China - the empire of lies

"China’s economic “miracle” is rotting from within", says Guy Sorman in a great City Journal article on the China behind the facade. Some eye-opening details, such as how the Chinese communist government first created then covered up a huge AIDS epindemic and is abandoning tens of thousands of victims to it:

The Party’s primary concern is not improving the lives of the downtrodden; it seeks power more than it seeks social development. It expends extraordinary energy in suppressing Chinese freedoms—the media operate under suffocating censorship, and political opposition can result in expulsion or prison.

Lieberman on Iraq: Withdrawal date "a deadline for defeat"

Senator Lieberman's speech on Iraq - he debunks the Democrat leadership's withdrawal proposal as repeating mistakes and a recipe for defeat. Key quotes:

As far as I can tell, none of the supporters of withdrawal have attempted to explain why October 1 is the magic date—what strategic or military significance this holds. Why not September 1? Or January 1? This is a date as arbitrary as it is inflexible—a deadline for defeat.
...

In following General Petraeus' path, there is no guarantee of success—but there is hope, and a new plan, for success.

The plan embedded in this legislation, on the other hand, contains no such hope. It is a strategy of catchphrases and bromides, rather than military realities in Iraq. It does not learn from the many mistakes we have made in Iraq. Rather, it promises to repeat them.

Let me be absolutely clear: In my opinion, Iraq is not yet lost—but if we follow this plan, it will be. And so, I fear, much of our hope for stability in the Middle East and security from terrorism here at home.

Op-For's fact v fiction on Vietnam

A friend passed along an email "Vietnam: Fact or Fiction" that was chock full of great facts abouve Vietnam, and I traced it back to this website - Op-For (with sourcing from FR). It's a "keeper" that gives a low-down on many Vietnam facts:

- Vietnam veterans have a lower unemployment rate than the same non-vet age groups.

- Vietnam veterans' personal income exceeds that of our non-veteran age group by more than 18 percent.

- Vietnam Veterans are less likely to be in prison - only one-half of one percent of Vietnam Veterans have been jailed for crimes.

- As of the current Census taken during August, 2000, the surviving U.S. Vietnam Veteran population estimate is: 1,002,511. During this Census count, the number of Americans falsely claiming to have served in-country is: 13,853,027. By this census, FOUR OUT OF FIVE WHO CLAIM TO BE Vietnam vets are not.

- Myth: Common Belief is that most Vietnam veterans were drafted.
Fact: 2/3 of the men who served in Vietnam were volunteers. 2/3 of the men who served in World War II were drafted. Approximately 70% of those killed in Vietnam were volunteers.

The above is just a snippet of what it has. Well worth a visit. This item is pertinent given the coverage of Iraq war that invariably ignores the depravity of the enemy in Iraq:

Isolated atrocities committed by American Soldiers produced torrents of outrage from anti-war critics and the news media while Communist atrocities were so common that they received hardly any media mention at all. The United States sought to minimize and prevent attacks on civilians while North Vietnam made attacks on civilians a centerpiece of its strategy. Americans who deliberately killed civilians received prison sentences while Communists who did so received commendations. From 1957 to 1973, the National Liberation Front assassinated 36,725 Vietnamese and abducted another 58,499. The death squads focused on leaders at the village level and on anyone who improved the lives of the peasants such as medical personnel, social workers, and school teachers. - Nixon Presidential Papers Common Myths Dispelled: Myth: Common Belief is that most Vietnam veterans were drafted. Fact: 2/3 of the men who served in Vietnam were volunteers. 2/3 of the men who served in World War II were drafted. Approximately 70% of those killed in Vietnam were volunteers.

And then there is this quote, also apropos our current situation:

Was in the Da Nang area with the 1st MAW for almost a year, and believe we were there for a good reason. Still do.
My good wife, God bless her, says we 'lost' that one. Still doesn't understand that we did not lose.........we quit, thanks to the lily livered politicians and celebrities.
Some of them are still with us today. Pity.

Some lily-livered politicians are desperate to relive Saigon 1975. The Democrats want to lose Iraq on Bush's watch, hence their desperation to leave by 2008. How sad that 'victory' to them means running from the central battlefield we face in the war on terror.

Tax-hiking Democrat Gov dodges taxes

File this one under DEMOCRATS ARE HYPOCRITES:

Governor Corzine gave nearly $100,000 in cash gifts to top aides who worked on his gubernatorial campaign and U.S. Senate staff last year, administration officials confirmed Friday.

The nine trusted Corzine staffers who received the gifts are not required to pay income tax, which they would be if they had been rewarded with a bonus because the Internal Revenue Service considers bonuses earned compensation.

This New Jersey Democrat has raised taxes in New Jersey, voted against lower taxes when in the Senate. I guess paying taxes are for suckers, not for him and his minions.

Senator Hutchison's Response Regarding Her Vote for Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007

On April 18th I posted a letter to Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison questioning her recent vote for the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007. Here is her response, received just before 6:00 PM today.

Dear Mr. Bradberry:

Thank you for contacting me regarding the use of federal funds for medical research involving embryonic stem cells. I welcome your thoughts and comments on this issue.

There is a growing consensus that stem cells hold enormous potential for health-related therapies. These cells can be multiplied and directed to form virtually any human tissue, from heart muscle to lung, kidney, liver or brain cells, each of which could be used to treat or even cure a wide variety of diseases such as diabetes, Parkinson's or cancer. Currently, the federal government supports research on both adult and embryonic stem cells. In 2001, President Bush became the first president to approve federal funding for research using existing embryonic stem cell lines that were derived from excess embryos created for in vitro fertilization and donated, with informed consent, by couples.

Approximately 400,000 excess frozen embryos are in clinics across the country and will be destroyed if not utilized. The current stem cell debate centers around giving couples a choice of donating the embryos for medical research. I support research involving embryonic stem cells under well-defined conditions. Specifically, there must be close federal oversight to prohibit the creation of embryos solely for the purpose of research.

In June 2004, I joined several of my pro-life Senate colleagues in urging President Bush to expand the existing embryonic stem cell project. My support for this expanded research is consistent with my conservative, pro-family philosophy, because finding and developing new cures for a variety of crippling diseases is vital for protecting and improving human lives. On December 20, 2005, President Bush signed into law S. 1317, the Bone Marrow and Cord Blood Therapy and Research Act of 2005, which provides for the use of human umbilical cord blood stem cells for patient treatment and research.

On June 16, 2006, Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA) introduced S. 3504, the Fetus Farming Prohibition Act, which would prohibit the creation of human embryos strictly for research. I strongly supported this legislation that prevents clinics from having a financial incentive to create embryos far in excess of the number needed for fertility treatments. The President signed this bill into law (PL 109-242) on July 19, 2006.

On January 4, 2007, Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) introduced S. 5, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007. This bill would allow scientists to utilize human embryonic stem cells, regardless of the date on which the stem cells were derived from a human embryo. Research would be limited to embryos donated, with written informed consent, from in vitro fertilization clinics that would otherwise be discarded. The bill also incorporated language from Senator Santorum's bill from the 109th Congress, S. 2754, the Alternative Pluripotent Stem Cell Therapies Enhancement Act. It would expand research for the isolation, derivation, production, or testing of stem cells that are capable of producing all or almost all cell types without being derived from a human embryo. I supported this bill because standards need to be in place that would prohibit human cloning but would allow for the use of stem cells that would otherwise be destroyed. The Senate passed S. 5 (63-34), and it has been referred to the House of Representatives.

On March 29, 2007, Senators Norm Coleman (R-MN) and Johnny Isakson (R-GA) introduced S. 30, the Hope Offered through Principled and Ethical Stem Cell Research Act, otherwise known as the HOPE Act. This bill would advance stem cell research by intensifying all alternative methods that avoid the moral dilemma of destroying an embryo in the process. I strongly supported this bill to ensure every attempt is made to use stem cells other than embryos. The Senate passed S. 5 (70-28), and it has been referred to the House of Representatives.

I do not support creating life to destroy life. We must always respect the sanctity of life, even as science explores new frontiers. As researchers seek treatments for diseases afflicting millions, cells from embryos that would otherwise be discarded hold promise for unlocking cures to such debilitating illnesses. Stem cell research has the potential to save lives, and we must ensure it is done ethically and responsibly.

I appreciate hearing from you and hope you will not hesitate to keep in touch on any issue of concern to you.


Sincerely,
Kay Bailey Hutchison

Taiwan, China, and the Olympics Part I: Who is Playing Politics?

This story was written by a fellow son-in-law of Taiwan who resides in Taipei. I offer it to The Travis Monitor readership to counter the slanted reporting of the predominately pro-China International media.


Taiwan, China, and the Olympics Part I: Who is Playing Politics?
Jerome F. Keating Ph.D.

The Olympic Charter states that politics and sport should be kept separate. Yet China is claiming surprise that Taiwan has rejected its politically planned route for the Olympic torch.

Taiwan is a democratic nation of 23 million people (a nation larger by population than 75% of the member states of the United Nations). It has always expressed that it wants the Olympic torch to pass from a 3rd country through it to another 3rd country before entering China. It states this because it wants to avoid the use of the Olympic torch route by China to bolster its political claim that this democratic nation belongs to China. Taiwan and China have been in negotiations over this matter.

Examine the Olympic torch route. The torch comes up from south Asia bypassing Taiwan to Nagaono, Japan. It then goes across to Seoul, South Korea and then to Pyongyang, North Korea. It returns south again bypassing Taiwan to Ho Chi Minh City, Viet Nam. After going past Taiwan twice, it comes back up to Taiwan. After Taiwan it goes to Hong Kong, China and goes through the cities of China ending up in Beijing.

China is already planning to have the Olympic torch go through Tibet to bolster its political claim to rule Tibet which it has occupied for over fifty years.

Who is playing politics? Who is mixing sports with politics? The political row over the route could easily been satisfied if the torch stopped in Taiwan on its way north to Japan or again if it stopped in Taiwan on its way south to Viet Nam. The route from North Korea to Taiwan to Viet Nam and then to Hong Kong would be the simplest way to resolve this.

Other writings can be found at http://zen.sandiego.edu:8080/Jerome

Navy Ballistic Missile Defense Success At Sea Today (04-26-2007)

“You do not have the strategic leverage that you had in the 1950s, when you threatened nuclear strikes on us. You were able to do that because we could not hit back. But if you hit us now, we can hit back. So you will not make those threats. In the end you care more about Los Angeles than you do about Taipei.”
-- a Chinese general’s remarks in October 1995 to Charles "Chas" Freeman, a retired American foreign service officer, and an interpreter during Richard Nixon’s 1972 trip to China

Lieutenant General Henry “Trey” Obering, Missile Defense Agency (MDA) director, announced the successful completion today of the latest Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense “hit to kill” intercept flight test.

Conducted jointly with the U.S. Navy, the test involved the simultaneous engagements of a ballistic missile “unitary” target (meaning that the target warhead and booster remain attached) and a surrogate hostile air cruise missile target....Click here for full story

Related stories:

Lockheed Martin Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense Weapon System Simultaneously Engages Two Threats During Multi-Mission Test

Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense Weapon System Simultaneously Engages Two Threats During Multi-Mission Test

Day Three Aboard the USS Lake Erie: Preparing to Test Missile Defense System

Two targets, two hits in Pacific missile test (video)

Navy Ballistic Missile Defense Success At Sea Today (more video)

The following two questions come to mind:

Question #1 — What are the implications of this military technology to the US's 1971 Taiwan Relations Act based pledge to come to the defense of Taiwan in the case of military action by China?

Question #2 — How long before the Chinese steal or are given the technological data Clintondestinely to undermine or duplicate this defensive weapon? Note: Apparent misspelling intended.

THE WACKY AND WONDERFUL WORLD OF GUN CONTROL

THE WACKY AND WONDERFUL WORLD OF GUN CONTROL

April 25, 2007 - The following is a mini-drama illustrating how gun laws work as understood by advocates of gun control.

SCENE: A basement in the seedier part of town where Spike and his associate Louie are planning a bank robbery.

SPIKE: So here’s what we’re gonna do. As soon as we get into the bank, you pull your gun and take out the guard before he has a chance to make a move. Lefty’ll set up near the door and take care of anybody who comes inta the bank while were in the middle of the job --

LOUIE: (interrupting) Hey, Where is Lefty?

SPIKE: He’s out casin’ the bank and a coupla other places we’re thinking of knockin’ over. Okay, so you’re taking care of the guard, Lefty’s at the door, and I’ll be at the teller’s window. As soon as she sees the gun, she’ll know what to do, start shoveling the dough into the bag I’ll give her. Then ----

LEFTY: (Entering through stage left doorway) He, boss, I got bad news!!

SPIKE: What’s up, Lefty? Didja check out the bank?

LEFTY: I sure did, and here’s the deal. They got a sign up. It says, “No guns allowed on premises.”

LOUIE: Geez, boss, what’re we gonna do?

SPIKE: What about the other places, Lefty?

LEFTY: Same thing at the udder two banks and the stores except for a few Mom and Pop places where there ain’t no serious cash.

SPIKE: (After a pause) Boys, there’s only one thing we can do. Get jobs.

(CURTAIN)

Continuing our excursion in the world of gun control, here’s how an advocate of gun laws may react to reports of the shooting at Virginia Tech:

“You may have heard reports in recent days of a shooting on the campus of Virginia Tech where a student allegedly went bonkers and shot 32 people to death. Do not believe these reports, they are obviously untrue.

“These supposed shootings, which have been trumpeted by the right-wing biased media, could not have occurred for a very simple reason – guns are not permitted on the V. Tech campus.
‘These rumors of a massacre are just the latest attempt by opponents of sensible gun control to convince us that tough gun laws do not really protect us against violent persons, that they only protect killers by preventing their victims from defending themselves.

“Fortunately, those of who support gun control represent the more rational, better educated elements of our society and are not deceived by these made-up stories that suggest tough gun rules put innocent people at the mercy of criminals and lunatics.”

And that’s the way it is in the wacky and wonderful world of gun control. We now return you to reality.

Bob Ward

PAPER OR PAPER?

PAPER OR PAPER?

It’s the latest public policy fashion direct from San Francisco’s spring collection

San Francisco recently banned those plastic bags you carry your groceries home in. They have been deemed bad for the environment so San Francisco supermarkets and pharmacies will be required to use recycled paper bags, canvas bags or compostable plastic bags..

Austin, not to be left behind when it comes to petty, harassing laws, is considering a similar measure. As City Councilman Lee Leffingwell put it, “We got the idea from San Francisco.” He is reported to have the support of Mayor Will Wynn and Councilman Mike Martinez.

As in San Francisco, the main rap against plastic bags is that they supposedly clog the landfill. Leffingwell, using figures from San Francisco, estimates at least 1,000 tons of plastic bags make it to Austin’s landfill each year.

Leffingwell is also concerned about the wold’s supply of crude oil. He noted that 430,000 gallons of crude oil will only produce 100 million plastic bags – barely enough to get us through a weekend’s shopping at HEB.

He might have mentioned -- but didn’t -- that 430,000 gallons sounds like a lot of crude but it’s less than 7,900 barrels. And he left us to just guess how many barrels of oil are consumed to fuel the chain saws and logging trucks needed to harvest enough trees to produce 100 million paper bags. The Film and Bag Federation reports that plastic bags consume 40 per cent less energy to produce than paper. Not to mention the destroyed trees – which contribute more to the environment than crude oil sitting under the sand in the Near East.

If plastic bags are clogging our landfills, we have to ask, “What are they doing in the landfill?” According to the Austin American-Statesman, an outfit called Trex which manufactures decking and railing is planing to purchase about 5.6 billion (that’s billion as in Perot) used plastic bags this year alone.

Like a lot of Americans, Austinites have become accustomed to tossing recyclable items into a separate receptacle. They can include used plastic bags if they asked to. We could avoid yet another annoying regulation and the city could maybe pick up a few bucks to spend on filling potholes on our streets. Remember streets?

Maybe it’s time Austin got over it’s fascination with San Francisco and tried to function in the real world where the rest of us live.

Bob Ward

Senator Reid

It is time to make a concerted effort to convince Senator Leiberman to join the Republican Party. It would give the Republicans the majority in the Senate and knock off Senator Reid off his pedistal. Contact Senator Leiberman by phone and email which takes about two minutes. You can also send him a Post Card to Polish it off.
It is time for Senator Reid to resign from his position of leadership of the Senate. Let's show backbone to remove Senator Reid from his position. He has betrayed our Country, aiding the enemy to defeat our Soldiers who are defending our freedom and providing security to the disadvantage. Send out your email's to demand that Senator Reid resigns from his position.

The Gnat

Action Alert: Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid Declares Iraq War 'Lost'

We finally saw the Democratic Majority leader come clean on where his party really stands on the Iraq War Thursday. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev, pronounced the Iraq War 'lost' militarily on Thursday, and said it "can only be won diplomatically, politically and economically."

Please take a moment to shoot an email or make a phone call to our two senators, calling on them to take to the Senate floor and let the country know that the war in Iraq is not lost in any way shape or form, that indeed there are signs of progress as pointed out by Defense Secretary Robert Gates during a surprise visit to Iraq (see article via link), and that irresponsible political statements like the one made today by the Democratic Majority Leader only put our troops at risk by convincing the enemy he need only press his attacks harder and our political resolve will break, and we will run. The country needs to understand that statements like the one by Senator Reid today are not only being heard domestically, but are also heard by our terrorist enemies in Iraq, and no doubt embolden and strengthen their resolve that it will only take a few more bombs, a few more days of blood before our leaders back home capitulate and withdraw our forces from Iraq for good. Ironically, the enemy knows he can't ever hope to defeat us militarily, but only "diplomatically, politically, and economically". With the aide of Senator Reid and other like-minded public statements meant only for political gain, they may just succeed.

It is clear now that Reid and his compatriots have harbored this belief for some time, and that the Iraq Spending Bill they have been holding hostage with their time table for withdrawal is the political tool by which they plan to bring their beliefs to fruition. They know that without body armor, humvees, and ammunition itself that our forces will have no choice to but pull out and give the enemy military victory on the ground. Likewise, they understand that President Bush has said he will never sign a spending bill that includes a time-table for withdrawal. Thus, the Majority Leader and his compatriots are hoping that they have en-snared the President and the Iraq campaign in a no win situation; without bullets and armor the President will have no choice but to pull our troops out (never mind the danger such a Democratically-enforced situation would put our unarmed and un-equipped troops in), and if he wishes to have the bullets and armor, he would theoretically have to agree to allow some sort of time table, thus engendering a sure-fire militarily defeat once the pull out takes place, thereby brining to fruition the 'pronouncement' of Senator Reid today that the war is indeed 'lost militarily.' In the aftermath of this policy campaign, whatever it be, the Democrats are gambling they can convince the American people that the President and the GOP are to blame, despite the fact that the Democrats now control both Houses of Congress. If the President vetoes the Iraq Spending Bill because of a time table for withdrawal that would only pre-plan defeat a little ways down the road, Reid and his allies hope to accuse the President of not funding our troops, even though he would have done so with a political gun to his head. If the President does approve the bill with the time table intact, this is tantamount to admitting defeat and siding with the Democrats, and in reality would doom our troops to failure and Iraq itself to chaos at the hands of the terrorists who would simply bide their time until we are gone, then attack with full force. This is a shrewd plan from the minds of those who hate the President and wish nothing more than to see us fail in Iraq, no matter the cost this would impose upon our brave troops and nation; and they and have carefully constructed their policy to achieve just such a goal.

This uncompassionate and arguably politically criminal plan shows just how out of touch with reality the Democratic Party, or at least its public leaders, have become. From their statements it seems they cannot grasp the fact that if we do not fight the forces of terrorism over-seas, we will end up having to confront them on our own soil once again, just as on the morning of September 11th 2001. It is amazing that Senator Reid, who now says victory in Iraq can only come diplomatically, politically and economically, forgets that prior to 9/11, this was just how numerous U.S. administrations, most notably the Clinton Administration, had attempted to deal with global terrorism; with sustained and decisive military action being almost non-existence despite numerous attacks against our interests. Yet the result of this policy prior to 9/11 led only to the disastrous attacks we are now all so familiar with. Yet Reid and his compatriots now insist that we should go back to just such a policy, believing that if we no longer pursue the terrorists or try to interfere where we don't belong, they will leave us in peace.

Do these Democrats and their allies truly think that a terrorist making IEDs today in Iraq will tomorrow, following a total American pullout, simply go back to being a productive and peaceful member of society? Or is it more plausible that on the day following such a pull out, that same terrorist bomb maker would pack up his things and head to the next campaign target, which if Reid and his allies have their way would eventually only be America herself? Find it hard to believe that Democratic leaders could be this blind and out of touch with reality? You need look no further than Senator Ted Kennedy's remarks in response to the GOP's characterization of the Democratic position on troop withdrawal as 'surrender' : "Surrender to who? Who are we surrendering to? This is an unconventional war and has to be dealt with in unconventional ways. This is an administration that has never understood the nature of the threat or the way to respond to it." Surrender to who?? How about the hordes of Al-Qaeda terrorists in Iraq who just a short time ago exploded a bomb in the cafeteria of the Iraqi Parliament, with the clear intent of stopping us from setting up a free and democratic government in that nation?? The mere fact that Senator Kennedy would issue such a ludicrous and unbelievable statement is proof of how out of touch with reality he and his Party have become.

My friends, we live in perilous times, and we can only hope to prevail if our leaders are righteous and embrace the realities of this post 9/11 world. Clearly today's pronouncement by the Senate Majority Leader and the campaign that surrounds it proves that the Democratic Party is not the one we need leading our nation for the long term, unless we wish to abandon the people of the world to terrorism and hate, and wait idly by for the terrorists to turn to us at home. Please do what you can to convince our Texas Senators to relay the reality of the situation to the American people via the podium of public office to which we have elected them. Thank you, and Gold Bless America!


PS: This post was put together with the aide of information from an article form FOX News. You can find and read the original article in its entirety at this link:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,267181,00.html

Open Letter to Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison on Vote for Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007

I would like to share with the Travis Monitor Blog Community the text of my recent Congress.org facilitated email message to Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison regarding the following vote:

Recent Senate Votes
Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007 - Vote Passed (63-34, 3 Not Voting)
The Senate voted to reverse President Bush's 2001 decision prohibiting government funds from being spent to create new lines of embryonic stem cells.

Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison voted YES
Sen. John Cornyn voted NO

Please note that the email to the Senator did not include labels for the sources cited, only the raw URLs (links ).
------------------------------------------

Dear Senator Hutchison,

I was very disappointed when I learned of your vote in favor of the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007. Should this bill become law it will result in public funding of the destruction of human life at the very earliest stage -- a fertilized embryo -- on the off chance that such killing will result in cures for other human beings. This is unethical in the same way that Nazi experiments on and Communist Chinese harvesting organs from prisoners was/is unethical.

Also, the use of public funds for embryonic stem cell research, which to date has resulted in zero cures of or treatments for human diseases, reduces the availability of public funds for adult stem cell research. As you know harvesting of adult stem cells 1) does no harm to the donor, and 2) has been used to cured or treat scores of diseases, positively affect[ing] thousands of human beings, some of wh[om] are alive today as a result (see sources below).

I would like to know what are your reasons for voting for this bill.

Sources:

1. Benefits of Stem Cells to Human Patient: Adult Stem Cells v. Embryonic Stem
2. Current Clinical Applications of Adult Stem Cells
3. BrainStorm Cell Therapeutics Announces Adult Stem Cell: Breakthrough for Neurodegenerative Diseases
4. Stem Cell Research: Adult vs. Embryonic Stem Cells

Sincerely,
Timothy E. Bradberry

Of Guns and Bombs

The European press is having a field day complaining about the “lax gun laws” in the United States. They are trying to equate the right to own guns with the criminal activities of people that committed mass murder in our schools and on the Virginia Tech University campus. It seems like what they ought to be concerned about their own “lax bomb laws". Were there not recently bombings in London and just a few years ago bombings in Spain? It is clear the European countries need to pass stricter bomb laws! Following their logic if bombs were outlawed then no one would have had bombs to commit those mass murders.

Those Attempting to Rewrite History are Probably Planning to Repeat It

I received this from my friend Bernard Williams, WW2 Navy Veteran:

We cannot, we must not, ever forget what happened in Europe over 60 years ago, because it could happen again. Anyone, any group, could be the target.

It has been said that those who refuse to study history are doomed to repeat it. In this case, those who are attempting to rewrite history are probably planning to repeat it! The hatred is already there, in place, taught to the children from infancy, with promises of glory and honor to those who carry out the plans. Forewarned is forearmed, and I'm doing my small part by forwarding this message. I hope you'll do the same.

In Memoriam

(click image to view)

(click image to view)

It is now more than 60 years after the Second World War in Europe ended. This blog post is in memory of the six million Jews, 20 million Russians, 10 million Christians and 1,900 Catholic priests who were murdered, massacred, raped, burned, starved and humiliated with the German and Russian peoples looking the other way!

Now, more than ever, with Iran, among others, claiming the Holocaust to be "a myth," it is imperative to make sure the world never forgets, because the Islamo-Facists want to do it again.

Oil Against Freedom

All About Oil says oil's high price has fueled Mid-East problems. It's further true that mid-east instability has raised oil prices. When Iran took British sailors hostage, crude oil prices jumped $5 pre barrel. Last summer's Hezbollah war against Israel briefly sent crude oil to $80 a barrel. This cycle gives Iran an incentive to continue funding nuclear programs and incite terrorism and insurgency in Iraq, as part of keeping oil's fear premium channeling more money back to their coffers.

Oil's bounty is funding the worst Governments in the world from Caracas to Tehran, and is a source of conflict in Nigeria and elsewhere. Oil has become freedom's enemy because oil-extraction economies are immune to the economic discipline enforced in production-oriented economies. In the idea and production economy, value is destroyed by Government interference, socialism, and despotism. So the evils of socialism and dictatorship are attenuated by a feedback mechanism: Socialism and despotism creates poverty (witness Cuba and Zimbabwe) and hence such Governments are unable to spread their mischief out side their borders, and further may fall from internal economic collapse (witness USSR).

Not so for the oil dictatorships. We suffer from the irony that oil is so cheap to extract that even third-world thugs and dictators can manage it. The finding of oil is tricky, but Governments long ago found out that they could simply rip up contracts with oil companies when the terms didn't suit them. Nobody stopped them, leaving a "might makes right"

The world would be more free and a safer place if oil were worth a lot less.

Could the US engineer such a change and would it be worth it? The US imports 15 million barrels a day. Were we to stop importing oil somehow, the oil market would crater, but stopping imports would require extraordinary changes in either supply or demand or both. Drastic changes to demand would require drastic reduction of oil in transportation - higher MPG cars, shifts to plug-in hybrids so we run cars on electricity, biodesiel and ethanol, etc. But jawboning and subsidies have not and will not change the behavior of American consumers. Only large tariffs on imported oil and gas taxes would make a permanent difference in demand. Ironically, only by making oil more expensive for consumers can we make it so less money is sent to oil dictators.

To really close the gap, we need to pursue also a supply-side solution: Drill in ANWR, drill offshore. But that would not be enough. We have oil shales reserves that exceed even the reserves of Saudi Arabia, a trillion barrels of oil equivalent. Shell Oil has investigated these resources and claims they can be extracted for $30 a barrel or less.

We would need to double US oil production and halve oil consumption to be self-sufficient in the commodity. A policy to do so would take up to a decade to realize and would be costly to US oil consumers, but it would pay dividends in crushing the oil dictatorships, eliminated OPECs leverage, and curtailing funding of Islamic terrorism and extremism.

Texas Property Rights At Risk With PUC Bill

Jim B. Cardle of Texas Citizen Action Network exposes the attack on property rights in the bill to re-review TXU buyout:

"SB 896 should be an affront to all believers in the free market ... Under this bill, the Legislature would retroactively give the PUC the ability to decide-kill-approve the private sector transaction."

TXU has put a media campaign an website and gotten James Baker to defend the buyout against this ex post facto assault on their prospective buyout deal. Texas' energy system, not just a buyout, are under attack, and shareholders and electricity cusomers alike could be the victims, since Texas' competition-oriented electricity system has been a success story:

Robert J. Michaels, professor of economics at Cal State-Fullerton, concluded that "Texas is competitive electricity's greatest success story in the United States, if not the world."

"Furthermore," wrote Michaels, "competition has brought substantial benefits to Texas in only a few years, both in absolute terms and relative to other states. Innovations planned for 2009 will further improve investment choices and power pricing, and institutions put in place by the Texas Public Utility Commission can sustain competitive markets into the future."

Dan Clifton, American Shareholders Association:

"When the Texas State Senate passed SB 896, retroactively changing the rules for an agreed upon purchase and sale between two private parties, Senators threatened to derail a significant investment opportunity for the state of Texas, took a swipe at the Texas Constitution, and initiated the first step towards lowering the value of your stock holdings in your 401(k) and pension holdings.

Article I, Section 16 of the Texas Constitution explicitly protects property rights from ex post facto laws impairing the obligation of contracts. But, that didn't stop the Senators, many of whom are Republicans, from trying to leverage their authority where it doesn't belong. Even if you haven't been following the proposed purchase of TXU by Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Company and their partner Texas Pacific Group, the attempts by Senators to change the rules should concern you. Changing the rules in the middle of the game will slow future investments from being made and as a result the shares of potential stocks in future deals will immediately be reduced.

While the American Shareholders Association has a longstanding principle of not weighing in on company to company decisions, in this case we believe the consequences of interference proposed in SB 896 are so great the proposed legislation threatens all shareholders, not just TXU's and the private equity consortium. ASA makes no recommendation to TXU shareholders on the takeover itself, but we strongly oppose efforts of the state legislature to retroactively stop a private business transaction initiated in good faith.

Texas has a long, proud history of protecting the rights of property owners and the Senate thumbed its nose at both those rights, and at the private enterprise system which is the basis of our economy.

Passage of SB 896 or similar legislation will not just have the effect of killing this proposed buyout. This legislation has the potential for substantially slowing private equity throughout the country. Since private equity pays a huge premium to shareholders holding the stock of companies that means you will have less money for your savings. And with that come slower economic growth and a lower standard of living for all Americans. Over-regulation is not the answer to growing the state economy. Before big government politicians attempt to add SB 896 or similar legislation as an amendment to bills...I urge you to contact your lawmakers and tell him or her that the spirit of that measure does not fit with the spirit of Texas."

A Case of Mistaken Identity

I'm no reporter so I did not take any pictures or interview any attendees or protesters (the protesters outnumbered the attendees at least 4 to 1) and I am not unbiased. I do have some fading impressions about what I witnessed in GEO 2.324 on the UT Campus Tuesday night, from about 6:45 PM to 9:00 PM, so I better get this all down and posted before I forget. Please note that what I am relaying here is not an exhaustive account of what transpired, just some of my personal recollections and impressions.

Just who was I and the minority "friendly" crowd (sitting in what one of what the protesters termed the "lap dog seats up front") there to see? Mr. Chris Simcox—an evidently very personable, patient, gentle, articulate, meek (i.e. controlled strength), level headed, principled, law abiding man who has demonstrated through word and deed that he cares about the illegal immigration problem and the human beings who are being exploited by the status quo (both the illegal immigrants and legal residents of the US) much more than Congress and the President seem to, based on their own words and deeds.

I had heard Mr. Simcox speak before, at the Texas Republican Assemblies' Conservative Conference, held back in mid-February. At that time all I knew about him was what was in his bio in the Conference program:

Chris Simcox is founder and president of Minuteman Civil Defense Corps, a citizen neighborhood watch and political action group that assists Border Patrol in better defending our border with Mexico. The Minutemen are preventing needless deaths in the desert and are demanding that the leaders of our country take care of an embarrassing and deadly problem – lawlessness and anarchy on a sovereign border of the United States. Drug dealers, gang bangers and other criminal foreign nationals are filtering through our porous borders creating havoc in communities and threatening public safety. What’s to keep the terrorists from similarly infiltrating our country? Minutemen are acting where government has abdicated its responsibility to ensure domestic tranquility in as much as it is endangered by the lack of enforcement of our borders.
Website (Simcox): http://minutemanhq.com/b2/index.php/simcox

I was too involved in the planning of that February conference to really get my mind around the things Mr. Simcox and his Minuteman Civil Defense Corps are doing along our borders to alleviate the suffering of all decent people who are caught in the middle of the porous border quagmire that the US is stuck in. But, Tuesday night the contrast between the man that showed up to speak and the straw man that the vitriolic, racist, anarchical protesters were there to knock down was obvious to all fair minded observers.

I was at this UT Young Conservatives of Texas (YCT) sponsored event because I received a forwarded email from Liz Young, Chairman of the group, about 24 hrs prior. The email indicating that the event would be HEAVILY protested. Paul Gelencser sent the forwarded message and asked me to send an announcement to local Conservative clubs. All I could do under such short notice was to send one email to the CTRA elist. The reason for the expected turnout of the opposition was that the invitation for Chris to speak was on the same day of a pro-illegal immigration rally at the State Capitol. The leaders of the capitol rally heard about the Simcox speech and decided to take advantage of the opportunity. They hoped to bring 300-500 their own troops to stage a protest. Click here (the web domain is txcommie.wordpress.com) to read what the organizers of the protest were saying about Mr. Simcox. The majority of the protesters seem to be from an anarchist group and they demonstrated by their words and deeds that they were indeed anarchists. About 100 or so showed up in GEO 2.324.

My experience for the evening began as I drove up Congress Avenue around 5:45 PM and saw the pro-illegal immigration rally folks coming down the south bound lanes. I just looked at them wondering what the several small children (being citizens) would think when they grow up and learn about the illegal way their parents came to this country. I also made a mental note that there seemed to be no protesters squelching the free speech of the marchers. I wondered if that would be the same later at UT (NOT).

After dinner I located the Geology building and easily identified the meeting room from the UT Police and a few protesters hanging around outside. I went in, spoke briefly with Chris, and Liz and then chatted with a few of the members of the YCT (great kids—these are the same guys that brought us the ACLU Nativity Scene last Fall). Then, we all waited for the anarchists to arrive. Needless to say, we heard them coming before we saw them. When they entered the room it was obvious that there were a lot more of them than of us. They chanted such things as "out with the Racist" and we replied "out with the Racists" (the feeling was mutual). Two of them came down to the front, with one in sort of a defensive end stance, and tried to intimidate some of us "lap dogs" or perhaps Mr Simcox. I thought I recognized the guy in front (I later heard him tell a reporter his name was Jerry..). I thought I knew the guy so I laid my hand gently on his arm and said "Do I know you, I think I have seen you before?" He said "don't touch me" and then the guy behind him said, "[you saw him] coming out of your mama's room." I knew then not to worry for we seemed to be dealing with teenage brains (in much older bodies).

The protesters shouted "bring him out" and we pointed to Chris, who was standing in the middle of the room the whole time, and said "there he is, that is Chris Simcox." Chris tried to talk and the protesters shouted all manner of falsehoods, misrepresentations, and names, and otherwise verbally assaulted him. Chris stood calmly and tried to make a few points. The UT officials gave at least three verbal warnings to the protesters stating that this was a time for free speech and that if they would not let Mr. Simcox speak they would be removed from the auditorium and possibly arrested by UT police. Chris could hardly say anything for the first 20 minutes. The police began escorting and/or arresting people. Some of the first two to be removed were the defensive end (Jerry) and his teenybopper-brained sidekick (actually rearkick). As more folk got escorted out (some arrested) it got quieter and Chris had more opportunity to say something. Unfortunately he had to spend practically all his time dialoggingdialogue with the protesters. Needless to say, he did not get to give the speech he planned. He was not afforded the free speech that earlier the people at the rally and the march had been afforded.

Chris was accused by the protesters of being a racist, an immigrant hater, another Hitler, a White supremacists, a European, a vigilante, a Mexican hater, etc. He was accused of being in league with groups such as Ranch Rescue and the Minuteman Project (and maybe even El Diablo). He was accused of hate speech when someone quoted his own words from a press report out of context. He was accused of being a law breaker (by anarchists, no less). He was accused of talking out of both sides of his mouth when he criticized Bush (whom he termed the Emperor with no cloths on, vis-à-vis the immigration issue) and Congress for their failure regarding immigration, while at the same time saying he believed in the rule of law.

In response Chris Simcox never fliched, lost his temper, or mistreated any halfway reasonable person. He used reason and logic to expose the lack of the same in the diatribes of the protesters. He used facts to show that the arguments of his opponents were steeped in ignorance. He use peoples own words against them, very effectively I might add. More frequently he made note of points of agreement. When he heard things said by the protesters that he agreed with he told them so, not effecting what agreement normally effects, the establishment of common ground—the protesters did not seem to be interest in common ground, because it tended to negate the purpose of their protest. One example of this unclaimed common ground was the blaming of the whole border/immigration mess on the government. Simcox said, absolutely, he couldn't agree more—Congress and Bush are AWOL on the immigration problem as is the government of Mexico. Mr. Simcox urged everyone to come down to the border with him and see the problems in person. He also urged everyone to visit the borderlinks.org web site.

In summary the Chris Simcox that showed up in GEO 2.324 on the UT Campus Tuesday night was not the Chis Simcox that the anarchist protesters characterized. I think the whole thing is a case of mistaking identity (conscience or unconscious) on their part. I'm glad the protesters were wrong about Mr. Simcox' identity, but I'm a bit concerned about the protesters' collective identity. They seemed to BE who they were coming to protest—hate filled racists who don't care about the human trafficking, forced servitude, sex slavery, gang bangers, drug cartels, terrorist infiltration, and, perhaps, WMDs moving in, around, and through our porous borders.

There were a number of protesters who stayed to the very end and if fair minded probably came away with a more accurate understanding of who Chris Simcox and the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps are and fond common ground between them. If that is the case, it is a very good thing and worth all the harassment and persecution Chris and the attendees went through Tuesday night in GEO 2.324 on the campus of The University of Texas at Austin.

Hook 'em!

Globaloney Fears Shouldn't Dictate Policies

They have amassed evidence. Some doubters lurk and poke holes in it, after all most of the 'evidence' is speculative and uncertain; but the evidence from officialdom has been analyzed and judged overwhelming. They even have the UN backing them up, and could that be wrong? It's a slam dunk!

The politicians chime in with scaremongering statements and scenarios. A "crisis approaching" and "global catastrophe". We are told that the threat is real, the time for talk is over, the time for action is now, and if we don't act preemtively and soon it could be too late.

Sound familiar?

It should be. It's the fearmongers script for the global warming "Crisis".

The liberal intelligensia consensus on global warming is to pretend that there is a consensus and to shut off any debate, and hoodwink the public into thinking that any skepticism is illegitimate. Thus, in the Statesman of Friday, April 6, Senator John Kerry wrote:
"It is time to stop debating fiction writers, oil executives and flat-earth policians" says John Kerry, in a recent piece of fiction that assures us, falsely, that inaction would lead to a "global catastrophe". He opines, almost afraid to let the skeptics even be heard: "we cannot allow doubters to freeze us into inaction".

But now is the time for debate, and for serious questions and understanding, especially if we are to embark on significant and costly regulatory changes. Claims of urgency are absurd to anyone who considers the real science of climate change: The doomsday scenarios posited, of massive temperature increases, require commensurately massive increases in CO2 in the atmosphere, specifically a doubling of CO2 levels, yet we are increasing those levels at a tortoise-speed pace of 0.3% per year. The false urgency is especially un-wise given the false exaggerations of alarmists like Al Gore and John Kerry.

John Kerry said: "And yet we have allowed worlderwide temperatures to heat up an average of 1.4 degrees in the last six years alone." Wrong, Senator. The average rise in temperatures has been 0.6 degrees Centigrade over the last century, and there has been no rise in many critical measurements (such as satellite temperature measurements) in the past six years. Some scientists contend that much of the temperature variation in recent decades is at leastly partyl due to natural causes, and certainly the history of the earth shows that natural climate change has happened all the time.

The politicians and some climate scientists have been playing the game of hyping fear for some time, and many have admitted as much:
"To do that we need to get some broadbased support, to capture the public's imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have."
--Steven Schneider, Quoted in Discover, pp. 45-48, Oct. 1989; and American Physical Society, APS News August/September 1996.

H. L. Mencken once said: "The politicians are selling fear, and they of all people know that fear is the best way to get people to do what you want. The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule. ”

If we are going to base policies on anything, it should be based on the real impacts of global warming, considered only after a lengthy debate on the matter, not the hyped up fears of politicians. Let us not let Al Gore and his acolytes prey upon our fears. We have time for reasoned debate. After all, the earth is not going anywhere.

Why we should never regret dropping The Bomb on Japan

On September 2, 1945 - VJ Day, Bernard Williams was a Naval Aviator in Utility Squadron 13 located on Samar Island in the Philippine Islands. They had quite a celebration there when the news came of Japan's surrender.

Bernie, like most of us, was never aware of the extent of the planning for a massive invasion of the Japanese home islands. The extent of the projected casualties from such an invasion makes the losses now happening in Iraq, though individually tragic, seem minimal.

In a recent email to some friends Bernie wrote, "I never had any regrets about the using of atomic bombs to end WW 2 and I thank God that it got me home to the states alive!"

At the time, Burnie did not realize that the use of those nuclear weapons averted what we now know, from the release of formerly classified documents, was an invasion not found in the history books that saved the lives of perhaps millions of Allied (primarily US) and Japanese soldiers and Japanese civilians. Now that the books are open, it is very apparent that the dropping of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were acts of mercy for the millions saved.

Thank you Bernie, for your service to our nation. Yours indeed was the Greatest Generation of the 20th Century. I pray that the likes of that generation will be with us again in the 21st Century, and perhaps they already are -- deployed in Iraq, Afganistan and elsewhere.

Hillary Clinton Donor Money Came From Scam Artists

Hillary Clinton Donor Money: Two Multi-Million Dollar RICO Suits Filed Against International Profit Associates By Group Of Plaintiffs

Mar 15 2007 —
Hillary Clinton along with several other influential politicians have failed to return campaign donations that appear to be directly connected to an alleged scam which defrauded small to medium sized businesses across the United States and Canada of millions of dollars over more than ten years. In the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois-Eastern Division, the law firm of Reda & Des Jardins, LTD on Tuesday filed a multi-million dollar RICO lawsuit (Case No. 07C 1425) against one of Hillary Clinton’s top campaign donors, International Profit Associates (IPA).

This is the second multi-million dollar lawsuit filed in less than two weeks against Buffalo Grove, Illinois-based IPA. Another similar filing took place on February 26, in Albany, New York.

Clinton received over $145,000 in campaign donations from those closely affiliated with IPA. Since the article, most politicians that received donations from IPA have since returned the money back to IPA; the plaintiff’s believes Clinton is an exception.

http://tinyurl.com/2fxfjy

Naishtat, Watson plan Travis Tax Hike

Remember in 2004 when the Hospital Taxing District was shoved down the throats of County-wide taxpayers (Austin voters were already paying) by the liberal (can you say socialists) voters of Austin? Well, they’rre baaack!

Clarke Heidrick, the Board Chairman of the Travis County Healthcare District has gleefully talked Elliot Naishtat (who never met a tax he didn’t like) and our newest State Senator, Kirk Watson (no enemy of taxes either) to sponsor companion pieces of legislation. Senate Bill 1107, which has already been passed out of the Senate State Affairs Committee, and House Bill 2378, which will be heard this week by the House County Affairs Committee, will allow Mr. Heidrick to reach further into our back pockets to get whatever money he and his high-priced cohorts want to fund their little social experiment.

Remember this Taxing District was supposed needed to keep the People’s Republic of Austin Hospitals from losing money caring for “indigent patients” – can you say “Illegals”? You and I (responsible taxpayers with medical plans) pay for our services on a pay-as-you-go system. The District needs more of our money to pay for other people. According to one press release from the committee promoting the passage of the initiative during the May 2004 local elections:

“The proposal would hold property taxes steady for Austin residents, who pay 5 cents per every $100 property valuation for healthcare costs, and raise taxes for county residents from 1 cent to 5 cents per $100 valuation, equal with the City of Austin rate.”

The current rate is 7.34 cents/$100 valuation. So the lies continue... Here’s another lie from the Statesman Article:

“Heidrick said that the board has no immediate plans to use any new taxing authority, but district officials have said they are constrained by having the lowest property tax rate of any urban hospital district in Texas.

“Constrained” from doing what? Spending our money?

This Bill is an end-run abound the stopgap measure of "rollback elections", giving the Travis County HD another avenue for increasing taxes.

We need to stop this. This is the membership of the County Affairs Committee:

House Committee on County Affairs (C210)	Clerk: Travis Sampley
Legislature: 80(R) - 2007	Phone: 463-0760
Appointment Date: 1/26/2007	Room: EXT E2.122

Position	Member
Chair:	Rep. Wayne Smith
Vice Chair:	Rep. Elliott Naishtat
Members:	Rep. Valinda Bolton
	Rep. Garnet Coleman
	Rep. David Farabee
	Rep. Patricia Harless
	Rep. Joe Heflin
	Rep. David Leibowitz
	Rep. Todd Smith

If you know any of these legislators contact them and tell them to stop HB 2378 in committee. Contact Rep Wayne Smith, Chairman @ (512) 463-0733 and ask him to kill the bill. Contact your Senator or any Senator you know and ask them to vote against bringing SB 1107 to the floor, and to vote against the bill if it is brought to the Senate floor.

- Pat O'Grady