In the interviews linked below via YouTube it seems that Ron Paul is running for President of the Swiss Confederation (Switzerland being neutral in WWII) rather than President of the United States of America (a member of NATO and of the Allied forces of WWII that defeated the dictators).
Just be friends (which does not to Ron Paul include help defend against a bully) with those countries who want to be our friends and let the rest of the countries of the world nuke it out (hoping we don't get caught in the crossfire or downwind) seems to be his approach to Foreign Policy.
One thing Dr. Paul does not comment on directly in these interviews is the role of the State Department in creating most of the situations where the US sides with dictators. Clean out the State Department rather than totally scrap the security arrangements that have benefited the US over the years would seem to be the conservative road to take.
Case in point: Under a Ron Paul administration, China could attack and incorporate Taiwan without any response by the US, even though US security interests are involved in keeping Taiwan free and independent. And the State Department bureaucrats would probably breath a great big sign of relief that they would no longer have to be Beijing’s lapdogs slapping Taiwan's "authorities" for every move towards reforming their democracy that they try to make (cause you see, there would be no more democracy in Taiwan).
Sunday, December 30, 2007
In the interviews linked below via YouTube it seems that Ron Paul is running for President of the Swiss Confederation (Switzerland being neutral in WWII) rather than President of the United States of America (a member of NATO and of the Allied forces of WWII that defeated the dictators).
Saturday, December 22, 2007
What are some of the political reforms and public policies advocated by socialists and their allies on the road to full socialism?
Consider what a top socialist leader advocated in 1922:
WE DEMAND THAT THE GOVERNMENT UNDERTAKE THE OBLIGATION ABOVE ALL OF PROVIDING CITIZENS WITH ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITIES FOR EMPLOYMENT AND EARNING A LIVING.
THE ACTIVITIES OF THE INDIVIDUAL MUST NOT BE ALLOWED TO CLASH WITH THE INTERESTS OF THE COMMUNITY, BUT MUST TAKE PLACE WITHIN ITS CONFINES AND BE FOR THE GOOD OF ALL ...
WE DEMAND THE NATIONALIZATION OF ALL BUSINESSES WHICH HAVE BEEN AMALGAMATED (INTO TRUSTS).
WE DEMAND THAT THE STATE SHALL SHARE IN THE PROFITS OF LARGE INDUSTRIES.
WE DEMAND THAT PROVISION FOR THE AGED SHALL BE MADE ON A VERY GREATLY INCREASED SCALE.
WE DEMAND A LAND-REFORM SUITABLE TO OUR NATIONAL REQUIREMENTS, THE PASSING OF A LAW FOR THE CONFISCATION OF LAND FOR COMMUNAL PURPOSES; THE ABOLITION OF INTEREST ON MORTGAGES, AND PROHIBITION OF ALL SPECULATION IN LAND.
WE DEMAND AN AGRARIAN REFORM SUITABLE TO OUR NATIONAL REQUIREMENTS; THE ENACTMENT OF A LAW TO EXPROPRIATE WITHOUT COMPENSATION THE OWNERS OF ANY LAND THAT MAY BE NEEDED FOR NATIONAL PURPOSES; THE ABOLITION OF GROUND RENTS; AND THE PROHIBITION OF ALL SPECULATION IN LAND.
...THE STATE SHALL ORGANIZE THOROUGHLY THE WHOLE CULTURAL SYSTEM OF THE NATION . . . THE CONCEPTION OF THE STATE IDEA (THE SCIENCE OF CITIZENSHIP) SHALL BE TAUGHT IN THE SCHOOLS FROM THE VERY BEGINNING. WE DEMAND THAT SPECIALLY TALENTED CHILDREN OF POOR PARENTS, NO MATTER WHAT THEIR STATION OR OCCUPATION, SHALL BE EDUCATED AT THE COST OF THE STATE.
IT IS THE DUTY OF THE STATE TO HELP RAISE THE STANDARD OF THE NATION'S HEALTH BY PROVIDING MATERNITY WELFARE CENTRES, BY PROHIBITING JUVENILE LABOUR, BY INCREASING PHYSICAL FITNESS THROUGH THE INTRODUCTION OF COMPULSORY GAMES AND GYMNASTICS. . . .
(WE) COMBAT THE MATERIALISTIC SPIRIT WITHIN AND OUTSIDE US, AND ARE CONVINCED THAT A PERMANENT RECOVERY OF OUR PEOPLE CAN ONLY PROCEED WITHIN ON THE FOUNDATION OF "THE COMMON GOOD BEFORE THE INDIVIDUAL GOOD."
-- From the "Twenty-Five Point" Programme of the German National Socialist Workers Party, authored by Adolf Hitler and others on February 24, 1920. (Konrad Heiden's translation in A History of National Socialism)
To read more click here.
Even when it comes to illegal immigration. All those who claim "we can't do anything about illegal immigration" are wrong.
Yes, we can -a zero-tolerance policy for border crossers in Laredo has cut border crossings:
A tactic to prosecute first-time illegal border crossers has cut down illicit crossings in the Laredo sector by as much as 36 percent, Customs and Border Protection said Friday.
"Word is spreading quickly that illegal entry has its consequences," Carlos X. Carrillo, chief patrol agent for the CBP Laredo sector, said in a news release touting the sector's first 45 days of Operation Streamline.
The zero-tolerance program drew national attention to Del Rio when courtrooms overflowed with immigrants who formerly would have been released at the border or given a notice to appear in court. Instead many never reappeared in court.
But the Border Patrol credited the program with deterring illegal immigration, which they said frees agents to spend more time intercepting smuggled drugs.
Statistics showed apprehensions in Del Rio dropped more than a third in the year since the program was implemented in December 2005. Marijuana seizures meanwhile jumped 125 percent and cocaine seizures spiked 3,828 percent.
The program was expanded a year later to the Border Patrol's Yuma, Ariz., sector, where apprehensions dropped 70 percent in the first eight months.
Streamline-Laredo began Oct. 31. Since then, anyone found coming into the U.S. illegally has been arrested, taken to court and subjected to penalties including fines and up to six months in prison. Between Oct. 31 and Dec. 15, 1,058 undocumented immigrants were prosecuted, with judges ordering jail sentences ranging from 10 days to six months.
Wednesday, December 19, 2007
Where is the GOP?
Yesterday, Democrat Dan Barrett beat Republican Mark Shelton in a race for Texas House to fill the seat vacated by Republican Anna Mowery. The results of the runoff in State House District 97 (Fort Worth) are telling of three things, none of which are good for conservatives. While many blogs today say that this election is a referendum on Texas Speaker Tom Craddick, I believe this election continues the recent trend that spells problems in 2008 for Republicans.
The first thing I notice is that the Democrats ran only one candidate in this special election. Republicans fielded multiple candidates and splintered over the issues while the Democrats played their cards carefully and chose one candidate that could articulately hold to the platform of the Democratic Party. While Republicans divided, Democrats united. This is a page out of the Republican playbook from 1960 when John Tower defeated a multitude of Democrats for US Senator when Lyndon Johnson became Vice President.
The second trend I noticed is that many counties that used to be strongholds for Republicans and were redistricted for a Republican to win are now falling to Democrats. This is true of many Texas House districts, including three in Austin (47, 48, 50), two in Fort Worth (93, 97), one in Dallas (107), and one in Houston (149). Let’s also not forget the Dallas Massacre in 2006 in which Republicans lost nearly every seat on election day. There are many other districts in these areas in 2006 in which the Republican saw stiff competition from a Democrat challenger. What most of these candidates have in common is their relative youth as most of the Democrat challengers are under the age of 40. These younger candidates appeal to the younger voters in the districts that are undergoing urban gentrification. The candidates that appeal to the “Yuppies” are young, articulate Democrats who speak on the issues that resonate with the younger crowd.
The third thing I notice also revolves around youth, but not the youth of the respective candidates. The officers and leaders of the local Republican parties are generally old. This is not to knock the service and leadership that these individuals have given to the Republican Party over the last three decades, but the younger people moving into the neighborhoods find it hard to relate to a person who was actively campaigning for Ronald Reagan in 1976. The GOP leadership is getting older and in many ways, complacent. The upper echelon of the GOP is more concerned about fundraising than grassroots efforts which are allowing Democrats to win more contested races.
There is still time to reverse this trend in time for the 2008 general election, but it takes time and commitment from our Republican leaders to involve themselves in true grassroots efforts. As it stands today, a reader can find a grassroots training manual on the Texas Democrats website but not on the Texas GOP website. Young Democrats have found a way to effectively communicate their message through blogs and websites while Republicans are still trying to determine if DSL is a better investment than a phone modem (sarcasm). The GOP must utilize a true grassroots effort, like the one implemented in the 1970’s in Texas, to make sure our conservative values are represented in our elected leadership after the next election. It starts in the 2008 primary.
Posted by Randy A. Samuelson at 9:01 PM
Tuesday, December 18, 2007
One of the biggest issues we will hear about in the 2008 election cycle is the “Global Climate Change Crisis!” Extremist liberals have labeled the threat of global warming as their “crisis of the year.” The buzz over this crisis is so great that even government bureaucracies are asking their own scientists to propose projects to study the impact of global climate change. Once again, liberals have found another avenue to create additional bureaucracy and regulation to control the lives of American citizens.
The liberal elite have in innate distrust of American businesses to act responsibly and to adjust to markets. With respect to the “global climate change crisis,” the liberals are working towards regulating businesses, individuals, and industries that liberals perceive as a threat to the environment. In reality, they are looking to regulate businesses, individuals, and industries that do not follow the liberal agenda of the socialist utopian society. The global climate change crisis is spurred on by foreign countries in an effort to level the playing international playing field by taking the US economy down a notch.
Americans have a keen interest in preserving our environment for future generations and for be good stewards of our natural resources. Liberals have caused a stir among mainstream Americans by using their age old tactic of driving a wedge between the average American and businesses. But if you look at the policies that the liberals entertain to solve this “crisis,” the solution will be worse than the current situation.
Increasing government regulations on emissions only costs taxpayers more money. It also takes money out of the hands of the corporations that hire the best and brightest engineers and entrepreneurs to create new technology to allow the market and individuals making decisions to pursue a clean environment. Higher taxes and more regulation only hurt the American consumer by driving the cost of products up and by putting the services into the hands of largely incompetent bureaucrats.
By having an incentive-laden market, in which people are financially rewarded for their ingenuity and service, we can achieve the solutions that we need to spur technology forward to use fewer natural resources and to be better stewards of the resources available. Government bureaucrats have never come up with these environmental solutions, yet through the policies proposed by the liberal elite, only the government will be around to determine the regulations. By lifting environmental regulations, lowering taxes, and reducing the size of bureaucracies, we can allow our markets and our brightest individuals to determine our solutions instead of disgruntled bureaucrats.
Posted by Randy A. Samuelson at 9:09 PM
Friday, December 14, 2007
Perhaps China and Vietnam are really planning to morph themselves into a Southeast Asian Union (SEAU) and use their new superhighway network to bring cheap American products to market throughout the SEAU after we have economically collapsed from China dumping it's US dollar dominated securities and turning to the Euro (and ultimately to the People's Currency, the Renminbi) as hard currency, leaving the United States as a redeveloping country that has become the world's factory (from which the world imports cheap goods and to which it exports pollution). What a reversal of fortune and pay back for the 19th Century exploitation of China by the west that would be! Don't laugh, it might just happen if the US does not reverse course.
In the mean time, I know where China and Vietnam can get some cheap transportation consultants. There may be a number of unemployed or soon to be unemployed transportation consultants here in Texas who will become victims of that great sucking sound of $1.4 billion being siphoned back by Washington (in Indian giving fashion) and of a lack of political will by Texas politicians to take the road less traveled--to do what it takes to meet our own state's Transportation needs in spite of the perceived short-term political fallout.
December 14, 2007
For China and Vietnam, a Highway Link Means Speedy Growth
HONG KONG — On a frontier where Vietnamese and Chinese soldiers exchanged bullets in a short but bloody war nearly three decades ago, construction workers from the two countries will soon join forces to build a highway that promises to bring new wealth to their once heavily guarded border regions.
Plans for a four-lane highway from Hanoi to Kunming cleared the last hurdle on Friday when the board of the Asian Development Bank gave the green light to a loan that will underwrite the Vietnamese side of the project.
By 2012, when the highway is supposed to be completed, a journey that now takes three days by truck could take just nine hours. Goods made in China’s Yunnan Province would have quick access to the Vietnamese seaport of Haiphong, and Vietnamese exporters should be able to reach untapped markets in China.
“Both countries are reaping the fruits of peace and cooperation,” said Ayumi Konishi, the Asian Development Bank’s country director in Vietnam. “In one generation, they have moved from tanks and troops to trade and tourism.”
In a meeting Friday in Manila, the bank’s board approved its biggest single-project loan — $1.1 billion — to finance the start of work next year on a 152-mile stretch of the highway from Hanoi to Lao Cai on the border, the bank said in a statement. The Vietnamese government is contributing $100 million to the low-interest loan.
The construction is to add a section to the ambitious Asian Highway program under which 27 Asian countries have pledged to build an 87,000-mile network of roads that meet minimum uniform standards.
The Vietnamese section of the project is to be designated Asian Highway No. 14. It is to link to a highway under construction on the Chinese side of the border at Lao Cai. That area had some of the fiercest fighting in the brief war of 1979, in which the governments of Vietnam and China tested each other’s mettle in a contest for strategic influence in Southeast Asia.
Both are now vastly more interested in markets than in strategic jostling. The highway is one of several projects integrating the economies of northern Vietnam and southern China. It is seen by government and Asian Development Bank officials as a vital spur to the region’s growth, particularly lifting the pace of development in the four poorest provinces of Vietnam.
“I think the integration will be of mutual benefit,” Ho Quang Minh, a director general in Vietnam’s Ministry of Planning and Investment, said in a telephone interview from Hanoi. “Southern China is a very big potential market, not just for Vietnam, but for other countries. On the other hand, China can utilize the seaport facilities in northern Vietnam and obtain a shortcut to other countries of Southeast Asia.”
The Vietnamese government has placed a high priority on the development of its northern provinces. The four provinces the highway will cross have poverty rates of up to 34 percent, compared with a national average of 20 percent. The construction of the highway is expected to cut poverty rates significantly.
But that progress will come at some social cost. The road will require the demolition of about 1,900 homes and force the resettlement of some 25,000 people.
Thursday, December 13, 2007
An Arkansas conservative explains Huckabee's Republican paradox. It has lots of nitty-gritty ugly stuff on Huckabee the tax-and-spend RINO and his betrayal of the trust of conservatives in Arkansas:
His record in Arkansas reveals that he despises conservatives and their principles on taxation, spending, and illegal immigration. According to Arkansas Eagle Forum President Betsy Hagan and former Republican state senator Peggy Jeffries, once he gained power in the Governor’s office with the support of the conservatives, he alienated his conservative based, and at one point referred to them as the Shiites in the Republican Party. Hagan was a key backer and number one fan of Huckabee’s early political career. But to her dismay, Huckabee did not practice what he preached. "He was pro-life and pro-gun, but otherwise a liberal," she says. "Just like Bill Clinton, he will charm you, but don't be surprised if he takes a completely different turn in office."2 It is little wonder that Huckabee’s strongest opponents are in the ranks of Arkansas conservatives. He may have fooled them once, but they will not be fooled again. And they do not want their fellow conservatives to be fooled.
Phyllis Schlafly, president of the national Eagle Forum, is even more blunt. "He destroyed the conservative movement in Arkansas, and left the Republican Party a shambles," she says.2
... Arkansas conservatives know Huckabee. They have “been there, done that.” He turned on them and betrayed their trust and their confidence. They put him in office, and once there, he not only abandoned them, he attacked them referring to them as the Shiites of the party.
The article cites the tax-and-spend actions of Huckabee, how he undercut anti-tax Republicans, his "F" grade on immigration, his pardon and clemency spree, and his general anti-business rhetoric and lack of understanding of free-market principles. Conclusion - "Huckabee says that he is a paradox among Republicans, his message is loud and clear: "I am not a conservative!""
Friday, Dec 14, 2007, Page 8
BY NOW, EVERYONE has heard about the Chinese government's refusal to allow the USS Kitty Hawk battle group and its crew of 8,000 to make a port call in Hong Kong for Thanksgiving -- as well as China's supposed reversal of the decision on "humanitarian" grounds after the flotilla had already steamed out to sea. We now know the Chinese reversed their decision when they tracked the USS Kitty Hawk's battle group sailing back to Japan through the Taiwan Strait. So much for China's "humanitarian" concerns.
Beijing's foreign minister initially told US President George W. Bush the incident was a "misunderstanding," but his own ministry insisted the following day that there was no such "misunderstanding."
Instead, the Chinese said the decision was in retaliation for the Bush administration's decision to approve a US$1 billion upgrade to Taiwan's missile defense system and Congress' presenting the Dalai Lama with the Congressional Gold Medal.
This provocative move by Beijing should come as a surprise to no one. After all, the US relationship with China has long been one of "give and take" -- the US gives, and China takes. Each time the US makes an accommodation, Beijing sees only weakness and becomes more aggressive -- which in turn prompts the US State Department to offer yet more concessions.
Since late 2003, the Bush administration has bent over backwards to appease China; President Bush publicly denounced President Chen Shui-bian (
State Department officials have also refused to allow Chen to transit through continental US en route to Latin America. In August, Bush dispatched US Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte to parrot the language of China's "Anti-Secession" Law and criticize an upcoming referendum in Taiwan -- on a Chinese television station.
And most recently, the Bush administration inexplicably refused to act on Taiwan's request for F-16s -- despite the fact that the White House has spent the last five years criticizing the Taiwanese government for failing to make sufficient investment in defense.
And for all of this pandering, what has the Bush administration gained?
Half-hearted Chinese cooperation in the "Six Party Talks," Chinese obstruction in the human tragedy unfolding in Sudan, renewed Chinese threats of military action against Taiwan, and now the brazen and public humiliation of the US in barring the USS Kitty Hawk from Hong Kong's harbor.
And China, certainly no help in encouraging transparency in Tehran's nuclear ambitions, is now using the latest National Intelligence Estimate on Iran as a rationale for pressuring the US, the Europeans and the International Atomic Energy Agency to ease off on demands for access to what is still a very troubling ongoing uranium enrichment program.
Since 1979, when the US recognized China, the US has repeatedly attempted to use Taiwan as a bargaining chip in an effort to establish some kind of quid pro quo with the Chinese.
Aside from the moral shortcomings inherent in this duplicitous policy -- the approach simply hasn't worked -- numerous US "quids" over the years have never produced any meaningful Chinese "quo."
Late last month, for example, a Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman responded to a question about whether Beijing would support additional UN measures to curb Iranian nuclear enrichment efforts if the US scaled back arms sales to Taiwan. The spokesman responded by saying that China would "never trade its sovereignty or principle" on the matter.
The US relationship with Taiwan isn't the only thing that has suffered as a result of our hopeless policy of appeasement vis-a-vis China.
It highlights a glaring hypocrisy in US foreign policy, undermines our international image, emboldens our enemies and enhances the credibility of our detractors like China.
The Bush administration's practice of trying to limit Taiwan's democratic development and diplomatic space in return for China's illusory "cooperation" on North Korea, Myanmar, Iran or Sudan sends the message that the US is ceding Asia to China's hegemony.
A poll conducted earlier this month found that a plurality of Europeans now believe that China will replace the US as the dominant world power by 2020. Unless the US becomes more forceful in standing up for its principles and asserting its interests, this alarming perception could very likely become a reality.
If the US wants to reverse this dangerous trend it must start by changing its antiquated China policy.
The "one China" road the US started down in the 1970s has failed to resolve the "Taiwan Problem" or yield any tangible benefits for the US.
It is time the US rejected this anachronistic and ineffective policy in favor of a more honest and defensible "two-state solution" that extends full diplomatic recognition to both Taiwan and China.
Such a move would have a number of advantages -- beyond just providing US sailors with a friendly Taiwanese port in which to spend Thanksgiving with their families next year.
Establishing normal diplomatic ties with democratic Taiwan would also remedy a nagging inconsistency in US foreign policy. And -- as dual recognition did with East and West Germany -- might also open the door for an even-handed dialogue between the two sides, providing a real opportunity for Beijing and Taipei to resolve their differences peacefully -- whatever that resolution might be.
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
Security Guard: 'God Guided Me And Protected Me'
Jeanne Assam Stopped Gunman At New Life Church
Thomas Hendrick, News Editor December 10, 2007
COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo. -- Jeanne Assam appeared before the news media for the first time Monday and said she "did not think for a minute to run away" when a gunman entered the New Life Church in Colorado Springs and started shooting.
There was applause as Assam spoke to reporters and TV cameras saying, "God guided me and protected me."
New Life's Senior Pastor Brady Boyd called Assam "a real hero" because Murray "had enough ammunition on him to cause a lot of damage."
When asked by a reporter if she felt like a hero, Assam said, "I wasn't just going to wait for him to do further damage."
"I give credit to God," she said.
Assam described how the gunman, Matthew Murray, entered the east entrance of the church firing his rifle.
"There was chaos," Assam said, as parishioners ran away, "I will never forget the gunshots. They were so loud."
"I saw him coming through the doors" and took cover, Assam said. "I came out of cover and identified myself and engaged him and took him down."
"God was with me," Assam said. "I didn't think for a minute to run away."
Assam said she believes God gave her the strength to confront Murray, keeping her calm and focused even though he appeared to be twice her size and was more heavily armed.
Murray was carrying two handguns, an assault rifle and over 1,000 rounds of ammunition, said Sgt. Jeff Johnson of the Colorado Springs Police Department.
"It seemed like it was me, the gunman and God," she said.
Assam worked as a police officer in downtown Minneapolis during the 1990s and is licensed to carry a weapon. She attends one of the morning services and then volunteers as a guard during another service.
Boyd said Assam was the one who suggested the church beef up its security Sunday following the Arvada shooting, which it did. The pastor credited the security plan and the extra security for preventing further bloodshed.
Boyd said there are 15 to 20 security people at the church. All are volunteers but the only ones armed are those who are licensed to carry weapons.
The security guards are members of the church who are screened and not "mercenaries that we hire to walk around our campus to provide security," Boyd said.
About 7,000 people were on the church campus at the time of the shooting, said Boyd.
Two of the parishioners killed in the shooting were identified Monday as sisters Stephanie Works, 18, and Rachael Works, 16. Their father, David Works, 51, suffered two gunshot wounds -- one to the abdomen and one to the groin -- and was listed in fair condition on Monday. They were shot in the parking lot as they were getting into their van.
"Our concern is for our family that lost two teenage daughters. Our hearts are grieving," said Boyd. "You can imagine, as parents, losing two children while coming to church, just showing up for a worship service, not bothering anyone."
Boyd said Assam's actions saved the lives of 50 to 100 people.
Assam said she was ending three days of fasting on Sunday when fate put her in the path of the gunman.
"I was praying to God that he direct me" in what to do in life, Assam said. "God made me strong."
Posted by carl at 1:44 PM
Saturday, December 8, 2007
Selected videos from that site (linked below) show how American immigration lawyers are training employers to use our broken immigration system to sell off America one job at a time (1000s of jobs per week). If you only have time to watch one or two of the videos linked below choose from among those followed by "(*)":
H-1B Replacement Visas
Exemptions to the H-1B Visa Cap
Alternatives to H-1B Visas
Legally Pay Less (*)
Rejecting All American Applicants (*)
More on Rejecting Americans (*)
Skipping Labor Certifications (*)
Politics and Changing the Law (*)
Mike Huckabee had a disturbing record in Arkansas of having a soft spot for some vicious criminals and letting them go. The Wayne Dumond case has become a famous one. Huckabee publicly urged convicted rapist Dumond be freed, he lobbied the parole board to release him, which they did ... and then the freed rapist DuMond went on to rape and kill two women in Missouri. His words of support for Wayne DuMond may well become the epitaph for Huckabee's currently surging campaign:
‘DEAR WAYNE’: GOP presidential hopeful Mick Huckabee wrote to Wayne DuMond. “My desire is that you be released from prison,” the governor wrote. “I feel now that parole is the best way."
Parole officials insist Huckabee pushed for DuMond's release while Huckabee has tried to discount and cover up his role as this story has come to light.
What is less well known and truly disturbing is that Huckabee's clemency for Dumond was not an exception, but only one of many questionable cases where Huckabee personally intervened to free criminals. Huckabee was a violent felon commutation and pardon machine, issuing more commutations than all the bordering states combined, including this - "Huckabee has commuted the sentences of a dozen murderers."
One particularly guesome case is his freeing vicious murderer Glen Green. An Arkansas newpaper reports:
Gov. Huckabee probably never read the confession of a demented killer named Glen Green before he made the monster eligible for parole. Green's confession is so depraved, its sadistic details so scary that no sane, responsible adult would consider him for parole.
If the governor didn't read the confession, he is guilty of dereliction of duty. But if he read the confession and still considers Green deserving of parole, he's certainly unfit to hold office. Who would free a madman who beat an 18-year-old woman with Chinese martial-arts sticks, raped her as she barely clung to life, ran over her with his car, then dumped her in the bayou, her hand reaching up, as if begging for mercy?
In usual fashion, Huckabee's office didn't even contact the victim's family about the clemency.
Although he's required to by the Constitution, the governor, as is his custom, won't say why he granted clemency to this crazed killer (over the unanimous objections of the Post-Prison Transfer Board).
I am aghast.
Now, consider Huckabee's belief that we need to stop waterboarding and close the Gitmo terrorist prison in the context of these questionable clemencies. Will he be as soft on the terrorists as he was on convicted violent criminals in Arkansas? I fear so. He's not fit to be President with such a soft approach to those who kill others.
It seems that the gay General Keith Kerr, the Clinton plant at the Republican debate, was not in fact ever an active-service Brigadier General and served only in the reserves.
From retired Brigadier General William Becker:
IN SPITE OF MY CURRENT DISTRACTIONS AT HOME I AM FORCED TO ENTER THE PUBLIC ARENA TO EXPRESS MY OUTRAGE AT THE CURRENT REPUBLICAN DEBATE AS MANAGED BY CNN. GAY KEITH IS NOT A BRIGADIER GENERAL. HE IS NOT EVEN AN ACTIVE DUTY RETIRED ARMY OFFICER. HE SPENT HIS YEARS AS A RESERVIST SOLELY IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA MILITARY BUREAUCRACY. HIS BIO IS PUBLISHED IN THE GAY ORGANIZATION DEDICATED TO VOIDING THE "DON'T ASK DON'T TELL" POLICY.
FOR DETAILS. YOU MUST NOTE THAT KERR WAS RETIRED FROM THE INACTIVE ARMY RESERVES IN THE GRADE OF COLONEL. WITH THE EXCEPTION OF A FEW YEARS SERVED ON ACTIVE DUTY AS A LIEUTENANT HIS ENTIRE SERVICE WAS IN THE RESERVES IN CALIFORNIA. HE WAS PLACED IN RETIRED RESERVE STATUS WITH THE CALIFORNIA NATIONAL GUARD RESERVES AND PROMOTED TO BRIGADIER GENERAL IN THAT FEDERALLY UNRECOGNIZED STATUS.
THIS IS CONSIDERED AN "HONORARY" TITLE SIMILAR TO THE PHD AWARDED BY UNIVERSITIES AS HONORARIUM. WE WOULD NEVER REFER TO SUCH AWARDEES AS "DOCTOR". IT IS ALSO NOTEWORTHY THAT HE WAS A GRADUATE OF UC BERKELEY AND SERVED AS AN INSTRUCTOR IN ACADEMIA. HE HAS NO COMBAT EXPERIENCE DURING HIS 43 YEARS OF "SERVICE" AND IT IS A DISGRACE FOR HIM TO BE ASSOCIATED BY THE MEDIA WITH THE ACTIVE DUTY MILITARY!!!!
THANKS FOR LISTENING TO THE VOICE OF WRATH OF THIS OLD MILITARY AVIATOR. BRIGADIER GENERAL BILL BECKER UNITED STATES AIR FORCE, RETIRED COMBAT VETERAN WWII, KOREA, VIETNAM
Posted by Freedom's Truth at 11:04 AM
Friday, December 7, 2007
CONTACT: Gary Becks (619) 334-1655, email@example.com
San Diego, CA – Presidential candidate and U.S. Congressman Duncan Hunter (R-CA) took the opportunity today to respond to a question posed to candidates at the CNN-YouTube Republican Presidential debate that occurred last week that he did not have an opportunity to answer. Holding a Bible, Joseph Dearing from Dallas, Texas, asked the candidates, “Do you believe every word of this book? Specifically, this book that I am holding in my hand, do you believe this book?” Congressman Hunter has sent Mr. Dearing the following letter in answer to his question:
December 3, 2007
Dear Mr. Dearing:
At last week’s CNN-You Tube debate, you asked the question of all of us “Do you believe in every word of this book?” meaning the Bible. As you know, the moderator called on my fellow candidates Governor Romney, Mayor Giuliani and Governor Huckabee to answer, but I myself was not given an opportunity. Allow me to respond directly to your question now. Do I believe every word of the Bible? Yes, by faith.
I find the center of the Bible to be these words: “For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son that whosoever believes in him should not perish but have everlasting life,” John 3:16. If you believe in this promise, which so obviously is not scientifically provable, then is there any other event in the Bible that God’s hand cannot accomplish?
On June 28, 1787, at the Constitution Convention when the delegates appeared to be hopelessly deadlocked, old Ben Franklin made a speech, the central sentence being the following: “The longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth: that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid?”
Following this statement, Franklin made a request resulting in the delegates approving a motion by James Madison to open every session with a prayer. The U.S. Constitution was thus born and this document, which delivers to every American the freedoms we enjoy, was produced by men of great faith and who very strongly believed in the Bible. Our further freedoms have been defended by American soldiers, 619,000 of whom were killed in battle during the last century, and a vast majority I feel believed the Bible.
I am sending you a book which I hope you will find instructive and persuasive, “A Third Testament” by Malcolm Muggeridge, chronicling the lives of great intellectuals in history who became followers of Christ and who believed in the Bible.
When I am asked by those who pride themselves on the reliance on provable scientific facts regarding the validity of the scriptures, I answer with one such set of facts. There are an infinite number of atoms on the head of a pin, each of which are circled by electrons. Who placed those electrons there? I hope their attempt to answer this question helps them to understand my three-word answer to your original question. Do I believe every word of the Bible? Yes, by faith.
Thank you again Mr. Dearing for your question.
Sincerely, Duncan Hunter.
The best speech of the political season so far - Mitt Romney's faith in America speech - is an impressive testimony to the importance of both religious liberty and our religious faith and heritage. Well worth reading and/or watching. Some excerpts:
"As a young man, Lincoln described what he called America's 'political religion' – the commitment to defend the rule of law and the Constitution. When I place my hand on the Bible and take the oath of office, that oath becomes my highest promise to God. If I am fortunate to become your President, I will serve no one religion, no one group, no one cause, and no one interest. A President must serve only the common cause of the people of the United States.
"We separate church and state affairs in this country, and for good reason. No religion should dictate to the state nor should the state interfere with the free practice of religion. But in recent years, the notion of the separation of church and state has been taken by some well beyond its original meaning. They seek to remove from the public domain any acknowledgment of God. Religion is seen as merely a private affair with no place in public life. It is as if they are intent on establishing a new religion in America – the religion of secularism. They are wrong.
"The founders proscribed the establishment of a state religion, but they did not countenance the elimination of religion from the public square. We are a nation 'Under God' and in God, we do indeed trust.
"We should acknowledge the Creator as did the Founders – in ceremony and word. He should remain on our currency, in our pledge, in the teaching of our history, and during the holiday season, nativity scenes and menorahs should be welcome in our public places. Our greatness would not long endure without judges who respect the foundation of faith upon which our constitution rests. I will take care to separate the affairs of government from any religion, but I will not separate us from 'the God who gave us liberty.'
"Nor would I separate us from our religious heritage.
"Recall the early days of the First Continental Congress in Philadelphia, during the fall of 1774. With Boston occupied by British troops, there were rumors of imminent hostilities and fears of an impending war. In this time of peril, someone suggested that they pray. But there were objections. 'They were too divided in religious sentiments', what with Episcopalians and Quakers, Anabaptists and Congregationalists, Presbyterians and Catholics.
"Then Sam Adams rose, and said he would hear a prayer from anyone of piety and good character, as long as they were a patriot.
"And so together they prayed, and together they fought, and together, by the grace of God ... they founded this great nation.
"In that spirit, let us give thanks to the divine 'author of liberty.' And together, let us pray that this land may always be blessed, 'with freedom's holy light.'
"God bless the United States of America."
Tuesday, December 4, 2007
Suddenly, the shrieking and frightening prospect of a Hillary Presidency does not loom as large. Hillary's numbers are crashing nationally and in Iowa, and we may see an upset there that could end the 'aura of inevitability' around her candidacy.
USA Today has the polling results, and they look even worse for Hillary. In 16 days, she dropped nine points overall. Obama, Edwards, Richardson, and Biden split Hillary's castoffs almost equally. She dropped eleven points in a month. Her negatives have gone from 44% in October to 50%, and now has a favorability deficit of -3, the worst since the beginning of summer.
We are just loving the hurt that Hillary's flying monkey minions are going through.
Sunday, December 2, 2007
Thursday, November 29, 2007
Bin Laden Latest Message: Al Qaeda Giving Up on Iraq and Focusing on Afghanistan. And still no sign of recognition of our victory in the media or the Democrats. Sen Reid still hasn't backtracked from his defeatist nonsense earlier this year.
UPDATE 12/4: Bill Roggio reports: Senior Syrian al Qaeda leader confirmed killed - "Abu Maysara killed during raid near Samarra."
Reuters reports: "Forty senior al Qaeda in Iraq members were either captured or killed in November, including a senior adviser to the Sunni Islamist group's leader, the U.S. military said on Tuesday. Violence levels in Iraq have fallen to their lowest levels since January 2006"
More proof that Al Qaeda in Iraq concedes defeat - Freeper jveritas translates the latest Al Qaeda in Iraq missive:
In his speech released yesterday Abou Omar Al Baghdadi the supposed leader of the Islamic State in Iraq which is Al Qaeda in Iraq said that only two hundered Mohajeroon are left in Iraq. Mohajeroon which means immigrants in Arabic are the foreign terrorists who came to fight in Iraq. This is yet the most stunning admission by Al Qaeda in Iraq that they are totally destroyed and from the tens of thousands of foreign terrorists they had, almost all of them are killed and captured and only two hundreds are left.
HOW WE WON - the surge of US support, trained Iraqi forces coming up to speed, and locals turning against insurgents is what has turned the tide and made the pacification of Iraq only a matter of time:
Fallujah was once the backbone of the insurgency. Today, as First Lt. Barry Edwards put it, "They avoid Fallujah now like it's the plague. ... They're afraid of the Iraqis."
"Security is good now because the coalition, Iraqi Army, and Iraqi police all work together," said an Iraqi fruit stand owner. "One hand does not clap."
Another Iraqi who works as a money changer told me, "They are finished. It will be a shame on all of us if the terrorists ever come back."
The Clinton New Network is up to their old tricks. A few weeks after CNN planted a Democrat debate with left-wing activists to help Hillary, we find out that CNN planted the GOP debate with left-wing activists.
Michelle Malkin did the digging, and got "declared Edwards supporter (and a slobbering Anderson Cooper fan); ... declared Obama supporter; ... prominent union activist for the Edwards-endorsing United Steelworkers. ... Muslim questioner was a former CAIR intern. ... " And RedState notes that one questioner is on: "LGBT Americans for Hillary Steering Committee and co-chair on Hillary's National Military Veterans group. He also was an active John Kerry supporter in 2004." Powerline adds: "Adam Florzak asked a question on Social Security. It turns out that Florzak quit his job with Caterpillar to work with Dick Durbin on Social Security reform. Then there was Mark Strauss, who pleaded with Ron Paul to run as an Independent. It turns out he's a Richardson supporter (more here)."
So a Republican primary debate infested with liberal-leaning questioners.
CNN's lame response:
My response: Well, then, they blew it by stacking a Democratic debate with a gaggle of questions from hard-core committed liberal Democratic activists. They got thousands of videos, and picked these, clearly showing their bias and cluelessness and complete inability to open the process to real Republican voters who will decide the Republican nomination.
"The whole point of these ground-breaking CNN/YouTube debates is to focus on substantive questions of concern to real people and to throw open the process to a wider range of Americans all around the country.
Yet the GOP candidates didn't do so badly. But it would be nice to live in an America with No liberal Media Bias and conservative questions and viewpoints aired more fairly in the 'mainstream' media.
Wednesday, November 28, 2007
GOP Presidential candidate Mike Huckabee is surging on conservative claims that don't fully check out - he is a pro-life, pro-gun, populist ... tax-and-spend Nanny-stater. Pity. We seem to have a gaggle of awe-insiring almost-maybe-partly-notreally-conservative Republicans running for President, and a few real conservatives getting 1%. Huckabee hit hard by Club for Growth's Pat Toomey:
... here is a quick summary of Huckabee’s worst hits. According to the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, the average Arkansas tax burden increased 47% over Huckabee’s tenure. Huckabee supported (in chronological order) a sales tax hike; gas and diesel fuel tax hikes; another sales tax hike; a cigarette tax hike; a nursing home bed tax; another sales tax hike; an income surcharge tax; a tobacco tax hike; taxes on Internet access; and higher beer taxes. Huckabee also oversaw a 50-percent increase in spending; happily signed a minimum wage increase and encouraged national Republicans to do the same; favors a national smoking ban, farm subsidies, and a federally mandated arts and music curriculum; opposes private school choice; and employs class-warfare and protectionist language on the campaign trail. Huckabee calls himself an economic conservative in the mold of Ronald Reagan, but the above list doesn’t sound like either.
This is important news for people in Williamson County. For 16 years, Round Rock, Cedar Park, and Taylor have been represented by Mike Krusee. Even though Rep Krusee has not been the most popular State Rep over the last 4 years due to the construction of the toll ways, he has worked hard on transportation and education issues that are important to Williamson County.
As of this morning, no Republicans have announced their intention to fill the void for this State Rep seat. This will be a critical race as Travis County Democrats and tax-and-spend Republicans both desire this seat, so it is not a guarantee that this seat will remain in the hands of a conservative Republican. This race will be pivotal in determining the transportation strategy for the Central Texas area as well as environmental and education issues for the region.
Stay tuned for the list of candidates who will file for this seat.
Posted by Randy A. Samuelson at 5:52 AM
Tuesday, November 27, 2007
Is there a risk of recession? Yes, mainly because a Democratic Congress is in session and with their meddling they have a dangerous tendency to make a bad situation worse. For the credit crunch, their 'cure' for housing foreclosures is to forbid banks from making 'bad' loans: Meaning no more loans to risky borrowers. So who will refinance the variable rate loans these risky borrowers have today?
A comment from the folks at bondstreetcapital.com, who are commercial lenders:
The House passes a mortgage regulation bill. What does it mean to the commercial sector?
The newspapers are providing us with a daily dose of bad news on the housing front. We read about foreclosures, lender bankruptcies, and the usual pronouncements from our government leaders that they will bring an end to the problems by more regulation.
This column is not nearly long enough to explore all of the ramifications of this crisis. But I for one am very, very nervous about the bill that has just passed the House of Representatives regulating residential lending.
Why should I, a commercial lender, be concerned about these regulations? I believe that certain provisions within this bill (H.R. 3915) are going to cause capital to pull out of the home loan business even more than it already has, and what follows will be a credit crunch that will make the current environment look benign.
A prolonged housing crunch will send us tumbling toward a deep recession which will severely impact commercial properties as businesses fail and investors, even in the commercial arena, stop lending.
This bill, if passed in its current form by the Senate and signed by the President (who has threatened a veto,) will effectively end sub-prime lending. The very people that the bill is designed to protect will find out that no one will lend to the marginal borrower.
If there is no money for housing, how many related industries will be decimated? Look at the devastation to collateral industries already: escrows; the construction trades,; and the myriad of businesses that rely on new home sales that have already been adversely affected.
With further restrictions on the availability of funds, a recession will follow and commercial real estate lending will be hurt in the process. I am very, very nervous about this knee jerk reaction by congress. You don’t cure a leg wound by chopping off both legs at the knee.
Contact your Congressional Representatives and educate them on the impact of this bill.
Posted by Freedom's Truth at 9:43 PM
Thursday, November 22, 2007
Thursday, Nov 22, 2007, Page 8
The US-China Economic and Security Review Commission (USCC) stated in its recent annual report to Congress that Taiwan's defense capabilities completely rely on the US and that Taiwan would not be able to withstand an invasion by the People's Liberation Army were it not for US military assistance.
The US should not forget that Taiwan also plays a crucial part in its US Asia-Pacific strategy.
First of all, Taiwan plays an important role as a "pressure point" on the first island chain.
If the US is able to hold Taiwan, it can exert consistent pressure on China through this pressure point.
Similarly, if China were to obtain control over Taiwan, it could exert military pressure on other countries and extend its navy and air forces east of the first island chain.
Therefore, for China, Taiwan is not only a "province that must be unified with the motherland," but also a strategic position for China to break through the first island chain where the US has long carried out its "war of suffocation."
If the US wishes to contain China behind the first island chain, losing Taiwan means losing the battle.
Second, the RAND Corporation has pointed out that large-scale warfare could possibly break out in the future, but the US doesn't have sufficient military capabilities to engage the Middle East, Southwest Asia, the Taiwan Strait, the South China Sea and South Asia at the same time.
The US has military forces in East Asia deployed in four crucial locations -- Guam, Japan, the Philippines and South Korea. However, if a cross-strait war broke out, it is very likely that China would pressure the Japanese government to withdraw its military bases -- Yokosuka, Kadena and Atsugi -- from US use.
Although Guam is a US territory, the fact that it is more than 1,300 nautical miles (2,407km) away from the Taiwan Strait makes it unsuitable for effective military operations, transportation and supplies.
As for the US troops stationed in the Philippines and South Korea, a cross-strait war is not within the scope of their capabilities because of other responsibilities. Obviously, apart from aircraft carriers, the ideal military base for the US to fight China in the Taiwan Strait is Taiwan.
The USCC is on the right track when it recommends that Congress encourage the administration of US President George W. Bush to continue working with Taiwan to modernize its military and enhance Taiwan's capabilities for operating jointly with US and allied forces. However, the committee's report doesn't support selling Taiwan advanced weapons and military equipment, such as the F-16C/D fighter. So how do they want Taiwan's military to modernize?
What's more, in order to effectively improve the common warfare capabilities between the US and Taiwan, the military equipment of both countries must be on the same level, and direct bilateral joint drills are also necessary. But apparently the US hasn't seriously considered this issue.
If a cross-strait war broke out, how could the US expect to work well with Taiwan militarily?
Although the US knows Taiwan's military significance perfectly well, it has failed to develop a closer relationship with Taiwan on the issues of bases and defensive military deployments.
All in all, the US stance is self-contradictory. Taiwan is the only US ally that can assist in countering China's "anti-access" strategy or in breaking through the first island chain.
Also, Taiwan is willing to develop a special military relationship with the US in the same way that the UK has. It is high time that the US government seriously reviewed the defects of its Asia-Pacific strategy.
Cheng Ta-chen is an independent defense analyst.
Saturday, November 17, 2007
SEN. GRASSLEY’S WITCH HUNT
By Bob Ward
Nov 18, 2007 - Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) has given six
evangelical ministers one month to turnover all their financial
records to the Senate Finance Committee.
The reason for Grassley’s intrusion into the personal finances of
these ministers is that they are what he calls “lavish lifestyles” and
he publicly wonders whether they are using their tax-exempt status to
shield their sumptuous living.
According to media accounts, these gentlemen do live well. There are
reports of private jets, palatial homes and luxurious automobiles
including at least one Rolls-Royce which, the preacher says, does not
belong to him but is the property of the church.
This is a project the senator should promptly abandon. It is not the
business of a U.S. senator or the Federal government to worry about
how any individual spends money that belongs to him. If a minster is
paid an extravagant salary by the ministry he heads up, it is up to
people who manage the ministry, and the donors who support it, to do
something about it – not the United States government. If he is
employers in a way that violates a Federal statute, that is a matter
for the Justice Department, not the Senate Finance Committee.
If Grassley were investigating the organizations the preachers lead,
he would be on firmer ground. There are limits on political activity
and other rules an organization must observe to be considered non-
profit for tax purposes. But in this case, it is personal finances of
the preachers he is targeting – not the activities of the
Is the senator prepared to introduce legislation making it unlawful
for a cleric to become wealthy?
All this, course, is on top of the fundamental irony of a United
States senator carping about someone else’s “lavish life style.” At
least the preachers get their money from people who voluntarily
donate. If the donors don’t like the way their money is used, they
are free to close their checkbooks. The taxpayers who support the
senator’s salary and generous bennies have no such option. The
senator’s money is obtained by force and coercion.
So until the senator himself is ready to subsist on a diet of honey
and locusts, how these individuals spend their own money is none of
And the whole project tacks too close to the First Amendment to be
Saturday, November 10, 2007
Al Gore misrepresents a chart in AIT - claiming it is an ice core reconstruction that 'proves' the "Mann Hockey Stick" reconstruction correct - when in fact the chart is the Mann Hockey Stick itself! Circular logic and a mislabelled chart, nice going, Al. Commenter on CA blog has the last word on it: The trend justifies the means.
Posted by Freedom's Truth at 10:51 PM
Friday, November 9, 2007
AN OFFER THEY’D BETTER NOT REFUSE
By Bob Ward
Nov. 9, 2007 - A couple of city council members in Austin are demonstrating the inherently larcenous nature of government.
Mike Martinez and Betty Dunkerly are proposing to charge taxicabs a $50 annual fee if they have advertising on their cabs.
Placing an ad on an existing taxicab imposes no additional burden on the city – no extra administrative chores, no additional expense. In return for that $50 a year, the city delivers no product, provides no service So why would the city hit up the cab owners with an arbitrary $50 annual fee?
Because it can.
If they don’t pay they will be forcibly denied the opportunity to do business. On the docks in New Jersey, Hoboken and Brooklyn, this is a familiar practice and it has a name. It’s called Extortion. When Italians do
it, it’s considered a crime, when governments do it – and they do it all the time – it’s called revenue generation.
But whatever it’s called the principle is the same – pay up or you will be shut down. And what do you get for your money? You get to exist and earn a living.
Thursday, November 8, 2007
Although Prop 15 won by 60% overall statewide, and won big in Tarrant, Harris (63% support) and the other urban counties, the vote in Travis county was 31,297 for to 30,933 against. In Lance's hometown, the race was a squeaker! What happened? Statesman mentions the puzzlement:
But the county's opposition to cancer research bonds is stumping supporters and opponents of the proposal.I'm not stumped at all that it made a difference. When I went to the polling place a 4x8 sign "Stop the Cancer Tax" was there. In my precinct on election day, there was a whopping 61% NO vote on the proposition, far more negative vote than in early voting, with a total 259 no to 157 yes. My precinct voted yes for all the other propositions.
It could be that a late effort by some Austin-area fiscal conservative groups, opposing the idea of going into debt to fund cancer research, was enough to make the difference in a low-turnout election. Just 8.4 percent of registered voters went to the polls.
That group was Austinite Don Zimmerman's political action committee, Prop15 Families Against Cancer Tax. The group organized late and raised just $3,500, Zimmerman said. But it put up 50 signs in the area and held a news conference and a debate.
Proposition 15 supporters acknowledged that made a difference.
Don Zimmerman helped stop excessive RRISD bonds a few years back and has fought against other taxhiking proposals. This time Don and his group Prop 15 Fact managed to get local media visibility to his opposition via press conferences, and got signs up a few weeks prior to the election. He brought in some of the LP guys like Wes Benedict to do the small-Government advocating that the Republican party leaders wouldn't do.
We noted before the election his website www.Prop15FACT.org, which cross-linked to op eds against the proposition such as our op-ed. Our online guide and op-eds at the Travis Monitor managed to get several thousands hits in the runup to the election. Travis county bucked the trend because of the efforts of Don Zimmerman and his co-activists at Prop 15 Fact. Well done.
Dallas Morning News has an article on a study that, according to the article, says "Abstinence-only programs aren't certain to curb teen sex". Drill down on the study and you find that the 'comprehensive' programs are touted for 'positive outcomes' such as "increasing use of condoms". So a program that tells kids to use condoms leads to more condom use than one that does not, and that makes it better. This is then touted by Planned Parenthood as a reason to strip abstinence sex ed and force 'comprehensive' sex ed funding only.
Kyleen Wright from Texans for Life was quoted in that article and sent out a 'Dear Friend' email to remind us of a few key points:
The Dallas Morning News Reporter who interviewed me for the story in today's paper (see article below) left out some very important facts that I shared with him.Liberals and "sexperts" are using junk science to discredit abstinence while Congress debates abstinence education funding. Unfortunately, the media is largely giving them a pass.It is a fact that teen pregnancy and birth rates (not to mention STD & abortion rates) doubled during the 1980's, when condom/contraceptive promoters reigned in the schools, exploiting AIDS fears. After seeing the devastating numbers in the early 1990's, Texans for Life and others began offering abstinence education in the schools. Since then, the pregnancy and birth rates have fallen every year, so that we have experienced 60-year lows in this decade. As my mom would say, the proof's in the puddin'!Texas, like all border states, has struggled to match reductions in other states, but they are reductions nonetheless. Note that our pregnancy rate is not the highest. Texas, unlike other states, does not attempt to solve the teen pregnancy problem with abortion.In 2003, Texas was awarded a federal grant for reducing out-of-wedlock pregnancies and births, without increasing abortions.
Data confirms Kyleen Wright is right on teen pregnancy trends in 1990s.
Wednesday, November 7, 2007
Well, all 16 Texas Constitution props passed, including 5 bond propositions - money for student loans, jails, roads, colonias water systems and cancer research. It is an interesting election cycle when supposedly liberal New Jersey defeats a stem cell reasearch initiative, but Texas passes a cancer research initiative by over 60%. Elsewhere in the country taxpayers struck down spending, but here the wallets were open. The lowest-passing propositions however was the cancer research proposition.
Maybe it's the fact that stem cell was taken off the table, and Republicans like Gov Perry rushed to support something that was bipartisan feel-goodism. There was a last-minute concerns from some on the right that this might be a backdoor plot for embryonic stem cell research. I doubt that was the intention, and a late Texas Alliance for Life email broadcast that TAL had no position on prop 15 and that it also could herald funding in Texas for ethical non-embryonic stem cell research, such as adult stem cell research. This is far different from embyonic stem cell research that includes therapeutic cloning (which kills embryonic humans to harvest stem cells). So in fact, another way to look at it is this: Republican leaders jumped on the bandwagon to show a pro-research political position that didn't violate pro-life ethical judgments.
We at Travis Monitor might have agreed on the logic, but we did the math and found Proposition 15 and the other bond proposals wanting on the fiscal responsibility score. A simple fact that calls all the bonds into question: The legislature had an $8 billion surplus in January but decided to go the bond route for items that should have been dealt with out of general revenues and ongoing expenses. Why use debt when you can pay cash? On prop 12, they have a crisis in road funding papered over with an inappropriate grab of general bond debt, while the gas tax diversion continues. On prop 16, it was a 'good money after bad' situation.
One ironic reason that Prop 15 was not fiscally sound is that medical research is so popular politically that it gets huge funding already at the Federal level - $30 billion for the NIH and over $5 billion for cancer research (NCI) alone. The cancer research need is more than met already at the Federal level.
We do hope some good will come out of this expenditure of our Texas taxpayer dollars, which requires oversight and accountability. To ensure that the $3 billion Prop 15 pot of money goes to top-notch medical research in Texas and not for corruption, cornyism or mediocrity, there will have to be rigorous oversight on this. Hoping to get rigorous oversight out of the Texas lege though is a bit like hoping an Aggie can cure cancer (Sorry Aggies, I couldn't resist.) Hope springs eternal.
Tuesday, November 6, 2007
November 5, 2007
Contact: Chris Brown
Hunter is a Vietnam veteran who served in the 173rd Airborne and 75th Army Rangers, and who has continued to fight for this country since first elected to Congress in 1980. While in Congress he has served on the House Armed Services Committee where he works on America’s national security needs. While serving as the Ranking Member of this committee he has protected U.S. defense jobs in aircraft, ship repair, machine tools, textile, steel and titanium to ensure that what he calls the “Arsenal of Democracy”, the U.S. industrial base, is maintained to provide security in time of war.
Hunter has successfully made border security a national security issue and has responded by leading efforts in Congress to seal a porous border susceptible to illegal aliens, drug trafficking and terrorism. Hunter’s efforts have resulted in over 59 miles of fencing and border infrastructure to date in San Diego County. Hunter also wrote the Secure Fence Act, extending the San Diego fence 854 miles across California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas. President Bush signed these fence provisions into law on October 26, 2006.
Hunter is fighting for a new policy on fair trade for the American worker. Hunter realizes that China is cheating on trade and using billions of American trade dollars to hurt middle-class Americans, by stealing American jobs. He is committed to bringing jobs back to America by fighting for Fair and Equitable Trade.
The Missouri Republican Assembly (MRA) is a member of the National Federation of Republican Assemblies. The MRA works to unite conservatives, both economic and social, whose interests range from tax cuts and reform to national defense, from pro- life to education concerns, from Second Amendment to national sovereignty, and for the advancement of traditional Republican values.
Where should Conservatism go in the Twenty First century?
Free Congress Foundation has a series of essays (50 of them!) to ask and answer that question. I haven't read them all, but what I have read is thought provoking.
In the really big scheme of things, we see that the Twentieth Century central global ideological battle was about the state, the economy, and man's relation to both. Communism and fascism, i.e., collectivist economics, were fashioned as the 'solution' to the 'problems' that capitalism wrought. We faced internal political struggles and global wars facing the challenge of these systems. Yet it turned out in the end that what capitalism brings us is freedom and prosperity; collectivism was the problem and freedom the solution, not the other way around. Perhaps the turning point was when Reagan declared as much
in his 1981 inaugural:
government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem. From time to time we've been tempted to believe that society has become too complex to be managed by self-rule, that government by an elite group is superior to government for, by, and of the people. Well, if no one among us is capable of governing himself, then who among us has the capacity to govern someone else?
Reagan brought to American conservatism three key components: traditional 'family' values; free enterprise economics - low tax rates and less Government intervention and regulation; and a strong military.
Today the long war against collectivism seems to be won, yet Communist-led China is on the rise, and Government spending is higher than ever. On the cultural front, our very prosperity and freedom is fostering cultural change. And our country, powerful that it is, is having its sovereignty challenged by forces that seek further internationalist dictation on American actions.
These and other new challenges in the 21st century that conservatism will need to address do not require changing principles, but do require adapting priorities and applying principles to the new realities.
Monday, November 5, 2007
by Hugo Restall
Friday, November 2, 2007
The Media Radio Silence over this Biggest Story of the Season continues.
IBD Editorializes it as "Iraq: Job Won"
War On Terror: With killings of both U.S. troops and Iraqi civilians down sharply, both al-Qaida and Iran may believe they have lost the Iraq War. Thanks to the surge, our mission just might largely be accomplished.
U.S. military deaths were recorded at 36 for October, down from 65 in September, according to an Associated Press count. Army Lt. Gen. Ray Odierno, the No. 2 commander in Baghdad, last week said the deaths of coalition forces have declined for five straight months and are now at their lowest in years.
Reported civilian casualties, meanwhile, fell from 1,023 in September to 875 last month — the lowest of the year and well below the 1,216 of October 2006.
This progress comes to light as the Sunni Iraqi Islamic Party, part of the Nouri al-Maliki government, declared al-Qaida defeated in Iraq. Independent Iraq-based journalist Michael Yon quoted party spokesman Sheik Omar Jabouri as saying the group is "defeated mentally, and therefore is defeated physically."
We are winning in Afghanistan too:
“My assessment of the threat in this province is that the insurgency has suffered a total defeat this summer due to the combined efforts of the ANA and coalition forces,” Army Lt. Col. Karl Slaughenhaupt told online journalists and “bloggers” during a conference call from the tiny Afghan town of Qalat.
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
Following text is an excerpt from The New York Times INTERNATIONAL / ASIA PACIFIC Edition story Chinese Chemicals Flow Unchecked to Market:
United States officials learned of problems with China’s chemical companies in the mid-1990s while investigating the fatal poisonings in Haiti. Chinese authorities took no action against the uncertified chemical company that made the poison, diethylene glycol, or the giant state-owned trader, Sinochem International Chemicals, that exported it.
A decade later another state-owned trading company, CNSC Fortune Way, exported the diethylene glycol — also from an uncertified chemical company — that ended up in the deadly Panamanian cold medicine in 2006.
Chinese officials have known for years that uncertified chemical companies are producing active pharmaceutical ingredients. In 2004 the Chinese drug authority’s newspaper cited complaints that some licensed companies “affiliate” with unlicensed ones to hide their illegal purchases, while others buy only a token amount from certified suppliers to pass inspection. “The impact of chemical products on the bulk pharmaceutical market hints at a much larger problem: a huge hole in drug safety,” the drug agency publication stated.
Since the Panama poisonings, China is considering ways to corral the chemical industry. At Panama’s request, Michael O. Leavitt, the secretary of health and human services, has pressed the Chinese government to step up regulation of chemical companies selling pharmaceutical ingredients.
American and Chinese health officials held their first high-level meeting in May, and hope to sign a memorandum of agreement in December. “The Chinese have finally come to the realization that their regulatory system needs repair,” said William Steiger, director of international affairs for Mr. Leavitt’s agency. But meaningful change will be difficult. Chinese authorities may not have enough investigators to weed out the many small chemical companies that are making drug ingredients.
And efforts to close the regulatory gap must overcome one particularly thorny issue: some uncertified companies accused of selling counterfeit drugs are owned by the government itself.