn't even part of their culture.
Since the end of the war, the Japanese have been constitutionally limited to maintaining self-defense forces only. Prager's point on his talk show was that Japan's statement yesterday, although directed at North Korea, was intended for China. No doubt the Japanese are considering every option available. Israel could offer them some pointers, I'm certain, on first strikes against hostile neighbors. Imagine for a moment that Israel hadn't hit Saddam's reactors, and he had developed the bomb. What a different world we'd be living in right now.
Tuesday, July 04, 2006
Independence Day 2006
230 wonderful, frightening and challenging years have passed, dear Reader, since that glorious July 4th. Although that wasn't the beginning of our struggle for independence, it might properly be considered the beginning of the end of our connection to the Crown.
I'd like to wish everyone a Happy Fourth of July and ask that we all reflect, especially today, on the nature of our independence in modern America.
We're all aware that our Republic was designed for a self-governing people, and that we're far less self-governing as a people today than we were 50, 100, or 230 years ago. If we can do so in little ways, let's try to remember that "Spirit of '76" in our everyday life. Fostering self-government in ourselves, our families and our communities is the only way I am aware of to stop our slide into socialism.
I'd like to wish everyone a Happy Fourth of July and ask that we all reflect, especially today, on the nature of our independence in modern America.
We're all aware that our Republic was designed for a self-governing people, and that we're far less self-governing as a people today than we were 50, 100, or 230 years ago. If we can do so in little ways, let's try to remember that "Spirit of '76" in our everyday life. Fostering self-government in ourselves, our families and our communities is the only way I am aware of to stop our slide into socialism.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)