LAST WEEK

Week ending July 30, 2010
Monday
Goats clear lawn, town saves money, goats are happy

The town didn’t even have to provide health insurance.

Tuesday
Ahmadinejad says U.S. is about to attack two Mid-East countries.

He did not say which countries, but we can guess who one of them would be.

The Defense Department lost 8.7 billion dollars
Check your bank account. Maybe it went there by mistake.

Wednesday
U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton, a Clinton appointee, strikes down Arizona law.

This looks like one for the U.S. Supreme Court

Thursday
Spain issues International arrest warrant for U.S. Servicemen

See our post

Friday
White House proposal would ease FBI access to records of Internet activity
.
Now you will not need to go to the library to be spied upon. Where are the screams from the left?

Decision near on Maxine Waters ethics case,
If there is any more swamp clearing in Washington we will be in trouble with the Environmental Department. They are charged with keeping things natural, you know.

Bob B

Bookmark and Share

SPAIN ISSUES ARREST WARRANT FOR U.S. SOLDIERS

The incident involved occurred in 2003, during the Iraq war, when 3 soldiers manned a tank that fired one round into the Palestine Hotel in Baghdad after seeing what they thought was gunfire coming from the hotel. Baghdad was still a war zone at the time. Two civilians were killed. They were journalists.

TIME reports:

On the morning of July 29, [2010] Spain’s National Court announced that it has re-issued an international arrest warrant against three U.S. soldiers it implicates in an attack on Baghdad’s Hotel Palestine, where Rodriguez and Couso, along with dozens of other journalists, were based during the Iraq war.

On April 8, 2003, one day before U.S. troops officially captured Baghdad, a U.S. tank fired a single incendiary shell on the hotel, killing Couso, a cameraman for Spain’s Telecinco television station, and Reuters journalist Taras Protsyuk.

The journalists had stationed themselves within a dangerous war zone. War is Hell, and chaos as well. Sadly, very sadly, mistakes happen in every war. Fighting heroes and innocent civilians die from friendly fire. It is a tragedy but not a crime.

Is it not enough that a soldier risk life and limb on behalf of us all? Must he also risk liberty at the whim of some foreign court?

Bob B

Bookmark and Share

HEALTH CARE BILL FOR 911 FIRST RESPONDERS

The games politicians play.

The House bill would provide special medical benefits for the heroes of 911. Both parties overwhelmingly favor providing the benefits contained in the bill. So why was it defeated and why is the issue so hot in the House?

It is politics of course.  It would have passed under the general rules of the House. But those rules allow the proposal of amendments from any Congressman. There is a special rule that blocks amendments.  The party that controls the House sets the House rules. The Democrats selected the second rule so Republicans would be unable to propose any amendments.

It would have passed under the general rules. The Democrats control the House and had the votes needed. They chose to present the bill for vote in a manner that assured its defeat.

This New York Times article explains it fairly well. However, I would suggest changing the very first sentence from:

House Republicans on Thursday blocked a Democratic plan to provide billions of dollars for medical treatment to rescue workers and residents of New York City who suffered illnesses from the toxic dust and debris at ground zero.

To read:

House Democrats blocked passage of their own plan to provide billions of dollars for medical treatment to rescue workers and residents of New York City who suffered illnesses from the toxic dust and debris at ground zero. Despite having the votes for passage under the general rules, the Majority party chose to invoke a special rule that led to its defeat.

Here is the heated exchange as the two parties display their anger.

MEXICAN FLAG FLIES IN PHOENIX, ARRESTS MADE

The Mexican flag is being carried by protester. It is not flying over the City Hall, but nevertheless, flying a sovereign flag is making a very serious statement. It symbolizes dominance, over a mountain, on the Moon, in war or as a goal by demonstrators.

Where is our President in all this?

DRAINING PELOSI’S SWAMP

What’s that old saying about stones and glass houses? I think it goes ‘if you swim in a cesspool don’t complain about someone else’s swamp’.

Politicians turn melancholy when one of them gets caught. You can hear them sigh, -but for the grace of God, it could have been me. The Speaker of the House, third in line for the Presidency, is beyond melancholy. She is calling the entire Republican party “is a criminal conspiracy”. Does she not know that Rangel is a Democrat?

When there is no defense, go on offense. That’s taught in Litigation 101. If your client is guilty, attack the witnesses. Perhaps the witness that saw your client pump 5 bullets into the victim once cheated on his wife. Who is going to believe a man like that?

Hillary took the same Litigation class. A vast right-wing conspiracy served as the straw man, correction – straw woman, in that case.

Bob B

Bookmark and Share

OLIVER STONE

Director Oliver Stone went Moore Mad. From the London Sunday Times came this:

Director Oliver Stone belittled the Holocaust during a shocking interview with the Sunday Times today, claiming that America’s focus on the Jewish massacre was a product of the “Jewish domination of the media.”. The director also defended Hitler and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and railed against the “powerful lobby” of Jews in America.

Upon seeing the public furor over the remark, he  retracted his statements and apologized.  Apology accepted. He sincerely acknowledged that some of the things one believes should not be expressed in public.

However, if ever there was a man of the Left, Oliver Stone is it. Please note, this man of the left sided with Adolf Hitler in his interview with the Sunday Times. He is not the first from the Left to do so and do so. No less an icon than Charles Lindberg was a Hitler supporter. Lindberg supported Hitler (early on) because he, Lindberg, was a liberal and saw merit in Hitlers’s socialist agenda. Our liberal compatriots like to paint old Adolf as a man of the Right. Don’t believe it. Hitler’s Party was the National Socialists Party and nothing, absolutely nothing that he did would ever be condoned by the folks the Left calls ‘right wingers’, extremist or not.

RADICAL IN CHIEF by Stanley Kurtz

A new book about Barack Obama promises to change forever the national debate about who Barack Obama is.

The book is titled Radical-In-Chief and scheduled for release in October. Here is the press release.

Part biography, part history, part detective story, Radical-In-Chief reveals the carefully hidden tale of Barack Obama’s political past. Stanley Kurtz, whose research helped inject the Bill Ayers and ACORN issues into the 2008 presidential campaign, presents the results of more than two years of digging into President Obama’s radical political world. The book is filled with previously unknown information about the president’s past, tied together by a bold argument about what Obama’s deepest political convictions really are.

Radical-In-Chief marshals a wide array of never-before-seen evidence to establish that the president of the United States is indeed a socialist. Tracing an unbroken thread of socialist activities and political partnerships, from Obama’s youth through his community organizing days and beyond, the book confirms that the president’s harshest critics have been right about his socialism all along.

Radical-In-Chief also exposes the truth about community organizers–the socialist beliefs they hold and hide, and how they trained and groomed a president. Obama’s community organizer colleagues had a strategy for slowly and stealthily turning the United States into a socialist nation. The Obama administration is carrying out that strategy today.

Bob B

Bookmark and Share

AIN'T IT THE TRUTH !

KRUGMAN ON CLIMATE CHANGE

The year 2010 is the year “all hope of action to limit climate change died”, says economist columnist Paul Krugman, writing for the New York Times. Really? I wish it were true, but I am afraid Krugman is wrong again.

He continues

One of the favorite tricks of climate-change deniers: they point to an unusually warm year in the past, and say “See, the planet has been cooling, not warming, since 1998!” Actually, 2005, not 1998, was the warmest year to date.

He has a point. In 2007 NASA changed their numbers and declared 2005 to be the warmest year on record, not 1998 as they had previously reported. They do acknowledge other agencies still put 1934 as the warmest, but that’s a moot point. Some things Krugman fails to say are:

The third hottest year on record was 1921.

Three of the five hottest years on record occurred before 1940.

Six of the top 10 hottest years occurred before 90 percent of the growth in greenhouse gas emissions during the last century occurred.

NASA’s ground-based temperature records for the past 120 years’ which have been the basis for most of the claims that global warming is happening at an unprecedented rate, — have now been corrected to show that much of the warming occurred before CO2 emissions and concentrations began to rise significantly.

And that is an important point, because the real argument is not over warming, but over the cause. Is it man made as scientists Al Gore and Paul Krugman claim or is it natural, perhaps from temperature changes at the sun’s surface, as some other scientists claim? If the latter are correct, building windmills on hills to fight the sun is a bit quixotic, don’t you think? Or perhaps it is just plain silly.

The most honest of all was G. W. Bush. When asked for his for his position on the issue, he said “I don’t believe we should be making sacrifices for something we dunno.”. There is nothing silly about that.

Bob B

Bookmark and Share

ILLEGALS MOVING OUT OF ARIZONA

They are not going home. They are migrating to other states where looser law prevails. This can only increase tensions between the states.

Arizona is not taking an ideological stance, the state is fighting for its very survival. The situation is not well understood by those outside of the state of Arizona. The problem is not one of having too having many migrant workers, the problem is one of halving too many violent thugs. The criminal element in Mexico is drawn to the northern border. That’s where the money is, in transporting drugs and wetbacks across the border.

Crime is everywhere and every kind. Law enforcement on the Mexican side is all but non-existent. The small towns on the Arizona side are overwhelmed. The unfortunate irony is, those who move out will be the best of the bunch. The drug traffickers will remain.

This is not the first time there has been serious trouble on the Mexican border. In 1916 border violence became such a problem that 15,000 State Militiamen were called into service to put down the violence led by Poncho Villa and his acolytes. But 15,000 were not enough. President Woodrow Wilson had to send 75,000 National Guardsmen under the leadership of General Pershing to restore law and order.

Bob B