Today is Memorial Day. Never forget our heroes... especially those on eternal patrol.
Looney Liberal of the Week: Howard Dean
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- This week's award goes to Howard Dean. This is Dean's second weekly award. He also won the 2005 Looney Liberal of the Year Award by popular vote! Howard wins this award for his assertion on Wednesday, that "There's a difference between the involvement of Congressman Jefferson in activities for which there's been no indictment and the culture of corruption that extends throughout the White House, the vice president's office and both houses of Congress".
Are you kidding me? Of course there's a difference! The FBI caught William Jefferson 'red-handed' accepting a bribe. They have him on video tape and audio tape. They found $90,000 in his freezer! There is no such proof of the 'alleged' corruption of Tom Delay, Karl Rove, Scooter Libby or Dick Cheney. The difference is that Congressman Jefferson is not 'allegedly' guilty... he's OBVIOUSLY guilty. Dean is as nutty as a fruitcake if he's suggesting anything less.
Dean is guilty of the worst kind of loonacy... trying to protect a political slogan in an election year. All Dean needs is a few more Democrats like William Jefferson, and the slogan culture of corruption could come back to haunt him.
But the loonacy doesn't stop there. Howard Dean then went on to say that Democrats are "not perfect, but we will make sure that any member of the House -- Democrat or Republican -- 1) does not get any more free meals; 2) does not get any more free jet plane rides; 3) is not allowed to sneak riders in the middle of bills that have already been passed and voted on before they're given to the president..."
Please note that Dean did not say, "...and 4) IS NOT ALLOWED ACCEPT CASH DONATIONS OF $10,000 OR MORE FOR CONVENIENT FREEZER STORAGE!" Hmmmm. I wonder why he forgot that last one?
I recently encountered one of those rare confluences of circumstances that leads one to a suggested answer about a nagging question. The nagging question? ...Why is George W. Bush so strong on offense, but so weak on defense? There is no doubt that GWB took the War On Terror to the enemy. He went into Afghanistan. He went into Iraq. He developed an alliance with Pakistan. He uncovered terrorist front organizations and froze their assets. He authorized various intelligence programs, such as the two NSA programs which are now the subject of so much debate. But he has been lackluster, to say the least, on protecting our borders. Why?
A few days ago, I received a phone call from an old friend. In fact, he was the 'best man' at my wedding. I haven't spoken to him for a long time, but during our conversation, he reminded me of his interest in the John Birch Society (JBS). He repeated to me several times to be wary of the "Council on Foreign Relations" (CFR).
I didn't think much of it at the time, but then on May 16th, I received an E-mail from K.G. (better known to some of us as "Online Analyst"), concerning "quite disturbing information". The disturbing information was posted by "a reliable commenter at CaptainsQuartersBlog"...
Here's what was in the E-mail...
President Bush does not want to hinder immigration in any way, shape, or form, legal or illegal. Despite the proclamations of security concerns in a post 9/11 America, of following the law of the land, and of enforcing it too, he has resolved not to do any of it on immigration.
I urge you to read a policy paper (ISBN 0-87609-348-9) from the Council on Foreign Relations as it seems to be something of a blueprint for Bush's endorsement of greatly expanded immigration whether by hook or by crook:
Building a North American Community (English PDF version of the report - it's also published in French and Spanish)
Chair: John P. Manley, Pedro Aspe, William F. Weld
Vice Chair: Thomas P. D'Aquino, Andres Rozental, Robert A. Pastor
and Task Force Members
Council on Foreign Relations (US)
Canadian Council of Chief Executives (Canada)
Consejo Mexicano de Asuntos Internacionales (Mexico)
The guts of the report really begin on page 23 with:
"At their meeting in Waco, Texas, at the end of March 2005, U.S. President George W. Bush, Mexican President Vicente Fox, and Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin committed their governments to a path of cooperation and joint action. We welcome this important development and offer this report to add urgency and specific recommendations to strengthen their efforts."
"In March 2005, the leaders of Canada, Mexico, and the United States adopted a Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP), establishing ministerial-level working groups to address key security and economic issues facing North America and setting a short deadline for reporting progress back to their governments. President Bush described the significance of the SPP as putting forward a common commitment "to markets and democracy, freedom and trade, and mutual prosperity and security." The policy framework articulated by the three leaders is a significant commitment that will benefit from broad discussion and advice. The Task Force is pleased to provide specific advice on how the partnership can be pursued and realized."
"To that end, the Task Force proposes the creation by 2010 of a North American community to enhance security, prosperity, and opportunity. We propose a community based on the principle affirmed in the March 2005 Joint Statement of the three leaders that "our security and prosperity are mutually dependent and complementary." Its boundaries will be defined by a common external tariff and an outer security perimeter within which the movement of people, products, and capital will be legal, orderly, and safe. Its goal will be to guarantee a free, secure, just, and prosperous North America."
You really must read the report to see how improving the ease of flow of capital, labor, and information is a major goal of this group and that internal borders are frowned upon as opposed to a common, shared, North American one. The vision is more like an international superstate of North America to effect extra-North American trade and commerce.
Bush has made an agreement with Mexico's Fox to facilitate Mexican development, which explains Fox's concern about these new administration border initiatives, as uninspired as they are. It probably isn't a stretch to say that Fox views the American public's reticence to open borders with disdain probably because he thought Bush, back in '05, could deliver the American constituency. As per the task force, look at this teaser:
WHAT WE SHOULD DO BY 2010
Lay the groundwork for the freer flow of people within North America. The three governments should commit themselves to the long-term goal of dramatically diminishing the need for the current intensity of the governments' physical control of cross-border traffic, travel, and trade within North America. A long-term goal for a North American border action plan should be joint screening of travelers from third countries at their first point of entry into North America and the elimination of most controls over the temporary movement of these travelers within North America.
Obviously, Bush's possible temporary assignment of Federal military assets does not violate this tenet since it will be withdrawn by the 2010 goal. No doubt Bush's conversation with Fox was to assuage Fox's fears that the SPP was being abandoned due to American citizen dissatisfaction. But why should he be worried with this monstrosity coming out of the Senate (Senate Bill Would Allow 100 Million New Legal Immigrants Over Next 20 Years)?
Bush seems to be a one-worlder where NAFTA and CAFTA were just the beginning. 9/11 interrupted his globalist views and now he needs to implement his worldview within the restrictions of an American citizenry increasingly concerned with its sovereignty and security.
Don't be fooled. This task report fits Bush policy like a glove and explains his bullheaded stubborness. The questions now are 1) "how many Senators are in on the grand plan", and 2) "does the electorate have the will to stop it?" Or even "does the public want a unified North America and has any federal representative asked it?"
Posted by: AnonymousDrivel at May 16, 2006 01:14 PM
Do yourself a favor and check out the first link in the above post and read the Task Force Report published by the CFR. It's somewhat long, but I found it to be a fast read. Before you get half way through, I think you'll be convinced that the CFR is espousing some ideas that would have to be considered "dangerously irresponsible" in a Post 9/11 America.
Having never before heard of the "Council on Foreign Relations", and then hearing about it from two different sources within a short period of time, I decided to do some more research. I went to the JBS website and found an interesting article about the CFR HERE. The article is clearly dated (1994), but it talks about the CFR over its entire history from its founding in 1919. I don't know if all of this stuff is true, but if only a portion of it is true, then the CFR is a scary organization. According to this article, the CFR is an organization that is pushing for a one-world government at the expense of any nation's sovereignity, including that of the United States.
Another article that attracted my attention at the JBS website was about George W. Bush. Also somewhat dated (July 2000), you can read the article HERE. According to the article, the JBS apparently had no confidence that George W. Bush, if elected, would be any different from his predecessor Bill Clinton. The article predicted that Bush would be a big-government, big-spending, pro-NAFTA, pro-GATT President who would push an expensive health-care reform package, and an expensive education reform bill that would require the imposition of measurement standards on the students.
The Council on Foreign Relations is an organization that tries to remain invisible. It is a relatively small organization boasting a membership of only 3500 +/-. Nevertheless, approximately 500 of its members are high-ranking officials in the United States government. For its relatively diminutive size, the CFR exerts exceptional influence on the formulation of foreign policy in this country.
If the CFR is pushing a one-world government through small, incremental steps as the JBS suggests, then open borders throughout North America would be a logical policy for the CFR to promote... and it does. If GWB has been unduly influenced by an organization like the CFR, then that would explain why he seems so reluctant to defend our borders and limit cross-border traffic. The big question is... Why? Why is GWB so willing to ignore border security in a Post-9/11 world? If it is because he has been influenced by the CFR, then... Why has GWB been so influenced by an organization like the CFR? And finally, why is the CFR such an influential force in our government?
Looney Liberal of the Week: Harry Reid
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- This week's award goes to Harry Reid for his statement that making English the official language of the United States is racist. Harry is also the first Looney Lib to win the "LLoW Award" twice! He last won it in November, 2005. I guess that makes him loonier than most.Using Reid's standard, there are about 150 countries that would have to be considered racist, since they have an official language. You can go HERE for a list of official languages. If you want to hear some thoughts from others about Reid's statement, go HERE and scroll down a bit to read the comments. Those guys say it better than I ever could. But Reid is not as stupid as he sounds... he's pandering to the Hispanic vote, or to a potential Hispanic vote. He just sounds stupid.
Looney Liberal of the Week: Patrick Leahy
This week's award goes to Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT), for his stupid remarks concerning the USA TODAY story reported on Thursday, May 11th, about an NSA secret database containing the phone records of millions of Americans. If you have a strong stomach, you might want to watch the video HERE.
At a Senate Judiciary Committee meeting, Leahy starts out by saying, "The press is doing our work for us and we should be ashamed." So what exactly does that mean? Is the 'work of the Senate' to expose classified information about TOP-SECRET anti-terrorism programs to the public? I hope the good people of Vermont are paying close attention, because I don't think that's why they sent him to Washington, D.C.
Then, holding up a copy of USA TODAY he says, "Look at this headline..." and then he reads the headline. Are you kidding me? And we pay this guy's salary? I wonder if he read the rest of the story or if he just stopped at the headline?
"Well shame on us, for being so far behind... and being so willing to rubber stamp anything this administration does." Oh REALLY? The Democrats are "rubber-stamping" everything the administration does? Sure could have fooled me! "Shame on us" for what? For not knowing about a TOP-SECRET, classified intelligence program? DUH! Well that's why it's TOP-SECRET! So people DON'T know about it.
"We ought to fold our tents and steal away." Could you, REALLY? PLEASE! PLEASE! PLEASE!
Leahy went on, "We have to pick up the paper to find out what is going on." Well, of course! It's only newspapers like USA TODAY and The New York Times that are willing to expose TOP-SECRET, classified intelligence programs to the general public, thereby risking the safety of millions of Americans. These papers have more access to leaks than a bus full of plumbers.
"This secret collection of phone calls records tens of millions of Americans..." Well, I guess it's not SECRET anymore! And by the way, it doesn't "record" anything more than what's already on a typical phone bill. If people are so worried someone might look at their phone bill, then they should be more careful about who they call.
"Now, are you telling me that tens of millions of Americans are involved with al-Qaeda? If that's the case, we've really failed in any kind of a war on terror." Give me a break! OK, I guess even Senators are allowed to ask rhetorical questions, but this one was really dumb. And then to suggest that this proves we have failed in the war on terror just takes the cake. I think it says just the opposite... that is, that we are DOING something about the war on terror. We are being pro-active not reactive. We are looking for clues. We are trying to "connect the dots."
Of course, if a terrorist attack were to happen here in the U.S. tomorrow, you can be sure that guys like Leahy would be the first ones out there bad-mouthing the administration because we "weren't doing enough"! Idiot. You can't have it both ways. You either opt for protection or you opt for vulnerablility. Apparently Leahy and lots of other Democrats want the U.S. to be vulnerable.
Considering that a Post-ABC poll found that 66% of those surveyed said they would not be bothered if NSA collected records of personal calls they had made, Leahy's remarks sound even more stupid.
Let's face it, Americans don't want a nuclear device going off in their country, and they are willing to risk a minimally invasive federal program to make sure it doesn't happen.
Letter to Senator Frist
I received the following via E-mail, and it's legit according to Snopes.com HERE. Some interesting views from a former frontline veteran in the U.S. Border Patrol...
Dear Senator Frist:
There is a huge amount of propaganda and myths circulating about illegal aliens, particularly illegal Mexican, Salvadorian, Guatemalan and Honduran aliens.
1. Illegal aliens generally do NOT want U.S. citizenship. Americans are very vain thinking that everybody in the world wants to be a U.S. citizen. Mexicans, and other nationalities want to remain citizens of their home countries while obtaining the benefits offered by the United States such as employment, medical care, in-state tuition, government subsidized housing and free education for their offspring. Their main attraction is employment and their loyalty usually remains at home. They want benefits earned and subsidized by middle class Americans. What illegal aliens want are benefits of American residence without paying the price.
2. There are no jobs that Americans won't do. Illegal aliens are doing jobs that Americans can't take and still support their families. Illegal aliens take low wage jobs, live dozens in a single residence home, share expenses and send money to their home country. There are no jobs that Americans won't do for a decent wage.
3. Every person who illegally entered this nation left a home. They are NOT homeless and they are NOT Americans. Some left jobs in their home countries. They come to send money to their real home as evidenced by the more than 20 billion dollars sent out of the country each year by illegal aliens. These illegal aliens knowingly and willfully entered this nation in violation of the law and therefore assumed the risk of detection and deportation. Those who brought their alien children assumed the responsibility and risk on behalf of their children.
4. Illegal aliens are NOT critical to the economy. Illegal aliens constitute less than 5% of the workforce. However, they reduce wages and benefits for lawful U.S. residents.
5. This is NOT an immigrant nation. There are 280 million native born Americans. While it is true that this nation was settled and founded by immigrants (legal immigrants), it is also true that there is not a nation on this planet that was not settled by immigrants at one time or another.
6. The United States is welcoming to legal immigrants. Illegal aliens are not immigrants by definition. The U.S. accepts more lawful immigrants every year than the rest of the world combined.
7. There is no such thing as the "Hispanic vote". Hispanics are white, brown, black and every shade in between. Hispanics are Repu blicans, Democrats, Anarchists, Communists, Marxists and Independents. The so-called "Hispanic vote" is a myth. Pandering to illegal aliens to get the Hispanic vote is a dead end.
8. Mexico is NOT a friend of the United States. Since 1848 Mexicans have resented the United States. During World War I Mexico allowed German Spies to operate freely in Mexico to spy on the U.S. During World War II Mexico allowed the Axis powers to spy on the U.S. from Mexico. During the Cold War Mexico allowed spies hostile to the U.S. to operate freely. The attack on the Twin Towers in 2001 was cheered and applauded all across Mexico. Today Mexican school children are taught that the U.S. stole California, Arizona, new Mexico and Texas. If you don't believe it, check out some Mexican textbooks written for their schoolchildren.
9. Although some illegal aliens enter this country for a better life, there are 6 billion people on this planet. At least 1 billion of those live on less than one dollar a day. If wanting a better life is a valid excuse to break the law and sneak into America, then let's allow those one billion to come to America and we'll turn the USA into a Third World nation overnight. Besides, there are 280 million native born Americans who want a better life. I'll bet Bill Gates and Donald Trump want a better life. When will the USA lifeboat be full? Since when is wanting a better life a good reason to trash another nation?
10. There is a labor shortage in this country. This is a lie. There are hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of American housewives, senior citizens, students, unemployed and underemployed who would gladly take jobs at a decent wage.
11. It is racist to want secure borders. What is racist about wanting secure borders and a secure America? What is racist about not wanting people to sneak into America and steal benefits we have set aside for legal aliens, senior citizens, children and other legal residents? What is it about race that entitles people to violate our laws, steal identities, and take the American Dream without paying the price?
For about four decades American politicians have refused to secure our borders and look after the welfare of middle class Americans. These politicians have been of both parties. A huge debt to American society has resulted. This debt will be satisfied and the interest will be high. There has already been riots in the streets by illegal aliens and their supporters. There will be more. You, as a politician, have a choice to offend the illegal aliens who have stolen into this country and demanded the rights afforded to U.S. citizens or to offend those of us who are stakeholders in this country. The interest will be steep either way. There will be civil unrest. There will be a reckoning. Do you have the courage to do what is right for America? Or, will you bow to the wants and needs of those who don't even have the right to remain here?
There will be a reckoning. It will come in November of this year, again in 2008 and yet again in 2010.
We will not allow America to be stolen by third world agitators and thieves.
David J. Stoddard
U.S. Border Patrol (RET)
Something to think about.
Looney Liberal of the Week: Patrick Kennedy
This week's award goes to Rep. Patrick Kennedy (D-RI). Kennedy crashed his car on Thursday morning at approximately 2:45 AM. He claims that alcohol was not a factor, but Capitol Police who first arrived on the scene reported he was staggering, that his eyes were red and watery, that his speech was slurred, and that they thought they smelled alcohol on his breath. They were going to give him the standard breath-alyzer test, but were prevented from doing so by two Capitol Police seargents that arrived on the scene shortly after, and who then gave Kennedy a ride home.
Kennedy told officers at the scene that he was there to cast a vote, but Congress had adjourned hours earlier. In the first statement which Kennedy gave after the accident (Thursday), he said he had consumed no alcohol prior to the accident, but had become disoriented after taking two prescription medications. However, rumors are now swirling that Kennedy was indeed seen drinking earlier in the evening.
On Friday, Kennedy issued another statement and this looney lib announced a sudden case of amnesia. He said he couldn't remember anything about the incident or having been cited with three traffic violations. Fred Barnes, Executive Editor of The Weekly Standard, questioned Kennedy's statement on the Friday edition of Special Report with Brit Hume at FOX News television. "How do you un-remember something?" asked Barnes.
In his Friday statement, Kennedy also pointed out that he was addicted to prescription pain medication and would be checking himself into the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota.
I was not surprised at all how The New York Times presented this story. The tone was very understanding and matter-of-fact. Kind of like... 'You know. Accidents happen. People get addicted. Ambien has been known to cause problems. The FDA is investigating. Senator Edward Kennedy says he loves his son very much and is proud of him... yada, yada, yada.' Even the following direct quote from the story is colorless... "Although Representative Kennedy said Friday that he could not remember the crash, he issued a statement on Thursday night explaining it." That's it! No follow-up!
I think the NYT should get an award for this story. Why? Because it's probably one of the best examples of how ALL their reporting should be done. Just the facts, with little or no color. Unfortunately, the NYT presented the story this way because the Kennedys are libs, and we wouldn't want to embarass them now, would we?
If the congressman was a Republican, and one with name recognition, the story would have been totally different. The word "allegation" or "alleged" would be all over the article. The congressman would be "claiming" this or that, instead of merely saying it. There would have been calls for an investigation. There would have been calls for the congressman to resign. There would be an outcry that would go on for months!
Maybe the NYT should have received this week's Looney Lib award?
May 1, 2006 -- XYBA has an interesting article at his blog "Once More Into The Breach". What I gleaned from the article includes the following...
Oil companies make an average profit of 10 cents on the dollarFederal taxes are approximately 18.4 cents per gallonState taxes vary from 7.5 to 45.7 cents per gallon (in NY)State taxes average around 22 cents per gallon nationwide
So let's think about this a minute. The national average of corporate profits was 11.6% of income (or 11.6 cents on the dollar) in the 4th Quarter of 2005 according to the U.S. Commerce Department. Therefore, the oil companies are right in line with the national average... maybe a little less.
The national average price of gasoline is about $3.00 per gallon. Federal and State taxes account for 40 cents per gallon on average. Of the remaining $2.60 per gallon, the oil companies make approximately 10% or 26 cents per gallon.
The Federal government then puts a corporate tax on this 26 cents of profit. How much corporate taxes do the oil companies pay? That's unclear, but I've seen various figures on the web that range anywhere from 9.8% up to 15%. (The standard corporate tax rate is 35%, but oil companies get various tax breaks). Let's use 12% as an average. That means that the oil companies get less than 23 cents per gallon after taxes.
So do the math...
Feds = 21.4 cents per gallon
State = 22.0 cents per gallon
Oil = 22.8 cents per gallon
What I want to know is, how much work did the Feds and the States have to do to earn their share of the pie?