From Investors Business Daily:
Posted 11/15/2005
Supreme Court: Samuel Alito is said to be downplaying a clear-cut 1985 statement of his political and legal views. We hope he hasn't evolved too far.
Here's some of what Alito said on an application for the job of deputy assistant attorney general under then-Attorney General Edwin Meese:
"I believe very strongly in limited government, federalism, free enterprise, the supremacy of the elected branches of government, the need for a strong defense and effective law enforcement, and the legitimacy of a government role in protecting traditional values."
Regarding the field of law, he wrote, "I disagree strenuously with the usurpation by the judiciary of decision-making authority that should be exercised by the branches of government responsible to the electorate."
What's wrong here? Nothing. One couldn't ask for a better, more concise credo of judicial restraint.
Getting more specific, Alito noted with pride that he had worked on cases in which the government argued "that racial and ethnic quotas should not be allowed, that the Constitution does not protect a right to an abortion."
Those words are the red flags that have liberals like Sen. Edward Kennedy all stirred up. In Kennedy's words, Alito's "extreme statements" are "deeply troubling."
On Tuesday, though, Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein claimed that Alito had put that political stuff behind him. She said Alito told her in private that the comments in question were those of "an advocate seeking a job" and that he now sets his personal views aside when interpreting the law.
As well he should — up to a point. But certain personal views, such as those on the role of judges and the foundations of the law, can't be set aside, because they bear directly on the work of judging. On these topics, we hope Alito has stuck to his opinions and will give them a spirited and articulate defense. What he said 20 years ago is as valid, and securely mainstream, today as then.
That goes for Alito's 1985 view on Roe v. Wade; that view was (and is) shared by many legal thinkers, not all of them conservative. The public has plenty of Roe skeptics, too. According to the Harris Poll, nearly half of Americans continue to disapprove of it. In 1985, 50% of the respondents favored Roe and 47% (like Alito) were opposed. In 2005, 52% are in favor and 47% remain opposed.
It bears mentioning that 51% of the voters in 2004 re-elected a president who made it clear he wanted to name conservatives to the Supreme Court. And back when Alito was offering his opinions to Meese, a president who held those same views — and who wasn't shy about proclaiming them — had just been re-elected by a popular majority of nearly 59%, winning all but 13 electoral votes.
So who's the real extremist? In light of that 1984 landslide, Ronald Reagan (and Alito) clearly had the mainstream credentials that liberals such as Kennedy lacked.
We'd guess that Alito is still in the mainstream today, even if he hasn't changed his opinions one bit.
Wednesday, November 16, 2005
A Case for Charges of Treason
From Investors Business Daily
With everything that they have done to defeat the US in this world war on Islamic Fascism, do the Democrats really believe that we'll ever trust them to protect us and our children. Read on and keep in mind what a big deal they've made about Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame:
Posted 11/15/2005
Aid And Comfort:
The top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee says he gave advance warning of our plans to invade Iraq to the president of a terrorist state, Syria. A full-scale investigation is warranted.
Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV of West Virginia has been relentless in seeking information to undercut our mission in Iraq. But he has some of his own explaining to do. In an interview last weekend with Chris Wallace on "Fox News Sunday," Rockefeller said:
"I took a trip by myself in January of 2002 to Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Syria, and I told each of the heads of state that it was my view that George Bush had already made up his mind to go to war against Iraq, that that was a predetermined set course which had taken shape shortly after 9-11."
What exactly is a U.S. senator with special access to classified information doing providing private briefings to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, whose country has been on the State Department's list of terrorist sponsors since that list's inception in 1979?
What's he doing sharing U.S. strategy in waging war on terrorists with the nation that, according to the State Department, gives "substantial amounts of financial, training, weapons, explosives, political, diplomatic and organizational aid" to the terrorist group Hezbollah? Hezbollah was responsible for, among other acts of terror, the Beirut truck bombing that killed 241 American servicemen in their barracks in 1983.
Rockefeller's little venture in freelance diplomacy may have violated the Logan Act, which calls for fining or imprisoning any U.S. citizen who deals with a foreign government "with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government . . . or to defeat the measures of the United States."
If a Senate Ethics Committee investigation were to confirm that Rockefeller was guilty of "a significant breach of confidentiality or unauthorized disclosure," it could "recommend appropriate action such as censure, removal from committee membership or expulsion from the Senate."
It's hard to top a senator entrusted with classified materials providing previews of U.S. military actions to a terrorist state. But Senate Republicans are doing their best.
All but 13 voted with all but six Democrats Tuesday in passing a resolution that amounts to a de facto timetable for withdrawal from Iraq. It's exactly the kind of signal that will encourage terrorists in Iraq to be patient and keep fighting: The American infidels not only lack staying power; they also have a plan to surrender.
Members of "The World's Greatest Deliberative Body" are going to have to convince the American people that they haven't forgotten we are at war. They can start by showing some fortitude in supporting the mission in Iraq for the long haul. And by having a formal investigation of the misconduct of Jay Rockefeller.
With everything that they have done to defeat the US in this world war on Islamic Fascism, do the Democrats really believe that we'll ever trust them to protect us and our children. Read on and keep in mind what a big deal they've made about Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame:
Posted 11/15/2005
Aid And Comfort:
The top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee says he gave advance warning of our plans to invade Iraq to the president of a terrorist state, Syria. A full-scale investigation is warranted.
Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV of West Virginia has been relentless in seeking information to undercut our mission in Iraq. But he has some of his own explaining to do. In an interview last weekend with Chris Wallace on "Fox News Sunday," Rockefeller said:
"I took a trip by myself in January of 2002 to Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Syria, and I told each of the heads of state that it was my view that George Bush had already made up his mind to go to war against Iraq, that that was a predetermined set course which had taken shape shortly after 9-11."
What exactly is a U.S. senator with special access to classified information doing providing private briefings to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, whose country has been on the State Department's list of terrorist sponsors since that list's inception in 1979?
What's he doing sharing U.S. strategy in waging war on terrorists with the nation that, according to the State Department, gives "substantial amounts of financial, training, weapons, explosives, political, diplomatic and organizational aid" to the terrorist group Hezbollah? Hezbollah was responsible for, among other acts of terror, the Beirut truck bombing that killed 241 American servicemen in their barracks in 1983.
Rockefeller's little venture in freelance diplomacy may have violated the Logan Act, which calls for fining or imprisoning any U.S. citizen who deals with a foreign government "with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government . . . or to defeat the measures of the United States."
If a Senate Ethics Committee investigation were to confirm that Rockefeller was guilty of "a significant breach of confidentiality or unauthorized disclosure," it could "recommend appropriate action such as censure, removal from committee membership or expulsion from the Senate."
It's hard to top a senator entrusted with classified materials providing previews of U.S. military actions to a terrorist state. But Senate Republicans are doing their best.
All but 13 voted with all but six Democrats Tuesday in passing a resolution that amounts to a de facto timetable for withdrawal from Iraq. It's exactly the kind of signal that will encourage terrorists in Iraq to be patient and keep fighting: The American infidels not only lack staying power; they also have a plan to surrender.
Members of "The World's Greatest Deliberative Body" are going to have to convince the American people that they haven't forgotten we are at war. They can start by showing some fortitude in supporting the mission in Iraq for the long haul. And by having a formal investigation of the misconduct of Jay Rockefeller.
Tuesday, November 15, 2005
The 'Oh, Really?' Factor
From Investor Business Daily:
Posted 11/14/2005
Junk Science:
Has the "fair and balanced" network swallowed the spin on global warming? A Fox News special warns us the sky is falling, the seas are rising and your SUV is causing it all.
On Sunday, Fox News aired a special hosted by reporter Rick Folbaum, "The Heat Is On: The Case Of Global Warming," seriously entertaining the greenie notion that global warming is real, that mankind is the cause and disaster is on its way in the form of melting glaciers and rising seas.
Contrary opinions were conspicuously absent. But at least Folbaum was a tad more subtle than has been Fox's Bill O'Reilly. He was once quoted in a Sept. 26, 2004, profile on CBS' "60 Minutes" as announcing: "Global warming is here. All these idiots that run around and say it isn't here — that's ridiculous."
Yes, global warming is here, just not for the first time. According to S. Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia, "The earth has experienced some 17 ice ages in the last 2 million years. Ice cores, ocean sediment cores and tree rings all show evidence of large and rapid climate changes, even in recorded history, i.e., the last 3,000 years."
After each ice age is a natural warming period. Earth is in one now.
One segment of the Fox special begins with the tease that we are about to take a "disturbing tour of Montana's Glacier National Park" with environmental activists Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Laurie David, both with the National Resources Defense Council.
But we're not told that, according to Cybercast News Service, the special was approved after Kennedy reportedly "dragged" Fox News Chairman Roger Ailes to a lecture by former Vice President Al Gore. The Bangor (Maine) Daily News on Sept. 23 reported Kennedy's comments about having "dragged" Ailes to the lecture.
Gore, author of "Earth In The Balance," recently said: "I don't want to diminish the threat of terrorism at all. It is extremely serious. But on a long-term global basis, global warming is the most serious problem we're facing."
According to a column by Amanda Griscom Little in the November edition of Outside Magazine, Ailes telephoned David to discuss the "one-hour global warming report that this network will air in the fall, thanks in large part to Laurie's badgering."
Yes, the Montana glaciers have receded. So too have the glaciers that once covered much of North America. Melting glaciers in Montana may be bad for tourism but, as environmental scientist Patrick Michaels writes on www.techcentralstation.com, if all the non-polar glaciers in the world were to melt completely, sea level would rise no more than five to seven inches.
We are shown footage of the collapse of the Larsen B ice shelf on the eastern side of the Antarctic Peninsula. It is warming and has been for decades. But it comprises just 2% of the continent. And temperature readings averaged over the entire continent show that as a whole it has been cooling for decades.
A research team from the University of Missouri at Columbia analyzed data from the European Space Agency's radar satellites ERS-1 and ERS-2 and calculated that between 1992 and 2003, the East Antarctic ice sheet gained about 45 billion tons of ice, thickening at an average rate of 1.8 centimeters a year.
The earth in fact experienced greater warming between the 10th and 15th centuries, when vineyards flourished in England, predating the Industrial Revolution. When Eric the Red brought settlers to Greenland in 986, the climate supported the Viking way of life based upon cattle, hay, grain and herring for about the next 300 years.
Was it man-made pollution that allowed 300 years of Nordic settlement in Greenland?
We report. You decide.
Posted 11/14/2005
Junk Science:
Has the "fair and balanced" network swallowed the spin on global warming? A Fox News special warns us the sky is falling, the seas are rising and your SUV is causing it all.
On Sunday, Fox News aired a special hosted by reporter Rick Folbaum, "The Heat Is On: The Case Of Global Warming," seriously entertaining the greenie notion that global warming is real, that mankind is the cause and disaster is on its way in the form of melting glaciers and rising seas.
Contrary opinions were conspicuously absent. But at least Folbaum was a tad more subtle than has been Fox's Bill O'Reilly. He was once quoted in a Sept. 26, 2004, profile on CBS' "60 Minutes" as announcing: "Global warming is here. All these idiots that run around and say it isn't here — that's ridiculous."
Yes, global warming is here, just not for the first time. According to S. Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia, "The earth has experienced some 17 ice ages in the last 2 million years. Ice cores, ocean sediment cores and tree rings all show evidence of large and rapid climate changes, even in recorded history, i.e., the last 3,000 years."
After each ice age is a natural warming period. Earth is in one now.
One segment of the Fox special begins with the tease that we are about to take a "disturbing tour of Montana's Glacier National Park" with environmental activists Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Laurie David, both with the National Resources Defense Council.
But we're not told that, according to Cybercast News Service, the special was approved after Kennedy reportedly "dragged" Fox News Chairman Roger Ailes to a lecture by former Vice President Al Gore. The Bangor (Maine) Daily News on Sept. 23 reported Kennedy's comments about having "dragged" Ailes to the lecture.
Gore, author of "Earth In The Balance," recently said: "I don't want to diminish the threat of terrorism at all. It is extremely serious. But on a long-term global basis, global warming is the most serious problem we're facing."
According to a column by Amanda Griscom Little in the November edition of Outside Magazine, Ailes telephoned David to discuss the "one-hour global warming report that this network will air in the fall, thanks in large part to Laurie's badgering."
Yes, the Montana glaciers have receded. So too have the glaciers that once covered much of North America. Melting glaciers in Montana may be bad for tourism but, as environmental scientist Patrick Michaels writes on www.techcentralstation.com, if all the non-polar glaciers in the world were to melt completely, sea level would rise no more than five to seven inches.
We are shown footage of the collapse of the Larsen B ice shelf on the eastern side of the Antarctic Peninsula. It is warming and has been for decades. But it comprises just 2% of the continent. And temperature readings averaged over the entire continent show that as a whole it has been cooling for decades.
A research team from the University of Missouri at Columbia analyzed data from the European Space Agency's radar satellites ERS-1 and ERS-2 and calculated that between 1992 and 2003, the East Antarctic ice sheet gained about 45 billion tons of ice, thickening at an average rate of 1.8 centimeters a year.
The earth in fact experienced greater warming between the 10th and 15th centuries, when vineyards flourished in England, predating the Industrial Revolution. When Eric the Red brought settlers to Greenland in 986, the climate supported the Viking way of life based upon cattle, hay, grain and herring for about the next 300 years.
Was it man-made pollution that allowed 300 years of Nordic settlement in Greenland?
We report. You decide.
The Myth Of No-Cost Immigrants
From Investor Business Daily:
Posted 11/14/2005
Immigration Reform: Conventional wisdom says immigrants are not a financial burden to taxpayers because they work hard, pay taxes and rarely go on the dole. But it's a myth, and a new study blows another hole in it.
The University of Florida finds that immigrant families have been costing that state a net $1,800 per household per year, a financial burden much larger than previously thought.
The findings surprised the study's author, who is a pro-immigration Democrat. After crunching the numbers, economist David Denslow discovered immigrants — legal and illegal — were consuming much more in public services and paying much less in taxes than the average resident.
Chief among the government services they were consuming were education and Medicaid.
But wait a minute. Didn't last decade's welfare reform push a lot of immigrants off the dole?
Yes, but the decline in immigrant cash aid and food stamps has not resulted in a significant savings for taxpayers, because it has been almost entirely offset by increases in the cost of providing Medicaid to immigrant households.
In fact, a recent study by the Center for Immigration Studies found that the average welfare payout to immigrant households, both legal and illegal, has changed little and remains about $2,000 a year, which is 50% higher than the payout for natives.
In 1996, 22% of immigrant households were on the dole (compared with 15% for natives), according to CIS. By 2001, the share rose to 23%. Over that period, average Medicaid payments to immigrants jumped to $1,495 from $1,203.
Immigrant households account for a growing share of the welfare caseload.
The number of immigrants using at least one major welfare program has steadily increased, with the exception of a small drop in 1997.
Between 1996 and 2001, the number of immigrant households using the welfare system grew by 750,000 to more than 3 million — accounting for almost 18% of all U.S. households on welfare. That share is expected to rise with continued high rates of immigration.
And if you think immigrants, most of whom are poor Mexicans, will stop depending on U.S. welfare as they settle into jobs and even careers here, think again.
CIS found that welfare use actually increases significantly with duration of stay in the U.S. Not until they have lived here more than 20 years does it start to go down on average.
"To some extent, assimilation for many immigrants means assimilation into the welfare system," the report said. "This is the case for both immigrants in general and for legal immigrants."
The Florida and national studies show that immigrant use of the welfare system remains well above that of natives and creates a significant cost to taxpayers. Their findings tip the debate over the cost of immigrants in favor of immigration reformers.
Posted 11/14/2005
Immigration Reform: Conventional wisdom says immigrants are not a financial burden to taxpayers because they work hard, pay taxes and rarely go on the dole. But it's a myth, and a new study blows another hole in it.
The University of Florida finds that immigrant families have been costing that state a net $1,800 per household per year, a financial burden much larger than previously thought.
The findings surprised the study's author, who is a pro-immigration Democrat. After crunching the numbers, economist David Denslow discovered immigrants — legal and illegal — were consuming much more in public services and paying much less in taxes than the average resident.
Chief among the government services they were consuming were education and Medicaid.
But wait a minute. Didn't last decade's welfare reform push a lot of immigrants off the dole?
Yes, but the decline in immigrant cash aid and food stamps has not resulted in a significant savings for taxpayers, because it has been almost entirely offset by increases in the cost of providing Medicaid to immigrant households.
In fact, a recent study by the Center for Immigration Studies found that the average welfare payout to immigrant households, both legal and illegal, has changed little and remains about $2,000 a year, which is 50% higher than the payout for natives.
In 1996, 22% of immigrant households were on the dole (compared with 15% for natives), according to CIS. By 2001, the share rose to 23%. Over that period, average Medicaid payments to immigrants jumped to $1,495 from $1,203.
Immigrant households account for a growing share of the welfare caseload.
The number of immigrants using at least one major welfare program has steadily increased, with the exception of a small drop in 1997.
Between 1996 and 2001, the number of immigrant households using the welfare system grew by 750,000 to more than 3 million — accounting for almost 18% of all U.S. households on welfare. That share is expected to rise with continued high rates of immigration.
And if you think immigrants, most of whom are poor Mexicans, will stop depending on U.S. welfare as they settle into jobs and even careers here, think again.
CIS found that welfare use actually increases significantly with duration of stay in the U.S. Not until they have lived here more than 20 years does it start to go down on average.
"To some extent, assimilation for many immigrants means assimilation into the welfare system," the report said. "This is the case for both immigrants in general and for legal immigrants."
The Florida and national studies show that immigrant use of the welfare system remains well above that of natives and creates a significant cost to taxpayers. Their findings tip the debate over the cost of immigrants in favor of immigration reformers.
A Freer China
From Investor Business Daily:
Posted 11/14/2005
Foreign Affairs: Suddenly the Middle Kingdom's a hot destination for struggling politicians. Both Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and President Bush are following the Nixonian formula: Fly east when your polls go south.
It can't hurt. If our leaders need to get tough about China's regional ambitions and tricky trade practices, they also can refresh themselves about the universal magnetism of freedom.
Just days ago, Beijing's communist rulers announced a giant step away from Maoist population control. They've erased the line between urban dwellers and peasants. Can we be so smart?
Impetus for the reform came from the market economy, driven as it is by choice and opportunity. The half-century-old distinction will let Chinese move more easily between farm and city.
Rural China, since Deng Xiaoping introduced capitalist measures in the 1980s, has lagged behind the economic progress enjoyed by residents of the cities, primarily coastal. The new policy removes one more roadblock to prosperity for Chinese locked in farm labor.
The new policy helps assuage the seething resentments that had begun to undermine communist authority in the hinterlands. President Hu Jintao and Prime Minister Wen Jiabao can show themselves astride the vanguard of a social movement already in progress unofficially.
Though Chinese were required to register as peasant or urban dweller, an estimated 200 million people in recent years have migrated from farms and villages to the cities. Eliminating the houkou system, which entitles urban residents to better housing and health care, gives official sanction to the unstoppable reality.
All this is good news. What Westerner would not want long-oppressed people on the other side of the globe to enjoy more freedom of movement and more of a stake in a market economy? Still, Beijing's imperialistic ambitions toward Taiwan, indeed throughout Asia, should be kept in check.
A prosperous economy, Bush policymakers have argued, can force popular demands for democracy. Perhaps, but it also can spread contentment with one-party rule.
The Chinese have adopted capitalist habits precisely because of their contractarian orderliness — much to be preferred over what economist Ludwig von Mises called the "planned chaos" of socialism. The revered People's Liberation Army itself — following a more fascist than socialist model — owns many of the enterprises proliferating across China.
Just last week U.S. agents uncovered what appears to have been a major spy ring, thought to have passed significant submarine technology to Beijing. Will the president protest? Given new currents in China's political psychology, he should.
China's revived if mixed interest in freedom might prompt us to rethink our own direction. We do not, of course, require citizens to register as peasant or urban dweller. But through rigid agricultural policies and urban planning, through a hyperzoning movement dubbed "smart growth," which creates unelected government bodies to regulate land use, our political class comes closer.
Memo to both Bush and Schwarzenegger: A few years ago Nobel economist Milton Friedman quipped that China's vibrant Guangdong province was more capitalistic than California. If trends continue, China could become an entrepreneurial hotbed as the good old USA stagnates under increments of democratic socialism.
Posted 11/14/2005
Foreign Affairs: Suddenly the Middle Kingdom's a hot destination for struggling politicians. Both Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and President Bush are following the Nixonian formula: Fly east when your polls go south.
It can't hurt. If our leaders need to get tough about China's regional ambitions and tricky trade practices, they also can refresh themselves about the universal magnetism of freedom.
Just days ago, Beijing's communist rulers announced a giant step away from Maoist population control. They've erased the line between urban dwellers and peasants. Can we be so smart?
Impetus for the reform came from the market economy, driven as it is by choice and opportunity. The half-century-old distinction will let Chinese move more easily between farm and city.
Rural China, since Deng Xiaoping introduced capitalist measures in the 1980s, has lagged behind the economic progress enjoyed by residents of the cities, primarily coastal. The new policy removes one more roadblock to prosperity for Chinese locked in farm labor.
The new policy helps assuage the seething resentments that had begun to undermine communist authority in the hinterlands. President Hu Jintao and Prime Minister Wen Jiabao can show themselves astride the vanguard of a social movement already in progress unofficially.
Though Chinese were required to register as peasant or urban dweller, an estimated 200 million people in recent years have migrated from farms and villages to the cities. Eliminating the houkou system, which entitles urban residents to better housing and health care, gives official sanction to the unstoppable reality.
All this is good news. What Westerner would not want long-oppressed people on the other side of the globe to enjoy more freedom of movement and more of a stake in a market economy? Still, Beijing's imperialistic ambitions toward Taiwan, indeed throughout Asia, should be kept in check.
A prosperous economy, Bush policymakers have argued, can force popular demands for democracy. Perhaps, but it also can spread contentment with one-party rule.
The Chinese have adopted capitalist habits precisely because of their contractarian orderliness — much to be preferred over what economist Ludwig von Mises called the "planned chaos" of socialism. The revered People's Liberation Army itself — following a more fascist than socialist model — owns many of the enterprises proliferating across China.
Just last week U.S. agents uncovered what appears to have been a major spy ring, thought to have passed significant submarine technology to Beijing. Will the president protest? Given new currents in China's political psychology, he should.
China's revived if mixed interest in freedom might prompt us to rethink our own direction. We do not, of course, require citizens to register as peasant or urban dweller. But through rigid agricultural policies and urban planning, through a hyperzoning movement dubbed "smart growth," which creates unelected government bodies to regulate land use, our political class comes closer.
Memo to both Bush and Schwarzenegger: A few years ago Nobel economist Milton Friedman quipped that China's vibrant Guangdong province was more capitalistic than California. If trends continue, China could become an entrepreneurial hotbed as the good old USA stagnates under increments of democratic socialism.
Monday, November 14, 2005
For Our Freedom
From Investor Business Daily:
Posted 11/11/2005
Media Bias: If American support for the liberation of Iraq is declining, it is in no small measure because of the way the media trumpet the words of liars and distort the words of heroes.
Former Marine Staff Sgt. Jimmy Massey was discharged in December 2003 shortly after returning from Iraq, reportedly suffering from depression and post-traumatic stress, and almost immediately became a media darling with his tales of U.S. soldiers routinely committing war crimes and atrocities.
He claimed that he had shot a 4-year-old in the head. Scores of media outlets ran stories with headlines like, "I killed innocent people for our government." He was a featured guest on National Public Radio, colleges lined up to invite Massey to speak, and he was with Cindy Sheehan's roadshow.
The Washington Post breathlessly reported on Massey's December 2004 sworn testimony at a Canadian asylum hearing for U.S. Army deserter Jeremy Hinzman in which Massey said: "I do know we killed innocent civilians, including the driver of a car who got out with his hands up." Massey is quoted as saying, "But we kept firing. We killed him."
Except none of it ever happened, as St. Louis Post-Dispatch reporter Ron Harris has documented. Reported Harris: "Each of his claims is either demonstrably false or exaggerated — according to his fellow Marines, Massey's own admissions and the five journalists who were embedded in Massey's unit."
As with Dan Rather's story on President Bush and the National Guard, many in the media and the anti-war crowd ran with it because they wanted it to be true. So intense is their anti-war angst that The New York Times took the words of a dead American hero and selectively edited them until they agreed with the Times' anti-war editorial position.
Marking the 2,000th American soldier killed in Iraq with a story about soldiers killed after multiple tours of duty, the "paper of record" quoted part of a letter written by Cpl. Jeffrey Starr of Snohomish, Wash., before he was killed in a gun battle in Ramadi on his third tour of duty on April 30.
After his death, Starr's family found the letter on his laptop computer written to his girlfriend, Emmylyn Anonical. She decided to make the letter public, saying, "The reason I chose to share that letter was the part about why he was doing this, not the part about him expecting to die."
Yet that part was what The New York Times found "fit to print," because it fit its position that young Americans are being used as cannon fodder in an unjust war. It was the part where Starr said, "I kind of predicted this; this is why I'm writing this. . . . A third time just seemed like I'm pushing my chances."
But Starr was not a pessimist who felt doomed in a war without purpose and without chance of success, as the part the Times chose not to print shows:
"I don't regret going, everybody dies, but few get to do it for something as important as freedom. It may seem confusing why we are in Iraq, it's not to me. I'm here helping these people, so that they can live the way we live. Not have to worry about tyrants or vicious dictators. To do what they want with their lives. To me that is why I died. Others have died for my freedom. Now this is my mark."
We hope Sen. Ted Kennedy and his kindred spirits read Cpl. Starr's letter. It is up to us to stay the course and ensure he has not died in vain. We owe him, and so many others, a huge debt.
Posted 11/11/2005
Media Bias: If American support for the liberation of Iraq is declining, it is in no small measure because of the way the media trumpet the words of liars and distort the words of heroes.
Former Marine Staff Sgt. Jimmy Massey was discharged in December 2003 shortly after returning from Iraq, reportedly suffering from depression and post-traumatic stress, and almost immediately became a media darling with his tales of U.S. soldiers routinely committing war crimes and atrocities.
He claimed that he had shot a 4-year-old in the head. Scores of media outlets ran stories with headlines like, "I killed innocent people for our government." He was a featured guest on National Public Radio, colleges lined up to invite Massey to speak, and he was with Cindy Sheehan's roadshow.
The Washington Post breathlessly reported on Massey's December 2004 sworn testimony at a Canadian asylum hearing for U.S. Army deserter Jeremy Hinzman in which Massey said: "I do know we killed innocent civilians, including the driver of a car who got out with his hands up." Massey is quoted as saying, "But we kept firing. We killed him."
Except none of it ever happened, as St. Louis Post-Dispatch reporter Ron Harris has documented. Reported Harris: "Each of his claims is either demonstrably false or exaggerated — according to his fellow Marines, Massey's own admissions and the five journalists who were embedded in Massey's unit."
As with Dan Rather's story on President Bush and the National Guard, many in the media and the anti-war crowd ran with it because they wanted it to be true. So intense is their anti-war angst that The New York Times took the words of a dead American hero and selectively edited them until they agreed with the Times' anti-war editorial position.
Marking the 2,000th American soldier killed in Iraq with a story about soldiers killed after multiple tours of duty, the "paper of record" quoted part of a letter written by Cpl. Jeffrey Starr of Snohomish, Wash., before he was killed in a gun battle in Ramadi on his third tour of duty on April 30.
After his death, Starr's family found the letter on his laptop computer written to his girlfriend, Emmylyn Anonical. She decided to make the letter public, saying, "The reason I chose to share that letter was the part about why he was doing this, not the part about him expecting to die."
Yet that part was what The New York Times found "fit to print," because it fit its position that young Americans are being used as cannon fodder in an unjust war. It was the part where Starr said, "I kind of predicted this; this is why I'm writing this. . . . A third time just seemed like I'm pushing my chances."
But Starr was not a pessimist who felt doomed in a war without purpose and without chance of success, as the part the Times chose not to print shows:
"I don't regret going, everybody dies, but few get to do it for something as important as freedom. It may seem confusing why we are in Iraq, it's not to me. I'm here helping these people, so that they can live the way we live. Not have to worry about tyrants or vicious dictators. To do what they want with their lives. To me that is why I died. Others have died for my freedom. Now this is my mark."
We hope Sen. Ted Kennedy and his kindred spirits read Cpl. Starr's letter. It is up to us to stay the course and ensure he has not died in vain. We owe him, and so many others, a huge debt.
RINO's (Republican In Name Only) at large
From Investor Business Daily:
Grand Old Party: Thanks to a handful of Republicans, Congress might miss a golden chance to finally get control of the budget and help secure our energy future. What in the world is going on here?
More spending, higher taxes and less oil. Does that sound like a successful recipe for a party of conservatism as it prepares for 2006's midterm elections? Yet that's what 25 "moderate" members of the GOP seem to want as they try to neuter the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005.
Spooked by "cuts" in welfare spending and plans to drill for oil in Alaska's wilderness, and no longer fearing reprisals from a distracted White House, the 25 said they won't support their own party's deficit-cutting plan. They have a lot of company; all the Democrats feel the same way.
The deficit-reduction bill, a version of which passed in the Senate, wasn't really such a big deal. Only $54 billion would be trimmed over five years — or just 0.1% of the expected growth in mandatory spending for that period. It just wasn't that much.
Despite that, the bill was important for a number of reasons.
For one, Congress for the first time in a decade was actually going to address the worst budget problem it has — runaway entitlement spending. By proposing to at least rein in the growth of Medicare, Congress could have taken a critical first step toward fiscal sanity.
It would also pull back discretionary spending that's been soaring at close to double-digit rates since 2000. This, too, would be a good thing, since total outlays have soared 40% since 2000 — 8% a year. That simply can't go on.
The bill also contained — that is, until the 25 objected to it — a provision to let the U.S. drill for oil in Alaska's National Wildlife Refuge. This would have eased our dependence on foreign oil. Now, it won't.
Twenty-four of the 25 GOP dissenters are from states facing sharp increases in home heating bills. How grateful will their constituents be when temperatures plunge this winter?
But of all the reasons for pushing this bill, tax cuts loom largest. GOP leaders sought $50 billion or so in spending cuts so that President Bush's tax cuts, which will soon expire, can be extended.
It's worth reviewing what those tax cuts have meant. When Bush entered office in 2001, the economy was in recession. Thanks to three tax cuts in a row — the last in 2003 — the economy took off.
We have now enjoyed 10 quarters in a row of 3%-plus GDP growth — the longest such string since the mid-1980s and even better than the much-ballyhooed Internet Boom of the late 1990s.
Since 2003, the economy has churned out more than 4 million jobs, while unemployment has dropped to 5%. Core inflation remains below 2%. Productivity in the third quarter soared at a 4.1% rate.
Even after 12 straight quarter-point interest-rate hikes by the Federal Reserve, the economy remains strong. Bush's tax cuts worked.
Oh, and by the way, tax cuts are also helping close the budget deficit. Thanks to tax cut-fueled economic growth, federal revenues last year jumped 14.6% from a year earlier. Even with spending growing at 7.8%, as it did last year, the budget could be balanced by 2008. Just imagine what might happen with a few judicious spending cuts.
As for energy, foolish is the only word that can describe House GOP "leaders" abandoning ANWR, where as many as 16 billion barrels of oil await. As we've noted before, if President Clinton hadn't rejected the idea in 1995, we'd now have another million barrels a day — 5% of our total use and two-thirds of what we import from Saudi Arabia. We'd also have lower gasoline prices.
And all this from a tiny, 2,000-acre tract set aside within a 19.6 million-acre forest — the equivalent of a dime on a basketball court.
That's why we thought the Deficit Reduction Act, though imperfect, deserved to be passed as it was, no changes. We still do.
On Friday, Republican leaders vowed to revive it. We wish them luck, but we're not optimistic. Even in the Senate, where a bill has already passed, Senate Finance Committee Chairman Charles Grassley is talking about extending tax cuts for only a year.
That's not good enough. What the Republicans are settling for, in their political cowardice, is little different from what the Democrats have proposed.
As we said, this is a great opportunity to make government smaller, taxes lower and energy cheaper.
To those in the GOP who oppose those things, we have a question: What do you stand for? And why should voters choose you over Democrats?
Grand Old Party: Thanks to a handful of Republicans, Congress might miss a golden chance to finally get control of the budget and help secure our energy future. What in the world is going on here?
More spending, higher taxes and less oil. Does that sound like a successful recipe for a party of conservatism as it prepares for 2006's midterm elections? Yet that's what 25 "moderate" members of the GOP seem to want as they try to neuter the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005.
Spooked by "cuts" in welfare spending and plans to drill for oil in Alaska's wilderness, and no longer fearing reprisals from a distracted White House, the 25 said they won't support their own party's deficit-cutting plan. They have a lot of company; all the Democrats feel the same way.
The deficit-reduction bill, a version of which passed in the Senate, wasn't really such a big deal. Only $54 billion would be trimmed over five years — or just 0.1% of the expected growth in mandatory spending for that period. It just wasn't that much.
Despite that, the bill was important for a number of reasons.
For one, Congress for the first time in a decade was actually going to address the worst budget problem it has — runaway entitlement spending. By proposing to at least rein in the growth of Medicare, Congress could have taken a critical first step toward fiscal sanity.
It would also pull back discretionary spending that's been soaring at close to double-digit rates since 2000. This, too, would be a good thing, since total outlays have soared 40% since 2000 — 8% a year. That simply can't go on.
The bill also contained — that is, until the 25 objected to it — a provision to let the U.S. drill for oil in Alaska's National Wildlife Refuge. This would have eased our dependence on foreign oil. Now, it won't.
Twenty-four of the 25 GOP dissenters are from states facing sharp increases in home heating bills. How grateful will their constituents be when temperatures plunge this winter?
But of all the reasons for pushing this bill, tax cuts loom largest. GOP leaders sought $50 billion or so in spending cuts so that President Bush's tax cuts, which will soon expire, can be extended.
It's worth reviewing what those tax cuts have meant. When Bush entered office in 2001, the economy was in recession. Thanks to three tax cuts in a row — the last in 2003 — the economy took off.
We have now enjoyed 10 quarters in a row of 3%-plus GDP growth — the longest such string since the mid-1980s and even better than the much-ballyhooed Internet Boom of the late 1990s.
Since 2003, the economy has churned out more than 4 million jobs, while unemployment has dropped to 5%. Core inflation remains below 2%. Productivity in the third quarter soared at a 4.1% rate.
Even after 12 straight quarter-point interest-rate hikes by the Federal Reserve, the economy remains strong. Bush's tax cuts worked.
Oh, and by the way, tax cuts are also helping close the budget deficit. Thanks to tax cut-fueled economic growth, federal revenues last year jumped 14.6% from a year earlier. Even with spending growing at 7.8%, as it did last year, the budget could be balanced by 2008. Just imagine what might happen with a few judicious spending cuts.
As for energy, foolish is the only word that can describe House GOP "leaders" abandoning ANWR, where as many as 16 billion barrels of oil await. As we've noted before, if President Clinton hadn't rejected the idea in 1995, we'd now have another million barrels a day — 5% of our total use and two-thirds of what we import from Saudi Arabia. We'd also have lower gasoline prices.
And all this from a tiny, 2,000-acre tract set aside within a 19.6 million-acre forest — the equivalent of a dime on a basketball court.
That's why we thought the Deficit Reduction Act, though imperfect, deserved to be passed as it was, no changes. We still do.
On Friday, Republican leaders vowed to revive it. We wish them luck, but we're not optimistic. Even in the Senate, where a bill has already passed, Senate Finance Committee Chairman Charles Grassley is talking about extending tax cuts for only a year.
That's not good enough. What the Republicans are settling for, in their political cowardice, is little different from what the Democrats have proposed.
As we said, this is a great opportunity to make government smaller, taxes lower and energy cheaper.
To those in the GOP who oppose those things, we have a question: What do you stand for? And why should voters choose you over Democrats?
Fighting Falsehood
From Investor Business Daily
Posted 11/11/2005
War on Terror: President Bush hit back hard Friday against Democrats' claims he misled America into going to war against Iraq. The truth is, White House critics are the ones spreading disinformation.
'More than 100 Democrats in the House and Senate who had access to the same intelligence voted to remove Saddam Hussein from power," Bush noted in a Veterans Day address to military families.
He called it "deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how the war began," and noted those spreading such inaccuracies were well-aware a bipartisan investigation found no evidence the administration manipulated intelligence.
Bush said his critics know "intelligence agencies from around the world agreed with our assessment of Saddam."
He added, "These baseless attacks send the wrong signal to our troops and to an enemy" questioning America's will.
Al-Qaida is indeed testing our will. The president brought that point home by citing last month's chilling letter from the terrorist group's chief strategist, Ayman al-Zawahiri, to al-Qaida's top commander in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. Zawahiri was confident "the Americans will exit soon."
What's most disturbing, Zawahiri wrote: "The aftermath of the collapse of American power in Vietnam and how they ran and left their agents is noteworthy." Clearly, al-Qaida is following news out of Washington with glee.
National Security Adviser Steve Hadley also came out swinging last week, reminding the press that intelligence about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction "was the basis for actions by our Congress, action by two administrations, and was concluded by intelligence services and leaders around the globe."
In 1998, he reminded critics, Congress used that intelligence to authorize the use of force against Iraq.
To believe it was all a lie, Allan Ryskind of Human Events wrote, "you would have to believe in a massive conspiracy involving not only the Bush people, but both Bill Clinton's and George Bush's CIA director, George Tenet; Bush's first-term secretary of state, Colin Powell; Clinton's secretary of state, Madeleine Albright; Clinton's key NSC Persian Gulf adviser, Kenneth Pollack; and numerous WMD experts at the United Nations."
In the Atlantic Monthly last year, Pollack wrote that the National Intelligence Council's 2002 assessment of the Iraqi threat "reflected what intelligence analysts had been telling Clinton administration officials like me for years" — that is, Iraq was continuing its WMD program, had chemical and bio weapons, and was close to restarting its nuclear weapons program.
Another Vietnam is what al-Qaida wants in Iraq. Sadly, it's easy to conclude that the terrorists share that desire with some in Washington spreading lies about why we ousted Saddam.
Posted 11/11/2005
War on Terror: President Bush hit back hard Friday against Democrats' claims he misled America into going to war against Iraq. The truth is, White House critics are the ones spreading disinformation.
'More than 100 Democrats in the House and Senate who had access to the same intelligence voted to remove Saddam Hussein from power," Bush noted in a Veterans Day address to military families.
He called it "deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how the war began," and noted those spreading such inaccuracies were well-aware a bipartisan investigation found no evidence the administration manipulated intelligence.
Bush said his critics know "intelligence agencies from around the world agreed with our assessment of Saddam."
He added, "These baseless attacks send the wrong signal to our troops and to an enemy" questioning America's will.
Al-Qaida is indeed testing our will. The president brought that point home by citing last month's chilling letter from the terrorist group's chief strategist, Ayman al-Zawahiri, to al-Qaida's top commander in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. Zawahiri was confident "the Americans will exit soon."
What's most disturbing, Zawahiri wrote: "The aftermath of the collapse of American power in Vietnam and how they ran and left their agents is noteworthy." Clearly, al-Qaida is following news out of Washington with glee.
National Security Adviser Steve Hadley also came out swinging last week, reminding the press that intelligence about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction "was the basis for actions by our Congress, action by two administrations, and was concluded by intelligence services and leaders around the globe."
In 1998, he reminded critics, Congress used that intelligence to authorize the use of force against Iraq.
To believe it was all a lie, Allan Ryskind of Human Events wrote, "you would have to believe in a massive conspiracy involving not only the Bush people, but both Bill Clinton's and George Bush's CIA director, George Tenet; Bush's first-term secretary of state, Colin Powell; Clinton's secretary of state, Madeleine Albright; Clinton's key NSC Persian Gulf adviser, Kenneth Pollack; and numerous WMD experts at the United Nations."
In the Atlantic Monthly last year, Pollack wrote that the National Intelligence Council's 2002 assessment of the Iraqi threat "reflected what intelligence analysts had been telling Clinton administration officials like me for years" — that is, Iraq was continuing its WMD program, had chemical and bio weapons, and was close to restarting its nuclear weapons program.
Another Vietnam is what al-Qaida wants in Iraq. Sadly, it's easy to conclude that the terrorists share that desire with some in Washington spreading lies about why we ousted Saddam.
Conspiracy theories… oil prices gouging… fossil fuels… and more
How do they keep a straight face? Last week, social missionary Democratic Senator Babs Boxer asked an oil executive if he planned to donate his performance-based bonus check to a national energy fund for the poor. The hypocrites just crack me up! This is the same senator who has been giving stump speeches for whatever Democratic presidential candidate happened to come along in favor of raising oil, gas and energy taxes every four years for the past decade and a half. As if people really care whether the premium price for a tank of gas goes into an oil company’s coffers (and from there into those of investors) or into the hole-riddled pockets of the government.
But right now it’s time for the toned-down democratic equivalent of totalitarian public trials. After all, ExxonMobil (XOM:NYSE) reported nearly US$10 billion in net earnings for a three-month period. To liberals, that’s what a camera is to Jesse Jackson: irresistible!
Yesterday, executives from Exxon, Conoco-Philips (COP:NYSE), Chevron (CVX:NYSE) and others were hauled in front of Congress to explain how they could in good conscience turn a 7% to 10% profit (yes, that's a profit of 7 cents for every dollar of sales) when high gasoline prices were hurting the US economy.
Now I grant you, US$10 billion is a staggering amount of cash. Especially for just three months. Just imagine what will happen when we see the results for the whole year. Industry-wide profits will exceed US$100 billion.
Brit Ryle, by profession the Chief Trading Strategist for Money-Flow Matrix, claims to have some sympathy for the conspiracy theorists. After all, US consumers have been gouged by Big Oil before. But the bigger picture here is how dependent the United States is on fossil fuels.
He writes: “Fortunately, the ramp in energy prices is having a profound effect on the revitalization of the domestic oil production sector and the development of alternative and renewable energy sources. Global investment in renewable energy hit US$30 billion in 2004. That represents between 20% and 25% of the total investment in the power industry. At a global energy conference in Beijing that ended yesterday, China announced that it would meet 15% of its energy needs through renewable energy by 2020.
How is it that the communists get it while our elected officials would rather circle jerk in front of the camera?
In Nicaragua, we saw wind power systems costing $16,000 and capable of supplying over 900 KW hours per day, per home (check your electric bill next time and look at your average usage). What's different? These systems are located on the premises and owned and operated by the homeowner instead of some utility company with tons of taxpayer-provided campaign cash to donate.
If we took every single family home off the grid and swithed them over to 100% electricity for heat and cooking, we'd have enough domestic energy sources to power every city and munciple building for 100's of years, summer and winter. How about a tax credit for to cover the cost of installation, instead of subsidies for utility windfarms that cannot achieve 25% of those results?
But then, what would Sen. Boxer do with her spare time?
But right now it’s time for the toned-down democratic equivalent of totalitarian public trials. After all, ExxonMobil (XOM:NYSE) reported nearly US$10 billion in net earnings for a three-month period. To liberals, that’s what a camera is to Jesse Jackson: irresistible!
Yesterday, executives from Exxon, Conoco-Philips (COP:NYSE), Chevron (CVX:NYSE) and others were hauled in front of Congress to explain how they could in good conscience turn a 7% to 10% profit (yes, that's a profit of 7 cents for every dollar of sales) when high gasoline prices were hurting the US economy.
Now I grant you, US$10 billion is a staggering amount of cash. Especially for just three months. Just imagine what will happen when we see the results for the whole year. Industry-wide profits will exceed US$100 billion.
Brit Ryle, by profession the Chief Trading Strategist for Money-Flow Matrix, claims to have some sympathy for the conspiracy theorists. After all, US consumers have been gouged by Big Oil before. But the bigger picture here is how dependent the United States is on fossil fuels.
He writes: “Fortunately, the ramp in energy prices is having a profound effect on the revitalization of the domestic oil production sector and the development of alternative and renewable energy sources. Global investment in renewable energy hit US$30 billion in 2004. That represents between 20% and 25% of the total investment in the power industry. At a global energy conference in Beijing that ended yesterday, China announced that it would meet 15% of its energy needs through renewable energy by 2020.
How is it that the communists get it while our elected officials would rather circle jerk in front of the camera?
In Nicaragua, we saw wind power systems costing $16,000 and capable of supplying over 900 KW hours per day, per home (check your electric bill next time and look at your average usage). What's different? These systems are located on the premises and owned and operated by the homeowner instead of some utility company with tons of taxpayer-provided campaign cash to donate.
If we took every single family home off the grid and swithed them over to 100% electricity for heat and cooking, we'd have enough domestic energy sources to power every city and munciple building for 100's of years, summer and winter. How about a tax credit for to cover the cost of installation, instead of subsidies for utility windfarms that cannot achieve 25% of those results?
But then, what would Sen. Boxer do with her spare time?
Who says liberals can’t create wealth?!
Who says liberals can’t create wealth? In a twist worthy of John Kerry or Howard Dean’s economic programs, the newly official Grand Coalition of German Social and Christian Democrats is about to create thousands of nouveaux riches. It’s for the common good, of course: “rich” people need to pay more than their “fair share.”
Accordingly, German politicos are living the Democrat dream: They are about to launch what is called a “Reichensteuer” - literally “rich people’s tax” - an extra 3% tacked on to the already staggering burden of the German taxpayer. To broaden the base - spread the wealth, so to say - they want to make people rich, the liberal way. Not by allowing them to earn and keep more but by lowering the standards for wealth. Where it used to take a single earner 250,000 euros a year to qualify as “rich” in the eyes of the politicians, now you only need 130,000 to join the club of the super wealthy. Multiply the threshold by two if you’re married.
Finally, those Americans still discontented with the Bush Administration’s tax policies can seek refuge in Germany. I advise caution, though: You might get run over by all those wealthy Germans seeking the safe harbor of low-tax jurisdictions - such as the United States…
J. Christoph Amberger Executive Publisher and The Taipan Group’s
247profits e-Dispatch Team
Accordingly, German politicos are living the Democrat dream: They are about to launch what is called a “Reichensteuer” - literally “rich people’s tax” - an extra 3% tacked on to the already staggering burden of the German taxpayer. To broaden the base - spread the wealth, so to say - they want to make people rich, the liberal way. Not by allowing them to earn and keep more but by lowering the standards for wealth. Where it used to take a single earner 250,000 euros a year to qualify as “rich” in the eyes of the politicians, now you only need 130,000 to join the club of the super wealthy. Multiply the threshold by two if you’re married.
Finally, those Americans still discontented with the Bush Administration’s tax policies can seek refuge in Germany. I advise caution, though: You might get run over by all those wealthy Germans seeking the safe harbor of low-tax jurisdictions - such as the United States…
J. Christoph Amberger Executive Publisher and The Taipan Group’s
247profits e-Dispatch Team
Friday, November 11, 2005
Steele Through The Mill
Posted 11/10/2005
Politics: Maryland Democrats continue their attacks on Lt. Gov. Michael Steele, preferring to judge him not on the content of his character, but on the color of his skin. But that's OK. He's a Republican.
Steele knows politics ain't beanbag, especially if you're a black conservative Republican in a party long accused of racial insensitivity. During his 2002 campaign, The Baltimore Sun echoed the prevailing sentiment among the so-called mainstream media toward black Republicans when it opined that Steele brought little to the race "but the color of his skin."
Also during that campaign — in which Steele, in one of the bluest of blue states, became the first black and first Republican lieutenant governor in Maryland history — the white president of the Maryland Senate, Thomas Miller, called Steele an "Uncle Tom," a remark he later apologized for.
At a debate at the historically black college Morgan State, liberal Democrats who, as columnist Ann Coulter can attest, love to toss pies and other goodies at Republican speakers, pelted Steele with a symbolic epithet — Oreo cookies.
Such tactics are fine with black Maryland Democrats such as Delegate Salima Siler Marriott. Steele, she has said, invites comparison to a slave who loves his cruel master or to that famous cookie that is black on the outside but white on the inside. In her view, his conservative political philosophy is anti-black.
"Because he is a conservative, he is different than most public blacks, and he is different than most people in our community," Marriott said. "His policies are not in the best interests of black people."
But Steele is running to represent all the people of Maryland in the U.S. Senate, not just its black citizens. Just which party represents the "best interests of black people" is open to question. At the 2004 GOP National Convention, Steele noted the progress made toward achieving Martin Luther King's dream of a color-blind society. "We have come even further," he added, "since a majority of Republicans in the United States Senate fought off the segregationist Democrats to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964."
Steele has a good chance of becoming one of those Senate Republicans and has state and national Democrats worried. He not only shatters the stereotype of the GOP as the party of David Duke and Strom Thurmond. He also threatens to continue GOP inroads in one of the main constituencies of the liberal Democratic base.
So desperate are they to stop him that Chuck Schumer's Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee illegally obtained a copy of his credit report, a matter currently under investigation by the FBI.
Few Maryland Democrats, including the two leading candidates for governor, Montgomery County Executive Douglas Duncan and Baltimore Mayor Martin O'Malley, have repudiated the attacks based on Steele's race.
Then there's Joe Trippi, spokesman for Steele's possible opponent in the general election, former Congressman and NAACP official Kweisi Mfume. Trippi, a wheel in Howard Dean's presidential drive last year, said those pelting Steele with Oreo cookies and calling him "Uncle Tom" are simply "pointing out the obvious."
To his credit, Mfume himself has distanced himself from such statements, saying: "Black bigotry can be just as cruel as white bigotry. There are too many bigots in too many places."
Indeed. These attacks are nothing new for Steele or other black Republicans, something we think he shall overcome this time as well.
Politics: Maryland Democrats continue their attacks on Lt. Gov. Michael Steele, preferring to judge him not on the content of his character, but on the color of his skin. But that's OK. He's a Republican.
Steele knows politics ain't beanbag, especially if you're a black conservative Republican in a party long accused of racial insensitivity. During his 2002 campaign, The Baltimore Sun echoed the prevailing sentiment among the so-called mainstream media toward black Republicans when it opined that Steele brought little to the race "but the color of his skin."
Also during that campaign — in which Steele, in one of the bluest of blue states, became the first black and first Republican lieutenant governor in Maryland history — the white president of the Maryland Senate, Thomas Miller, called Steele an "Uncle Tom," a remark he later apologized for.
At a debate at the historically black college Morgan State, liberal Democrats who, as columnist Ann Coulter can attest, love to toss pies and other goodies at Republican speakers, pelted Steele with a symbolic epithet — Oreo cookies.
Such tactics are fine with black Maryland Democrats such as Delegate Salima Siler Marriott. Steele, she has said, invites comparison to a slave who loves his cruel master or to that famous cookie that is black on the outside but white on the inside. In her view, his conservative political philosophy is anti-black.
"Because he is a conservative, he is different than most public blacks, and he is different than most people in our community," Marriott said. "His policies are not in the best interests of black people."
But Steele is running to represent all the people of Maryland in the U.S. Senate, not just its black citizens. Just which party represents the "best interests of black people" is open to question. At the 2004 GOP National Convention, Steele noted the progress made toward achieving Martin Luther King's dream of a color-blind society. "We have come even further," he added, "since a majority of Republicans in the United States Senate fought off the segregationist Democrats to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964."
Steele has a good chance of becoming one of those Senate Republicans and has state and national Democrats worried. He not only shatters the stereotype of the GOP as the party of David Duke and Strom Thurmond. He also threatens to continue GOP inroads in one of the main constituencies of the liberal Democratic base.
So desperate are they to stop him that Chuck Schumer's Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee illegally obtained a copy of his credit report, a matter currently under investigation by the FBI.
Few Maryland Democrats, including the two leading candidates for governor, Montgomery County Executive Douglas Duncan and Baltimore Mayor Martin O'Malley, have repudiated the attacks based on Steele's race.
Then there's Joe Trippi, spokesman for Steele's possible opponent in the general election, former Congressman and NAACP official Kweisi Mfume. Trippi, a wheel in Howard Dean's presidential drive last year, said those pelting Steele with Oreo cookies and calling him "Uncle Tom" are simply "pointing out the obvious."
To his credit, Mfume himself has distanced himself from such statements, saying: "Black bigotry can be just as cruel as white bigotry. There are too many bigots in too many places."
Indeed. These attacks are nothing new for Steele or other black Republicans, something we think he shall overcome this time as well.
Wahhabi U.
The War: A top U.S. diplomat recently revealed Saudi Arabia still teaches students to hate non-Muslims and the West. So why are we making it easier for Saudi students schooled in that hatred to visit the U.S.?
As if 9-11 never happened, President Bush has agreed to a request by Saudi King Abdullah to lower some of the barriers blocking Saudi youth from studying in America.
The barriers were erected as a security measure after 15 visiting Saudi nationals attacked their gracious host with hijacked jets. The young terrorists, holding various visas, studied at flight schools in the U.S. Post-9-11 visa curbs have resulted in a sharp drop in the number of Saudi travelers.
The Bush-Abdullah deal threatens to reverse that trend. The kingdom is sponsoring a program to expedite visas for Saudis to study in the U.S. by, among other things, providing funds and letters of recommendation. Its Ministry of Higher Education aims to send 21,000 nationals to the U.S. over the next four years.
We're supposed to believe this new crop of Saudi students will be less hostile to America, yet even the State Department's new counterterrorism chief isn't so sure.
He recently returned from a meeting with our alleged Saudi partners and testified that they've done little to reform their curriculum. Their textbooks still teach Saudi kids to hate Jews and Christians and still promote jihad against the West.
"They still have a long way to go," Henry Crumpton, a former senior CIA official, told the House International Relations Subcommittee on International Terrorism and Nonproliferation.
Welcoming another wave of Saudi students is supposed to forge better relations between our countries while promoting cultural exchanges. But when it comes to the Saudis, you get the sense the only culture they want exchanged is theirs — namely, the violently anti-Western strain of Islam called Wahhabism.
Indeed, Crumpton says the Saudis also aren't doing enough to crack down on charities that spread Wahhabism to our shores, including some sympathetic to al-Qaida.
"They need to do more in this regard," he said. "This is something we have to discuss with the Saudis, and we need to engage them further." (A follow-up meeting is set for early December.)
What better way to spread their hate than to export thousands of young Islamist zealots to the U.S., who, even if they don't carry out 9-11-scale attacks, could riot like the young French Muslims who have been torching Paris?
And they seem to have the benefit of open checkbooks. The Saudi government is picking up half their college tabs, while Saudi businessmen are funding the rest through "scholarships."
Will these businessmen be vetted to see if they are the same ones who have given money to Osama bin Laden? Don't bet on it. Crumpton confirms Riyadh still hasn't set up a commission to regulate charities and track their giving as promised.
It's not just the charities that are guilty of spreading the seeds of Wahhabi hate.
The Saudi government itself runs several groups that indoctrinate youths into jihad. They include the Muslim World League and the World Assembly of Muslim Youth. In pamphlets, they teach youths to not be "miserly with your blood" in fighting the infidels during jihad, and laud suicide bombers as "heroes."
The FBI has raided the U.S. offices of both groups, although they're still open for business, thanks to political pressure, and still converting students on campuses such as Howard University to Islam. The groups invite the students on pilgrimages to Mecca as all-expenses-paid guests of the Saudi government.
For that matter, the Ministry of Higher Education — the same Saudi agency sponsoring the new wave of Saudi students to hit American shores — runs an institute in Washington that is under investigation for its ties to terror suspects and propagation of jihadist materials.
Federal agents just last year raided the offices of the Institute for Islamic and Arabic Sciences in America, which was chaired by former Saudi Ambassador Prince Bandar.
Until we have verifiable proof of Saudi reform, why would we want to reopen the door to students from that country? We only risk inviting another attack.
As if 9-11 never happened, President Bush has agreed to a request by Saudi King Abdullah to lower some of the barriers blocking Saudi youth from studying in America.
The barriers were erected as a security measure after 15 visiting Saudi nationals attacked their gracious host with hijacked jets. The young terrorists, holding various visas, studied at flight schools in the U.S. Post-9-11 visa curbs have resulted in a sharp drop in the number of Saudi travelers.
The Bush-Abdullah deal threatens to reverse that trend. The kingdom is sponsoring a program to expedite visas for Saudis to study in the U.S. by, among other things, providing funds and letters of recommendation. Its Ministry of Higher Education aims to send 21,000 nationals to the U.S. over the next four years.
We're supposed to believe this new crop of Saudi students will be less hostile to America, yet even the State Department's new counterterrorism chief isn't so sure.
He recently returned from a meeting with our alleged Saudi partners and testified that they've done little to reform their curriculum. Their textbooks still teach Saudi kids to hate Jews and Christians and still promote jihad against the West.
"They still have a long way to go," Henry Crumpton, a former senior CIA official, told the House International Relations Subcommittee on International Terrorism and Nonproliferation.
Welcoming another wave of Saudi students is supposed to forge better relations between our countries while promoting cultural exchanges. But when it comes to the Saudis, you get the sense the only culture they want exchanged is theirs — namely, the violently anti-Western strain of Islam called Wahhabism.
Indeed, Crumpton says the Saudis also aren't doing enough to crack down on charities that spread Wahhabism to our shores, including some sympathetic to al-Qaida.
"They need to do more in this regard," he said. "This is something we have to discuss with the Saudis, and we need to engage them further." (A follow-up meeting is set for early December.)
What better way to spread their hate than to export thousands of young Islamist zealots to the U.S., who, even if they don't carry out 9-11-scale attacks, could riot like the young French Muslims who have been torching Paris?
And they seem to have the benefit of open checkbooks. The Saudi government is picking up half their college tabs, while Saudi businessmen are funding the rest through "scholarships."
Will these businessmen be vetted to see if they are the same ones who have given money to Osama bin Laden? Don't bet on it. Crumpton confirms Riyadh still hasn't set up a commission to regulate charities and track their giving as promised.
It's not just the charities that are guilty of spreading the seeds of Wahhabi hate.
The Saudi government itself runs several groups that indoctrinate youths into jihad. They include the Muslim World League and the World Assembly of Muslim Youth. In pamphlets, they teach youths to not be "miserly with your blood" in fighting the infidels during jihad, and laud suicide bombers as "heroes."
The FBI has raided the U.S. offices of both groups, although they're still open for business, thanks to political pressure, and still converting students on campuses such as Howard University to Islam. The groups invite the students on pilgrimages to Mecca as all-expenses-paid guests of the Saudi government.
For that matter, the Ministry of Higher Education — the same Saudi agency sponsoring the new wave of Saudi students to hit American shores — runs an institute in Washington that is under investigation for its ties to terror suspects and propagation of jihadist materials.
Federal agents just last year raided the offices of the Institute for Islamic and Arabic Sciences in America, which was chaired by former Saudi Ambassador Prince Bandar.
Until we have verifiable proof of Saudi reform, why would we want to reopen the door to students from that country? We only risk inviting another attack.
Thanking our Veterans
Posted 11/10/2005
Defenders Of Freedom: The scene above reminds us of the sacrifices our servicemen and women make to preserve the liberties we enjoy. More than ever, those who've worn the uniform deserve our gratitude.
On Veterans Day, cities and towns all across the land hold parades and rallies to honor family and friends who have served. This year, the occasion falls on the day after the 230th anniversary of the U.S. Marine Corps.
It was on Nov. 10, 1775, that the Second Continental Congress authorized the formation of two battalions of Continental Marines. At that time, Americans feared the powerful British forces intent on enforcing the oppressive edicts of a far-away parliament.
Today is a time of anxiety, too, as we face a new kind of enemy intent on killing the innocent citizens of Western democracies in their own homelands. And the soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines, and Coast Guardsmen of today share the same spirit expressed by Gen. George Washington upon his appointment as commander in chief in 1775.
Washington pledged that "as Congress desire it, I will enter upon the momentous duty, and exert every power I possess in their service, and for support of the glorious cause."
This year is also the 60th anniversary of the end of World War II, in which more than 400,000 Americans lost their lives in the glorious cause of stopping fascist expansionism. More than two decades ago, on the 40th anniversary of D-Day, President Reagan asked the assembled veterans at Pointe du Hoc, Normandy:
"What impelled you to put aside the instinct for self-preservation and risk your lives to take these cliffs?"
He knew the answer.
"You all knew that some things are worth dying for," Reagan said. "All of you loved liberty. All of you were willing to fight tyranny, and you knew the people of your countries were behind you."
The glorious cause continues to be worth fighting for today, and America's troops, and our 25 million veterans, should never doubt for one moment that their country is behind them
Defenders Of Freedom: The scene above reminds us of the sacrifices our servicemen and women make to preserve the liberties we enjoy. More than ever, those who've worn the uniform deserve our gratitude.
On Veterans Day, cities and towns all across the land hold parades and rallies to honor family and friends who have served. This year, the occasion falls on the day after the 230th anniversary of the U.S. Marine Corps.
It was on Nov. 10, 1775, that the Second Continental Congress authorized the formation of two battalions of Continental Marines. At that time, Americans feared the powerful British forces intent on enforcing the oppressive edicts of a far-away parliament.
Today is a time of anxiety, too, as we face a new kind of enemy intent on killing the innocent citizens of Western democracies in their own homelands. And the soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines, and Coast Guardsmen of today share the same spirit expressed by Gen. George Washington upon his appointment as commander in chief in 1775.
Washington pledged that "as Congress desire it, I will enter upon the momentous duty, and exert every power I possess in their service, and for support of the glorious cause."
This year is also the 60th anniversary of the end of World War II, in which more than 400,000 Americans lost their lives in the glorious cause of stopping fascist expansionism. More than two decades ago, on the 40th anniversary of D-Day, President Reagan asked the assembled veterans at Pointe du Hoc, Normandy:
"What impelled you to put aside the instinct for self-preservation and risk your lives to take these cliffs?"
He knew the answer.
"You all knew that some things are worth dying for," Reagan said. "All of you loved liberty. All of you were willing to fight tyranny, and you knew the people of your countries were behind you."
The glorious cause continues to be worth fighting for today, and America's troops, and our 25 million veterans, should never doubt for one moment that their country is behind them
The Big Picture
Michael Barone (Townhall.com)
It's often hard to keep the big picture in focus. Television
news tends to center on bombs going off in Iraq and has
mostly ignored several million people voting in Afghanistan.
We see footage of angry Palestinians, but not much about
the ongoing progress toward democracy in Egypt. Hurricanes
Katrina and Rita in turn have dominated the news and have
made it difficult to get a sense of what is happening in the
world.
A world spinning out of control: That is what the old-line
broadcast networks seem to be showing us. But I see other
patterns. George W. Bush has consistently asserted that one
reason for removing Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq was to
advance freedom and democracy in the Middle East. In spite
of the improvised explosive devices, that seems to be
happening. Lebanon's Cedar Revolution was as inspiring an
example of people power as the fall of the Berlin Wall in
1989. Libya has dismantled its weapons of mass destruction.
Egypt, by far the largest Arab nation, had its first
contested election this month, and, as the Washington Post's
David Ignatius writes from Cairo, "the power of the reform
movement in the Arab world today ... is potent because it's
coming from the Arab societies themselves and not just from
democracy enthusiasts in Washington." Which is evidence that
Bush was right: Muslims and Arabs, like people everywhere,
want liberty and self-rule. Afghanistan has just voted, and
Iraq is about to vote a second time this year. Violence
continues, but the more important story is that democracy
and freedom are advancing.
True, the news is not positive everywhere. Iran seems
determined not to give up its nuclear weapons programs,
and the efforts of the British, French and Germans have not
stopped them. The good news is that the British, French and
Germans appear to recognize this. North Korea also, despite
initialing a draft agreement, seems bent on building more
nukes. The bright side is that China, the one country with
leverage over Kim Jong Il, seems more inclined to use it.
The problem here is evil regimes against which we have no
real military options. The best hope for a solution is
peaceful regime change, of the kind endorsed by Michael
Ledeen on the right and Peter Ackerman on the left.
Polls show that most Americans think the economy is in
dreadful shape, even though almost all the numbers are
good: Inflation and unemployment are low, and growth is
robust despite the exogenous shocks of Sept. 11, Enron
and Katrina. After a generation of almost constant low-
inflation economic growth, perhaps we Americans are only
satisfied when we have bubble growth, as in the late 1990s,
and are unimpressed when the American economy proves once
again to be amazingly resilient. This is all the more
astonishing when you consider that we are going through a
time of increased competition and change, as China and
India, with 37 percent of the world's population, are
transforming their economies from Third World to First
World. Such a large proportion of mankind moving rapidly
upward: This has never happened before and will never
happen again.
Couple this with the facts that Japan seems to be growing
again, after 15 years of deflation, that East Asia and
Eastern Europe continue to grow robustly, and that major
Latin countries like Mexico and Brazil are growing as well,
and the economic picture around the world looks pretty
good, despite sclerotic non-growth in western Europe and
continued poverty in Africa.
But even if things are going well, isn't America hated
around the world? By the elites and chattering classes of
many countries, yes, and by much of the American elite and
chattering class as well. But we are not competing in a
popularity contest. In a unipolar world, the single
superpower will always arouse envy and dislike. The relevant
question is if we can live safely in the world; the French
may dislike us, but we can live comfortably with France.
The recent Pew Trust polls showing diminishing support for
Islamist terrorism in Muslim countries indicate things are
moving in the right direction. The increasing interweaving
of China into the international economy suggests China may
not be a military threat. A world spinning out of control?
No, it is more like a world moving, with some backward
steps, in the direction we want.
It's often hard to keep the big picture in focus. Television
news tends to center on bombs going off in Iraq and has
mostly ignored several million people voting in Afghanistan.
We see footage of angry Palestinians, but not much about
the ongoing progress toward democracy in Egypt. Hurricanes
Katrina and Rita in turn have dominated the news and have
made it difficult to get a sense of what is happening in the
world.
A world spinning out of control: That is what the old-line
broadcast networks seem to be showing us. But I see other
patterns. George W. Bush has consistently asserted that one
reason for removing Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq was to
advance freedom and democracy in the Middle East. In spite
of the improvised explosive devices, that seems to be
happening. Lebanon's Cedar Revolution was as inspiring an
example of people power as the fall of the Berlin Wall in
1989. Libya has dismantled its weapons of mass destruction.
Egypt, by far the largest Arab nation, had its first
contested election this month, and, as the Washington Post's
David Ignatius writes from Cairo, "the power of the reform
movement in the Arab world today ... is potent because it's
coming from the Arab societies themselves and not just from
democracy enthusiasts in Washington." Which is evidence that
Bush was right: Muslims and Arabs, like people everywhere,
want liberty and self-rule. Afghanistan has just voted, and
Iraq is about to vote a second time this year. Violence
continues, but the more important story is that democracy
and freedom are advancing.
True, the news is not positive everywhere. Iran seems
determined not to give up its nuclear weapons programs,
and the efforts of the British, French and Germans have not
stopped them. The good news is that the British, French and
Germans appear to recognize this. North Korea also, despite
initialing a draft agreement, seems bent on building more
nukes. The bright side is that China, the one country with
leverage over Kim Jong Il, seems more inclined to use it.
The problem here is evil regimes against which we have no
real military options. The best hope for a solution is
peaceful regime change, of the kind endorsed by Michael
Ledeen on the right and Peter Ackerman on the left.
Polls show that most Americans think the economy is in
dreadful shape, even though almost all the numbers are
good: Inflation and unemployment are low, and growth is
robust despite the exogenous shocks of Sept. 11, Enron
and Katrina. After a generation of almost constant low-
inflation economic growth, perhaps we Americans are only
satisfied when we have bubble growth, as in the late 1990s,
and are unimpressed when the American economy proves once
again to be amazingly resilient. This is all the more
astonishing when you consider that we are going through a
time of increased competition and change, as China and
India, with 37 percent of the world's population, are
transforming their economies from Third World to First
World. Such a large proportion of mankind moving rapidly
upward: This has never happened before and will never
happen again.
Couple this with the facts that Japan seems to be growing
again, after 15 years of deflation, that East Asia and
Eastern Europe continue to grow robustly, and that major
Latin countries like Mexico and Brazil are growing as well,
and the economic picture around the world looks pretty
good, despite sclerotic non-growth in western Europe and
continued poverty in Africa.
But even if things are going well, isn't America hated
around the world? By the elites and chattering classes of
many countries, yes, and by much of the American elite and
chattering class as well. But we are not competing in a
popularity contest. In a unipolar world, the single
superpower will always arouse envy and dislike. The relevant
question is if we can live safely in the world; the French
may dislike us, but we can live comfortably with France.
The recent Pew Trust polls showing diminishing support for
Islamist terrorism in Muslim countries indicate things are
moving in the right direction. The increasing interweaving
of China into the international economy suggests China may
not be a military threat. A world spinning out of control?
No, it is more like a world moving, with some backward
steps, in the direction we want.
Government is not the answer
Rebuilding New Orleans
by Robert Novak (Townhall.com)
NEW ORLEANS -- Mayor Ray Nagin's proposal to make the New
Orleans central business district a Las Vegas strip of
giant gambling casinos explains the business community's
disappointment with elected officials reacting to Hurricane
Katrina. Before revealing the idea, Nagin did not consult
his own commission on rebuilding New Orleans. "It's not
going to happen," one commissioner told me, dismissing the
mayor's gambling scheme.
Nagin is described by business leaders as overwhelmed. His
disorganization was reflected when neither the mayor nor
his representative attended the first planning meeting last
week for next year's Mardi Gras, an event essential for
reviving the city. Nagin at least is trying. Gov. Kathleen
Blanco is seen as a total embarrassment. The state's two
senators, Democrat Mary Landrieu and Republican David
Vitter, are laughed at for begging open-ended multibillion-
dollar expenditures. After a slow start, President Bush is
intimately engaged. But out of 2,520 small business loan
applications, only six have survived the Washington
bureaucracy.
What business leaders want most is restored government
services and police protection so that businesses can
reopen. After that, they feel, the magic of commerce will
do its work. Business also wants a property tax holiday to
begin building a smaller, better New Orleans. That is a
long way from the post-Katrina talk about a new nationwide
war on poverty.
A short visit here reveals the scope of the problem. Only
about 5 percent of the city's 460,000 residents have
returned or never left. The devastation is complete in the
predominantly African-American Lower 9th Ward, 36 percent
of whose residents live below the poverty level. Their
houses, in poor condition before the floodwaters, are not
worth replacing.
Nobody here takes seriously $250 billion proposed for
disaster relief by Landrieu and Vitter. Rep. Richard Baker,
a senior member of the House Financial Services Committee
who represents Baton Rouge, told me that "we're not just
going to dump a lot of money on Louisiana." He proposes a
Louisiana Recovery Corp. to acquire real estate, retire
mortgages and restore bank solvency.
After the early chaos of looting, law and order has
returned (including an enforced midnight curfew). Police
are augmented by 2,500 National Guardsmen from around the
country who man checkpoints monitoring the slim vehicular
traffic into devastated areas.
But other government services are inadequate. Hundreds of
refrigerators, filled with rotting food and posing a health
hazard, remain uncollected on sidewalks. Electric power has
not been restored fully, and many traffic lights do not
work. There is no public transportation, and I did not see
one taxi during two days in the city.
I stayed at the Soniat, a small French Quarter hotel that
reopened the day before I registered. I saw no other guests
and sometimes no staff present (I was given a key to let
myself into the hotel's front door). Management said all
workers lost their homes, and most would have no place to
go if they returned.
The expectation here is that New Orleans will downsize to
a city of around 250,000. The Lower 9th Ward can only
improve. A second gambling casino probably will be added
to Harrah's present monopoly, but there will be no
replicating Las Vegas. Developer Jimmy Riess, a member of
the mayor's commission, calls New Orleans public schools
the worst in the country and wants them totally reformed.
Educational philanthropist Eli Broad is helping establish
a landmark charter school system here.
So many poor black people are expected never to return to
New Orleans that the Rev. Jesse Jackson claims a sinister
plot by Bush adviser Karl Rove to send African-American
voters into "perpetual exile." More than the poor are
leaving forever. Ruth's Chris Steakhouse is moving its
permanent corporate headquarters to Orlando, Fla., and
New Orleans may never again see its Saints football team.
But the real story concerns those who are staying. John
Besh, owner of Restaurant August and the hottest young chef
in town, has turned down offers from New York and Florida
to stay. He sees a New Orleans rebuilt by the people who
live here, not by the politicians who make the headlines
and hog the television cameras.
by Robert Novak (Townhall.com)
NEW ORLEANS -- Mayor Ray Nagin's proposal to make the New
Orleans central business district a Las Vegas strip of
giant gambling casinos explains the business community's
disappointment with elected officials reacting to Hurricane
Katrina. Before revealing the idea, Nagin did not consult
his own commission on rebuilding New Orleans. "It's not
going to happen," one commissioner told me, dismissing the
mayor's gambling scheme.
Nagin is described by business leaders as overwhelmed. His
disorganization was reflected when neither the mayor nor
his representative attended the first planning meeting last
week for next year's Mardi Gras, an event essential for
reviving the city. Nagin at least is trying. Gov. Kathleen
Blanco is seen as a total embarrassment. The state's two
senators, Democrat Mary Landrieu and Republican David
Vitter, are laughed at for begging open-ended multibillion-
dollar expenditures. After a slow start, President Bush is
intimately engaged. But out of 2,520 small business loan
applications, only six have survived the Washington
bureaucracy.
What business leaders want most is restored government
services and police protection so that businesses can
reopen. After that, they feel, the magic of commerce will
do its work. Business also wants a property tax holiday to
begin building a smaller, better New Orleans. That is a
long way from the post-Katrina talk about a new nationwide
war on poverty.
A short visit here reveals the scope of the problem. Only
about 5 percent of the city's 460,000 residents have
returned or never left. The devastation is complete in the
predominantly African-American Lower 9th Ward, 36 percent
of whose residents live below the poverty level. Their
houses, in poor condition before the floodwaters, are not
worth replacing.
Nobody here takes seriously $250 billion proposed for
disaster relief by Landrieu and Vitter. Rep. Richard Baker,
a senior member of the House Financial Services Committee
who represents Baton Rouge, told me that "we're not just
going to dump a lot of money on Louisiana." He proposes a
Louisiana Recovery Corp. to acquire real estate, retire
mortgages and restore bank solvency.
After the early chaos of looting, law and order has
returned (including an enforced midnight curfew). Police
are augmented by 2,500 National Guardsmen from around the
country who man checkpoints monitoring the slim vehicular
traffic into devastated areas.
But other government services are inadequate. Hundreds of
refrigerators, filled with rotting food and posing a health
hazard, remain uncollected on sidewalks. Electric power has
not been restored fully, and many traffic lights do not
work. There is no public transportation, and I did not see
one taxi during two days in the city.
I stayed at the Soniat, a small French Quarter hotel that
reopened the day before I registered. I saw no other guests
and sometimes no staff present (I was given a key to let
myself into the hotel's front door). Management said all
workers lost their homes, and most would have no place to
go if they returned.
The expectation here is that New Orleans will downsize to
a city of around 250,000. The Lower 9th Ward can only
improve. A second gambling casino probably will be added
to Harrah's present monopoly, but there will be no
replicating Las Vegas. Developer Jimmy Riess, a member of
the mayor's commission, calls New Orleans public schools
the worst in the country and wants them totally reformed.
Educational philanthropist Eli Broad is helping establish
a landmark charter school system here.
So many poor black people are expected never to return to
New Orleans that the Rev. Jesse Jackson claims a sinister
plot by Bush adviser Karl Rove to send African-American
voters into "perpetual exile." More than the poor are
leaving forever. Ruth's Chris Steakhouse is moving its
permanent corporate headquarters to Orlando, Fla., and
New Orleans may never again see its Saints football team.
But the real story concerns those who are staying. John
Besh, owner of Restaurant August and the hottest young chef
in town, has turned down offers from New York and Florida
to stay. He sees a New Orleans rebuilt by the people who
live here, not by the politicians who make the headlines
and hog the television cameras.
TV's gloomy take on Iraq
by Brent Bozell (Townhall.com)
Last month, millions of Iraqis walked with determination
to the polls to vote for a new constitution. The turnout
was high. The violence was down dramatically from the
triumphant elections of January. But the network found all
this boring. On the night before the historic vote, ABC led
with bird-flu panic. CBS imagined Karl Rove in a prison
jumpsuit. NBC hyped inflation.
They say that news is a man-bites-dog story. In the Middle
East, how common is a constitutional referendum? Have they
had one in Egypt? Saudi Arabia? Syria? Jordan? Until the
last few years, the phrase "Arab constitutional democracy"
sounded like a pipe dream or an oxymoron. But today, the
reporters can only kvetch. NBC's Richard Engel growled
online that the new constitution was "a deeply flawed
document, peppered with religious slogans, and leaves
plenty of room for Shiites and Kurds to govern themselves."
Engel says Iraqis disagree on the constitution, but "with
the daily pressures of the insurgency, power cuts and
lawlessness, there might not be enough time to start over
before this country and the people lose hope -- along with
many of their lives."
Does Engel wear black everywhere he goes? The news pattern
from Iraq has that familiar gloom to it. The process of
building a constitutional democracy has been a story made
in sessions of boring political blather, in a language
Americans can't understand. Bombs blowing people up -- now
that's action, great television, it doesn't require an
interpreter. That's news.
A massive new study by Rich Noyes of the Media Research
Center reviews every Iraq story on the evening news programs
of ABC, CBS and NBC from January through September of 2005.
That's 1,388 news stories. He titled it "The Bad News
Brigade," because 61 percent of the stories were negative
or pessimistic, while only 15 percent of the stories were
positive or optimistic -- a four-to-one ratio. The trend in
coverage has also become increasingly negative during 2005,
with pessimistic stories rising to nearly three-fourths of
all Iraq news by August and September, with a 10-to-one
ratio of negative stories over positive ones.
Terrorists are the real assignment editors of American TV
news from Iraq. Two out of every five network evening news
stories (564 stories this year) featured car bombings,
assassinations, kidnappings or other attacks launched by
the terrorists against the Iraqi people or coalition
forces, more than any other topic. That's an average of
two stories every night between the three shows.
Even the evolution of democracy in Iraq is presented in
more negative than positive terms. More stories (124)
focused on shortcomings in Iraq's political process -- the
danger of bloodshed during the January elections, political
infighting, and fears that the new Iraqi constitution might
spur more violence -- than on the positive side of
democracy-building (92 stories). And then there's this:
One-third of those optimistic stories (32) appeared on just
two nights -- Jan. 30 and 31, just after Iraq's first
successful elections. You can see how people who watch the
news regularly would ask where the good news can be located.
That's especially true when the subject of the story is the
American soldier. In the most upsetting part of the study,
Noyes found that 79 stories focused primarily on allegations
of wrongdoing by American forces in Iraq, including this
year's Abu Ghraib hangover stories, compared to only eight
that focused on the heroism of American soldiers. Is that
still a story? Sure. But what about positive stories about
the military? There were only eight stories that focused on
the heroism of American soldiers, and only nine on soldier
acts of kindness or generosity. The TV news titans not only
suggest the mission in Iraq is a waste of money and lives,
they are painting our soldiers as a big problem there, not
a part of the solution.
The natural rebuttal the media's defenders would offer to
this study came from one defensive blogger at the Washington
Post website: "An objective press is not supposed to
'embrace' anything. It is supposed to report the facts." But
while the news from Iraq can be utterly factual, but in the
selection of facts, be utterly biased. The overwhelming
picture TV viewers get day in and day out, through this
selectivity, is that Iraq is packed with chaos, a "mess."
Viewers should sense a political mission in the gloom.
Demoralization over the "mess" in Iraq drags down Bush's
approval rating, drives the numbers up when the network
pollsters ask constantly whether the war is "worth the
cost," and seems to revise history toward the Howard Dean
view that deposing Saddam Hussein was a colossal mistake.
They are right to assume that when reporters watch the
Iraqis stream to the polls, they see sad puppets of the
American president trying to put a happy-faced Post-It
note on a disaster scene.
Last month, millions of Iraqis walked with determination
to the polls to vote for a new constitution. The turnout
was high. The violence was down dramatically from the
triumphant elections of January. But the network found all
this boring. On the night before the historic vote, ABC led
with bird-flu panic. CBS imagined Karl Rove in a prison
jumpsuit. NBC hyped inflation.
They say that news is a man-bites-dog story. In the Middle
East, how common is a constitutional referendum? Have they
had one in Egypt? Saudi Arabia? Syria? Jordan? Until the
last few years, the phrase "Arab constitutional democracy"
sounded like a pipe dream or an oxymoron. But today, the
reporters can only kvetch. NBC's Richard Engel growled
online that the new constitution was "a deeply flawed
document, peppered with religious slogans, and leaves
plenty of room for Shiites and Kurds to govern themselves."
Engel says Iraqis disagree on the constitution, but "with
the daily pressures of the insurgency, power cuts and
lawlessness, there might not be enough time to start over
before this country and the people lose hope -- along with
many of their lives."
Does Engel wear black everywhere he goes? The news pattern
from Iraq has that familiar gloom to it. The process of
building a constitutional democracy has been a story made
in sessions of boring political blather, in a language
Americans can't understand. Bombs blowing people up -- now
that's action, great television, it doesn't require an
interpreter. That's news.
A massive new study by Rich Noyes of the Media Research
Center reviews every Iraq story on the evening news programs
of ABC, CBS and NBC from January through September of 2005.
That's 1,388 news stories. He titled it "The Bad News
Brigade," because 61 percent of the stories were negative
or pessimistic, while only 15 percent of the stories were
positive or optimistic -- a four-to-one ratio. The trend in
coverage has also become increasingly negative during 2005,
with pessimistic stories rising to nearly three-fourths of
all Iraq news by August and September, with a 10-to-one
ratio of negative stories over positive ones.
Terrorists are the real assignment editors of American TV
news from Iraq. Two out of every five network evening news
stories (564 stories this year) featured car bombings,
assassinations, kidnappings or other attacks launched by
the terrorists against the Iraqi people or coalition
forces, more than any other topic. That's an average of
two stories every night between the three shows.
Even the evolution of democracy in Iraq is presented in
more negative than positive terms. More stories (124)
focused on shortcomings in Iraq's political process -- the
danger of bloodshed during the January elections, political
infighting, and fears that the new Iraqi constitution might
spur more violence -- than on the positive side of
democracy-building (92 stories). And then there's this:
One-third of those optimistic stories (32) appeared on just
two nights -- Jan. 30 and 31, just after Iraq's first
successful elections. You can see how people who watch the
news regularly would ask where the good news can be located.
That's especially true when the subject of the story is the
American soldier. In the most upsetting part of the study,
Noyes found that 79 stories focused primarily on allegations
of wrongdoing by American forces in Iraq, including this
year's Abu Ghraib hangover stories, compared to only eight
that focused on the heroism of American soldiers. Is that
still a story? Sure. But what about positive stories about
the military? There were only eight stories that focused on
the heroism of American soldiers, and only nine on soldier
acts of kindness or generosity. The TV news titans not only
suggest the mission in Iraq is a waste of money and lives,
they are painting our soldiers as a big problem there, not
a part of the solution.
The natural rebuttal the media's defenders would offer to
this study came from one defensive blogger at the Washington
Post website: "An objective press is not supposed to
'embrace' anything. It is supposed to report the facts." But
while the news from Iraq can be utterly factual, but in the
selection of facts, be utterly biased. The overwhelming
picture TV viewers get day in and day out, through this
selectivity, is that Iraq is packed with chaos, a "mess."
Viewers should sense a political mission in the gloom.
Demoralization over the "mess" in Iraq drags down Bush's
approval rating, drives the numbers up when the network
pollsters ask constantly whether the war is "worth the
cost," and seems to revise history toward the Howard Dean
view that deposing Saddam Hussein was a colossal mistake.
They are right to assume that when reporters watch the
Iraqis stream to the polls, they see sad puppets of the
American president trying to put a happy-faced Post-It
note on a disaster scene.
Do we really care about children?
by Walter E. Williams (Townhall.com)
I cringe with disgust when I hear politicians say, "We're
doing it for the children." What's worse is so many
Americans mindlessly fall hook, line and sinker for the
hype. Judging by our actions, Americans could not care less
for future generations, and future generations will curse
us for it. Let's look at it.
According to several respected authorities, including the
Concord Coalition (co-chaired by former Sens. Warren Rudman
and Robert Kerrey), the Congressional Budget Office, U.S.
Treasury Secretary John Snow, and the Social Security
Administration, the estimated present value of the unfunded
liability of Social Security and Medicare ranges between
$61 trillion and $75 trillion dollars.
"Williams," you ask, "what's this present value business?"
Simply put, between $61 trillion and $75 trillion dollars
is the money that would have to be put aside right now, at
current interest rates, in order to meet future obligations
of Social Security and Medicare. To put an astronomical sum
like $61 trillion or $75 trillion in a bit of perspective:
The value of our entire national output of goods and
services (GDP) in 2004 was only $12 trillion.
Congress can't put aside $75 trillion as reserves against
future liabilities of Social Security and Medicare.
Therefore, according to the Dallas, Texas-based National
Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA), the annual rate of Social
Security unfunded liabilities is growing at a $667 billion
clip and Medicare's at $4 trillion.
What does all this mean? It means little in pocketbook terms
to today's Americans who are 65 years or older. They will
collect their Social Security checks and their promised
Medicare benefits, but not so for future generations. Here's
that future according to House Ways and Means Committee
testimony, given by Dr. John Goodman, president of the NCPA
(May 2005). "In 2020, combined Social Security and Medicare
deficits will equal almost 29 percent of federal income
taxes. At that point the federal government will have to
stop doing almost a third of what it does today. By 2030,
about the midpoint of the baby boomer retirement years,
federal guarantees to Social Security and Medicare will
require one in every two income tax dollars. By 2050, they
will require three in every four." And by 2070, Social
Security and Medicare will consume all federal revenues.
There are some "optimists" who seek to minimize the pending
disaster that will be caused by these and other federal
unfunded liabilities. They argue that the federal government
can always meet its obligations through its power to tax.
According to some estimates, by 2030, Social Security and
Medicare obligations alone will require a 50 percent
increase in payroll taxes. If tax increases are off the
table, 2030 will see a 30 percent reduction in promised
Social Security benefits and stringent rationing of health
care services promised by Medicare. There's another
"solution." Even though Congress can't increase our life-
expectancy, they can raise the age of Social Security and
Medicare eligibility. Were Congress to make 80 as the age
for Social Security and Medicare eligibility, they'd solve
the problem because most of us would be dead.
Let's look at the raw politics of the Social
Security/Medicare situation. Few, if any, of our 535
congressmen will be around in 2030 and later when the
real crunch comes, but they are subject to today's, not
tomorrow's, political pressures. Similarly, few of today's
Americans 65 years of age and older will be around. Other
than mouthing a concern for future generations, both have
little economic incentive to be concerned about what happens
in 2030. After all, what do they have at stake?
In 2030, will young people in the labor force be willing to
see themselves taxed at Social Security rates of 20, 30 and
40 percent to take care of some old people? I don't think
that will politically fly, and they might begin to get
ideas about euthanasia. In addition to economic strife,
Social Security and Medicare are laying the groundwork for
intergenerational conflict. Unfortunately, the politics of
today don't give us room to prevent these twin disasters.
I cringe with disgust when I hear politicians say, "We're
doing it for the children." What's worse is so many
Americans mindlessly fall hook, line and sinker for the
hype. Judging by our actions, Americans could not care less
for future generations, and future generations will curse
us for it. Let's look at it.
According to several respected authorities, including the
Concord Coalition (co-chaired by former Sens. Warren Rudman
and Robert Kerrey), the Congressional Budget Office, U.S.
Treasury Secretary John Snow, and the Social Security
Administration, the estimated present value of the unfunded
liability of Social Security and Medicare ranges between
$61 trillion and $75 trillion dollars.
"Williams," you ask, "what's this present value business?"
Simply put, between $61 trillion and $75 trillion dollars
is the money that would have to be put aside right now, at
current interest rates, in order to meet future obligations
of Social Security and Medicare. To put an astronomical sum
like $61 trillion or $75 trillion in a bit of perspective:
The value of our entire national output of goods and
services (GDP) in 2004 was only $12 trillion.
Congress can't put aside $75 trillion as reserves against
future liabilities of Social Security and Medicare.
Therefore, according to the Dallas, Texas-based National
Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA), the annual rate of Social
Security unfunded liabilities is growing at a $667 billion
clip and Medicare's at $4 trillion.
What does all this mean? It means little in pocketbook terms
to today's Americans who are 65 years or older. They will
collect their Social Security checks and their promised
Medicare benefits, but not so for future generations. Here's
that future according to House Ways and Means Committee
testimony, given by Dr. John Goodman, president of the NCPA
(May 2005). "In 2020, combined Social Security and Medicare
deficits will equal almost 29 percent of federal income
taxes. At that point the federal government will have to
stop doing almost a third of what it does today. By 2030,
about the midpoint of the baby boomer retirement years,
federal guarantees to Social Security and Medicare will
require one in every two income tax dollars. By 2050, they
will require three in every four." And by 2070, Social
Security and Medicare will consume all federal revenues.
There are some "optimists" who seek to minimize the pending
disaster that will be caused by these and other federal
unfunded liabilities. They argue that the federal government
can always meet its obligations through its power to tax.
According to some estimates, by 2030, Social Security and
Medicare obligations alone will require a 50 percent
increase in payroll taxes. If tax increases are off the
table, 2030 will see a 30 percent reduction in promised
Social Security benefits and stringent rationing of health
care services promised by Medicare. There's another
"solution." Even though Congress can't increase our life-
expectancy, they can raise the age of Social Security and
Medicare eligibility. Were Congress to make 80 as the age
for Social Security and Medicare eligibility, they'd solve
the problem because most of us would be dead.
Let's look at the raw politics of the Social
Security/Medicare situation. Few, if any, of our 535
congressmen will be around in 2030 and later when the
real crunch comes, but they are subject to today's, not
tomorrow's, political pressures. Similarly, few of today's
Americans 65 years of age and older will be around. Other
than mouthing a concern for future generations, both have
little economic incentive to be concerned about what happens
in 2030. After all, what do they have at stake?
In 2030, will young people in the labor force be willing to
see themselves taxed at Social Security rates of 20, 30 and
40 percent to take care of some old people? I don't think
that will politically fly, and they might begin to get
ideas about euthanasia. In addition to economic strife,
Social Security and Medicare are laying the groundwork for
intergenerational conflict. Unfortunately, the politics of
today don't give us room to prevent these twin disasters.
Wednesday, November 09, 2005
Quotes of the Day
“A vast army of young unemployed Muslims, estimated to reach 25 million in the Arab countries alone by 2010, stands at the disposal of the would-be Napoleons and Wallensteins of radical Islam, and they have no choice but to lead it. The outcome well might be a new Algerian War fought on French soil, with all the horrors that attended that conflict just half a century ago.
“For three years I have argued that Europe sought to avoid conflict with the Muslim world precisely in order to mitigate this danger, but that Europe’s appeasement would be futile. Europe now faces a terrible reckoning which will not be paid in full for years.”
--Spengler, Asia Times, November 8, 2005
“Will socialist France follow the advice it gave to the United States? Or, confronted with its own 9/11 incidents, will France disregard ‘international law’ and thumb its nose at the ‘community of nations’?
“The matter seems inescapably clear. France’s only legitimate option, under the doctrines of international socialism, is to take this case to the UN and demand sanctions against Muslim insurgents.
“And, in the name of ‘sensitivity,’ the United States, Russia, and China have the right to veto any measures France might unilaterally attempt.”
--Thomas E. Brewton, November 7, 2005
“It’s not good to burn cars but that’s one way of getting attention, so people can come and solve our problems.”
--Mehmet Altun, 15, resident in one of the riot areas
“For three years I have argued that Europe sought to avoid conflict with the Muslim world precisely in order to mitigate this danger, but that Europe’s appeasement would be futile. Europe now faces a terrible reckoning which will not be paid in full for years.”
--Spengler, Asia Times, November 8, 2005
“Will socialist France follow the advice it gave to the United States? Or, confronted with its own 9/11 incidents, will France disregard ‘international law’ and thumb its nose at the ‘community of nations’?
“The matter seems inescapably clear. France’s only legitimate option, under the doctrines of international socialism, is to take this case to the UN and demand sanctions against Muslim insurgents.
“And, in the name of ‘sensitivity,’ the United States, Russia, and China have the right to veto any measures France might unilaterally attempt.”
--Thomas E. Brewton, November 7, 2005
“It’s not good to burn cars but that’s one way of getting attention, so people can come and solve our problems.”
--Mehmet Altun, 15, resident in one of the riot areas
Tuesday, November 08, 2005
Castro's Puppet Presidente'
From Investors Business Daily:
Bush 29, Chavez 5
Posted 11/7/2005
Latin America: If you heeded the hype from gloomy hand wringers or news photos of shop-trashing anti-American thugs, you'd think President Bush left the Argentina summit in failure. It's nothing but rubbish.
Seldom has news been so distorted against facts. Most of the U.S. media claim that because the 34 states were obstructed from full agreement on a declaration to kick-start free trade by a few holdouts, it's some sort of victory for the chief obstructor, U.S. antagonist Hugo Chavez of Venezuela.
Just by the numbers, it's a false impression. Only five states at the Organization of American States summit in Mar del Plata withheld signing a statement to restart talks for a Free Trade of the Americas pact, and four of those — Brazil, Argentina, Paraguay and Uruguay — did so temporarily on valid concerns about farm subsidies.
The U.S. sympathizes with them, but is hamstrung by its larger trade relations with heavily subsidized Europe. That's why the U.S. is going to bat for those four at the World Trade Organization's 148-nation Doha Round of trade talks in Hong Kong this December.
That leaves just Venezuela obstructing free trade, and on ideological grounds. The real story is that 29 very different states — making up 90% of the hemisphere's GDP — endorsed free trade.
Even more encouraging, the summit's most articulate advocates for free trade spontaneously came from Latin American leaders whose nations have already experienced free trade. Among them, Mexico's President Vicente Fox emerged as a star, bluntly warning anti-trade factions they are "out of touch with reality."
Fox should know. Mexico's GDP has nearly doubled and its exports to the U.S. have tripled since the 1994 passage of NAFTA, expanding Mexico's economy to just a hair's breadth below that of Brazil, a country with almost twice Mexico's population.
Central American states south of Mexico aren't stupid, either, and NAFTA's success encouraged them to seek their own free trade pact with the U.S. — CAFTA. They know how it draws permanent investment and increases business activity across the board, even in industries like coffee not subject to tariffs.
"We did not come here to attend the burial of the FTAA," El Salvador's President Tony Saca defiantly told Chavez at the summit. "Our position is of a total and absolute support of the FTAA. The spirit of integration will prevail."
Had the cameras been on these leaders instead of the Argentine rent-a-mob, maybe a different perception of what happened would emerge. It's no exaggeration to say that the news was purposely slanted to show these thugs instead of the leaders of the 29 nations who had something real to say about free trade.
If anything, it's Chavez who is isolated. No one has taken him up on his counterfree trade proposals, which are not based on market mechanisms but pork-barrel spending.
In the end Bush won because free trade is moving along anyway, summit or no summit. Panama is close to signing its own trade pact with the U.S. The Andean states — Colombia, Ecuador and Peru — are in the last stages of a swift, 18-month effort to hammer out a pact. Besides these smaller, separate deals, the World Trade Organization talks will overtake anything that went on at this summit.
Fox of Mexico called it right when he said that free trade would just move on with the willing who want it.
Bush 29, Chavez 5
Posted 11/7/2005
Latin America: If you heeded the hype from gloomy hand wringers or news photos of shop-trashing anti-American thugs, you'd think President Bush left the Argentina summit in failure. It's nothing but rubbish.
Seldom has news been so distorted against facts. Most of the U.S. media claim that because the 34 states were obstructed from full agreement on a declaration to kick-start free trade by a few holdouts, it's some sort of victory for the chief obstructor, U.S. antagonist Hugo Chavez of Venezuela.
Just by the numbers, it's a false impression. Only five states at the Organization of American States summit in Mar del Plata withheld signing a statement to restart talks for a Free Trade of the Americas pact, and four of those — Brazil, Argentina, Paraguay and Uruguay — did so temporarily on valid concerns about farm subsidies.
The U.S. sympathizes with them, but is hamstrung by its larger trade relations with heavily subsidized Europe. That's why the U.S. is going to bat for those four at the World Trade Organization's 148-nation Doha Round of trade talks in Hong Kong this December.
That leaves just Venezuela obstructing free trade, and on ideological grounds. The real story is that 29 very different states — making up 90% of the hemisphere's GDP — endorsed free trade.
Even more encouraging, the summit's most articulate advocates for free trade spontaneously came from Latin American leaders whose nations have already experienced free trade. Among them, Mexico's President Vicente Fox emerged as a star, bluntly warning anti-trade factions they are "out of touch with reality."
Fox should know. Mexico's GDP has nearly doubled and its exports to the U.S. have tripled since the 1994 passage of NAFTA, expanding Mexico's economy to just a hair's breadth below that of Brazil, a country with almost twice Mexico's population.
Central American states south of Mexico aren't stupid, either, and NAFTA's success encouraged them to seek their own free trade pact with the U.S. — CAFTA. They know how it draws permanent investment and increases business activity across the board, even in industries like coffee not subject to tariffs.
"We did not come here to attend the burial of the FTAA," El Salvador's President Tony Saca defiantly told Chavez at the summit. "Our position is of a total and absolute support of the FTAA. The spirit of integration will prevail."
Had the cameras been on these leaders instead of the Argentine rent-a-mob, maybe a different perception of what happened would emerge. It's no exaggeration to say that the news was purposely slanted to show these thugs instead of the leaders of the 29 nations who had something real to say about free trade.
If anything, it's Chavez who is isolated. No one has taken him up on his counterfree trade proposals, which are not based on market mechanisms but pork-barrel spending.
In the end Bush won because free trade is moving along anyway, summit or no summit. Panama is close to signing its own trade pact with the U.S. The Andean states — Colombia, Ecuador and Peru — are in the last stages of a swift, 18-month effort to hammer out a pact. Besides these smaller, separate deals, the World Trade Organization talks will overtake anything that went on at this summit.
Fox of Mexico called it right when he said that free trade would just move on with the willing who want it.
Peanut Bitter
From Investors Business Daily:
Posted 11/7/2005
Politics: Jimmy Carter, whose naivete helped give the world two nuclear threats, Iran and North Korea, says the Bush administration "manipulated" prewar intelligence on Iraq. He's the one who's manipulating history.
Carter's record judging potential threats to U.S. security leaves a lot to be desired. In 1994, he jetted off to North Korea to broker a deal whereby the last Stalinist nation would give up its nuclear weapons program. We all know how well that turned out.
His record in judging the character of world leaders is also suspect. He returned praising the mass-murdering North Korean dictator as a "vigorous and intelligent man" and saying of a nation that has starved millions: "I don't see that they are an outlaw nation."
So there the former president was on NBC's "Today" show saying the Bush administration's prewar claims that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction were "manipulated, at least" and that plans to take out Saddam predated 9-11.
His sentiments are echoed by Democratic congressional leaders, defeated presidential candidate John Kerry and others who think "Bush lied" and began planning the march to Baghdad right after taking office. Actually, regime change became official U.S. policy when Congress passed, and President Clinton signed, the Iraq Liberation Act on Oct. 31, 1998. And who believed Iraq posed a WMD threat?
In 1998, Clinton said, "If he refuses or continues to evade his obligations through more tactics of delay and deception, he and he alone will be to blame for the consequences." If "we fail to act," Clinton warned, Saddam "will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction. And some day, some way, I guarantee you, he'll use the arsenal."
Robert Einhorn, Clinton's deputy assistant secretary of state, told a Senate committee in March 2002 that Saddam could have nukes capable of striking Europe in "four to five years" and would be able to deliver nukes in America via "nonconventional means."
Hillary Clinton on Oct. 10, 2002, said: "Intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability and his nuclear program." The same day Jay Rockefeller, Democratic vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, cited "unmistakable evidence" Saddam was "working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons."
Unmistakable evidence. Not manipulated intelligence. In fact, in July 2004, the Intelligence Committee said it "did not find any evidence that administration officials attempted to coerce, influence or pressure analysts to change their judgments" related to Iraq WMD.
Everyone saw the same evidence and came to the same conclusion — including France, Britain, Germany, Israel, China, Russia and the U.N., which passed Resolution 1441, telling Saddam to account for his weapons stash or there would be "serious consequences."
He didn't and there were. It was never our job to prove Saddam Hussein had WMD. It was his job to prove he didn't. Which part of "serious consequences" do Jimmy Carter et al. not understand?
Posted 11/7/2005
Politics: Jimmy Carter, whose naivete helped give the world two nuclear threats, Iran and North Korea, says the Bush administration "manipulated" prewar intelligence on Iraq. He's the one who's manipulating history.
Carter's record judging potential threats to U.S. security leaves a lot to be desired. In 1994, he jetted off to North Korea to broker a deal whereby the last Stalinist nation would give up its nuclear weapons program. We all know how well that turned out.
His record in judging the character of world leaders is also suspect. He returned praising the mass-murdering North Korean dictator as a "vigorous and intelligent man" and saying of a nation that has starved millions: "I don't see that they are an outlaw nation."
So there the former president was on NBC's "Today" show saying the Bush administration's prewar claims that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction were "manipulated, at least" and that plans to take out Saddam predated 9-11.
His sentiments are echoed by Democratic congressional leaders, defeated presidential candidate John Kerry and others who think "Bush lied" and began planning the march to Baghdad right after taking office. Actually, regime change became official U.S. policy when Congress passed, and President Clinton signed, the Iraq Liberation Act on Oct. 31, 1998. And who believed Iraq posed a WMD threat?
In 1998, Clinton said, "If he refuses or continues to evade his obligations through more tactics of delay and deception, he and he alone will be to blame for the consequences." If "we fail to act," Clinton warned, Saddam "will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction. And some day, some way, I guarantee you, he'll use the arsenal."
Robert Einhorn, Clinton's deputy assistant secretary of state, told a Senate committee in March 2002 that Saddam could have nukes capable of striking Europe in "four to five years" and would be able to deliver nukes in America via "nonconventional means."
Hillary Clinton on Oct. 10, 2002, said: "Intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability and his nuclear program." The same day Jay Rockefeller, Democratic vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, cited "unmistakable evidence" Saddam was "working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons."
Unmistakable evidence. Not manipulated intelligence. In fact, in July 2004, the Intelligence Committee said it "did not find any evidence that administration officials attempted to coerce, influence or pressure analysts to change their judgments" related to Iraq WMD.
Everyone saw the same evidence and came to the same conclusion — including France, Britain, Germany, Israel, China, Russia and the U.N., which passed Resolution 1441, telling Saddam to account for his weapons stash or there would be "serious consequences."
He didn't and there were. It was never our job to prove Saddam Hussein had WMD. It was his job to prove he didn't. Which part of "serious consequences" do Jimmy Carter et al. not understand?
Damage Control
From Investors Business Daily:
Posted 11/7/2005
Legal Reform: Washington state has been losing doctors for years because it's become too costly to practice there. Voters have a chance to change that Tuesday.
The American Medical Association lists Washington as a "crisis" state. Physicians there, fed up with growing jury awards in malpractice cases and the rising costs of malpractice insurance, are leaving or cutting back their practices.
One-fourth of the state's family practitioners, for example, have dropped obstetrics in the last five years, reports the Washington Policy Center. And nearly half of physicians told the state medical association they have simply stopped offering some services.
One obstetrician said his medical liability insurance soared from roughly $10,000 a year in the mid-1990s to $74,000 last year — which is why he's restricting his practice to gynecology only. An orthopedic surgeon left the state because she was paying nearly $300,000 a year in malpractice premiums.
Those who aren't cutting back are saying "enough." The number of doctors who moved out of the state grew 31% from 1998 to 2002. And between 1996 and 2001, the number of doctors who retired increased 50%. The average age of retirement for physicians has fallen from 63 to 58.
This is nothing new. Doctors have been leaving states — like New Jersey, Pennsylvania, North Carolina and West Virginia earlier in the decade — rather than pay the higher malpractice premiums.
The solution is a cap — not on insurance premiums, but on noneconomic damages that can be awarded by a jury. The Washington Policy Center points to research in other states that shows caps reduce the financial burden that malpractice lawsuits put on the already costly health care system.
The center also cites research that found that caps actually improve access to health care. How? Like everyone else, doctors vote with their feet, and they'd rather practice in states with sane limits on malpractice awards and premiums. Research shows that the number of doctors per resident is higher in states with caps.
Washington has no cap, but that could change if voters on Tuesday approve Initiative 330, sponsored by the Washington State Medical Association. It would place a reasonable $350,000 cap on noneconomic damages and curb the amount of dollars lawyers can squeeze out of the process (limiting the incentive to sue, sue, sue).
Trial lawyers are behind an alternative. Initiative 336 would restrict increases in malpractice insurance and revoke licenses for doctors with three or more malpractice convictions over 10 years.
Doctors like 330 better. So should their patients — and the voters.
Posted 11/7/2005
Legal Reform: Washington state has been losing doctors for years because it's become too costly to practice there. Voters have a chance to change that Tuesday.
The American Medical Association lists Washington as a "crisis" state. Physicians there, fed up with growing jury awards in malpractice cases and the rising costs of malpractice insurance, are leaving or cutting back their practices.
One-fourth of the state's family practitioners, for example, have dropped obstetrics in the last five years, reports the Washington Policy Center. And nearly half of physicians told the state medical association they have simply stopped offering some services.
One obstetrician said his medical liability insurance soared from roughly $10,000 a year in the mid-1990s to $74,000 last year — which is why he's restricting his practice to gynecology only. An orthopedic surgeon left the state because she was paying nearly $300,000 a year in malpractice premiums.
Those who aren't cutting back are saying "enough." The number of doctors who moved out of the state grew 31% from 1998 to 2002. And between 1996 and 2001, the number of doctors who retired increased 50%. The average age of retirement for physicians has fallen from 63 to 58.
This is nothing new. Doctors have been leaving states — like New Jersey, Pennsylvania, North Carolina and West Virginia earlier in the decade — rather than pay the higher malpractice premiums.
The solution is a cap — not on insurance premiums, but on noneconomic damages that can be awarded by a jury. The Washington Policy Center points to research in other states that shows caps reduce the financial burden that malpractice lawsuits put on the already costly health care system.
The center also cites research that found that caps actually improve access to health care. How? Like everyone else, doctors vote with their feet, and they'd rather practice in states with sane limits on malpractice awards and premiums. Research shows that the number of doctors per resident is higher in states with caps.
Washington has no cap, but that could change if voters on Tuesday approve Initiative 330, sponsored by the Washington State Medical Association. It would place a reasonable $350,000 cap on noneconomic damages and curb the amount of dollars lawyers can squeeze out of the process (limiting the incentive to sue, sue, sue).
Trial lawyers are behind an alternative. Initiative 336 would restrict increases in malpractice insurance and revoke licenses for doctors with three or more malpractice convictions over 10 years.
Doctors like 330 better. So should their patients — and the voters.
Eurabian Nights
Posted 11/7/2005
The French Riots: The consequences of Europe's laissez-faire attitude toward Muslim immigration are now visible in France. The "Arab street" has finally exploded — in the suburbs of Paris.
The riots that we've witnessed for 12 days now, and which have spread to 300 French towns, are said to be fueled by the failure of the stagnating French economy to assimilate its growing Muslim population and provide jobs.
But the intensity and number of outbreaks suggests something else as well — a seizing of the moment by those unwilling to be assimilated. Motivated by their hatred of Western culture and their fundamentalist beliefs, they have lashed out at the infidels.
The rioting comes almost a year to the day after Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh had his throat slit by a Muslim born in Holland. The incitement? Van Gogh produced a film criticizing the Islamic world for its harsh treatment of women.
It's reasonable to suggest the feelings of van Gogh's killer are shared by many of the rioters in France. Clichy-sous-Bois, the suburb where the trouble started, is like many European communities. More than 80% of the residents are Muslim immigrants and their children. It's a place French police have avoided for years.
It is not alone. As columnist Mark Steyn reports, Belgian police officers in Brussels are advised not to be seen drinking coffee in public during Ramadan. In Malmo, Sweden, ambulance drivers will not go into certain areas without police escort.
As we've noted for years, there's another bomb going off in Europe, a demographic time bomb. It's already having unintended geopolitical consequences as Muslim immigrants descend on a declining Europe desperate for "cheap" and abundant labor.
Indigenous Europeans are a dying breed. To sustain a population requires each woman on average to have 2.1 children. In the European Union, the birth rate is 1.5 and falling. To keep its working population stable, Europe must import 1.35 million people a year. Most are Muslim. Not all are friendly.
In the last 10 years, Europe's Muslim population has doubled to 20 million. France's Muslim population, at about 5 million, is Western Europe's largest — roughly 7% of the population. There are 1 million Muslims living in van Gogh's Holland. In the Netherlands' four largest cities, Muslims are a majority among children under 14.
Among this population are groups like Britain's Al-Muhajiroun ("the immigrants"), which celebrated 9-11 as "a towering day in history" and whose leader has ties to Osama bin Laden. Before the London subway bombings in July, its spokesman proclaimed, "One day the black flag of Islam will be flying over Downing Street." Perhaps the Eiffel Tower as well?
Madrid. London. Paris. Maybe what Europe needs is a Patriot Act.
The French Riots: The consequences of Europe's laissez-faire attitude toward Muslim immigration are now visible in France. The "Arab street" has finally exploded — in the suburbs of Paris.
The riots that we've witnessed for 12 days now, and which have spread to 300 French towns, are said to be fueled by the failure of the stagnating French economy to assimilate its growing Muslim population and provide jobs.
But the intensity and number of outbreaks suggests something else as well — a seizing of the moment by those unwilling to be assimilated. Motivated by their hatred of Western culture and their fundamentalist beliefs, they have lashed out at the infidels.
The rioting comes almost a year to the day after Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh had his throat slit by a Muslim born in Holland. The incitement? Van Gogh produced a film criticizing the Islamic world for its harsh treatment of women.
It's reasonable to suggest the feelings of van Gogh's killer are shared by many of the rioters in France. Clichy-sous-Bois, the suburb where the trouble started, is like many European communities. More than 80% of the residents are Muslim immigrants and their children. It's a place French police have avoided for years.
It is not alone. As columnist Mark Steyn reports, Belgian police officers in Brussels are advised not to be seen drinking coffee in public during Ramadan. In Malmo, Sweden, ambulance drivers will not go into certain areas without police escort.
As we've noted for years, there's another bomb going off in Europe, a demographic time bomb. It's already having unintended geopolitical consequences as Muslim immigrants descend on a declining Europe desperate for "cheap" and abundant labor.
Indigenous Europeans are a dying breed. To sustain a population requires each woman on average to have 2.1 children. In the European Union, the birth rate is 1.5 and falling. To keep its working population stable, Europe must import 1.35 million people a year. Most are Muslim. Not all are friendly.
In the last 10 years, Europe's Muslim population has doubled to 20 million. France's Muslim population, at about 5 million, is Western Europe's largest — roughly 7% of the population. There are 1 million Muslims living in van Gogh's Holland. In the Netherlands' four largest cities, Muslims are a majority among children under 14.
Among this population are groups like Britain's Al-Muhajiroun ("the immigrants"), which celebrated 9-11 as "a towering day in history" and whose leader has ties to Osama bin Laden. Before the London subway bombings in July, its spokesman proclaimed, "One day the black flag of Islam will be flying over Downing Street." Perhaps the Eiffel Tower as well?
Madrid. London. Paris. Maybe what Europe needs is a Patriot Act.
Thursday, November 03, 2005
Party Of Whatever
From Investors Business Daily:
Posted 11/2/2005
Iraq: Why did Democrats shut down the Senate on Tuesday? To make a point against the war. No, wait. They say they support the troops. Could it be that they're trying to have it both ways?
Even stunts can have a serious purpose, and we're sure Harry Reid & Co. had persuaded themselves that they were doing the people's work by suddenly shutting down the Senate's public deliberations.
Reid and the Democrats invoked a little-used rule to throw the Senate into closed session. Once behind closed doors, they badgered the Republicans about the supposedly slow progress of a probe into the Bush administration's handling of prewar Iraq intelligence. Republicans agreed to appoint a bipartisan panel to report on the progress of the investigation.
Reid claimed victory. "Finally, after months and months and months of begging, cajoling, writing letters, we're going to be able to have phase two of the investigation regarding how the intelligence was used to lead us into the intractable war in Iraq," he declared.
Never mind that, according to Intelligence Committee head Pat Roberts, R-Kan., the report was almost done anyway. The Dems had made their point. They aren't letting up on Iraq. And just you wait: They'll get to the bottom of things, debunk the case for war and expose George W. Bush and Dick Cheney as liars.
What then? The logical endpoint of such a strategy is withdrawal from Iraq. After all, if the war is shown to be a mistake, why keep fighting it?
That's the view of the Democratic Party's anti-war base. But the party can't win elections with votes only from its Cindy Sheehan wing. It needs to appeal to people in the political center, who may dislike the war but are uncomfortable with the idea of simply leaving Iraqis to the tender mercies of al-Qaida. These are voters who understand that "supporting the troops" goes beyond just giving them the right armor and weapons. It also means supporting what the troops are trying to do.
To these folks, the party tries to present a face of concern balanced with resolve, criticizing the administration while insisting on seeing the war through. That seems to be the position of the party's current presidential front-runner, Hillary Clinton, and it's certainly defensible. President Bush has made mistakes and is certainly not above criticism. It's perfectly consistent for supporters of the Iraq mission to note errors in Bush's execution of it.
It's something else, though, to attack the mission itself as fundamentally wrong, a mistake from the start. That's what the Senate Democrats were doing with their Tuesday tantrum. They not only want a report on prewar intelligence, they want a particular result: A finding that the Bush administration deliberately took America into a war on false pretenses.
They had hoped that the CIA leak investigation would turn up something like that, and it didn't. Now they're trying to get the intelligence committee to produce the smoking gun. So are they the antiwar party? Just watch what they do, not what they say.
At least the hard-left types are clear about their aims. Reid's stunt served no purpose other than to undermine public support for the war. If that's not his goal, he needs to explain what is.
Posted 11/2/2005
Iraq: Why did Democrats shut down the Senate on Tuesday? To make a point against the war. No, wait. They say they support the troops. Could it be that they're trying to have it both ways?
Even stunts can have a serious purpose, and we're sure Harry Reid & Co. had persuaded themselves that they were doing the people's work by suddenly shutting down the Senate's public deliberations.
Reid and the Democrats invoked a little-used rule to throw the Senate into closed session. Once behind closed doors, they badgered the Republicans about the supposedly slow progress of a probe into the Bush administration's handling of prewar Iraq intelligence. Republicans agreed to appoint a bipartisan panel to report on the progress of the investigation.
Reid claimed victory. "Finally, after months and months and months of begging, cajoling, writing letters, we're going to be able to have phase two of the investigation regarding how the intelligence was used to lead us into the intractable war in Iraq," he declared.
Never mind that, according to Intelligence Committee head Pat Roberts, R-Kan., the report was almost done anyway. The Dems had made their point. They aren't letting up on Iraq. And just you wait: They'll get to the bottom of things, debunk the case for war and expose George W. Bush and Dick Cheney as liars.
What then? The logical endpoint of such a strategy is withdrawal from Iraq. After all, if the war is shown to be a mistake, why keep fighting it?
That's the view of the Democratic Party's anti-war base. But the party can't win elections with votes only from its Cindy Sheehan wing. It needs to appeal to people in the political center, who may dislike the war but are uncomfortable with the idea of simply leaving Iraqis to the tender mercies of al-Qaida. These are voters who understand that "supporting the troops" goes beyond just giving them the right armor and weapons. It also means supporting what the troops are trying to do.
To these folks, the party tries to present a face of concern balanced with resolve, criticizing the administration while insisting on seeing the war through. That seems to be the position of the party's current presidential front-runner, Hillary Clinton, and it's certainly defensible. President Bush has made mistakes and is certainly not above criticism. It's perfectly consistent for supporters of the Iraq mission to note errors in Bush's execution of it.
It's something else, though, to attack the mission itself as fundamentally wrong, a mistake from the start. That's what the Senate Democrats were doing with their Tuesday tantrum. They not only want a report on prewar intelligence, they want a particular result: A finding that the Bush administration deliberately took America into a war on false pretenses.
They had hoped that the CIA leak investigation would turn up something like that, and it didn't. Now they're trying to get the intelligence committee to produce the smoking gun. So are they the antiwar party? Just watch what they do, not what they say.
At least the hard-left types are clear about their aims. Reid's stunt served no purpose other than to undermine public support for the war. If that's not his goal, he needs to explain what is.
Not A Good Thing
From Investors Business Daily:
Posted 11/2/2005
Politics: If stealing and destroying secret documents, stuffing them into your pants and then lying about it isn't a crime worthy of jail time, why is having a different recollection of events than Tim Russert?
If the charges swirling around Scooter Libby — that he deceived those investigating a crime for which he was not charged — seem familiar, they should. Not long ago Martha Stewart was indicted and convicted, not of insider trading in a suspiciously timed stock sale, but of deceiving investigators into a crime for which she was not charged.
In both cases, is justice being served? Or are the prosecutors just trying to justify the time and money spent failing to prove that those charged committed the alleged crime?
In the Libby case, we now have a new Kafkaesque standard of justice: Merely ask someone who gets hundreds of calls a day to remember conversations with reporters years prior. Then, if they disagree with the reporter's notes — voila! — perjury and obstruction.
Lost in the reporting of Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald's Oct. 28 press conference was this telling admission: "We have not made any allegation that Mr. Libby knowingly, intentionally outed a covert agent." Nor could he.
"Knowingly" is the operative word. The 1982 Intelligence Identities Protection Act requires the offender to knowingly reveal the name of a covert agent. The law was written after a former CIA employee named Philip Agee revealed the name of Richard Welch, CIA station chief in Greece, and others. Welch was subsequently murdered on Dec. 23, 1975, by a Greek terrorist organization.
There was no outrage or demand for a special prosecutor in 1995, when then-Rep. Robert Torricelli exposed a paid CIA informant, Guatemalan Col. Julio Roberto Alpirez, in a letter to President Clinton, a copy of which Torricelli gave to The New York Times.
A real undercover agent, Fulton Armstrong, was outed by Sen. John Kerry in this year's confirmation hearings of U.N. Ambassador John Bolton. Kerry mentioned Armstrong's name during questioning even after the CIA asked that his identity be kept secret.
Depends on whose ox is being gored, we guess.
Just as Caspar Weinberger's bogus indictment five days before the 1992 election was an attempt to criminalize political differences over the Reagan administration's anti-communist policies in Central America, it's reasonable to suggest the Libby indictment is a similar attempt to criminalize differences over Iraq.
Just how is national security jeopardized by having a different recollection of events than NBC Washington Bureau Chief Tim Russert? Like witnesses to a traffic accident, people see things from different perspectives. Memories fade. What you learned, where you learned it and whom you told tend to blur.
One charge against Libby stems from his testimony under oath that Russert asked him if he knew Joe Wilson's wife worked at the CIA. In fact, the indictment alleges, Russert never asked him that, and Libby already knew that. Maybe somebody else asked him. Maybe he already knew. Who cares? This is worth 30 years in jail?
Contrast the Libby charges with the slap on the wrist given Sandy Berger. He engaged in a real cover-up when he took classified documents useful to the 9-11 commission, destroyed some of them and then lied to the National Archives about it. No jail time, just a small fine. What was he hiding? Whom was he protecting?
Libby now joins Weinberger, Newt Gingrich, Tom DeLay and others who are guilty of nothing more than being loyal and effective servants of their party and president. Like the "Borking" of judicial nominees, the ongoing criminalization of political differences will only make it harder to attract good public servants if they can go to jail for merely talking to a reporter.
In the end, Libby may be able to echo the immortal words of Ray Donovan, Ronald Reagan's labor secretary. After being acquitted in 1987 of corruption charges in a similar trial by media, he wondered: "Where do I go to get my reputation back?"
Posted 11/2/2005
Politics: If stealing and destroying secret documents, stuffing them into your pants and then lying about it isn't a crime worthy of jail time, why is having a different recollection of events than Tim Russert?
If the charges swirling around Scooter Libby — that he deceived those investigating a crime for which he was not charged — seem familiar, they should. Not long ago Martha Stewart was indicted and convicted, not of insider trading in a suspiciously timed stock sale, but of deceiving investigators into a crime for which she was not charged.
In both cases, is justice being served? Or are the prosecutors just trying to justify the time and money spent failing to prove that those charged committed the alleged crime?
In the Libby case, we now have a new Kafkaesque standard of justice: Merely ask someone who gets hundreds of calls a day to remember conversations with reporters years prior. Then, if they disagree with the reporter's notes — voila! — perjury and obstruction.
Lost in the reporting of Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald's Oct. 28 press conference was this telling admission: "We have not made any allegation that Mr. Libby knowingly, intentionally outed a covert agent." Nor could he.
"Knowingly" is the operative word. The 1982 Intelligence Identities Protection Act requires the offender to knowingly reveal the name of a covert agent. The law was written after a former CIA employee named Philip Agee revealed the name of Richard Welch, CIA station chief in Greece, and others. Welch was subsequently murdered on Dec. 23, 1975, by a Greek terrorist organization.
There was no outrage or demand for a special prosecutor in 1995, when then-Rep. Robert Torricelli exposed a paid CIA informant, Guatemalan Col. Julio Roberto Alpirez, in a letter to President Clinton, a copy of which Torricelli gave to The New York Times.
A real undercover agent, Fulton Armstrong, was outed by Sen. John Kerry in this year's confirmation hearings of U.N. Ambassador John Bolton. Kerry mentioned Armstrong's name during questioning even after the CIA asked that his identity be kept secret.
Depends on whose ox is being gored, we guess.
Just as Caspar Weinberger's bogus indictment five days before the 1992 election was an attempt to criminalize political differences over the Reagan administration's anti-communist policies in Central America, it's reasonable to suggest the Libby indictment is a similar attempt to criminalize differences over Iraq.
Just how is national security jeopardized by having a different recollection of events than NBC Washington Bureau Chief Tim Russert? Like witnesses to a traffic accident, people see things from different perspectives. Memories fade. What you learned, where you learned it and whom you told tend to blur.
One charge against Libby stems from his testimony under oath that Russert asked him if he knew Joe Wilson's wife worked at the CIA. In fact, the indictment alleges, Russert never asked him that, and Libby already knew that. Maybe somebody else asked him. Maybe he already knew. Who cares? This is worth 30 years in jail?
Contrast the Libby charges with the slap on the wrist given Sandy Berger. He engaged in a real cover-up when he took classified documents useful to the 9-11 commission, destroyed some of them and then lied to the National Archives about it. No jail time, just a small fine. What was he hiding? Whom was he protecting?
Libby now joins Weinberger, Newt Gingrich, Tom DeLay and others who are guilty of nothing more than being loyal and effective servants of their party and president. Like the "Borking" of judicial nominees, the ongoing criminalization of political differences will only make it harder to attract good public servants if they can go to jail for merely talking to a reporter.
In the end, Libby may be able to echo the immortal words of Ray Donovan, Ronald Reagan's labor secretary. After being acquitted in 1987 of corruption charges in a similar trial by media, he wondered: "Where do I go to get my reputation back?"
Erasing Economic Growth
People, by and large, are not known for encyclopedic memories. Ask anyone about the Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings and he might vaguely remember something about a Coke can and a porn actor of legendary appendage. Mention BCCI, S&L’s, and 90210, and you’ll harvest a blank stare.
Sure, that’s news from a decade and a half ago. Most of what happened back then probably ought to be forgotten, as quickly and completely as possible. After all, contrary to populist philosophy, history does not exist for the purpose of “teaching” us something.
Still, there are certain milestones in the passing of time that may serve as a crib sheet of kinds, to remind us of how certain mechanisms play out, time and time again.
One of these markers in coming up on October 6. It is the third anniversary of an al Qaeda bombing that barely made it into the mainstream consciousness.
That day, a small, explosives-packed fishing boat approached a French-flagged oil tanker in the Gulf of Aden, three miles off the Yemeni shore. The Limburg carried 300,000 barrels of Iranian crude and nineteen crewmen.
The blast ripped a hole into the ship, causing 90,000 barrels of oil to pour into the sea, polluting 45 miles of Yemeni coast. One crewman died. The others were rescued from the burning tanker by Canadian oil workers. No remains of the terrorists were recovered.
A week later, an al Qaeda communiqué bragged that it had cost less than US$1,000 to cripple a supertanker.
What never made it into the media coverage was the economic fallout of this attack. “War risk surcharges” bills from shipping insurers shot up by 300%, or US$150,000 per ship bound for a Yemeni port. Business at Yemen’s ports dropped by over 50%, costing the country over US$4 million per month in lost fees. But that’s not the half of it! Kenneth Timmerman, in his book Shadow War (Regnery, 2004), writes:
“Still, Americans feel the price of al Qaeda’s attempted seaborne terrorism at the pump. One of the reasons that gasoline prices have climbed so sharply since 2001 is the attack on the Limburg and the ever-present threat of attacks like it.”
That, of course, was in the days when a barrel of oil would set you back 30 bucks.
Given the increased speculative pressure on oil, I’d hope oil companies by now have equipped their tankers with surface-to-surface missiles and a “shoot first, ask questions later” letter of absolution: A US$1,000 investment by al Qaeda at this point would be able to set oil prices soaring to US$90 or even US$100 a barrel… erasing any hope for economic growth in most of the infidel economies.
J. Christoph AmbergerExecutive Publisher
The Taipan Group’s247profits e-Dispatch Team
Sure, that’s news from a decade and a half ago. Most of what happened back then probably ought to be forgotten, as quickly and completely as possible. After all, contrary to populist philosophy, history does not exist for the purpose of “teaching” us something.
Still, there are certain milestones in the passing of time that may serve as a crib sheet of kinds, to remind us of how certain mechanisms play out, time and time again.
One of these markers in coming up on October 6. It is the third anniversary of an al Qaeda bombing that barely made it into the mainstream consciousness.
That day, a small, explosives-packed fishing boat approached a French-flagged oil tanker in the Gulf of Aden, three miles off the Yemeni shore. The Limburg carried 300,000 barrels of Iranian crude and nineteen crewmen.
The blast ripped a hole into the ship, causing 90,000 barrels of oil to pour into the sea, polluting 45 miles of Yemeni coast. One crewman died. The others were rescued from the burning tanker by Canadian oil workers. No remains of the terrorists were recovered.
A week later, an al Qaeda communiqué bragged that it had cost less than US$1,000 to cripple a supertanker.
What never made it into the media coverage was the economic fallout of this attack. “War risk surcharges” bills from shipping insurers shot up by 300%, or US$150,000 per ship bound for a Yemeni port. Business at Yemen’s ports dropped by over 50%, costing the country over US$4 million per month in lost fees. But that’s not the half of it! Kenneth Timmerman, in his book Shadow War (Regnery, 2004), writes:
“Still, Americans feel the price of al Qaeda’s attempted seaborne terrorism at the pump. One of the reasons that gasoline prices have climbed so sharply since 2001 is the attack on the Limburg and the ever-present threat of attacks like it.”
That, of course, was in the days when a barrel of oil would set you back 30 bucks.
Given the increased speculative pressure on oil, I’d hope oil companies by now have equipped their tankers with surface-to-surface missiles and a “shoot first, ask questions later” letter of absolution: A US$1,000 investment by al Qaeda at this point would be able to set oil prices soaring to US$90 or even US$100 a barrel… erasing any hope for economic growth in most of the infidel economies.
J. Christoph AmbergerExecutive Publisher
The Taipan Group’s247profits e-Dispatch Team
Greenspan is fighting a demon of his own making
As Greenspan approaches the end of his run as Fed chief, he’s attempting to paint himself as a New Era Paul Volcker, vigilant against inflation to the end. But the fact is, Greenspan’s mythos is more akin to Don Quixote or Robin Williams’s character Parry from the wonderful 1991 movie The Fisher King.
Greenspan is fighting a demon of his own making - risk. Greenspan attempted to redefine the Fed as a risk-manager, charged with shielding the US economy from extreme financial risk. But as any trader, athlete or CEO will tell you, you have to play to win. If you play not to lose, you’re usually stuck with the very outcome you sought to avoid.
In 1996, when the Russian default threatened the global economy, Greenspan’s response was to slash rates in an effort to lessen the effect of bad investments by the likes of mega-hedge fund Long Term Capital Management (LTCM), at a time when the US economy was expanding. The result: stock market bubble.
In 2002 and 2003, the fear of deflation led Greenspan to drop rates to all-time lows. The result: massive real-estate appreciation.
Now, in the face of a slowing economy and high energy prices, rates are going up. Greenspan seems intent on choking economic growth to fight inflation.
Here’s the simple fact: you can’t remove risk from an economy. In fact, capitalism openly embraces risk. Successful people are the ones who aren’t afraid to risk it all. Timid people avoid risk. But what do we call those who, like Don Quixote, treat risk avoidance as a mythical struggle between good and evil?
Atlanta Fed President Jack Guyn said the Fed has a way to go before it is done hiking rates. His concern is that high energy costs will get passed on to the consumer.
Umm… costs are already getting passed on to the consumer. Probably US$120 a month for my family, just in gas prices. And once winter gets here, I’ll be throwing an additional US$200 a month on the bonfire.
Does the Fed really think that monetary policy can somehow prevent price rises due to energy costs? I hope not. That’s the economic equivalent of fighting windmills.
More likely, the Fed is aware that the economy will slow as energy costs get passed through. And the only way the Fed will be able to ride to the rescue (again) is to have rates higher than they are right now.
Of course, it won’t be Greenspan riding to the rescue. His term ends in January 2006. The new Fed Chief will inherit a healthy dose of imbalances as well as some interest-rate ammunition.
If history is any guide, he or she will be busy from the get-go. The last few Fed changes have been difficult. Arthur Burns became Fed Chairman in 1970 right before the oil crisis. Paul Volcker got the job in 1979 in the midst of runaway inflation. And Greenspan took over two months before the October 1987 crash.
The next Fed Chairman will likely inherit a US economy hampered by high energy prices, slowing consumer spending and stagnant or falling real-estate prices. And I wouldn’t be surprised if there’s a little instability from China thrown into the mix.
With so much focus on energy, there are some very interesting - and potentially profitable - developments right now. This is a topic I will be returning to in the future, so stay tuned!
Sincerely,Briton L. Ryle
Chief Trading Strategist
Money-Flow Matrix Trader
Greenspan is fighting a demon of his own making - risk. Greenspan attempted to redefine the Fed as a risk-manager, charged with shielding the US economy from extreme financial risk. But as any trader, athlete or CEO will tell you, you have to play to win. If you play not to lose, you’re usually stuck with the very outcome you sought to avoid.
In 1996, when the Russian default threatened the global economy, Greenspan’s response was to slash rates in an effort to lessen the effect of bad investments by the likes of mega-hedge fund Long Term Capital Management (LTCM), at a time when the US economy was expanding. The result: stock market bubble.
In 2002 and 2003, the fear of deflation led Greenspan to drop rates to all-time lows. The result: massive real-estate appreciation.
Now, in the face of a slowing economy and high energy prices, rates are going up. Greenspan seems intent on choking economic growth to fight inflation.
Here’s the simple fact: you can’t remove risk from an economy. In fact, capitalism openly embraces risk. Successful people are the ones who aren’t afraid to risk it all. Timid people avoid risk. But what do we call those who, like Don Quixote, treat risk avoidance as a mythical struggle between good and evil?
Atlanta Fed President Jack Guyn said the Fed has a way to go before it is done hiking rates. His concern is that high energy costs will get passed on to the consumer.
Umm… costs are already getting passed on to the consumer. Probably US$120 a month for my family, just in gas prices. And once winter gets here, I’ll be throwing an additional US$200 a month on the bonfire.
Does the Fed really think that monetary policy can somehow prevent price rises due to energy costs? I hope not. That’s the economic equivalent of fighting windmills.
More likely, the Fed is aware that the economy will slow as energy costs get passed through. And the only way the Fed will be able to ride to the rescue (again) is to have rates higher than they are right now.
Of course, it won’t be Greenspan riding to the rescue. His term ends in January 2006. The new Fed Chief will inherit a healthy dose of imbalances as well as some interest-rate ammunition.
If history is any guide, he or she will be busy from the get-go. The last few Fed changes have been difficult. Arthur Burns became Fed Chairman in 1970 right before the oil crisis. Paul Volcker got the job in 1979 in the midst of runaway inflation. And Greenspan took over two months before the October 1987 crash.
The next Fed Chairman will likely inherit a US economy hampered by high energy prices, slowing consumer spending and stagnant or falling real-estate prices. And I wouldn’t be surprised if there’s a little instability from China thrown into the mix.
With so much focus on energy, there are some very interesting - and potentially profitable - developments right now. This is a topic I will be returning to in the future, so stay tuned!
Sincerely,Briton L. Ryle
Chief Trading Strategist
Money-Flow Matrix Trader
Eclipsing the Clinton Wonder Years
Twin deficits. Housing “bubble.” Inflation. Gas prices. 500,000 unemployed. Demise of the dollar. The whine. The gripe. The humanity.
European leftists have their own terminology for describing the current state of economic affairs in the US. The left-leaning German magazine Der Spiegel, for one, drops the phrase “shines with strong growth” in reporting on the most recent GDP data. “Enviably robust” is another description used. “US economic growth,” they continue, “by now has surpassed the 3% mark for ten consecutive quarters. According to the record, this constitutes the longest period with such high rates since 1985/86.”
I did a bit of checking around, but I really couldn’t find a whole lot of American commentators who thought it worth pointing out that the Bush Administration’s economic policy has now eclipsed the Clinton wonder years. You know what I mean: the period of the inflating Internet bubble that people have been trying to sell as the Last Golden Age of American prosperity.
In fact, the White House’s supply-side economics have now pulled even with the level of economic stability achieved during the Reagan years.
US GDP growth in the July through September quarter came in at an annual rate of 3.8%. Consumer spending increased by 3.9%, business spending was up a staggering 8.9%. Less conductive to long-term prosperity, government spending rose 7.7% on the Federal level. Meanwhile, the core inflation rate was 1.3% - down from 1.7% in the previous quarter.
Scanning my archives, I noticed another snippet of data that really didn’t make it into the laundry list of financial talking points. On October 14, the latest figure on the budget deficit for the past fiscal year came in. At US$319 billion, the 2005 fiscal-year deficit amounted to 2.6% of GDP - a whole point below the 3.6% recorded in 2004. Initially, the White House had forecast a 2005 deficit of US$427 billion.
There may have been some sandbagging involved in the original number, but it clearly looks like lower taxes and pro-growth economic policies have not only created millions of jobs but also swelled tax revenues quite impressively over the past year.
As a percentage of GDP, new 2005 debt actually compares very well with that incurred by supposed financial stalwarts such as China (budget deficit - as far as ascertainable - around 5.5% of GDP), Germany (over 3.4%, not counting new debt incurred due to ongoing reunification costs), or Japan (chronic deficits of around 7% of GDP).Something to keep in mind when you hear the remigrés chanting about how terrible we have it here in the States…
J. Christoph Amberger
Executive Publisher
The Taipan Group’s 247profits e-Dispatch Team
European leftists have their own terminology for describing the current state of economic affairs in the US. The left-leaning German magazine Der Spiegel, for one, drops the phrase “shines with strong growth” in reporting on the most recent GDP data. “Enviably robust” is another description used. “US economic growth,” they continue, “by now has surpassed the 3% mark for ten consecutive quarters. According to the record, this constitutes the longest period with such high rates since 1985/86.”
I did a bit of checking around, but I really couldn’t find a whole lot of American commentators who thought it worth pointing out that the Bush Administration’s economic policy has now eclipsed the Clinton wonder years. You know what I mean: the period of the inflating Internet bubble that people have been trying to sell as the Last Golden Age of American prosperity.
In fact, the White House’s supply-side economics have now pulled even with the level of economic stability achieved during the Reagan years.
US GDP growth in the July through September quarter came in at an annual rate of 3.8%. Consumer spending increased by 3.9%, business spending was up a staggering 8.9%. Less conductive to long-term prosperity, government spending rose 7.7% on the Federal level. Meanwhile, the core inflation rate was 1.3% - down from 1.7% in the previous quarter.
Scanning my archives, I noticed another snippet of data that really didn’t make it into the laundry list of financial talking points. On October 14, the latest figure on the budget deficit for the past fiscal year came in. At US$319 billion, the 2005 fiscal-year deficit amounted to 2.6% of GDP - a whole point below the 3.6% recorded in 2004. Initially, the White House had forecast a 2005 deficit of US$427 billion.
There may have been some sandbagging involved in the original number, but it clearly looks like lower taxes and pro-growth economic policies have not only created millions of jobs but also swelled tax revenues quite impressively over the past year.
As a percentage of GDP, new 2005 debt actually compares very well with that incurred by supposed financial stalwarts such as China (budget deficit - as far as ascertainable - around 5.5% of GDP), Germany (over 3.4%, not counting new debt incurred due to ongoing reunification costs), or Japan (chronic deficits of around 7% of GDP).Something to keep in mind when you hear the remigrés chanting about how terrible we have it here in the States…
J. Christoph Amberger
Executive Publisher
The Taipan Group’s 247profits e-Dispatch Team
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)