"Taxman" by George Harrison, Beatles
(The song that was written in anticipation of the presidency of Barack Obama)
Let me tell you how it will be
There's one for you, nineteen for me
Cos I'm the taxman, yeah, I'm the taxman
Should five per cent appear too small
Be thankful I don't take it all
Cos I'm the taxman, yeah I'm the taxman
If you drive a car, I'll tax the street
If you try to sit, I'll tax your seat
If you get too cold I'll tax the heat
If you take a walk, I'll tax your feet
Taxman!
Cos I'm the taxman, yeah I'm the taxman
Don't ask me what I want it for
If you don't want to pay some more
Cos I'm the taxman, yeah, I'm the taxman
Now my advice for those who die
Declare the pennies on your eyes
Cos I'm the taxman, yeah, I'm the taxman
And you're working for no one but me
Taxman!
You can listen to the tune HERE
I believe the activists of the Tea Party movement should not shy away from bringing the boom-boxes to the local, state and federal buildings and playing this tune. Lets make it fun!
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
Sunday, December 20, 2009
When public option meets public opinion....
The current debacle with Obama-care aptly demonstrates what happens when liberal philosophy collides with common sense. The tastiest part of the failure to promote the so-called "public option" is that it was the public opinion that killed it, by forcing the moderate liberals to abandon their support for it. Is it not ironic that the public hates the "public option"? By all means, the term "public option" is now sharing the pantheon of infamous code words with "public radio" and "people's democracy"...
What should conservatives do now?
At this point in time we are all breathlessly watching the amazing spectacle of descent of the Anointed One from the Garden of Eden into the crap-hole of history. What should the American conservatives do to accelerate this fall and make sure that our country gets back on track?
Firstly, they must follow the Napoleon's maxim "Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake." The Medical Care Bill is a major mistake, and Obama will come to regret it. The bill is already unpopular with nearly 60% of the population, and this is even before the republican operatives went through it with a fine net, found all the hidden new taxes, regulations and handouts to the politically connected and made them public. The next year will be very exciting...
The second goal is to follow Sun Tsu "If your opponent is of choleric temper, seek to irritate him." Obama conceded in his memoirs that he is constantly in a state of rage – and there are only a few things more dangerous for a politician than losing his temper. There will be nothing more satisfying that watching Obama angrily react to mockery and criticism, which in turn would lead to more mockery and criticism. Republicans should use every opportunity to irritate Obama – and this goes from political speeches to the most basic moves on the human level. Nothing will upset him more than such treatment – which is why it is necessary to use it in large portions.
By now, Obama the president got all the major legislations he desired (save for the official proclamation of his divine nature) – two worthless (but very expensive) stimulus packages, the health care bill, two bloated budgets, and a major surge in Afghanistan (American soldiers will be have both hands tied behind the backs to make the war more fair to the taliban) – and it was all for nothing. He refused to ask American people if they agreed with his radical agenda – and now he will start paying the price.
Most Americans are not satisfied with the job he is doing as president, and his incessant speechifying while the country is falling apart is turning them against him – permanently. As someone said – “Obama is a one trick pony” – and his only trick is his ability to read heart-felt speeches from the teleprompter. When those speeches stop to work, he is finished. Luckily, Obama cannot follow Napoleon’s maxim “One must change one's tactics every ten years if one wishes to maintain one's superiority.” He is all we have seen so far. There is nothing to him that he has not already shown to us in public - except the rage and hate, which he should start oozing in large quantities very soon.
What is even more important for republicans is to cleanse their party from RINOs – Republicans in Name Only. The GOP must become a conservative party, not the party of appeasement and compromise. The only way for republicans to present a unified front against the liberals and prevent the break up of the GOP through massive desertion of conservatives to a Third Party is to become the party of discontent. And the republican establishment should get it in their heads that their political future is very bleak if they do not move decisively to the right.
Lastly, the republicans must use all the available resources to defend two main pillars of democracy - freedom of the press and honesty of our electoral process. There can be no compromise on these two issues, and no step by Obama to mess with them should go without a thunderous response from republicans.
All in all, things are going quite well. I believe America is on the way to recovery. It will only take a few years now. But surely these will be very tumultuous years. Don't forget to purchase popcorn and beer. Stay tuned, America.
Firstly, they must follow the Napoleon's maxim "Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake." The Medical Care Bill is a major mistake, and Obama will come to regret it. The bill is already unpopular with nearly 60% of the population, and this is even before the republican operatives went through it with a fine net, found all the hidden new taxes, regulations and handouts to the politically connected and made them public. The next year will be very exciting...
The second goal is to follow Sun Tsu "If your opponent is of choleric temper, seek to irritate him." Obama conceded in his memoirs that he is constantly in a state of rage – and there are only a few things more dangerous for a politician than losing his temper. There will be nothing more satisfying that watching Obama angrily react to mockery and criticism, which in turn would lead to more mockery and criticism. Republicans should use every opportunity to irritate Obama – and this goes from political speeches to the most basic moves on the human level. Nothing will upset him more than such treatment – which is why it is necessary to use it in large portions.
By now, Obama the president got all the major legislations he desired (save for the official proclamation of his divine nature) – two worthless (but very expensive) stimulus packages, the health care bill, two bloated budgets, and a major surge in Afghanistan (American soldiers will be have both hands tied behind the backs to make the war more fair to the taliban) – and it was all for nothing. He refused to ask American people if they agreed with his radical agenda – and now he will start paying the price.
Most Americans are not satisfied with the job he is doing as president, and his incessant speechifying while the country is falling apart is turning them against him – permanently. As someone said – “Obama is a one trick pony” – and his only trick is his ability to read heart-felt speeches from the teleprompter. When those speeches stop to work, he is finished. Luckily, Obama cannot follow Napoleon’s maxim “One must change one's tactics every ten years if one wishes to maintain one's superiority.” He is all we have seen so far. There is nothing to him that he has not already shown to us in public - except the rage and hate, which he should start oozing in large quantities very soon.
What is even more important for republicans is to cleanse their party from RINOs – Republicans in Name Only. The GOP must become a conservative party, not the party of appeasement and compromise. The only way for republicans to present a unified front against the liberals and prevent the break up of the GOP through massive desertion of conservatives to a Third Party is to become the party of discontent. And the republican establishment should get it in their heads that their political future is very bleak if they do not move decisively to the right.
Lastly, the republicans must use all the available resources to defend two main pillars of democracy - freedom of the press and honesty of our electoral process. There can be no compromise on these two issues, and no step by Obama to mess with them should go without a thunderous response from republicans.
All in all, things are going quite well. I believe America is on the way to recovery. It will only take a few years now. But surely these will be very tumultuous years. Don't forget to purchase popcorn and beer. Stay tuned, America.
President commits political suicide by jumping from the "precipice"
A few days ago, our Glorious Leader, Barack Hussein Obama has sobered up and made a surprisingly astute observation about his Medical Care bill: "From the discussions we had, it's clear we are on the precipice of achievement that's eluded Congresses, presidents for generations -- an achievement that will touch the lives of nearly every American." For those unclear about the usage of the word "precipice" - let me remind you that it means either "an overhanging or extremely steep mass of rock, such as a crag or the face of a cliff" or "the brink of a dangerous or disastrous situation".
It is clear that Obama's understanding of the implications of the Health Care Reform is very much attuned to the views of nearly 60% of Americans, who are against this travesty. Nevertheless, Obama decided to publicly jump of the cliff, the same "precipice" he was talking about - confirming once again the wisdom of an old proverb: "Those whom the gods wish to destroy, they first make mad." The funny part is that Obama did not jump alone - luckily for us he persuaded the entire Democratic Party and the media to follow him. It's as if madness is contagious.
How did we arrive here? It's amazing if one remembers how well the Obama's presidency was starting - the media adored him, the crowds loved him. Newsweek proclaimed that Obama was a "some kind of God", while MSNBC’s commentators were climaxing every time they mentioned his name. Barry photos were on all newspapers and magazines – even pet stores featured his portraits. And lets not forget my favorite - remember a youtube video of a liberal activist proclaiming that "I wont have to worry about putting gas in my car, I won't have to worry about paying my mortgage.. You know, If I help him, he's gonna help me." How’s that working for you, babe?
Back then, Barack Obama was confidently following Napoleon's maxim that "A leader is a dealer in hope." But pretty soon things starting going South. Firstly, Obama demonstrated that he had no inclination to take his job seriously, which was obvious when one were to watch how slowly and ineffectively he was forming his administration. At times of severe economic crisis, he took nearly a year to fill up the positions that had to do with economics and finances. He also managed to over-hype the stimulus package, which was supposed to keep the unemployment below 8%. And then, there were constant parties, golfing tours, and speeches, speeches, speeches - speeches about everything and nothing.
What was even worse, is that Obama continued to push the most left-wing agenda in the US history, both domestically and abroad. In his vanity, Obama forgot that “The great proof of madness is the disproportion of one's designs to one's means." America is essentially a center-right nation, and its population is still far more progressive than the Western European people. In the end, Obama’s attack on the fundamental principles of this nation could not succeed. To me, an immigrant from theformer Soviet Union, Obama’s regime represents the most consistent attempt to destroy this nation, more dangerous than the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. And still, I believed in 2008, and I believe now that Obama is destined to fail. Sure, he will/was be able to run wild for a couple of years, but after that there is little expectation of success for him.
I am confident that the only thing Obama did was to awaken a sleeping giant and filled him with a terrible resolve.
And last but not least, Obama himself proved to be a far less capable politician than was previously advertised. He revealed himself to be a snarky arrogant fool, whose minute of fame is over, and whose time of eternal infamy has just begun. As Napoleon said: "When small men attempt great enterprises, they always end by reducing them to the level of their mediocrity." And I say – Amen to that!
Note 1
In 1940, the Imperial Japanese Navy Admiral Isoruku Yamamoto, spoke to the Japanese Cabinet during planning for war with the United States in 1940 and said "I can run wild for six months... After that, I have no expectation of success.”
Note 2
In 1941, after successfully executing the attack on Pearl Harbor, Admiral Yamamoto was still very pessimistic: "I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve."
It is clear that Obama's understanding of the implications of the Health Care Reform is very much attuned to the views of nearly 60% of Americans, who are against this travesty. Nevertheless, Obama decided to publicly jump of the cliff, the same "precipice" he was talking about - confirming once again the wisdom of an old proverb: "Those whom the gods wish to destroy, they first make mad." The funny part is that Obama did not jump alone - luckily for us he persuaded the entire Democratic Party and the media to follow him. It's as if madness is contagious.
How did we arrive here? It's amazing if one remembers how well the Obama's presidency was starting - the media adored him, the crowds loved him. Newsweek proclaimed that Obama was a "some kind of God", while MSNBC’s commentators were climaxing every time they mentioned his name. Barry photos were on all newspapers and magazines – even pet stores featured his portraits. And lets not forget my favorite - remember a youtube video of a liberal activist proclaiming that "I wont have to worry about putting gas in my car, I won't have to worry about paying my mortgage.. You know, If I help him, he's gonna help me." How’s that working for you, babe?
Back then, Barack Obama was confidently following Napoleon's maxim that "A leader is a dealer in hope." But pretty soon things starting going South. Firstly, Obama demonstrated that he had no inclination to take his job seriously, which was obvious when one were to watch how slowly and ineffectively he was forming his administration. At times of severe economic crisis, he took nearly a year to fill up the positions that had to do with economics and finances. He also managed to over-hype the stimulus package, which was supposed to keep the unemployment below 8%. And then, there were constant parties, golfing tours, and speeches, speeches, speeches - speeches about everything and nothing.
What was even worse, is that Obama continued to push the most left-wing agenda in the US history, both domestically and abroad. In his vanity, Obama forgot that “The great proof of madness is the disproportion of one's designs to one's means." America is essentially a center-right nation, and its population is still far more progressive than the Western European people. In the end, Obama’s attack on the fundamental principles of this nation could not succeed. To me, an immigrant from theformer Soviet Union, Obama’s regime represents the most consistent attempt to destroy this nation, more dangerous than the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. And still, I believed in 2008, and I believe now that Obama is destined to fail. Sure, he will/was be able to run wild for a couple of years, but after that there is little expectation of success for him.
I am confident that the only thing Obama did was to awaken a sleeping giant and filled him with a terrible resolve.
And last but not least, Obama himself proved to be a far less capable politician than was previously advertised. He revealed himself to be a snarky arrogant fool, whose minute of fame is over, and whose time of eternal infamy has just begun. As Napoleon said: "When small men attempt great enterprises, they always end by reducing them to the level of their mediocrity." And I say – Amen to that!
Note 1
In 1940, the Imperial Japanese Navy Admiral Isoruku Yamamoto, spoke to the Japanese Cabinet during planning for war with the United States in 1940 and said "I can run wild for six months... After that, I have no expectation of success.”
Note 2
In 1941, after successfully executing the attack on Pearl Harbor, Admiral Yamamoto was still very pessimistic: "I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve."
Saturday, December 19, 2009
Never let a good crisis go to waste
And so it seems that the Obama’s administration was able to locate or purchase the 60 imbeciles in the US Senate that were ready to support the Healthcare Bill. I believe this is very good for America in the long run. As Lenin said – “the worse, the better.” Don’t forget that the massive tax increases kick in instantly, while the multiple free handouts won’t be offered until years from now. There will be a lot of pain and gnashing of teeth – with no apparent gain to the public.
And note that the healthcare plan is not yet known to the people (actually, even the DNC leadership did not read it) – and the public already hates it. It is beyond any doubt that the bill is filled with special treats, pork and corruption, so I hope conservatives will make sure that the most disgusting parts of the new law will be shown one after another (like the ACORN videos) to the outraged public before the 2010 elections.
And conservatives must use this opportunity twofold. Firstly, they must clean up the Republican Party and throw away the sell-outs and the moderates. As Lenin said – “we must split before we unite”. After that, GOP must present itself as the only alternative to the insane and possibly treasonous leftist regime. No compromises this time.
Conservatives cannot let this crisis go to waste. Personally, I believe that the election of an extreme left-wing president was the only way for the American people to wake up from sleep-walking into socialism. If we want a drastic turn from the path to hell, we may need a very loud wake up call. And Obama is pretty loud these days. Back in November 2008 I explained why I welcomed Obama’s presidency. It seems like my predictions are coming true.
There are a few dangers that lie ahead. Right now, conservatives must defend two things above all – freedom of the press and our electoral process. I predict that Obama’s next target will be either the media or the fairness of elections. It is absolutely critical for conservatives to man the walls against any encroachment on the foundation of our democracy. And secondly, as I said, GOP must cleanse itself and get ready to drastically change the country in 2011. American economy cannot survive an Obama-lite in 2013 – it needs Thatcher or Reagan to drastically change the course of the country.
But all in all, I am quite optimistic. I believe the better days lie ahead.
And note that the healthcare plan is not yet known to the people (actually, even the DNC leadership did not read it) – and the public already hates it. It is beyond any doubt that the bill is filled with special treats, pork and corruption, so I hope conservatives will make sure that the most disgusting parts of the new law will be shown one after another (like the ACORN videos) to the outraged public before the 2010 elections.
And conservatives must use this opportunity twofold. Firstly, they must clean up the Republican Party and throw away the sell-outs and the moderates. As Lenin said – “we must split before we unite”. After that, GOP must present itself as the only alternative to the insane and possibly treasonous leftist regime. No compromises this time.
Conservatives cannot let this crisis go to waste. Personally, I believe that the election of an extreme left-wing president was the only way for the American people to wake up from sleep-walking into socialism. If we want a drastic turn from the path to hell, we may need a very loud wake up call. And Obama is pretty loud these days. Back in November 2008 I explained why I welcomed Obama’s presidency. It seems like my predictions are coming true.
There are a few dangers that lie ahead. Right now, conservatives must defend two things above all – freedom of the press and our electoral process. I predict that Obama’s next target will be either the media or the fairness of elections. It is absolutely critical for conservatives to man the walls against any encroachment on the foundation of our democracy. And secondly, as I said, GOP must cleanse itself and get ready to drastically change the country in 2011. American economy cannot survive an Obama-lite in 2013 – it needs Thatcher or Reagan to drastically change the course of the country.
But all in all, I am quite optimistic. I believe the better days lie ahead.
Monday, December 14, 2009
It's the Vietnam War
This is Vietnam War Redux. The troops are sold out for political correctness AGAIN. Their blood is worth nothing. Things will get much worse, and Taliban will now always use civilians as their shields. And the US military will become even more cautious, and Taliban will be emboldened.
I am curious when Obama will be personally choosing the bombing sites and specifying the exact amounts of ordinance allowed to use - as LBJ did in the 60ies.
For all intents and purposes, the war is lost until we change the president. It's only a matter of time before US troops will start losing more personal than they did at the height of the Iraq War.
I am curious when Obama will be personally choosing the bombing sites and specifying the exact amounts of ordinance allowed to use - as LBJ did in the 60ies.
For all intents and purposes, the war is lost until we change the president. It's only a matter of time before US troops will start losing more personal than they did at the height of the Iraq War.
Sunday, December 13, 2009
How to quickly collect raw temperature data...
I am sure everyone but the legacy media is now familiar with the so-called "Climate-Gate" - a clear record of government financed scientists, who were sexing up the climate data in order to create an impression of climate catastrophy. At this point, I don't trust any data coming from the official sources, and I propose a simple and effective method to bypass the government agencies altogether. Here it goes.
It is necessary to collect the newspapers in most or all Western countries for the last 100 years, and carefully record all the reported local temperatures. While the government agencies can falsify or make inaccessible the raw data, I believe the newspapers will most likely report the correct information. I am sure there will be some effects due to urban heating, but these should have less impact on the later data. It is also plausible, that some newspapers will be reporting the air temperature outside of the urban zones.
All in all, it's an interesting experiment, and I am sure there should be enough enthusiasts with time on their hands to do this.
It is necessary to collect the newspapers in most or all Western countries for the last 100 years, and carefully record all the reported local temperatures. While the government agencies can falsify or make inaccessible the raw data, I believe the newspapers will most likely report the correct information. I am sure there will be some effects due to urban heating, but these should have less impact on the later data. It is also plausible, that some newspapers will be reporting the air temperature outside of the urban zones.
All in all, it's an interesting experiment, and I am sure there should be enough enthusiasts with time on their hands to do this.
Monday, December 7, 2009
A few points on civilian trial of KSM
There are plenty of reasons why using civilian court for KSM is a very bad decision - and is an illogical one. Lets go one by one.
1. Obama publicly prosecuted, convicted and sentenced KSM. If the court agrees with Obama - then it would be difficult to prove to anyone outside US that the trial was fair, that Obama had no influence on the jury or the judges. In short, the usual suspects will simply proclaim this was a kangaroo court - and there is nothing Obama can say to change this impression. In short, the entire rational for the civilian court is lost already.
2. Obama and his lackeys explained that one of the reasons KSM is being brought to a civilian court is because they have enough evidence on him to convict him. In other words, the administration publicly proclaimed that military tribunals are kangaroo courts, and that they will be used to convict possibly innocent people. In short, the usual suspects will assertain that Obama is using military tribunals to kill innocent moslems. And sure enough - Obama agrees with them - military tribunals are not fair.
3. Lastly, if KSM has same rights and priviliges as any American accused of criminal behaviour - then it is clear that the current policy of targeted assasinations practiced by the US military is illegal. I would want to see a single liberal trying to square their claims about KSM's Constitutional rights versus their support for assasinations of Al Qaeda leaders. After all, does the US Constitution allow the police or the military to assasinate common criminals?
1. Obama publicly prosecuted, convicted and sentenced KSM. If the court agrees with Obama - then it would be difficult to prove to anyone outside US that the trial was fair, that Obama had no influence on the jury or the judges. In short, the usual suspects will simply proclaim this was a kangaroo court - and there is nothing Obama can say to change this impression. In short, the entire rational for the civilian court is lost already.
2. Obama and his lackeys explained that one of the reasons KSM is being brought to a civilian court is because they have enough evidence on him to convict him. In other words, the administration publicly proclaimed that military tribunals are kangaroo courts, and that they will be used to convict possibly innocent people. In short, the usual suspects will assertain that Obama is using military tribunals to kill innocent moslems. And sure enough - Obama agrees with them - military tribunals are not fair.
3. Lastly, if KSM has same rights and priviliges as any American accused of criminal behaviour - then it is clear that the current policy of targeted assasinations practiced by the US military is illegal. I would want to see a single liberal trying to square their claims about KSM's Constitutional rights versus their support for assasinations of Al Qaeda leaders. After all, does the US Constitution allow the police or the military to assasinate common criminals?
Sunday, December 6, 2009
As I predicted before - Obama is bailing out liberal media...
As reported by Michele Malkin, Obama's administration leaned on Goldman Sachs Group to force it to "renegotiate" the loan with the ultra left-wing City Broadcasting Corp, the Air Americas "Sugar Daddy". If this is not the corruption of a highest level (government using a tax-payer subsidized bank to bail out a media outlet friendly to the government) - I don't know what is corruption then.
The remaining question is - when will Obama bail out the rest of the media lapdogs? Will this come in 2010?
The remaining question is - when will Obama bail out the rest of the media lapdogs? Will this come in 2010?
Why I don't believe in the global warming ...
Global Warming is one of the most hotly debated issues in the political arena. And finally I decided that I could not be silent any longer and add my 5 cents to the debate. As an attentive reader of this blog could have guessed, I don't believe that Global Warming is a burning issue and I don't think that American people to sacrifice their living standards in order to stave off the impeding crisis of cosmic proportions.
First of all, it is necessary to dispel any doubts and announce that I personally want our planet to prosper, I do not wish the mankind to become extinct, and, moreover, that I am smart and educated to understand the basics of the debate between the skeptics and the alarmists. This preamble is necessary, since it is often maintained that people skeptical about the Global Warming are either stupid, ignorant or evil - and I am surely neither.
Secondly, I want to make it obvious - in order to justify the need for massive measured to reverse the global warming, the alarmists must indeed prove four assertions. The failure to prove either of these assertions should immediately put an end to any and all measures promoted by the alarmists.
1. There indeed exists measurable and consistent increase of global temperature;
2. The warming is caused in most part (more than 90%) by human activity;
3. The proposed methods to stop this increase by regulating CO2 emissions will be less costly than allowing the increasing trend to continue for some time (50 years or so) until new technologies will cheaply reduce CO2 emissions;
4. Harmful effects of global warming are larger than the sum of positive effects of global warming and the costs of drastically lowering the CO2 emissions.
Anyone following the debate on Global Warming can easily see that there is scarce evidence to support each and any of the above mentioned assertions - let alone all of them. The measurements of global temperature are quite unreliable, and it's clear that only small number of people (who's job security is strongly dependent on maintaining the Global Warming scare) have access to raw data - and their honesty and integrity are very questionable .
Moreover, there is little direct evidence that the temperature increase is indeed caused by human activity.
Lastly, the costs of lowering the CO2 emissions are staggering, while the actual danger of Global Warming to society is quite unclear.
It is also obvious that the current plans include drastic increase of government power, impoverishment of billions of people, creation of super-governmental elite, which will be given arbitrary power to control economies of whole nations. Last but not least, the proposed efforts to confront Global Warming will result in an unprecedented weakening of the Western World with unpredictable foreign policy ramifications. For example, it is beyond doubt that drastic cut in CO2 emissions will cause the de-industrialization of United States, Western Europe, Japan and Australia, while the communist China, Islamic World and India will be allowed to continue the CO2 emission. I am not sure anyone pondered the actions of China if it becomes the lonely manufacturing superpower - while its population demonstrates an explosive mixture of extreme nationalism and unbridled desire for world domination. It is also known that China's "one child policy" resulted in two very dangerous consequences:
1. There are far more men than women in China - which surely results in a lot of sexual frustration for young Chinese men;
2. The country cannot afford to support its older population due to relatively small number of young people;
It is indeed quite plausible that China will at some point engage in military expansion, with Taiwan and Russia, and possibly Middle East and Japan becoming their targets. The de-industrialized West will be unable to contain China, and it is very possible that India will be forced to act. All in all, the foreign policy implications of a drastic CO2 reduction are very dire, and it is quite a surprise to me that few people dare to discuss them.
On a more personal level, I cannot possibly reconcile the words of famous Global Warming activists and their dids. For example Al Gore, probably one of the most renown alarmists, shows a complete disconnect between his doomsday rhetoric (we all going to die if we don't cut CO2 emissions - and anyone doubting this is a criminal) - and his rather lavish life style. I find it hard to believe that a man seriously concerned about CO2 emissions, and who believes the West must drastically cut its consumption, would live like a Middle Eastern despot - with his huge house, private jets and expensive life style.
And surely Al Gore is hardly an exception - it is reported that the Global Warming alarmists recently rented 1200 limousines and 140 private jets in order for the Copenhagen meeting. Does this sound to you like these guys believe their own rhetoric? Would they travel in private jets and have their own chauffeurs drive them in limousines if they believed that would destroy the planet?
Moreover, it is interesting to note the bifurcation of opinions on Global Warming among American people. It is fair to say that there is a close correlation between the support for Global Warming scare and the attitude towards the role of the government in the country's economy. Clearly, the more likely the person to support liberal causes (higher taxes, more regulation, more handouts to the poor) - in other words, the more socialist one is - the more likely he is to believe in the Global Warming Scare. On the other side, it is also quite noticeable that very few libertarians or conservatives support the alarmists. In short, there is a close correlation between one's political views and the support for Global Warming - with income, education and sex being of no regard. From this analysis, it is clear that Global Warming can hardly be a purely scientific issue - given that the sides are so clearly divided by their political outlook.
I hope this short essay will be of some use to aspiring freedom loving activists. Please don't hesitate to comment on it.
First of all, it is necessary to dispel any doubts and announce that I personally want our planet to prosper, I do not wish the mankind to become extinct, and, moreover, that I am smart and educated to understand the basics of the debate between the skeptics and the alarmists. This preamble is necessary, since it is often maintained that people skeptical about the Global Warming are either stupid, ignorant or evil - and I am surely neither.
Secondly, I want to make it obvious - in order to justify the need for massive measured to reverse the global warming, the alarmists must indeed prove four assertions. The failure to prove either of these assertions should immediately put an end to any and all measures promoted by the alarmists.
1. There indeed exists measurable and consistent increase of global temperature;
2. The warming is caused in most part (more than 90%) by human activity;
3. The proposed methods to stop this increase by regulating CO2 emissions will be less costly than allowing the increasing trend to continue for some time (50 years or so) until new technologies will cheaply reduce CO2 emissions;
4. Harmful effects of global warming are larger than the sum of positive effects of global warming and the costs of drastically lowering the CO2 emissions.
Anyone following the debate on Global Warming can easily see that there is scarce evidence to support each and any of the above mentioned assertions - let alone all of them. The measurements of global temperature are quite unreliable, and it's clear that only small number of people (who's job security is strongly dependent on maintaining the Global Warming scare) have access to raw data - and their honesty and integrity are very questionable .
Moreover, there is little direct evidence that the temperature increase is indeed caused by human activity.
Lastly, the costs of lowering the CO2 emissions are staggering, while the actual danger of Global Warming to society is quite unclear.
It is also obvious that the current plans include drastic increase of government power, impoverishment of billions of people, creation of super-governmental elite, which will be given arbitrary power to control economies of whole nations. Last but not least, the proposed efforts to confront Global Warming will result in an unprecedented weakening of the Western World with unpredictable foreign policy ramifications. For example, it is beyond doubt that drastic cut in CO2 emissions will cause the de-industrialization of United States, Western Europe, Japan and Australia, while the communist China, Islamic World and India will be allowed to continue the CO2 emission. I am not sure anyone pondered the actions of China if it becomes the lonely manufacturing superpower - while its population demonstrates an explosive mixture of extreme nationalism and unbridled desire for world domination. It is also known that China's "one child policy" resulted in two very dangerous consequences:
1. There are far more men than women in China - which surely results in a lot of sexual frustration for young Chinese men;
2. The country cannot afford to support its older population due to relatively small number of young people;
It is indeed quite plausible that China will at some point engage in military expansion, with Taiwan and Russia, and possibly Middle East and Japan becoming their targets. The de-industrialized West will be unable to contain China, and it is very possible that India will be forced to act. All in all, the foreign policy implications of a drastic CO2 reduction are very dire, and it is quite a surprise to me that few people dare to discuss them.
On a more personal level, I cannot possibly reconcile the words of famous Global Warming activists and their dids. For example Al Gore, probably one of the most renown alarmists, shows a complete disconnect between his doomsday rhetoric (we all going to die if we don't cut CO2 emissions - and anyone doubting this is a criminal) - and his rather lavish life style. I find it hard to believe that a man seriously concerned about CO2 emissions, and who believes the West must drastically cut its consumption, would live like a Middle Eastern despot - with his huge house, private jets and expensive life style.
And surely Al Gore is hardly an exception - it is reported that the Global Warming alarmists recently rented 1200 limousines and 140 private jets in order for the Copenhagen meeting. Does this sound to you like these guys believe their own rhetoric? Would they travel in private jets and have their own chauffeurs drive them in limousines if they believed that would destroy the planet?
Moreover, it is interesting to note the bifurcation of opinions on Global Warming among American people. It is fair to say that there is a close correlation between the support for Global Warming scare and the attitude towards the role of the government in the country's economy. Clearly, the more likely the person to support liberal causes (higher taxes, more regulation, more handouts to the poor) - in other words, the more socialist one is - the more likely he is to believe in the Global Warming Scare. On the other side, it is also quite noticeable that very few libertarians or conservatives support the alarmists. In short, there is a close correlation between one's political views and the support for Global Warming - with income, education and sex being of no regard. From this analysis, it is clear that Global Warming can hardly be a purely scientific issue - given that the sides are so clearly divided by their political outlook.
I hope this short essay will be of some use to aspiring freedom loving activists. Please don't hesitate to comment on it.
Thursday, December 3, 2009
Liberals want to control the media - is anyone surprised?
According to this article, a high-ranking liberal congress-person Henry Waxman wants the government to have more control over the media. Or, as the weasel said -"Government's going to have to be involved, in one way or the other," to save journalism from an ongoing "market failure" that will only worsen without intervention..."
Moreover, the Reuters says that Waxman claimed ""quality journalism was essential to U.S. democracy," and that "eventually government would have to help resolve the problems caused by a failing business model."
Now, do you feel comfortable knowing that some years from now, a government strongman (or woman) would be personally deciding what is "quality journalism" (read - left-wing) and, therefore should be funded by the state, and what is "non-quality journalism" (read - right-wing) and, therefore should be severely taxed by the state?
And the liberal lapdogs in the media are applauding this, of course - after all, they are losing a lot of money because American people are turning away from the the left-wing propaganda machine. All of this is going according to the plan that I predicted a year ago. How boring...
BTW, don't we have a wall of separation betwen the state and media? That's what the Bill of Rights says - just read it. It is all there, right between the "Wall of Separation between State and Religion" and the "Abortion Clause".
Moreover, the Reuters says that Waxman claimed ""quality journalism was essential to U.S. democracy," and that "eventually government would have to help resolve the problems caused by a failing business model."
Now, do you feel comfortable knowing that some years from now, a government strongman (or woman) would be personally deciding what is "quality journalism" (read - left-wing) and, therefore should be funded by the state, and what is "non-quality journalism" (read - right-wing) and, therefore should be severely taxed by the state?
And the liberal lapdogs in the media are applauding this, of course - after all, they are losing a lot of money because American people are turning away from the the left-wing propaganda machine. All of this is going according to the plan that I predicted a year ago. How boring...
BTW, don't we have a wall of separation betwen the state and media? That's what the Bill of Rights says - just read it. It is all there, right between the "Wall of Separation between State and Religion" and the "Abortion Clause".
Friday, November 27, 2009
What does the term "progressive" mean?
It is quite customary for people leaning to the left to utilize self-congratulating names to describe their political views. One of terms which is being recently used is "progressive", which denotes a set of left-wing to extremely left-wing sets of assumptions and ideas. In reality, of course, left-wing ideology is just as "progressive" as communist regimes were "people's democracies" or "people's republics".
In general, it is amusing how many benign code words, or self-congratulatory terms are in use today. In reality, one cannot even guess what these words mean without sufficient background. Most of the terms came from the left, since there is no need for the right to mask their ideas. The readers are free to add more terms.
Left-wing Terms
Affirmative Action ("politically correct" discrimination of people based on skin color, ethnicity, gender and sexual preferences)
Social Security (compulsory government pension system)
Progressive (left-wing)
Pro-choice (pro-abortion)
New Deal (left-wing)
Medicare (compulsory government insurance for the elederly)
Welfare (handouts for the poor)
Housing Projects (subsidized housing)
Liberation Theology (marxism-leninism)
Multi-culturism (all cultures are better than the Western culture)
Diversity (normally means that people of politically-correct racial groups are present)
Inclusive (left-wing)
Crisis (situation which is not the left-wing liking)
Solution (a policy which the left-wingers like)
Social Justice (liberals divide other people's property as they see fit)
Fairness Doctrine (government decides how the media presents the views)
The Employee Free Choice Act (giving more power to the union goons to force workers to join the labor unions by getting rid of secret ballots)
Insensitive (a term used to describe the views which are factually correct, but offend the liberals)
Right-wing Terms
Patriot Act (exanding the power of the government to combat terrorism)
In general, it is amusing how many benign code words, or self-congratulatory terms are in use today. In reality, one cannot even guess what these words mean without sufficient background. Most of the terms came from the left, since there is no need for the right to mask their ideas. The readers are free to add more terms.
Left-wing Terms
Affirmative Action ("politically correct" discrimination of people based on skin color, ethnicity, gender and sexual preferences)
Social Security (compulsory government pension system)
Progressive (left-wing)
Pro-choice (pro-abortion)
New Deal (left-wing)
Medicare (compulsory government insurance for the elederly)
Welfare (handouts for the poor)
Housing Projects (subsidized housing)
Liberation Theology (marxism-leninism)
Multi-culturism (all cultures are better than the Western culture)
Diversity (normally means that people of politically-correct racial groups are present)
Inclusive (left-wing)
Crisis (situation which is not the left-wing liking)
Solution (a policy which the left-wingers like)
Social Justice (liberals divide other people's property as they see fit)
Fairness Doctrine (government decides how the media presents the views)
The Employee Free Choice Act (giving more power to the union goons to force workers to join the labor unions by getting rid of secret ballots)
Insensitive (a term used to describe the views which are factually correct, but offend the liberals)
Right-wing Terms
Patriot Act (exanding the power of the government to combat terrorism)
Friday, November 20, 2009
"Intelligence and facts are being fixed around the policy"
Remember those infamous words from the Downing Street Memo? Well, today, progressive hackers got into the computers of a leading climate research group in the world, University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit (CRU), and made their records public. What a horror! Hoi Polloi can now look at the raw data and email exchanges, and find out how the climate data and facts are fixed around the policies promoted by the government. And this is only a few months after CRU declared that all its raw climate data was "accidentally" deleted.
Here is one example of a Downing Memo that became public - an email from one "researcher" to another "researcher":
Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,
Once Tim’s got a diagram here we’ll send that either later today or
first thing tomorrow.
I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps
to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from
1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline. Mike’s series got the annual
land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land
N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999
for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with
data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.
Thanks for the comments, Ray.
As was reported before, indeed it is a nice "trick" - you keep mixing different sets of data from different measurements until you get the result you want - i.e. the "hockey stick". CRU is now in complete disarray, I have a feeling they will now appeal to the government to make sure all the facts and intelligence they fixed around the policies be withdrawn from public review.
Here is one example of a Downing Memo that became public - an email from one "researcher" to another "researcher":
Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,
Once Tim’s got a diagram here we’ll send that either later today or
first thing tomorrow.
I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps
to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from
1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline. Mike’s series got the annual
land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land
N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999
for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with
data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.
Thanks for the comments, Ray.
As was reported before, indeed it is a nice "trick" - you keep mixing different sets of data from different measurements until you get the result you want - i.e. the "hockey stick". CRU is now in complete disarray, I have a feeling they will now appeal to the government to make sure all the facts and intelligence they fixed around the policies be withdrawn from public review.
Rick Moran - a silly monument to arrogance
I've read an article by one Rick Moran (what a telling name - someone clearly misspeled it some decades ago), and I must say it made me smile again. The self-described conservatives and intellectual geniuses - with their arrogance only matched by their stupidity. Anyway....
Upon re-reading the article, I found a few interesting pieces....
Firstly, Rick writes: "So we await the inevitable bio where the applicant can either prove herself worthy of joining the ranks of cotton candy conservatives or prove me wrong and be taken seriously. From what I’ve read so far, Sarah Palin has not disappointed me."
After this, Rick goes ahead and quotes what other people wrote about Sarah's book - which, if we consider his careful phrasing, demonstrates that Rick has not read her book. So, in order to be clear, let me ask this question directly:
Rick, you seemed to have read a lot ABOUT Sarah's book - but did you actualy read her book?
The second amazing point that Rick made was that Reagan's views are outmoded and no longer relevant: "Palin and many of her supporters are stuck in this past, unable or unwilling to comprehend the basic reality that the world, America, and time itself have moved on, making whatever Reagan wanted or believed in the 1980s virtually irrelevant to where we are today and, more importantly, where we are headed in the future."
Rick, since in your mind you are an intellectual genius, would you mind explaining which Reagan's economic and political ideas are irrelevant? And if his views (essentially views of Hayek and Friedman) on the role of the government in the economy are irrelevant today due to unspecified changes in our society - would you care to explain what those changes are? Moreover, ss Social Security better today than it was in 1988? Is government welfare any more efficient? Has medicare finally proved to be fiscally sustainable? Do we finally reached the stage when the government can set prices and wages? And if your answer to all these questions is a blind stare (or embarassed silence) - then what is the source of your belief of your intellectual superiority over Sarah Palin?
Upon re-reading the article, I found a few interesting pieces....
Firstly, Rick writes: "So we await the inevitable bio where the applicant can either prove herself worthy of joining the ranks of cotton candy conservatives or prove me wrong and be taken seriously. From what I’ve read so far, Sarah Palin has not disappointed me."
After this, Rick goes ahead and quotes what other people wrote about Sarah's book - which, if we consider his careful phrasing, demonstrates that Rick has not read her book. So, in order to be clear, let me ask this question directly:
Rick, you seemed to have read a lot ABOUT Sarah's book - but did you actualy read her book?
The second amazing point that Rick made was that Reagan's views are outmoded and no longer relevant: "Palin and many of her supporters are stuck in this past, unable or unwilling to comprehend the basic reality that the world, America, and time itself have moved on, making whatever Reagan wanted or believed in the 1980s virtually irrelevant to where we are today and, more importantly, where we are headed in the future."
Rick, since in your mind you are an intellectual genius, would you mind explaining which Reagan's economic and political ideas are irrelevant? And if his views (essentially views of Hayek and Friedman) on the role of the government in the economy are irrelevant today due to unspecified changes in our society - would you care to explain what those changes are? Moreover, ss Social Security better today than it was in 1988? Is government welfare any more efficient? Has medicare finally proved to be fiscally sustainable? Do we finally reached the stage when the government can set prices and wages? And if your answer to all these questions is a blind stare (or embarassed silence) - then what is the source of your belief of your intellectual superiority over Sarah Palin?
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
Dahlia's article is a perfect example of liberal debating tactics...
I just got back from vacation, and the first day back home I came across article by Ms.Dahlia Honest to God, this article made me laugh. Dahlia's articles normally show what happens when a liberal lives among liberals and never dares to get outside of her little gated paradise to find out the conservative point of view. Of course, my analysis presumes that Dahlia is simply ignorant, and is not deliberately trying to obfuscate the issue and is creating a straw man. It's your pick really, what is true.
Lets go step by step and see what arguments the right-wingers give against the civil courts for a few hand-picked terrorists per Dahlia, and compare that with reality.
Ms Dahlia starts the article with asserting that anything less than civil trial for the terrorists is a sacrifice of American legal principles:
“What both camps [people who object to having civilian trial for moslem terrorists] share, besides a kind of unhinged logic and complete disregard for the legal process, is an obsessive fascination with the accused. The result is a broad willingness to sacrifice our commitment to legal principles in favor of the symbolic satisfaction of crushing the hopes and dreams of a motley group of criminals.”
If Ms.Dahlia were familiar with the views of the right-wingers, she would have known that her assertion is the exact opposite of what they say. As American scholar and famous economist Thomas Sowell writes: “Terrorists are not even entitled to the protection of the Geneva Convention, much less the Constitution of the United States. Terrorists have never observed, nor even claimed to have observed, the Geneva Convention, nor are they among those covered by it.”
Now, whether the terrorists are entitled to the civilian trials or not is a very serious legal question. It’s also important to resolve whether military tribunals for moslem terrorists is a violation of American principles (Dahlia’s assertion) or on the contrary is quite normal and expected. Moreover, if Dahlia’s assertion is correct, then she cannot in all sincerity support Obama’s decision to bring only a handful of terrorists to civilian justice, while keeping the rest of them either in indefinite detention or subject them to the military tribunals.
Powerline correctly asks pertinent questions, which are obviously news for Ms.Dahlia: “At the same time time that the Obama administration announced its decision regarding KSM et al, it also announced that it will try other Guantanamo detainees before the military commissions established by Congress conforming to the Supreme Court's specifications. If anything, however, the acts of KSM et al. against the United States are far more heinous and destructive than those of the others to be tried by military commission. No serious rationale supports this disparate treatment.”
Now, Ms.Dahlia is not the smartest person on Earth, but it’s amazing that it did not enter her mind to wonder how she can reconcile her claims that only civilian courts are the appropriate avenue allowed for trying the terrorists, while completely ignoring the decision of the Obama administration to use the military tribunals for the rest of the detainees.
Ms.Dahlia spends inordinate amount of time nitpicking on whether we should or should not follow the wishes of the terrorists on bringing them to NY city for trial – which is, surely, is a minor issue. She also poo-poohs Sarah Palin’s views on the subject, claiming that: “In addition to her argument that witnessing the American justice system at work will lead U.S. allies to "become less likely to support our efforts in the future," Palin ends her post with an exhortation to "Hang 'em high." Here's betting there's nothing KSM wants more.”
She also deny the accusation that terrorists will turn the trial into circus “Both Palin and Rep. Pete Hoekstra, R-Mich., are also obsessed with the prospect of allowing these terrorists to have an opportunity to mount a so-called "circus trial." They must be awfully afraid of the other side's message to believe that allowing the defendants to utter even a word in their own defense is to risk recruiting millions of new adherents worldwide.”
Indeed, it is worthwhile to look at the right-wing claims on the subject – and one would be of very feeble mind not to agree that their arguments hold water. Sarah Palin correctly asserts that “It is crucially important that Americans be made aware that the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks may walk away from this trial without receiving just punishment because of a “hung jury” or from any variety of court room technicalities.”. Indeed, what guarantee is there that there will be no hung jury?
If Dahlia were to spend a bit more time studying history, she could easily find examples of civilian trials going awfully wrong - Bill Ayers for example or Simson's trials come immediately to mind. But lets look at the example of Milosevic, a former dictator of Yugoslavia. He was tried by the International Court for nearly a decade – and in the end he died in jail, when there was still no end in sight for the trial. Indeed, the trial did become a circus – and I would like to understand Dahlia’s confidence that the Obama trials would not end up this way. How can she predict the decisions of 12 juries?
Moreover, it’s clear that the trial may be much harder than she imagine, given that “when terrorists like KSM were captured, we did not gather information on the assumption that it would be presented in federal court. Thus, the prosecution is at a disadvantage in proceeding down this road now.” If KSM was not read his rights – would this mean that everything he said becomes un-admissible in court? This is something that could be easily spotted by a person of average intelligence, but Ms.Dahlia is clearly not an average person – she is most likely quite below that level.
Ms.Dahlia mindlessly repeats that “It would be nice if we could call off the trial of anyone with plans to use the proceedings to promote hateful ideas. We could have refused to try all sorts of bigmouths who have used their trials to spread noxious garbage, but we don't. The purpose of a criminal trial isn't to suppress a political message. It's to put forth a better political message: Namely, that we believe in our legal system.”
Of course, the purpose of the trial is not to suppress hateful ideas, but neither it is to send a political message. The purpose of a trial is to find the truth and punish the guilty parties - in other words, the goal is justice, not propaganda one way or another. It’s a tad strange that Ms.Dahlia does not understand this.
But wait, there is more to this. As Eric [Black Panter] Holder said: “In addition to that, this is a matter that, as I said, happened in this country as opposed to overseas, which is different from what we might do with regard to those who are going to be tried in the military commissions. But that is a fundamental tenet of American jurisprudence, that crimes are tried in the places where they occur.”.
Powerline immediately notices that Obama’s chief prosecutor in effect created an incentive for the terrorists to strike on American soil: “Put yourself in the place of a would-be terrorist: If you want to garner maximum publicity; if you want to make yourself into a world-famous martyr; if you want an endless platform for disseminating jihadist propaganda; if you want to be treated with kid gloves at all times; what should you do? That's right: you should organize an attack on American soil that kills thousands. You'll be rewarded with top-flight legal representation at taxpayer expense and a forum in which to advance the cause of jihad. Like so many things the Obama administration does, this creates exactly the wrong incentives and needlessly puts American lives in danger.”.
Now, it would be interesting to see what would be Ms.Dahlia’s argument against these observations – but it’s unlikely to be written since, as I said before, she is not terribly smart, and she is not very knowledgeable – in other words she did not read this argument, nor can she figure it out on her own.
Ms.Dahlia also sneers at the argument of former prosecutor Andrew McCarthy, “who tried Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman for the 1993 World Trade Center bombing”, Ms. Dahlia says that “According to this critique, the problem isn't only that the accused may turn the trials to their own advantage. It's that the U.S. judicial and executive branches are overrun with people who really like terrorists and want them to prevail. “
In reality, McCarthy’s arguments are a tad more complex and are fact based, so it’s clear that either Ms.Dahlia did not read his article or did not understand it. To wit: “In the current Justice Department, several top officials, including the attorney general himself, are recused from various national-security cases under conflict-of-interest guidelines. The reason? They, or their former firms, represented enemy combatants in lawsuits against the American people. Indeed, such is the mindset of the Obama DOJ that, to help formulate detention policy, Holder recruited Jennifer Daskal - a Human Rights Watch official with no prosecutorial experience - who had been a tireless advocate for terrorists held by the United States.”
Are there more examples of the ways for liberal judges to make the terrorist prosecution more difficult? Sure enough, McCarthy provides just that: “The intelligence and evidence supporting the military's designation of Mutairi as an enemy combatant were not merely solid, they were overwhelming. The Kuwaiti intelligence service identified him as a "hardcore extremist" affiliated with al-Qaeda before he left for Afghanistan shortly after the September 11 attacks; to get to Afghanistan, he used a known al-Qaeda smuggling route; he contributed money to an al-Qaeda front designated as a terrorist entity by both the United States and the U.N.; after the U.S. invasion, he fled towards Tora Bora at the same time and using the same route as al-Qaeda and Taliban fighters; when al-Qaeda safehouses were raided after his apprehension, his name was found on a roster of "captured Mujahideen" (a mujahid is one who fights in a jihad); and his passport was deposited in a safe-deposit box consistent with the al-Qaeda practice of having operatives turn in their passports (which gives the network more control over them, makes identification difficult if they are captured, and provides al-Qaeda opportunities to forge fraudulent identification documents). In the face of these damning facts, the military's determination that Mutairi is an enemy combatant was invalidated. A federal district judge in Washington, Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, absurdly held that the evidence was insufficient.”
“Naturally, the Obama Justice Department went along for the ride. No appeal was pursued, nor would one have expected otherwise. The way Kollar-Kotelly warped the case is precisely the kind of "justice" top Obama lawyers were pushing for over the last eight years. Now they're in charge, and they readily cited Kollar-Kotelly's ruling as justification for transferring Mutairi back to Kuwait, where he'll be free to rejoin the jihad and take up arms against the United States - like so many other former detainees who've been released in the mad dash to empty Gitmo.”
If one were to read McCarthy’s articles and Ms.Dahlia’s petty attempts to minimize his arguments – who would win?
But Ms.Dahlia’s does not stop there. She also manages to attack the views of John Yoo, by claiming that his concerns about the intelligence information getting into the hands of terrorists in the case of a civilian trial are limited to the number of of times KSM was waterboarded. Compare Ms.Dahlia’s writing with John’s Yoo’s:
Ms.Dahlia: “Yoo warns, apparently without irony: "KSM and his co-defendants will enjoy the benefits and rights that the Constitution accords to citizens and resident aliens—including the right to demand that the government produce in open court all of the information that it has on them, and how it got it." Wait, wait. John Yoo—isn't he the same guy who is being sued for creating the legal structure that justified the entire U.S. torture program? And now he's saying he opposes open trials because he doesn't want the world to learn secret information, like how evidence was gathered from a man who was water-boarded 183 times? Curious.”
Curious or not, but Yoo's views are based on facts, which Ms.Dahlia refused to deal with.
John Yoo: “Now, however, KSM and his co-defendants will enjoy the benefits and rights that the Constitution accords to citizens and resident aliens—including the right to demand that the government produce in open court all of the information that it has on them, and how it got it. Prosecutors will be forced to reveal U.S. intelligence on KSM, the methods and sources for acquiring its information, and his relationships to fellow al Qaeda operatives. The information will enable al Qaeda to drop plans and personnel whose cover is blown. It will enable it to detect our means of intelligence-gathering, and to push forward into areas we know nothing about.
This is not hypothetical, as former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy has explained. During the 1993 World Trade Center bombing trial of Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman (aka the "blind Sheikh"), standard criminal trial rules required the government to turn over to the defendants a list of 200 possible co-conspirators.
In essence, this list was a sketch of American intelligence on al Qaeda. According to Mr. McCarthy, who tried the case, it was delivered to bin Laden in Sudan on a silver platter within days of its production as a court exhibit. Bin Laden, who was on the list, could immediately see who was compromised. He also could start figuring out how American intelligence had learned its information and anticipate what our future moves were likely to be. Even more harmful to our national security will be the effect a civilian trial of KSM will have on the future conduct of intelligence officers and military personnel. Will they have to read al Qaeda terrorists their Miranda rights? Will they have to secure the "crime scene" under battlefield conditions? Will they have to take statements from nearby "witnesses"? Will they have to gather evidence and secure its chain of custody for transport all the way back to New York? All of this while intelligence officers and soldiers operate in a war zone, trying to stay alive, and working to complete their mission and get out without casualties.”
Again, would a reasonable person conclude that Ms.Dahlia treats John Yoo’s arguments in a reasonable fashion? Surely not…
In the end, Ms.Dahlia was exhausted with the legal arguments (I am being generous here) and ends with a refusal to admit that America is at war, after which she proudly proclaimed that “Of course, these aren't so much legal arguments as political theater. And it's hardly surprising that, after eight years of insisting that the law doesn't apply to extremely bad people, opponents of Holder's decision are now focusing their arguments on the bad people, not the law. Still, it's awfully depressing to keep hearing that the only thing wrong with the criminal justice system is the criminals themselves.”
Well, for one, whether US is at war and moslem terrorists are combatants is a rather important issue. Secondly, Ms.Dahlia must provide legal rational for her claims that military tribunals for moslem terrorists is against the US law. For some reason, it slipped her mind to write down those arguments – assuming she actually understood that it’s not enough to assert this.
Finally, it is worth noting an interesting question asked by powerline: “Ask yourself this question: suppose that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's trial results in an acquittal or a hung jury. Would the Obama administration really let him go? If so, they are crazy. If not, why are they holding the trial?”. Indeed, Ms.Dahlia – can you think beyond step one?
Lets go step by step and see what arguments the right-wingers give against the civil courts for a few hand-picked terrorists per Dahlia, and compare that with reality.
Ms Dahlia starts the article with asserting that anything less than civil trial for the terrorists is a sacrifice of American legal principles:
“What both camps [people who object to having civilian trial for moslem terrorists] share, besides a kind of unhinged logic and complete disregard for the legal process, is an obsessive fascination with the accused. The result is a broad willingness to sacrifice our commitment to legal principles in favor of the symbolic satisfaction of crushing the hopes and dreams of a motley group of criminals.”
If Ms.Dahlia were familiar with the views of the right-wingers, she would have known that her assertion is the exact opposite of what they say. As American scholar and famous economist Thomas Sowell writes: “Terrorists are not even entitled to the protection of the Geneva Convention, much less the Constitution of the United States. Terrorists have never observed, nor even claimed to have observed, the Geneva Convention, nor are they among those covered by it.”
Now, whether the terrorists are entitled to the civilian trials or not is a very serious legal question. It’s also important to resolve whether military tribunals for moslem terrorists is a violation of American principles (Dahlia’s assertion) or on the contrary is quite normal and expected. Moreover, if Dahlia’s assertion is correct, then she cannot in all sincerity support Obama’s decision to bring only a handful of terrorists to civilian justice, while keeping the rest of them either in indefinite detention or subject them to the military tribunals.
Powerline correctly asks pertinent questions, which are obviously news for Ms.Dahlia: “At the same time time that the Obama administration announced its decision regarding KSM et al, it also announced that it will try other Guantanamo detainees before the military commissions established by Congress conforming to the Supreme Court's specifications. If anything, however, the acts of KSM et al. against the United States are far more heinous and destructive than those of the others to be tried by military commission. No serious rationale supports this disparate treatment.”
Now, Ms.Dahlia is not the smartest person on Earth, but it’s amazing that it did not enter her mind to wonder how she can reconcile her claims that only civilian courts are the appropriate avenue allowed for trying the terrorists, while completely ignoring the decision of the Obama administration to use the military tribunals for the rest of the detainees.
Ms.Dahlia spends inordinate amount of time nitpicking on whether we should or should not follow the wishes of the terrorists on bringing them to NY city for trial – which is, surely, is a minor issue. She also poo-poohs Sarah Palin’s views on the subject, claiming that: “In addition to her argument that witnessing the American justice system at work will lead U.S. allies to "become less likely to support our efforts in the future," Palin ends her post with an exhortation to "Hang 'em high." Here's betting there's nothing KSM wants more.”
She also deny the accusation that terrorists will turn the trial into circus “Both Palin and Rep. Pete Hoekstra, R-Mich., are also obsessed with the prospect of allowing these terrorists to have an opportunity to mount a so-called "circus trial." They must be awfully afraid of the other side's message to believe that allowing the defendants to utter even a word in their own defense is to risk recruiting millions of new adherents worldwide.”
Indeed, it is worthwhile to look at the right-wing claims on the subject – and one would be of very feeble mind not to agree that their arguments hold water. Sarah Palin correctly asserts that “It is crucially important that Americans be made aware that the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks may walk away from this trial without receiving just punishment because of a “hung jury” or from any variety of court room technicalities.”. Indeed, what guarantee is there that there will be no hung jury?
If Dahlia were to spend a bit more time studying history, she could easily find examples of civilian trials going awfully wrong - Bill Ayers for example or Simson's trials come immediately to mind. But lets look at the example of Milosevic, a former dictator of Yugoslavia. He was tried by the International Court for nearly a decade – and in the end he died in jail, when there was still no end in sight for the trial. Indeed, the trial did become a circus – and I would like to understand Dahlia’s confidence that the Obama trials would not end up this way. How can she predict the decisions of 12 juries?
Moreover, it’s clear that the trial may be much harder than she imagine, given that “when terrorists like KSM were captured, we did not gather information on the assumption that it would be presented in federal court. Thus, the prosecution is at a disadvantage in proceeding down this road now.” If KSM was not read his rights – would this mean that everything he said becomes un-admissible in court? This is something that could be easily spotted by a person of average intelligence, but Ms.Dahlia is clearly not an average person – she is most likely quite below that level.
Ms.Dahlia mindlessly repeats that “It would be nice if we could call off the trial of anyone with plans to use the proceedings to promote hateful ideas. We could have refused to try all sorts of bigmouths who have used their trials to spread noxious garbage, but we don't. The purpose of a criminal trial isn't to suppress a political message. It's to put forth a better political message: Namely, that we believe in our legal system.”
Of course, the purpose of the trial is not to suppress hateful ideas, but neither it is to send a political message. The purpose of a trial is to find the truth and punish the guilty parties - in other words, the goal is justice, not propaganda one way or another. It’s a tad strange that Ms.Dahlia does not understand this.
But wait, there is more to this. As Eric [Black Panter] Holder said: “In addition to that, this is a matter that, as I said, happened in this country as opposed to overseas, which is different from what we might do with regard to those who are going to be tried in the military commissions. But that is a fundamental tenet of American jurisprudence, that crimes are tried in the places where they occur.”.
Powerline immediately notices that Obama’s chief prosecutor in effect created an incentive for the terrorists to strike on American soil: “Put yourself in the place of a would-be terrorist: If you want to garner maximum publicity; if you want to make yourself into a world-famous martyr; if you want an endless platform for disseminating jihadist propaganda; if you want to be treated with kid gloves at all times; what should you do? That's right: you should organize an attack on American soil that kills thousands. You'll be rewarded with top-flight legal representation at taxpayer expense and a forum in which to advance the cause of jihad. Like so many things the Obama administration does, this creates exactly the wrong incentives and needlessly puts American lives in danger.”.
Now, it would be interesting to see what would be Ms.Dahlia’s argument against these observations – but it’s unlikely to be written since, as I said before, she is not terribly smart, and she is not very knowledgeable – in other words she did not read this argument, nor can she figure it out on her own.
Ms.Dahlia also sneers at the argument of former prosecutor Andrew McCarthy, “who tried Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman for the 1993 World Trade Center bombing”, Ms. Dahlia says that “According to this critique, the problem isn't only that the accused may turn the trials to their own advantage. It's that the U.S. judicial and executive branches are overrun with people who really like terrorists and want them to prevail. “
In reality, McCarthy’s arguments are a tad more complex and are fact based, so it’s clear that either Ms.Dahlia did not read his article or did not understand it. To wit: “In the current Justice Department, several top officials, including the attorney general himself, are recused from various national-security cases under conflict-of-interest guidelines. The reason? They, or their former firms, represented enemy combatants in lawsuits against the American people. Indeed, such is the mindset of the Obama DOJ that, to help formulate detention policy, Holder recruited Jennifer Daskal - a Human Rights Watch official with no prosecutorial experience - who had been a tireless advocate for terrorists held by the United States.”
Are there more examples of the ways for liberal judges to make the terrorist prosecution more difficult? Sure enough, McCarthy provides just that: “The intelligence and evidence supporting the military's designation of Mutairi as an enemy combatant were not merely solid, they were overwhelming. The Kuwaiti intelligence service identified him as a "hardcore extremist" affiliated with al-Qaeda before he left for Afghanistan shortly after the September 11 attacks; to get to Afghanistan, he used a known al-Qaeda smuggling route; he contributed money to an al-Qaeda front designated as a terrorist entity by both the United States and the U.N.; after the U.S. invasion, he fled towards Tora Bora at the same time and using the same route as al-Qaeda and Taliban fighters; when al-Qaeda safehouses were raided after his apprehension, his name was found on a roster of "captured Mujahideen" (a mujahid is one who fights in a jihad); and his passport was deposited in a safe-deposit box consistent with the al-Qaeda practice of having operatives turn in their passports (which gives the network more control over them, makes identification difficult if they are captured, and provides al-Qaeda opportunities to forge fraudulent identification documents). In the face of these damning facts, the military's determination that Mutairi is an enemy combatant was invalidated. A federal district judge in Washington, Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, absurdly held that the evidence was insufficient.”
“Naturally, the Obama Justice Department went along for the ride. No appeal was pursued, nor would one have expected otherwise. The way Kollar-Kotelly warped the case is precisely the kind of "justice" top Obama lawyers were pushing for over the last eight years. Now they're in charge, and they readily cited Kollar-Kotelly's ruling as justification for transferring Mutairi back to Kuwait, where he'll be free to rejoin the jihad and take up arms against the United States - like so many other former detainees who've been released in the mad dash to empty Gitmo.”
If one were to read McCarthy’s articles and Ms.Dahlia’s petty attempts to minimize his arguments – who would win?
But Ms.Dahlia’s does not stop there. She also manages to attack the views of John Yoo, by claiming that his concerns about the intelligence information getting into the hands of terrorists in the case of a civilian trial are limited to the number of of times KSM was waterboarded. Compare Ms.Dahlia’s writing with John’s Yoo’s:
Ms.Dahlia: “Yoo warns, apparently without irony: "KSM and his co-defendants will enjoy the benefits and rights that the Constitution accords to citizens and resident aliens—including the right to demand that the government produce in open court all of the information that it has on them, and how it got it." Wait, wait. John Yoo—isn't he the same guy who is being sued for creating the legal structure that justified the entire U.S. torture program? And now he's saying he opposes open trials because he doesn't want the world to learn secret information, like how evidence was gathered from a man who was water-boarded 183 times? Curious.”
Curious or not, but Yoo's views are based on facts, which Ms.Dahlia refused to deal with.
John Yoo: “Now, however, KSM and his co-defendants will enjoy the benefits and rights that the Constitution accords to citizens and resident aliens—including the right to demand that the government produce in open court all of the information that it has on them, and how it got it. Prosecutors will be forced to reveal U.S. intelligence on KSM, the methods and sources for acquiring its information, and his relationships to fellow al Qaeda operatives. The information will enable al Qaeda to drop plans and personnel whose cover is blown. It will enable it to detect our means of intelligence-gathering, and to push forward into areas we know nothing about.
This is not hypothetical, as former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy has explained. During the 1993 World Trade Center bombing trial of Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman (aka the "blind Sheikh"), standard criminal trial rules required the government to turn over to the defendants a list of 200 possible co-conspirators.
In essence, this list was a sketch of American intelligence on al Qaeda. According to Mr. McCarthy, who tried the case, it was delivered to bin Laden in Sudan on a silver platter within days of its production as a court exhibit. Bin Laden, who was on the list, could immediately see who was compromised. He also could start figuring out how American intelligence had learned its information and anticipate what our future moves were likely to be. Even more harmful to our national security will be the effect a civilian trial of KSM will have on the future conduct of intelligence officers and military personnel. Will they have to read al Qaeda terrorists their Miranda rights? Will they have to secure the "crime scene" under battlefield conditions? Will they have to take statements from nearby "witnesses"? Will they have to gather evidence and secure its chain of custody for transport all the way back to New York? All of this while intelligence officers and soldiers operate in a war zone, trying to stay alive, and working to complete their mission and get out without casualties.”
Again, would a reasonable person conclude that Ms.Dahlia treats John Yoo’s arguments in a reasonable fashion? Surely not…
In the end, Ms.Dahlia was exhausted with the legal arguments (I am being generous here) and ends with a refusal to admit that America is at war, after which she proudly proclaimed that “Of course, these aren't so much legal arguments as political theater. And it's hardly surprising that, after eight years of insisting that the law doesn't apply to extremely bad people, opponents of Holder's decision are now focusing their arguments on the bad people, not the law. Still, it's awfully depressing to keep hearing that the only thing wrong with the criminal justice system is the criminals themselves.”
Well, for one, whether US is at war and moslem terrorists are combatants is a rather important issue. Secondly, Ms.Dahlia must provide legal rational for her claims that military tribunals for moslem terrorists is against the US law. For some reason, it slipped her mind to write down those arguments – assuming she actually understood that it’s not enough to assert this.
Finally, it is worth noting an interesting question asked by powerline: “Ask yourself this question: suppose that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's trial results in an acquittal or a hung jury. Would the Obama administration really let him go? If so, they are crazy. If not, why are they holding the trial?”. Indeed, Ms.Dahlia – can you think beyond step one?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)