QUOTE OF THE DAY

"The barometer for democracy is where you stand on women." Rola Dashti, candidate for the Kuwaiti Parliament. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/29/AR2006062900063.html The place of women in society and their rights therein has been a recurring theme of the Bush administration in the war on Islamic extremists. Mr. Bush has always linked the degree of women's suffrage to the establishment of democracy in the Middle East and in other areas. Though Ms. dashti has been waging her battle for suffrage since 1999, you cannot dismiss the influence on her country of that suffrage being in existence in neighboring Iraq. George Bush did that!

The New York Times Leak Update

New York Times Leak Update


The Powerlineblog has published a New York Times Editorial-not an op-ed, but a company opinion from September 2001 that lays out how the Bush administration should deal with terror financing. http://powerlineblog.com/archives/014523.php Now here's some real irony for you. This is exactly what the times attacked in their outing of the program to tack terrorist finances. Maybe it's a new policy at the Times. Criticize the administration for not doing something, and then when they do it, out it as a secret program. The kokoburros at the dailykos and the rest of the left only have limited attention spans and will never think history is important.
We've also learned that the Times publicized a secret troop redeployment plan of General Casey’s. I wonder if someone on the General’s staff sold or gave that document to members of the Democrat Party, and if that is what was behind their contrived debate last week on pulling the troops out of Iraq. Are Kerry-Murtha-Levin also involved in espionage for their own political gain? If nothing else, it’s an interesting question.

FROM BUREAUCRATS TO MILLIONAIRES

The Bush administration has been a real opportunity and boon to mid-level faceless federal bureaucrats, reaping millions for many. They portray themselves as whistle-blowers, write a book and rake in the money. What the media doesn’t comment on is their intermediate step of at the least being quasi-traitors to their country.
The bonanza began with Richard Clark, who wrote his book, testified before the 9/11 Commission, and is, appropriately, now teaching at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard. As my favorite vet (FV) says, Richard Clark is a bureaucrat who is mad that his superiors would not listen to his advice. Never mind that those who would not listen were in the Clinton administration. And, never mind that much of his testimony contradicted what he had written and said previously. He is still a genuine hero of the far left.
Next we have Valerie Plame and her house-husband, ex-low level state department employee, Joe Wilson. These two were not satisfied with just the book. They also wanted to be part of the “beautiful people” and so we were treated to their pictures on magazine covers. Never mind that the government has wasted millions investigating and now trying to prosecute a crime that never occurred.
For the succeeding NY-LA Times and WA Post reports we have not been told the bureaucrats names as yet. Things got a little dicier for the so-called whistlers when the President defended both the NSA surveillance programs and now the “follow the money” investigations. What with representative Peter King (R-NY) opining that both the snitches and the publisher and editor of the NY Times ought to be prosecuted and sent to jail, notoriety has become chancier. But, you can bet that as we get closer to the 08 elections we will hear from these people as well.
Today the President said when speaking of the latest flap about tracking terrorist money that, “...the disclosure is disgraceful [and] it makes it harder to win the war on terror.” For those who believe this will have no effect on the prosecution of the war, I suggest you recall the allegation that the U.S has employed secret prisons in Europe. Two Washington Post writers won Pulitzers for that reporting and it spurred an investigation by the European Council, the EU’s civil rights organization. The head investigator, Dick Marty, has “acknowledged he lacked proof,” but the investigation and the allegations have gone on. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/07/AR2006060700505.html In fact Mr. Marty said, “Even if proof, in the classical meaning of the term, is not as yet available...elements indicate that [they] did exist.” Apparently, he is still looking for his blue dress.
The significance of this is investigation is just that the new revelations concerning the money trail will spur on all the other little Martys in Europe and the far left, and the Democrats in this country to demand even more investigations. You can bet that the anti-Bush Marty- Murtha-Feingold cabal will be calling for a cease and desist of international money trailing and the pressure from Europe will increase exponentially. (As a side-light: Feingold wants to run for President-how can you trust someone who wants to cede all Presidential power to the Senate and not use all available tools to protect the country.)
I do not believe that the once venerable NY Times is on the side of America. Along with the Post et al who are so anxious to have their friends in control of the US Congress and into the White House in 08, they have apparently made a conscious decision that anything goes until that objective is met. Perhaps they believe they can fix it later. But then, much of the Democrat Party led by Howard Dean and “thedailyKos” do not believe we are in any kind of conflict, so for them no harm, no foul.
If your objective is to insure that this country gets hit with another terrorist attack, you might consider forcing the government to waste precious time and money investigation themselves. That would be deliberate treason. My guess is the bureaucrats can’t resist the money and fame that otherwise would be totally out of their karma. As for the news media publishing these programs, the Pulitzer and getting their friends elected is more important than winning the war.

Additional Murtha Sources

Congressman Murtha's opponent in 2006 is Diana Irey. Mrs. Irey maintains she is getting support from active duty military who are upset with Murtha's stand on the war in Irag. Go to http://www.irey.com There is also an informative article in the Washington Times about Murtha. http://www.washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20060620-083859-8753r.htm

"Murtha's Second Act"

Robert Novak writes in today’s Washington Post that Pennsylvania Representative John Murtha is experiencing a political second act, which his fellow Democrats find “...disturbing.” His appearance last weekend with Tim Russert is particularly upsetting for Murtha’s party considering his suggestion that U.S. troops be re-deployed to Okinawa. Murtha said, “...when I say Okinawa, I, I’m saying troops in Okinawa. When I say a timely response, you know, our fighters can fly from Okinawa very quickly. And-and-when they don’t know we’re coming.” Never mind that it is unclear whether he is talking about ground troops or the Air Force or both, and never mind that we are now re-deploying troops out of Okinawa at the insistence of the Okinawans and also because it makes strategic sense. A DOD spokesman said, “...it would take ‘under a month’ to send a 4,500-man Marine Expeditionary Force 6,000 nautical miles from Okinawa to Bahrain and then 600 more miles to Baghdad.” So much for quickly and quietly. Mr. Murtha is the one making no sense.
Mr. Novak went on to write that he, “... had forgotten that federal persecutors designated him {Murtha} an unindicted co-conspirator in the Abscam investigation 26 years ago.” Unlike the other seven congressmen who were caught taking bribes on film, were prosecuted and went to jail, Mr. Murtha did not take money from the fake Sheik in the FBI sting. He did indicate an interest in doing so and then bragged about his influence in the U.S. House. So, being a former Marine and a media designated war hero does not automatically make you an honest person. Former ace pilot in Vietnam, Randy “Duke “ Cunningham has obviously reminded us of that fact.
The first time I heard of John Murtha was while living on the Philadelphia Naval Shipyard (PNS) in the early 1990’s. In an effort to keep the shipyard off the Base Re-alignment and Closure list (BRAC), the U.S. Congress passed a law requiring the air craft carrier John F. Kennedy to Philadelphia for a three year overhaul. The JFK was built in the 60’s at the Norfolk Naval Base and had never been serviced anywhere else.
Some background is in order. PNS was built during the Civil War and was at that time a real deterrent from attack as even today it takes eight hours to get up the Delaware River from the coast. However, the shipyard was obsolete at least by the post WWII era, and the last ship was built there and launched in 1972. From that time onward, the U.S. Navy put as little as absolutely necessary into the facility hoping to close it down as it was nothing but a money pit without actually contributing to the goal of national security. By the early 90’s much of the place was in an advance state of decay with few people actually posted there. But, of interest to politicians of the area, it did employ a couple thousand union workers. Ironically, most of these people lived in New Jersey. Hence, the desire to keep it open!
I first learned the JFK was going to Philly when I was asked if I would like to ride up on her from Norfolk. So, full disclosure, I benefited from this deployment in that the ride on the JFK was great fun for me. As unused to politics as I was at the time, even I understood this was a giant waste of the taxpayers’ money. Just getting the ship up the Atlantic Coast and then up the Delaware River cost a fortune as the entire river had to be dredged to accommodate the huge ship. Even after the trip began, the Captain was not positive the JFK would clear the bridges.
My real distress was for the sailors and their families who were ordered to Philadelphia. At the time I volunteered at Navy Relief, an organization that sailors can go to when they have an emergency or are in financial trouble. And, boy, were they in trouble. There was no place to house the single sailors on the base so they were put in sleazy hotels at the airport, far from anything to do. I can remember some of the young men coming in nearly in tears because they could not afford to have their cars with them as the insurance often cost more per year than they had paid for the thing in the first place. So, in effect, they were stranded.
The young couples were in particular financial distress. Many were having to rent on the local economy and could not make ends meet. The Navy put a few nurses who worked at the base clinic in some hastily repaired apartments. I remember one young woman who also came in for help in tears. The sewer had backed up into her living room destroying most of everything she owned. She said to me, “I did not sign up for this.”
I asked the base commander, “Whose idea was this?’
He said, “Congressman John Murtha.”
I said, “Is he from Philadelphia?”
He said, “No, somewhere west of here.”
I said, “So what’s his interest in his place?”
He said, “Union workers and campaign contributions.”
Every time I hear that Murtha cannot be questioned or doubted because he is a real war hero, my blood pressure goes up. (Ann Coulter where are you?) And, every time I hear that he is a staunch defender of the military and of military personnel, I start foaming at the mouth. I know for sure that neither of these assertions is true. It is my opinion, that Murtha likes the military as a union job bank, but one is hard put to find an instance where he believes it should be used for national security.
The fact of his involvement in Abscam fits in perfectly with my opinion of Mr. Murtha. Novak writes that not getting indicted outright “...salvaged [Murtha’s] political career, but limited his public exposure...He speaks for attribution to few national or local reporters, hardly ever appears on television and rarely speaks in the House chamber” He should go back to that practice.

It's The Individual-Stupid!

Kelsey Grammer is thinking of running for political office. He told a TV interviewer maybe he’ll try for the U.S. House of Representatives. When asked why he is a Republican he answered, “I believe the individual is sacred.” And that’s it, isn’t it? That is one of the main differences between Republicans and Democrats. To be a Democrat your primary identification must be as one of their approved groups. Women are great, but only some women. Lesbians are approved, but then that is all they can be. Women who stay at home to raise their kids are not approved. Democrats do not do the cookie baking stand by your man Tammy Wynette thing and whoever does has the same place in society as do women in, say, Saudi Arabia-that is none.
Organizationally it is easier to deal with and respond to people in groups: the larger the better. But, that is a socialist mentality and it is not only a poor way to organize a society, it is also the polar opposite of individual liberty. In fact it makes the concept of a pursuit of happiness for the masses irrelevant as it works against giving the most opportunity to the greatest possible number of citizens. For decades American Blacks have voted on the Democrat plantation. This has given a very few tremendous wealth and prestige, but has done almost nothing for poor blacks, whether living in an urban ghetto or in the rural south. As noted in an earlier post, blacks who are Democrats are good; blacks who are Republicans are at best Uncle Toms. Of all the groups Democrats recognize, those who receive the least tolerance for individuality and independent thinking are black-Americans.
The Washington Post Outlook section on June 11 ran an entire section titled “A Step by Step Guide for Democrats: How to reconnect with Voters and Realize Your Dreams of Victory.” (Bias? Nah.) http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/09/AR2006060901977.html In none of the six articles or the accompanying numerous quotes was the word individual or the concept of individuality mentioned. Responsibility was mentioned once in connection with Bill Clinton (now there’s an oxymoron for you), but you cannot endorse responsibility as a viable precept without a concept of individuality. It is individuals who must be responsible in order to build responsible and responsive institutions and societies.
On the other hand, there were not any policy prescriptions either. There was much looking for someone outside their ranks to blame. Twenty years ago it was Ronald Reagan, now, of course, it is George W. Bush. Minority leader, Nancy Pelosi, said on TV that the party delayed its planned presentation of the “Democrat New Direction for America,” their version of the Gingrich “Contract with America,” out of “...respect for President Bush and the troops.” In other words, the President went to Iraq and stepped on their news cycle. The Democrat search for a convenient bogeyman to blame for their inability to win elections is probably the only time they think in terms of the value of an individual.
There was much fussing about Iraq. Those on the far left, who are now in virtual control of the party, are very angry at all those who voted for the war, but they save their special enmity for those who voted affirmatively and now say it was a mistake. Enter John Kerry and Peter Beinart of The New Republic, whose basic message now regarding the war is “Nevermind!” Beinart in “Don’t be a Control Freak: Ask for Help” http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2006/06/09/AR2006060901999.tml posits that the Democrat party go back to emphasizing international cooperation and issues, such as “global warming or Guantanamo Bay.” He praises Bill Clinton for nudging the U.S. into action in the Balkans-never mind the man campaigned on intervening in 1992, but despite repeated urging did not act for four years. At the same time he dismisses “coalitions of the willing” where individual nations decide to join together for a specific cause. Beinart opts for strengthening, as in giving more money to, various international organizations. Apparently we are not giving enough of our tax dollars to the United Nations to either steal it or to pay peacekeeping soldiers to rape seven year olds.
Al From and Bruce Reed advocate a return to a centrist position. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/09/AR2006060902006.html They dub this “Clintonism” and insist it “...has never been about mushy compromise and electoral expedience.” Yet without a do-nothing Clinton White House there would have been no need for a Bush presidency. To bolster their idea, they give the Clintons credit for welfare reform and a balanced budget, which are, as we all know, Republican precepts. David Sirota, on the other hand, defines the center as being somewhere in San Francisco,http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/09/AR2006060902000.html emphasizing the Bob Shrum “people vs. the powerful” and saying nothing about the individual or the liberty of same. According to Michael Grunwald, “It makes sense to be skeptical of Shrum’s influence in the Democratic Party: he has an unblemished record of advising failed presidential candidates and making buckets of money doing so...” http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/09/AR2006060901977.html.
In “Always the Party of what Went Wronghttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/09/AR2006060902001.html The Post’s Dan Balz comments on the Democrat Party’s collective psychosis. They “...are experienced at assembling learned conferences to debate their future (while spending most of their time looking longingly at their past.)” In the last year alone they have had at least three national meetings to decide what they collectively believe, giving the distinct impression that their individual members are not allowed to have their own individual thoughts, but must hew to the party line. Not only that, but there is no single unifying theme for the members of the Democrat Party to rally around such as the Republicans have in individual liberty. “These are dark days for the Republican Party,” writes Grunwald who goes on to explain the schisms he sees in the GOP. But his analysis fails because he either refuses to see or simply cannot get beyond his own biases to see the fact that all those so-called schisms do unite around that one potent idea of individual liberty. Balz sums up by opining that “If...the Democrats fall short on Nov. 7 ...the first panel will convene at 9 a.m. on Nov. 8 at the Press Club. Live on C-SPAN. The topic: ‘Paradise Lost: How the GOP’s Midterm Victories Demonstrate the Enduring Power of the Democratic Message.” As a lover of the ironic and a C-PAN junkie, I am for sure looking forward to that program.
David Sirota, expanding on the Shrum theory does the usual free trade corporation and capitalism bashing. To dismiss this theory one needs only to look at those countries where capitalism, with individuals making individual choices, reigns and compare them with countries where that is not the case. Are people better off in the Sudan or in the USA? Adam Smith wrote in 1776 in The Wealth of Nations “Every individual necessarily labors to render the annual revenue of the society as great as he can. He generally indeed neither intends to promote the public interest, nor knows how much he is promoting it...By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it. I have never known much good done by those who affected to trade for the public good.”
This is all not to say that rugged individualism is the end all and be all of society. But, it is an idea that is part of the American psyche and that always has and hopefully always will appeal to American voters. When Democrats talk of inclusiveness and civil rights, they are talking about interest groups, not individuals, and specifically groups with lots of money for campaign donations.
As the Democrats ponder James Carville’s advice “...to moderate or at least play down their support for abortion, gay rights and gun control...” they might want to look at voters as individuals with individual issues. Now that I think of it they have gone at least part way to doing that by engineering the nomination of a Republican-James Webb- to compete with a Republican-George Allen-in the Virginia Senate race. We can judge real progress for the Democrats when they nominate a Republican to compete against a traditional Democrat.

FLAG DAY June 14

Each year on June 14, we celebrate the birthday of the Stars and Stripes, which came into being on June 14, 1777. At that time, the Second Continental Congress authorized a new flag to symbolize the new Nation, the United States of America.
The Stars and Stripes first flew in a Flag Day celebration in Hartford, Connecticut in 1861, during the first summer of the Civil War. The first national observance of Flag Day occurred June 14, 1877, the centennial of the original flag resolution.
By the mid 1890’s the observance of Flag Day on June 14 was a popular event. Mayors and governors began to issue proclamations in their jurisdictions to celebrate this event.
In the years to follow, public sentiment for a national Flag Day observance greatly intensified. Numerous patriotic societies and veterans groups identified with the Flag Day movement. Since their main objective was to stimulate patriotism among the young, schools were the first to become involved in flag activities.
In 1916 President Woodrow Wilson issued a proclamation calling for a nationwide observance of Flag Day on June 14. It was not until 1949 that Congress made this day a permanent observance by resolving “That the 14th day of June of each year is hereby designated as Flag Day…” The measure was signed into law by President Harry Truman.
Although Flag Day is not celebrated as a Federal holiday, Americans everywhere continue to honor the history and heritage it represents.