February 2007

Let’s start with the Plame Blame Game (aka the persecution of Scooter Libby). It set a precedent for the aggressive pursuit of leakers. The MSM and the left demanded that the “leak” be investigated and got their wish. You can bone up on the Plame Blame Game and the trial now drawing to a close at Just One Minute. What’s sauce for the goose should be sauce for the gander.

What happened? Sandy Berger got caught stealing and destroying highly classified documents. Did the AG appoint a Special Prosecutor to investigate Berger? No.

The NYT exposed a secret program to track the finances of terrorists. It had been leaked by a traitor somewhere inside the Federal Government. Did the AG appoint a Special Prosecutor to identify the traitor? Someone who could send NYT reporters to jail for failing to reveal their sources? No.

Ditto on the dozens of damaging leaks that have weakened out national security, betrayed our troops and increased the danger to the American people. Would that the resources wasted by Fitzgerald had been dedicated to finding, prosecuting, convicting and executing the traitors.

Executing? The greatest generation, the one that saved the world from Hitler and Tojo, had no such qualms. We need to restore the WW2 fighting spirit before we lose a couple of cities. Gonzales has shown none of that fighting spirit. Had he pursued the important leaks as aggressively as Mr. (Perjury Trap) Fitzgerald pursued Libby, we would be much further along in the war. Specifically, the traitors in the MSM and the Government, who believe the real war is against our elected President and C.I.C., would be dead or rotting in prison.


Read this. Here a few morsels:

The world’s most effective birth control device is money. As society creates a middle class and women move into the workforce, birth rates drop. Having large families is incompatible with middle class living. The quickest way to drop the birth rate is through rapid economic development. After World War II, the U.S. instituted a $600 tax credit per child. The idea was to enable mom and dad to have four children without being troubled by taxes. This led to a baby boom of 22 million kids, which was a huge consumer market that turned into a huge tax base. However, to match that incentive in today’s dollars would cost $12,000 per child.

The summer after 9/11, France lost 15,000 people in a heat wave. In August, the country basically shuts down when everyone goes on vacation. That year, a severe heat wave struck and 15,000 elderly people living in nursing homes and hospitals died. Their children didn’t even leave the beaches to come back and take care of the bodies. Institutions had to scramble to find enough refrigeration units to hold the bodies until people came to claim them.

This loss of life was five times bigger than 9/11 in America, yet it didn’t trigger any change in French society. When birth rates are so low, it creates a tremendous tax burden on the young. Under those circumstances, keeping mom and dad alive is not an attractive option. That’s why euthanasia is becoming so popular in most European countries. The only country that doesn’t permit (and even encourage) euthanasia is Germany, because of all the baggage from World War II.

On the one hand, this makes the U.S. a magnet for bright and ambitious people. It also makes us a target. We are becoming one of the last holdouts of the traditional Judeo-Christian culture. There is no better place in the world to be in business and raise children. The U. S. is by far the best place to have an idea, form a business and put it into the marketplace. We take it for granted, but it isn’t as available in other countries of the world.

The US should close its borders to Mexico’s poor and open them to the remaining bright kids from Europe and Japan, on condition they bring families with them (spouse + 2.1). No Muslims, though.

John Perazzo, writing in FrontPage Magazine explains how Onek is tied in with Soros. Perazzo writes:

A not insignificant clue is provided by the fact that Onek, a 1967 graduate of Yale Law School, is currently a Senior Policy Analyst for George Soros’s Open Society Institute (OSI), one of the world’s major financiers of the political far Left. OSI is a member of the benignly named Peace and Security Funders Group, an association of more than 50 foundations that earmark a sizable portion of their $27 billion in combined assets to leftist organizations that undermine the war on terror

What sort of causes does OSI support? Here’s one, from Perazzo:

In September 2002, Joseph Onek’s OSI also made a $20,000 grant to the Legal Defense Committee of Lynne Stewart, the criminal-defense attorney who had unlawfully abetted her incarcerated client, Omar Abdel Rahman, in transmitting messages to the Islamic Group, the Egypt-based terrorist organization he headed. At the time of Stewart’s crime, Rahman was already serving a life sentence for his role in masterminding the 1993 World Trade Center bombing; he also had conspired, unsuccessfully, to plant additional bombs at the United Nations building, FBI offices in New York, the Lincoln and Holland Tunnels, and the George Washington Bridge.

Al Qaeda is linked to the Islamic group through the 1998 merger of Al Qaeda and another terrorist organization, the Egyptian Islamic Jihad. GlobalSecurity.Org reports that:

In 1998, Bin Ladin started to create the foundation for a merger between al Qaeda and another terrorist organization, the Egyptian Islamic Jihad. On February 23, 1998 the leaders of the two groups, Bin Ladin and Ayman Zawahiri, published a fatwa that made public a “ruling to kill the Americans and their allies.” The fatwa not only instructed individuals to kill innocent civilians and members of the military but also stated that it was their duty to do it whenever and wherever possible.

Perazzo writes:

During his June 21 testimony, Onek also expressed deep concern about “the danger that the government will use the information it gathers and shares in ways that unfairly discriminate against Muslim Americans.” “Muslims will appear disproportionately on the government’s computer screens,” he explained, “because they are the people most likely (naturally and innocently) to visit, telephone and send money to places like Pakistan and Iraq. Inevitably, government officials will learn more about Muslim Americans than about other Americans.” He predicted that this would lead to the injustice of Muslims being disproportionately caught violating immigration laws, and that “[t]his unfairness will breed discontent in the Muslim community and undermine the fight against terrorism.”

And then, incredibly, Onek said this: “The government remains free to bring criminal or immigration cases against Muslim Americans, provided that it does not use information generated by anti-terrorist data-mining systems in cases not involving terrorism or violent crime. This limitation will require some segregation of information and impose some burdens on the government. But these burdens are a small price to pay to ensure fairness to all Americans and strengthen the fight against terrorism.”

In other words, Onek continues to advocate the very same “wall” — barring intelligence officials and law-enforcement officials from sharing information and collaborating on investigations — that his former employers at the Clinton Justice Department sanctified in the 1990s.

Onek’s “small price to pay” is the successor attack to 9/11. Al Qaeda has to trump 9/11. Onek wants to take away the tools the US needs to detect and prevent that attack. A “small price to pay indeed”. The one who should be paying a political price is Pelosi for even being in the same room as this guy, let alone giving him a senior position on her staff.

He was on O’Reilly promoting his book. He actually said we needed more diverse immigrants instead of ending up with 90% of immigrants being poor Mexicans. He also seemed to suggest that a national ID card system would force employers to verify immigration status.

It is good to see a Democrat being serious about an issue that Bush has avoided.

His WSJ fired a warning shot across the Democrat’s bow. He concluded:

We are at a critical moment in Iraq–at the beginning of a key battle, in the midst of a war that is irretrievably bound up in an even bigger, global struggle against the totalitarian ideology of radical Islamism. However tired, however frustrated, however angry we may feel, we must remember that our forces in Iraq carry America’s cause–the cause of freedom–which we abandon at our peril.

Remember that Lieberman ran supporting the war despite the fact that all his Democratic colleagues were running on anti-war platforms. He risked his Senate seat and the wrath of the Democrats on principle. The Democrats should take the warning shot very seriously.

Instapundit points to Simberg’s blog where he writes:

But he [Giuliani] could make the following statement, and it would make perfect sense (at least to people who have followed my argument so far):

“I have stated a personal belief in a woman’s right to choose. But I also have a strong belief in judges who follow the Constitution. I admire George Bush’s choice of Supreme Court judges–Roberts and Alito. I wish that I’d made them myself, and I hope to have an opportunity to make similar, and (if that’s possible) even better ones, who will interpret the Constitution in the manner intended, and not make new law out of old parchment, no matter how worthy the goal. While I personally favor a woman’s right to choose, I think that Roe v. Wade was a mistake, and that this should be a matter for the states to determine. You can be sure that, if elected, this will be the criterion that I use to select judicial nominees, rather than a desire for a particular outcome that I happen to personally favor.”

In fact, if he made a statement like this, I think that he could win over not only the pro-life crowd, but also those opposed to his views on gun control. And it would not be in any way inconsistent with any previous statements on his part.

That sounded a lot like what I heard Giuliani say on Fox. Simberg’s first commenter heard what I heard:

Umm…Rand, he made a statement very similar to the one you’re suggesting. He was interviewed on Fox News about 2 weeks ago, where he said that (and I’m paraphrasing):

1) I personally don’t like abortions, but I believe that women have a right to choose.

2) I believe in parental notification laws, as long as there is a judicial out (minor could go to a judge).

3) I believe that Partial Birth Abortion is wrong and should be banned as long as there is an exception for the life of the mother.

4) I would appoint justices of the same judicial philosophy & temperament (he actually used the words “strict constructionists”) as Alito and Roberts. He said they were great picks, and he fully supports them. In fact he’s worked with at least one of them before and counts that one as a friend.

5) And he suggested the Roe was poorly made law.

Rudi is not into shifting his position to make himself more acceptable to a fickle electorate. I like that. Even if I don’t like his positions. A straight politician with proven leadership skills makes a refreshing change.

The Germans were the first to use Chlorine as a chemical weapon in 1915 at Ypres. Wikipedia gives a fairly reliable account:

Chlorine was inefficient as a weapon, from a purely technical standpoint. It produced a visible greenish cloud and strong odor, making it easy to detect. It was water-soluble, so the simple expedient of covering the mouth and nose with a damp cloth was effective at reducing the effect of the gas.

Chlorine required a concentration of 1,000 parts per million to be fatal, destroying tissue in the lungs. Despite its limitations, however, chlorine was an effective terror weapon–the sight of an oncoming cloud of the gas was a continual source of dread for the infantry.

The terrorists have proven that they will use any weapon at their disposal to terrorize Iraqi civilians, including chlorine.

Of course, we already knew that Al Qaeda had an interest in chemical weapons. Who (besides Democrats) can forget the videos of dogs dying in hideous experiments conducted in Al Qaeda’s refuge in Afghanistan? CNN reported:

Al Qaeda documents examined by CNN last fall in the bombed out ruins of the Darunta camp showed chemical formulas for sarin. Other documents connect the Darunta camp, a series of mud and stone buildings, to chemical testing.

Now we know that Muslim terrorists will use chemical weapons against anyone, including Muslims of a different sect.

The conventional wisdom is that Saddam did not have weapons of mass destruction. The truth is that the UN weapons inspection did not receive proof that Saddam destroyed his known WMD stocks. If any remain in Iraq, then God help the Iraqis if the terrorists get access to them. Chlorine is bad but sarin is really evil.

Next Page »