Sunday, January 28, 2007

Worse than Carter

Hard to believe that there could be a worse person than the former President of the US, Jimmuh Carter.

Why do I call him that?
  • He broke precedent when he began publicly commenting on Presidential actions. Think of it - he's still taking money from the US, but acting contrary to our interests.

  • He travels the world, using the cachet of his former position to intervene in foreign affairs - including secret negotiations with heads of foreign governments. The Logan Act, still on the books, specifically forbids private citizens (that's you, Jimmuh) from the following:
    Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
    Sounds like Jimmuh better start loading up on cigarettes to trade in prison.

  • His hostile attitudes towards Jews. His new books contains a substantial amount of anti-Semitism, enough that 14 members of the Carter Center resigned in protest.
Folks, I voted for Jimmuh. After his term in office, I had some admiration for the work he did with Habitat for Humanity.

But, his recent actions go beyond the pale. He is wrong to keep taking money from the US, yet act in ways that directly hurt the government and its citizens. You can't have it both ways - either stop his ILLEGAL actions, or give up the pension and expense money, and stop referring to himself as the "Former President".

Y'all ain't in charge now, Jimmuh. And, God willing, we'll never go back to the days of your Presidency, and its accomplishments, including:
  1. Failure to act in defense of American officials, as you did in the Iranian hostage crisis.

  2. Double-digit inflation. AND sky-high unemployment.

  3. Establishment of the Department of Energy and Department of Education, both of which suck up substantial amounts of money, but deliver no solutions.

  4. The Camp David accords, which emboldened the "Palestinians" by giving them everything they asked for, yet not stopping their terrorist activities in Israel. Also gave you a totally undeserved Peace Prize, which has apparently gone straight to your head. Jimmuh, you ain't no Ghandi.

  5. The Panama Canal treaties, which led to Noriega's reign of terror, before Reagan sent in the troops to take him out.

  6. Full diplomatic relations with China. No concessions on their side about human rights. Guess the US is the only country that needs to be sensitive to human rights.

  7. He took the nukes out of S. Korea. At the time, I'm sure he believed that he made the stalemate less dangerous.
    One of Carter's first acts in office was to order the unilateral removal of all nuclear weapons from South Korea. He also announced his intention to remove all US troops from South Korea. During his first month in office he cut the defense budget by $6 Billion.
    However, with Kim II testing nuclear weapons, I think the least Carter should do is to apologize to S. Korea.

  8. But what about human rights?
    The Carter Administration ended support to the historically U.S.-backed Somoza dictatorship in Nicaragua and gave aid to pro-U.S. factions of the Sandinista National Liberation Front Revolution after Somoza had been overthrown. However, Carter ignored a plea from El Salvador's Archbishop Óscar Romero not to send military aid to that country. Romero was later assassinated for his criticisms of El Salvador's violation of human rights.
    Hmmm. Guess that old HR stuff is only for those agreeing with tyrants.

  9. Did his HR policy work better in the Dark Continent?
    after Bishop Abel Muzorewa was elected Prime Minister, protested that the Marxists Robert Mugabe and Joshua Nkomo had been excluded from the elections. Strong pressure from the United States and the United Kingdom prompted new elections in what was then called Zimbabwe Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe).
    And we all know what a paradise on Earth Zimbabwe is today.

I hold no personal animosity towards Carter. I just wish he'd SHUT UP!

Speaking of Shutting Up,



Mr. Cash & Kerry, y'all weren't even elected. Not even close. So, what the heck are you doing wandering the world, consorting with declared enemies of the US?

2008 Elections

I am definitely NOT ready to start the next presidential election season, but, just as with Christmas, there are those who can't wait for the official start of the season.

Dennis Miller is one. He has a funny video up on Foxnews.

Miller seems to act as though McCain and Guiliani have a virtual lock on the nomination. If, by some chance they DO get the nod, look for a major blowout - the Republican party will fractionate, go into meltdown, and hand the election, gift-wrapped, to the Democrats. The only Republicans that like those two are the RINOs. And they can't deliver the votes - they're too busy pretending they're really undercover Democrats.

Look, the two so-called front-runners carry more baggage than a skycap trailing after Oprah Winfrey's world tour. They have news-worthy divorces, pro-abortion views, and, between the two of them, more flip-flops than either Kerry or a carload of sophomores headed to Florida for spring break.

If the votes of honest conservatives are necessary to elect a president, they have no chance to warm the Oval Office seat.

Nominating them could be the chance of a lifetime for Democrats. They could win the election (without resorting to digging up old, dead, Democrats). Once in, they could finally LEGALLY (if you don't consider the Constitution) get all the illegal alien ALL-BUT-LEGAL-WOULD-BE-CITIZENS the full rights to participate in every aspect of American life - including the right to disrespect the working person.

Saturday, January 27, 2007

A Valentine for Mom

I've been thinking about my mother lately. It's getting near Valentine's Day - that was Dad's and her anniversary. They eloped on February 14, 1948. They were married 46 years when she died. Dad followed her 4 years later. I always felt that he lost the will to live after her death.

Mom was a light-hearted person. She had what the French call joie de vivre - a love of life.

As a teen, I was often irritated with Mom. She seemed, to me then, to be overly giddy, giggly, and frivolous. I was temperamentally more like my father, who had a more dour disposition.

Even after leaving home, I didn't fully realize what a contribution she made to the family, and to everyone around. If anyone needed a friend, or a shoulder to lean on, she was there. She would brew a pot of tea, and dedicate herself to listening with full attention.

She managed to keep a temperamental and, sometimes, difficult man thoroughly in love with her for nearly half a century. For a post-war marriage entered into on short acquaintance, and hampered by too many children and too little money, that's a near miracle. Marriages all around them broke and scattered family to the winds - theirs endured and grew stronger.

One of the few song categories that I ace is WWII songs. Mom used to sing while doing the housework. I caught myself singing a few weeks ago, in the morning before school. Unfortunately, I inherited her voice. Too bad - I really like to sing.

I started thinking about her today, after talking to my youngest daughter. She is married with 3 children. She just left her job to tend to them, as they needed her more than she needed the money. That's something my mother did more than once, leaving a job she enjoyed to care for the family.

I like to think that my mother's influence has extended to a new generation. I'm going to make a cake next month, a heart-shaped one, in honor of a very good wife and mother.

Here's to you, Mom.

Monday, January 22, 2007

Guard the Borders Blogburst

Dirty Texas Politics Taint Border Patrol Agents' Trial

I have to give huge kudos to Shawn Christopher Phillips, of the Wry & Coy Report, for compiling some of the least known and most misreported facts surrounding the case of the two Border Patrol Agents prosecuted for shooting a drug smuggler. Shawn has raised some very troubling questions surrounding the case - questions worth asking and investigating. He has also connected the dots in a way that the media has been unable (or unwilling) to do.

Shawn's original research material can be found at www.patgray.com here and here. I have supplemented the accounts with further information from my own research and from Pat Gray's radio show on KSEV, since he and his co-host, Edd Hendee have been investigating the anomalies surrounding this very muddled case.

I have taken the liberty of condensing Shawn's material from several posts to place it into a rough timeline of events as they occurred. As well, I wanted to include information about some of the major players in this case, from the drug smuggler himself all the way up to U.S. Congressmen and Senators.

The central perpetrator in this travesty of justice is the U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton, who has old boy Texas connections from the judge overseeing the case all the way up to President George W. Bush. These connections, though not openly disclosed, have greatly impacted the case, as highly placed government officials look the other way while testimonies, evidence, and statements are manipulated behind the scenes.

Sunday, January 21, 2007

I feel a rant comin' on

From Psychology Today:
Most people are surprised to learn that there are real, stable differences in personality between conservatives and liberals—not just different views or values, but underlying differences in temperament. Psychologists John Jost of New York University, Dana Carney of Harvard, and Sam Gosling of the University of Texas have demonstrated that conservatives and liberals boast markedly different home and office decor. Liberals are messier than conservatives, their rooms have more clutter and more color, and they tend to have more travel documents, maps of other countries, and flags from around the world. Conservatives are neater, and their rooms are cleaner, better organized, more brightly lit, and more conventional. Liberals have more books, and their books cover a greater variety of topics. And that's just a start. Multiple studies find that liberals are more optimistic. Conservatives are more likely to be religious. Liberals are more likely to like classical music and jazz, conservatives, country music. Liberals are more likely to enjoy abstract art. Conservative men are more likely than liberal men to prefer conventional forms of entertainment like TV and talk radio. Liberal men like romantic comedies more than conservative men. Liberal women are more likely than conservative women to enjoy books, poetry, writing in a diary, acting, and playing musical instruments.
Why, oh why, do I get the distinct feeling that, first, the writers of these studies looked for persons that fit their stereotypes of conservatives, then, second, included them into the study. Is it possible that the liberals in those studies were found on college campuses (students and professors), whereas the conservatives were found in the campus security department, the maintenance staff, and Home Depot parking lots.

I am just one of the MANY conservatives whose personality and temperament fit the liberal stereotype in most regards. The article does say:
Even with impeccable methodology, bias may creep into the choice of which phenomena to study. "There is a bias among social scientists," admits Glaser. "They look for the variables that are unflattering. There probably are other nice personality traits associated with conservatism, but they haven't shown up in the research because it's not as well studied."
The consistent use of the term "conventional" is an example of that bias. Why isn't rigid adherence to recycling dictates classified as "rigidity"? Why is flitting around, aimlessly picking up the "cause de jour" characterized as "openness", rather than "flightiness" or "inability to commit"?

Feel free to read the article, and see what your take on it is.

Wednesday, January 17, 2007

A Job for the Unemployed

In the aftermath of the "Tuna Bill" - the exemption for Samoa in the new minimum wage bill - I think we all need to chip in, and fund a tag-along for Nancy, as seen below.



OK, he's a little young, but you get the point.

What is this about? Well, according to the story in Town Hall:
in the rush to get the minimum wage boost to the floor, the Democrats exempted workers on American Samoa where the minimum wage starts at $2.63 per hour.

American Samoa is, according to the historyofnations.net website: "An unincorporated and unorganized territory of the US; administered by the Office of Insular Affairs, US Department of the Interior."

American Samoa has a representative to the US Congress (Eni Faleomavaega) who has no vote. From that standpoint, American Samoa has exactly the same status in the US House as the District of Columbia.

It's principal administrative area is Pago Pago which is pronounced "Pango-pango."

According to the Department of Labor:

Canned tuna processing is by far the largest private-sector employer in American Samoa. Many of the other private-sector jobs provide goods or services to the tuna processors. Moreover, the economic growth of many other private-sector employers in the consumer retail and service sectors is tied to tuna industry expenditures.

The two biggest tuna processing companies in American Samoa are StarKist and Chicken of the Sea. StarKist is owned by Del Monte foods. Del Monte foods is located in San Francisco, California the home district of Speaker Nancy Pelosi. (emphasis mine)
We need to hire someone who has a flair for the dramatic, and is free to travel to places Nancy is likely to be - CA and Washington, for example. It could be both effective and a lot of fun.



Any conservative or libertarian interns open for a little fun?


I just checked FoxNews. A report by Brian Wilson insists that the exemption is no biggie, just an oversight. He believes that there is no validity to the rumors of a connection between Nancy Pelosi and the major employers in Samoa, who, BTW, just happen to be headquartered in her San Fransisco district.

Just coincidence.

At CNN, I couldn't even find a reference to the story.

On ABC News, I found an update to the story, not present in many other reports:
Fending off charges of favoritism, House Democrats say a just-passed minimum wage bill will be changed to cover all U.S. territories including American Samoa before it reaches President Bush's desk.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., told reporters she has instructed the House Education and Labor Committee to help get the bill changed to "make sure that all of the territories have to comply with the U.S. law on minimum wage."

Her remark Friday followed accusations from Republicans a day earlier that American Samoa, which is not now covered by the $5.15 an hour federal minimum wage, was not included in the law raising the federal pay floor to $7.25 an hour because StarKist has a large cannery in the island chain. StarKist is owned by Del Monte Foods Co., which has its headquarters in San Francisco, Pelosi's district.
Lest the Republicans crow TOO loudly,
The measure included in its coverage another U.S. territory, the Northern Mariana Islands, which had been shielded in the past from the wage law with the help of former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, and GOP lobbyist Jack Abramoff, now serving a prison sentence.
Did YOUR representative vote for it? Search below:

---- AYES 315 ---

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Alexander
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Butterfield
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson
Castle
Castor
Chandler
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Lincoln
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly
Doyle
Duncan
Edwards
Ehlers
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
English (PA)
Eshoo
Etheridge
Everett
Farr
Fattah
Ferguson
Filner
Forbes
Fossella
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Gerlach
Giffords
Gilchrest
Gillibrand
Gillmor
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hayes
Herseth
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Hulshof
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jindal
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
King (NY)
Kirk
Klein (FL)
Kucinich
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Marchant
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum (MN)
McCotter
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McIntyre
McNerney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murphy, Tim
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Platts
Poe
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Reichert
Renzi
Reyes
Rodriguez
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sánchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schmidt
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shays
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuler
Simpson
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Space
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velázquez
Visclosky
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Walz (MN)
Wamp
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Weller
Wexler
Whitfield
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (OH)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

(The above list courtesy of Thomas, the government-provided search engine. If you haven't tried it, it's on my blogroll - check it out.

Tuesday, January 16, 2007

This is Like Watching Star Trek

I'm trying out a new program called Dragon Naturally Speaking. It appears to be a useful program since it doesn't seem difficult to use, and it seems to recognize my voice without difficulty.
I've been dictating this post so far. One of the reasons I wanted to use it was to keep my arm from becoming stressed. It's nice to have an alternative.
I'll be trying this for the next few days at work. If it works as expected, I'll be able to use it in the classroom. I expect that my students will be absolutely fascinated by it.

Monday, January 15, 2007

Guard the Borders Blogburst

By Loma Alta at LinknZona

Let us try to sort out what this armed invasion from Mexico means in the broader sense.

The US-Mexico border is out of control. Corruption and drug cartels drive Mexico further to a violent, crime-controlled country; our biggest supplier of illegal drugs.

Political self-interest, bribery by a broad spectrum of US industrial and agricultural interests of top US politicians, and the President’s family ties to Mexican “Big Oil” and possible ties to the drug cartels, cause them to support illegal immigration. This, in turn, causes them overlook the armed invasions and the millions of illegal immigrants and their billions of crimes because there are votes, political power, and big money in supporting illegal immigration.

Smuggling, illegal immigration, drugs, murder and other crimes are spilling over the US-Mexico border and making many areas no-go zones. In Arizona, for example, I previously reported that the US Forest Service posts signs warning US citizens to avoid areas of the US National Forests and the Arizona Fish and Game Department warns hunters to avoid all of southern Arizona south of the I-10 and I-8 corridors.

That the 2000 mile long open border presents our greatest security threat is obvious.

The Administration and its supporters accuse the Democrats of wanting to “cut and run” from Iraq. At the same time, the Administration denies our National Guard troops on the border permission to defend our country or themselves. When the Mexican Army and/or its drug cartel thugs invade America, our National Guard troops must cut and run. Whatever the reason, it is sickening to see American troops running from Mexicans invading the United States. No one who supports illegal immigration and armed invasion of our country can be a patriot; likewise, all who do are traitors to their country.

Our national government supports illegal immigration. The governors of AZ, CA, NM, and Texas all support illegal immigration. Thus, there is no avenue of redress for the American people short of drastic changes in our national and state governments. Some hope that the Democrat and Republican Parties will wither and be replaced by a patriotic third party. However, this is not happening, and, if it happens, it may be too late to save America. Shed a tear for America all of you who love her. Our only hope may be our prayers to God that through His mercy He will save our nation from its government.




This has been a production of the Guard the Borders Blogburst. It was started by Euphoric Reality, and serves to keep immigration issues in the forefront of our minds as we're going about our daily lives and continuing to fight the war on terror. If you are concerned with the trend of illegal immigration facing our country, join our Blogburst! Just send an email with your blog name and url to admin at guardtheborders dot com.

Why Blog? Why Not?

At Hog On Ice, Steve H. rants about those wasting their time with TV.
I know so many people who pour the precious years of their lives into that stupid box. If that's what you have to live for, why do you even breathe? If you can't find something real to do, at least buy a computer and write a blog. Leave some evidence of your existence, other than a giant ass-shaped dent in a couch full of Cheeto crumbs.
I agree - I seldom watch TV - if I do, it's because I don't feel well enough to do anything involving mental stimulation. Other than that, it's because my husband wants to watch, and he feels that it's more "companionable" to watch together.

Whatever. In the interests of marital harmony, I do. But, I'm generally bored by it.

My writing on this blog may be banal, but it indicates that I lived - not just existed.

Sunday, January 14, 2007

10 Things for 2007

TEN THINGS TO PONDER FOR 2007

10. Life is sexually transmitted.
9. Good health is merely the slowest rate at which one can die
8. Men have two emotions: Horny and Hungry. If he’s not chasing you, make him a sandwich. (Is that true?)

Read the rest on The Anchoress.

Remembering Those No Longer With Us

Every day, when I log on, the first thing I see is the rotating memorial to the 9/11 victims. I spend a few moments reading their information, and comparing their ages to mine.

They are all too young to have died.

I was thinking about them yesterday, and I realized that, for me to have seen all the faces, and paid my respects, it will be almost a decade. So, my plan is to keep the memorial up for quite a while.

I'm Either a Genius, OR...

OK, I know the more hardware-savvy will laugh condescendingly at this, but...

I finally figured out why my wireless was toast.

I had accidentally toggled the function key that turned it on and off.

I finally figured this out after days of consulting on the phone with my favorite hardware guru (my dear son-in-law).

Yeah. It's the OR.

As Jim Traficant used to say, "Beam me up, Scotty"

You have absolutely GOT to see this video! It's the actual speech by Rep. Wu (Do I have to mention Democrat?), who said there are Vulcans in the White House, then corrected himself to say that they were Klingons, not REAL Klingons, but faux Klingons.

I feel that Oregonians were especially - NUANCED - to realize that what the House of Representatives needed, in this time of international crisis, is someone who has a breathtaking and comprehensive understanding of Star Trek trivia. Like the guys below.



See? Even Sulu is laughing.



REAL KLINGONS?

Moron.

Thursday, January 11, 2007

Amen, Brother, Amen!

On Viking Pundit, Eric cites an article by Robert Samuelson, chastising lawmakers for not dealing with Social Security.
As someone born in late 1945, I say this to the 76 million or so subsequent baby boomers and particularly to Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, our generation's leading politicians: Shame on us. We are trying to rob our children and grandchildren, putting the country's future at risk in the process. On one of the great issues of our time, the social and economic costs of our retirement, we have adopted a policy of selfish silence.
I agree. Listen, my stance on this topic could cost me money, big time. I understand that I may be torpedoing my chances of retiring, maybe permanently.

So what? I would gladly sacrifice for my children and grandchildren.

Now, I need to be clear. I'm not suggesting that we toss Granny out in the streets. Those already retired should not suffer unduly. However, I think it's past time to get Social Security and Medicare costs under control. And, unfortunately, that may impact some seniors negatively.

First, stop - permanently - COLA increases. In fact, if the economy goes into DEflation, take back those already given.

Set a ceiling on costs. Figure out a maximum number, and don't raise it. By that, I mean, if you have income over a certain amount, you don't NEED a check every month. You'd probably like it, but you don't NEED it to survive. The same goes for assets - if you can't make it on your income, but live in an expensive house, own two cars and and RV, and take at least 1 vacation a year in an exotic location, you don't need money from Social Security.

Yeah. I'm in favor of means testing. And no transfers to children. Any transfers in the last 20 years before applying make that person ineligible.

Is this harsh? Yeah. But it beats having my kids and grandkids giving up a substantial part of their income to support people who could jolly well do it themselves.
In 2005, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid (the main programs for the elderly) cost $1.034 trillion, twice the amount of defense spending and more than two-fifths of the total federal budget. These programs are projected to equal about three-quarters of the budget by 2030, if it remains constant as a share of national income.
Guys, that isn't chump change. Government shouldn't be holding a gun to the head of the young so he can give it to people whose only qualification to receive the money is that they are old. If the nay-sayers want to pony up 3/4 of their income to old folks, let them.

They just shouldn't force everyone to do the same.

Oh, Brother, Where Art Thou?

I've been folowing the story on "Jamil Hussein" - the alleged policeman whose reports of American atrocities have been widely spread by the AP. Most recently, the AP snidely pointed to identification of Jamil Gholaiem Hussein as the police officer in question, and implied that bloggers were unfairly chastising them. Hussein was real, nyah, nyah, so don't you feel stupid for not finding him, when he was in plain sight?

Well, no, according to Villainous Company.
But how was "Hussein" listed on the Khadra station records? Ah... that little piece of information is one the AP finds not fit for your consumption:

The AP has been citing Cpt Jamil Hussein Gulaim. The police officer's actual name is "Jamil Ghdaab Gulaim".

Notably, the AP has offered no explanation for why it gave a different name to the MOI than the one the officer in question is actually using, nor for its decision not to inform the public that "Jamil Hussein" was in fact "Jamil Gulaim". Among the other things the AP declines to explain to its readers is why it has, for six weeks now, refused to officially correct the record on its initial erroneous report that four mosques were destroyed in Hurriyah. That would seem to be a far larger (and easier to verify) matter than a case of mistaken identity when it turns out the name given to the authorities may not, in fact, even have matched the name their source actually goes by.
Let's leave aside the fact that the only piece of identification the AP gave for Hussein was his first name - gee, do you think maybe there might be more than 1 Iraqi with the first name of Jamil? Some years, I might teach 200 students - I've been known to have 2 or 3 Jamils in class.

What about the fact that this source seems to have misled the AP with his vivid stories of burning Iraqis, running from burning mosques? Other than a little damage to the physical structure of ONE mosque, this story is completely without foundation.

Where's the correction for that? Pulling the story from the online archives doesn't count.

Tuesday, January 09, 2007

Update to Guard the Borders Post

Here's a link to an update of the previous post.

I'll be monitoring the news about this situation for the next several days. Although my internet on my main computer is still down, I brought home my backup computer, and will be posting on that for the next week or so (maybe longer).

Guard the Borders

By Heidi at Euphoric Reality

The excursion into U.S. territory last week by "Mexican gunmen" was not a chance confrontation between the Arizona National Guard and untrained illegal immigrants, but a deliberate "perimeter probe" by an infantry-trained, uniformed Mexican force, officials say.

Euphoric Reality has learned in exclusive interviews with high-ranking sources within both the Arizona National Guard and the U.S. Border Patrol that the incident the mainstream media calls a "standoff" was in reality a military-style operation, carried out by a unit of Mexican troops dressed in military uniforms, flak jackets, and armed with AK-47s in an apparent operation to probe the border defenses and test the limits of the National Guard troops. Using easily recognizable infantry movement tactics (such as arm and hand signals and flanking maneuvers), the Mexican unit deliberately moved in a military formation across the border from Mexico, where they were picked up by National Guard surveillance.

As the hostile force moved north over the next three hours, deeper into Arizona, National Guardsmen wearing night vision goggles were able to ascertain that the approaching gunmen were indeed uniformed (including PAGST helmets) and heavily armed. When the Mexican unit came within approximately 100 yards of the EIT site, the Guardsmen repositioned themselves in order to maintain surveillance and tactical advantage. They observed the Mexican unit sweep through the EIT site, and then rapidly withdrew back into Mexico. No shots were fired by either the Mexican gunmen or the Guardsmen. Border Patrol was on the scene within minutes of the Mexican unit's withdrawal.

The Guardsmen, through an Arizona Border Patrol official, confirmed that the incident appeared to be an intelligence-gathering exercise designed to ascertain what the National Guard's response would be to certain tactics. It is not an isolated incident, and many such probes have been reported by the Guardsmen assigned to the area. Though no shots were fired during this particular incident, shots have been fired near and in the vicinity of the soldiers at the EIT site in other situations, though not at the soldiers themselves. It is not clear from the uniforms if the Mexican soldiers were official Mexican federales or mercenaries hired by the drug cartels.

Since then, follow-on news reports have included statements from the Border Patrol that no shots were fired. This was confirmed today by Major Paul Aguirre, a Public Affairs Officer (PAO) for the Arizona National Guard. Rumors have circulated that the Guardsmen were not armed, and thus unable to defend themselves - and that is not the case. Both Major Aguirre and Rob Daniels, a Public Information Officer (PIO) for the Arizona Border Patrol, state that all Guardsmen assigned to EITs are armed, specifically with M16s and sometimes a sidearm. As well, there have been some contradictory news reports that stated the gunmen came "within yards" of the Guardsmen, while other reports state that the gunmen were approximately 100 yards away. Mr. Daniels clarified that the gunmen came as close as 100 yards to the Guardsmen. He also stated that the Guardsmen did not "retreat" but tactically repositioned themselves to maintain surveillance of the group of armed men while simultaneously radioing for Border Patrol agents. He asserted that the Guardsmen had followed their protocols perfectly, and that their services were invaluable to the Border Patrol agents.

The Myth of Troops Bringing Law Enforcement to the Border

National Guard soldiers on the border are volunteers deployed by the federal government for Operation Jump Start. They are not mandated to perform law enforcement activities and, in fact, are prohibited from doing so under the Posse Comitatus Act while federally deployed. They are assigned to the border mission for the sole purpose of supporting the Border Patrol - mostly performing administrative, engineering, and maintenance duties that free up Border Patrol agents for border enforcement.

The ramifications of this incident hitting the public awareness are significant. There are incidents on the record of specially-trained military commandos attacking Border Patrol agents, and videos in existence of uniformed Mexicans, deep in American territory, claiming to be reporters when confronted by Arizona Minutemen. Hundreds of armed incursions have been documented by the Border Patrol. In one year, June 2005 until June 2006, over 250 armed assaults have been reported by Border Patrol agents, and several agents have been killed.

Michael Chertoff, head of Homeland Security, has gone on the record to dismiss reports of armed incursions by a uniformed military force as "navigational mistakes", claiming that the Mexican soldiers were "lost." However, Chertoff offered no explanation as to why these "lost troops" fired on American agents. The Mexican government claims that uniformed military soldiers coming from Mexico are actually American soldiers disguised as Mexican soldiers. Furthermore, when confronted with the possibility that Mexican commandos called Los Zetas, trained by U.S. Special Forces at Fort Bragg to support the Drug War, have defected from the military and now work as mercenaries for the drug cartels, Mexican officials have worked very hard to debunk such evidence. In an official report presented to the U.S. on behalf of the Mexican Office of Inter-Intelligence Affairs, Mexico claimed that "the Zeta army, or syndicate, is no more real than the crying lady of Puebla."

Yet, contrary to Mexican denials, Los Zetas do exist, and the U.S. Border Patrol is very familiar with them. In a June 2006 investigative news piece by News Channel 5 in Texas, Zetas discussed their training and murderous missions. They also issued a warning:

"These two members of the Zeta army also have a warning for American law enforcement: They are here, with cells operating in Roma, Rio Grande City and Mission - and more are coming.

'It is not a lie,' Zeta-2 said. 'They need to check good, because it is true.'"

Los Zetas: Guns Gone Bad

During the 1990s, U.S. Army Special Forces trained a number of Mexican federal agents and army units in special warfare tactics as part of an effort to aid the struggling Mexican government in the Drug War involving the violent drug cartels of northern Mexico. It's been said that "the training was remedial in nature, and did not exceed international peace time law of NATO forces training foreign combat forces in tactical warfare." Lest we worry about the operational proficiency of such mercenaries, Wikipedia has this unattributed entry:

"The training lasted a mere three months in the sweltering North Carolina heat. In total, 300 Mexican agents and army officers participated in the summer long exercise. Years later, unsealed documents revealed that the training proved to be no more than an extended boot camp. "It was more a media and propaganda effort then it was for actual tactical training that could be used in combat," one of the US Special Forces Officers that participated in the effort stated. "They brought them [sic] boys here, and most of them could fire a gun already, so we just showed them a lot of video of Special Forces training from the early 70's. We were not about to teach or display tactics that make Special Forces what they are. That's why when I read that these boys that are 'Zetas' were Special Forces trained, I almost wet myself with laughter.'"

What the Zetas may lack in professional specialized training, they make up for in ruthless and savage violence. Last year, Times Magazine exposed much of the brutality in an article called Brutal New Drug Gangs Are Terrorizing The U.S.-Mexico Border, and added further information about the identity of Los Zetas.

"According to Mexican officials, Lazcano was a clean-cut Mexican army recruit from the Gulf Coast state of Veracruz when he was picked a decade ago to be part of the highly trained Airborne Special Forces Group. The unit was sent to the eastern border to battle drug trafficking. But in the late 1990s, Lazcano and more than 30 other members of the special forces began working for drug lord Osiel Cardenas, head of the Matamoros-based Gulf cartel, which at the time controlled almost one-third of the Mexican drug trade. "

Official Mexican propaganda notwithstanding, it can be safely assumed that the Zetas are a paramilitary force that has made regular incursions over our border in sometimes heavily-armed assaults. Whether they are actual Mexican federales or uniformed mercenaries in the employ of the drug cartels remains to be seen. Perhaps a small clue to the uniforms is found in the News Channel Five investigative report:

"'The municipal police, the state police, the ministerial police, the police of the state,' Zeta-1 said. 'The soldiers and the federal preventive police. The military on the border. They are bought by the Zetas.' The Zeta's tools even include uniforms given by the police themselves."

Regardless of who the uniformed soldiers are, or who commands them, what is paramount is that our southern border security is breached by foreign troops on an increasingly aggressive basis. While our National Guard troops are effectively hamstrung by political restrictions, foreign military soldiers press the advantage. Border Patrol agents have already given their lives in a heroic effort to guard our border, and it is only a matter of time before we lose American soldiers. Is that what it will take for our government to finally take the matter of border security seriously? This is no longer a matter of local civilian law enforcement; it is a matter of national security. For politicians, no matter their affiliation, to play partisan games with our national safety and security is a betrayal of their constituents' trust, and the constitutional duties of their office.

Saturday, January 06, 2007

His Achilles Heel

Via Euphoric Reality, I found this link.

I'd already read about the attack this morning, but hadn't woken up enough to blog about it yet. Nice of ER to post this, and give me another few hours before I have to clear the fog.

Lies of the Left

This COULD be a lengthy post. But, I'll try to winnow it down to a reasonable length. The CA Parent Bribery 'Scandal' - the 1...