8/20/2004
Kerry campaign calls on publisher to 'withdraw book'
From Drudge
The Kerry campaign calls on a publisher to 'withdraw book' written by group of veterans, claiming veterans are lying about Kerry's service in Vietnam and operating as a front organization for Bush. Kerry campaign has told Salon.com that the publisher of UNFIT FOR COMMAND is 'retailing a hoax'... 'No publisher should want to be selling books with proven falsehoods in them,' Kerry campaign spokesman Chad Clanton tells the online mag
This from a man who lied about being in Cambodia on Christmas in 1968; who lied about American troops in Vietnam committing widespread war crimes; whose campaign lied about him serving as the vice-chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee; and who whole-heartedly endorsed and supported the lies of Joe Wilson concerning Iraq's attempts to acquire uranium in Africa.
Despite the proven falsehoods and deliberate deception in F9/11, President Bush hasn't called for movie theaters to stop showing it. He has counted on the truth to win out over Moore's untruth. Apparently, Kerry can't do the same.
If what's really in the book is false, then Kerry should have no trouble proving it in court. And we all know that Dems have no problem sicking the lawyers on people they don't like. (See Nader, Ralph) I'm guessing that if they haven't filed the suit already, it's because they know they won't win. So they're trying to get the publisher to pull it.
Shameful, really.
Permalink
|
Do the Iranians have a deathwish?
There's two other possibilities, of course: that they're either bluffing, or they're just plain stupid.
Iran warns of preemptive strike to prevent attack on nuclear sites
DOHA (AFP) - Iranian Defense Minister Ali Shamkhani warned that Iran might launch a preemptive strike against US forces in the region to prevent an attack on its nuclear facilities.
I'd be really interested to see how they'd go about this. The USAF still enjoys complete air superiority in the region, and the Iranian air force is not in a position to take that away, so any sort of air strike is out. Maybe they could try theater ballistic missiles (Scuds and thier cousins), but I don't think that would do much either. A ground invasion is a bit blatant, the U.S. led coalition troops, with heavy air support, would clean their clocks, and any such action would, I'm sure, have the effect of uniting the Iraqi population against the invaders. Invasions tend to do that. So that leaves terrorist attacks. And I was under the impression that they're already supporting those.
"America is not the only one present in the region. We are also present, from Khost to Kandahar in Afghanistan; we are present in the Gulf and we can be present in Iraq (news - web sites)," said Shamkhani, speaking in Farsi to the Arabic-language news channel through an interpreter.
What do you mean, you "can be present in Iraq," your unholiness? We know your agents are already there; we've caught some of them. We've also intercepted weapons shipments from Iran coming across the border. We know you're supporting Fuqtoda al-Sadr. And if you don't knock it off, you'll be giving us reason to choose you over Syria when it comes time to choose our route home from Iraq.
"The US military presence (in Iraq) will not become an element of strength (for Washington) at our expense. The opposite is true, because their forces would turn into a hostage" in Iranian hands in the event of an attack, he said.
To quote The Great Cornholio: "Are you threatening me?" You'd better stick with your sleep in a different bed every night routine, buddy, or there'll be a JDAM with you 10-digit grid programmed in its brain.
Let's make this perfectly clear, jerkweed. Take the towel off you head so this gets through to your brain. Any attacks on our forces, in Iraq or anywhere else, will result in devastating consequences for you. We know you've buried your nuke plants underground (if they're for peaceful purposes, why are you trying to hide them?) Guess what? We have bombs that are built to deal with that. We used some on a few of Saddam's bunkers. Oh, and by the way, the bomber's we'd use to drop them-I'm just a knuckle dragging grunt, but I'd use these. And they're based in Missouri, and can fly all the way to you little shithole corner of the world just to drop a bomb on you. And there's not a damn thing you have that can stop them.
Permalink
|
8/19/2004
A Victory for the Fourth Amendment
Background: Police raided the home of an Arizona man, looking for his son. The man, Robert Howell, awakened from his sleep and believing that his home was being broken into, fired at the police breaking down his front door. His shot missed, and he stopped firing when he realized it was the police. However, he was charged with multiple felonies, from attempted murder on down, all stemming from the one shot he fired.
Now, there's good news: a judge has ruled that the police conduct was illegal, and that all evidence is thus illegally taken and inadmissable. Score one for the Fourth Amendment. The judge also stated that the conduct for which Heller was charged (firing the shot at police) would not have happened if the police had acted in a legal manner.
This is another example of the potential bad results of our nation's idiotic drug laws, and the militarization of the police, brought about largely by the requirements of enforcing those idiotic laws. As is pointed out in this thread at The HighRoad, the cops could have arrested the son, and searched the property as well, three days prior, when he allegedly sold them some pot. Instead, they preferred to utilize their raid team.
Mr. Howell is now suing the police for damages related to the illegal police conduct. If the judge in that case rules that the warrant was improperly obtained, (in addition to being improperly executed) and awards significant damages to Mr. Howell, perhaps the police will rethink their tactics.
Permalink
|
8/18/2004
Libertarian Good News
The Salem (OR) Statesman-Journal reports that the party will field a record 32 candidates this year
This in a state that traditionally leans Democrat, although that is in large part do to political domination by the Portland metro area.
The article is very even handed, not treating Libertarians as extremists or weirdos. It points out that "Like Democrats, Libertarians support abortion rights, assisted suicide and other social causes that limit government influence on people's lives. But they also disdain taxes and big government — traditional Republican territory." As opposed to the Greens, who pretty much only appeal to the Left Wing of the Democrat party.
One conservative activist gives voice to the feelings of those who feel that the national GOP needs a Presidential loss to get it back on the conservative track, especially those who are considering voting Libertarian as a "protest vote." "There's a chance his [the LP candidate's] entry into the race could deliver the votes for the Democrat, but on balance, we've decided that’s better than continuing with somebody who's a lousy Republican.”
I still haven't decided whether I agree with that sentiment at the Presidential level, because I can't decide if the national GOP is far enough adrift to make righting the ship worth 4 years of a Kerry presidency.
Permalink
|
8/17/2004
Doing Her Part in the GWOT...
From Sacred Cow Burgers via Eclipse
I definitely approve of fighting the Islamofascists in this manner.
Permalink
|
Ken Schram is an Idiot Blissninny
Ken Schram is apparently some sort of blathering head for one of the Seattle TV stations (KOMO 4). I say apparently because I never watched the local news when I lived there, so I don't know. But his blathering shows up on their web site.
Schram believes that gun rights advocates are freaks.
Then there are the gun freaks who have their cylinders spinning.
A woman whose husband killed their grandson before then killing himself has suggested a 5-day waiting period for handgun purchases should be extended to include those guns purchased from private sellers.
Of course 2nd Amendment freaks think that's unconstitutional.
But then those kind of people think .38 caliber pistols make great baby shower gifts.
I think changing the law should be a no-brainer, which - given our legislature and the NRA - means that's not likely.
Mr. Schram, the already existing 5-day wait to purchase a firearm from a licensed dealer unconstitutional, it just hasn't been challenged. Placing restrictions on the legal sales of personal property, the ownership of which is constitutionally protected, is also unconstitutional. What part of "shall not be infringed" do you fail to comprehend? Maybe you'd approve of the government madking you wait 5 days before you could express your opinions? Or how about a waiting period on practicing religion? Maybe a 5 day wait before you can stop the police from searching your house? A 5 day wait after I'm arrested before I can have an attorney?
Not only is it unconstitutional, the 5 day wait doesn't pass the common sense test. The waiting period is supposed to be for "cooling off", to keep a person from getting angry, buying a gun, and shooting someone. I already own more than 20 guns. A waiting period isn't going to stop me from shooting someone if I want to. Why should I have to wait to buy a new one?
Or what about the woman who finally gets tired of getting beaten by her husband/boyfriend and leaves him. He threatens to kill her, and she wants to buy a gun to protect herself. Sorry, she'll have to wait 5 days. Meanwhile, on Day Two, Mr Scuzzball ignores the restraining order, goes over to where she lives, and beats her to death with a baseball bat. She can try calling 911, but the 5-10, maybe more, minutes it takes Officer Bob to arrive is plenty of time to kill someone with a bat. Oh, and by the way, multiple courts have held the police do not have any obligation to protect individual citizens from harm
Which brings me to my third point-there's no waiting period for all sorts of other deadly weapons. Home Depot will sell me a hatchet, hammer, machete (currently in favor with Boston area gangs), or mattock handle with no questions asked. Likewise, any sporting goods store will sell me a baseball bat, and I can buy a meat cleaver or huge knife at any kitchen store.
In the Declaration of Independance, Thomas Jefferson wrote that people "are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Firearms are extremely effective tools for defending the first two of those unalienable rights, and it is for that reason that the right to possess them is protected by the Constitution.
As far as giving a .38 as a baby shower gift, I don't think that's really appropriate. You want to wait until the child is around 5 or 6, and then start with a .22. Oh, and my wife thought the .45 I gave her was a terrific birthday present.
Mr. Schram can be contacted at kenschram@komo4news.com
Permalink
|
8/16/2004
Congrats to the Geek
Congratulations to Geek Wtih A .45, who hit 100,000 visitors today.
Permalink
|
Another Reason Why a Nuke in Manhattan Might Not Be a Bad Thing...
but only if the UN HQ was inside the blast zone. Like, preferably with the nuke in the lobby, and Kofi "What Oil-for-Food Scandal?" Annan sitting on top of it.
Story from CFIF.
Inter Presse news service reported that a top U.N. official was preparing a new study that will outline numerous global tax proposals to be considered by the General Assembly at its September meeting. The proposals will likely include everything from global taxes on e-mails and Internet use to a global gas tax and levies on airline travel. If adopted, American taxpayers could wind up paying hundreds of billions of dollars each year to the United Nations.
U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan is among those leading the charge, having stated that he "strongly supports finding new sources of funding" for the U.N. through global taxes, according to Inter Presse. In fact, Annan made very clear his support for the imposition of global taxes in a 2001 Technical Note that he authored for a U.N. conference. "The need to finance the provision of global public goods in an increasingly globalized world also adds new urgency to the need for innovative new sources of financing," Annan wrote.
Now, whenever a politician talks about "innovative new sources of financing," he means a new way of screwing the citizenry. When you're the head inmate in the UN asylum, this means new ways to suck money from the productive parts of the world, especially the U.S., so you can ship it to your corrupt butt buddies in the parts of the world that are complete crapholes.
The UN was started with great and lofty goals (How is the road to hell paved again?), but has devolved into some sort of sick joke, featuring such absurdities as the Sudan and Cuba on the human rights commission, conferences on racism that are nothing but anti-semitism festivals, and the kind of blatant class envy that the Democrat party can only dream of. The General Assembly is mostly used by Third World countries to attack America for not giving them enough of the money that we earned. Nevermind the fact that most of these countries are such cesspools that just drinking the water there is a stunt to dangerous to put on Fear Factor, despite the fact that they've been supposedly "civilized" for far longer than the United States.
No, Mr. Annan, you can't have any of our country's money. If any of your Third World buddies want to be as prosperous as America, they can do it the same way America did: by establishing a government based on the rule of law, protection of human rights, limitation of government power, and consent of the governed. Oh yeah, and judicious amounts of free market capitalism and hard work. You stupid socialist prick.
Permalink
|
Why Can't Bush Say This?
Dean Esmay caused me to notice a P.J. O'Rourke interview with Colin Powell. During the interview, Secretary Powell states one hell of a vision for what the big picture goals of American foreign policy:
I think our historical position is we are a superpower that cannot be touched in this generation by anyone in terms of military power, economic power, the strength of our political system and our values system. What we would like to see is a greater understanding of power, of the democratic system, the open market economic system, the rights of men and women to achieve their destiny as God has directed them to do if they are willing to work for it. And we really do not wish to go to war with people. But, by God, we will have the strongest military around. And that's not a bad thing to have. It encourages and champions our friends that are weak and it chills the ambitions of the evil.
I know President Bush isn't as verbally adroit as Colin Powell, but this is one chunk of speech that it wouldn't hurt him to borrow.
As much as people gripe about Powell, I think appointing him to the job he currently holds was a pretty wise move.
Permalink
|
8/15/2004
Here's an Interesting One
FBI Hopes Ad In Gun Magazine Will Solve Tom Wales Murder
SEATTLE - It's been nearly three years since Assistant U.S. attorney Tom Wales was murdered on Queen Anne hill.
For the first time, the FBI is revealing the murder weapon, and specifically asking the gun community for help.
Gun collectors got a surprise when they opened this month's edition of 'Gun News' -- finding a two-page spread asking for their help in solving the murder of Assistant U.S. attorney Tom Wales.
This is only after the FBI tried the JBT approach and failed. Wales' killer used a Makarov pistol fitted with an aftermarket barrel. The FBI initially got the names of every known buyer of the barrels from the maunfacturer and went looking for them. Nevermind that most of them lived in other states and had never heard of Tom Wales. A blanket approach was OK because every buyer was a suspect.
Now the G-men have turned a 180 and are asking Washington state gun owners for help. The ad was run in the monthly newsletter of the Washington Arms Collectors (who run an excellent show about every other month at the Puyallup fairgrounds.) Maybe, just maybe, the FBI has figured out that us gun people hate people who commit crimes with guns, for the simple reason that the crimes those thugs commit tend to result in ever greater infringement on our rights. And nobody, save the victims, wants to see gun-wielding crooks caught, convicted, and severely punished than us gunnies.
Even though Tom Wales was an Anti, I hope they catch whoever killed him. And I hope he gets a short stay at Marion, followed by a permanent purchase of a very small patch of land.
Permalink
|
My Hurricane Charley Blog Entry
Well, the Carolina midlands were spared the impact of Charley. But Florida got pounded. And now, the wallets of taxpayers everywhere will take a bit of a beating as well.
Bush OKs Federal Aid for Charley Victims
WASHINGTON — President Bush declared a major disaster in the state of Florida on Friday, ordering federal aid for the recovery effort just two hours after Hurricane Charley hit the mainland. I've often wondered which part of the Constitution authorized the federal government to spend money on disaster relief, because I sure haven't been able to find it. I know helping the unfortunate is a good thing to do, but what gives the government the authority to force me to do it? If I want to help disaster victims, I can always give money to the Red Cross, or any other private group or fund. What federal disaster relief, and its cousin, federally subsidized disaster insurance, amount to is a federal subsidy for risky decision making. It's been known for a long, long time, that hurricanes hit Florida, tornados hit Kansas and Oklahoma, earthquakes hit California, and that the Mississippi River floods, to name just a few examples. And yet people continue to live in Miami, Oklahoma City, San Francisco, and New Orleans, despite the potentially devastating consequences. Despite the fact that these people made the decision to live where they do of their own free will, the federal government seeks to insulate them from the full potential consequences of that decision, at the expense of taxpayers in the rest of the country. It's not the private disaster insurance can't be purchased-it can, but if you live in a disaster prone area, it'll cost you a good bit. But companies like Lloyd's of London will insure just about anything for the right price. They probably insure Jennifer Lopez's rear end, for crying out loud. You just have to pay them enough money. Maybe I'm just a heartless libertarain, but I don't see why I should have to pay for someone else's poor decision.
Permalink
|
|
|
