Friday, June 30, 2006

Celebrate Independence Day

I won’t be back online until Wednesday, July 5, 2006. Please remember to celebrate our Independence Day Holiday.

America; love it or leave it.

Thursday, June 29, 2006

Our Gutless Wonders

A news story posted on the World Net Daily web site is reporting that the Al Aqsa Brigades claim they have fired a missile into Israel carrying a chemical warhead. This is according to Abu Qusai, spokesman for the same group. Al Aqsa Brigades is the armed wing of Fatah, headed by Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas.

Israel has said that they have no indication that such an attack has occurred. But even if it hasn’t happened yet, if terrorists ever get possession of WMD’s, of course they’ll use it.

This Al Aqsa Brigades claim comes as gutless and appeasing political leaders the world over are demanding “Israeli restraint”. The E.U. has urged both Israel and the Palestinians to "step back” and allow “diplomacy” to resolve the crisis.

The Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy of France said the crisis could only be solved through a “political dialogue”.

Japan’s Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi, is making noise to the effect that his scheduled trip to the Middle East next month needs to be re-evaluated because of the current events.

The gutlessness extends to the Bush administration also as U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has also urged Israeli restraint.

In fact, Israel herself seems all too eager to appease even as Israeli military forces are massing at the border of Gaza. The Israeli retreat from the West Bank continues.

Appeasing terrorists just never seems to end with the gutless politicians that we seem to consistently elect and re-elect.

“Israeli restraint”
"step back”
“political dialogue”

Winston Churchill said it best:

An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile - hoping it will eat him last.

Wednesday, June 28, 2006

What’s Wrong With Telling The Truth? Part 2

The Rocky Mountain News published a “follow up” news story today about the shooting attack perpetrated by Michael Ford at a Safeway food distribution center in Denver on Sunday, June 25, 2006. Ford shot several co-workers, killing one. The story published today, written by Tillie Fong and Michael Malik, carry’s the title: Rampage victim, Ford had 'an argument'”. The story reports that Ford and one of the wounded Safeway workers had an argument over an accident involving a “forklift-like machine”. The daughter of the wounded man said his family doesn’t know whether or not the incident may have caused Ford to go on his shooting spree.

Denver television station CBS News 4 reported today that: “Police and Safeway officials on Monday said they didn't think Ford had a particular complaint or issue with Safeway, and (Luis) Relford (one of the shooting victims) said he doesn't think Ford was aiming at anyone in particular.”

The CBS 4 report went on to say that Ford’s father, Khalid Muhammed, believes that Ford was angry with Safeway because Ford didn’t receive a promotion. Muhammed went on to say that he heard that Ford had broken off with his girl friend shortly before he went to work on Sunday.

But wait a minute, I was watching the television news broadcast on KUSA channel 9, also in Denver, when Ford’s younger sister was interviewed. She told the reporter that Ford was upset because people “were making fun of his religion at work”. She also said: "I don't know what happened to him yesterday (Sunday, June 25th). It was like everything changed. He told me that Allah was going to make a choice and it was going to be good and told me people at his job was (sic) making fun of his religion and he didn't respect that ." (Emphasis added)

Michael Ford didn’t go on his terror campaign because he broke up with his girlfriend, or because of a missed promotion. It was more sinister than that.

He did it simply because he was a Muslim and his co-workers aren’t.

Monday, June 26, 2006

What’s Wrong With Telling The Truth?

Twenty two year old Muslim Michael Ford worked at a Safeway distribution center in Denver, Colorado. On Sunday, June 25, he went in and started shooting people and setting fires inside the center. He shot and killed Mauricio DeHaro, a thirty three year old father of two, ages 4 and 6.

Ford also shot and wounded Denver Police officer Derick Dominguez in the hip. Dominguez is in serious condition. He also shot Mark Moran, who is in serious condition, and John Mendoza, who is in fair condition. One other man was shot but was released from the hospital.

KUSA Channel 9 news reported that all five workers that Ford shot worked in the same department as the shooter. Jeff Stroh, a spokesman for Safeway said the company had not received any complaints about Ford, or complaints from Ford.

The various news outlets in Denver all seem intent on subduing the motive for the shootings. For example:

The headline for the Denver Post story reads: Shooting spree baffles those close to 22-year-old Ford.

The KUSA Channel 9 News headline says: Officials search for motive in warehouse shooting.

However, his younger sister was interviewed by KUSA channel 9 and said that Ford was upset because people “were making fun of his religion at work”. She also said: "I don't know what happened to him yesterday. It was like everything changed. He told me that Allah was going to make a choice and it was going to be good and told me people at his job was making fun of his religion and he didn't respect that."

The Rocky Mountain News reported that Safeway employee Debbie Richmeier, said she and Ford’s other co-workers never saw the attack coming. Richmeier is quoted by the News as saying: "One minute, he says, 'Hi, how are you?' and then one minute later he's apparently deciding which one of us dudes he's going to shoot. We could have never seen this coming from him in particular."

Richmeier also said that the other employees never made fun of Islam.

The Rocky Mountain News also quoted Richmeier as saying: "The group of people he shot, we did not know Michael Ford was any (certain religion). Nobody knew he had switched to Muslim. Nobody would have cared."

So what’s wrong with telling the truth? Michael Ford shot 5 people, killing one, because he was a Muslim, and they were not.

This type of attack is an all too common tale in the world of Islam.

Wednesday, June 21, 2006

Commentary By E.D. Hill Of Fox News

U.S. Soldiers Tortured: Where Is the Outrage?

Wednesday, June 21, 2006

By E.D. Hill

I'm mad.

The New York Times wants Gitmo closed. The San Jose Mercury News claims that Gitmo nurtures a culture of death. The Cleveland Plain Dealer wants Gitmo closed. Journalists and editorial staffs are up in arms that there might possibly be some kind of torture occurring.

So what do they say when torture OBVIOUSLY occurs? How do they react when two U.S. servicemen — in Geneva Convention-approved uniforms — have their hearts cut out, their testicles cut off, their penises cut off and stuffed in their mouths, arms contorted and eyes gouged? THIS is torture.

But WHERE is the outrage? Where is the concern about the Geneva Convention being adhered to? Where is the outrage from the very people we are trying to help? How in the world could the Iraqi government have even contemplated pardoning terrorists who have killed U.S. military members?

Put yourself in the position of a young American serviceman or servicewoman overseas. How would you be able to distinguish in a split second between someone who doesn’t speak English and needs directions, from someone who is hiding a bomb belt and wants to blow you to bits?

We just found out that two servicemen killed in 2004 were not killed in an ambush, as first thought. They were killed by two Iraqis who were supposedly working with us. Yes, our military must be held to high standards, but we also have to view their actions with the perspective of what has happened there. These young military volunteers are basing decisions of when to shoot and when not to shoot on their experience in this specific battlefield. I will give them every benefit of the doubt. It is their life on the line.

Tuesday, June 20, 2006

Law & Order in New Orleans

Military vehicles rolling in.
Armed troops patrolling the streets of the city.
A government official declares that there will be law and order.

Paris in 1940? No.

Tianamen Square in 1989? No.

It’s New Orleans 2006.

“There is law and order in New Orleans --Governor Kathleen Blanco

National Guard soldiers and vehicles rolled into New Orleans for the second time in less than a year on Tuesday, June 20, 2006. The first time seemed reasonable when the Guard went in to assist in controlling the disarray and chaos that followed the flooding caused by Hurricane Katrina.

But this time the reasons voiced by Governor Kathleen Blanco, Mayor Ray Nagin, (both are Democrats by the way) and Police Superintendent Warren Riley don’t really seem to make sense.

Superintendent Riley said the police are expecting an "influx of people, not necessarily criminals." (emphasis added) He went on to say that the expected influx is more problematic than isolated incidents of violence for authorities to maintain order in the Big Easy. "It's going to be a long, hot summer," he said

So, it sounds like Riley is saying that the National Guard presence is necessary because ordinary people will be coming into the city.

It seems that while some of the soldiers are carrying shotguns and side arms, some are carrying M-16 rifles. National Guard officers and Superintendent Riley made a point of pointing out that while on patrol and at roadblocks, soldiers will have live ammunition. Riley also made it quite clear when he said: "they (the guardsman) have pull-over authority, they are locked and loaded, and they are authorized to use deadly force,"

Doesn’t it seem as if Riley is just itching for something to happen? Governor Blanco and Riley both sound a little like Dirty Harry, “go ahead, make my day.”

I’m not an attorney, but I don’t think this deployment of the guardsmen is a violation of the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 seeing as how the Act doesn’t apply when a state governor sends in the troops.

(National Guardsmen march out of a meeting with Governor Blanco and Mayor Ray Nagin. John McCusker - Times-Picayune)

But it still seems a little disconcerting to have troops in camouflage BDU’s armed with M-16s and Beretta 9 millimeter pistols walking around the neighborhood locked and loaded.

Where's The European Outrage?

The reported that President George W. Bush traveled to Austria today to “spotlight the improved relations with Europe that have marked his second term, but a strong undercurrent of international outrage about the U.S. detention facility at Guantanamo Bay is threatening to mar the atmosphere.”

The same news story also reported that the United Nations special investigator for torture, Manfred Nowak, said that the U.S.-European Union summit "would be an excellent opportunity to demand, and to facilitate, an immediate closing" of Guantanamo.

Such moral outrage on the part of Europeans.

Where is the moral outrage over the torture and beheadings of Private First Class Thomas L. Tucker, age 25, and Private First Class Kristian Menchaca, age 23?

Both men were abducted, tortured, and beheaded by Muslim terrorists, and not a peep out of the U. N. special investigator for torture.

Saturday, June 17, 2006

Nitwits Sitting In Judgment In Colorado Courts

Take a look at this “man”.

His name is Willis Lee Rouse, age thirty eight. He’s presently in jail, (see his cute jump suit?) Rouse is currently serving four years in the Fremont Correctional Facility, in Colorado for stalking and escape.

Rouse and an unidentified fourteen year old girl began living together in April 2002 in Colorado, and a year later applied for a marriage license.

The girl became pregnant, but told authorities she didn’t have sexual relations with Rouse and that he wasn’t the baby’s father. Police still removed her from Rouse's residence and returned the girl to her mother. The case was then reported to County Social Services. Rouse pleaded guilty to stalking, and in return, the sexual assault charges were dropped. He was sentenced to four years.

Now, the mother of the girl consented to the marriage, and went with her daughter and Rouse to get a license from the county clerk's office. The license was issued, but a County District Judge granted a motion by the County Department of Human Services to invalidate the marriage. The judge ruled that those under age 16 must have judicial approval for either common-law or statutory marriage. Statutory, (legal) marriage has a minimum age of 16 years and requires parental or judicial approval until the age of 18. Presently, Colorado law does not address a minimum age regarding common law marriage. So, the judge’s ruling was a matter of common sense.

However, a Colorado Court of Appeals overturned the lower court’s decision. The appeals court noted in their decision that the state of Colorado recognizes English common law, which legalizes such marriages at age 12 for girls and 14 for boys. These minimum ages are said to have made sense when common law came about, (though I would disagree with it) but they certainly don’t make sense now.

Denver attorney Stephen Harhai, was quoted by the Denver Rocky Mountain News as saying:

"Under this action, this means your 12-year-old can, with whomever, say, 'I intend to be married to you,' and that's it, (they're) married. That's a little shocking."

Mr. Harhai is the former chairman of the family law section of the Colorado Bar Association. This background qualifies him to offer an opinion on the matter. He also said that since Colorado law doesn’t address minimum age regarding common law, the appeals court ruling is new precedent. He said that this would require legislative action by the state to fix.

Would you feel comfortable with your twelve year old daughter marrying a 30-something man? How about your 14 year old son marrying a thirty something woman?

Debbie Schlussel offers another scary possibility because of this ruling.

Friday, June 16, 2006

From My Cold Dead Hand

In 2001, member nations of the U.N. adopted the United Nations Programme of Action. (UNPoA) and committed themselves to “collecting and destroying illegal weapons”. The member states also promised to: “adopt and improve national legislations that would help criminalize the illicit trade in small arms.”

A delegation from the U.S. will participate in the follow up U.N. Small Arms Review Conference scheduled for a June 26 to July 7, 2006 in New York City at U.N. headquarters. The conference will discuss illegal trafficking in arms, ineffective national controls and related issues.

(Side note: Actor Michael Douglas aka Mr. Catherine Zeta-Jones, and son of Spartacus, has been anointed Messenger of Peace by Kofi Annan, and is supportive of the conference.)

Among the U.N.’s plans is a buy back program of weapons in nations the U.N. has determined to be “torn by civil strife.”

This all may sound reasonable to some folks. But when you think about it, who determines what is illicit trade, and what constitutes small arms? These questions don’t seem to be addressed anywhere.

National Rifle Association Vice President Wayne LaPierre also has concerns about the motives of the U.N. program.

LaPierre said:

"So, after we are disarmed, the U.N. wants us demobilized and reintegrated. I can hear it now: 'Step right this way for your reprogramming, sir. Once we confiscate your guns, we can demobilize your aggressive instincts and reintegrate you into civil society.' No thanks."

World Net Daily reported that the U.N. plan “has its roots in the early 1960s with a 20-page State Department pamphlet titled ‘Freedom From War: The United States Program for General and Complete Disarmament in a Peaceful World.’"

As the great Charlton Heston said: “From My Cold Dead Hand.”

Thursday, June 15, 2006

A North American Union

U.S. Representative Tom Tancredo, Republican from Colorado, has requested that the Bush administration disclose in full, the activities of a trilateral agreement with the U.S., Mexico, and Canada that could lead to a North American “union”.

The Security and Prosperity Partnership Of North America (SPP) was signed by President Bush, Mexican President Vicente Fox and former Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin in Waco, Texas, on March 23, 2005.

World Net Daily reported that the White House has established an active ensemble of twenty working groups, under the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) office in the Department of Commerce, to implement the SPP. The trilateral agreement, was signed as a joint declaration, but was not, and still has not been submitted to Congress for review.

The American piece is actively working on a wide variety of issues including e-commerce, aviation policy, securing borders, and immigration. The activity involves multiple U.S. government agencies.

The U.S. government agencies have done extensive work for a very long time despite having no authorization or oversight from Congress or anyone else.

The head of the SPP office in NAFTA, Geri Word, confirmed with WND on June 9, 2006 that the membership of the working groups, as well as their work products, have not been published anywhere, including on the Internet.

When asked why not, Word said: "We did not want to get the contact people of the working groups distracted by calls from the public." (Emphasis Added)

Distracted? Don’t we kinda have the right to know?

WND further reports that the May 2005 Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) task force “presented a blueprint for expanding the SPP agreement into a North American Union that would merge the U.S., Canada and Mexico into a new governmental form.”

The title of the report is "Building a North American Community". Interesting title, it has a nice European sound and feel, eh?

But wait, it gets better. The CFR task force report also calls for establishing a “common border perimeter around North America by 2010”. This would include free movement of people, commerce, and capital within the newly formed North American Community. This cross border movement would be simplified by a North American Border Pass.

WND also reported that: “Also envisioned by the CFR task force report were a North American court, a North American inter-parliamentary group, a North American executive commission, a North American military defense command, a North American customs office and a North American development bank.”

Let’s read that again, the plan is to establish a North American:

  • Court.
  • Inter-parliamentary group
  • Executive commission
  • Military defense command
  • Customs office

The North American Community concept scares the hell out of me, what with Canada’s record of welcoming Islamic terrorists in, and Mexico’s record of official corruption.

Are you scared yet? You ought to be.

Tuesday, June 13, 2006

The Colorado Supreme Court: The 101st legislator?

On Monday, June 12, 2006, The Colorado Supreme Court ruled 4-2, (one justice abstained) that a measure to amend the state constitution cannot appear on the November 7, 2006 ballot because it violates a requirement in the constitution that initiatives deal with only one subject.

The proposed amendment would make it illegal for illegal aliens to receive welfare “benefits” and in-state college tuition. After all, where do you think the funds for these benefits come from?

Certainly not from the illegal population in the United States. The plain and simple truth is that illegals cost more than they contribute. This has been proven time and again. They cost more in tax supported services than they contribute in taxes collected. There are also estimates that illegals send home about twenty billion dollars ($20,000,000,000) to Mexico each and every year. I would call these two factors a substantial drain on the economy.

The proposed amendment wouldn’t prevent Colorado from paying for federally mandated services such as public education and emergency medical care.

Governor Owens said he believes the court intentionally dragged its feet until after it was too late for proponents to get a measure on the ballot. He also said the court wants to impose its own views, by way of judicial activism.

The Governor said:
"In my opinion, the court's decision was inconsistent, it was inappropriate, and yes, I even believe it was arrogant."

Democratic state senator Joan Fitz-Gerald of Golden accused Republicans of trying to make immigration a political issue in an election year when control of the Legislature and the Executive office are up for grabs.

Actually, the Governor isn’t politicizing the issue; it’s a matter of national security. An issue that Fitz-Gerald apparently is ignorant of or she doesn’t think is important enough to do something about.

After all, she is a liberal. It’s about making legislators of both parties accountable to the voters concerning this critical issue.

Floyd Ciruli, an independent pollster from Denver, said that Illegal immigration is a divisive issue that could bring out more Republicans to the polls.

"It could force Democrats into a vote that many of them wouldn't want to campaign on," Cirulli said.

House Minority Leader Mike May, Republican from Parker, said Colorado voters deserve a chance to vote on the issue.

May also said:

"The state Supreme Court illegally denied access to the ballot on an issue I think enjoys overwhelming support. The question is access to the ballot. To have that taken away by the courts needs to be resolved”.

The group behind the measure, Defend Colorado Now, has already gathered over 30,000 of the 68,000 voters' signatures required, but since the deadline has passed, it cannot start over with a revised ballot proposal. (Which is why the state supreme court waited so long to stop the measure.)

Other Republican lawmakers also characterized the court ruling as an attempt by activist judges to keep the issue off the ballot.

State Representative Cory Gardner, Republican from Yuma said:
"The Colorado Supreme Court apparently elected itself the 101st legislator,"

Amen to that.

Rare For San Francisco

A rare GOOD news story from San Francisco as a state trial judge overturned a voter-approved (58% to 42%) city ordinance that banned handgun possession and firearm sales in San Francisco. The city ordinance would have trumped California state law.

Oh the Irony

A spat between Fatah and Hamas has turned deadly as terrorists try to terrorize each other. It’s fun to watch, kind of like watching two alley cats go at each other, or watching ultimate fighters in a cage. You just know it’s going to get bloody. No good guys, just bad guys. No matter who loses, everyone else wins.

You can read the Reuters account of it here.

See the Debbie Schlussel post: Alien vs. Predator = . . . for pictures.

Wednesday, June 07, 2006

Barbarians At The Gates

Last week, President Hosni Mubarak refused to support the Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank. A senior Egyptian official told World Net Daily that Mubarak vehemently opposes any Israeli unilateral withdrawal. Mubarak is afraid that the withdrawal will cause further anarchy in the west bank just as it has in Gaza.

The Egyptian official is quoted by World Net Daily as saying:

"Egypt is continually threatened by the anarchy in the Gaza Strip. Elements in Gaza have aided and abetted plotters of terror attacks against our land and sovereignty. A unilateral withdrawal from the West Bank could bring similar anarchy on a larger scale there and spill over into Jordan."

Then, King Abdullah of Jordan said:

"Such a unilateral step (withdrawal from the west bank) would foster insecurity and doubts not only in the Palestinian Authority, but among the rest of the peace partners in the region."

Gee, two Muslim leaders are afraid that a void left by an Israeli withdrawal will lead to anarchy and violence by the Muslim Palestinians. The Egyptians and the Jordanians are apparently afraid that they have become targets of Hamas and al-Qaida

Remember, in the 1970’s, King Hussein, King Abdullah’s father, waged bloody warfare against the Palestinians to force them out of the country after Yasser Arafat tried to overthrow the Jordanian government. In the eighties, the Palestinians were thrown out of Lebanon.

No one likes or wants the Palestinians. I wonder why? Could it be that all they seem to do is throw rocks and blow up innocent people?

Tuesday, June 06, 2006

Tom Tancredo For President

According to, U.S. Representative Tom Tancredo from Colorado won a straw poll for the U.S. Presidency in Michigan yesterday. The poll was taken at the Lincoln Day Dinner, and Mr. Tancredo took in eighteen percent of the vote out of 325 votes cast. His name was one out of 14 Republicans, some of them high profile. Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, Condoleezza Rice,

Although it was only a plurality on a fractured GOP ballot, Tancredo beat out GOP heavyweights Rudy Giuliani, Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, John McCain, Bill Frist.

It would suit me just fine if Tom Tancredo were President.