February 22, 2005
Here is the story. Ayn Rand is turning in her grave on this one. The government of a town in Connecticut is trying to steal private land because it is in the "public interest." Another case of elitism run rampant. "We know what is best for the city as a whole, so we are going to take your property and redistriubte it to another private party for development." The Supreme Court is about to hear this case, which the ARI has written an op-ed about here.
February 20, 2005
The blogosphere is abuzz over who should run against Hillary in 2008. In my mind, the only one that can beat her is Condi Rice. It would be a fantastic matchup, mano e mano, er.. woman against woman. I hereby announce my own support for Condi in 08. You read it here first. Rice for President! Here are some sites dedicated to her cause: http://www.rice2008.com/ http://condoleezza.blogspot.com/ http://condiforpresident2008.blogspot.com/
February 19, 2005
The YCT 25th is next week in Austin, Texas. As I chronicled in my book, YCT has been at the forefront of the campus culture war. We broke away from Young Americans for Freedom in 1980 and have been leading the charge against the academic left ever since. We also have a huge influence in Austin at the State Capitol. Check out details of the convention here. Some of our speakers include Ron Paul, Fred Barnes, Dinesh D'Souza and David Dewhurst. I can't wait to fly back to Austin and see my friends, as well as these big-time political personalities. As one of my friends used to say, "we are conservative thinkers and liberal drinkers."
My grandfather recently told me that he was working with the American Legion in south central Texas to support an idea that has been around for the last year or two. I have decided to help the cause as much as possible. We are urging all patriotic Americans to wear something red each and every Friday while our troops are in harm's way. Please support this cause by making a special effort. In light of the sacrifices our troops are making, this shouldn't be too difficult. http://www.patrioticfridays.com/ WEAR SOMETHING RED Feb 3, 2005 - Mar 5, 2005 11:00 AM Any town, USA The Americans who support our troops, are the silent majority. We are not "organized" to reflect who we are, nor to reflect what our opinions are. We would like to start a grassroots movement using the membership of the Special Operations Association, and Special Forces Associations, and all their friends, simply, to recognize that Americans support our troops. We need to inform the local VFW's and American Legion, our local press, local TV, and continue carrying the message to the national levels as we start to get this going. Our idea of showing our solidarity and support for our troops is -- starting Friday, and continuing on each and every Friday, until this is over, that every red-blooded American who supports our young men and women, WEAR SOMETHING RED let's see if we can make the United States, on any given Friday, a sea of red much like a home football game at a University. If every one of our memberships share this with other acquaintances, fellow workers, friends, and neighbors, I guarantee that it will not be long before the USA will be covered in RED - and make our troops know there are many people thinking of their well-being. Let's get the word out and lead by example; wear RED on Fridays. I sent this out to everyone on my email list; hopefully, you will too.
February 16, 2005
This seems to be a growing problem. Lynne Stewart, Ward Churchill and Bill Ayers are all arguably terrorist-professors. Why has the mainstream media ignored this problem? Perhaps the far-left gets a pass when it comes to allying themselves with extremist causes. Dangerous indeed. Here is an excerpt from the story on Front Page Magazine. By Brian Hecht FrontPageMagazine.com February 16, 2005 http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=17043 Although the controversy over University of Colorado professor Ward Churchill’s pro-terrorist ravings has captured national headlines recently, the flirtation between America’s institutions of higher learning and radical, left-wing activism is hardly a new phenomenon. U.S. colleges and universities are rife with Marxist holdouts like Churchill and other relics from the Sixties. And while many, like Churchill, have openly supported America’s terrorist enemies, a dubious few have actually held prominent positions in terrorist groups. One of the most notable examples of this disturbing phenomenon is Bernardine Dohrn, an Associate Professor and the Director of the Children and Family Justice Clinic at the Northwestern University Law School. Although it is conveniently absent from her biography on Northwestern’s website, Dohrn was one of the leaders of the Weathermen (a.k.a: the Weather Underground), a band of radical students and student-aged activists who emerged from the antiwar group, Students for a Democratic Society (SDS). The Weatherman won the SDS elections in 1968 and then dissolved SDS, saying, “We've smashed the pig.” The Weathermen are responsible for multiple terrorist acts, including the bombings of the U.S. Capitol, the Pentagon, Ft. Dix and office buildings in various U.S. cities. In fact, the group claimed credit for 12 terrorist bombings between 1970 and 1974 alone; and while no innocent civilians were killed: 1. They planned to blow up a social dance at Fort Dix. The bomb went off and blew three of the bomb builders up. 2. The police are investigating the bombing murders of two policemen attributed to Weatherman. In other words, if no innocents were killed, it certainly wasn’t for lack of effort on the Weathermen’s part. The group’s lawlessness was hardly limited to setting explosives, as they also helped plan and execute the escape of Harvard professor and LSD advocate Timothy Leary from federal prison in 1970, furnishing him with a fake passport and smuggling him to a Black Panthers training camp in Algeria. Bernardine Dohrn, tellingly enough, helped set the tone for the Weathermen’s militant agenda. She was arrested for assaulting a police officer and resisting arrest during an attempt to incite a riot during the 1968 Democratic Convention in Chicago and even spent time on the FBI's 10 Most Wanted List.
Lately there has been a lot of chatter about the web log, or so-called "blogs". Basically, a blog is nothing more than an online journal whereby an average person can publish their thoughts. (If you are reading this and don't have a clue, this is a blog...) I think blogs are the next revolution in news media. Consider the recent scandals with CBS and CNN. The 2004 election was also heavily influenced by this new media. The exit polls showing Kerry way ahead turned out to be flawed. http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A21932-2004Nov3.html Why do so many "old media" hate the upcoming blogger revolution? Because the blogs challenge their supremacy as news gatherers and their profits. Shouldn't all Americans cheer for the blog, since it represents the "little guy"? Liberals and even some conservative media outlets decry the blogs as being spawned from unprofessionals. Too bad. We are here to stay! Americans should welcome blogs as a much needed check on the MSM (mainstream media for you newbies). Here are a few resources for those unfamiliar with the phenomena: Hugh Hewitt's book, BLOG http://www.hughhewitt.com/ Wikipedia's definition http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blog John Leo on Blogs http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/leo050602.asp
February 15, 2005
It is sad the left still sees this attorney who aided Islamist terrorists as a "civil rights" lawyer. She is a traitor and an accomplice to murder. There is a good piece in the National Review about her today. http://www.nationalreview.com/mccarthy/mccarthy200502150746.asp The left often crosses the line into treason. Ramsey Clark, Michael Moore and domestic Islamists often line up with our enemies. There should be punishment for such atrocious activity. Lynee Stewart has rightfully received hers.
February 14, 2005
Here is a story that frightens me a bit. I found it online here: http://www.infowars.com/articles/ps/nat_id_super_card_passes_house.htm#bill As I mentioned in a previous post, conservatives need to be careful when it comes to granting the federal government more intrusive powers in the name of fighting terrorism. Could this be a slippery slope to tyranny? With Hillary in power, I am afraid to find out. National ID Cards Coming Up For A Vote This Week: Threats to gun owners' privacy are a huge concern Gun Owners of America February 9, 2005 The National ID card is back in the news, as Congress is getting set once again to debate the issue. You will remember that late last year, Congress passed (and the President signed) legislation which starts us down the road to a National ID card. In the name of preventing alien terrorists from operating in this country, the so-called Intelligence Reform bill gave federal bureaucrats unprecedented new powers to force changes in state-issued driver's licenses -- including, possibly, the addition of computer chip technology that can facilitate the tracking of all U.S. citizens. Now, the House will be debating new legislation, H.R. 418, that was recently introduced by Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-WI). In considering this bill, the U.S. House will vote on whether to empower the federal government to determine who can get a driver's license -- and under what conditions. Since you need a driver's license to purchase a gun from a dealer, this will give BATFE the expanded ability to impose even greater forms of gun control -- something which it has long coveted. This will become even more apparent if an anti-gun Democrat like Hillary Clinton wins the presidency in 2008. H.R. 418 is, unfortunately, supported by many Republicans who believe that repealing our liberties will somehow make us "secure." But GOA joined a large coalition of citizen-activist organizations this week in opposition to H.R. 418. In a letter to Congress, the coalition stated: Standardization of driver's licenses has long been recognized as a bureaucratic back-door to implementation of a national ID card. With its required linking of databases and ability of the Secretary of Homeland Security to require a prescribed format, HR 418 takes us well along that road. Concerns are further heightened when the bill fails to even provide lip service to privacy concerns, and proposes to share all of our data on the driver's license database with Canada and Mexico. Realizing government's tendency towards mission creep, no one should be surprised if this database grows to contain far more information than that which is relevant to driving. HR 418 requires that the database shall contain "at a minimum," all information contained on the driver's license as well as driving history. There is no limit to what other information may eventually be contained in the database -- something which should definitely concern gun owners. H.R. 418 is being touted as a way of cleaning up some of the problems with the law that was enacted last December. But this bill is still an attack on states' rights. It still takes us down the road to a National ID card. And it would still do nothing to keep real terrorists from operating in our country.
February 11, 2005
I find it interesting that anti-war folks keep saying "Iraq was not linked to al Qaeda. They were enemies of each other." Funny, that is not what Richard Clarke said in the Washington Post in 1999 when he justified the bombing of the Sudanese al Shifa aspirin factory/chemical weapons plant. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=37704 Also, President Clinton's 1998 indictment said that al Qaeda had forged alliances with Iran, Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad, and had agreed to work with Iraq on weapons development. You can read the indictment here http://www.fas.org/irp/news/1998/11/indict1.pdf An article in National Review by Deroy Murdock discusses some of the other statements by Richard Clarke and others. For instance, Clarke told the 911 Commission "The Iraqi government," Clarke continued, "didn't cooperate in turning [one of the 93 WTC bombers] over and gave him sanctuary, as it did give sanctuary to other terrorists." http://www.nationalreview.com/murdock/murdock200403260858.asp So, if even Clarke admits Iraq harbored terrorists who had attacked America, why the rewrite of history? Why do liberals still claim that Iraq had "no connection" to al Qaeda? Why do they say this even when the 911 Commission Report says that there was a connection? I like how Deroy Murdock answers this in his NR piece: "Critics of Operation Iraqi Freedom ignore these and many more ties among Saddam Hussein, al Qaeda, Palestinian zealots, and other Islamofascist mass murderers. Why? Acknowledging these contacts would concede a major casus belli behind Coalition efforts. The fact that Mohamed Atta did not charge his plane ticket to Hussein's Platinum Visa card does not render the Butcher of Baghdad a virgin among militant Muslims. In fact, Saddam Hussein loyally supported global terrorists, including al Qaeda. If Richard Clarke and others who oppose Bush's Iraq policy still do not see this, they are either blind to Nexis and similar news databases or paralyzed in a state of deep, pathological denial." Here is a good place to see a more complete picture of Saddam's support for Islamist terrorists www.husseinandterror.com
February 10, 2005
Here is an excerpt of an email I received from the San Diego chapter of United for Peace and Justice. ( I am on a number of local leftists' email lists to keep updated on their activities.) "The Guild has a long history of representing individuals whom the government has deemed a threat to national security, including helping expose illegal FBI and CIA surveillance, infiltration and disruption tactics (COINTELPRO) that the U.S. Senate "Church Commission" hearings detailed in 1975-76 and that led to enactment of the Freedom of Information Act and other limitations on federal investigative power." One has to wonder what makes them so proud of defending national security threats. Congress once called the NLG a "communist" organization. I will do my own investigation and present the results on this blog sometime in the near future.
What is a conservative to do? In the war against militant Islam we certainly want to destroy the networks of al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, the Mullahs of Iran, the Saudi Wahabis etc.. But at what cost to our own personal liberties? Should we allow the executive branch to wage war against nations without a declaration of war? Probably. Should we allow the detention of US citizens without charges being brought by the government? Maybe. Should we allow for torture of militant Muslims who seek to kill us? Probably not. I don't have all the answers. But I do think these are questions that we should consider as conservatives. Today I heard a lecture by a professor from Stanford who represented Jose Padilla (dirty bomber) before the Supreme Court. She told me that there have been numerous cases where the government had no evidence against suspected terrorists. She believes that the government should not be able to declare US citizens "enemy combatants" and that even suspected terrorists deserve Constitutional protections of due process. I tend to agree with her in theory, but not quite in practice. I think with fanatics like these who want to kill everyone who doesn't own a Koran, we have to fight pretty dirty. We can't win with one hand tied behind our back. However, what happens when the day comes that the federal government kicks down your door to take your guns? Or when the government deems all Christians "terrorists"? What about when the government declares that all those who carry a pocket-sized edition of the Constitution are terrorists? Then, will conservatives support the idea of hamstringing the government in its fight against "terrorists"? I pose this question as food for thought. I am not certain where I come down on this issue. But it is something we should all ponder.
February 9, 2005
Here is a good piece on the Churchill comments. David Horowitz seems to have the best plan for dealing with this guy. http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=16946
Here is the lastest story about our friendly mullahs: http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20050209/ts_nm/iran_dc These guys just don't know when to quit. You would think that the toppling of the Taliban and Baathists would send a signal loud and clearly. Apparently not. The Iranian governmented still wants a nuclear arsenal so it can blackmail its neighbors and become a defiant regional power. It might even threaten the state of Israel with a nuke. Some have called for regime change, others for an olive branch. I suggest we support democratic elements within the country, like the nonviolent student movement there. Why have liberals been so quiet on this issue? Don't they support nonviolent student movements? I am waiting for an answer...
I am a proponent of the Academic Bill of Rights. This is a piece of legislation that suggests universities around the country adopt the ideals of intellectual diversity and academic freedom. I wrote this in response to one of the bill's critics. This post has already been published here: http://cwslsplp.blogspot.com/ Here it is: "This post is in response to the earlier one concerning academic freedom. My friend wrote, "an academic bill of rights is censorship. Some censorship is good and some is bad." I submit to you that both of these statements are false.Indeed, there is a problem of political indoctrination in higher education. This stems not just from the lack of conservative profs ( I don't condone affirmative action of conservative teachers ) but also from the discriminatory processes reflected in the hiring of college professors. The problem is not so much that profs use the classroom as a bully pulpit to inappropriately bludgeon conservative figures and ideas, as it is the lack of intellectual diversity among the faculty. This lack of academic pluralism is due to the fact that left-wing academics consider their conservative brethren to be racist, sexist, homophobic, oppressive, imperialistic etc... and therefore shut them out of the academy by not allowing them to join the faculty if they do not toe the leftist party line. How to remedy the situation? We shouldn't support "hiring more conservatives" to achieve a balance. Rather, we should adopt the Academic Bill of Rights, which prevents discrimination on the part of faculty hiring committees against conservative profs. This ensures that no one will be hired or fired based upon their political beliefs, as is the case now. To read the bill for yourself, click this link http://www.studentsforacademicfreedom.org/abor.html On the latter point raised in the previous post, I must disagree with the idea that censorship is necessary. As a free-market proponent, I believe that society should not impose its idea of what is "admissable" or "politically incorrect" on individuals. If individuals choose to print something that is "offensive" or "immoral" then parents have the right not to purchase that product, and to speak out against the publishers. If enough people in society agree that something is inappropriate (for example, Hustler Magazine) then they will vote with their pocket book and the free-market will take care of the problem. The FCC and entities like it do not protect society from itself as much as they impose the will of the "big brother" state and the religious lobby. As for professors in the classroom, no one is calling on them to do anything but perform the duties they were hired to do. Namely, they should teach the subject that they are experts in by providing students with all viable ideas, methods and analyses that they possibly can. However, a Spanish teacher has no place spending an hour bashing the President or recruiting students for protests. Those types of activities should occur outside of the classroom setting, a place where the students are the consumers and deserve their money's worth."