« May 2006 | Main | July 2006 »

June 28, 2006

Irresponsible Journalism

Re this kerfuffle:

A recent leak to The New York Times and some other newspapers revealed a previously secret program by the Bush administration to examine foreign banking transactions in its pursuit of terrorists with ties to al-Qaida. The banking transactions mostly involve wire transfers and other methods of moving money overseas. This isn't about examining our canceled checks for items that might embarrass us before prying eyes.

As they have with previous secrets of the President's prosecution of the Global War On Terror, the only thing that stands between the safety of Americans in America and encores to the likes of 9/11, the New York Times has again aided and abetted our enemy by publishing classified information leaked to them by treasonous elements of past or present federal employees.

Yes, I say treasonous -- the people who are in a position to possess the sort of information, deemed "need to know" that Bill Keller and the rest of those leftists over at NYT take such pleasure in publishing are betraying not only any oaths of confidentiality they might have taken on accepting the jobs they occupy; worse, they are betraying the American people, those of us whose taxes pay their salaries and will be supporting them through their pensions when they retire.

In my honest opinion, I believe that what the NYT has once again done, despite Keller's lofty protests that his paper was adhering to their 1st Amendment rights and that he had done all kinds of soul searching and moral deliberation before, has been to use information leaked to them by above mentioned traitors to commit treason themselves. What else can you call it when a newspaper prints stories they have to know will alert our enemy, in time of war, to secret methods by which we are fighting that war?

Cal Thomas has it completely right:

This isn't about the privileges guaranteed by the First Amendment. It is about the agenda practiced by the Times and some other newspapers and media outlets that clearly want the administration to fail in Iraq — and in everything else — so that Democrats will retake the reigns of government. The Times' editorial board fears what one more Republican term could do to the left's judicially imposed cultural realignment and wants to blunt the Bush administration's counteroffensive.

Yes, completely right.

Read his entire column here.

Posted by Seth at 04:04 PM | Comments (3) |

June 26, 2006

A Pay Raise!!!? Talk To The Hand!!!!

A cost-of-living raise for Congress?

Congress is quietly moving to give itself a 2% cost-of-living raise next year, prompting complaints that lawmakers are trying to hide their wage boost.

A provision that would give cost-of-living adjustments to various federal officials — raising lawmakers' pay to $168,500 next year — is tucked into a bill the House of Representatives passed this month to fund the Department of Transportation and other agencies.

Well, I suppose I can see where the cost of living has increased to the point that $168k and change might be a little tough to survive on, those lunches at the Watergate and Sans Souci and trysts at the Hay Adams can add up, and I doubt that the likes of Teddy K imbibe anything less than the best, but... I've always believed that some sort of merit should be attached to a pay hike, and I'm having a really tough time thinking of any reason to give Congress a raise based on merit, or based on anything else for that matter.

Of late, they've been behaving as though they work for themselves rather than functioning as employees of the electorate and their output has been questionable as such. Instead of giving them a raise, why not just give the money to some of the criminal aliens they want to give amnesty to, so they can send it home to help bail Vicente Fox out of some of his myriad economic failures? Or use the money for their next pork barrel "earmark"?

If it were up to me, all proposals for federal pay increases on all levels would appear on the ballot on the relevant election day and we, the voters, would be the yea'ers or nayers. We are, after all, their employers. How often do we see employees anyplace else getting to sit down and vote on their pay raises?

The legislation now moves to the Senate, where Democrats such as Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, Russ Feingold of Wisconsin and Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts are making the raise an issue.

Feingold said last week that he'll try to stop the pay increase; Clinton has authored a bill that would tie increases in congressional pay to increases in the minimum wage. Congress hasn't raised the minimum wage — $5.15 an hour, or $10,700 a year — since 1997. During the same period, annual congressional pay has increased by $31,000.

Tom Schatz, president of the watchdog group Citizens Against Government Waste, would prefer to see congressional pay hikes tied to the federal deficit, now projected at $300 billion or more. "If we have a balanced budget, maybe then they deserve a pay raise," he says.

It's got to be a cold day in hell, because on this I agree with the liberals in Congress who plan to fight the raise. I don't agree with Hillary's proposal, her plan is merely a shrewd carrot and stick approach to giving Congress an incentive to raise the minimum wage, but as far as Feingold and Kennedy(spit!) are concerned, well....

I think Tom Schatz has the right idea: Tie congressional pay raises into their performance, their spending habits being a great place to start, since whenever they spend money, it's our money they're spending.

On the supposed other side of the coin:

Congressional pay has long been a sensitive matter, in part because it's substantial. At $165,200 this year, members of Congress earn roughly four times the salary of the average American. On the other hand, they earn the same as federal district judges, deputy Cabinet secretaries, heads of major agencies and some senior federal bureaucrats. Supreme Court justices, top congressional leaders and Cabinet secretaries make more; President Bush earns $400,000 a year.

Some outside experts argue that lawmakers aren't nearly as affluent as their six-figure incomes might lead constituents to believe. "They do have some unusual expenses," says Stephen Hess, a Brookings Institution scholar who studies Congress. Chief among them: the need to maintain homes in two places, one of which is in one of the most expensive areas in the country. According to the National Association of Realtors, Washington, D.C., was the 11th priciest housing market in the nation last year.

"When you take into consideration the cost of living in two cities, the salary is average at best," says Jim Chapman, a former congressman who now works as a lobbyist.

Sure, but how many members of Congress live in middle class neighborhoods and anywhere near as modestly as most of their constituents?

I own a seven room home(not counting the laundry room, kitchen and two full baths) in a residential area in Charlotte, NC, and it costs me about $600.00 a month, give or take, to keep the bills paid, maybe another $600.00 to buy food and other necessities, and I eat well. Too well, in fact. Not counting entertainment and social issues, my annual living expenses, including homeowner's insurance and property taxes, come in at around $25,000.00 a year, and that's only because of a few ongoing luxuries. Unless you live in Georgetown or some other expensive area, you can live comfortably enough in DC on an income of $50,000.00 a year. So if I were a senator or representative, my annual cost of living might average, between living in both places, about $85,000.00 a year plus recreation. If I had a wife and a child or two who still lived at home, maybe 25k or so a year more.

On $168,500.00, that would leave me, after taxes, a good $70,000.00 plus for enjoyment, not to mention my unspent campaign money and the perks that come with being a member of Congress. Hmmm... Members of Congress aren't superstars or gods, they're merely citizens like the rest of us whom we send to DC to represent us in the running of our government. The great majority of their constituents have to budget themselves to various degrees, in fact many have little or nothing left over after taking care of "the inescapable". Perhaps that's what our politicians should have to do as well. It might give them a better perspective of the living situations of those they "govern".

Further, in the private sector, most of us get paid what we're worth to our employer, not what our personal expenses dictate. We have to adjust our lifestyles to our incomes, not the other way around. If Senator Livingston Hamilton Shmoe, lll wants to live in a fifteen room house in an upscale neighborhood back in his home state and a $5,000.00 a month apartment in DC, that's not our lookout. We don't pay Senator Shmoe to live like a baron, we pay him to do a job that he and most of his colleagues aren't doing very well at the moment.

If they aren't happy with what they're being paid for the piss poor job they're doing, let the bums go back into the private sector and practice Law, or whatever they were doing before they became politicians. Congress was never intended to be a career field, anyway -- it was supposed to be a place to which one went for one or two terms, then returned to private life to reap what they'd sewn.

For much of Congress' history, pay raises were enacted late at night, without roll call votes. To free lawmakers from the political embarrassment of having to vote on their own pay raises, Congress made itself eligible for the same cost-of-living adjustments as other federal employees in 1989.

Lately, including last year, the pay hikes have gone into effect quietly. During the 1990s, though, members voted five times to forgo the automatic pay hike. Some members say now's the time to do so again, given the costs of the war in Iraq and Katrina relief. "Maybe Congress should tighten its own belt first," Matheson says. "It would be an important symbol."


Posted by Seth at 05:47 AM |


Mark Steyn's kicking some serious butt this week, and making me laugh my touchas off at the same time, with this column.

You gotta hand it to these guys: "Redeployment" is ingenious. I'll bet the focus-group consultants were delirious: "surrender," "lose,","scram," "scuttle ignominiously," "head for the hills" all polled poorly, but "redeploy" surveyed well with all parts of the base, except the base in Okinawa, where they preferred "sayonara" — that's "redeploy" in any language. The Defeaticrats have a clear message for the American people. Read da ploy: No new quagmires.

Read the column and see if you don't -- heh heh -- laugh your ass off at the way Steyn presents a too-true state of affairs.

Don't drink your coffee while you read the column, or you might spew it all over your keyboard.

Posted by Seth at 02:22 AM |

June 25, 2006

Yearning For Saner Years Gone By

Way back when I was a kid {and I mean way} we weren't "overprotected". We did all the stuff you do at playgrounds over a concrete or pebble filled asphalt ground, monkey bars, swings, see-saws and all. No built-in rubber mats underlining whatever venue we were playing on. No bicycle helmets, knee pads and so forth. In the winter, we went flying down long hills of snow and ice laying prone on low slung, narrow wooden sleds on steel runners. We climbed trees, we built tree houses, we played with solid hardballs in Little League baseball, bashed the hell out of each other in Pop Warner football and bombarded each other with projectiles that were big rubber balls in games of dodge ball. We went to the local pizza shop and gorged large slices of thick, doughy Sicilian pizza and loved the heck out of enormous ice cream sundaes that housed every kind of fattening agent known to man. We dove off of high diving boards. We weren't mollycoddled by society, we were permitted to be kids.

Now, all is liability.

Liberal trial lawyers have managed to instill terror in the hearts of cities, states and business concerns -- the mishap that results from someone's clumsiness has become the fault of whoever owns the property on which an accident occurs. In many ways, similarly to the denutritionalisation of bread, they are bleaching a lot of the fun out of growing up....

Steve Moore of the Wall Street Journal sums it all up rather well, using as his vehicle the veritable extinction of... the diving board.

I'll leave you to it....

Posted by Seth at 11:55 PM |

Footloose And Fancy Free Security

One of the downsides of our technological age is the large inventory of security vulnerabilities it has brought with it. Like all advances in technology from the primitive to modern day, the new invariably phases out the old so that it eventually becomes a necessity, especially in business and government.

Electronic data storage isn't new, but as it has evolved, so have the computer skills of criminals who know how to make use of data they steal. This has created a collosal and still blossoming branch of the Protection Industry called Information Security that attracts many of the best and the brightest in the computer field.

Unfortunately, even in these days of heightened security awareness, many companies that possess confidential information fail, for any of a number of reasons, to adequately address security concerns and as a result, a lot of confidential data, much of it criminally usable personal information on people who have no affiliation with the companies in question and therefore no "say" in how their information is secured, is stolen.

Here's one government contractor that practically offers up its proprietary information to anyone who steals any of five thousand laptops from employees' homes.

A laptop containing personal data -- including Social Security numbers -- of 13,000 District workers and retirees was stolen Monday from the Southeast Washington home of an employee of ING U.S. Financial Services, the company said yesterday.

ING, which administers the District's retirement plan, known as DCPlus, notified the city about the theft late Friday.

The company is mailing a letter to all affected account holders to alert them to the risk of someone using the information to commit identity theft, spokeswoman Caroline Campbell said. The company is also telling customers that it will set up and pay for a year of credit monitoring and identity fraud protection.

The laptop was not protected by a password or encryption, Campbell said. Encryption safeguards information by scrambling it into indecipherable codes.

The letter should open something like this:

Dear Fragonard and Elise Boosprinhoffer;

Some time ago, your city government entrusted us with a quantity of your vital personal information, for whose security we automatically assumed responsibility. This letter is to inform you that we've screwed the pooch, and that your information is now in the hands of person or persons unknown.We are very sorry we didn't even bother using security encryption in the 5,000 laptops containing your confidential data, scattered to hell and gone among employees nationwide....

A Social Security number can be used by thieves to open new lines of credit in the victim's name. In the past 15 months, more than 85 million U.S. consumers have been told that their personal or financial data might have been compromised because of data breaches, disgruntled employees or incompetence.

Last month, the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs announced that the personal information of 26.5 million veterans and military personnel was endangered after a laptop and external hard drive were stolen from an employee's home in Montgomery County.

I must say, laptops with peoples' confidential information on them are a hot item these days.

There is no reason in the universe for this kind of stupidity, and it really does demonstrate how seriously many firms don't take security, especially yours and mine. A competent security director, unless he was constrained from so doing by the fine folks in the executive suite, which happens more often than many people realize, would centralize all the confidential data in one place, where it could be safeguarded much more easily, and according to their work needs, employees could access it via a password protection system, each with his or her own password. Further, access could be both monitored and restricted to individual employees' specific need-to-know datum. All of that is within the range of modern security technology.

A lot of security people are in working environments in which, if permitted to do their jobs properly, they would have to "inconvenience" employees like "ladeedah" Larry the Latte Man, who wants to take home some confidential documents, breaching security policy, because it's oh so much easier to work in his office at home, an employee who "accidentally" left his or her company ID at home, but is almost late and has to run. "Sorry, ma'am, I see you every day, but for all I know, you might have quit or been terminated yesterday, and policy requires that I check. Please be patient while I confirm that you still work here, and then I can issue you a one day pass." Unfortunately, companies often require their security personnel to "look the other way once in a while" without actually documenting these requirements, all part of "promoting an employee friendly work environment". Then there's the PC factor that's forced on people whose job is often anything but PC friendly. Protectors cannot protect if they are not given both the needed resources and the authority to do what they have to do to protect their principals.

However, in not taking security as seriously as it is needed -- as in ING U.S. Financial Services, taking the path of least resistance, as it were, companies invite infinitely more costly problems down the road.

Isn't it nice that thousands of people can take your confidential information home with them? What are the odds that ING and the U.S. Department of Veterans' Affairs {one a city government contractor, the other a federal agency} are the only two such entities in the entire country that observe this practice? Not very good, I'm afraid.

I love this part:

ING executives say that they believe that their computer was stolen for its value as hardware and that thieves may not have been aware of the data it contained. ING said it is working with District police and has hired a private investigative firm.

How silly is that?

What they are really saying is, "We haven't a clue, this incident has thoroughly embarrassed us and the lack of confidence it has no doubt inspired will cost us a lot of new business and very possibly a number of our present clients, so in an effort to circumvent any kind of uproar at our incompetent security measures, we're feeding you this line of transparent bullcrap."

ING executives say that they believe that their computer was stolen for its value as hardware and that thieves may not have been aware of the data it contained.

A. What evidence do they have to support that "belief"? How do they know it wasn't stolen for the data within? It could as easily have been a dishonest friend or an ex with an axe to grind who knew what the employee brought home with him, because he had told them.

B. Even if the thief had stolen the laptop for its 'value as hardware', um, chances are that he or someone he fenced it to (there are computer savvy people in all walks of life, from flophouses to mansions) might discover the data and, both obviously possessing a criminal turn of mind, might either use it themselves or, if they weren't that expert, bring it to someone who knows how. Maybe some computer wiz kid from the suburbs who occasionally buys crack from one of them, someone's brother or someone's aunt, for that matter. Or a nine year old who lives down the street and spends all his free time in front of his computer, hacking into places he doesn't belong. This is a new age, friends, a real world remake of Alice In Wonderland, only rated R (and in some places, XXX).

C. Efficient crooks work just as hard at their respective trades as the rest of us do. Some use burglaries as camouflage for other crimes. To momentarily digress, I'll relate an example from my casino security days when I lived in Nevada:

One of the charges we made a lot of arrests for was called "Uttering A Forged Instrument" and dealt, among other things, with cashing or attempting to cash checks that weren't... well, weren't made out to the casher by the party or company whose name appeared on the checks. Casino cages cash payroll checks all the time, knowing that at least some of the money will find its way into their slots, across their tables or into the cashiers' windows in Race & Sports.

That said, there was a group of criminals in the city who bought up found or stolen IDs, passports and driver's licences from street people, pickpockets, etc. Their "gig" was burglarizing small businesses -- they would steal a couple of computers, whatever cash they found.... and then go into the business owner's book of blank payroll checks, removing a few pages of checks from the bottom where nobody would discover they were gone for possibly months. The owner would call the police, they would take a report and the stolen office hardware would disappear into a lake or someplace.

Next, they would draw from the pool of street people(in Las Vegas or Reno, the only way a homeless person can live with even minimal "dignity" is by staying clean and respectable looking, and they find ways to do it) local druggies and other petty crooks, matching faces to IDs as closely as possible and making out stolen pay checks in the names on the IDs. The checks averaged $800.00 to $1200.00 in amounts, and the deal was that the casher got to keep half of the amount. This was very well organized, the only flaw being the inevitable one when a lot of people are involved -- we were able to persuade a few of the cashers we caught to roll over on the people giving them the "work".

My point being, if ING doesn't know who pulled off the theft, how can they know the motive behind it? The employee from whom the lap top was allegedly stolen could, himself, have committed the "theft" in partnership with an identity thief who knows what he's doing.

Monday's burglary has prodded ING to analyze whether any of its other 5,000 laptops in circulation across the country lack adequate protection, Campbell said. Steve Van Wyk, the company's chief information officer, said he did not know how many of its computers lacked security measures but believed it was a small number.

"For us, this is very unfortunate," Campbell said. "But we're moving forward, we're very focused and committed to find any other laptops that don't have encryption software and to fix that. This incident revealed a gap."

It wasn't the first time, however. Two ING laptops that carried sensitive data affecting 8,500 Florida hospital workers were stolen in December, and neither was encrypted, said Chuck Eudy, an ING spokesman.

Emboldening mine.

So it happened to two (count 'em, 2) of their other unencrypted laptops about six months ago, and they didn't fully(assuming they are telling the truth about most of their laptops being encrypted) address the problem then. There are still a few Lone Rangers out there with the laptops from hell.

To my thinking, this is a double whammy. Not only didn't ING have competent information security policies in place before the first hit, but they didn't correct the vulnerability that the incident had flung right in their face.

I believe, also, that some blame goes to the DC city administrators that placed this data in the hands of ING without first having competent, experienced Protection professionals do a security survey on the firm and see that such vulnerabilities were addressed adequately. This was, after all, citizens' personal information their agency was sharing with a private sector company.

One thing about the Post article that shows someone, somewhere is thinking -- just in case it was merely a "hardware theft", they were smart enough not to release the employee's name and address. The DC cops are also totally right in not releasing any information on their investigation.

Posted by Seth at 02:15 PM | Comments (6) |

June 22, 2006

Posting Some Michelle

Read This!

Posted by Seth at 01:39 AM |

June 21, 2006

Liberalism, Another Entertainment Venue

Yeah, liberals can be quite amusing, despite the danger they pose to this country now and that which they've exposed this country to in the past.

It's funny in a tragic way, for example, that they have so conned minorities into believing they have their best interests at heart. Let's see now... In the 1950s and the 1960s, liberal justices on the Court began pushing an agenda of blaming the crimes of violent black criminals on all of society instead of on the perpetrators, tampering with the rules of evidence so as to protect the guilty and liberal judges began cutting defendants loose left and right. This phenomenon emboldened would-be violent offenders to become active as such, seeing that the teeth had been removed, by general consent, from the criminal justice system.

So who was actually helped by this liberal legal trend? If you guessed the law abiding, inner city black communities, you're dead wrong; When potential perps realized that they could commit all the mayhem they wanted to commit without "getting in any real trouble" because any crimes they committed were "officially the white man's fault", they did just that, but they didn't do it very much in white neighborhoods, they brought it home, instead, to their own. They turned low income black neighborhoods into war zones, terrorizing their neighbors, defacing the 'hoods, robbing small businesses repeatedly and rendering the neighborhoods unsafe for respectable citizens to even leave their homes to buy groceries. This turn of events had very little effect on whites or white neighborhoods, the victims were almost exclusively blacks in black neighborhoods.

The public schools in these urban areas turned into the same quagmire of drugs and gang violence as the rest of the 'hoods, driving away most effective teachers, and the children in these schools were thus denied the same quality education the liberals' children, in their white neighborhoods, enjoyed.

And the liberals told, and continued to tell, the mostly law abiding members of these beleaguered neighborhoods that the gang violence and street crime were the white man's fault, more specifically, the "racist" Republicans.

To this day, liberals pat themselves on the back for completely fucking over black communities everywhere by playing guardian angel to their criminal elements, yet masterfully exercising the truth so as to maintain a strong black constituency.

The liberal intellectual feels, despite the murder and misery his policy has caused, that he has achieved the "moral high ground" in the matter, and therefore it is all acceptable, and besides, he still has the black vote.

Tragic, even macabre, but funny in its own bizarre way to those of us who laugh hysterically at films like Dumb And Dumber -- that an entire constituency can be so naive as to fall so heavily for a con, to the point that they jump right into bed with the very people who are screwing them -- hmm, there's something of a double entendre {ugh, French, spit!} there, so to simplify what I mean, I'll say that there is "no kissing" involved.

Meanwhile, the Dubya Administration has had blacks in key positions, such as National Security Advisor and Secretary of State. Good people both.

I attended a keynote session at last year's ASIS conference where Colin Powell was the speaker, and he was awesome! The job of SecState has got to be one of the toughest jobs in the world right now, and Condolleeza Rice is doing just fine, even though I don't think we're being hard enough in our dealings with Iran and the Palestinian Authority.

High ticket liberals, on the other hand, feature a paucity of blacks among denizens of their respective payrolls. Well, seeing as the KKK was comprised of Southern Democrats, why should I be surprised?

But that entire example was a digression from the topic of this post.

How about all the other liberal policies, the ones that they're still trying to force on us?

Within the last several days, I decided to try to learn, from their own "mouths", exactly where liberals believe they are trying to take this country. I asked a handful of "serious" liberals I know personally the following question:

Let's say that liberals won the White House and became a congressional majority(both houses) by 2008, then by 2010 had seen every one of your political, economic, immigration, education, homeland security, foreign policy and social agendas reach fruition. How do you see the U.S. in the year 2030?

My friend Mr. Ogre thinks their respective answers will be one word, "Utopia", LOL.

So far, I haven't received a single reply, unless you count the "crickets chirping". My guess is that liberals don't particularly relish looking down the road at the long term realities of their ongoing endeavors. After all, when their(and the rest of our) chickens come home to roost, they can always blame Republicans, raise taxes and expand government payrolls, perhaps create new beauracracies, right? To liberals, the tax base is the same thing as having a cigar box at home where you keep your cash, and a fairy godmother(or, perhaps, in view of their more recent political platforms, fairy godfather) who replaces the cash as fast as you spend it. Unfortunately for the rest of us, that Monopoly money is our hard earned tax dollars.

Wanna know something? If the members of the First Continental Congress had somehow gotten to watch a video on liberal influence in today's government, they would've stood up and left en masse, wanting no part of anything outside taking care of their own colonies. What the left is doing to our country is bringing it around on a 180 from the mission of our founding fathers. They twist the wording of the Constitution to change our laws, they turn government schools into liberal indoctrination centers that teach selective History and tolerance of perversion while accepting no religious referendums other than the study of the Koran.

They use the courts to restrict our freedom of speech -- not theirs, liberals can say whatever they please and it's great, anything a conservative says is racist.

They've instituted this whole PC trip in our society which I think is even beyond idiotic.

Speaking of which, another friend of mine, GM Roper, has put together a LEXICON FOR THE LEFT that demands immediate perusal.


Posted by Seth at 06:55 PM | Comments (4) |

America Says Thank You....

From Move America Forward we now have purely donation-sponsored(how to donate is linked below in the email alert) national TV and radio ad campaigns whose target is to get out the complete truth about our troops' activities in Iraq and in the War On Terror as a whole, not just the whining, spun, often uncorroborated, ever-negative, one sided, politically screened "reports" we receive from the mainstream media. Most importantly, the ads will let our troops, and the families of our troops, who are fighting the War on Terror know that, despite all the Bee Ess coming from the lefty media, marxist stooges like Michael Moore and Jane Fonda, wingnuts like Cindy Shirthead -- damn, how'd that 'r' get in there? -- and an alarming number of hungry career politicians on the Hill, from both sides of the aisle, who seem to have forgotten both that they work for us, the American Taxpayer, not for themselves, and that it greatly behooves not only them, but all their constituents, when senators and representatives are patriots -- that the American people are profoundly grateful to our troops for what they are voluntarily doing on our behalf, for the risks they take every day and the hardships they endure, and for their often brutal sacrifices, and to their families.

The kind of money Move America Forward has had to raise for these projects so far, especially the T.V. ads, has more than demonstrated that there are a huge number of American individuals, companies and foundations that support our military personnel and the War on Terror. To read the New York Times or watch CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN or NPR (spit), you'd think there were only a few isolated pockets of right thinkers in this country, most in hiding, and that everyone else is a staunch liberal who hates the President and condemns the War on Terror, the fact of the Bush reelection notwithstanding.

The television spot begins airing tomorrow {Thursday, 22 June}.

National TV Campaign:

“America Says Thank You”


Television & Radio Ad Campaign Thanks U.S. Troops

for Service & Sacrifice in Iraq & Afghanistan

(SAN FRANCISCO) – A major multi-media advertising blitz thanking American troops for a “job well done” in the war against terrorism will begin on Thursday, June 22, 2006.

The “America Says Thank You” ad campaign is a project of the pro-troop organization, Move America Forward (website: www.MoveAmericaForward.org). The first television ads will air on the Fox News Channel television network. The debut 60-second TV spot features a listing of major terrorist figures killed, captured or arrested as a result of the U.S.-led war against terrorism.

The ad campaign will then expand to CNN/Headline News and then on to local affiliates of the major television networks (NBC, CBS, ABC, Fox, WB, UPN).

Total expenditures for the ad campaign are expected to run well into six figures, and this funding is being provided by individuals, organizations and institutions who wish to see more balanced and positive media coverage on the war against terrorism. To date more than 1,000 individuals have contributed to this specific advertising effort.

Pro-Troop Message Must Be Purchased – Media Bias Alleged

“We’re broadcasting these ads because somebody has to tell the other side of the story that’s not being reported by the news media. Our troops are making great progress in the war on terrorism, and there is a steady stream of positive developments taking place in Iraq,” said Melanie Morgan, Chairman of Move America Forward.

“Many journalists have gotten so bad in obsessing on any and all negative developments in Iraq – at the exclusion of coverage of any positive accomplishments being made – that supporters of U.S. troops are forced to buy the airtime to tell the public about the progress being made by our troops.

“We understand the mission in Iraq is a challenging one and we recognize that there are obstacles that must be overcome. However, can’t the news media tell the American people about all the good things being done there in addition to the bad stories? The good news coming out of Iraq is almost never reported,” said Melanie Morgan.

“So, until it does, Move America Forward will rally the American public to stand together and get that message out. We owe it to our troops and the military families to make sure that the efforts being made by the men and women of the United States military receive fair and proper coverage,” Morgan concluded.

The first television and radio advertisements can be seen online at Move America Forward’s website: www.MoveAmericaForward.org

The following is a description of the above-mentioned commercial advertisements.


TV Ad: “America Says Thank You”

Description: Details the terrorist leaders who have been killed, captured or arrested by the United States and our allies in the war against terrorism. Points out that U.S. Troops are also actively involved in helping to build a free and secure Iraq. 60-second television advertisement.

View it Here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QvfRCwk8edg


Radio Ad 1: “Winning the War Against Terrorism”

Description: Features Joseph Williams, father of Marine Michael Jason Williams who died in Operation Iraqi Freedom. Williams asserts that the war in Iraq has helped to make America safer. Also features Deborah Johns, mother of Marine William Johns, who is returning to Iraq for his THIRD tour of duty. Urges the American people to pull together as a nation to show the terrorists that we are in this fight to win. 60-second radio advertisement.

Listen to it Here: http://websrvr80il.audiovideoweb.com/il80web20028/MAF-7452_REV.mp3


Radio Ad 2: “America Thanks You"

Description: Similar audio track to “America Says Thank You” television ad. 60-second radio advertisement.

Listen to it Here: http://websrvr80il.audiovideoweb.com/il80web20028/MAF-7456_Mix.mp3

A tip of my hat to Joe Wierzbicki.

Posted by Seth at 04:51 PM |

No Matter What Else You Read Today....

.... You've gotta read this.

Posted by Seth at 06:40 AM |


So it's between 9 and 10 in the morning, and I'm doing things on-line. I have a long playlist going at MusicMatch, stuff from my own eras gone by, like

Goodbye To Love (The Carpenters), Stoned In Love (The Stylistics), Early In The Morning (Vanity Fare), Come Saturday Morning (The Sandpipers), etc, etc....

I need to run out of my office and into the rec-room for something. Simon & Garfunkels' "The Dangling Conversation" is playing. I've been sort of singing along with the song, and as I get up and head for the other room I continue doing so. This is about a 70 second project.

I get back to my office, still singing along, and find that Paul, Art and I are still in perfect sync:

"Yes we speak of things that matter, with words that must be said,
can analysis be worthwhile, is the theatre really dead?"

Gives me pause for thought, am I that easily hypnotized?... then the song ends and another one I've liked a lot, untireably, for about a quarter of a century, commences,

A Girl In Trouble (is a temporary thing) by Romeo Void. I must admit that it's one track I've never begrudged (or failed to begrudge) anything whatsoever about the subject or whatever -- I just love the sax music, the instrumental theme and the way it all goes with every aspect of the vocal. I might well be able to listen to it over-and-over, without a dinner break.

What? Y'ain't hearda' Romeo Void!?

Posted by Seth at 05:58 AM |

"Can't'cha' See We're Talkin' Stupidity Heah!!!?"

This story in the Guardian -- thanks, Brits, you definitely got your story straight -- from last week just kinda' sorta' popped up in a link in the course of catching up with my reading, and seemed to be a lot more to the point than many of its more partisan U.S. variations.

No matter who tells it, the story reports on a serious goatfuck, courtesy of FEMA, but I can't, in any conscience, let the blame end with that heavily beleaguered agency.

However, this was the situation, according to investigators, as regarded the real spending of yours and my taxes in the aftermath of "Katrina the Bitch":

About $1bn (£542m) in relief meant for victims of Hurricane Katrina was lost to fraud, with bogus claimants spending the money on Hawaiian holidays, football tickets, diamond jewellery and Girls Gone Wild porn videos, the US Congress was told yesterday. The fraud, exposed through an audit by the Government Accountability Office, found a staggering amount of abuse of the housing assistance and debit cards given out by the beleaguered Federal Emergency Management Agency as a way of granting relief to those who lost their homes to Katrina.

To put that in perspective, gubmint bureauracrats screwed the pooch and squandered our money on fraudulent claims. They gave a billion smackers of our money away to people who spent it on their own personal vices or vanities, or simply made a cottage industry of ripping off Uncle Sam's money. Uncle Sam's money is our money.

Just think, some of the taxes you paid on your hard earned money were invested in lap dances {for those who do not know what a lap dance is, it's when a guy pays an exotic dancer at a strip club to writhe around on his lap for awhile}, jewelry, "drugs-of-choice", all kinds of neat, fun things that had nothing to do with surviving the aftermath of a brutal hurricane, just with pissing away our money.

I don't usually talk about my own charitable contributions, in fact I don't write them off on my taxes. Doing so would mean taking money from other taxpayers, who are my partners in the ownership of America, who might not agree with the cause or issue I'm spending the money on. Liberals have little problem there, they believe in pouring our money into whatever they feel it should go to -- we're merely the unwashed citizen, they are the moral, all-knowing guardians of society, but I'm a believer in the running of our great country as it was meant to be run by our founding fathers.

I'm not rich, but I donated a combined 5 digit figure, in the wake of Katrina, to the Red Cross and to a number of church groups I had checked out first, who were providing basic necessities, medical attention and shelter to people and families whose lives and fortunes were turned upside down by the hurricane.

Ah, now we get to my point.

I know others who contributed considerably more than I was able to afford to the Katrina relief effort. The difference?

Our money went to private organizations that used our donations to provide goods and services that were survival specific. The government's {FEMA'S and our money went as cash to anyone who gave them a bullshit story}.

This is really off the wall.

There is nothing in any of our nation's founding documents that compels the government to spend our money on a catastrophe like Katrina, because it is a state issue. States are supposed to budget themselves for local disasters, not spend every dime they collect in local taxes as soon as, or before, they collect it. The entire reason we were divided into states was that these political subdivisions, according to our system of government, were to remain autonymous where internal situations are concerned.

What, for example, do you think Patrick Henry or Lyman Hall would say about this?

The audacity of the fraud exposed shocked the congressional committee yesterday. As much as 16% of the relief distributed by the agency was lost to fraud, the auditors said. They also said it was likely they were underestimating the scope of the fraud.

"We expected it, but we didn't expect it on this magnitude," Michael McCaul, the Republican chairman of the house homeland security investigations panel, told reporters. "It's an assault on the American taxpayer."
During the audit investigators filed their own bogus claims and used other undercover methods to discover that most of the improper payments occurred because Fema failed to verify the identity of those making claims, or to confirm their addresses.

In the largest instance of abuse by an individual, Fema made 26 payments to someone who submitted claims for damaged property at 13 different addresses in Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama, using 13 different social security numbers. Only one of the social security numbers was valid, and a search of property records revealed that the individual had never lived at any of the 13 addresses. In addition, only eight of the addresses actually existed.

Fema also paid rental assistance to people who were already enjoying luxurious hotel accommodation - footing an $8,000 hotel bill in Hawaii for someone who simultaneously received $2,358 in rental assistance.

This is a perfect example of the federal government being forced to assume responsibility for the failings of local government. Not their responsibility!

That entire brain-dead debit card fiasco was... was... WTF were they thinking!!!? I'm sure liberals loved the performance put on by our politicians, via FEMA, late last year -- there is no truer way to throw money at a problem than to... literally throw money at it. Our money.

This is what happens when you make the government responsible for issues that aren't their job.

You promote the growth of beauracracies, which are both milk and meat to Democrats. Hundreds of thousands or millions strong of folks who get paid the same no matter what or how much they contribute, know better than to rock any boats and are guaranteed a pension after they retire. The realities of other peoples' lives are alien to the sterile environs of these peoples' old plastic, cheap wood and corkboard offices.

My point being?

States have the National Guard. States have their own taxpayers. Presumably, states have people on the payroll whose job it is to troubleshoot -- oh, wait, what am I saying? We're talking about Nawlins, here, and Ray Noggin Nagin. Ooops!

It has been explained to me why it was in the Crescent City's best interests that Noggin Nagin be reelected as mayor, which he was, and after considering all the data and being as I am a conservative, and having lived for several years in Nawlins, I have, sorrowfully, to agree.

I won't get into the "why" of that, as un-Republican as it may sound, but we are dealing with The City That Care Forgot, and also one of my favorite U.S. municipalities.

I am saddened by the trend on Bourbon Street of Jazz, Dixieland and Blues entering extinction in the new age of frozen daiquiris and karaoke, but I've come to grudgingly understand that our young today are being weaned away from anything preceeding today's liberal message in their schools, in movies and on T.V., in media, books, "recommended" websites, etc.

But that's all neither here nor there. What is, is the fact that the Levee Board is not run by engineers, but by local businessmen as "rewards" for campaign contributions. How is it that Bush's refusal to sign on to the Kyoto BS was splattered across liberal news venues, accusing the President of creating the disaster via "global warming", but little was said about the Levee Board and its Boss Hogg membership?

We see here how public funded agencies handle tragedy -- they throw money at it and believe that their "expenditures" figures will carry the day.

Whoa, not so fast!

The "Fed Is Mom & Dad" plan {see "Liberals"} is neither a part of any U.S. founding document nor a productive approach to the blueprints laid by our founding fathers. By "blueprints", I mean those well laid plans that turned 13 colonies into the richest and most powerful country on earth.

What's happening is that our liberal fellow citizens are still trying to milk some political mileage out of Katrina, so they're still attempting to encourage racial hostility. They've managed, somehow, to rationalize the destruction delivered by the hurricane without exposing the fact of good ol' boy politics being the only consideration for membership on something as vital as the Levee Board, done their damndest to contain any news of local politicians' failures, etc, in order to focus perceptions of racism and all blame for the entire disaster on the Bush Administration. If racial hostility ceased to exist, so, probably, would today's Democratic party, so they propogate it whenever and wherever they can.

Summing Up: In a corrupt 3rd World state that embraces Napoleonic Law and has always viewed its U.S. statehood as a necessary inconvenience, why should we all have to contribute to relief efforts that amount to tossing away cash for vice and/ or vanity spending?

This is a typical case of the federal government trying and failing, as they always do, to do a job that isn't even their responsibility to begin with.

Hat Tip -- James Taranto.

Posted by Seth at 02:09 AM |

June 15, 2006

Still More On The "Global Warming" Myth

Recently, I put up two posts on the Global Warming Myth, here and here.

Right Wing News has posted an article from the Canada Free Press that further, and profoundly so, debunks the myth that high CO2 levels caused by man are inducing dramatic changes in the earth's climates. The article in question includes input from several scientists who, unlike most of those with whom the likes of Algore consulted to make his film, "An Inconvenient Truth", are actually experts who specialize in Climate, as opposed to climate related fields.

"Scientists have an independent obligation to respect and present the truth as they see it," Al Gore sensibly asserts in his film "An Inconvenient Truth", showing at Cumberland 4 Cinemas in Toronto since Jun 2. With that outlook in mind, what do world climate experts actually think about the science of his movie?

Professor Bob Carter of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University, in Australia gives what, for many Canadians, is a surprising assessment: "Gore's circumstantial arguments are so weak that they are pathetic. It is simply incredible that they, and his film, are commanding public attention."

But surely Carter is merely part of what most people regard as a tiny cadre of "climate change skeptics" who disagree with the "vast majority of scientists" Gore cites?

No; Carter is one of hundreds of highly qualified non-governmental, non-industry, non-lobby group climate experts who contest the hypothesis that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are causing significant global climate change. "Climate experts" is the operative term here. Why? Because what Gore's "majority of scientists" think is immaterial when only a very small fraction of them actually work in the climate field.

And from another expert,

Here is a small sample of the side of the debate we almost never hear:

Appearing before the Commons Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development last year, Carleton University paleoclimatologist Professor Tim Patterson testified, "There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years." Patterson asked the committee, "On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century's modest warming?"

Patterson concluded his testimony by explaining what his research and "hundreds of other studies" reveal: on all time scales, there is very good correlation between Earth's temperature and natural celestial phenomena such changes in the brightness of the Sun.

Read the entire article here.

Posted by Seth at 06:23 AM | Comments (16) |

Many Noses To Go "Candyless" This Month

The U.S. Coast Guard Cutter Chase, a 378 foot high endurance cutter nailed a vessel carrying $53,000,000.00 worth of cocaine the other day.

While on a routine patrol, the 378-foot Coast Guard Cutter Chase encountered the suspected drug trafficking vessel, commonly referred to as a "go fast" vessel, 2,500 miles south of San Diego in international waters, and recovered the cocaine from the water after the five suspect crewmembers set their vessel on fire and jumped overboard.

Go, Coasties!

The Chase has a crew of approximately 160 people, and its primary missions are maritime law enforcement and search and rescue. Last year, the Chase's crew prevented more than $400 million of cocaine from reaching the United States.

Posted by Seth at 05:23 AM |

June 14, 2006

America Thanks You

From Move America Forward.

H/T Robert Dixon

Posted by Seth at 09:34 PM |

In The Unsung Heroes Department....

This arrived in an email a little while ago, and I thought I'd share it.

To judge by the "a few months ago, the U.S. Secretary of State, Colin Powell," beginning, it's obviously been out there for some time, but the rest of the content is pretty much timeless.

Just an interesting piece of evidence of the curious behavior of the Roosevelt administration toward the Jews during WWII -----

A few months ago, the US Secretary of State, Colin Powell, gave a posthumous award for "constructive dissent" to Hiram (or Harry) Bingham. For over fifty years, the State Department resisted any attempt to honor Bingham. For them he was an insubordinate member of the US diplomatic service, a dangerous maverick who was eventually demoted. Now, after his death, he has been officially recognized as a hero.

Bingham came from an illustrious family. His father (on whom the fictional character Indiana Jones was based) was the archeologist who unearthed the Inca City of Machu Picchu, Peru, in 1911. Harry entered the US diplomatic service and, in 1939, was posted to Marseilles, France, as American Vice-Consul.

The USA was then neutral and, not wishing to annoy Marshal Petain's puppet Vichy regime, President Roosevelt's government ordered its representatives in Marseilles not to grant visas to any Jews. Bingham found this policy immoral and, risking his career, did all in his power to undermine it.

In defiance of his bosses in Washington, he granted over 2,500 USA visas to Jewish and other refugees, including the artists Marc Chagall and Max Ernst and the family of the writer Thomas Mann. He also sheltered Jews in his Marseilles home, and obtained forged identity papers to help Jews in their dangerous journeys across Europe. He worked with the French underground to smuggle Jews out of France into Franco's Spain or across the Mediterranean and even contributed to their expenses out of his own pocket. In 1941,

Washington lost patience with him. He was sent to Argentina, where later he continued to annoy his superiors by reporting on the movements of Nazi war criminals.

Eventually, he was forced out of the American diplomatic service completely. Bingham died almost penniless in 1988. Little was known of his extraordinary activities until his son found some letters in his belongings after his death. He has now been honored by many groups and organizations including the United Nations and the State of Israel.

H/T Brenda

Posted by Seth at 08:39 PM |

Western, Particularly Liberal, Idiocy

Despite numerous residential meanderings about the country in my lifetime to date(I am now settled down, house and all, in Charlotte, NC), my "point of origin", as it were, was New York, where I've spent several years of my adult life as well.

In my opinion, the two best mayors New York has had since I was old enough to notice were Rudi Giuliani and, though he is a Democrat, Edward Koch -- one positive attribute of most N.Y. mayors is that they tend to lead from the front, and put the five boroughs ahead of most political considerations. I say most, not all because, after all, they are politicians.

Koch was a great mayor, very decisive, very colorful and entirely a New Yorker who placed his city first.

Since the Global War On Terror was launched by President Bush, Ed Koch has supported it as he supports, unlike so many of my fellow Jews (the liberal ones) Israel's right to exist -- while Jewish liberals both here in the U.S. and over in Israel are supporting capitulation to Palestinian terrorism, Mr. Koch advocates fighting back. He even wrote a column why, his being a Democrat notwithstanding, he was voting for George W. Bush in the 2004 election.

Basically, the former N.Y. mayor is what most Democrats used to be when I was growing up in the 1960s and early 1970s, before that political party was taken over by liberals: Patriotic, supportive of our national defense and a believer that the United States, because we are a rich and powerful world leader that can, has a mission to help spread freedom where we are able throughout the world.

Unlike so many of today's Democrats, he understands the danger our nation and other western nations face from the third major Jihad by a religion whose entire history, dating back 1300 years, encompasses bloody attempts to achieve Islamic world domination. While liberals do everything in their power to cause us to lose the War On Terror, Mr. Koch is quick to defend our efforts.

In a new Op-Ed column, Mr. Koch points out the western liberal habit of blaming the west (or Israel) the minute there are any charges of collateral damage being "inflicted" by our side, yet glossing over incidents in which terrorists kill innocent civilians by design.

In his Op-Ed, Foolish Western self-flagellation, the former mayor refers to a New York Times Op-Ed (this is not the kind of thing we normally get from the NYT, the columnist in question is the man who took the opening left by the venerable William Safire when the longtime columnist decided to retire his own column) by David Brooks.

New York Times columnist David Brooks writes with the clarity of Bill Safire, whom he has succeeded as The Times in-house moderate. In a June 8 column, Brooks vividly described the cruelty of the Iraqi insurgents:

"The insurgents' first advantage is that not only are they cruel, they are absolutely cruel. The defining feature of their violence is not merely that they murder, but that they torture those they are about to kill. Shiite militias use drills to bore holds into their victims' heads. Sunni insurgents saw off fingers and toes. Jihadists partially behead their victims then stomp on their torsos to create gushes of blood before finishing the job. Videos of such acts are posted on the Internet or sold in the markets of towns like Haditha."

In sharp contrast, Western countries constantly flagellate themselves when civilians are injured or killed in the course of defensive military action against al-Qaeda or its agents.

The above is completely true, though I must add here that it has been pretty well demonstrated by liberals, that aside from their animosity toward Israel and their apparent support of terrorism, much of their "shock and chagrin" stems more from their hatred of Bush and by extension his efforts to protect these same stupid "intellectuals" from either being exterminated by terrorism or losing all the rights they now cherish, especially freedom of speech, to the global caliphate our Islamofascist enemies want to impose upon us.

Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, senior member of Al-Queda, was killed by U.S. forces directing bombs at a safe-house in which he was believed to be living. A number of men in the house at the time, thought to be his accomplices, were also killed. In addition, a woman and a child inside the house died. Normally when women or children are killed in a combat incident, denunciations of the American military are made. Few denunciations were made in this case, because of the prominence of the terrorist Zarqawi who is responsible for the deaths of thousands of Iraqi civilians and American and coalition civilian and military personnel.

But, what if Zarqawi had survived and escaped and the others in the house had not? The U.S. would have been denounced around the world by those opposed to our presence in Iraq today, even though the legitimately-elected Iraqi government recently advised the United Nations that it wanted us to remain.

As regards Israel and the Palestinians,

Another example of foolish western self-flagellation is seen in the different responses to actions by Hamas and Israel. Palestinian terrorists, with knowledge and approval of Hamas, launch Qassam rockets at Israel from open fields, and the Israelis respond with artillery shells. The Palestinians' missiles are usually inaccurate, although they occasionally hit their targets -- the towns and cities of Israel and their civilian populations. The Israeli artillery directed at the open fields generally hit the fields and occasionally kill those who launched the missiles.

This weekend, The Times reports: "Hamas's military wing, which declared a tattered 16-month truce with Israel to be over after the deaths of eight civilians on a Gazan beach - apparently killed by an errant Israeli artillery shell - continued Sunday to fire volleys of Qassam rockets from Gaza into Israel. One rocket landed near a school in Sederot, Israel, and badly wounded a 60-year-old resident, Yonatan Engel, a friend of Defense Minister Amir Peretz. Another rocket made a direct hit on a house in Sederot, but there were no injuries."

Israel is denounced by nations around the world when Palestinian civilians are injured or killed, but rarely are the casualties suffered by Israeli civilians noticed, let alone denounced. There is a major difference between the nature of the two sides' actions. Israel is responding to missiles directed at its civilian population. It is a basic duty of any government to protect its population from foreign attack. No responsible person suggests that the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) deliberately targeted innocent Palestinians on a Gaza beach who were injured by what The New York Times called "apparently…an errant Israeli artillery shell." It is the nature of artillery shells sometimes to go astray.

To truncate here,

We learned Monday that the IDF has ascertained and confirmed, "that the explosion that killed eight Palestinians on Friday, was caused by a stockpile of Hamas explosives." Will that make any difference to the weepers of the western world?

I doubt it.

So do I.

Look at the Haditha affair -- the incident is still under investigation, no actual facts of the matter yet released to the media, yet the liberals, including politicians like that treasonous, politically opportunistic slimeball John Murtha, have already loudly convicted the Marines involved because they believe it will have adverse effects on Bush's popularity. Yeah, I know, they all "support the troops".

The liberal way is to keep on shouting their unsupported diatribes so that by the time the truth comes out, even if it's just the opposite, the lie has become "general knowledge" and they'll stick by it unto death.

The international terrorist organizations count on the infidels of the west to lose their collective nerve and be unwilling to sustain casualties in this ongoing war of survival between civilizations which might continue for decades. They hope the west will submit to defeat in Iraq and consent to the elimination of Israel, even if that would mean a world dominated by the Islamic fanatics.

Their weapon is fear and their willingness to die as martyrs for their cause while we in the west value every human life. Zarqawi, Osama bin Laden's deputy in Iraq, left us these words as his epitaph: "Killing the infidels is our religion, slaughtering them is our religion, until they convert to Islam or pay us tribute."

{emphasis mine}

The Op-Ed is entirely on-point, definitely give it a read in its entirety.

Posted by Seth at 02:31 AM | Comments (2) |

June 10, 2006

Liberalism In Action

What are we supposed to make of this?

Environmental Protection Agency (Funded by your tax dollars) Celebrates Gay And Lesbian Pride Month The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), your tax supported agency of the federal government, is currently promoting June as Gay and Lesbian Pride Month.

The theme for the month is "Pride, not Prejudice."

The EPA Office of Civil Rights, Diversity Program for Sexual Orientation, is sponsoring an opening event to be held on June 14. On June 28 EPA will hosts Gilles Marchildon, Executive Director for Egale Canada (Equality Canada) as a guest speaker.

Karen Higginbotham, Director, Office of Civil Rights, states there will be other activities in which the homosexual lifestyle will be celebrated in EPA offices across the country.

I thought you might like to know that the EPA, funded by your tax dollars, has joined the push for the homosexual agenda.

To see the official notice which went out to all EPA employees, click here.

As I’ve said before, I’ve lived in big cities for most of the adult years of my own half century on the planet – New York, San Francisco, New Orleans, Los Angeles, Boston and Chicago, to name a few, and I have several gay friends.

But -- What they do “between the sheets” is their concern, not mine, not anyone else’s. It’s a “lifestyle” they chose, are turned on by, belong in, whatever, but it’s their lifestyle, their sexual and social preference, their business.
That said, how does it come to pass that a federal agency whose funding comes out of my tax dollars –- and yours – is using our money to stroke, glorify and otherwise honor an “alternative lifestyle” whose practitioners are an even smaller minority than the smallest ethnic minority we acknowledge? Where is the representation in this taxation?

For that matter, why does the Environmental Protection Agency even have an "Office Of Civil Rights, Diversity Program For Sexual Orientation"? What has that to do with environmental protection, and why am I paying for it? I follow the news and the activities of the government pretty closely, but I sure as hell don’t remember ever hearing or reading that the EPA was spending my taxes on logistics, salaries and benefits for a bunch of folks comprising a “sexual orientation” committee.

I mean, WTF!?

This is exactly what I mean when I expound upon the very real phenomenon of tax-and-spend liberals sneaking up on us. They infect our government agencies with their PC programs, programs that don’t accomplish anything as far as the respective agencies’ responsibilities are concerned, but satisfy, at mega-expense to the American taxpayer, the socialist whims of the liberals that have infested the once credible Democratic Party. In the case-in-point, they are using our money to stroke their gay constituency.

If America’s founding fathers saw this crap going down, they’d hang their heads in shame....

--H/T President Donald E. Wildmon,
American Family Association

Posted by Seth at 04:11 PM | Comments (3) |

June 09, 2006

And On The Immigration Front....

This alert arrived from Bay Buchanan a little while ago:

Dear Friend,

I want to bring you up to date on a number of developments.

First, the immigration bills. The incompetence of the Senate is not to be
believed. They passed an unconstitutional bill that, as is, can’t go to
conference!! Do you love it!! It is a revenue enhancer and those bills
must originate in the House. So what will they do?

Democrat Leader Reid wanted to substitute the immigration bill that came
over from the House with the Senate’s amnesty bill. Then go to conference
with the two. Can’t be done!! The House immigration bill is not a revenue
raiser (it’s enforcement only) so the Senate can’t put it on that House
bill—they can only substitute their amnesty bill onto a revenue bill that
has already come over from the House.

So Senator Frist said, let’s substitute the immigration bill onto a tax
bill that did originate in the House. The problem then is this: when
they go to conference the two bills on the table will be the Senate
amnesty bill and the House tax bill they used as a vehicle to get the
Senate bill to conference. The House immigration bill doesn’t make it to

To add to the problem—the Senate has to go back to the floor—vote on
amnesty again--—to get any of the above done.

These guys were so anxious to sell out the nation, so determined to put
this vote behind them and put a stop to all your e-mails, faxes, and
calls-- they didn’t do due diligence!

But don’t be too optimistic, they’ll come up with something. With
billions of dollars in cheap labor at stake--corporate America is surely
not going to let a little thing like the Constitution stand in their way.

But in our meeting the other night with the leaders of our side, including
several Senate staffers it is clear this is a godsend of a screw up. The
pro amnesty crowd has lost valuable momentum—and given us more time to
convince the House to kill this problem and try to prevent any conference
with the House.

Another amazing development: Senator Lugar, who voted for the bill, was
asked if he felt 66 million new immigrants into the country in 20 years
might be too many. He said he has no idea how many will come to the U.S.
under this bill—nor does anyone else. But he and his buddies voted for it
anyhow!! Do they even care that it will destroy our nation!

Action in the House: Thanks to all your help our radio ads against Utah’s
open border Congressman begin Monday!!! They hope to keep them up through
his primary on June 27.

Let me tell you I am certain defeating Chris Cannon must be our focus.
Even the pro-amnesty columnist John Fund of the Wall Street Journal wrote
this week:

“Illegal immigration is the key issue in the [Cannon} race, and should
five-term incumbent Rep. Chris Cannon of Provo lose to a restrictionist
challenger, look for House Republicans to dig in their heels and block any
bill that creates a path to citizenship for illegal aliens.

"House Republicans are already spooked about immigration, and should one
of our own lose on the issue, you will see panic break out," one GOP
congressman told me.”

Panic is just what we want—if we can take out Cannon we have a chance of
stopping amnesty and guest worker for at least 6 months, and maybe more!

On Monday I’ll forward you the radio ad that we hope will defeat Cannon.
I’ll guarantee it will let Utahns know the truth about their Congressman.

One ominous development: the Pence amnesty plan! As I mentioned last
week, Congressman Pence, a solid conservative, offered an outrageous
“compromise” proposal on immigration. Pence’s plan is to turn over our
immigration policy to the private sector-(like putting the big hungry
foxes on guard duty over the chicken coup). Employers could bring in as
many guest workers as they want—Why wait 20 years when you can do all the
harm in three! We will be overrun in months, and our jobs will be sold in
mass o the cheapest bidders.

It a massive amnesty plan—and every other day another conservative writer
or leader endorses it—it looks as if the fix may be in and we may have
another front to fight in this battle! But if conservative Republicans
let the Pence plan become law we should organize to throw out every one of
them in November.

I need you to start calling the conservative leaders of the House (names
and numbers http://www.teamamericapac.org/index.php?p=53 ) and let them
know no Amnesty, no Guest worker, no Pence!! In the meantime I’ll
continue raising money to keep the Cannon ads up right up to election day.

We need to keep anything form going to conference until we can defeat
Cannon—then we will have the full attention of the House members and we
can beat back this sell-out!

Thanks for being part of the Team. We are still in this fight because of
you and all your efforts. Together we will keep this save this nation
form the enemy within.

Have a great weekend!

Bay Buchanan

And this is the content of an email I received today from Bob Robinson, who says it's from a woman who is obviously thinking about things....

"Recently large demonstrations have taken place across the country protesting the fact that Congress is finally addressing the issue of illegal immigration. Certain people are angry that the U.S. might protect its own borders, might make it harder to sneak into this country and, once here, to stay indefinitely. Let me see if I correctly understand the thinking behind these protests.

Let's say I break into your house. Let's say that when you discover me in your house, you insist that I leave. But I say, "I've made all the beds and washed the dishes and did the laundry and swept the floors; I've done all the things you don't like to do. I'm hard-working and honest (except for when I broke into your house)."

According to the protesters, not only must you let me stay, you must add me to your family's insurance plan and provide other benefits to me and to my family (my husband will do your yard work because he too is hard-working and honest, except for that breaking in part). If you try to call the police or force me out, I will call my friends who will picket your house carrying signs that proclaim my right to be there. It's only fair, after all, because you have a nicer house than I do, and I'm just trying to better myself. I'm hard-working and honest ... um, except for .. well, you know.

And what a deal it is for me! I live in your house, contributing only a fraction of the cost of my keep, and there is nothing you can do about it without being accused of selfishness, prejudice and being anti-housebreaker.

Did I miss anything? Does this sound reasonable to you? If it does, grab a sign and go picket something. If this sounds insane to you, call your Senators and enlighten them because they are stumbling in the darkness right now and really need your help."

Where, I wonder, is the left when patriotism or brains are needed?

Posted by Seth at 05:38 PM |

Sorry, Dude, No Virgins For You!

While I have no doubt that there are at least a few evil virgins out there, I don't think the devil would share them with his eternal inmates, and I do believe that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi has by now finished his boat ride across the River Styx and been confronted by this fact, much to his chagrin.

I'm apparently not alone in this conclusion, as my friend GM Roper has already reported on Zarqawi's first interview with Satan.

A similar assessment comes to us from Melanie Morgan, whose column also provides a good look at the liberals' respose to their thankfully late hero al-Zarqawi's demise.

Posted by Seth at 01:39 PM |

THIS From A Democrat!

Reading a transcript, posted by Mustang of Social Sense, of an address to colleagues by Colorado Democratic Senator Dick Lamm was the equivalent of a serious punch in the gut. It's a must-read, the senator most definitely put one of the most important sets of current issues in the perspective of sheer reality.

Posted by Seth at 12:57 PM |

June 08, 2006

Tancredo Rocks!

So, yeah, I love singing the praises of Tom Tancredo -- he is the man who should represent the GOP in the next Presidential election. He's a solid patriot who, in view of his stance in our present national debate on illegal immigration and border security, is obviously more concerned about America's well being than President Bush seems to be, which is a major disappointment to me as I've been a strong Bush supporter from the start.

In perusing the web this fine early morning, I ran across an interview with Tom Tancredo at Right Wing News. I have no idea when this was posted, as there are no dates on the page that I can find. The interview was a masterful exchange. Of everything he said in the interview, the two paragraphs that most stand out for me, because they precisely reflect my own thoughts, are --

You know, I'm a Republican, I'm a Conservative, I voted for George Bush. In many ways, he's a fine President and I'm glad that he's there. But this achilles heel that he has on immigration is so threatening to the survival of this nation that in my mind it begins to overwhelm all of the good things that he does. He can fight terrorists overseas, but he leaves our borders so they can come in here and do their thing. Does that make any sense? We send troops thousands of miles away to fight terrorists, but we refuse to put them on our own border to keep them out. Then we tell the Justice Department to find them when they're here, swimming in a sea of illegals.

This issue, if not addressed, leaves any President, including George Bush, open to the criticism that they are essentially ignoring the destruction of the nation and I believe that with all my heart. I believe that is what we are actually facing here.

Read the entire interview here.

Posted by Seth at 12:09 AM |

June 05, 2006

"Global Warming" Revisited

I recently did a post on the myth of global warming, in which I opined that the entire issue is a piece of nonsense that liberals have used to engender a goodly quantity of "political hay", such as Robert Kennedy, Jr's assertion that Katrina was Dubya's fault, because he didn't go along with the Kyoto BS and resultantly, Hurricane Katrina did its number on the Gulf Coast. The wingnut journalist, a Kennedy, hmmmm, actually bade us look to "the science" as proof that the hurricane was all Bush's fault.

One of the commenters to the post, a liberal thinker, gave me the usual politically inspired argument and I answered with a link to one of the many websites debunking the myth and I haven't heard from him since, though I would appreciate his input after reading at that site.

However, he hasn't been back, and since then a blogger for whom I have a ton of respect has done a post on the issue that links to some profoundly definitive websites.

I refer you, at this point, to Pat's Rick...

Posted by Seth at 01:26 AM | Comments (2) |