AP: U.S. Flies Radioactive Material, Suitable for Dirty Bomb, Out of Iraq

WASHINGTON (AP) – : “In a secret operation, the United States last month removed from Iraq nearly two tons of uranium and hundreds of highly radioactive items that could have been used in a so-called dirty bomb, the Energy Department disclosed Tuesday.
The nuclear material was secured from Iraq’s former nuclear research facility and airlifted out of the country to an undisclosed Energy Department laboratory for further analysis, the department said in a statement.

Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham described the previously undisclosed operation, which was concluded June 23, as ‘a major achievement’ in an attempt to ‘keep potentially dangerous nuclear material out of the hands of terrorists.’ ”

But how could ths be, if as the left has been telling us, there were no WMD in Iraq under Saddam? Couldn’t be the left and the press it owns, lied to us, or didn’t know what they were talking about?
It couldn’t be that President Bush DID know what he was talking about, right?

Hat tip: Bill Hobbs

You may recall I mentioned a few days ago about a group of Contgress Critters asking the UN to become involved in our next election…:To make sure it’s fair’.

I mentioned at the time that the report doesn’t mention who they were… and suggested that the easy answer then was that they were Democrats.

Of course, I was right… Again…….They are.

Captain’s Quarters says:

“While the rest of us celebrated our nation’s independence, nine congressmen collaborated to secure UN involvement in the November presidential election. I promised to post the names of these representatives but was unable to find any mention of them in the relevant news articles. Thankfully, the National Review’s Jed Babbin did the research, and here are the names:
Eddie Bernice Johnson (Tex.)
Joseph Crowley (N.Y.)
Raul Grijalva (Ariz.)
Danny Davis (Ill.)
Corrine Brown (Fla.)
Carolyn Maloney (N.Y.)
Jerrold Nadler (N.Y.)
Michael Honda (Calif.)
Elijah Cummings (Md.)
Julia Carson (Ind.)
Edolphus Towns (N.Y.)

They are all Democrats.”

Oh… and it gets better.
Read the whole thing, at CQ.

I was somewhat curious as to how many people would actually be swing tot he Kerry/Edwards ticket by the addition of Edwards. One good way to see how he’ll sell, is to see what his approval ratings are.

Some interesting results, here.

Take this Elon University Poll from April 15-18, 2002 as a first example:

Only 43 percent of North Carolinians approve of the job Edwards is doing in the Senate, down significantly from a February Elon Poll which measured his approval rating at 53 percent, and an October Elon Poll which gave him a 57 percent approval rating. Enthusiasm was also low for a potential White House bid by Edwards, with just 41 percent of citizens indicating their support.

Looking ahead to the same poll in February of 2003, we see more of the same:

The poll also found support for Edwards work in the Senate has dropped from 45 percent in April 2002 and September 2002 to 39 percent.

By the time Last September had come around,the focus wasn’t on his abysmal Senate record, but on his chances of becoming President.

33 percent said they support or strongly support John Edwards? candidacy for the presidency, 30 percent oppose or strongly oppose his candidacy, and 28 percent neither support or oppose his candidacy.

Turns out, the reason he’s running for VP is because he didn’t stand a snowball’s chance of being re-elected.

There seems to be quite a bit of a pattern with this guy… bigtime losing numbers.

A story runnning on the AP Newswire is rather astonishing:

“A group of armed, masked Iraqi men threatened Tuesday to kill Jordanian militant Abu Musab al-Zarqawi if he did not immediately leave the country, accusing him of murdering innocent Iraqis and defiling the Muslim religion. ”

I must admit to some mixed reaction, here. Certainly I am encouraged by the reaction of the Iraqi people and always knew that this kind of reaction would eventually happen. Yet, I’m concerned; Assuming he takes these people at their word, and leaves, where does he go? Seems to me part of the genius of going into Iraq in the first place was putting all the bad apples in one basket.

FNC:

“BAGHDAD, Iraq – A group of armed, masked Iraqi men threatened Tuesday to kill Jordanian militant Abu Musab al-Zarqawi (search) if he did not immediately leave the country, accusing him of murdering innocent Iraqis and defiling the Muslim religion. ”

I must admit being torn here.
While I find it quite encouraging that the Iraqis are starting to get behind movements like this, I wonder how this plays off with keeping the terrorists all in one bin marked “Iraq”, which was, you’ll recall I”ve commented, the bit of genius behind going to Iraq in the first place. One wonders where Zarqawi and his happy band of wandering murderers will end up, assuming htey take these threats seriously.

First a little reminder: Back on January the 28th, I said right here in this blog:

“Well, my guess is that we’ll see a Kerry/Edwards run. Kerry’s too strong for Dean, and Edwards will be needed for the “Southern Strategy.” In any event, Kerry will want no part of Dean who has demonstrated himself to be far too loopy as a running mate. (Consider the impact of that statement; Too loopy for Kerry?) Edwards doing well in Carolina will reinforce this idea with me.”

Now, I said this back then despite the claims of the Kerry Camp that they didn’t need the south to win. Remember the outcry over that one? I’m willing to bet you see nothing of a reminder of that claim today. Wouldn’t want the press to expose the Democrat to any ridicule, would we now?

It was clear for a week after this, as the Kerry camp sought to cover it’s collectivist butts following that statement that even THEY knew the claim was soooooo farrrr offff….

Another Kerry Lie, in short.

Edwards did, of course, go on to do well in his home state.
Which, as I said at the time, leads us to a Bush Victory.

“Kerry has too much of a negative history, even among Democrats, to not be full of holes by next November.

Think of it, Gang….

The ‘party of the little guy’ coughs up John Forbes Kerry, someone of money, who married into MORE money in the form of the heir to the Heinz fortune. Someone whose only dealings with minorities is when he’s in need of another drink at the country club. Someone who has never been a working man in his life. Someone who, when he pays taxes it’s nothing more than a number; it never really affects his life in any substantial way… taxes don’t even enter his world.

We’re talking about someone here who was one of only 12 senators who voted against funding our troops in Iraq, and who voted for at least seven major reductions in defense and military spending and then claimed he was supporting our troups, and that he knows how to defend America.

We’re talking about someone who voted repeatedly to slash the budgets of intelligence agencies by billions of dollars, and then on the night of 9/11 bitched loud and long about how our intel community failed us.

We’re talking about someone who now claims to be for balancing the budget and yet who is on record has having voted against a Balanced Budget Amendment at least five times.

In Kerry we have someone who claims to be for the little guy, someone who’s concerned about the tax burden on americans and yet, is on record as voting for the largest tax increase ever, and the death tax, and for a 50-percent increase in the gas tax.

Family values issues? Oh, yeah, there’s a lot here, too.

We’re talking about someone who voted against a ban on partial-birth abortion at least three times.. who was one of 14 Senators who voted against the Defense of Marriage Act… someone who voted against a parental notification requirement where minors’ abortions are concened, who voted against mandatory sentences for drug dealers.

This is what the ‘Little Guy” Democrats are placing all their hopes in? Oh, yeah, that’s gonna sell in middle America.
Bloody amazing.”

Yes, I know, I’ve been really light on blgging these last few days.
I’ve been dealing with a pinched nerve in my neck that’s been casuing some problems with using my right hand… makes it a problem for typing, to say nothing of anything else. It’s been getting better on average, however, so I expect I’ll be back at it fairly soon.

AP news is reporting:

Message from a group of Howard Dean supporters to John Kerry: Pick the one-time presidential candidate as your running mate or face a floor fight at the Democratic National Convention.

Salesmanship prevails, here. The claim from Dean’s people is that putting Dean on the ticket will keep people from voting for Nader, thus changing the dynamics of the three-way race.

Personally, I will find the floor fight almost interesting. But this does bring up a few points. Captain Ed apparently is thinking the same thing I am… that the

“…danger for the Kerry campaign will arise if they start believing their own press releases and operate from the assumption that Kerry actually is a centrist. If that is the case, then Dean may wind up on the ticket — which will combine the least effective campaigners in the party on a ticket that will skew hard left, the wrong direction entirely. A Kerry ticket that runs further to the left with Dean will bring about another Mondale or McGovern fiasco. And with the Deaniacs threatening floor fights, we may wind up seeing not just 1972 but 1968 all over again.”

Well, well.

But look, history shows rather clearly a VP choice cannot help you in the general election. It can only hurt you, at least in terms of the general election. A choice like Dean will clearly firm up the leftist base.. somewhat… assuming Democrats have no memory of the idiot’s melt-down in the primary… but it will also turn off everything to the right of Fidel Castro, (Which by the way, Dean, nor Kerry, are.)

A couple northeastern wacko liberals, trying to sell themselves as ‘centerists’ and being reminded they’re not by the miles of video-tape, and their voting records. Yeah, that’s gonna sell in November, huh?

On the other hand, not choosing Dean may cause some problems for Kerry in Boston, (After he crosses that picket line) and cause him to loose some of his base to Nader, anyway.

AFPis reporting:

“WASHINGTON (AFP) – Several members of the House of Representatives have requested the United Nations (news – web sites) to send observers to monitor the November 2 US presidential election to avoid a contentious vote like in 2000, when the outcome was decided by Florida”

I note that the preport doesn’t mention who these lawmakers are.
That usually means they’re Democrats.
And given the hostility of the UN to anything to the right of Fidel Castro, it fits that the UN would be anything but fair so far as the election goes. They would be motivated to remove Mr. Bush. A further consideration along the same lines; Let’s say under the watchful eye of the UN, the numbers as revealed, show a Democrat taking office. Does the Oil For Food Scandal investigation suddenly get dropped?

No motivations for being partial, here huh?

Looks like we’re working up a new chapter for the Al Gore endorsed handbook:

Sean over at Everything I Know Is Wrong points up the newest Harris Poll, which reports President Bush 10 points ahead of John Kerry.

Sean asks “Why haven’t I seen this poll”?

Well, clearly he DID see it…
Still the point is taken; it’s not been in the so-called mainstream press at all.

Shamelessly lifted from Bill Hobbs… it’s too good to pass up.

Q. Which one called President George W. Bush a criminal?

A. Both

Here’s a new series for you; “Claim and Response.” I’ll post these as they occur to me. The intent here is to take some common leftist claims and skewer them.

The claim:

“Ending poverty will end terrorism”

The question:

“Explain to us by what measure you see Osama BinLaden being impoverished.”

KPHO Phoenix is reporting Brndo has died, casue of death unknown.

Sad; I rather liked him.

Ipse Dixit is today’s Website Of The Day

Discussion time, as we head to the next election:

I’ve been called a great many things politically, most of them inaccurate.

But this subject came up elsewhere, and I thought I’d re-post my comments here, since it’s as close as I’ve bothered to write to the subject of what constitutes the original purpose of government, and in fact what the actions of a legit government are.

I am not a conservative per se’ not in the sense that we think of such today. I am, rather, a social conservative, which is a different animal altogether. I have a different view from any of the ‘established’ groups as to the legit purpose of government. That’s because all of them have drifted away from it. And yes, I recognize this is NOT going to make me very popular. So be it. Any time you tell someone they’re screwing up, you’re not going to be popular with them.

So what is the purpose of government, anyway? No, I don’t mean what it evolved into, I mean rather it’s original purpose… the reason the concept of governments of any kind were even conceived of.

Some submit that government exists to protect privileges of a few, preserving a state of injustice for the majority.

Others hold the somewhat more optimistic view that the purpose of the state is to protect rights and to preserve justice. It appears to me that those questions form the arguments among the proponents of liberalism, libertarianism, socialism, conservatism and fascism, all at once.

I submit that all these four basic positions miss the point, because they generally don’t remember who it was who invented the concept of government…government of any kind, I mean… in first place. I should point out that in general, the ones who get it the closest are conservatives, but they are not spot on, either.)

Libertarians, mostly suggest, along with Jefferson, that “No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another, and this is all from which the laws ought to restrain him.”, and that therefore, government exists for only one purpose, and that is to secure the unalienable rights of its citizens against violation.

Well… This is fine as far as it goes, but it ignores who created the concept of rights, and it thereby misses utterly, the best path to protect such rights. In doing so it ironically denies it’s adherents such protection.

And of course each of these groups has tended to abuse the power of government for their own ends.

To the end of answering overriding question of the purpose of government, (And thereby the question of what government needs to be doing today, and not doing, to remain legit) with any logic, we need to ask a few more questions:

1: Who invented the concept of government?

2: What purpose would that entity have had in such creation?

One way we can answer those two questions at once, would be to look at what existed as the most powerful force before government was invented, and therefore what was the most likely inventor of government: CULTURE.

If we make the logical assumption that governments were originally created by the individual cultures, then it follows that each culture constructed their respective governments in their own image… governments that best reflected and advanced each culture’s interests.

The original purpose of government, therefore, is to protect, nurture and defend, and if possible expand the influence of, the culture that gave it life. As such, to the greatest of degrees possible, each government’s laws, on the whole, were the culture, codified. It follows, then, that any government holding to the original purpose of government will perform this task.

Now, notice I said to the greatest degree possible. I freely admit… Trumpet, even, that there are no perfect governments, no perfect laws. No law, or government can ever capture in amber, a culture. Cultures are far more complex than any law, however written, can encompass. So it is that laws cannot be the end-call and be-all to a culture, or to a country. Laws when taken too literally and made to apply to all events uniformly, can instead of being just, will instead dispense injustice. It is said that in hell, there will be law and policy and little else. Yet, this imperfect tool did at least manage to provide a mechanism toward the intended purpose… The furtherance of the culture that founded said government. This understanding that there is imperfection in government implies that other values should supersede governmental power when the tool of government doesn’t fit the task at hand well. I submit the highest value applied here should be the values of the culture, not that of the law.

(Which, I would argue is why there are judges which read not only the wording of the laws but then intent of them.)

Now, I hear some of you balking at this, suggesting the right of the individual are paramount; a noble sentiment. But consider this immovable fact:

Rights are not universal.

Yep. That’s what I said…Read it again, just to be sure.

Rights are not universal.

Clearly, this will raise many questions on the part of some. This should answer most;

When Jefferson wrote that “WE HOLD THESE TRUTHS TO BE SELF-EVIDENT” he was not speaking a universal truth at all.  The operative word in that phrase is “WE”.

Rather than talking about a universal point of view, a universal truth, if you will, he was instead talking about the point of view of WE the new American culture. With this angle, many of the long-held myths about rights tend to disappear.

Consider; if it was in fact a universal truth that all men were created equal, it wouldn’t have been such a radical idea, for the time, much less then to now. Last I checked, it is quite true that a vast majority still do not consider these as any kind of truth, universal or otherwise; they consider them to be anything BUT self-evident. Royalty still exists, as do class structures, and slavery, as well.

Again, I say…Jefferson was speaking of the point of view of OUR culture, not that of others.

The fact of the matter is that RIGHTS ARE A CULTURAL CONCEPT, and are nigh on meaningless outside that construct. Once the culture is allowed to fall to the law, even in an attempt to impose rights where they do not exist, what happens to real rights, which are a cultural concept?

When one says “freedom”, the question should be ‘freedom from what’? The answers that come back will invariably be cultural in nature. They do not make any sense outside that environment.

As I’ve said, the law and government has been abused by some, it has moved away from that intended purpose of supporting the existing culture. They are in fact being used by the left to alter that morality, to alter that culture, and when that happens, the fall of the government cannot be far behind… and the fall of the culture itself beyond that, becomes a larger possibility. Often as not, the downfall of that culture is what they have in mind.

That said, Culture is by far a more powerful force than government, over time. Indeed; Where governments have gotten themselves into problems over the centuries, is invariably where governments have tried to alter the culture artificially, by means of law. Culture eventually triumphs.

Take communism, as an example. Communism attempts to over-ride the culture and basically outlaw many facets of it.

But, (and this is important) everywhere you saw Communism.. Russia, Cuba, Korea, East Germany you saw the same treacherous *political* ideology, not the cultural values of those societies. And in those places where communism has been overthrown, the former USSR for example, the original culture invariably springs back to life.

This affects the concept of what is being called Multi-culturalism, as well. Governments that seek to mandate multi-culturalism do not last. Again, the USSR is a fair enough example.

Now, some would, because of those abuses as I mentioned, like to see all governments fall. They feel that governments have no legit purpose. I suggest this is short-sighted, and seeks, in the case of our republican form of government, to remove the only tool available to the end of supporting rights.

The worst of the abusers of government in our country, our culture, given these original purposes, are on the left end of the spectrum. The most visible American mainstream political group that works against these original purposes of government are the Democrat Party.

Now these are basics, and do not explore such things as taxes for example… and I’ll do this at need. But I’ve given you much to chew on and respond to; which I will ask you to do; Discuss in the comments section, or (given the size limits on my comments section) send me an e-mail, and I’ll post it from here as an update.