From the McCain*Palin Campaign:

Today the New York Times launched its latest attack on this campaign in its capacity as an Obama advocacy organization. Let us be clear about what this story alleges: The New York Times charges that McCain-Palin 2008 campaign manager Rick Davis was paid by Freddie Mac until last month, contrary to previous reporting, as well as statements by this campaign and by Mr. Davis himself.

In fact, the allegation is demonstrably false. As has been previously reported, Mr. Davis separated from his consulting firm, Davis Manafort, in 2006. As has been previously reported, Mr. Davis has seen no income from Davis Manafort since 2006. Zero. Mr. Davis has received no salary or compensation since 2006. Mr. Davis has received no profit or partner distributions from that firm on any basis -- weekly, bi-weekly, monthly, bi-monthly, quarterly, semi-annual or annual -- since 2006. Again, zero. Neither has Mr. Davis received any equity in the firm based on profits derived since his financial separation from Davis Manafort in 2006.

Further, and missing from the Times' reporting, Mr. Davis has never -- never -- been a lobbyist for either Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac. Mr. Davis has not served as a registered lobbyist since 2005.

Though these facts are a matter of public record, the New York Times, in what can only be explained as a willful disregard of the truth, failed to research this story or present any semblance of a fairminded treatment of the facts closely at hand. The paper did manage to report one interesting but irrelevant fact: Mr. Davis did participate in a roundtable discussion on the political scene with...Paul Begala.

Again, let us be clear: The New York Times -- in the absence of any supporting evidence -- has insinuated some kind of impropriety on the part of Senator McCain and Rick Davis. But entirely missing from the story is any significant mention of Senator McCain's long advocacy for, and co-sponsorship of legislation to enact, stricter oversight and regulation of both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- dating back to 2006. Please see the attached floor statement on this issue by Senator McCain from 2006.

To the central point our campaign has made in the last 48 hours: The New York Times has never published a single investigative piece, factually correct or otherwise, examining the relationship between Obama campaign chief strategist David Axelrod, his consulting and lobbying clients, and Senator Obama. Likewise, the New York Times never published an investigative report, factually correct or otherwise, examining the relationship between Former Fannie Mae CEO Jim Johnson and Senator Obama, who appointed Johnson head of his VP search committee, until the writing was on the wall and Johnson was under fire following reports from actual news organizations that he had received preferential loans from predatory mortgage lender Countrywide.

Therefore this "report" from the New York Times must be evaluated in the context of its intent and purpose. It is a partisan attack falsely labeled as objective news. And its most serious allegations are based entirely on the claims of anonymous sources, a familiar yet regretful tactic for the paper.

We all understand that partisan attacks are part of the political process in this country. The debate that stems from these grand and sometimes unruly conversations is what makes this country so exceptional. Indeed, our nation has a long and proud tradition of news organizations that are ideological and partisan in nature, the Huffington Post and the New York Times being two such publications. We celebrate their contribution to the political fabric of America. But while the Huffington Post is utterly transparent, the New York Times obscures its true intentions -- to undermine the candidacy of John McCain and boost the candidacy of Barack Obama -- under the cloak of objective journalism.

The New York Times is trying to fill an ideological niche. It is a business decision, and one made under economic duress, as the New York Times is a failing business. But the paper's reporting on Senator McCain, his campaign, and his staff should be clearly understood by the American people for what it is: a partisan assault aimed at promoting that paper’s preferred candidate, Barack Obama.

Posted at 06:50 AM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 716 words, total size 5 kb.

The members of the house of representatives have decided sometime in the past that reform was desperately needed - in their household budgets that is.  So they crafted a rule that allows them to LEASE anything they want to, pay for the insurance, upkeep and gas all on the taxpayer's dime.  What does this amount to in real terms?

435 congress-critters x $500.00 monthly lease payments x 12 months = $2,610,000.00

435 congress-critters x $1,500.00 due at signing the lease = $ 652,500.00

435 congress-critters x $2,000.00 per year for insurance = $870,000.00

435 congress-critters x $1000.00 per year in routine maintanance = $435,000.00

435 congress-critters x 20,000 miles per year at 20 mpg avg x 3.75/gal = $1,631,250.00

Grand Total (and I believe these to be fairly conservative estimates) = $6,198,750.00

Charlie Rangel, D-NY says his constituents EXPECT him to drive that Cadillac to show respect for the folk paying for it.  Charlie, can you say Bull Sh*t?

Posted under Scoundrels and Stuffed Shirts

Posted at 07:36 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 172 words, total size 1 kb.

Reverend Jeremiah Wright wants an apology from the United States for the institution of slavery.  I don't blame him, in today's world where anyone can issue an apology for anything he has every right to ask for on.  In an earlier post on the non-apology apology I wrote:

An apology, to be sincere must be accompanied by at least a couple of things. One, it must be for an offense that you have committed. Two, it must be accompanied by an honest and sincere effort not to repeat the offense. Last, but not by any means least the person you apologize to has to be the person you offended. Anything else is an exercise in self flagelation that serves no useful purpose.

I'm sick and tired of the "faux pas" ---> Blame ---> Demand an Apology ---> Apologize industry that passes for politics these days. I don't know about you, but I sure am sick and tired of it.

Kerry botches a joke badly but won't apologize because he didn't mean to botch the joke. Obama and McCain both botch a statement using the term "wasted" and both apologize for it. Hillary refuses to apologize for her vote, Edwards apologizes for his. Clinton apologizes to Africa, Virginia apologizes to African Americans. Hillary demands Obama apologize for something someone else said, Dean won't apologize for what Geffin said, but demands that conservatives, and Republican aspirants to the throne apologize for the comment of an acknowledged bomb thrower.

Everyone demands that their opposite in the political spectrum take responsibility for something that you may or may not agree with; may or may not have said and which may or may not reflect your beliefs. In other words, some of my political friends on the left expect me to take responsibility for, and no doubt apologize for the rantings of Ms. Coulter, only because I too am a conservative. Not too long ago, a commenter on my site demanded that I publicaly disassociate myself from a blog entry by another blogger who belongs to a group of bloggers that I belong to. How very dumb this has gotten.

Well, I guess Jeremiah Wright didn't read the above entries or he wouldn't be asking.  So, just to shut him up, I'll officially apologize on behalf of the United States.

Dear Reverend Wright, I would like to take this time to offer to you, an esteemed preacher of the gospel my sincerest apology.  I apologize for having been born white and for being related to other white folk.  I apologize for my ancestors that owned slaves even if I don't know of any.  I apologize abjectly that African Blacks and African Muslims captured a number of other African Blacks and sold them into slavery.  I apologize from the bottom of my heart that people that I didn't know enslaved people that you didn't know from a country that you have never lived in brought ancestors that you never met to a country that has given more people freedom to say the things that you like to say and give them the full backing of the constitution to say them.  And I'm most sincerely sorry that you are such an idiot and such a bombastic stuffed shirt who has made so much money that you have chosen to live in the upper reaches of middleclassness.

Sincerely

GM Roper

There, I think that ought to satisfy the Right Reverend Wright!!

Posted at 07:04 PM | Comments (19) | Add Comment
Post contains 578 words, total size 3 kb.

Bill Smith, Editor, Update on Story - Below is the video of the disgraceful flag desecration project. Watch a heroic veteran take a stand. As a veteran - I was moved to tears. I located and interviewed the veteran. He is Charlie Bennett, Dist 4 Commander, Maine American Legion. He is Vietnam veteran having served (1967-1979). For 11 1/2 months, he was on the Cambodian border with the 4th Infantry Division, U.S. Army. Bennett is a proud supporter of protecting the American Flag. He shared that he did not mind the criticism by campus officials and was proud to take a stand, but that he almost cried when the police indicated they were going to arrest him. He had always faithfully served his country and was hurt to think he would be arrested for protecting the American Flag. Commander Bennett has received numerous phone calls by people encouraging him to continue and has been called by the local news. He welcomes interviews and can be reached at 207-778-2340. As of this post, Charlie Bennett is returning to the front lines (the university) today but this time with his own “parade flag” and a sign that says ” You won’t walk on this flag!” We hope that many students and other veterans will stand with him. Charlie our prayers are with you!

Please pass this video and info on to others and contact the Univ. of Maine Farmington and express your outrage! The two of the persons in the video supporting the flag desecration project are are University leaders: the University’s President, Theodora Kalikow (the old “witch” who is seen telling Bennett that the project of walking on the flag is defending free speech) and the University’s Vice President for Academic Affairs and Provost, Allen Berger (the liberal educator who is seen telling Bennett that he (Bennett) didn’t fight for a piece of cloth). If Don’t expect agreement, but take time to express your Free Speech to Theodora Kalikow (kalikow@maine.edu or 207-778-7256) and Allen Berger (aberger@maine.edu or 207-778-7276.

Much More Here:
Walking on the American Flag is Art

And a tip O' The GM Derby to Texas Fred

Posted at 08:03 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 365 words, total size 3 kb.

You'd think that most folk know we are in a war.  You would be wrong.  You'd think that the Speaker of the House would be more interested in protecting the country than in making a power-play.  Again, you would be wrong.  You would think that the trial lawyers would rather make sure their fellow citizens are safe rather than cash in on the possibility of suing the telephone companies for major bucks.  Guess again, you are wrong!

In fact, one would think that in a war with an implacable enemy, an enemy that has shown massive disregard for human rights, one that thinks nothing of encouraging a 12 year old to cut the head off of a fellow human being, one that thinks nothing of sending four airplanes full of people crashing into buildings also full of people to strike terror and that would arm mentally retarded youth and women to carry out their terror strikes we would be standing united to find these people.  Well, still, you would be wrong.

Nancy Pelosi has sided with the Trial Lawyers and that siding has effected the ability of the Commander in chief of this Country who happens to be George W. Bush at the time, but will be someone else in less than a year to intercept messages that terrorists send via cell phones, USING U.S. TELLECOMUNICATIONS FACILITIES thinking they are protecting someones rights.  What they are in fact doing, is infringing on the rights of others to be physically safe while these murderers plan their terror attacks.

I'd ask Nancy to be ashamed of herself, but she has already shown that she is more interested in the politics of power than she is in protecting this country and indeed, the west in general.  She has wholeheartedly joined the Trial Lawyers and it's difficult to tell them apart.

I Present then, John Edwards Pelosi.  Or is that Nancy Edwards?

Posted at 06:37 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 322 words, total size 2 kb.

1 The threat to our safety is as horrifying as the photo. 

Posted by: Nancy Coppock at Wednesday, February 20 2008 07:14 AM (ndEg4)

2 How are you. If you aren't fired with enthusiasm, you will be fired with enthusiasm. I am from Saudi and also now teach English, give please true I wrote the following sentence: "I market the presence is a bad volume same." With respect , Trading in stock.

Posted by: Trading in stock at Tuesday, October 13 2009 10:09 AM (kg/hr)

3 Greeting. The creative is the place where no one else has ever been. You have to leave the city of your comfort and go into the wilderness of your intuition. What you'll discover will be wonderful. What you'll discover will be yourself. I am from Azerbaijan and too bad know English, give true I wrote the following sentence: "Limito-me a first que power decision me physical, department novel a base e efficiency email training a scholars communities? Wow8goldkids to your day, we have league subsidy, and thereafter talk the health.The islamica världens for non-latin diets die a backfill, summation cancer.All of us who are participating her would define any camera, photographically powerful, in getting some of these systems." Thank you so much for your future answers . Ancient sites artifacts rosetta egypt.

Posted by: Ancient sites artifacts rosetta egypt at Saturday, October 17 2009 07:56 PM (kg/hr)

4 buy viagra online : Great post! Thanks!

Posted by: DerrikM at Tuesday, March 02 2010 07:24 AM (xhc1A)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

The Reverand Albertus Gore of the Devine Church of Global Warming, Catastrophic Climate Change and No Controling Authority has won (along with his council of preachers the IPCC) the Nobel Peace Prize for 2007.  Oh. Good. Grief.

Al Gore is the hero of the left and progressives, and the bitter enemy of the Hillary for Prez Camp because he would siphon votes from her should he decide to get in the race for Prez (there is a draft Gore committee out there you know).  Al Gore, former Vice President, winner of an Academy Award for the Best Documentary Science Fiction.  Al Gore, collector of tens of thousands of dollars from Buddist Monks sworn to poverty (neat trick that).  Al Gore, Clown Prince of Chads and now annointed of the Nobel Committee.

Any Fool with a lick of sense will know that the Nobel Committee is once again using the power of the award to make a political point just as they did by skewering Bush 43 by giving the award to his verbal (and banal) critic Jimmah Cahtah. 

Alfred Nobel established prizes for 5 catagories in his will when he left his substantial fortune to the formulation of the Norwegian Nobel Committee which awards the prize.  In his will, Nobel stated that the prize should go to "the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between the nations for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses."  No one in their right mind could possibly think that Gore qualifies, ahh, but you see, that's not the point.

The point, dear reader, is the beatification of on Albert Gore, tireless crusader for pseudo-science and popularizer of lies to foster a "larger truth."  The way to sainthood for, as I like to call him Owlgore, has a couple of purposes, one to "reward" him for having had the 2000 election "stolen" (it wasn't) and two because he is such a force for bad science; the antithesis of what Alfred Nobel Stood for. 

You notice that Owlgore didn't win the prize for physics, or chemistry don't you?  Well, that's because his film and his book (Earth In The Balance) have nothing to do with science, they have to do with a political point designed to curb a powerhouse of an economy (ours) and to establish people like Owlgore as figureheads in the movement for world domination.  I doubt that even Gore realizes that his manipulation of the facts is being manipulated by others to gain political power.  You will also notice that the biggest proponents of the Global Warming scare are also the biggest hippocrites when it comes to establishing their "carbon footprint."  Gore burns countless tons of fuel every month flying around in a private jet preaching don't fly around in private jets, buy smaller cars, live more frugally, don't eat meat, eat all your veggies, wash behind your ears, be sure and wear clean underwear in case you have an accident and have to go to the emergency room, don't sing at the table and smile when Aunt Gertrude pinches your cheeks. Oh, wait, I sort of got carried away!  But, you get the idea.  Ted Kennedy preaches alternate forms of energy but recoils in horror at the thought of wind turbans in his view from Martha's Vineyard. Gore promoted the world concerts for global warming and collectively burned more carbon and established a bigger "carbon footprint" then I probably have in my lifetime. 

The Nobel Committee deserves our condemnation and our opprobrium for their choice of awardees.  They have trashed a grand idea by making it political.\

John Bambeneck has more at Blogcritics:

2007 marks the first time the Nobel Peace Prize was awarded for a reason wholly unconnected to stopping war. Claims that climate change will cause violent conflicts are absurd on their face. People are entitled to think that man-made climate change is important, but that doesn’t make it a peace issue.

Posted at 05:44 AM | Comments (11) | Add Comment
Post contains 673 words, total size 4 kb.

Democrats like to say that they were swept into office by a voting populace that was disgusted with the war and that they had a "mandate" to end the war.  Their pitiful attempts at that showed how poorly they understood the electorate.  Their ratings have plummeted to the lowest levels since measurements began.  The truth of the matter is, that the Democrat Party faultlessly convinced America that there was a "Culture of Corruption." in Washington and that it bore the name of Republicans.  I say faultlessly because their deception and their two-facedness was flawlessly excuted, with brilliance and a panache you don't expect from life long politicians. 

So, here we are today with the most Corrupt of the Corrupt.  In today's Houston Examiner on their website Examiner.com they've posted an editorial "Stop Their Pay, Send Them Home." Of particular note is this:

"Here's how the Democrats “drained the swamp” and ended the Republicans’ “culture of corruption” on Capitol Hill: Roll Call recently reported that three top Democrats on the House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee got more than $100 million in earmarks for clients of the PMA Group, an Arlington-based lobbying shop run by their former chiefs of staff.

The earmark recipients coincidentally (we are supposed to believe) donated $542,350 during the first half of this year to the ethically challenged trio — Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., Rep. Jim Moran, D-Va., and Rep. Peter Visclosky, D-Ind. This cozy arrangement is apparently OK under the House’s new ethics rules. “Unless you can demonstrate a quid pro quo, it’s hard to prove campaign contributions were made to yield an earmark,” Steve Ellis, vice president of Taxpayers for Common Sense, told The Examiner."

But that is the least of congressional problems.  Tennessee Republican Zack Wamp alleges that the Republicans are not getting their "fair share" of earmarks under an unwritten agreement calling for a 60/40 split between the Majority and Minority Party.  Yes boy's and girls, there is enough corruption going around to make a raw sewage plant smell like a dozen roses.  Republicans and Democrats are alike.  Taking our money under dubious conditions and spending it in ways that assures their re-election because they get to brag that they "brought home the bacon."  Culture of Corruption!  A bi-partisan term if there ever was one and an excellent argument for throwing all of the bastards out.

Filed Under:  Scoundrels and Stuffed Shirts 

Posted at 08:47 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 475 words, total size 4 kb.

Norman Hsu, Democratic fundraiser and felon. Is now being investigated by the Justice Department in relation to his many donations to the Democratic Party and various Democratic candidates including Hillary Clinton.

Hsu surrendered to authorities Friday, August 31^st and was released on a two million dollar bail.

Democratic politicians are anxious to hurry to give his donations to charity, but the taint may well remain. Especially if there appears to be a link between the Chinese governments donations to the Democrats and Clintons in the 1996 fund raising scandals specifically from a gentleman named Sioeng San Wong.

Hsu did receive a $7,500.00 donation to Friends of Norman Hsu from Sioeng San Wong's account. Gateway Pundit has more:

Sioeng's relationship to the Government of the People's Republic of China has been the subject of press speculation since early 1997.\3\ Based on its own investigation, as discussed more fully elsewhere in the report,\4\ the Committee has learned that Sioeng worked, and perhaps still works, on behalf of the Chinese government.

Sioeng regularly communicated with PRC embassy and consular officials at various locations in the United States, and, before the campaign finance investigation broke, he traveled to Beijing frequently where he reported to and was briefed by Chinese communist party officials...

Contributions to: Norman Hsu--a $7,500 check was written on Sioeng San Wong's account to Friends of Norman Hsu on March 11, 1995.90 Hsu is a former president of the Chinese-American Association.

Posted at 10:46 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 268 words, total size 2 kb.

On Thursday, Cuba's foreign minister said rumors about Fidel Castro's deteriorating health are untrue.

More:

Castro rumors circulating -- again

On Friday, the rumors heated up again for the third week in a row: Fidel Castro's death would be announced, first at 2 p.m., then at 4, then at 5. ...This Friday, teary callers told Ninoska Pérez of Radio Mambí they were sure this was it, and Pérez, as usual, reminded, ``The moment will come, but this is not the moment.''

Not soon enough.

Posted at 11:30 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 95 words, total size 1 kb.

......................Father and Son?......

He stood at the edge of the balcony, jaw out-thrust, glaring at the crowds, looking like the pugnacious tyrant that he was. Raising his hand in a fascist like salute he roared out to the crowd that he was the leader, that the legislature had granted him, or soon would if they knew what was good for them, the leadership of the country for as long as he wanted. Or at any rate, long after the current law allowed. This was to make sure that all of the people, all of the businesses had a chance to change from a formerly fairly backwards society to the modern imperial democracy that the people deserved and wanted. Benito Mussolini? No, Hugo Chavez, dictator of Venezuela, not that there is a whole lot of difference between them.

CARACAS, Venezuela — President Hugo Chavez called for changes to Venezuela's constitution Wednesday night, delivering a key address pitching reforms that are expected to allow him to be re-elected indefinitely. [emphasis added]

Source

They accuse me of making plans to be in power forever or to concentrate power. We know it isn't like that. It's power of the people," Chavez said. "So many lies in the world. I doubt there is any country on this planet with a democracy more alive than the one we enjoy in Venezuela today."

To be sure, I'm not advocating invasion or wresting control of Venezuela via a US sponsored coup (we screwed up in a similar situation with Allende in the 70's) but no outcry at all? Where are the democracy supporters in this country? I hear bloggers on the right decrying this thug. I hear a few on the left doing the same, but overall? I'm surprised that as far as I can tell, Jimmy Carter (who oh so sickeningly proclaimed Chavez's last election fair and above-board) hasn't said a word.

It will be interesting to watch and see if the MSM picks up on this. Oh sure, the WSJ has, so has The Guardian and USA Today. But where are the others? The New York Times, Boston Globe, Washington Post, LA Times? As of this posting, they haven't even picked up the AP wire-story as far as I can tell. Perhaps they aren't interested or perhaps they secretly want to see this thug sticking it to Bush directly and the United States indirectly

The State Department wants to wait to see what the "proposals" are before commenting.

In Washington, State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said Wednesday that the U.S. would wait for details of Chávez's proposal before commenting on it. He added that Chávez in the past "has taken a number of different steps…that have really eroded some of the underpinnings of democracy in Venezuela."

Source - The AP

Why wait, if the folk in the State Department don't know what is going down in Venezuela by now, they need to be fired! Nuts, even a 12 year old with a modicum amount of interest in South and Central America should be able to see what is going on down there.

Posted at 02:13 AM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 572 words, total size 5 kb.

I'm probably wrong, and I'm probably breaking some kind of netiquette and it's probably rude, and my mom certainly tried to raise a gentleman and most of the time I am, and well, damn folks I've just about had it... so, here goes!

Scott Thomas Beauchamp, you sir are a damned liar.

There, now I feel better.

The reason:

THE WEEKLY STANDARD has learned from a military source close to the investigation that Pvt. Scott Thomas Beauchamp--author of the much-disputed "Shock Troops" article in the New Republic's July 23 issue as well as two previous "Baghdad Diarist" columns--signed a sworn statement admitting that all three articles he published in the New Republic were exaggerations and falsehoods--fabrications containing only "a smidgen of truth," in the words of our source.

Filed under: Stuffed Shirts and Scoundrels

Posted at 01:24 PM | Comments (13) | Add Comment
Post contains 140 words, total size 1 kb.

I've been following the Scott Thomas Beauchamp (or is that Beauchump?) story since the "story" broke in The New Republic. Via the incomparable and magnificent LARWYN, I've been able to keep up with all the key players enjoying the discomfiture of TNR as they backtrack, waffle and crawdad (if you don't know what crawdad means, you haven't been to the South very often have you?). One of the more serious investigators has been Ace, a fellow Munuvian and an all around great blogger. But I digress. Ace has been following the machinations of TNR closely as has Dan Riehl (Faux TNR masthead courtesy of Dan) and as I noted, both have been doing an absolutely outstanding job.

One of the posts I read (I'm too tired to track it down now after slogging through a days worth of progress notes, and billings) noted finding the blog of said Scott Thomas (Beauchamp) that he wrote while in the Army stationed in Germany. And one of Scotts posts had a photograph which I reproduce for you here:

along with the caption:

Train ride to Wurzberg: 11 Euro
Two Steins of Beer: 12 Euro
Having a girlfriend that embodies racial perfection: priceless

Let me repeat Scott Thomas' caption: "Train ride to Wurzberg: 11 Euro - Two Steins of Beer: 12 Euro - Having a girlfriend that embodies racial perfection: priceless" and you can tell that the implication is that Claudia is Scott Thomas' girlfriend. Nicht wahr? Ahhh, but I know that in 2002 Scott wasn't in Germany when that photo was taken, and that Claudia and Jürgen are very good friends and I suspect, though I cannot know as yet, that Jürgen would be very surprised to know that Scott's girlfriend is an embodiement of "racial perfection."

Not only is that a shameful and crass statement, especially given the country that is hosting Thomas, but he didnt' even know the young lady as far as I can tell. Perhaps Mr. Scott Thomas Beauchamp is not only a fabulist, but a cultural/ethnic bigot as well.

More and more, it's looking like Mr. Scott Thomas Beauchamp has done for The New Republic what typhoid did for Mary, or what Steven Glass did for...... get my drift?

UPDATE: Damn, this is fun. Or, as Sherlock Holmes has said:

when one has eliminated the impossible, whatever is left must be the truth, no matter how unlikely it may seem."

UPDATE 2: John Tabin at The American Spectator has more (including a link to this article. (H/T to Michael Meyn at Misunderestimated Germans)

Posted at 01:55 PM | Comments (14) | Add Comment
Post contains 566 words, total size 5 kb.

One of the greatest courtroom dramas of all time was Anatomy of a Murder., and over the last 48 years, I must have watched it at least a dozen times. Jimmy Stewart plays a small town lawyer who gets Ben Gazarra off of a murder charge by getting the jury to believe in an "irresistible impulse."

An Irresistible Impulse, one that far to many senators succumbed to in authoring and/or supporting a bad bill. Last week, America watched enthralled as the United States Senate debated, and ultimately killed the latest iteration of immigration reform. Earlier "comprehensive" reforms occurred in 1952 and again another in 1986. In the 1986 signing, President Ronald Reagan noted:

Distance has not discouraged illegal immigration to the United States from all around the globe. The problem of illegal immigration should not, therefore, be seen as a problem between the United States and its neighbors. Our objective is only to establish a reasonable, fair, orderly, and secure system of immigration into this country and not to discriminate in any way against particular nations or people."

"The act I am signing today is the product of one of the longest and most difficult legislative undertakings of recent memory. It has truly been a bipartisan effort, with this administration and the allies of immigration reform in the Congress, of both parties, working together to accomplish these critically important reforms. Future generations of Americans will be thankful for our efforts to humanely regain control of our borders and thereby preserve the value of one of the most sacred possessions of our people: American citizenship." [emphasis added]

The fact of the matter was that when you handed out citizenship to earlier illegal immigrants, you did exactly what Pavlov proved would happen. Reward a behavior and you will get more of the same, in this case somewhere in the neighborhood of 12 to 20 million additional illegal immigrants since 1986. That should be tattooed on the inside of the eyelids of every man and woman that wants to be a United States Senator, let alone on the inside of the eyelids of each and every current U.S. Senator.

The latest "comprehensive" immigration bill was fraught with difficulty, hence, the multiple votes on amendments to the bill. Each amendment as proposed was to "remove a significant fault" or to add a "significant enhancement" either to the bill, or conversely from the bill, and the American people were up in arms.

The media kept telling us that a "majority" of Americans wanted a comprehensive immigration bill, and that is probably true, but like always, the devil is in the details. Just prior to the final ignominious defeat of the bill, a Rasmussen poll showed some 70 + percent of those polled did not like this particular bill or its multitude of provisions for an alphabetized system of visas. Indeed, they were probably perplexed by the bill.

George W. Bush, Harry Reid, John McCain (who probably tossed his presidential candidacy into the toilet) and Ted Kennedy all fought for the bill and ultimately, the people said "no." And it is a good thing they did. As I commented on another site (see, I don't spend ALL of my time here):

I’m surprised (as perhaps were other) that Marc, who touts polls left and right doesn’t mention that the most recent Rasmussen Poll indicates that a majority of Americans (presumably legal ones) do not indeed support “the Bush backed plan to grant legal status” to the illegals rather, a whopping 74% oppose this bill, many on just those grounds (and this includes Democrats, Republicans, independents and not a few legal immigrants from Mexico and other Hispanic countries.).

You can call them undocumented workers, illegal aliens, illegal immigrants, or as the sublimely stupid Harry Reid said “undocumented Americans,” but the fact of the matter is that the majority of them are hear [sic] because of the last “flawed bill.” A flawed bill is not “better than nothing,” a flawed bill is bad law. [emphasis added, link to the exact quote added]

This week, we will vote on cloture and final passage of a comprehensive bill that will strengthen border security, bring the 12 million undocumented Americans out of the shadows, and keep our economy strong. [emphasis added]

A vote to continue debate would have added amendments, removed amendments or otherwise bastardized an already bastardized bill. But the underlying principle of rewarding behavior remains unchanged. Once again, gentle reader, if you reward (visas, citizenship, voting rights, pathways, what ever you want to call amnesty without calling it amnesty) a behavior (illegal immigration), you get more of the same behavior. The are only a few real ways to stop the inflow of illegal immigrants (and don't call them undocumented Americans please).

Adopt a draconian set of laws modeled almost exactly after Mexico's laws (and wouldn't that be a fine kettle of fish?)

Fines and prison sentences for anyone caught crossing the border a second time after already being deported once for illegal crossing.

Fines and prison sentences for those hiring more than a few illegal immigrants (big business has always supported illegal immigration, it allows them to pay substandard wages).

Changing our constitution to eliminate the "anchor baby" phenomenon, thus, if you're illegal, any offspring born in the United States would not gain citizenship by dent of being born here.

Posted at 02:25 PM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 1199 words, total size 8 kb.

There is no such thing as a "liberal media;" so say the leftist pundits. After all, the media is owned by corporations which are by definition "conservative" and thus they wouldn't jeopardize their income by being liberal. And if you believe that twaddle, I've got a quit-claim deed to the Brooklyn Bridge I'd be happy to sell to you for the paltry sum of only $99.99. Think of it, having your very own bridge.

But, I digress! The ABC blog "The Blotter" has a report by Brian Ross and Richard Esposito concerning the existence of a "Presidential Finding" that authorizes the CIA to begin a campaign of "covert "black" operation to destabilize the Iranian government."

The CIA has received secret presidential approval to mount a covert “black” operation to destabilize the Iranian government, current and former officials in the intelligence community tell the Blotter on ABCNews.com.

The sources, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the subject, say President Bush has signed a “nonlethal presidential finding” that puts into motion a CIA plan that reportedly includes a coordinated campaign of propaganda, disinformation and manipulation of Iran’s currency and international financial transactions.

This isn't a matter of beating another news organization to the punch, this is a matter of divulging to Iran, a country guilty of arming the so called insurgents in Iraq, helping them plant and manufacture bombs designed to kill civilians and US military alike. This is the country that committed an armed act of war against the US when it occupied our embassy in the waining days of the Carter administration. This is the country that any truly rational person recognizes as a very real threat to peace with their willy-nilly rush to manufacture nuclear bombs. And you bastards have the gall to "out" the plan?

Too often the left leaning media (and some of their allies in the Democrat party and in the CIA) have accused the right of questioning their patriotism. Well, they have proven themselves unpatriotic. And I would still be making this charge if it were a Democrat in the White House as well. Of course, if there were a Democrat in the White House, I doubt that the left leaning media would have stooped to this level of chicanery.

The media has let their aptly named Bush Derangement Syndrome overrule all common sense, and for what? To discredit a President? To warn Iran? To get a scoop? Bastards!

Another point of view from Jules Crittenden:

I’d be curious to know whether the people blabbing are disapproving or purposefully trying to send a message. Given that the message seems to be “We won’t attack,” I’m not sure how useful it is to put this out. That just tells the Iranians going into next week’s Iraq talks that they don’t need to worry about military consequences.

A tip O' The GM Derby to Larwyn

Posted at 11:49 PM | Comments (12) | Add Comment
Post contains 525 words, total size 4 kb.

Punch and Judy, or, in their current iteration, Harry and Nancy. Why do I say "puppets" because they are either acting as fools or doing the bidding of the radical left who is determined to repeat the fiasco of other pullouts such as Vietnam and Mogadishu. To be sure, the war has not gone as it should have; Bush should have seen earlier that more was needed and either reined in Rumsfeld, or taken a more pronounced role in deciding policy. Having said that, there is a history of American Politics stopping at the waters edge, we can vociferously disagree amongst ourselves, but present a united front to the bad guys of the world. The Democrats on the other hand, are determined to put their policy ahead of what is good for the national interests.

As I've noted before, if you reward bad behavior, you get more bad behavior. That is a very simple bit of human nature that even Democrats should be able to understand; unless they really are "Dimocrats."

The House of Representatives and the Senate have both passed (by the narrowest of margins) bills "supporting" the funding for the war, loaded with pork and headed for Bush's first veto (and it's about damn time ... if he had vetoed a few other pork bills, this may never have come up ... ed.)

Perhaps Jules Crittenden is correct, we need "Moron Offsets" much, much more than OwlGore's carbon offsets. The "pullout" idea is the absolute dumbest thing to come down the pike since Hillary Clinton claiming she was named after Sir Edmund. There can be an argument made that we never should have gone in, but having gone in, the answer is not to back away from the thugs of islamofascism. The Democrats are playing hardball with the very real possibility that the islamofascists will see this as a "loss" for the United States and western civilization and respond with new terror tactics. They are already upping the ante with their kidnapping of 15 British military, and the Brits, God love 'em, didn't respond because of their "de-esclatory ROE":

Yesterday, the former First Sea Lord, Admiral Sir Alan West, said British rules of engagement were "very much de-escalatory, because we don't want wars starting ... Rather than roaring into action and sinking everything in sight we try to step back and that, of course, is why our chaps were, in effect, able to be captured and taken away."

Posted at 03:17 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 432 words, total size 4 kb.