I Think We have a Working Definition for the Phrase “two Faced”

So now, John Conyers is going to start an investigation.  He’s all aflutter that the president executed his customers both already in granting clemency.  It wasn’t always that way, however. After Bill Clinton used that power to give blanket clemency to Marc Rich, among others, Conyers rose in defense of the presidential use of Clemency…

“Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to what is clearly a politically motivated and totally senseless resolution. We are a Nation of laws, and if any matter is abundantly clear by our Constitution, it is that the President has the sole and unitary power to grant clemency. Is there any Member that does not understand that? Every President has the sole and unitary power to grant clemency… Now the reason that he has the power to grant clemency is that it is that the President is uniquely positioned to consider the law and the facts that apply in each request for clemency.” – Rep. John Conyers (D) 1999

BBCT: The Illustrated Conservative, who seems amused by the turn-about of Conyers and by the obvious partisanship by the Clintons:

The word “hypocritical” doesn’t even begin to cover this two-faced grandstanding by the Democrats. Stunning. They can’t even keep their rhetoric straight year to year.

Indeed; Just so.

In the New York Post, yesterday, Amir Taheri raises a question I raised the other day, and takes it farther:

THE car-bomb/suicide-terror operations in London and Glasgow should have provided a fresh opportunity for reminding everyone, especially Muslims in Britain, that terrorism in the name of Islam still poses a major threat to public peace and safety. Yet this is not what is happening.

Prime Minister Gordon Brown keeps repeating that the attacks have nothing to do with Islam – but, at the same time, keeps inviting “Muslim community leaders” to Downing Street to discuss how to prevent attacks. If the attacks have nothing to do with Islam, why invite Muslim “leaders” rather than Buddhist monks?

Brown hasn’t deemed fit to tell it like it is: that Muslims in Britain, indeed all over the world, must come out and condemn terrorism in unambiguous terms.

Instead, we are hearing that the attacks may have been prompted by “Muslim bitterness” about Salman Rushdie’s knighting, the latest addition to the Islamist litany of woes. Some “moderate community leaders,” like a certain Baroness Uddin, drop hints that Muslims have “foreign-policy issues” that might make them unhappy. The barely coded message: Unless Britain reshapes its foreign policy to please al Qaeda, it must expect to be attacked.

Well, the question that I would raise then: If we are unable to come out and address and condemn terrorism in the name of Islam in the most unambiguous of terms, how in the world can we expect Muslims to do the same?  That is exactly why I consider Brown’s comments counterproductive to the goal of peace.

If you want a look at the logical conclusion to the “yes, but” logic being applied to blaming Western peoples for Muslim atrocities, one need look no further than a couple of paragraphs down in the same article:

Worse still, Ken Livingstone, London’s quixotic leftist mayor, has shifted the blame from the terrorists to the British at large, who are supposedly tempted by “Islamophobia.”

Thus, Livingstone works his way into a logical impasse: Do we dislike them because they want to kill us, or do they want to kill us because we dislike them? He implies that the main blame must lie with the British government and its U.S. allies, especially President Bush, who has declared war on terror rather than seeking to cuddle it.

But can one accuse Britain of “Islamophobia”? The answer is an emphatic no.

Britain and a few other Western democracies are the only places on earth where Muslims of all persuasions can practice their faith in full freedom. A thick directory of Muslim institutions in Britain lists more than 300 different sects – most of them banned and persecuted in every Muslim country on earth.

Idiots like Livingstone will always exist, alas.  In the most recent post on this site, I cited and discussed complaints regards civil rights being curtailed here in the west in the name of national security. But what right is more precious than that of the right to the truth? That right is being sacrificed on the altar of not offending Muslims.  In our efforts to be so accommodating, we have given up the truth, and have also opened ourselves up to further attack; the very attacks we are trying to curtail by butt kissing.  The absence of truth, is the biggest weapon radical Muslims could have in their effort to establish tyranny.

Looked at from the opposite side, the biggest weapon against tyranny is the truth.  And, yes, the truth can sometimes be offensive to some. Most of all, the truth is offensive to those whose undesirable activities are exposed by it.  In the end, the truth is of larger value than anyone’s sensibilities.

Addendum: Bit

To the issue of the west supposedly blaming the wrong group; and to the nonsensical idea that a large Burr of various diverse groups are responsible for the attacks on the west I offer a complete description of the seven doctors held in places around the world for their part in the recent bombings in United Kingdom…. you may notice if you look closely that they are undiverse , to the point of monotony.

Steve Verdon over at OTB:

Senator Lieberman likes the use of close circuit television cameras (cctv) just like in England.  He thinks that it would be a wise move from a security stand point.

“The Brits have got something smart going in England, and it was part of why I believe they were able to so quickly apprehend suspects in the terrorist acts over the weekend, and that is they have cameras all over London and other of their major cities,” Lieberman said.

“I think it’s just common sense to do that here much more widely,” he added. “And of course, we can do it without compromising anybody’s real privacy.”

[…]

“Right now, we’re at a partisan gridlock over the question of whether the American government can listen into conversations or follow e-mail trails of non-American citizen,” he said on ABC’s This Week with George Stephanopoulos. “That’s wrong. We’ve got to solve that problem, pass a law to give the people working for us the ability to protect us.”

Reminds me of something Ben Franklin said, “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”

I made the assumption that James had posted it, when I wrote my response, and not Steve.  Apologies to Steve.  That said, I thought you’d find my response to this position interesting :

I must say that’s as absolutist a position as I’ve ever seen you take. Normally, I would find that commendable. In this case, I am dubious.

First because I am unconvinced that the right to privacy extends itself to public areas, even in peacetime, a situation in which we do not currently find ourselves. Despite my instinctive disagreement, I will say that under different circumstances, I would be inclined to entertain the argument. Not these.

It’s unfortunate, but the reality of the situation is that our concepts of law and of rights which super those laws assume a secure country in which to operate. That’s a luxury we’ve had for most of our history, First, thanks to the relative inability of most of the world to cross the oceans surrounding our country to get at us reasonably easily, and then thanks to our preeminence in the world, and, dare I say this, the preeminence of our military, as well.

The result of these factors was, that even during wartime, the effect of worldwide reality on our rights and privileges as American citizens, was less than it might have been.

However, that kind of security is a luxury we no longer have. That’s true, because of the missteps that we have made as a nation in opening ourselves up to those not wishing to be citizens, in terms of our own security , and because of ever advancing technology. Jets, for example easily overcome the natural protection the oceans provided us. If the 9/11 attacks proved anything, it is that the oceans, and our military, can no longer provide the level of security required to support the kind of freedoms under discussion, even assuming rights to privacy in a public street, even exist.

Like it or not, James, we are on a wartime footing. There is a Latin Maxim which states: Inter arma silent leges. Loosely translated “in time of war the laws are silent”.

And as I’ve argued in your comments section in the past, the definition of war, is the lack of morality, and the lack of law. The only way to reestablish those laws, and that morality, is to first win the war. In losing the war, we allow our opponents to establish their law, and their morality.

If my assessment of the nature of war, as being the absence of law and morality, is correct, and if, as I suppose, civil rights are the results of morality, and the laws that descend from that morality, then why should it be such a surprise that during wartime our civil rights should be curtailed in the name of winning the war, which in turn is the only condition under which those rights can be restored? Why should it be such a surprise that the goal of winning the war, and the goal of maintaining civil rights during that war, run counter to each other?

Chief justice William Rehnquist in his 1998 book “All Laws But One” speaks to the point of adjustment of civil liberties, during wartime:

“It is neither desirable nor is it remotely likely that civil liberty will occupy as favored a position in wartime as it does in peacetime”

History is certainly on the side of the comment of Justice Rehnquist. In every single war that America has fought over the years starting with the Civil War.. hell, starting with the Revolution, for that matter… Americans civil liberties were restricted, both by edict of the government, and as a matter of practicality , and of course the central issue being responded to was that of national security. Clearly, in every situation, the government has adopted the points I made about the first object being winning the war. Then reestablishing our rule of law, and our morality. At need, I can add specifics, of course, for each case I cite from the Civil War going forward. However, I’ll leave them out for the sake of brevity, here.

To speak to some of the fears that I know will be generated by my comments, I will point out that in each and every case those rights which were curtailed during wartime, were restored following the conclusion of the war.

Of course, it should also be pointed out, we actually won those wars. This one, the one we’re currently fighting, is still in the balance.

Billy;

“There should be Benny Hill music playing in the background anytime a newscast covers this story.”

That’s a comment on Cosh’s pointer to his remarks on the Glasgow hijinks: “The Two Stooges”.

I’ve said it before, here & there.  This is an example at my blog that comes to mind.  I have never understood why these animals aren’t a lot more serious, and I still don’t get it.

I do. Here it is.

Consider the bumbling that goes on in government. It’s not unlike the kind of bumbling that we saw going on in Glasgow the other day.  In both cases, what we’re seeing is the result of the stooge thinking they’re under the protection and direction of the divine… they can do no wrong.

I don’t know if I’ve described that to you in a very precise manner, but I think you see the drift I’ve taken.

It’s a rare event indeed when I come down on the same side as the flaming liberal, Alan Dershowitz. And , here is that rare occasion, which I’ll slice to a couple paras with added emph by myself:

The outcry against President Bush’s decision to commute Scooter Libby’s sentence is misplaced. President Bush acted hours after the U.S. Court of Appeals denied Libby bail pending appeal. That judicial decision was entirely political. The appellate judges had to see that Libby’s arguments on appeal were sound and strong — that under existing law he was entitled to bail pending appeal. (That is why I joined several other law professors in filing an amicus brief on this limited issue.) After all, if he were to be sent to jail for a year and then if his conviction were to be reversed on appeal, he could not get the year back. But if he remained out on bail and then lost the appeal, the government would get its year. In non-political cases, bail should have and probably would have been granted on issues of the kind raised by Libby.

But the court of appeals’ judges, as well as the district court judge, wanted to force President Bush’s hand. They didn’t want to give him the luxury of being able to issue a pardon before the upcoming presidential election. Had Libby been allowed to be out on appeal, he would probably have remained free until after the election. It would then have been possible for President Bush to pardon him after the election but before he left office, as presidents often do during the lame duck hiatus. To preclude that possibility, the judges denied Libby bail pending appeal. The president then acted politically. But the president’s action — whether right or wrong on its merits — was well within his authority, since pardons are part of the political process, not the judicial process.

Keep in mind, dear reader, Dershowitz is a Democrat.  If he were making a totally political argument, from his point of view, he’d be arguing that the sentence was not stiff enough , and should be imposed immediately… he’d be part of the leftie echo chamber. But he’s not.

In the end, Dershowitz got this one right.  The question in my mind, is how many of his fellow democrats will heed his advice.

• I had wondered what happened to Billy the last few days. It turns out he’s currently suffering from Desktopagus BigBoomakus. Well, so long as it’s nothing more serious.
• It’s interesting, the number of leftards who claim that Mr. Bush’s clemency for Libby, at least insofar as the jailterm means that Bush cares nothing about justice.  Perhaps they didn’t notice that the remainder of the punishments remained intact?  I mean there argument might have held more water, if Bush had simply part and delivery, as I think he should have done.  Or perhaps the lefties are just venting their political frustration.
• I’ve been asked by e-mail why I haven’t gotten around to writing up any camping trips, as yet.  The reason is simple; we haven’t gone anywhere but our usual haunts, so far they share.  The intent is to wait until after the July 4 fuel price drop… It has, after all, become an annual event.  I will post he was plans developed.  In the meantime, I’ve been doing some modifications on the trailer, and perhaps not of itself is worth the write up.
• I see by way of Little Green Footballs, the new PM in the UK, Gordon Brown is already getting his head out of the sunshine. Now, whether he’s doing an ostrich, and sticking it the ground, or pulling a typical liberal, and sticking it in his own bung, is arguable. Ready? He’s issued orders to his ministers, saying that they are not to refer to the terrorists as Muslim.  Look, Gordy, we got into this trouble in the first place because we stopped calling things what they were.  Unless, perchance, you can tell me that these terrorists, we’re not Muslim, I have to say this is the wrong move.  And don’t give me this nonsense about how we need to not offend Muslims. do you really consider that continuing to tiptoe around the issue is going to make them not hate us?  If so, you don’t deserve that seat you’re sitting in.
• Tomorrow is the fourth of July. It’s a date that always makes our thoughts turn to hearth and home, like few other times of the year..  Family gatherings.  An excuse to catch a hell of a sunburn.  For some of us, music.  For some of us, food and friends gathering.  For most of us fireworks. And maybe you’re having a combination of all these.  Maybe you’re taking the trailer out this weekend and one even see this until after you come back.  Whatever it is you do, however, there’s one thing I’d like you to do, for all of us .  It’s an Independence Day duty that too often gets overlooked.  I’d like you to take the time and the trouble to impart to the children around you just what it is we are celebrating on July 4.  Explain to them in any detail they can absorb how it is this country started, and why.  Explain to them that a large number of people died then, and since, to provide for , and later to keep, the liberties that all too often we take for granted.  Explain to them that the founding fathers intended this day called Independence Day to be of more transcendent significance than simply a data pig out and have family parties.  They established Independence Day as a date to commemorate “God’s providential deliverance and protection” of our country.  The children of this country need to know that.  They need that understanding, desperately, if this country is to survive as such, particularly today with the enemies we face as a people.  Don’t depend on the TV to do it, or the schools to do it; trust me when I tell you they will not.  Their future depends on their understanding of the sacrifices made and why they were made. They need to understand, what freedom is, and the price that must occasionally be paid for it.  Indeed, has been paid, many times over. The spreading of that knowledge, of that understanding, is one very important means of ensuring the future of your children and theirs.  It’s only with that understanding that this country will go forward.  So, take the time today, to tell them about us, on this day of commemoration. Will you do that for me? For THEM?

For what reasons I am quite sure, Representative Duncan Hunter appeared on, the race baiter and hate monger, Al Sharpton’s show.   Sharpton brought up the subject of Ann Coulter, who never falsely accused anybody of rape.   Hunter made a decenet enough defense of Coulter which included this gem:

But I think especially because Ann Coulter said nice things about me, I think she’s closely approaching that level of being a great American, Al.

Well at least Hunter didn’t accuse Sharpton of being a great American.   It seems, Hunter’s defense of free speech, in general, and Coulter, in particular, got Amanda’s, Think Progress, knickers in a twist.   Watch the video, and see Hunter’s grin before his statement.

Some of commenters managed to catch the joke but it appears to have eluded most.  Maybe being leftarded means having to live without a sense of humor?  Or maybe libs don’t know what the meaning of smile is.   Then as they never seem to smile, why should they?

Tell you what Amanda, if you call me a great American, I’ll post something nice about you.

?

The latest Rasmussen poll would seem to suggest that the race for the republican presidential nomination has become somewhat more stable, with former senator Fred Thompson leading the way.

He’s not even declared, yet.  Just in case you’ve forgotten.   An interesting twist on the conventional wisdom, however is that Rudy Giuliani would clean up amongst centrists.  That’s not happening ;

Thompson has a 16-point advantage over Giuliani among conservatives while Giuliani holds an even larger edge among moderate voters. However, in the race for the Republican Presidential nomination, there are always more conservative voters than moderates.

Some other points from the polling:

McCain’s campaign is in serious trouble. The man once considered the dominant frontrunner had struggled for months. Over the past six weeks, his fervent support for the unpopular immigration reform bill may have been the final straw that doomed his campaign. His poll numbers are now closer to Huckabee and Brownback rather than Thompson and Giuliani. Media reports say the Arizona Senator is running very low on cash and has dramatically reduced his campaign staff. Last week, the Senator himself had to deny reports that he’d be out of the race by September.

Funny how McCain’s people have failed to mention all of this in the stuff they keep putting in my mailbox, in their efforts to get me on their bandwagon. He’s already toast. It’s down to how far the initial momentum will carry him.  From here it looks like McCain won’t make it to September. 
Also of interest, according to the poll, the number of people identifying themselves as republicans increased last month, which is the first such increase this year. My guess is, this change can be directly tied to Thompson. It will be interesting to see if that trend continues, once he actually declares.

Matt Margolis brings an interesting point by way of RWN today:

Democrat grandstanding on this issue doesn’t change the fact that they seem more interested in Vice President Dick Cheney’s former chief-of-staff than they are in the actual leaker of Valerie Plame’s name to the media, Richard Armitage. In fact, the Democrats’ complete lack of interest in Armitage proves that they care less about the actual leak of Plame’s name (which they seemed to believe was a major threat to our national security) and cared more about using this so-called scandal to attack the Bush administration.

It turns out the question of why physicians would turn to terror is exactly backwards.  The physicians arrested in the UK and Australia were not doctors who converted to terrorists.  They were terrorists who were trained to be doctors so take advantage of a immigration security blindspot.

The UK is so desparate for physicians that the background checks for physicians are fast tracked, or maybe even omitted.  Al Qaeda had terrorists trained as doctors so as to able to evade immigration security.

Allah Pundit, Hot Air, has reams of details.

British intelligence services increasingly believe that the failed car bombings in London and Glasgow bare the fingerprints of al Qaeda in Iraq, CBS News has learned.

Intelligence sources tell CBS News that the people behind the attempts were directly recruited by Abu Hamza al-Muhajir, the present leader of the terror group’s Iraq franchise.

Immigration security does matter.  Mrs. Pelosi needs to take up the republican plan to enforce border security:

WASHINGTON — Republican House lawmakers pushed a plan Tuesday to enforce current immigration laws to solve the nation’s illegal immigration problem, dismissing the Senate plan over their own.

“I would rather have just the current law than have what the Senate has talked about,” Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., told reporters at a press conference. “Ideally, you would have the current law plus the legislation we are proposing today. We want to stop the Senate amnesty bill in its tracks right now.”

King, the top Republican on the Homeland Security Committee, and Rep. Lamar Smith, R-Texas, King’s No. 2 on the panel, are introducing an immigration reform proposal that would enforce current immigration law and tighten border security in response to the 12 million illegal immigrants currently living in the United States.

The ilk of Keith Olbermann and Larry Johnson might think it prudent to stake our liives on the hope that al Qaeda will remain incompetent and will not learn.  I say otherwise.

Addendum: I pose yet another question, is socialized, single-payer, medicine, ala that preferred by Mrs. Clinton and Michael Moore, a threat to national security?  From the BBC:

The most recent figures show that almost 128,000 of the 277,000 doctors on the GMC register have been trained abroad.

Of these 1,985 are from Iraq and 184 from Jordan

I assume that there plenty for Brits perfectly capable of becoming physicians for their National Health Service.  My assumption is they not willing.  Has the UK placed an artificial ceiling so low as to deter people from entering the practice of medicine?  So it would appear.

?

Boortz this morning, as regards the Pence amendment, which effectively block the ‘fairness doctrine”… for a while…

First: Did you know that this amendment only applies to 2008 appropriations? It does absolutely nothing after 2008. So no wonder it passed! Democrats knew that they couldn’t reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine in the current budget anyway! They would have to wait for a Democrat president!  Now these Democrats who voted for the amendment, knowing that it was only for the 2008 budget year, can run for office and proudly tell the voters that they stood fast for freedom by denying funding for the Fairness Doctrine!

This amendment, though a strictly temporary positive development for talk radio, cannot prevent re-implementation of the “Fairness” Doctrine. All it does is say that the feds can’t spend any money enforcing it.

Boortz also points out that…

Cliff Kincaid writes that now Democrats are on a campaign to link talk radio to hate crimes. Hate crimes, folks. Democrats, according to Kincaid, have now requested a federal study of … now get this … how “broadcast facilities licensed on behalf of the public by the Federal Communications Commission” have been used to “convey messages of bigotry or hatred, creating a climate of fear and inciting individuals to commit hate crimes.”

If the Democrats get their study … and with them in control of the Congress I think we know how this study would turn out … then they can move against talk radio with the phony “evidence” of complicity in “hate crimes” on the part of talk radio.

I seem to recall urging Congress to eliminate hate crimes as one of the first things I wrote about when this blog started, around 7 years ago. This kind of thing was one big reason why…. because hate speech legislation gives control of pseech to the government… anything at all can be labled ‘hate speech’… and so it will be.

Same topic reading: The New York Post’s Kristen Powers

Sandy Berger steals national secrets and gets a $50,000 fine and no felony conviction. Scooter Libby misremembers a conversation and gets a felony conviction and $250,000 fine.

Ace has the winning idea:

Suggestion: Bush should have reduced the fine to a more reasonable $50,000, which just so happens to be how much Sandy Berger was fined for stealing and destroying classified documents and lying about it to investigators (he wasn’t charged for the latter, but subsequent revelations has made it clear he did just that).

Making the fine $50,000 would have been more in line with Libby’s transgressions, and it would have made it harder for Democrats to argue against it. The penalty — no jail time, $50,000, probation — would have been so similar to Berger’s that one could scarcely mention it without also mentioning Berger.

It not too late The president can still commute $200,000 of Libby’s fine.

Addendum I: Call it irresistible impulse. Today I have blogged about Scooter, Sandy, Sanity and physicians. So I might as well check in with Dr. Sanity:

Of the two, Berger was clearly the one who deserved jail time, and who was willing to compromise national security to protect himself and his buddy Clinton. Libby was not even the person who “outed” a supposedly covert Plame–in what has to have been the most over-rated and politically motivated revenge lynching in history; he was only the human sacrifice the left demanded to assure themselves that the Bush Administration was at least as corrupt as the Clinton/Gore era and thus their ideology could remain pure.

Say what you will about Scooter Libby, he is no terrorist.

Addendum II: (Bit) It was nearly amusing this morning, watching Lanny Davis on Fox this morning complaining about a “Double Standard”, given the activities of Sandy Berger and his boss.

In the ultimate sense, however, I think what we have here is both sides of the aisle playing to their base over this.  The points that DavidL raises here, along with the far more substantial lies of Bill Clinton, while under oath, and it seems clear to me that the complaints of the Republicans have far more validity.

That having been established, let’s consider the pardons handed out by the Clinton administration at the end of his second term.  I mean, if we’re going to talk about double standards, perhaps we ought to have those in the list under discussion.

It’s pretty much as I said yesterday  Libby was convicted based on an investigation of an action that turned to not even be a crime.  What we have here, is Democrats extracting a pound of flesh for political purposes.  Nothing more .

edit(David)
?

Just a quick update. My wife and new baby girl are doing just great. If anything, my wife is going stir crazy from the doctor’s orders not to do too much. Neither of us really likes to sit around the house all day.

It’s been hard to keep away from the computer, especially with the rather lame terror attacks that just happened in Britain. Anyway, thanks to all who have sent their well wishes and prayers in my wife’s direction. I’ll be back as soon as I can

That’s great to hear, Rusty, great. Give them a hug for us here.

Little Green Footballs has started picking up on a trend and I wonder if Charles is even aware of the implications of what he’s written :

The total number of doctors involved in the UK terror attacks is now FIVE.

I mentioned some of this earlier today but in a later post, LGF notes it’s not just the UK:

Got one in Brisbane:

BRISBANE, Australia (AP) – An Australian television network reports that a suspect wanted in the British terrorism plot has been arrested in the eastern city of Brisbane.

(Hat tip: Thanos.)

UPDATE at 7/2/07 5:35:27 pm:

He’s a doctor, of course. Aussie doctor held over terror plot.

A MAN arrested at Brisbane’s international airport overnight over the UK terror plots was a registrar at the Gold Coast Hospital in Southport.

That makes it six.  So what’s going on, that these are all doctors?

There is this, also: The knee jerk reaction from the usual suspects, was we shouldn’t worry about these terrorists, because they’re blathering idiots… can’t even stage a credible attack; they’re no threat, etc. Leaving aside for the moment the issue that I made earlier today , about only having to get it right once, the point should perhaps also be mentioned that there aren’t many idiots who get to become doctors.

And raises serious points when he suggests that the Brits may want a look at the work of these five .  After all someone with so direct a control over the lives of so many westerners… by government edict, no less… could certainly cause serious health concerns for his patients.  But is it limited to the British health system?  That one of them has now been traced to Australia, and arrested there, makes one wonder where else in the world such doctors are.

Do we have new reason to question our generosity about training people to be doctors from lands such as Pakistan, Syria, Iraq, and so on?  We started doing that, years ago, on the idea that these doctors would go back home and take their fresh knowledge of doctoring, with them, supposedly thereby raising the standard of living for people in those countries, and in the process making a friend for these United States.  I don’t recall a specific numbers, but I do recall that there was some discussion about the rather large number of doctors who opted to stay here in the states with their newfound knowledge, because the money was better, supposedly.  Are the result of all of that is that we have a larger number of middle eastern doctors per capita than at any time in our history.  Do we have cause to question the status of these people, now?

The charge has been routinely floated by those trying shift blame to the US for Islamic terrorism, that Islamic violence is not due to Islam per se’, but due to poverty, and a lower education level, etc. The arrests on terrorism charges these last few days of these six doctors, sabotages that line of non- thinking.

The only common thread we have to go with, that is left, is radical Islam.  In a culture where religious radicalism is the norm, seemingly, how do we separate out the threats?  in fact, the question becomes can we?

• It occurs to me, that there are a couple of reasons for raising the CAFE standards… you know about those… those are the fleet MPG ratings each auto maker is supposed to have in these United States… obviously, a small amount of fuel will be saved.  But just as obviously, since cars that meet such requirements would be dramatically less safe, we would be lessening the strain on the social security system.  Less people would survive to draw from the system.  I wonder; Why are the Enviro-wackoes not mentioning this advantage?
• There’s an awful lot of back and forth going on about who’s “fault” it was that the Shamnesty bill, didn’t pass. example of this is in Sunday morning’s New York Times.  As a matter of fact, it could barely be said that it’s in every morning’s New York Times.  They seem to be fairly heavily invested in trying to blame the Republicans for the failure of the bill.  The consequences, the meme goes, are that the republicans may end up paying for all of this in let you know votes, and since rookie knows as a voting bloc are growing, this will be a major concern.  Certainly, pacification of that particular voting bloc was on the minds of legislators, and if the president, for that matter.  But at the end of the day, it was The Democrats were in charge of the Senate that didn’t pass the bill.  The Democrats and their house organ, the Times, were quick to lay blame at the Republican majority when they were in charge, for thing not accomplished. I suspect and suppose that the trend has been set, and that the Latinos as a voting block will likely blame those in charge of the failure of this bill… the Democrats. That is, assuming they find blame at all… In the polling data, voting Latinos here in the U.S., appeared to have been happy that the bill didn’t pass; In the period leading up to the bills defeat, voting Latinos viewed it as a large negative, to the two of 70 to 75% of those polled.  However you slice it, I suspect that this will come out differently than the creatures at the Times would like it to.
• I see an awful lot of denial, coming out of the usual suspects, on the attacks in the UK over the weekend.  I’ve already written a good deal about this, but I think that we should be asking a great deal more about this entire situation.  A lot of the attacks we’ve suffered, I have long suspected, are coming from Iran.  Given what I’m seeing from the news reports of intelligence of those happenings, it would appear that I’m not alone in that suspicion.  So, a number of questions arise from that, that maybe somebody ought to be asking the Democrats… why on earth should we believe Iran when they claim that the only one nuclear power for peaceful purposes?  Here we have a leader of the country openly calling for Israel’s destruction.  He and his country have been showing signs all along that they are working toward that specific goal.  They have unquestionably along with certain elements in Pakistan and Syria in funding terrorism around the world.  Ultimately they have killed millions over the years. These people see universal Armageddon, as a laudable goal.  They are working always toward that goal.  Given that in the pursuit of that goal, they have shown a willingness and a desire to attack not only free peoples around the remainder of the world, but us here in the United States as well, perhaps somebody amongst the left had better figure out how to explain how placating these people is in our best interests.  How allowing them to arm themselves is going to make for a more peaceful situation.  I consider it a moral imperative to be pursuing these questions.  I say that, because if we don’t, it’s entirely plausible that we’re going to end up with the president in 2009, who doesn’t see a nuclear Iran has a problem for us.  The result will be the Armageddon that Iran has been seeking.
• It would appear that Al Gore’s LiverEarth concert , over in Germany is going begging. there giving away the tickets to the site.  Freebies.Got this one from www.welt.de It’s in German (Sorry) but my high school German tells me that only around half the tickets have been sold. Sounds like Wooden Al’s having a little trouble selling his nonsense to the Germans.