Hamas on the run
Israel hits Palestinian Interior Ministry
In the first two hours of Friday, IAF warplanes struck more than a dozen times throughout the Gaza Strip. The first strike hit the Palestinian Authority Interior Ministry in downtown Gaza City early Friday, setting it on fire.Hamas thugs are reportedly offering conditional release of kidnapped soldier. We'll keep an eye on this one throughout the evening.
Jihad Watch is tracking as well.
SCOTUS rules in favor of terrorists
Supreme Court Blocks Guantanamo Bay War-Crimes Trials
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court delivered a blow to the Bush administration's anti-terror policies Thursday when it ruled that the president was out of line when he ordered military war-crimes trials for some Guantanamo Bay detainees.After posting my rant about Bukko, I figured it would be good to get this out there. Try to understand this ruling for one second and it will get your blood boiling. In a nut shell, the Supreme Court says terrorists held at Gitmo can't be tried for war crimes and ultimately that al Qaeda gets Geneva Convention protections.
Michelle Malkin has tons of details.
Andy McCarthy pre-mortem on the decision.
Allahpundit does some tracking as well.
Counterterrorism Blog believes
Bush & Congress will override the Supreme Court's Gitmo decision
Doltish down under
Before I get into another one of my high-quality rants, I'd like to thank everyone for posting comments. One of the main reasons I blog each day is because I like the idea of firing up ideas and getting people to talk. I also like proving idiots wrong, which is why it's time to call out one of friendly commentators.
It seems as though my blog has inherited some Crocodile Dundee flavor with a reader from down under. This individual is a former resident of the U.S. and claims to have moved to Australia for "real freedom." And while I appreciate this Aussie reader and his opinions, he's fired off some really stupid comments to others responding to my blog. I know you all will love this, so let's dissect some of his verbage...
And SF GOP Guy -- does that stand for San Francisco? I used to live there. But my wife and I left the country and moved to Australia in March. Because we LUUUUUUV freedom. And you're losing it in the USA. Government spying on your phone records, e-mails, finances, searching your home without a warrant, torturing people to death, making them disappear into foreign prisons without trial... The modern U.S. is becoming no different to the old USSR. Australia is SO much freer!
Clearly this cat has no clue what freedom is or the price we generally have to pay for freedom. Liberals throw around the concept of "losing our freedom" because they want you to believe George Bush is somehow intruding into your lives. News flash kids, it's not true. Unless you are a terrorist and operating on an international level, you have not lost any freedoms.
Our Aussie friend likes to use NSA programs as examples, probably because the New York Times has set a quota for exposing counter-terrorism programs and presenting them as domestic operations. But not one of the anti-terror programs leaked by the Times was domestic. In fact, the data-mining of phone records was on international calls to and from known terror suspects. The wire tapping was of international calls to and from known terror suspects. The e-mail tracking was to and from known terror suspects. And the financial tracking was on international accounts linked to terrorist organizations. Not one of these programs had anything to do with ordinary American citizens. I realize Bukko and liberals generally hate America, but trying to lump ordinary citizens with terrorists is a bit much don't you think guys?
But what you won't hear from these liberals is any disdain for their former Comrade Clinton and his government surveillance program, Echelon. You see, Bukko says something about searching your home without a warrant. While this has never been done by the Bush administration, Mr. Clinton made it the centerpiece of his domestic spying program. Yes, you read that correctly, his domestic spying program. Of course most haven't heard of this because the New York Times and Democrats didn't seem to take issue with a Clinton government spying on ordinary citizens. But now that Bush is trying to track and stop international terrorists...stop the presses!!!
Our Aussie friend also steps into the eggshell world of torture and tribunals. Another false statement by liberals and terrorists alike is the big bad USA is torturing prisoners of war. Aside from the rare case of the Abu Grab prisoner humiliation situation, not one case of American torture has been proven. Of course a terror suspect is going to claim torture. They fly planes into buildings and kill innocent people, do you expect anything less? Much less believe them? But Bukko and Democrats would rather spend their time indicting the U.S. instead of demanding action against real cases of torture like the two U.S. Soldiers who were kidnapped, tortured, and barbarically killed by insurgents. How many days has Abu Grab and Gitmo been on the front pages...and how many days did the MSM report on the torture and death of these two soldiers? Nuff said!
Another ode' to the terrorists move by liberals is this insistence that terrorists detained at Gitmo deserve the same rights as American citizens. They seem to do this comparison quite well, eh! As U.S. Senators Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Jon Kyl (R-AZ) said today in a release after the Hamdan ruling..."It is inappropriate to try terrorists in civilian courts."
The ACLU and Democrats are celebrating today because the Supreme Court ruled in their favor. But this just proves my point that nuts like Bukko and liberal leaders are determined to bring you and me to the same level as a ruthless terrorist. And as a Real Republican I just don't see it that way. I have enough sense to understand the difference between ordinary and terrorist, international and domestic, and ultimately smart and stupid. Unfortunately bloggers like Bukko do not.
Berkeley out of touch?
Berkeley votes to impeach Bush
BERKELEY - The People's Republic of Berkeley has done it again. The liberal, left-leaning city has become the first city in the nation to put a referendum on the Nov. 7 ballot to impeach President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney.The nut jobs have spoken. The city of Berkeley is calling for Bush and Cheney to be impeached. What a surprise!
Coming from the same city that has more communists per capita than any other American city, and led by anti-war nut job Cindy Sheehan, Berkeley continues to add to its anti-American legacy. This time they're using taxpayer money to let their residents vote on impeaching the President and Vice President for protecting America. And they wonder why they and other Bay Area cities are the brunt of so many hippy jokes.
Keep it up Berkeley...you and your residents are the best thing to happen to Republicans since John Murtha...er, Dick Durbin...er, John Kerry? Oh never mind...it's just too darn easy!
Israel strikes back!
It began with...Israelis Bomb Camp, Cut Power and WaterRAFAH, Gaza Strip Jun 28, 2006 — Israel turned up the pressure on Palestinian militants to release a captive soldier Wednesday, sending its warplanes to bomb a Hamas training camp after knocking out electricity and water supplies for most of the 1.3 million residents of the Gaza Strip.
And continues with...Warplanes Flew Over Syrian President's Home
IAF planes flew over Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's palace in the city of Latakia in northwestern Syria early Wednesday morning, officials revealed on Wednesday evening. The IDF said the flyover, carried out by four planes flying in a low-altitude pattern, was a part of an overall IDF operation aimed at pressuring the Syrian leadership to expel Hamas Politburo chief Khaled Mashaal from Damascus.The Bush Administration hits the nail on the head when they affirmed Israel's right to defend itself against acts of terror. Years and years of violence has gripped much of the Israeli territory in a political double-standard second to none. And from the Real Republican perspective, I support this Israeli offensive to put an end to this nonsense once and for all.
Let me explain this situation as simply as possible. Islamic Jihadists have been committing acts of terror on innocent Israelis since the country was established as a sovereign Jewish state. Most of the roots in this War on Terror can be traced back to the fringe elements of Islam who continue to believe in the death of Jews and the elimination of the Israeli state as we know it. In fact, this conflict can be traced to 600 C.E., when invading Arabs brought Islam to the area and by 1500 C.E. it came under the control of the Ottomans. By this time, the Jewish people of Judaea had been exiled to various parts of the world into what came to be known as the Jewish Diaspora.
By 1947, a separate Jewish and Arab state was established by the United Nations and we've been witness to bloodshed ever since. But it's important you understand the nature and double-standard of the bloodshed. Palestinian and Syrian terror groups have targeted innocent Israeli civilians as their chief tactic in this war. And most of these militants have been funded and supported by Palestinian and Syrian leadership.
Israel however, has remained dedicated and open to peaceful solutions while using selective military force on militant targets. Case in point, Syrian terror group Islamic Jihad carried out a suicide bombing that killed 19 innocent Israelis in a restaurant. Israeli warplanes bombed an Islamic Jihad training base deep in Syria as retaliation. The world responded in horror at the Israeli response, calling for action against their aggressive tactics. Now you tell me, who was the aggressor? Is bombing a military target that is used to train terrorists worse than bombing a civilian restaurant? Like I said, it's probably the world’s worst case of a political double-standard.
A better example is the recent deaths of a Palestinian family along a Gaza Strip beach. Turns out the deaths were a result of landmines that had been buried by Hamas militants. But the militants responded by
firing rockets into Israel. And followed even more by the kidnapping of Israeli Cpl. Gilad Shalit. And so this is where we are today, a case of a sovereign nation defending themselves against rogue terror groups who use innocent life as their prey. My hope is Israel will continue the offensive and will wipe these militants and their reckless leadership all over Gaza. And hopefully the U.S. will continue to remain one of Israel’s strongest allies.
Counterterrorism Blog is following most of this action closely.
Check out
Assorted Babble and
Iowa Voice for more details from the national media.
Get the heck out!
You'll have to forgive me for getting to the blog later than usual today. I got caught up in developing our Wimbledon coverage and couldn't break away at lunch to vent my thoughts. So now that the work day is over and I'm heading to the gym, I figured I should touch base on a topic hitting the evening news right about now.
Here's the story...
Senate Rejects Flag Desecration Amendment
The Senate today fell one vote short of passing a proposed constitutional amendment that would have allowed Congress to prohibit the desecration of the American flag.Flag burning is such a touchy issue because it hits into a gray area of the constitution and how we interpret "freedom of speech." As we all know, there is a massive liberal double-standard when it comes to freedom of speech and what is generally protected and left alone. For example, Foothill High School Valedictorian Brittany McComb's
graduation speech was cut short by the Clark County (Las Vegas) School District because this straight A student mentioned God in her address to fellow graduates. This form of speech, mentioning anything related to "God," was considered off-limits by officials and the ACLU. But burning the flag of ones country has long been held up as the utmost representation of our freedom to express our thoughts and feelings. So ask yourself, how can the mention of "God" be considered so bad, yet burning our most patriotic symbol of freedom considered good?
It's a warped ideology if you ask me. And it's another example of how anti-American zealots hide behind the very constitution they seem to hate so much.
Seriously, give this one some thought for a second. It really goes hand in hand with the same reasoning the New York Times is using to justify their absurd leaking of another critical counter-terrorism program. Both the times and flag burning proponents use the constitution to justify their reckless and downright stupid anti-American antics. They hide behind this mystical document that they interpret to suggest threatening freedom is ultimately protected...as freedom.
But to myself and over 75% of Americans, this is not the case. Flag burning - and leaking secret national security programs - both do absolutely no good for society. When our forefathers wrote up the constitution, do you think they believed the success of our nation would depend on our ability to compromise its security and patriotism? Of course not! But then again, these men operated in times of respect, valor, integrity and honor. They understood the principals of freedom, but also understood the concept of responsibility.
I applaud Sen. Orrin Hatch for attempting to make what is a strongly supported move to protect our symbols of patriotism. And I applaud those who voted, both Republican and Democrat, in favor of this amendment. But as this goes public to most of you tonight on the news, you can bet the spin has already begun. The Treason Times has already postured itself in favor of burning the flag (what a surprise), but
The Right Angle gives some perspective worth reading.
The NY Times editorial begins:
With the Fourth of July fast approaching, Senate Republicans are holding a barbecue. Unfortunately, instead of grilling hot dogs and hamburgers, they are trying to torch a hole in the First Amendment's free speech guarantee by passing an amendment to the Constitution that would allow federal and state authorities to punish flag-burning.
To which The Right Angle replies...
This amendment, every time it has been considered, has been a bipartisan effort. At least 49 state legislatures, both Republican and Democrat, have passed resolutions calling for Congress to submit an amendment to them for ratification. Congress has been the last to act. The Senate stands alone against the wishes of the American people.You see, this isn't a Republican or Democrat issue. Just like the concept of Brittany McComb mentioning God in her Valedictorian speech, this is an issue of moral value that has been attacked by the ACLU, the Times and other anti-Americans while hiding under a loose interpretation of our constitution. To these freaks freedom protects their hatred of America, but not the love of God and country.
The Right Angle continues...
Liberals who love to trash those of us who believe in upholding some sort of moral code in the country and support doing so by amending the Constitution (since the Supreme Court has seen fit to strike down laws intended to do the same thing) are claiming that the Right is some how destroying the Constitution.
How is it that passing a Constitutional amendment in the very fashion the Constitution calls for when dealing with its own amending is somehow unconstitutional?Hopefully this issue won't die and one day our leaders will do what we elected them to do...lead. The ACLU and the New York Times are the last people our politicians should listen to when trying to interpret our constitution and the moral fabric of our founding. If you want an answer to those who wish to burn our symbol of patriotism...put them on a plane with a one way ticket out of America. Surely they can find another country that will allow them to burn flags.
Churchill getting the boot
The interim chancellor of the University of Colorado at Boulder announced today that CU wants to fire ethnic studies professor Ward Churchill.
"Today I issued to Professor Churchill a notice of intent to dismiss him from his faculty position here at the University of Colorado," said Phil DiStefano at a press conference.Read the
full story from the Denver Post.
All I can say is good riddance to Ward Churchill once and for all! Maybe CU will buy him a one-way ticket to Iran as a going away gift. That way he can live under a fascist dictator and learn what the word "freedom" really means.
Pride on display in San Francisco
This past weekend San Francisco hosted the 36th annual Pride Parade and Celebration. The parade was a cadre of dykes on bikes, clogging cowboys, pirates in pink and anything else that could bend the spectrum of gender in society. They even invited the log cabin Republicans, which was quite surprising considering the nature of SF politics.
I didn't attend the event because I was catching up on sleep after getting about two hours the night before. But I was able to catch some of it on TV and enjoy the variety of costumes and characters making their way up Market Street. The overall theme of the parade was clearly to send a message of diversity and openly promote the idea of gay marriage. It was not only a celebration, but a massive open protest of the current political movement opposing same-sex marriage.
But while watching the broadcast, I wondered how much diversity was really being celebrated. One person interviewed from the Bay Area American Indian Two-Spirits went right into an attack on Christianity. In her/or his words, "everything was fine until the Christians arrived." Clearly diversity didn't apply to those with opposing religious or political views.
As some of you know with me, I'm quite an open person. I've always been willing to listen to both sides of a debate and be realistic about my beliefs. I've long been a supporter of gay rights, which blows away the typical Republican stereotype. I have many gay friends and believe they are just as capable and just as deserving to exchange vows of eternal love with their partner. In my honest opinion, love is not only color-blind, but gender-blind as well.
But I've also taken a long and hard look at this debate and learned some very interesting aspects of why some oppose gay marriage. I find this debate quite amusing when I go into the depths of the Castro and openly gay men bash the Bush administration for their stance on gay marriage, but say nothing of every Democratic President and politician who has also opposed the concept. I find the debate amusing when liberals stake claim to "supporting" the gay movement, but have rarely stepped to the plate to actually help.
Take Clinton for example. This guy says he helped gays by enacting the "don't ask, don't tell" policy with the U.S. military. He campaigned on the topic, saying he broke down the barrier of inequality in our military. To which I ask what exactly did he do to help? There are gay men and women all over the military and they don't need Clinton or anyone else helping them remain true to themselves. All government intervention did was use taxpayer dollars to put something in writing that was already in place.
But here is the kicker on the don't ask, don't tell policy. Most of the propaganda floating around the parade was placing this policy at the hands of Republicans and using it as an example of how Republicans discriminate against gay men and women. Excuse me? Since when did Clinton become a Republican?
The point is gay men and women deserve equal rights. They deserve to marry just like they deserve to raise a child and have a family. Our world has real problems out there and letting two loving individuals share their feelings openly is not one of them. But openly lying about a political stance for votes is a problem. Democrats pandering to the gay and lesbian population while treating them as another special interest group is not equality. As my friends back east would say, they're just getting played.
Opposition to gay marriage explanation :While we're on the topic of gay rights and marriage, I thought I should explain one of the reasons many oppose it. Like I said, I support gay marriage and hope our society will learn to treat everyone as equals. But before you rip the other side, it wouldn't hurt to learn something about why they have their belief.
Most of those who oppose gay marriage do so because of their religion. But religion is open to interpretation. And so this belief is something that could go either way. But if you stand for diversity and free thinking, you have to be willing to accept someone who doesn't believe in gay marriage. You don't have to agree, but accepting would be of the true diverse mind-set.
Others who oppose gay marriage do so because they don't believe the government has a right to interpret or invade religion. In fact, the 1st amendment, which protects you and I from the government establishing one religion, also protects religion from the government.
You have to understand, marriage in our society comes from religion. Sure, its mainstream today and most people don't make the connection. But if you've ever been to a catholic wedding, you see the vast connection the church has to the sanctity of marriage. When my wife and I got married, we were counseled by a priest and attended several programs sponsored by the church. The true beginnings of the sanctity of marriage are held deep in the history of the church and as Catholics, we learned that connection before we said our vows.
And so with the deep roots of marriage held by the church, you can see why those true to their religion have a problem with the government interpreting their ideology. It would be the same as if the government decided Muslims couldn't fast during Ramadan because someone decided it could be dangerous and needs to be stopped. Like I said, I don't agree with the stance against gay marriage, but as a Real Republican I think it's important to understand both sides. And that my friends, is today's soapbox moment.
The NYT's national insecurity
I think it is safe to say the New York Times is against America in the War on Terror. After yet
another national security leak by Times writers Eric Lichtblau and James Risen, we see where they place their support. It's definitely not with the U.S. government in their goals to protect American citizens.
So who or what exactly are they supporting? Bill Keller, The New York Times' executive editor suggested the publishing of this information was "a matter of public interest." To which I ask, which public are you referring to Mr. Keller? Certainly not the American public, which has overwhelmingly supported the President's NSA counter-terrorism efforts.
If a program is designed to protect Americans and you leak it, effectively ruining the program, who's getting protected? My guess is Mr. Keller and the rest of the Times staff who's butts are puckering at the thought of lower and lower circulation numbers. But circulation is more important these days than, say, tracking terror funding in international bank transactions.
Michelle Malkin has most of the details and is asking you graphic-geeks to submit art.
Here's some video from Tony Snow
on the bank-surveillance exposeAnd here is a great read by Andy McCarthy with the National Review:
The Media's War Against the War ContinuesThe effort, which the government calls the “Terrorist Finance Tracking Program” (TFTP), is entirely legal. There are no conceivable constitutional violations involved. The Supreme Court held in United States v. Miller (1976) that there is no right to privacy in financial-transaction information maintained by third parties. Here, moreover, the focus is narrowed to suspected international terrorists, not Americans, and the financial transactions implicated are international, not domestic. This is not data mining, and it does not involve fishing expeditions into the financial affairs of American citizens. Indeed, few Americans even have information that is captured by the program — though there would be nothing legally offensive even if they did.You see my friends, this is a great example of how far out of touch most of the MSM has become with ordinary American citizens. To start, the NY and LA Times are accessories to the felony being committed by the Intelligence official who is leaking this info in the first place. There are reasons our military and government have certain levels of clearance and if you dishonor that clearance, you go to jail. In the Times case it's the moral equivalency of someone who is charged with accessory to murder. I know these cats are smart enough to know this, but they disregard the basic principals of law for the sake of higher ratings.
But even beyond the element of assisting in the treasonous act of leaking classified Intel, the Times disregards basic civil security. And this is even harder to imagine coming from a newspaper based not very far from where terrorists committed their most heinous act. One has to ask, are these guys serious? Obviously not.
Here's a sentence that was submitted to the Times from pissed off reader
Arch A.:
Good God, don't you have any recollection of the horror visited on your city and the nation's capitol not so long ago by the very people this surveillance program targets?The Times has turned our national security into a propaganda game against a President they vehemently despise. To them, leaking something that could hurt Bush is more important than protecting Americans. Which gets back to the basic principal of national security. The NY and LA Times have drawn their lines in the sand and have decided that national security must be compromised so Americans can see what the NSA and our President are doing in this War on Terror. As
The Citizen Journal states, nothing is sacred when newspaper money is on the line....not even American lives.
Iowa Voice points out their ulterior motives...
Interesting thing, the press asked a bunch of questions about this new financial spying "scandal" (ooooh, how they wish that were true!), and barely a peep about the terror arrests in Miami. In other words, if they don't report that, they can push it off the front page and not give credit to the Bush Administration or Republicans for actually protecting this country.Send your letter to the editor by e-mailing
letters@nytimes.com or faxing (212)556-3622. Snail mail:
Letters to the Editor
The New York Times
229 West 43rd Street
New York, NY 10036
Email the LA TimesIf "public interest" is what the NY and LA Times want, let's tell them what we think!
Biggest story of the day goes missing
Well, well, well...the "drive by media" and "cut and run" democrats alike are scratching their heads. What on earth can they do now that WMDs have been found in Iraq? I have an idea...how about not report it!
That is exactly what has happened less than 24-hours after classified documents were released proving Saddam continued to possess chemical WMDs. I did some research this morning and found that of all the large-market media agencies in our country, only two reported the findings. I'm not kidding...I checked the front page for every major newspaper and network and found only FOX News and the Washington Times felt this story was big enough to be reported. And the Times buried their story down the page in headlines, so I technically shouldn't even count that. But I'll let it go since the rest of our MSM was so irresponsible in their journalistic duties.
Here is the list of newspapers and networks that failed to give as much as a mention of the findings:
SF Chronicle
LA Times
NY Times
USA Today
CNN
Contra Costa Times
San Jose Mercury News
Washington Post
Chicago Sun Times
Chicago Tribune
LA Daily News
Houston Chronicle
Tampa Tribune
Miami Herald
CBS News
MSNBC/NBC News
Baltimore Sun
ABC News
Boston Globe
Charlotte Observer
Cleveland Plain Dealer
Seattle Times
Sacramento Bee
Oakland Tribune
San Diego Union-Tribune
Cincinnati Enquirer
St. Pete Times
Rocky Mountain News
St. Louis Post Dispatch
Kansas City Star
Denver Post
Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel
Minneapolis Star Tribune
Philadelphia Inquirer
Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
Here are the sites and articles that did:
FOX News -
Report: Hundreds of WMDs Found in IraqWashington Times -
Chemical arms found in Iraq, report revealsOf course, blogging friend
Michelle Malkin has all the details, links and other perspectives.
So how could the media blatantly disregard one of the biggest findings in Iraq since the start of the war? How could the Knicks firing of Larry Brown be considered bigger front page news than WMDs? Because anything that discredits the MSM or their democratic friends should never be told to the American people. It's the basic principal of liberal thought.
Just look at the lead story today from my local paper..."Grieving mom confronts Army." Our local paper would rather politicize the death of two service members rather than expose the liberal's most consistent lie. You know what I'm talking about; from day one all the big-names of the Democratic Party have used the WMD argument to support their anti-war cause. Just do a Google search on "no WMDs in Iraq" and you'll get over 2.7 million stories and blogs making the same tired argument.
So now it turns out that all the MSM and bloggers from the left were actually the ones wrong. The WMD lie turns out to be the MSM ignoring this story and the democrats who will now try to belittle the findings. Allen Colmes was already at it last night on Hannity & Colmes. His first response was "but these were weapons from before the first Gulf War." Congrats Allen, you know your dates. But can you explain the fact that Saddam did in fact have illegal WMDs?
You see my friends; the argument leading up to yesterday by every anti-war nut job was that Saddam didn't have these WMDs. It wasn't whether he had old WMDs, used WMDs, big WMDs, little WMDs or lower grade WMDs. Liberals said he didn't. Republicans said he did. But now that we found some, liberals are moving quickly to change their tone. That's like when I got caught by my mom drinking beer in my room with my college buddies and trying to tell her, "but these are beers from last year." That won't cut it kid, she would say.
So while Democrats try to change their arguments and suggest that these weapons don't mean anything, I'll rest easy knowing I never had any doubts. A WMD is a WMD. And a found WMD in Iraq is now a WMD to the liberal agenda.
Don't ya just hate it when your wrong, libs?
The truth behind minimum-wage increases
Minimum-Wage Increase Fails
The Senate yesterday rejected a Democratic plan to boost the minimum wage for the first time in nearly a decade, but Democrats vowed to campaign on the issue this fall to highlight their differences with the Republican majority.Here is another issue I sure hope Republicans stand strong against. From what I'm hearing from the hill, some are starting to lose focus on the basic economics that drive wage increases.
For years Democrats have tried to politicize this very issue as a sign of their heart and compassion. And as you see here, the Democrats are already planning to use this as an issue for the midterm elections. You can bet you'll read countless stories about how Republicans hate poor people and only wish to help the rich. And you'll hear all this emotional talk about helping the little guy. Well let The Real Republican set this one straight for you.
I oppose a minimum wage increase because these wage controls have never been proven to work. In fact, wage controls are responsible for more job loss and job prevention to the very workers Democrats suggest they wish to help. Take countries like Germany and France, which hold some of the highest minimum wages in the world and yet some of the highest unemployment rates.
It's simple economics really. Let's say you own a restaurant and hire two dishwashers at the minimum wage. You start making some money and think you can expand your hours and hire two more dishwashers. You've just created four jobs that will help four entry-level restaurant workers. The government then comes in and raises the minimum wage. Just like that, your payroll is now way over budget and you have to cut two of those dishwashing jobs to make the difference. Sure, two of those dishwashers keep their jobs and make $1 or $2 more an hour. Yet two have just lost their jobs. And this doesn't include the other workers who could lose their jobs or the countless applicants who might be in line for a job had the wages not gone up.
As John Stossel says in his new book "Myths, Lies, and Downright Stupidity," this goes for anyone who's tried to build a business. There's the business that has to close because of the higher wages. There's the business that decides to do the job with less workers. There's the business that never expands, never gives raises and never hires new help. And ultimately, there is the business that never even open because the bottom line just won't permit it.
So what the Democrats use as a political ploy to make themselves look good actually hurts far more entry-level workers in the long run. And this is the general premise of why Republicans oppose a minimum wage increase. Competition will always keep worker wages high, not the government.
And just to clarify, Democrats act like this is increase would help a wide range of workers. But the truth is only 2% of the American workforce earns minimum wage. If the Democrats really wanted to help, they would have helped pass the Republican alternative that would have raised the wage by $1.10 but also offer incentives to small businesses to help offset the wage increases.
Don't be fooled folks, this isn't about the little guy. It's about the Democrats picking their campaign lines in hopes of making their own fat check from the taxpayer.
Global deception
A week ago I blogged about the
specious global warming argument Algore is making in his new propaganda film "The Inconvenient Truth." I posted an article that sites real climatologists who debunk Gore's enviro-pandering campaign with real statistics.
Of course this article didn't make it very far with our subjective national media. They would rather stick to the party line and assume everything Algore says is truth. And as many of us from the media inner-circle can tell you, a global warming crisis makes for a far sexier story than climate balancing. It's all about the ratings my friends!
Here's a perfect example of this subjective media reasoning. The idea of global warming has never been proven by actual climatologists. In fact, the majority of "scientists" who have claimed this global climate change don't even work in the climate field. And yet, a fairly large media organization within the Bay Area is posing this question to their readers as of today...
Do you believe human activity is the cause of global warming? Why or why not?It would be a fair question to ask if the science had actually been proven. But according to a Wall Street Journal report by Arthur Robinson and Zachary Robinson, chemists at the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine,
"During the past 50 years, as atmospheric carbon dioxide levels have risen, scientists have made precise measurements of atmospheric temperature. These measurements have definitively shown that major atmospheric greenhouse warming of the atmosphere is not occurring and is unlikely ever to occur."Furthermore, many scientist are claiming
faulty studies of climate change by the IPCC and suggest much of the human affect on climate change is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations of water vapor and an increase in city size near weather stations. Essentially saying if testing is done near New York as opposed to New Albany, you'd see the disparity in numbers.
So why does the media take an unproven topic like global warming and pass it for truth? If the media is to be fair and objective, wouldn't an editor quickly jump to suggest such a question as above is misleading? Wouldn't the fair and objective question ask "if global warming is indeed occurring, do you believe human activity causing it?"
I guess we'll never know. Because right now global warming is one of the "it" topics and editors love a "hot" story...pun intended.
Go ahead, shoot the missile
N. Korean threat activates shield
The United States has activated its new ground-based interceptor missile defense system in response to a possible North Korean missile test, according to a published report. A Washington Times story in Tuesday's editions says the United States is considering intercepting the missile if North Korea goes ahead with the test.Good for Bush administration! I'm glad we have a U.S. President who will finally stand up to this whack job Kim Jong II. Not only is this missile test a provocative act from a loose cannon communist regime, it's a test of our will to stand up to such aggression.
Unlike President Clinton who allowed America to get blackmailed by N. Korea, this Administration will respond appropriately. If you threaten us or our allies along the Korean peninsula and Japan, we'll bust your ass. I can almost hear the liberal cut-and-run kids puckering as I write this..."but, but, we should give peace a chance."
We did. It's called a missile-test ban that was imposed in 1999 and reaffirmed in a pact with Japan in 2002 by the North Koreans themselves.
Updated: Bailing out Mayor Nagin
Guard, state troopers to patrol New Orleans
'We're not going to take it anymore,' Nagin vowsI love the poetic justice here. 36 of New Orleans 53 murders this year have taken place in the last 12 weeks while Mayor Nagin was busy with his re-election bid. And not even five weeks into his
new term he's basically throwing in the towel.
"We're not going to take it anymore" is code for...we, the leaders of New Orleans, are unable to control our city and our inflated police force.
All I can say to NO is, you re-elected him!
Here's
Michelle Malkin's angle.
Blanco speeding troops, state cops to N.O.
NEW ORLEANS — Acting at the mayor's request, Gov. Kathleen Blanco said Monday she would send National Guard troops and state police to patrol the streets of New Orleans after a bloody weekend in which six people were killed.I thought this story was interesting in the manner in which Gov. Blanco and Mayor Nagin continue to show their incompetence. Here we have a situation where you have five teens killed in a gun battle over drugs this past weekend in New Orleans. Any type of killing is one too many in my opinion, but I think the Mayor and Governor are going a bit overboard. Which only highlights my opinions that much of the disaster after Katrina was a direct reflection of inept local and state leadership.
Here's my take on this:
Read this paragraph from the AP story...
New Orleans Police Chief Warren Riley welcomed the support because the ranks of his department are depleted. The police force has about 1,375 officers now, compared with about 1,750 officers before Katrina. The population of 465,000 has rebounded to about half its size before the storm. "We know this is going to be a long, hot summer," Riley said.This paragraph cites a city population of just about 232,000 people as of right now. It also cites a police force of some 1,375. This is quite a number if you start comparing to other cities of similar size. Take Oakland for example. We have a general city population of somewhere around 450,000. Of course our market is around 6 million, but let's stay with city boundaries for good measure. The Oakland police force was sitting around 220 officers at the turn of the year. At any given moment, it was reported there were only 31 officers on patrol throughout the city. Yes, you read that correctly! Only 31 officers patrolling the city of Oakland, 450,000 strong, at any given moment.
With respect to our police crisis here in Oaktown, the force has now grown to just about 800 officers with more on the way. And the downtown Police headquarters is displaying a large sign reading "Now Hiring; Officers starting at $69,000." But the point of this story is how ineffective Mayor Nagin has been in controlling crime in his city. I agree New Orleans has issues that we aren't dealing with here in Oakland. But the numbers don't lie my friends. 1,375 officers should be getting the job done.
But rather than looking at the efficiency and effectiveness of his local police force. Nagin would rather spend taxpayer dollars and bring in the Guard. I'm starting to wonder if we should ask Gov. Schwarzenegger to call out the troops to help fight crime here in the Bay Area. Then again, some of these nut jobs don't believe in even having a military. Opps!
Snatching defeat from the jaws of victory
Peter Collier and David Horowitz break down how for the first time in American history, a major political party wants America to run from a war we are winning...
The Party of Retreat and DefeatMichelle Malkin first posted this on her site and after reading it, I definitely think it's worth a read. In fact, I
touched on this a few days ago with my posting about Democrats, in the face of al-Zarqawi’s death, believe we've lost the war on terror. It's a scary world those Dems are living in folks!
Liberal lawmakers above the law
Just once, I'd like to see a democratic lawmaker held to the same ethical standards they reportedly impose on Republicans. And just once, I'd like to see the outrage in the press at the liberals nurturing a "culture of corruption."
Here's the story...
Grand Jury Declines to Indict Rep. McKinney in Police Scuffle| A grand jury declined to indict Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney on Friday in connection with a confrontation in which she admitted hitting a police officer who tried to stop her from entering a House office building. |
It's very simple folks, had this story been about a Republican Congressmen hitting a capital police officer, the shit would have hit the proverbial fan. Can you imagine had it been a white Congressman hitting a black officer? Ack! There would have been an independent investigation into racism in Congress.
Congressional double standard??? Of course!
You see, Congresswoman McKinney can attack a capital police officer because he did his job.
Rep. Patrick Kennedy can wreck his vehicle while under the influence and admit to a drug addiction (3 times).
Rep. William Jefferson can store $90,000 in bribe money in his freezer and yet Pelosi and crew call Republicans corrupt. I can still hear their outrage at Karl Rove, who was cleared after 3-plus years of investigating.
Face it, if you uphold the ideals of the GOP on Capital Hill, you'll be held to a different standard than that of the Jackass party. Democrats and the media will attack your drug addiction and demand a resignation while claiming heroic courage from their own addict. They'll spend years upon years and millions of your tax dollars trying to prove corruption all while accepting chilled bribes and front row seats to boxing matches. They'll claim racism in the face of their own stupidity.
Just whose culture is facing the most corruption?
Democrats believe we've lost the War on Terror
Every day I turn on the news and read various editorials about Iraq, I'm amazed at how many of our leaders are hoping we run and hide from all the evil in the world. I'm serious, these are elected individuals who are shaking-in-their-pants scared at defending America.
They were afraid to stand up to communism in Cuba, Vietnam, Nicaragua and Russia. They cowered to Saddam, the Taliban and Al Qaeda. They coddle China and North Korea and look up to Chavez, Morales and Castro. Which leads me to ask, how in the world are these idiots capable of leading us?
The latest in a long list of wuss democrats to jump on the "get out now" bandwagon is Sen. John "Hanoi" Kerry. Ignoring the fact that our continued presence in Iraq just killed one of the most prolific terrorists in modern times in al-Zarqawi, Kerry wants us out by the end of the year.
Kerry now clear: Let's abandon IraqCall it Sen. John Kerry's coming out party. At long last Kerry has adopted a coherent position on the war in Iraq - and thrown in his lot with the Howard Dean/bring the troops home now wing of his party.
"It is essential to acknowledge that the war itself was a mistake," Kerry told some 2,000 liberals assembled for the "Take Back America" conference in Washington, D.C. "It was wrong and I was wrong to vote for that Iraq war resolution." |
|
How is it an elected member of Congress can get away with telling Americans it was a "mistake" to defend our country? I realize Kerry believes we should let the UN be responsible for our national security, but this is absurd.
Here is a guy who preached diplomacy and international cohesion throughout his entire campaign, yet wants to drop Iraq like fourth period French. He's ignored the success of free elections. He's ignored the success of a trained Iraqi police force. He's ignored the success of dead, captured, or running-scared terrorist leaders. Yet all Mr. Kerry is concerned with now is showing the world where his party stands on the issue of conceding defeat in the Global War on Terror.
Here's more...
Kerry has launched his back to the future-style campaign, drawing parallels between Vietnam, which he protested after returning from service there, and Iraq.
"And as in Vietnam, we have stayed and fought and died even though it is time for us to go," Kerry said. "It was right to dissent from a war in 1971 that was wrong and could not be won. And now, in 2006, it is both a right and an obligation for Americans to stand up to a president who is wrong today." |
Let me break this one down for you folks. Kerry believes we stayed in Vietnam too long and never belonged in the first place. But you'll never hear these anti-war hippies ever denounce the ruthless communist regimes of North Vietnam. You'll never hear Kerry say one word of the 2 million plus South Vietnamese killed after we "cut and run."
What you have here is a man who never could look an enemy in the eye. You have a man who didn't believe in America and her freedom in 1971 and still doesn't believe in 2006.
But it doesn't end with commie-lover Kerry. House Majority Leader John Boehner (R.-Ohio) comments on Rep. Pelosi and Rep. Murtha's belief that we can't win this War on Terror.
Will Capitol Hill Democrats Concede Defeat in the Global War on Terror?As the House prepares to debate how best to combat terrorism in a post-9/11 world, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) has made it clear where her party stands on the issue of conceding defeat in the Global War on Terror. In an interview with CNN's Wolf Blitzer yesterday, Pelosi said:
CNN's Wolf Blitzer: "Do you think the Democratic Party -- and you're the leader in the House of Representatives -- is aligned with Congressman John Murtha or with Senator Hillary Clinton?"
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA): "I think they're much closer to Congressman Murtha."
And where is Rep. John Murtha (D-PA) on the issue of Iraq?
Rep. Murtha: "I think we cannot win this." (CNN's "Live Today," 6/8/06)
Rep. Murtha: "We need to redeploy and let the Iraqis handle it themselves." (CNN's "The Situation Room," 6/8/06) |
Unreal!
All I'm asking for is some leadership here people!!! All I ask is we have people in powerful roles that are able to make powerful decisions. Taking the McDonalds fast-food approach to fighting the war on terror is not only harmful to America but dangerous to the very nature of free society.
Reps. Pelosi and Murtha want to drop our fight against terrorism while celebrating the
2,500 American deaths in Iraq. You see, for these people, the numbers, the attacks, the threats or the freedoms aren't what are important. What is important to Pelosi and Murtha is that they get re-elected. If the majority of their party has taken the anti-American approach, why shouldn't they? Here what I mean...
Anti-war Dems blast Pelosi over endgame| Such tensions were in full display yesterday morning at a caucus meeting on Iraq where three members of the Out of Iraq Caucus clustered around a microphone to berate House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) loudly for failing to take a stronger stand on leaving Iraq. |
Hopefully American leadership will recognize the benefits of fighting this war. Hopefully American leadership will not crumble in the face of adversity or a ruthless enemy. And hopefully, if we are all so lucky, Kerry, Pelosi, Murtha and the rest of the anti-war blokes will continue to look like fools as more and more terrorists go down.
Junk science campaign
It's always funny when a politician starts pining for attention. They usually pick an issue and stick to it like glue on children's fingers. But we all know that glue doesn't last long on kids fingers because our little cheribs always find a way to make it edible. But no matter how loose the issue becomes, these politician's will stick to their guns as their ship sinks deeper and deeper into a political abyss.
Such is the case of Algore and his global warming crusade. His new fear mongering movie "The Inconvenient Truth" is not only getting attention from the crisis happy left, it's getting blasted by the real climate experts. I'm not talking about Mr. Potato Head climatologists who were purchased on QVC by Gore supporters. No, these are the real-deal experts who know a thing or two about the science behind our climate and the changes we have seen over the years. Did you know most of the world has seen equal warming and cooling? You won't here that from Algore.
Read the full story here...
Scientists respond to Gore's warnings of climate catastropheAs The Real Republican has stated before, I'll support anyone who is generally interested in taking care of our earth. My father has been instrumental in helping preserve coastal marshland in Delaware. And I've supported organizations such as the
Surfrider Foundation and the
Chesapeake Bay Foundation. But being a conservative has taught me to be skeptical of 'paid-for-scientific data' coming from a washed-up politician who's hoping for another run at the Presidency.
When Algore falls flat on his face with this fear campaign, you can bet someone will follow close behind predicting global cooling. It's just a matter of watching the enviro-nut cycle make its loop.
SF gets a lesson on the 2nd Amendment
The Real Republican has returned from a little vacation and I'm ready to get fired up. Or should I say, I'm ready to get others fired up. So whatever your passions might be, I have tons and tons of material ready for dissection, so let the ranting begin.
A story came out yesterday that I'm sure most of you were unaware of because of it's lack of national media attention. A state trial judge sided Monday with the NRA in overturning a voter-approved city ordinance that banned handgun possession and firearm sales in San Francisco.
When you first see this is a regional "city" story, it might make sense the MSM avoided it. But the truth is, this story goes well beyond the steep streets of SF and right to the core of liberal thought that doesn't believe in your constitutional right to bear arms. This is a story that should have caught more attention the moment the ordinance went into affect and should have every law-abiding citizen protesting this egregious and despicable form of social bigotry. I'm stoked this trial judge ruled fairly in this case, but unfortunately, the city has already appealed.
Here's my problem with San Francisco, city management and the basis of this ordinance and appeal. The U.S. Constitution, Amendment II reads: A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. This ordinance completely disregarded the Constitution and took away rights from American citizens. What part of the second amendment does the city of SF not understand?
Now, we know how chummy the left is with the ACLU. We know how quickly they'll denounce Bush and the NSA for wiretapping terrorists, because wiretapping terrorists is somehow infringing on their civil rights. And we know how mad they got when the CIA began profiling foreign nationals entering our country. But when it comes to your rights, as an American, their strange social agenda seems to ignore our civil liberties for the advancement of ideology that is not only wrong, but dangerous.
In this case, the city of San Francisco saw all-time highs for violent crimes in 2005. They saw a dramatic increase of their homicide rate and gun violence hitting an all-time high. So rather than take a serious look at where the problem is coming from, they decided the problem was you. Yes, you, the law-abiding citizen who would only buy a gun for protection.
The high homicide rates couldn't possibly be coming from poor Police funding, strict regulation prohibiting affective law enforcement, low officer moral or the general lack of man power. All of these issues would imply poor city leadership and mismanagement. So to the whacky SF supervisors, (nutjob Chris Daly sponsored the bill) the key was to take licensed gun protection away from you. That, of course, is the answer to getting all of those illegal weapons off the street.
The good news is, the Constitution will always win out. While San Francisco has hopes and dreams of being their own organized republic (without a military I might add), they still remain a city of the United States of America. And while their citizens were silly enough to get duped by a blatant breech of their freedoms, the crime stats will continue to tell the whole truth. Crimes with a hand-gun in San Francisco continued to rise despite six months of this absurd ordinance.
And if the gun ban story doesn't make you shake your head, the following will leave your jaw on the keyboard. SF voters said okay to giving up their rights, but turned down police funding. If you can figure these people out, let me know...
Another SF Violent Night; Voters Reject Crime Measure
SAN FRANCISCO -- Even as there was another violent night on San Francisco's streets, local voters have narrowly defeated an anti-crime measure that would have pumped $10 million annually into police efforts to stem the city's homicide and violent crime rate.The Chron, surprisingly, opposed the gun ban. Read their column
San Francisco Gun Ban A Losing Proposition
Abu Musab al-Zarqawi dead
BAGHDAD, Iraq — Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the Al Qaeda in Iraq leader who led a brutal insurgency that included homicide bombings, kidnappings and beheadings, was killed in an airstrike on a building north of Baghdad, U.S. and Iraqi officials announced Thursday.
Officials said the terror leader's identity was confirmed by fingerprints, facial recognition and known scars.
Read the full storyMichelle Malkin is tracking most of the details.
Video:
Iraqi announcement/applauseVideo:
Maj. Gen. Bill Caldwell describes the military operationText: from Bush | from BlairThe free and peaceful world is collectively exhaling a great big "at last!" Real Clear Politics is posting...
Zarqawi, R.I.H. (rot in hell), Milblogger Bubbleheads says
We Got The Sunuvabitch. In addition, all I can think is, take that you ruthless anti-American MSM. You cannot hide from this positive news coming from Iraq.
As Donald Rumsfeld said during his address to the press while meeting with NATO in Brussels, "Abu Musab al-Zarqawi had more innocent blood on his hands than anyone else in Iraq."
Now the leader of the largest terror network in Iraq is done. Now the man who ordered the mid-evil practices of beheadings, suicide bombings, sectarian violence, and chaos on much of the innocent civilians of Iraq is meeting his maker.
Now, don't get too excited just yet. There is far more work to be done in this War on Terror. And as most of the anti-war like to point out, OBL is still out there...as if this war suddenly ends when we take out one person. Nevertheless, military leaders, Iraqi leaders and most of the intelligent world understand, the War on Terror does not end with the death of one man.
You'll hear the left try to dumb this one down as if it's meaningless in the ongoing war. But keep this in mind, much of the violence that the left celebrates in Iraq was directed by al-Zarqawi. Much of the sectarian bloodshed was directed by and from the hands of al-Zarqawi followers. And now most of the dwindling supporters of Al Qaeda in Iraq are starting to realize, their time is coming as well.
Congrats, to the men and women of the Iraqi and Coalition forces who are standing strong and winning this war. We owe our freedom to you!
