Future Republicans of America

This is the Blogging site for the Future Republicans of America magazine. We welcome comments from all over the political spectrum.

Thursday, December 29, 2005

Comics pages make room for manga

The doe-eyed characters from the Japanese-style cartoons known as manga are infiltrating another segment of American culture.

Newspapers such as the Los Angeles Times and the Seattle Post-Intelligencer begin carrying a manga strip called Peach Fuzz in their Sunday comic sections on Jan. 8. Other newspapers in the USA expected to follow suit with manga strips in the coming year.

Manga is one of the fastest-growing genres in U.S. publishing. Bookstores devote entire sections to the distinctive digest-sized, mostly black-and-white, often right-to-left formatted paperbacks.

For newspapers, the strips offer the potential to reach readers - especially younger ones - who might otherwise turn to alternative online news and entertainment.

"We hope to attract new readers and entertain our existing readers," says Janet Grimley of the Post-Intelligencer.

Adds Sherry Stern of the Los Angeles Times: "Newspapers are always looking for ways to attract younger readers. Nobody knows what the magic solution is, but comics are always one way to reach people. That's how a lot of people, including myself, first started reading the paper."

The Los Angeles Times is marketing the strips with TV ads during Saturday cartoon shows and fliers at comic book stores.

"If you go into any bookstore, you see so many teenagers and even younger kids bunched around the manga section," says John Glynn of Universal Press Syndicate, which distributes comics to newspapers.

Besides Peach Fuzz, Universal also is offering Van Von Hunter. Both strips, drawn by Americans, come from manga publisher TOKYOPOP Inc.

Peach Fuzz, by Lindsay Cibos, is about a 9-year-old girl, Amanda, who harbors delusions of becoming a princess. She has a pet ferret, Peach.

Van Von Hunter, by Ron Kaulfersch and Mike Schwark, is a horror spoof about a warrior in Gothic-inspired costume who fights evil.

Newspapers are not the first to get on the manga bandwagon. CosmoGIRL! magazine now carries a manga strip. Harlequin Romance novels are available in manga form.

TOKYOPOP founder Stuart Levy acknowledges that manga is not yet as popular in the USA as it is in Japan, but he expects that will change soon.

"It's like sushi," he says from Japan. "There's a pretty good chance everyone has heard of sushi.
"In a few years, everyone will know about manga."

Wednesday, December 28, 2005

Amazon.com Founder Bezos Wants to Colonize Space

Amazon.com founder Jeff Bezos expects a rocket-ship complex for his aerospace venture Blue Origin to open early next year.

City records show that an office and warehouse he's revamping in this south Seattle suburb will be used to design and build spacecraft and engines.

Blue Origin has released few details about the project. But a Texas newspaper editor who interviewed Bezos earlier this year said the billionaire talked sending a spaceship into orbit that launches and lands vertically, like a rocket, and eventually building spaceships that can orbit the Earth - possibly leading to permanent colonies in space.

Bezos paid $13 million for nearly 25 acres of industrial land, where city records indicate he's spending up to $8 million to remodel an office building and warehouse. Plans also call for construction of an experimental stand where rocket engines will be tested in three-minute-long trial runs.

Test launches will be conducted in West Texas, where Bezos recently bought a 165,000-acre ranch near the small town of Van Horn, about 110 miles southeast of El Paso. Long-term plans for that site include a spaceport where three-person space-tourism flights could blast off once a week.

Founded in 2000, Blue Origin is one of several private rocket enterprises fueled by the dreams and dollars of wealthy entrepreneurs.

Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen spent $20 million to develop SpaceShipOne, which made the first manned commercial space flight last year, winning the $10 million Anasari X Prize.

Richard Branson, owner of Virgin Music and Virgin Atlantic Airways, licensed the technology from Allen and vowed to start taking passengers into space by 2009. He recently announced a deal with the state of New Mexico to build a $225 million spaceport near White Sands Missile Range.

John Logsdon, director of the Space Policy Institute at George Washington University in Washington, D.C., said competition among the groups will raise the odds of success.

Bezos has been the most secretive of all the rocketeers, revealing little about the technology he's exploring. Blue Origin's bare-bones Web site offers little information, and the company is not listed in phone books.

The only interview Bezos has granted about his space plans was with Larry Simpson, the editor of the weekly Van Horn Advocate.

"He told me their first spacecraft is going to carry three people up to the edge of space and back.

But ultimately, his thing is space colonization," Simpson told The Associated Press in March.

In 1982, during the valedictory speech he gave at his high-school graduation, Bezos stressed the need for space colonization. "I'm not sure this is a hobby for him," Logsdon said. "I think this is his next big idea."

Blue Origin spokesman Bruce Hicks said officials don't want to discuss the project. "They're not at that stage yet. ... The time will come," Hicks told The Seattle Times for a story in Sunday editions.

Blue Origin did reveal some details about its plans when it filed documents with the city of Kent, which granted permits for construction and operation of the rocket-ship complex.

A 243,000-square-foot office and warehouse building in Kent is being revamped to accommodate cavernous bays, assembly areas, chemical laboratories, a workout room and a day-care center. The 90,000-square-foot rocket-engine test stand will be surrounded by a 12-foot earthen berm.

Blue Origin, now located in a warehouse in an industrial area in south Seattle, plans to move to the Kent site in the first quarter of next year, Hicks said. The company's work force will grow to about 70 or 100 - up from 40 - over the next several years, according to city records.

Other details came out in public hearings in Texas on Blue Origin's application for launch permits from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).

The company is designing a spacecraft that will take off vertically like the classic sci-fi rocket, land the same way and carry three passengers. Depending on FAA approval, the earliest test flights in Texas could occur late next year, The Times reported.

Enthusiasts predict a booming business for space tourism and other business ventures, but it's not clear how much appeal suborbital flight will hold, said Henry Hertzfeld, an expert in space law and economics at the Space Policy Institute.

Suborbital flights travel about 65 miles up, which would allow passengers to glimpse stars, the blackness of space and the curve of the Earth. It takes about 10 times as much power and speed to break the bonds of gravity.

Sunday, December 25, 2005

MERRY CHRISTMAS!!!!!!

Fetching the Christmas tree

Fetching the Christmas tree

New Bolivian President Threatens U.S. Advisers

Bolivia's newly elected President Evo Morales has warned that he will evict American military advisers over charges that the U.S. secretly removed Chinese-made anti-aircraft missiles from the country.

Morales, a former coca farmer and leader of the Movement to Socialism (MAS), was quoted as saying he would punish those responsible for the removal of 28 HN-SA hand-held surface-to-air missiles, as well as evict the U.S. advisers.

The missiles are similar to the American "Stinger" missiles effective against low-flying aircraft.

"I will press for a full investigation to establish responsibilities," Morales reportedly stated. "We cannot tolerate international intervention."

The removal of the missiles created a stir during the lead-up to the December 18 election after MAS officials leaked an intelligence report that said U.S. military officers, working directly with Bolivian army commanders, had removed the missiles between May and June of this year, the Washington Times reports.

At the time, MAS-led street protests had toppled the government of President Carlos Mesa and mobs were threatening to invade government installations in the capital.

"They were afraid the missiles could be used against U.S. aircraft in the event they had to evacuate their personnel or intervene," one insider told the Times.

Former Defense Minister Gonzalo Arredondo confirmed that the missiles had been flown out of the country, saying the U.S. government had urged that Bolivia give up the weapons.

Said Arredondo: "Officers attached to the military section of the embassy came to my office around August 2004, expressing preoccupation over intelligence that there were terrorist groups interested in anti-aircraft missiles with the characteristics of those we had."

Morales' bombast over the missiles is likely to further sour relations between Bolivia and the U.S. The new president has already vowed to end American drug eradication efforts in the country.

Saturday, December 24, 2005

22 Congressmen Hate Christmas

This year's "War for Christmas" – keeping "Christ" in the holiday has apparently been won. And, like many "wars," there has even been a Congressional resolution in support of keeping Christmas alive and well.

On December 15 the House of Representatives passed a resolution "protecting the symbols and traditions of Christmas" by an overwhelming 401-22 vote.

Representative JoAnn Davis (R-VA), the resolution's sponsor, said the resolution was necessary to counter "political correctness run amok."

"No one," she said, "should feel like they have done something wrong by wishing someone a Merry Christmas."

Twenty-two Democrats played Scrooge and disagreed.

Representative Robert Scott (D-VA) said Republicans were more concerned with the symbolism rather than the substance of Christmas – referring to Republican passage of a bill to slow the rate of growth in federal entitlement programs.

Davis lodged a preemptive response to critics who might question the constitutionality of her resolution.

"Celebrating Christmas is not a violation of separation of church and state," she said. "The Framers intended that the First Amendment to the Constitution would prohibit the establishment of religion, not prohibit any mention of religion or reference to God in civic dialogue."

The text of the resolution read as follows:

Whereas Christmas is a national holiday celebrated on December 25; and
Whereas the Framers intended that the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States would prohibit the establishment of religion, not prohibit any mention of religion or reference to God in civic dialog: Now, therefore be it resolved, that the House of Representatives –

(1) Recognizes the importance of the symbols and traditions of Christmas;
(2) Strongly disapproves of attempts to ban references to Christmas;
and
(3) Expresses support for the use of these symbols and traditions, for those who celebrate Christmas.

As the Christmas season draws to a close, we thought we would share the names of the 22 Congressman who voted against the pro-Christmas resolution:

Congressman Party-State District

Ackerman D-NY 5th

Blumenauer D-OR 3rd

Capps D-CA 23rd

Cleaver D-MO 5th

DeGette D-CO 1st

Harman D-CA 36th

Hastings D-FL 23rd

Honda D-CA 15th

Lee D-CA 9th

Lewis D-GA 5th

McDermott D-WA 7th

Miller, George D-CA 7th

Moore D-WI 4th

Moran D-VA 8th

Payne D-NJ 10th

Rush D-IL 1st

Schakowsky D-IL 9th

Scott D-VA 3rd

Stark D-CA 13th

Wasserman Schultz D-FL 20th

Wexler D-FL 19th

Woolsey D-CA 6th

Friday, December 23, 2005

Fox News' Roger Ailes Signs $25M Deal

Roger Ailes is going to have a very, very merry Christmas.

According to the Financial Times, News Corp., the global media company, has signed a new five-year, $25 million contract with Ailes, the head of its television group.

The contract also calls for an annual bonus of at least $1m, and includes a grant of 330,000 restricted stock units, according to a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Ailes, an advisor to several Republican presidents, was hired in 1996 by Rupert Murdoch, News Corp.’s chairman, and soon brought the fledgling Fox News Channel to ratings dominance over its more established 24-hour news rival, CNN.

His portfolio was expanded in August to include oversight of the company’s 35 broadcast television stations, its website and its syndication operation, following the surprise resignation of Murdoch’s son, Lachlan. Among other things, Ailes is known as a keen judge of on-air talent, turning Bill O’Reilly and Shepard Smith into stars.

Thursday, December 22, 2005

Robert Novak Leaving CNN for Fox News

Commentator Robert Novak, who hasn't been seen on CNN since swearing and storming off the set in August, will leave the network after 25 years and join Fox News Channel as a contributor next month.

Novak, 74, said Friday he probably would have left CNN anyway when his contract expired this month even if it hadn't been for the incident.

The suspension actually served to eliminate a delicate problem for CNN, which had received some criticism for keeping the political columnist on the air with his involvement in the CIA leak case.

A Novak column in July 2003 identified Valerie Plame as a CIA agent eight days after her husband, former U.S. Ambassador Joseph Wilson, accused the Bush administration of manipulating intelligence before the Iraq war. Novak wrote that two administration officials were his sources, but he hasn't identified them and Plame's outing sparked a special prosecutor's investigation.

Novak walked off the set in August during a political debate after James Carville said that he's "got to show these right-wingers that he's got a backbone."

Novak quickly apologized, but CNN never let him back on the air. A CNN correspondent, Ed Henry, said he had been about to ask Novak on the air about the leak investigation, but Novak said that had nothing to do with why he walked off.

"I'm sorry it ended that way but I am confident if it hadn't happened that I would still be leaving CNN," he said. The network has been de-emphasizing political content, and canceled the long-running debate show "Crossfire."

Novak said he was the last on-air personality who had appeared on CNN during its first weekend on the air in 1980 to still be with the network.

The decision to leave was by mutual consent and there were no hard feelings, he said.
"I have no complaints," he said. "I had a 25-year run with CNN. That's longer than most marriages, I think."

While his CNN shows included "The Capital Gang," "Inside Politics" and "Evans and Novak," he was best known for the political trench warfare of "Crossfire," where his fiery conservative views led some opponents to give him the nickname the Prince of Darkness.

He said he wanted to stay in TV, but do more limited work. Fox News Channel spokesman Brian Lewis confirmed his signing with that network.

Novak said the switch to Fox had nothing to do with finding a more comfortable home for his views.

"I don't think that's a factor," he said. "In 25 years I was never censored by CNN and I said some fairly outrageous things and some very conservative things. I don't want to give the impression that they were muzzling me and I had to go to a place that wouldn't muzzle me."

Religious Right Could Cease Support for Israel

American Family Association Chairman Donald E. Wildmon said that some members of the religious right would withdraw their support for Israel if a prominent anti-Semitism activist keeps up his criticism of the right.

During a December 5 broadcast on the AFA's American Family Radio, Wildmon said that Anti-Defamation League President Abraham Foxman "got himself in a bind by criticizing the religious right.

"The strongest supporters Israel has are members of the religious right - the people he's fighting.

"The more he says that 'you people are destroying the country,' you know, some people are going to begin to get fed up with this and say, ?Well, all right then. If that's the way you feel, then we just won't support Israel anymore.'"

Foxman, in a November address at an Anti-Defamation League meeting, included AFA among the group of conservative religious organizations whose goal, he said, "is to implement their Christian worldview. To Christianize America."

And in early December Foxman convened a meeting of American Jewish leaders to discuss what Foxman again called the religious right's attempts to "Christianize America."

During Wildmon's December 5 broadcast, American Family Radio News Director Fred Jackson said that even some members of the Jewish community are trying to distance themselves from Foxman's views.

Jackson told the radio audience that Jewish people have "come out and said, 'Mr. Foxman is dead wrong, and you shouldn't even be listening to him 'cause we don't feel the way he does.'"

American Family Radio is a network of almost 200 radio stations across the U.S. whose stated mission is to "inform Christians about what is happening in America."

AP Spins Rush Limbaugh Story

A week ago, Rush Limbaugh won a major victory in a Florida court over government efforts to invade his medical privacy.

But you wouldn’t know it from major media reports, as a Florida judge’s ruling in Limbaugh’s ongoing prescription drug case was distorted in newspapers and on TV news reports all across the nation.

Thank the Associated Press for the media spin.
In the initial AP story on the court case, the headline read: "Judge Allows Subpoenas of Limbaugh Doctors."

The wire service then reported that Palm Beach County "Circuit Court Judge David F. Crow ruled that Florida laws do not prevent doctors from talking with prosecutors if the information is relevant to the prosecution of a crime."

Sounded like a stunning defeat for Limbaugh.

But the AP failed to note another critical fact: The judge ruled that the questioning of anyone’s doctor -– including Limbaugh’s –- could only take place if the defendant has been charged with a crime.

Limbaugh has not been charged with any crime.

After Limbaugh’s representative protested that the headline was misleading, the AP acted promptly but only added the words "with restrictions" to the headline.

Jack Stokes, a spokesman for the AP in New York told NewsMax.com that when the initial headline was brought to their attention it was immediately changed.

Correctly, Limbaugh’s legal team hailed the court ruling as a victory.

In a release issued after the ruling, attorney Roy Black wrote: "We are pleased with the court's ruling upholding the patient's statutory right of doctor-patient confidentiality. We've said from the start that there was no doctor shopping, but Mr. Limbaugh should not have to give up his right to doctor-patient confidentiality to prove his innocence. The medical records that the state has seized and reviewed now for nearly six months show that Mr. Limbaugh received legitimate medical treatment for legitimate medical reasons. Mr. Limbaugh has not been charged with a crime and he should not be charged."

In his ruling, Crow told prosecutors while they could subpoena Limbaugh's doctors, they cannot question the doctors about his medical condition or about what Limbaugh may have told the doctors while they were treating him –- the very questions they told the court they needed to ask.

In the ruling, Crow noted that Florida law "prohibits the discussion of the medical condition of the patient and any information disclosed to the health care practitioner by the patient in the course of care and treatment."

He added that "the state’s interrogation of petitioner’s physicians shall not include discussion of the medical patient and any information disclosed to the health care practitioner in the course of the care and treatment of the patient."

The court ruling was indeed a stunning defeat for the prosecution –- based on remarks made by Assistant State’s Attorney James Martz.

Martz told the court on Nov. 8 that he and the state’s attorney’s office has "no idea if Mr. Limbaugh has completed the elements of any offense."

Martz told the court that in order to proceed with his investigation he needed to have doctors answer questions about the basis for which they wrote prescriptions for Limbaugh.

Under the judge’s ruling, Martz is barred from asking any of these questions or any other similar ones unless the state charges Limbaugh with a crime.

But Martz has stated repeatedly that his office lacks any evidence to justify an indictment.
Earlier this year, Martz and the State’s Attorney Barry Krischer won an 18-month legal battle to review Limbaugh's medical records, arguing that these would prove whether he had committed a crime or not. Limbaugh lost at the circuit and appellate court levels, and the Florida Supreme Court declined to hear the case. Limbaugh handed over the records in July.

Martz told Judge Jeffrey Winikoff in a December 2003 hearing, "All the state is convinced of is those records are the only way to clarify the violations of law the state's currently investigating."
Similarly, in a March 2004 brief to the 4th District Court of Appeal, Martz wrote: "The state will not be in a position to know what it can charge, if anything, until the records are reviewed."
And again in April 2004, Martz told the 4th District Court of Appeal in oral arguments: "The investigators fully expected to find in those records a trail, a trail that was evinced by the pattern of conduct here that would likely lead to additional pharmacies, additional doctors and unknown as to how many different overlapping prescriptions."
As Limbaugh himself has noted, he has been subjected to a never-ending inquiry based upon a crime for which the prosecutor’s office itself admits it has no evidence.
"They get the records within the dates of the search warrants, and there's nothing in those records to show doctor shopping," Limbaugh said in remarks published on his Web site last week. "So they go back to court, and say: We need to talk to Limbaugh's doctors.
"Now they want to talk to the doctors, but they can't talk to the doctors about me or my condition or what I said. Yet it's all been portrayed as a victory for the prosecutors."
Limbaugh wasn’t surprised by the media spin.
"It's no different than the way the Iraq war is being reported," he said. "It's no different than the way half the other news in the country is being reported. The amazing thing is there's nothing we can do about it. We can play the process out and keep responding to these people as they take their aggressive action. But it's what the legal process has become. You know, people trying to criminalize political enemies, and it's taken on a life of its own."
Limbaugh may have good reason to suggest a political motive is at work. A careful examination of the facts suggests his prosecution is based on a flimsy case of doctor shopping.
Krischer's office has already leaked to the local press confidential details of Rush's medical records, including claims that he obtained thousands of pills from several doctors.
But Black contends that information is nothing more than an effort to smear Limbaugh and that there has been no doctor shopping on Limbaugh's part.

"The prescription records that are in the search warrant affidavits should be put in perspective," he maintained in a statement issued in July.

"Of the 2,130 pills prescribed, only 1,863 were painkillers, and of those only 1,733 were for hydrocodone. These were to be taken over a period of 217 days, from the date of the first prescription until 30 days from the date of the last prescription.

"The dose averages out to a little over eight pills a day, which is not excessive and is in fact a lawful dose.

"Ninety-two percent of the pain medication was prescribed by two doctors who were treating Mr. Limbaugh for back pain. They work in the same office from the same medical file, and there could be no doctor shopping between them. ...

"We continue to believe that Mr. Limbaugh is being pursued by overzealous prosecutors and that he should not be charged with any crime."

Wednesday, December 21, 2005

Dick Morris: Hillary Sells Out Brooklyn Bridge

By opposing a renewal of the Patriot Act, 2008 presidential candidate Hillary Clinton may have forfeited her carefully crafted image as a defense hawk who could be trusted to guard America's national security as Commander-in-Chief.

In fact, according to Dick Morris, if Hillary and her fellow Democrats had their way, terrorists would have likely been able to carry out a plot to blow up the Brooklyn Bridge - in a rerun of the 9/11 attacks that would have killed thousands of Americans.

Writing in today's New York Post, former top Clinton adviser notes that Mrs. Clinton joined with all but two Senate Democrats in opposing a renewal of the Patriot Act - including the roving wiretap provision that even her husband supported as president.

Back in the '90s, recalls Morris, "the Republican-controlled Congress refused to enact the [wiretap] legislation promptly — and the Clintons excoriated the GOP for dragging its feet on this vital proposal."

"It is particularly galling that Sens. Clinton and Chuck Schumer — whose New York constituents are in the terrorists' bull's-eye — voted to let these vital protections expire," he fumes.

Hillary's constituents will also be much less safe, he says, thanks to the reconstruction of the notorious "wall of separation" that kept intelligence agencies from sharing information with law enforcement - a restriction that the Patriot Act had abolished.

Hillary's supporters would do well to remember, says Morris, how "the wall" made it much more difficult for the FBI to discover that Mohamed Atta and his crew were inside the U.S., plotting to kill 3,000 Americans on 9/11.

Recall how the feds seized "20th hijacker" Zacarias Moussaoui a full month before 9/11, "but could not follow up on the leads his laptop would have highlighted because of the pernicious wall" that Democrats like Hillary have now reconstructed.

As a result, the FBI was unable to access the laptop's files, which reportedly contained the names of hijackers involved in the 9/11 attacks.

Hillary has also done nothing to rein in the hysteria of her fellow Democrats over President Bush decision to use the National Security Agency to monitor phone calls of suspected terrorists operating inside the U.S.

That's probably because she recalls how the NSA engaged in blanket telecommunications surveillance during the Clinton administration - even without the pretext of the 9/11 attacks.

But Morris reminds that its just that kind of surveillance that probably saved the Brooklyn Bridge - and along with it, the lives of thousands of Mrs. Clinton's constituents.

He writes:

"In 2002, the feds (presumably the NSA) picked up random cellphone chatter using the words 'Brooklyn Bridge' (which apparently didn't translate well into Arabic). They notified the New York Police Department, which flooded the bridge with cops. Then the feds overheard a phone call in which a man said things were 'too hot' on the bridge to pull off an operation.

"Later an interrogation of a terrorist allowed by the Patriot Act led cops to the doorstep of this would-be bridge bomber."

Adds Morris, "his plans would definitely have brought down the bridge, NYPD sources told me."

But shouldn't Bush have obtained a court order before monitoring terrorist conversations - as even some Republican-leaning legal analysts now claim?

"On who?" asks Morris. The NSA "had no idea what it was looking for. It just intercepted random phone calls from people in the United States to those outside — and so heard the allusions to the bridge that tipped them off."

But if Democrats succeed in rolling back Bush's efforts to keep America safe, warns Morris - it's "Bye-bye, bridge."

Tuesday, December 20, 2005

A 2005 Rollick

By James Lileks

Behold: 2005 was the most important year in human history.

Okay, maybe not. There have been better years, and worse ones. The Goths did not sack New York City. No plague. Asteroids didn’t deform the globe. The center held, and if some rough beast was slouching toward Bethlehem it appears he was diverted to a time-share in Branson for the season.

Nothing blew up—over here at least. Despite the usual rash of false alarms, Americans no longer seem to be waiting for the other shoe bomber to drop. The economy grew much more than gloomy reporters expected. The Batman movie was good, for a change. No one on the Supreme Court tested positive for steroids. Politically, the Administration seemed determined to get the third year of its second term out of the way in the first.

All in all, not bad. If something wretched happens in 2006, Aught-Five will be regarded like 2000, another year when we blithely sailed along, amusing ourselves with gaudy TV, insouciant Internet amusements, Powerball, and the transient couplings of toothsome thespians. Athens reborn!

It certainly didn’t feel like a golden age. It’s difficult to believe you live in the best of times when Hollywood recreates The Dukes of Hazzard and the producers are not stoned in the public square on general principle. We all recognize hard times—when you’re in a gas line, you feel it. But good times we sometimes notice only in the rearview mirror.

There was something of a peevish quality to 2005. Perhaps it’s the year itself; odd-numbered years sound indecisive and inconclusive—shave-and-a-haircut without the two bits. Odd- numbered years never have an Olympics. No great clanging election campaigns. They slump and wander. By contrast, even-numbered 2006 has a hard, clear sound to it, a ring of promise and purpose.

Most of what occurs in any given year will be forgotten. 2006 will be the same, unless aliens land, or someone perfects cold fusion, or North America is depopulated by bird flu and tumbleweeds bounce down the streets of Fargo (more than the usual number, that is). But toting up tomorrow’s details will have to wait. For now, let us review what was memorable and forgettable in the year just now ending.

Iraqis voted in record numbers in January. Actually, any number would’ve been a record; apart from Israel’s perennial political tussles, this is the first real election in the Middle East since the Pharaoh’s stone masons voted to unionize. (All were slaughtered.) Coupled with a popular headcount in Afghanistan and rumblings all through the Levant and Central Asia, it seems for a moment that democracy is on the march. This global advance will soon screech to a halt, however, when the world learns that prisoners in Gitmo are kept awake with loud Madonna music. This grave atrocity will keep some politicians busy for months, for instance in comparing American troops to Nazis. You know, the ones who blasted Lotte Lenya tunes in the gas chambers.

The President makes a pitch for Social Security reform in his State of the Union speech. The reform would allow some workers to direct a miniscule percentage of their mandatory, government-run pensions into private funds. Within 48 hours, Bush foes have many citizens convinced his plan will force all seniors to exchange their checks for vouchers good at Cat Food Distribution Centers run by the Enron corporation. The President also makes a pitch for a Constitutional Amendment to prevent the redefinition of marriage. It soon becomes the Amendment That Dares Not Speak Its Name.

Superbowl Sunday. After Janet Jackson's 2004 nipple debacle left scientists wondering whether she might have the power to slow the spin of hurricanes or stop the mutation of deadly viruses, all other world controversies are temporarily knocked off stage to see if she would return. Sadly, Paul McCartney kept his shirt on.

Social Security reform is declared dead. But no one can find the body. The White House will later insist that reform is merely missing; it slipped out the back of the executive mansion, bolted through the Rose Garden, and was last seen swimming across the Potomac. “We’re confident it will return soon,” stated one aide. “It has nowhere else to go.” There were unconfirmed reports that Social Security reform had been spotted frolicking on a Mexican beach with the Defense of Marriage Amendment. Not that there’s anything wrong with that.

Pope John Paul II dies. To the horror of many, his successor turns out to be Catholic.

Gitmo torture tales surface again in May, as Newsweek claims that a Koran was flushed down a toilet. The story is later retracted. Did no one at Newsweek consider the difficulty of flushing a book down a commode? Probably its elitist reporters and editors have Mexican housekeepers who do all their flushing for them.

John Bolton is nominated to be U.S. ambassador to the U.N., despite his moustache. The U.N. tower has 38 stories, Bolton once noted, and “if you lost ten stories today it wouldn’t make a bit of difference.” To the contrary, insisted Bolton’s critics, the uppermost floors are devoted to tsunami advance-warning detection, non-polluting hydrogen power, and a cheap AIDS vaccine that also doubles as a dessert topping—all almost ready for release. Bolton is later given a “recess appointment,” which is something Presidents can do whenever grade schools are not in session. When our new ambassador arrives at his U.N. office he finds that, yup, just like at State, the keyhole has been filled with Superglue.

Rumors persist in the media that there is a new left-wing radio network called “Air America.”

Darfur victims petition Janet Jackson to show up and partially disrobe, if only to get the world’s attention. Alas, this works no better than their previous request to have Terry Schiavo moved to the Sudan, in the hopes of catching a reporter’s ear after he’s finished his hourly update on the saline levels in her intravenous bag.

An oppressive colonizer is forced to withdraw from occupied Arab land. This is initially met with dancing in the streets of Cairo, Paris, and Turtle Bay. Then everyone realizes it is Syria pulling out of Lebanon. You must understand that the Cedar Revolution, after years of Syrian domination, has nothing to do with the American presence in Iraq, you jingoist. It’s just one of those international coincidences like the moon being where it was when Apollo 11 flew past. A few months later, Israel voluntarily withdraws from Gaza, earning approximately 17 seconds of good will from the international community. Personal best!

Iran announces it will no longer allow inspectors into the Khomeini Memorial Peaceful Nuclear Research Facility for Hastening the Destruction of Israel. European diplomats threaten to take the matter to the U.N. Subcommittee of the Task Force for Occasionally Threatening to Issue a Strongly-Worded Report. But the group’s next meeting isn’t until 2007, and it must first take up the horror of Israel’s security fence. Iran promises to allow inspections in exchange for 500 million Euros, payable in coins of enriched uranium. The E.U. agrees, with the condition that the interest rate on the loan will be adjusted upward if Iran makes nuclear bombs. If they actually detonate a bomb there would be an immediate balloon payment, make no mistake about it.

North Korea’s envoy approaches a negotiation table in Beijing at an oblique angle. He traces a tic-tac-toe grid in the dust on its surface. He wanders off again. Whistling.

Summer movie season. Ticket sales are way down, and Hollywood wallows in self-pity, wondering what America really wants. The studios collect a stack of comment cards nine miles high that show Americans are craving movies about NASCAR racers who join the Marines, go to Iraq, and kill terrorists with martial arts kicks. The comment cards also indicate that most Americans have no idea where the accent falls on “Affleck.” With all of this in mind, astute producers greenlight a picture about how Edward R. Murrow valiantly kept Joe McCarthy from introducing the Patriot Act. Quentin Tarantino starts another film where some guys, okay?, hip guys in black suits, dig? (who turn out to be neo-Nazi, Christian, Canadian separatists) fly planes into public schools. The cockpit-encounter dialogue is killer. Why do they call it a cockpit, man? You don’t think that’s gay? You think the whole shape of the plane is an accident? It’s all just suppressed homoeroticism, man. In the climax, the bad guys will ram their Boeing into a school that refuses to teach Intelligent Design.

Bombs explode in London, as perfectly ordinary apolitical young men driven to extremes by America’s imposition of elections in Iraq react the only possible way: by driving metal through the flesh of British commuters.

The 1,587th death in Iraq provokes no major display of eye-catching graphics in the Western media, as it is not a round number.

John Roberts is nominated to the Supreme Court. The snarkblogs point out that he wore plaid pants in the ’70s, and that his children may yet. He is confirmed nevertheless. There are tense moments, however, when Senator Feinstein attempts to plumb his feelings as a man and father. This seems to be a new standard for top jurists. Roberts refuses to profess that he would powder the bottom of the Bill of Rights, tuck it in, leave a light on, and play new-agey music softly while he read a book in the next room, one ear cocked should the Constitution wake up crying because it had a nightmare about an emanation chasing a penumbra. He is confirmed nevertheless.

A small piece of yellowcake is indicted for leaking the real first name of Scooter Libby.

Cindy Sheehan’s application for a mortgage on a small piece of a Texas driveway is approved. Most of the major networks are listed as co-signers.

Hurricane Katrina strikes precisely at the moment when the dynamite charges, personally installed by Karl Rove, blow up New Orleans’s levees. Teams of the same ninjas the Bushies used to rig the Diebold voting machines have already disabled the buses that could be used in evacuation. Initial media reports indicate that refugees in the Superdome have resorted to murder, cannibalism, voodoo, keno, and possibly jai alai. FOX anchor Shep Smith is consumed on camera by zombies. His last words indicate that he shares their outrage, if not their desire for sweet, sweet brains. In the weeks that follow it becomes obvious that the hurricane was caused by global warming—specifically, a 0.07 percent rise in median ocean temperature that caused New Orleans police officers to snatch DVDs from Wal-Mart shelves. The destruction of New Orleans, and the attendant effect on refinery capacity, is exposed by media crusaders as part of a GOP plot to raise gas prices and cripple the economy in time for the midterm elections, so they can run on a platform of “You like that? You want some more? Well do you?”

October. After years of haranguing the U.S. for refusing to ratify the Kyoto Protocol, E.U. leaders admit they will miss their own Kyoto guidelines, and have actually increased greenhouse emissions by 1.1 percent. Hurricanes level Paris and Stockholm.

Harriet Miers is nominated for the Fairfax school board. No, wait—the Supreme Court. Half of the conservative base decides this is the opportune time to freak out and toss pitchforks of smoldering tinder to the opposition. Hey, not all the wheels are coming off the Administration—let us help you with that balky bolt! More innovative conservatives drop their opposition to human cloning and urge the President to start an NIH program for growing fresh new Scalias in petri dishes. Miers’s nomination is withdrawn after it is revealed she was actually a cyborg, sent from the future by Karl Rove’s son to revitalize the conservative base. She is disassembled and put in storage. Her replacement, Sam Alito, makes everyone happy, except some on the Left who insist he will take a backhoe to Martin Luther King, Jr.’s grave while humming the theme from The Godfather. But they are a slight minority of senators.

Washington is ablaze with buzz: It appears that Karl Rove, acting on telekinetically transmitted orders from Dick Cheney’s throbbing brain, told “Scooter” Libby something, and he then hinted to “Biff” Novak and “Muffy” Miller that Valerie “Hidden in Plain Sight” Plame is actually Super Secret Agent Double-Y Seven. This completely blew her deep cover—she had been known publicly as an Iranian nuclear weapons program expert. Imagine the mullahs’ surprise when her beard came right off with one tug! Right away, the Marines had to extract Plame from The Palm during a crowded lunch hour, at great risk.

The purpose of the telekinetic plot was to discredit Joe Wilson for reporting he had been to Niger, visited the docks one morning, and never once heard anyone shout “Hoist the yellowcake into the hold of this Iraqi cargoship, lads!” After Wilson concluded the Iraqis merely wanted to buy Niger’s primary export—novelty figurines that glowed in the dark and made your hair fall out if you stood too close—traitorous leakers went to work. That was too much for the crusading media, who are well known for hating leaks and zealously guarding national security secrets.

Saddam’s trial begins. His lawyer first asks for a California jury. He then considers calling April Glaspie to the stand for the “b*tch set me up” defense. He begins working on rhyming cadences for his jury summation. Saddam and counsel ultimately admit to several hundred thousand murders, but invoke a novel defense: Executive Privilege. Ultimately, Hussein refuses to recognize the court’s legitimacy, and demands a change of venue to a Judge Judy show, tentatively scheduled for February. This brings up the possibility that Saddam will not only be the first Arab dictator to answer for his crimes in court, but also the first one to be executed by yelling.

The Iraqi constitution, a Middle East milestone, is approved. But hey! Over there! It’s Britney and her new baby! Everybody grab your cameras and run after her! Dang: false alarm. Anyway, what was that about Iraq? Right: They chose their own rules of governance. Yet statistics show voter participation is down significantly—from 99.99 percent in Saddam’s day, to 60 percent.

Hard as it seems for some to believe, this is good news.

Pay Now, Reform Later

The state of U.N. reform.
byAnne Bayefsky

In the next two weeks the United Nations expects to approve its two-year budget for 2006 and 2007. With New York City aglow in holiday lights and sleigh bells, U.N. apparatchiks are praying that the collective consciousness will be so dulled by eggnog that “U.N. reform” will be a foggy memory come voting day.

Keeping it simple, therefore, here’s a list of unkept U.N.-reform promises that could be scribbled on the paper coaster from the last happy hour.

A new and improved U.N. Human Rights Commission/Council.

Two months of backroom warfare over human-rights protection has resulted in what insiders are calling the “Commission-minus.” In other words, Western governments are beginning to wax nostalgic about the measly number of resolutions naming human-rights abusers that they managed to pass through the old body. They’re now concentrating on an electoral plan which manages to preserve their own seats, let alone removing the bad guys.

A definition of terrorism and a comprehensive convention against terrorism.

For the Organization of Islamic Conference this is a no-brainer. Why define terrorism when you would end up fitting the bill? Given the governing operating principle of consensus, the script is clear. Hold out. Throw in a few proposed amendments and watch the other side fall all over each other to accommodate. While the convention failed to materialize — not to worry, the negotiations will begin again next year — Western governments did support new language in the draft on “self-determination.” And while no definition saw the light of day, the General Assembly did adopt a resolution on terrorism which “reaffirmed” concern for the terrorist as victim, or in U.N.-eeze “the conditions conducive to the spread of terrorism."
Management reform.

What’s the hurry? Items like a review of U.N. governance arrangements and significantly strengthening the Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS) are coming, sometime. You can’t just strengthen; first of all you have to review. The secretary general is keen on reviewing the OIOS and has promised more consultants and another “steering” committee. As for the new ethics office, from inside the negotiations last week comes word that objections run the gamut from: “an ethics office would add to the inefficiency of the bureaucracy,” to a U.N. job makes “adherence to strict ethical conduct obligatory.”

Mandate review.

The September Reform Summit idea of reviewing mandates older than five years and potentially getting rid of the rot, (like the U.N. bodies in the business of disseminating anti-semitism), had a caveat. The “necessary decisions arising from this review” were scheduled for 2006.

Security Council reform.

Posturing aside, it’s not on the map. At least not while the endgame is providing non-democracies with more seats, at more tables, for purposes which bear little relationship to the U.N. Charter.

The four-billion-dollar question, therefore, is where does all this non-reform leave the U.N.’s 2006-07 budget? As U.N. tradition would have it, the biennium budget is adopted by consensus. As U.S. tradition would have it, there is a two-step process. Step one: Join consensus and approve the budget regardless of its contents. Step two: Immediately withhold, from the just agreed-upon contributions, the amounts stipulated by congressionally-imposed limitations.
Over the years, the impact of congressional limitations has ranged from minor nuisance to major hurdle. Withholding substantial amounts adds up, and when a pre-set percentage of the amount due is reached, the offending state loses its vote in U.N. bodies. When that limit was fast approaching back in 1999, then President Clinton and subsequently President George W. Bush, coughed up the arrears. But the withholding continues and the arrears still accumulate.

Currently, U.S. U.N. contributions cannot be used for the Committee on the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People, the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices, the Division for Palestinian Rights, and “projects whose primary purpose is to provide benefits to the PLO or entities associated with it or to the South West Africa People’s Organization (SWAPO)” — provided the primary purpose is not to “provide humanitarian, educational, developmental and other nonpolitical benefits.” The grand total withheld by the United States for the 2004 regular budget, out of a contribution of $362,800,000, was only $644,000.

The language is arcane. SWAPO in 2005? The terminology is also vague, and the resulting State Department discretion vast. Furthermore, the list is haphazard. Missing is the propaganda arm of these same entities, a section of the U.N. Department of Information called “information activities on Palestine.” Also missing is a program of the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights on “follow-up to the Durban Racism Conference.” The United States walked out of this hate-fest in disgust, and refused to participate in the adoption of Durban’s final declaration, but U.S. taxpayers are paying for its implementation.

There is one much more robust congressional rider on the books, which reduces U.S. contributions for any international organization by over 100 million dollars a year unless it can be certified that (among other things) no U.N. affiliated agency grants status to an organization “which promotes, condones, or seeks the legalization of pedophilia, or which includes as a subsidiary or member of any such organization.” The particular U.N.-accredited NGO which had such a connection, (giving rise to the provision), eventually lost its U.N. status and there has been no actual withholding to date. The certification is repeated every year.

Clearly a detailed analysis of U.S.-U.N. funding is overdue. Why not apply this last formulation to organizations which promote or condone terrorism or anti-semitism? Certifying U.N. bodies don’t have those connections would certainly keep the State Department busy.

The U.N. Reform Act 2005, adopted by the House in June, would make the withholding of 50 percent of U.S.-U.N. dues mandatory unless there are various reforms. The Bush administration, however, wants withholding to be discretionary. A draft bill from Senators Norm Coleman and Richard Lugar makes such a change. But it has been kicking around the Senate since last July with no sign of interest from Senator Lugar in taking it forward.

Meanwhile, back at the U.N. corral, the posse of budget oversight — the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions (on which the U.S. sits) — has sent out some smoke signals. Last week it released a report on the proposed cost of everything buried in the U.N. September Reform document. Not pulling any punches, they began by describing the budget analysis that accompanied the Summit Outcome this way: “…the intense pressure under which the Secretariat prepared the report resulted in a document that is not totally coherent.” They proceeded to lambast the various budget proposals as “contradictory,” “piecemeal,” “overtaken by events,” and “lacking convincing evidence.”

From where the secretary general and company sit, none of this is supposed to have any impact on the imminent adoption of the U.N. 2006-07 budget. The New York Times, parroting their U.N. cohorts, called Ambassador Bolton’s effort to draw a line between the money and the merchandise “counterproductive.” The betting around the U.N. delegates' lounge is on “pay now, reform later.” It is time for the President to put our money where his mouth is and refuse to join consensus on the U.N.’s 2006-07 budget. If pushed, the U.S. should call for the vote and vote No. Anything less will make a mockery of U.N. reform, while gift-wrapping a U.S.-bashing Christmas present that the enemies of democracy don’t deserve.

WHY CAN'T I GET ARRESTED?

by Ann Coulter

I'm getting a little insulted that no Democratic prosecutor has indicted me. Liberals bring trumped-up criminal charges against all the most dangerous conservatives. Why not me?

Democrat prosecutor Barry Krischer has spent two years and hundreds of thousands of dollars trying to find some criminal charge to bring against Rush Limbaugh. Political hack Ronnie Earle spent three years and went through six grand juries to indict Tom DeLay. Liberals spent the last two years fantasizing in public about Karl Rove being indicted. Newt Gingrich was under criminal investigation for 3 1/2 years back in the '90s when liberals were afraid of him. Final result: No crime.

And of course, everybody cool in the Reagan administration was indicted. Or at least investigated and persecuted. Reagan's sainted attorney general Ed Meese was criminally investigated for 14 months before the prosecutor announced that he didn't have anything (but denounced Meese as a crook anyway).

I note that nobody ever wanted to indict Bob Dole or Gerald Ford (except, of course, other Republicans).

In the Nixon administration, liberals even brought "Deep Throat" up on charges — and he was one of you people! What, now I'm not even as hip as "Deep Throat"?

I've done a lot for my country. I think I deserve to be indicted, too. How am I supposed to show my face around Washington if I haven't been "frog-marched" out of my office by some liberal D.A. looking to move to D.C. for the next Democratic administration? What's a girl have to do to become a "person of interest" around here? Mr. Krischer, where do I go to get rid of my reputation?

Barry Krischer has been going around calling El Rushbo a criminal for more than two years but has yet to bring any charges. Last month, Krischer's assistant, James Martz, told the court that his office has "no idea" if Limbaugh has even committed a crime. I'm no lawyer — hey, wait a minute, yes I am! — but it sounds like maybe Krischer's maid has been out scoring him stupid pills again.

These liberals are fanatics about privacy when it comes to man-boy sex and stabbing forks into partially-born children. But a maid alleges that she bought Rush Limbaugh a few Percodans, and suddenly the government has declared a war on prescription painkillers.

Liberals are more optimistic about the charges against Tom DeLay than they are about the charges against Saddam Hussein — and the only living things Tom DeLay ever exterminated were rats and bugs.

In the remaining money-laundering case against DeLay, the prosecutors have acknowledged that they cannot produce the actual list of candidates who allegedly gained from the purported money-laundering scheme. But they hope to introduce a facsimile cobbled together from someone's memory.

In other words, during Rathergate, the case against the president consisted of a faked memo, whereas the case against Tom DeLay consists of an imaginary one.

Charges like these are not brought at random. They are brought against people who pose the greatest threat to liberals. (What am I? Miss Congeniality?)

The only difference between the Stalin-era prosecutions — also enthusiastically defended by liberals — and these prosecutions is that it's possible to get acquitted here. But the validity of the charges is about the same.

The only way to stop the left's criminalization of conservatism is to start indicting liberals.
It wasn't calm persuasion that convinced liberals the independent counsel law was a bad idea. It was an independent prosecutor investigating Bill Clinton (who actually was a felon!).

It wasn't logical argument that got them to admit that — sometimes — women do lie about sexual harassment. It was half a dozen women accusing Bill Clinton of groping, flashing or raping them.

It wasn't the plain facts that got liberals to admit that, sometimes, "objective" news reports can be biased. It was the appearance of Fox News Channel.

Can't we rustle up a right-wing prosecutor to indict Teddy Kennedy for Mary Jo Kopechne's drowning? Unlike the cases against Limbaugh and DeLay, Mary Jo's death was arguably a crime, and we could probably prove it in court.

Friday, December 09, 2005

Democratic Base 'Ashamed' of Hillary Clinton

Liberal Democrats are so upset with Hillary Clinton's waffling on the Iraq war that some are now saying they're "ashamed" of her.

The Daily Kos - the political web site widely read by the party's base - is urging Democrats to move beyond Mrs. Clinton and her husband, declaring: "Shame on the Democratic Party if they ever nominate her" for president.

The scathing editorial, written by Kos contributor "Trifecta," states outright: "More than anything else, I am ashamed of Hillary Clinton." "When you look dispassionately at some of the things [Bill and Hillary] are capable of, it should leave one very skeptical and concerned about a 'third term' for this pair."

The Kos writer compares Hillary - unfavorably - to President Bush, saying she's an unprincipled opportunist when it comes to key issues while Bush shows leadership in the face of adversity.

"When faced with low poll numbers on his crappy ideas, Bush plods on," the Kos pundit says. "And [he] still gets them passed, pushing his agenda forward."

Meanwhile, Trifecta complains the Clintons "they put their fingers to the wind" and run away from the fight.

The left-wing blast at Hillary also compares her unfavorably to Sen. Joe Lieberman, whose defense of the war last week contrasted sharply with Mrs. Clinton's weaselly claim that she was tricked into voting to give Bush the authority to attack Iraq.

"Holy Joe Lieberman is a true believer in this war," says Trifecta. "He may be scorned, but as idiotic as his views are, I genuinely believe these are his views.

Wednesday, December 07, 2005

Mel Gibson Plans TV Miniseries on Holocaust

You can say this about Mel Gibson: He isn't afraid to tackle sensitive topics.

The actor, who defied the odds with the blockbuster success of his film "The Passion of the Christ," is turning his attention to the Holocaust.

According to the New York Times, Gibson's television production company is developing a four-hour nonfiction miniseries for ABC based on the life of Flory A. Van Beek, a Dutch Jew whose gentile neighbors hid her from the Nazis but who lost several relatives in concentration camps.

Since the project is in preliminary stages, details about the production are limited. Gibson may not act in the miniseries, and there's no guarantee that it will ever be finished or aired.

Quinn Taylor, ABC's senior vice president in charge of movies for television, told the Times that the attention-getting value of having Gibson attached to a Holocaust project was a factor.

"Controversy's publicity, and vice versa," Taylor said.

"The Passion of the Christ" was assailed by critics as an anti-Semitic passion play -- and Gibson's father has been on record as a Holocaust denier.

Gibson is currently filming "Apocalypto," an adventure set before the Spanish conquest of Mexico and Central America.

Erotic moments from Bible..

Reuters

A German Protestant youth group has put together a 2006 calendar with 12 staged photos depicting erotic scenes from the Bible, including a bare-breasted Delilah cutting Samson's hair and a nude Eve offering an apple.

"There's a whole range of biblical scriptures simply bursting with eroticism," said Stefan Wiest, the 32-year-old photographer who took the titillating pictures.

Anne Rohmer, 21, poses on a doorstep in garters and stockings as the prostitute Rahab, who is mentioned in both New and Old Testaments. "We wanted to represent the Bible in a different way and to interest young people," she told Reuters.

"Anyway, it doesn't say anywhere in the Bible that you are forbidden to show yourself nude."

Bernd Grasser, pastor of the church in Nuremberg where the calendar is being sold, was enthusiastic about the project which is explained online at www.bibelkalender.de.

"It's just wonderful when teenagers commit themselves with their hair and their skin to the bible," he said.

A Lot of Noise

The Editorial (National Review)

We will not be able to effectively enforce our immigration laws until we create a temporary-worker program."

This was the animating idea of the president's immigration speech on Monday in Tucson. His litany of improvements in border security, and even his acknowledgement of the importance of interior enforcement, were clearly calculated to make his guest-worker-program-cum-amnesty more palatable to conservatives.

The current issue of Time magazine has a revealing quote from "a Republican official close to the White House" about the president's approach to supporters of immigration enforcement: "Bush decided to give these guys their rhetorical pound of flesh. In return, he wants a comprehensive bill, which is what he has always wanted. He's just going to lead with a lot of noise about border security."

We are glad that Bush finally seems to realize how dismayed conservatives are about the chaotic, lawless state of our immigration system, but he will have to do more to convince us that he is offering more than "a lot of noise." The Tucson speech, and another one today in El Paso, are intended to kick off what some officials are calling "Border Security Month." (Shouldn't every month be Border Security Month?) His enforcement proposals are welcome, even if the president is playing a game of catch up. The president specifically mentioned:

Interior repatriation
Bush touted "an innovative approach" that returns Mexican illegals closer to their hometowns so they will be less likely to sneak in again. But the Border Patrol started doing it more than 50 years ago.

Catch-and-release
As the number of non-Mexican illegals caught at the southern border has increased, the Border Patrol has been forced by the lack of detention space to let them go on their own recognizance, hoping they'll show up for their deportation hearings. (They don't.) For the president to boast that his administration plans — real soon now — to stop releasing illegal aliens into the country is not awfully comforting.

Unmanned aerial vehicles
"Technology can help an individual agent have broader reach and more effectiveness," the president said, citing the surveillance value of UAVs. What he didn't mention was that the government was shamed into using these drones by ordinary citizens frustrated with federal inaction who, more than two years ago, built their own drones and posted the aerial images on the Internet.

Verifying legal status
The president for the first time — importantly — acknowledged that immigration control doesn't stop at the border: "America's immigration laws apply across all of America, and we will enforce those laws throughout our land." He specifically pointed to Basic Pilot, the voluntary program that allows employers to verify online that new hires are eligible to work in the U.S. But the administration made no effort to save it from extinction in 2003, when the loose-borders faction in Congress tried to prevent its reauthorization. Nor did the president suggest that it be made mandatory for all employers, which is the only way to provide a level playing field for honest businesses.

If Bush really wants to get serious about immigration enforcement, there are measures he could take today that would go a long way toward seeing that "America's immigration laws apply across all of America." For instance, the Social Security Administration could be instructed to reject fake or stolen Social Security numbers submitted by employers on behalf of new hires; or the Treasury Department could change its instructions to banks that currently permit them to accept Mexico's illegal-alien I.D. card for purposes of opening accounts. Such measures would make the U.S. a less-alluring destination for illegals but would require no new funding, no new legislation, and no new computer systems.

The president's belated support for more enforcement inspires little confidence in conservatives who fear a replay of 1986, when millions of illegal aliens were legalized in exchange for hollow promises of future enforcement. If the president wants to persuade Congress and the American people that this time will be different, he must provide actions rather than words, results rather than "noise."

The Popular View?

What we should do about the war in Iraq and how the left needs to stop pushing agenda’s
Jessica Serrano

Is it just me, or do politicians seem to always want to pull out of war zones during Christmas? As much as the left hates Christianity, they seem to always want to capitalize on the season by recommending withdrawals and cease fires all in the name of “America’s best interest”.

I know I’m one of the many out there that believes terrorism knows no holidays or cease fires. And that a withdrawal means victory for those who will do us harm. It would be one more piece of this giant chess game taken away (whether it is a knight or a bishop can be narrowed down later).

So why are we even having this discussion?

The left’s response is very weak on the situation.

Is it because the media is playing right into the hands of the left?

Is it because there isn’t a more intriguing story out there?

Where were these peace craving leftists when our soldiers were protecting freedoms in guerilla wars across the globe? I guess it’s more convenient to make a case when something is being shoved into the faces of the public.

We’ve already found that those who did not stand with us during the beginning of the war did not for personal reasons. With all honesty France has no right to make complaints about America after the violent outbreaks that plagued it for more than a week.

As for the WMDs in Iraq, chemicals were found. They did have the capacity to produce them. Although soldiers have not found the giant signs with “Chemical Agents Found Here” in flashing letters, there have been discoveries of biological and radioactive materials in Iraq. Why else would the U.N. have been watching Iraq?

It would be greatly underestimating a nation that eluded the U.N. about the oil for food scandal to believe that they did not have the capacity to harbor, create, and eventually move WMDs.

So what is the other argument for us to pull out?

We talk about our soldiers, what they feel. In truth more than half come back to America in total disbelief on how the war is being covered. What about the schools they built? Second rate news compared to the ranting of Al-Zarqawi.

And for those who continue to portray younger soldiers as helpless victims of power hungry politicians, at the age of 18 it is your choice to join the Armed Service. If people didn’t want to go into war ever, then why did they join the military? Free education? These are the kinds of things you are supposed to expect when joining an outfit like this. If I decided to become a construction worker and was asked to clear out land for the development of new houses, but was opposed to cutting down trees there is a definite possibility that I shouldn’t be in that line of work. Don’t get me wrong, I think people should have their own opinions about the war and politics, but please don’t sit there and tell me you didn’t want to go to war when you voluntarily signed into the military.

Some say that they support the troops but not the cause. I say that’s like telling a chef the meal was terrible but you believe he is a good cook. That is by far one of the coldest things you can tell someone.

What about the people in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other affected regions in the Middle East? Do they like the U.S. helping them regain control of their countries, civilizations, and lives? Or do they so dislike us that they would side with the Islamic fundamentalists and kill every American ever born?

Of course a majority likes us. It’s the terrorists that want us out, and plant bombs on themselves or the side of the road to kill troops. Media coverage is the same across the board from local to international news the standard is the horrific over the decent and humane. If we heard only stories about bank robberies, shootings, muggings and other heinous crimes we would be afraid to step outside our homes. We know however, that high crimes are not always the case. For every robbery that occurs in our community there is an art exhibition or someone who has saved another persons life. Our view of local news also applies to the international coverage coming from the middle-east, we do not receive all the news coming from that region. While we may rely on the media to be our eyes and ears all over the world, common sense must prevail, if things were really that bad there would be more deaths of soldiers.

Staying in Iraq, and not letting those who only want to further their own political agenda pull us out, sounds like a good plan. If you don’t like this next generation, be my guest and support the immediate pull out because doing so will only allow insurgents to fester and leave an even bigger problem for the next set of young people. But if you like your children or grandchildren, then stay.

Now I said in the sub-portion of the title about agenda’s and courses of action, so here goes. The left hates the right and the right is not to crazy about the left. The left feels like the little guy in a land full of linebackers and in turn most have refused to look at the world without their political-blinders. So...I suppose that by repeating the same action taken in Vietnam they believe they will once again have a hay day in the legislative and executive branches. That’s selfish and very near sighted. I propose that we should pull out conventional troops from Iraq and replace them with specially trained ones that are knowledgeable in rebuilding countries and training foreign troops. I also propose a Macarthur plan for Iraq, emphasizing a 10 to 15 year stay.

But that’s just me….

Friday, December 02, 2005

Lieberman: We Must Stay in Iraq

Fresh from his fourth trip to Iraq in the past 17 months, Sen. Joe Lieberman insists the U.S. must stay in the embattled nation and not abandon "27 million Iraqis to 10,000 terrorists."

"The Iraqi people are in reach of a watershed transformation from the primitive, killing tyranny of Saddam to modern, self-governing, self-securing nationhood – unless the great American military that has given them and us this unexpected opportunity is prematurely withdrawn," the Connecticut Democrat writes in an opinion piece for the Wall Street Journal.

Pointing to economic and political progress he witnessed while in Iraq, Lieberman said:

"People are working their way toward a functioning society and economy in the midst of a very brutal, inhumane, sustained terrorist war against the civilian population and the Iraqi and American military there to protect it.

"It is a war between 27 million and 10,000; 27 million Iraqis who want to live lives of freedom, opportunity and prosperity and roughly 10,000 terrorists who are either Saddam revanchists, Iraqi Islamic extremists or al-Qaida foreign fighters who know their wretched causes will be set back if Iraq becomes free and modern ...

"We are fighting on the side of the 27 million because the outcome of this war is critically important to the security and freedom of America. If the terrorists win, they will be emboldened to strike us directly again and to further undermine the growing stability and progress in the Middle East."

Lieberman is encouraged by the numbers of Iraqis who have gone to the polls despite the threat of violence, by Sunni participation in the electoral process and by the thriving independent media in Iraq.

"None of these remarkable changes would have happened without the coalition forces led by the U.S.," Lieberman writes.

"And, I am convinced, almost all of the progress in Iraq and throughout the Middle East will be lost if those forces are withdrawn faster than the Iraqi military is capable of securing the country.

"I am disappointed by Democrats who are more focused on how President Bush took America into the war in Iraq almost three years ago, and by Republicans who are more worried about whether the war will bring them down in next November's elections, than they are concerned about how we continue the progress in Iraq in the months and years ahead.

"What a colossal mistake it would be for America's bipartisan political leadership to choose this moment in history to lose its will and, in the famous phrase, to seize defeat from the jaws of the coming victory."

Bruce Willis to Make Pro-Iraq War Film

Bucking the trend in Hollywood, Bruce Willis plans to make a film about the war in Iraq where American soldiers will be shown to be the valiant heroes they really are.

The flick will spotlight the highly decorated members of Deuce Four, the 1st Battalion, 24th Infantry, which has been waging the battle against the insurgents in the town of Mosul in northern Iraq.

Willis described the members of Deuce Four to the London Times as "guys who do what they are asked to for very little money to defend and fight for what they consider to be freedom."

Willis believes it would be wrong for Americans to give up on Iraq just as progress is being made.

"The Iraqi people want to live in a world where they can move from their homes to the market and not have to fear being killed," Willis said. "I mean, doesn't everybody want that?"

The actor recently offered a $1 million bounty for the capture of any of Al-Qaeda's most wanted leaders such as Osama bin Laden, Ayman Al-Zawahiri or Abu Musab al- Zarqawi.

He told MSNBC, "I am baffled to understand why the things I saw happening in Iraq are not being reported."

The Left Coast Report thinks the Bush administration ought to hire Willis as its communication director.

Michael Jackson Goes Muslim

He's changed his nose and skin. Why not his faith?

According to Arab-Israeli newspaper Panorama, Michael Jackson is leaving the Jehovah's Witnesses behind to become a Muslim.

Michael's brother Jermaine, who has already converted, purportedly gave Michael some books on Islam.

Jermaine has relocated to the Gulf nation of Dubai while Michael is moving to Bahrain and has purchased some property on an artificial island there.

The recently acquitted pop singer is in hot water over reports of a phone message to a former business partner where the singer allegedly made untoward remarks about Jewish people.

Jackson was reportedly heard saying, "They're [Jews] like leeches...I'm so tired of it...They start out the most popular person in the world, make a lot of money, big house, cars and everything. End up penniless. It is a conspiracy. The Jews do it on purpose."

Jackson noted that he plans to move his assets from the U.S. to Bahrain and expressed his hope to put his legal troubles behind him. He supposedly wants to enjoy the kind of freedom he says he does not have in America.

The Left Coast Report hears that Jackson's in the market for a sequined burqa.

Justice Scalia Makes Mincemeat of Al Franken

You probably won't be hearing the talk show host for the dying liberal radio network Air America, Al Franken, doing much talking about a recent run-in he had with U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.

Time Warner chairman Dick Parsons told the New York Post that in a recent verbal altercation between Franken and Scalia, "Al [Franken] was not quite ready for prime time."

Scalia was the subject of an interview conducted by outgoing Time Inc. editor-in-chief Norman Pearlstine as part of a series titled "Conversations on the Circle."

As Mike Wallace, Tina Brown, Michael Eisner, Jack Valenti and other celebs watched, Franken tried to heckle Scalia.

The unfunny comedian stood up and asked about "judicial demeanor." Franken wanted to know whether a judge ought to recuse himself if he had gone duck hunting or flown in a private jet with someone who is a party in a case before his court.

This was, of course, a not-so-veiled reference to Scalia's activities with Dick Cheney before the 2000 election.

Without missing a beat, Scalia responded, "Demeanor is the wrong word. You mean ethics."

After placing the dunce cap on Franken's head, the jurist continued: "Ethics is governed by tradition. It has never been the case where you recuse because of friendship."

The Left Coast Report believes that watching a Scalia/Franken match-up is like watching Gary Kasparov play chess with Jessica Simpson.