Thursday, June 30, 2005

Medicine Cabinet Minister

Canada ponders blocking drug shipments to the US.

That’s legal drugs, of course. Traffic of marijuana, for example, runs more toward “Maui Wowie” going north than it does to “Moosejaw Mindfart” traveling south.

Another distinguishing factor would be that the illegal products are sold in a free market, the legal ones are not.

But, back to the main stream of consciousness: This story wonderfully illustrates the Statist idiocy on both sides of the border.
"Canada cannot be the drugstore for the United States," Health Minister Ujjal Dosanjh told reporters at a news conference.
One reply to Health Minister Dosanjh might be; “Fine, the United States can no longer be the pharmaceutical research lab for Canada. Non-generic drug shipments from the United States to Canada must cease. We cannot continue to subsidize the Canadian health care system either by providing free pharmaceutical research or by continuing to provide for Canada’s national defense. Hereafter, all export pharmaceuticals will attract duties equal to the price difference. The revenue will be earmarked to fund the United States military.”

The justification is easy. Canadians already tack huge taxes on US wine, and the revenue probably does equal their entire military expenditure. What I don’t understand is why Canada doesn’t have duties on the drugs they export to the US after they’ve imported them from us.

But who ever expected that a country with 10% of the population could supply the US with drugs in the first place? Well, Senator Debbie Stabenow (D-MI), for one.

She can’t figure out that supplying 10% of the US market represents a 100% increase in Canadian pharmaceutical sales. Moon-Base 1 to Debbie: Canada is more like a medicine cabinet than a drugstore.

And what’s the value add bit in shipping drugs made in the US to Canada and then shipping them back? The answer is – price controls.

There is a significant lobby in the US to import our own intellectual property back from Canada at a discount. Since this plan is clearly unsustainable, we must ask “Why?”

The reason is that it allows US socialists to hide behind Canadian skirts. It isn’t drugs they want to import, it’s price controls without stigma.

If Canada didn’t exist, Debbie Stabenow would have had to invent it. She’s the poster child for US Statists seizing the opportunity to vilify the pharmaceutical industry while simultaneously lobbying for the stealth importation of state-run health care.

Canadian price manipulation of patent pharmaceuticals has the same effect as the rest of their state-controlled health care system – rationing and delay. New drugs reach the Canadian market much more slowly and the cost of generic drugs in Canada is double that of the US.

New drugs are available in Canada’s tiny market only because of the US market. The marginal cost to the inventors of selling a few drugs in Canada is very small. Without the US market Canada couldn’t regulate drug prices.

Health Minister Dosanjh had further comment on the drug trade:
"In light of potential American legislation legalizing the bulk import of Canadian [sic] prescription and other medications, our priority must be the health and safety of all Canadians and the strength of our health care system.”
Strength of the health care system? Where the Quebec Supreme Court says delays in treatment are so serious as to violate basic freedoms? Right.
He said Canada would toughen its rules to require "an established doctor/patient relationship for any cross-border drug sales." Currently, patients who receive a prescription from a U.S. doctor can have it filled over the Internet, with the prescription endorsed by a Canadian doctor and the drugs mailed from Canada directly to the patient.
If Americans need to wait 3 months to see a Canadian doctor will they still think drug re-importation a good idea? (Aside to Paul Martin – this doesn’t require new legislation; it could have been solved by an Order in Council. Why wasn’t it?)

The most stupid comment of all comes from a Republican Congressunit. Representative Jo Ann Emerson (R-Mo.) said, "I think this is a case of the pharmaceutical companies manipulating markets." Jo Ann is a co-sponsor of one of the bills before the U.S. Congress to remove the federal prohibition on cross-border drug sales.

Who is manipulating the market:
A) Those who set price controls?
B) Those who want to import socialism?
C) Those who invent the products?

Give me a break, Jo Ann.

Finally, for completeness, let us not forget Senator Stabenow’s hypocritical hyperventilation regarding trash being brought into Michigan from Ontario. My advice to Ontario? Tell her; “Deb, if you want the drugs you either gotta take the trash, or send $500K in old bills to the Libranos*.

*TM Kate McMillan.

Tuesday, June 28, 2005

Institute for Justice

Added to the blogroll: Institute for Justice

Reason magazine has an interview with Scott Bullock, senior IJ attorney, who represented the plaintiffs before the U.S. Supreme Court in Kelo vs. City of New London.

I've watched IJ's advertising in Reason for some time and have supported all their efforts to challenge Statist interpretations of US law.

I hadn't supported them with a contribution, however, and I've just changed that.

They were at the front of the campaign to prevent the state sanctioned theft of those houses in New London.

In defending civil rights, these guys provide a legitimate alternative to the ACLU. Check them out.

Worth considering a donation. We need them now more than ever.

While I'm on the topic of the Court's recent repeal of the 5th Amendment, I'd like to add these observations:

There has been a great deal of attention paid to the fact that this particular decision favors developers over less wealthy homeowners. True in this case, but philosophically irrelevant.

Consider that t
he neediness of Liberals for being seen to protect the less powerful is built on two premises
1- Liberals have good intentions.
2- Whatever the results of Liberal policies, the
less powerful should be grateful. They are, after all, helpless without Liberal saviors..

With our current Supreme Court doing what it can to whack the "little people", this mantra is confirmed, aligning perfectly with Liberal doctrine - "You are helpless without us."

They alway forget to add "...and because of us."

Some have charged that such an obvious violation of the plain language of the 5th Amendment, especially in favor of business interests, is extreme hyprocisy for a Liberal, activist Court.. This is incorrect. SCOTUS has not acted against its tendencies.

SCOTUS is not constructively liberal. It is actively Statist. It consistently votes to increase the power of government on substantive issues.

From the standpoint of freedom and the rule of law, it makes no difference whose ox is Gored (listen up Al). Stealing is stealing.

The Kelo
ruling supports seizing a luxury hotel and turning it into subsidized housing equally as it does the reverse. While the former may be less likely to happen, it is no less threatening to freedom. Poor and rich alike are entitled to protection of their property rights.

Or used to be. The Court has handed decisions regarding "your" property to the whim of government. That is outrageous. It means you no longer have property if your city council decides otherwise.

"Property" has become a one word oxymoron.

Lee Harris at Tech Central Station has some interesting thoughts on this: Can a People Have Too Much Respect for the Law?

He begins:
Can a people have too much respect for the law?

This might appear to be a strange question to ask. Americans, after all, seem to believe that it is impossible to have too much respect for the law. Yet a visitor to our shores in 1867 -- and an English barrister at that -- disagreed with this proposition.

The visitor was William Hepworth Dixon, whose book, New America, is a delight to read. By and large, he found us as a people quite likable, unlike some of the earlier travelers from England, such as Charles Dickens and Francis Trollope, both of whom agreed that we were simply deplorable barbarians. Not so Dixon. Yet there was one aspect of our national character that disagreed with him. Our "deference to the Law, and to every one who wears the semblance of lawful authority, is so complete…as to occasion a traveler some annoyance and more surprise," Dixon wrote. "Every dog in office is obeyed with such unquestioning meekness, that every dog in office is tempted to become a cur."

Dixon singled out the Justices of the Supreme Court, noting with apparent dismay that they are "treated with a degree of respect akin to that which is paid to an archbishop in Madrid and to a cardinal in Rome." Then he concludes with an admonition:

Read the whole article

Monday, June 27, 2005

Eminent UNDomain

Powerline refers to an article in The New York Sun - Plan B.

The Sun generally considers it a good idea if the UN were to get its building off of US soil.
...Without the legitimacy of being in New York, the United Nations would fold like a cheap suit. An anti-American organization could no longer taunt its favorite punching bag from a swanky perch on our own soil. And the site at Turtle Bay would be available for more productive commercial or residential uses or as the headquarters of a new organization of free democracies that could pursue the quest on which the world set out 60 years ago to promote and encourage respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all.
That's OK as far as it goes, but I'd prefer eminent domain proceedings to seize the UN building
and turn it over to Halliburton - just to hear the screams from the World Government Statists on our Supreme Court.

Sunday, June 26, 2005

Saturday, June 25, 2005

The 2005 Index of Dependency

From the Heritage Foundation.

...The Index of Dependency is designed to mea­sure the pace at which federal government services and programs have been growing in areas in which private or community-based services and programs exist or have existed to address the same or nearly the same needs.

Not a pretty picture.

Blogroll Addition

TOTH to Kate McMillan at Small Dead Animals.

"Watching America collects news items about the United States from across the globe and translates them into English."

The question seems to be: "Why DON'T they hate us?"

The Kelo Decision - Some are More Equal than Others

I have said many times in the last several weeks that Canada provides instruction regarding the Statist agenda being practiced by so-called "liberals" in the US.

Another fine example related to eminent domain from Angry in the Great White North. Excerpt:
...Normally in a situation like this, Canadians wonder what such a decision in the US might mean to them. But in this case, Canada has already reached the logical endpoint of the path being embarked on by the US Supreme Court. This is because, in what comes as a surprise to many Canadians, we do not enjoy the right to private property at all. As early as 1960, the Bill of Rights (a statutory piece of legislation) allowed Canadians the right to enjoy their property, but gave them no fundamental right to use it. It gave them the right to expect due process of law when the government decided to appropriate the land, but it did not give them the right to expect compensation.

Two decades later, when the Charter of Rights and Freedoms was being written, the situation was not corrected. This was a deliberate decision made by Pierre Trudeau in 1982 to help bring the socialist New Democratic Party on board with his constitutional project. The provincial premiers were also wary of giving Canadians the constitutional right to property ownership that would interfere with their ability to define the use of land not owned by the state, or with their ability to appropriate the land outright.
This seems to fit right in with SCOTUS majority thinking that foreign law should override our Constitution.

Torontonians should cast their memories back to the resurgence of Cabbagetown and ask whether, if people were fully aware of the Government's ability to sieze property, private individuals would have assumed the risk. When property right are in fact illusory, the risk is much higher.

It's only the false presumption that Government repects property rights that makes such private redevelopment possible.

Property rights are now essentially arbitrary on both sides of the 49th parallel, but it does the Government no good for people to be reminded of it.

The effect of Kelo in Canada, as in the US, will be reduced property values.

Friday, June 24, 2005

A Simple Solution

...just appoint the Michigan Supreme Court, en masse, to replace the Federal Supreme Court.

Since the number of Justices, respectively, is 7 and 9, we'll keep Scalia and Thomas on the Federal bench.

Jobs for current SCOTUS Justices hereby displaced will be obtained by packing the World Court.

Courtesy of the Mackinaw Center - Property Damage.

An excerpt:
The only bright spot in the majority’s opinion was that it stated, "We emphasize that nothing in our opinion precludes any State from placing further restrictions on its exercise of the takings power. Indeed, many States already impose ‘public use’ requirements that are stricter than the federal baseline." The majority cited last year’s Michigan Supreme Court decision Wayne County v. Hathcock as an example.

In Hathcock, the Michigan Supreme Court was faced with the question of whether a proposed business-and-technology park south of Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County Airport constituted a "public use." All seven Michigan Supreme Court justices agreed that a government could not justify taking private property merely on grounds that a different use of the property might increase government tax revenues.

Therefore the citizens of Michigan, unlike the majority of Americans, have protection against governments that seek to increase their revenue by forcing their residents to move. If it were not for Hathcock, local Michigan governments could try to enhance their own property tax revenues by taking the homes of longtime residents and turning those properties over to real estate firms that might build new housing developments or businesses. Given the provisions of Proposal A of 1994, governments pursuing this strategy could then collect higher taxes, since the taxable value of the properties would likely have increased.

Under Kelo, such actions would not violate the Fifth Amendment. Fortunately, under Hathcock, they would violate the Michigan Constitution.
A great example of why "Federalism" includes State's Rights.

Thus far. Sort of.

Thursday, June 23, 2005

Added to the Blogroll


Sponsored by Goldstein & Howe P.C.

Plug included since this seems like a valuable service.

The Death of the Right to Property

Today's decision by the US Supreme Court has gutted the 5th Amendment.
The QandO Blog has a nice summary.

What part of "No person shall be... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." is confusing?

No one can argue that this intended to permit your city to expropriate your private dwelling, and then sell it to private developers to build denser private housing.

No one except the Supreme Court, which has now asserted that creation of jobs, and/or increasing property tax revenue by switching private property owners around, is a public use.

Justice Thomas, in dissent: "Today's decision is simply the latest in a string of our cases construing the public use clause to be a virtual nullity, without the slightest nod to its original meaning."

This court is not Liberal. It is exploring the nether regions of fascism; which desires the destruction of free markets entirely as much as does communism. The needle points to fascism here because this decision favors well-to-do developers as wards of the state.

It is now permissible to seize private property on behalf of private businesses if such action is projected to create jobs and/or increase tax revenue. Justice John Paul Stevens, writing for the majority, said "Promoting economic development is a traditional and long accepted function of government,"

We could only wish that there was any evidence, at any time, in any place; that any government had actually accomplished this.

If destruction of property rights is "promoting economic development", we must ask what else would promote economic development?

Well, clearly the sites of government buildings, like the State Capitol, would produce more revenue if they were converted into parking structures.

Quartering troops in your home would promote economic development of the Army.

Prevention of terrorist attacks is a function of government. Letting anyone out of Gitmo might retard economic development via forced redevelopment (think World Trade Center).

Why not just eliminate the middle-man? Seize your property, sell it and keep the money. Oh, right, they already do that if you don't pay your taxes.

I guess since the SCOTUS decision that the Commerce Clause governs every conceivable transaction; say picking marijuana in your own garden, or, just as logically - tomatoes, this rejection of the idea of individual rights should be no surprise.

At bottom, the "benefits" do not even have to be realized and are not measured against the costs. It's the intent that counts.

This Court is committed to removing constraint after constraint from the power of government.

Constraint on government is just what the Constitution was written to preserve.

This is amazing and depressing.

Update: 8:10PM, 23-Jun
Apparently the issue of property rights in Canada was never actually an ummm.. . issue.
An amazing tale of government dishonesty and theft in Canada, courtesy of Angry in the Great White North. Also several links on today's Kelo decision.

Prisoner Treatment at Gitmo

A Guantanamo Vet Speaks. Powerline has a letter from someone who knows much more about Gitmo than does Senator Durbin or Travesty International.

Wednesday, June 22, 2005

Moonbat Roundup

Head 'em up! Tune 'em out! ...Leftsiiide!!
Keep those echolocators movin'...

Ryan Sager makes excellent points regarding the lack of intelligent debate about both the definition of torture and about what is acceptable treatment of prisoners in an asymmetrical, semi-covert war. Make no mistake, these are two different questions.

An excerpt, (read the entire article):
..In fact, it's remarkable, since the Amnesty-gulag comparison, the extent to which administration supporters have begun to express great pride that America's interrogation facilities are so much more humane than those of Saddam -- or those of the insurgents just recently found torturing Iraqis in Karabila. And, of course, America is far more humane than any of the savage groups to which it is being compared.

Which is the point. It is just as much the fault of the Amnesty Internationals of the world as it is of the Scott McClellans that, so long as we're not beheading hostages or fitting them up with electric wires, Bush administration apologists can declare victory.

There's an important debate to be had in this country about just how far we're willing to go in our interrogations. But it's a difficult debate to even get started when one side thinks that we should be extremely concerned with the possibility that someone, somewhere might have desecrated the Korans of the people responsible for the murders of Daniel Pearl, Nick Berg, Fabrizio Quattrocchi, three-thousand Americans and now hundreds upon hundreds of Iraqi civilians.
Sager is right that there is an important debate being obstructed by Leftwing hyperbole.

I have used this argument myself: "We're so much better than our critics that they should shut up."

That is an argument as accurate as it is easy; and as unsatisfying as it is relativist. But it will have to do until we hear reality-based objections..

We don't have to be perfect not to have to be subjected to the BS spewing out from the Left. They refuse to take this seriously.

It would be foolish
to get into a debate about the upper limit for the volume knob on Christina Aguilera cuts when the moonbats are screaming it's torture in the first place.

At one time people were publicly drawn and quartered. When that ceased, people were still publicly hanged. We have since adopted more sensibility (if not always necessarily sense; I remember Willie Horton) in our treatment of prisoners - war and otherwise.

But this is a war, and these are not "crimnals" in the "criminal justice" sense. They are illegal combatants.

No uniform, no ID, blending in with civilians. If captured in WWII we'd simply have shot them after a brief military tribunal. And they us, under the same circumstances. The Geneva Conventions presume a certain battlefield honor is required to receive protection.

The detainees have none of it.

The point is that criticism can't even be heard until we stop getting such hysterical and utterly ridiculous complaints as those to which we are now subjected.

Chris Muir once again captures it.

See also Michelle Malkin and Jonah Goldberg for further debunking.

Tuesday, June 21, 2005

Western Civ (minus) 101

Though apparently a healthy plurality don’t recognize it, Canadians face a grave threat to their very system of government.

The strangest thing to me is that there is an easy way to remedy the immediate problem, even if it were only a temporary rejection of the Libranos.

How much harm... to whatever it is that would be harmed... could one term of Steven Harper do?

Harper isn’t going to be able to reverse gun-confiscation. He can’t dissolve the health care system – even though a majority of Canadians would like the parallel-private alternative Paul Martin has rejected. He can’t rebuild the military. He probably could only delay a gay-marriage bill.

These are projects of a generation, not a term. They are the burden of culture, not of politics.

What can be so scary about Steven Harper that one would vote to continue, in a 1st world country, a standard for honesty in government that doesn't quite rise to the level of the 3rd world? The fear must be palpable.

In Canada’s defense, it is fair to point out that "Western Civilization" is a term being used loosely everywhere.

How else can the US explain the rants of Old Europe, Amnesty International, the International Committee of the Red Cross, Senator Dick Durbin, and yes - Canada?

The fight for Western Civilization is informed in the US by anti-American obscenities spoken on the floor of the Senate. The fight for honest government, as a concept, isn’t even on the horizon for many Canadian voters.

I don’t mean this so much as a comparison, as I do as a plea.

What is going on? Where can we build anew?

If Only Amnesty Could be Held Incommunicado

I'm not convinced Anne Applebaum is correct regarding "the absence of any outside investigation into reports of prison abuse" at Gitmo, given the many known visits and political alignment of the Red Cross.

You also need to consider that our military is neither isolated from the news nor are they complete imbeciles (despite what Dick Durbin says).

I mean, if they are clever enough to torture jihadists under the nose of ICRC who claim it to be true anyway, don't you think they've stopped by now?

This simply proves Applebaum is no apologist for the Bush administration.

Her commentary is worth a read. Amnesty's Amnesia.

This bit from Jed Babbin, at the American Spectator, is also instructive about conditions in Gitmo:
We're holding people there incommunicado? According to 1st Lt. Wade Brown, the chief mail man at Gitmo, every detainee at Gitmo, regardless of his conduct, is allowed mail privileges unless he can't be trusted with a pen because he's threatened to harm himself. Lt. Brown, in a sworn declaration dated March 17, 2005, said that from September 2004 through February 2005, 14,000 pieces of mail were sent or received by detainees at Gitmo.

Legal limbo? Some 800 suspected terrorists have, so far, been incarcerated at Gitmo. All of them have had their cases reviewed by military commissions. About 235 have been released, 61 are today awaiting release or transfer, and about 520 remain, having been given all the due process to which they are entitled by U.S. and international law, including the Geneva Conventions. They are enemy combatants. We are entitled to hold them until the war is over whether it's tomorrow or in 2525

Monday, June 20, 2005

Defining Evil Upward

Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan once wrote that the crime rate seemed to be getting better only because we were defining deviancy downward.

The current incarnation of this deconstructionist tendency is to define evil upward. The methods range from direct comparison of conditions at Guantanamo Bay with the actions of the most heinous mass-murderers of the 20th century, to knee-jerk silliness such as equating torture with playing Christina Aguilera tunes too loudly, or complaining that DoD staffers pretended to work for the State Department during interrogation sessions.

If ignorance of history causes us to repeat it, what does deliberately lying about history cause? One answer comes from David Gelernter, writing in the LA Times - We Are Our History -- Don't Forget It. He points out that the casual insertion of such terms into public discourse damages the very idea of what is “humane”:
...Ignorance of history destroys our judgment. Consider [comparisons of the] Guantanamo Bay detention center to Stalin's gulag and to the death camps of Hitler and Pol Pot — an astonishing, obscene piece of ignorance. Between 15 million and 30 million people died from 1918 through 1956 in the prisons and labor camps of the Soviet gulag. Historian Robert Conquest gives some facts. A prisoner at the Kholodnaya Gora prison had to stuff his ears with bread before sleeping on account of the shrieks of women being interrogated. At the Kolyma in Siberia, inmates labored through 12-hour days in cheap canvas shoes, on almost no food, in temperatures that could go to minus-58. At one camp, 1,300 of 3,000 inmates died in one year.

"Gulag" must not go the way of "Nazi" and become virtually meaningless.
The increasingly twisted metaphors defining evil upward are exemplified by Senator Richard J. Durbin (D-IL). Speaking on the floor of “the greatest deliberative body in the world”, (a metaphor for “hot air”) he managed to damn Hitler, Stalin, and Pol Pot with feeble praise in a single sentence.
If I read this to you and did not tell you that it was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners in their control, you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime -- Pol Pot or others -- that had no concern for human beings.
Durbin poured gasoline on the flames of fanatic Islam and insulted American airmen, soldiers, sailors and Marines in one breath. Marvelous.

Senator Durbin expects us to accept the treatment of Guantanamo’s 500+ current inmates as morally equivalent to the 50 million people who died from medical experimentation, starvation, exposure, beating and assorted mass butchery at the hands of Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot.

No Gitmo detainees have died. If there is medical experimentation going on it must relate to the Center for Disease Control’s concerns about obesity, because the average weight gain while incarcerated is 13 pounds.

In terms of death from exposure, the fact that manipulation of air-conditioning is one of the Senator’s examples of torture is highly instructive.

Not perhaps as instructive as it would be for Senator Durbin to read One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich, The Black Book of Communism, The Gulag Archipelago, or even his oath of office;
I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.
However, that much reading might detract from the time spent preparing to act as an Al-Jazeera spokesperson on the floor of the Senate.

The fact that exhaustive investigations into the beating of a book resulted in the firing of a contractor and the fact that by June 2004 there had been at least 18 visits to Gitmo by the Red Cross, would tend to belie Durbin’s implication regarding beatings and mass murder.

The “or others” throwaway would include Mao and Castro, adding 70 million people to the rolls of state-sponsored murders in the first instance; and the regime that holds over twice the number of Guantanamo detainees, on the same island and in truly inhuman conditions, in the second.

A central tenet of Amnesty International used to be that of a prisoner of conscience who neither uses nor advocates political violence. However, since Amnesty agrees with Durbin on the point of “Gitmo=Gulag” one probably cannot expect them to redefine “political violence” to include hate speech by a Senator.

Let us not belabor the second ranking Senate Democrat’s tawdry political ploy. If Durbin can think of no better use for examples of abominable predation by soulless tyrants than to castigate the United States, we should take him at his word. If he feels compelled to trivialize utter disregard for human life in order to demonize the United States and its military forces for political advantage, that’s his baggage. He should take it home to Illinois with him.

Alas, the Senate Minority Whi
mp is not alone. Let me share a response to an Op-Ed I wrote recently in which I poked fun at the ACLU. Here’s what I wrote. This is a letter to the editor in response:
Hatred obvious

In a sneering commentary, Duane Hershberger did more to reveal his own thought process than to dispel the American Civil Liberty Union's concern about the treatment of detainees at Guantanamo.

Not willing to even consider that a few of these Afghans may have been defending their country, Hershberger brands all of them "Islamofascists," "jihadists," "our declared mortal enemies," "suicide-bomb-school washouts who've sworn to kill you and me."

This inhuman imagery of the detainees makes their inhumane treatment easy to accept. Concern over sexual and physical abuse is dismissible. Concern over interrogation methods is laughable.

The relativist compassion of the Theocratic Right, delimited by its own definition of humanness, proves the adage that the more one hates something, the more one becomes like the object of that hatred.

Apparently, hatred for "Islamofascists" has turned some into Judeo-Christofascists.

Charles McGuire
Eaton Rapids
Let’s review. The word torture appears nowhere in my article, but for Mr. McGuire’s benefit, I’ll note that I do not condone torture, even that for which we have no evidence. That’s just the best reason I did not write about it.

My point was this: the ACLU (et. al.) will go to any extreme to claim that the Guantanamo prisoners are being mistreated. The utter lack of proportion that results takes us into a twilight zone where the word torture itself is, well … tortured. Welcome to the theater of the absurd. Have a chuckle.

Still, I do get it. If one points out the absurdity of an ACLU complaint about Defense Department staff masquerading as Department of State employees, a certain segment of the population will read this as condoning torture. It is not necessary even to mention it (torture, that is).

It is further obvious to this same demographic that anyone expressing such an opinion is automatically a foaming-at-the-mouth right-wing Christian zealot.

Moral equivalence junkies apparently have their own fetishes.

On the question of whether a “few of these Afghans may have been defending their country”, I am perfectly willing to concede that the vast majority were defending their country. Exceptions who were attacking their own country, like Johnny Walker Lindh, can here be ignored.

I suspect Mr. McGuire actually intended to say a few illegal combatants had some legitimate reason for plotting the deaths of US soldiers. He could not mean “defending their country”, since it was that very Taliban government that refused to give up Osama bin-Laden.

Al-Qaeda translates as “The Base”. That’s what Afghanistan was for OBL and that’s why we are there.

In terms of branding the detainees Islamofascists, Jihadists and our declared mortal enemies, I guess I will have to stand by my statement. Moreover, that list does include Johnny Walker Lindh.

The detainees complaining about Koran desecration are obviously Islamist. They defended a fascist government. They call themselves “jihadists”.

If a desire to kill Americans during the battle to disrupt Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan does not qualify one as a “declared mortal enemy”, at least let me say I don’t want to fly with any of them. They want to kill us whether they were actually Taliban Cabinet Ministers or not.

That leaves us with “suicide-bomb-school washouts” as indicative of “hatred”.

Two points. 1- It was irony. SBS dropouts are probably not the guys you want at your elbow when attempting the ambush of a Marine fire team. 2- Interrogation to find out who was actually doing the training in the suicide-bomb-schools is not to be dismissed because a DoD person pretended to be employed by the State Department. Hissy fits are out of place in wartime.

Anyone defending the country that harbored Osama bin-Laden should be in Gitmo, or underground. May those who claim otherwise reap the ridicule they deserve.

Now, if Mr. McGuire were contending that some Afghanis were just caught up in the general joy over the opportunity to kill Americans, but were not otherwise associated with the Taliban, I’d have to say “boo-hoo” to their plight.

Mr. McGuire apparently imagines one non-Taliban-Afghani-Buddhist-patriot exhorting the other two: “Hey guys, Allah has delivered some unclean minions of the Great Satan into our general vicinity, let’s go out and see if we can kill a few. Yeah, those pesky Taliban blew up our ancient statues and stoned our daughters, but gosh, my AK-47 ammo is about to be stale dated.”

Sexual and physical abuse? Some female interrogators embarrassed an Islamofascist by removing articles of their own clothing? I stand in awe of the interrogators’ dedication to their fellow soldiers and to me.

And I’m not taking any guff about the sexual harassment of individuals who dream of 72 virgins obtained by killing infidels, who won’t even let their own daughters go to school and who stone raped females as adulterers in order to save the “family honor”.

We’re speaking of medieval value systems here. The ACLU wants those values protected by the very document, the US Constitution, that codified their rejection.

Finally, Mr. McGuire’s presumption of my religious orientation is entirely incorrect and would be offensive if it weren’t so predictable.

I am not disconcerted by such Democrat talking points. I find solace in kindred spirits such as John Kass at the Chicago Tribune. In Guantanamo is no place for a pop princess, Kass gives appropriate weight to the pro-detainee complainers.
… Intelligence officials did their best to break the terrorists with unspeakable torments, including offering plenty of honeyed chicken, fruit, various breakfast cereals and, for the less devout, photographs of naked women.

Then they blew it big time by using Aguilera.

Her music reportedly was piped into the cell of Osama bin Laden's henchman Mohamed al-Qahtani. He allegedly was the 20th hijacker, the only one kept out of the country, so he couldn't make his plane on Sept. 11, 2001.

"I will tell the truth," he was quoted as saying in Time magazine. "I am doing this to get out of here."
Of course, Kass was accused of sneering. Here is his response:

On serious note, Gitmo tactics far from torture
…there are legitimate legal concerns as to how to treat them [detainees] under the law. There also are immediate issues--such as finding out what they know in order to protect Americans here and overseas.

But on Thursday, I had some fun with a Time magazine report about the use of Christina Aguilera's music by interrogators to loosen tongues at Gitmo.

Why? Because I thought it was funny. And because most of the debate is calculated, having little to do with the merits and much to do with midterm elections.

By the way, I'd like to thank all those who sent in their favorite songs to be offered as new Guantanamo musical interrogation tools, now to be referred to as "Interro-Tunes."
The incomparable Mark Steyn also weighs in on the topic here:
…One measure of a civilized society is that words mean something: "Soviet" and "Nazi" and "Pol Pot" cannot equate to Guantanamo unless you've become utterly unmoored from reality. Spot the odd one out: 1) mass starvation; 2) gas chambers; 3) mountains of skulls; 4) lousy infidel pop music turned up to full volume. One of these is not the same as the others, and Durbin doesn't have the excuse that he's some airhead celeb or an Ivy League professor. He's the second-ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee. Don't they have an insanity clause?

Now let us turn to the ranking Democrat, the big cheese on the committee, Patrick Leahy of Vermont. Leahy thinks Gitmo needs to be closed down and argues as follows:

"America was once very rightly viewed as a leader in human rights and the rule of law, but Guantanamo has drained our leadership, our credibility, and the world's good will for America at alarming rates."

So, until Guantanamo, America was "viewed as a leader in human rights"? Not in 2004, when Abu Ghraib was the atrocity du jour. Not in 2003, when every humanitarian organization on the planet was predicting the deaths of millions of Iraqis from cholera, dysentery and other diseases caused by America's "war for oil." Not in 2002, when the "human rights" lobby filled the streets of Vancouver and London and Rome and Sydney to protest the Bushitler's plans to end the benign reign of good King Saddam. Not the weekend before 9/11 when the human rights grandees of the U.N. "anti-racism" conference met in South Africa to demand America pay reparations for the Rwandan genocide and to cheer Robert Mugabe to the rafters for calling on Britain and America to "apologize unreservedly for their crimes against humanity." If you close Gitmo tomorrow, the world's anti-Americans will look around and within 48 hours alight on something else for Gulag of the Week.
And more Steyn, here, echoing some previous Other Club posts.
…By now, one or two readers may be frothing indignantly, “That’s not funny! Bush’s torture camp at Guantanamo is the gulag of our time, if not of all time.” But that’s the point. The world divides into those who feel the atrocities at Gitmo “must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime — Pol Pot or others” …, and the rest of us, for whom the more we hear the specifics of the “atrocities” the funnier they are. They bear the same relation to the gulags (15-30 million dead), the Nazi camps (nine million dead) and the killing fields of Cambodia (two million dead) as Mel Brooks‚ “Springtime For Hitler” does to the original. Nobody complained at Auschwitz that the guards were playing the 78s of The Merry Widow (the Fuhrer’s favorite operetta) with the volume knob too high. When that old KGB hand Yuri Andropov succeeded Brezhnev as the big guy in the Kremlin, he was reported in the western press to be a big Glenn Miller fan. But to the best of my knowledge no-one suggested he was in the basement of the Lubyanka torturing the inmates with “I Got A Gal In Kalamazoo”.
So, never mind that the ACLU angst over “pretending to be a diplomat” is laughable and is explicable only by political opportunism of the worst sort and/or a deep seated anti-Americanism.

Never mind that comparing Guantanamo to the Gulag, the Killing Fields and Auschwitz in the service of partisan politics so debases the memory of what happened in those places as to be obscene even if it did not give aid and comfort to the enemy.

Never mind all that. Since the United States isn’t populated entirely by Saints we should immediately release the detainees in Gitmo and withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan.

Never mind what that would mean to the people who live there. They can take their own damn chances with torture, rape and mass murder. At least it won’t not be happening in Gitmo.

In closing, another thought from Mark Steyn:
This isn't a Republican vs Democrat thing; it's about senior Democrats who are so over-invested in their hatred of a passing administration that they've signed on to the nuttiest slurs of the lunatic fringe.

20-Jun, 7:44PM - Winfield Myers has some worthwhile comment at Democracy Project: Did Our Minutemen et al. Torture? Are Terrorists "Freedom Fighters?", as does Hugh Hewitt: Breaking the Durbin Code.

Friday, June 17, 2005

Senators Leahy and Durbin Squeak Out

"Leahy admitted that Guantanamo prison has undermined the United States' credibility in human rights."

Guess where this appears. Hint: it isn't the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, the San Fancisco Chronicle or even Pravda. It isn't, or, or, or or even

Check it out.

It's amazing they can even type the word "credibility" without having their fingers fall off (Allah having the same attitude toward truth and justice as Yaweh), but there probably is a dispensation when quoting a US Senator.

And how about:

"US senator stands by Nazi remark."

You are a Senator and your argument is that American credibility is being damaged. Do you compare US soldiers to the the Khmer Rouge, Gitmo to the Soviet Gulag and to Nazi extermination camps? Do you say these things in one breath, claim the War in Iraq is creating new terrorists in the second and evince support for the troops in the third?

Senators, give us all a fisking break. Retake Comparative Metaphors 101.

45 Million Myths Continued

Ronald Bailey at Reason and Arnold Kling at Tech Central Station have some thoughts on health care.

2005 Medical Care Forever and Be Careful What You Pay For, respectively.

Bailey points out problems with government-monopoly health care (echoing some of yesterday's post on the topic) and Kling notes that maybe the US does not have enough overhead of the right sort.

Thursday, June 16, 2005

45 Million Myths

From Canada's National Post.

Best single commentary on government-monopoly health care I've seen in some time. TOTH to Neale News.
Better Canada's frayed health care system than unbridled U.S. capitalism that leaves millions with no safety net, right? Well, take a closer look.
...The uninsured [in the United States] have at their disposal a safety net, namely the public hospital network: This in fact constitutes a sort of informal hospital insurance. Even the uninsured can obtain health care. The Congressional Budget Office writes that "many people without insurance have access to at least some sources of health care, either through public hospitals, community health centres, local health departments, or Department of Veterans Affairs facilities." OECD researchers have made a similar observation: "Local governments, in conjunction with states, play an important role in financing the so-called safety net providers (e.g., county hospitals) that serve the indigent."

These facts are illustrated by a letter last year from Susan W. Weathers, a doctor in Texas, to the Wall Street Journal. The Canadian system, she explained, "resembles the county hospital where I work. Our patients pay little or nothing. They wait three months for an elective MRI scan and a couple of months to get into a subspecialty clinic. Our cancer patients fare better than the Canadians, getting radiotherapy within one to three weeks. The difference is that our patients are said to have no insurance (a term used interchangeably with no health care) whereas Canadians have 'universal coverage.'"
This won't be reported in the US, of course. The objective of US advocates
of socialized medicine (including the MSM) has been demonstrated in Canada: The government must have control.

if they can't run schools how can we expect them to run health care?

The answer is - Badly.

Look at Canada's health care, defense capability, political honesty, freedom of speech and gun control insanity ($2 billion and counting, as pointed out by Angry in the Great White North) and you see what Liberals want the US to be.

Pay attention.

They Should Apologize to Descendents of the Helots, too

La Shawn Barber isn't the first to say this, but she says it very well: Anti-Lynching Legislation.

An excerpt:
...Perhaps Congress should apologize for decades of bloated socialist programs that caused the black family to disintegrate. Paying unmarried women to have babies is obscene, immoral, and the reason so many (too many) black children have no fathers to speak of. Treating blacks like dummies who require separate (LOWER) standards than every other race is offensive. I’m offended. Where is my apology?

Generations of blacks have been lulled into feeding from the government trough, and the damage it caused will reverberate for generations. And those numbskulls down the street are apologizing for failing to pass anti-lynching laws 100 years ago. Lord, give me strength.

I’m sick of politicians wasting time and money pandering to blacks, treating us like empty-headed children, spoon-feeding us putrid pabulum, and prostrating themselves for every perceived slight. Don’t apologize to “Black People.” Apologize to individual blacks who actually care about this mess.

Apologize for failing to protect Americans against foreign invaders. Apologize for taking our hard-earned money and giving it to people who don’t want to earn it themselves. Apologize for constantly referring to me as “African American,” implying that I’m a lesser American than everyone else. Apologize to all Americans for pushing racially divisive entitlements and preferences and insane “hate crime” laws. Thanks to your misguided paternalism, racial tension will always be front and center.
It was the Democrats
* who blocked the legislation in the past.

Why didn't the Deaniac National Committee just apologize for it and leave the Senate out of it? Oh, right. Bipartisanship.

*Of course it wasn't the same Democrats. That's the point.

Wednesday, June 15, 2005

Gun Control

From The Vancouver Sun:

Canadian Border guards should be armed, senators say.

Who knew they weren't? Never mind, we all know now.

Solving Gitmo

I hereby proclaim National Adopt-a-Terrorist Week.

Each volunteer family of 4 (minimum, someone must be awake at all times) will receive 20 pair of white cotton gloves, neck armor, an Islamic cookbook, a Koran and the monthly equivalent in old dinars of a US Army Private's pay.

In exchange, each such family must agree to house one Guantanamo terrorist.
ACLU and Amnesty International households preferred. Offer expires when inventory does.

Our theme is provided by
Christopher Hitchens with a nice bit in Slate on Gitmo and the hyperventilating "give terrorists rights under the US criminal justice system" cabal:
...The forces of al-Qaida and its surrogate organizations are not signatory to the [Geneva] conventions and naturally express contempt for them. They have no battle order or uniform and are represented by no authority with which terms can be negotiated. Nor can they claim, as actual guerrilla movements like the Algerian FLN have done in the past, to be the future representatives of their countries or peoples. In Afghanistan and Iraq, they sought to destroy the electoral process that alone can confer true legitimacy, and they are in many, if not most, cases not even citizens of the countries concerned. Their announced aim is the destruction of all nonbelievers, and their avowed method is indiscriminate and random murder. They are more like pirates, hijackers, or torturers—three categories of people who have in the past been declared outside the protection of any law...

...An axiom of the law states that justice is more offended by one innocent person punished than by any number of guilty persons unapprehended. I say frankly that I am not certain of the applicability of this in the present case. Mullah Omar's convoy in Afghanistan was allowed to escape because there was insufficient certainty to justify bombing it. Several detainees released from Guantanamo have reappeared in the Taliban ranks, once again burning and killing and sabotaging. The man whose story of rough interrogation has just been published in Time had planned to board a United Airlines flight and crash it into a skyscraper. I want to know who his friends and contacts were, and so do you, hypocrite lecteur.

You may desire this while also reserving the right to demand that he has a lawyer present at all times. But please observe where we stand now. Alberto Gonzales was excoriated even for asking, or being asked, about the applicability of Geneva rules. Apparently, Guantanamo won't do as a holding pen until we decide how to handle and classify these people. But meanwhile, neither will it do to "render" any suspects to their countries of origin. How many alternatives does this leave? Is al-Qaida itself to be considered a "ticking bomb" or not? How many of those who express concern about Guantanamo have also been denouncing the administration for being too lenient about ignoring warnings and missing opportunities for a pre-atrocity roundup? I merely ask. I also express the wish that more detainees be brought, like the wretched American John Walker Lindh, before a court.
Entire article: Confessions of a Dangerous Mind.

Hitchens is right, so I'll listen to the whingeing of the sinister side of our political spectrum on this when they tell me what they would do with 300-odd terrorists if we did close Gitmo. NIMBY

If the United States ties itself in knots because of the opinion of the Europeans, insane exaggerations by Amnesty International and the ACLU, or grandstanding Democrat Senators, ask yourself this: Are Iraqi "insurgents" pleased, or otherwise?

Should a charge of
aiding and comforting the enemy be tried under US Criminal Law or under the Uniform Code of Military Justice? Before answering, recall that many terrorists would already have have been tried by Military Tribunal if not for ACLU lawyers' intervention with handpicked judges.

Speaking of the ACLU, why aren't they suing the Department of Defense over the obvious lack of separation of church and state at Gitmo? Obviously, taxpayer dollars were used to purchase Korans and prayer rugs for the detainees, and DoD personnel have abetted prayer in a Government facility by pointing out the direction of Mecca.

If the Federal Government insisted that any University accepting Federal dollars had to force its staff to wear gloves while handling the Koran, Bhagavad Gîtâ, Guru Granth Sahib, Shruti, Torah, or Bible what would be the reaction?

NAFTA - not

According to today's Vancouver Sun, Canadians are prohibited from bringing to Canada any purchases made in the U.S. if their visit to the U.S. was shorter than 24 hours. It seems that North American Free Trade is not so free if you are Canadian.

It calls to mind whether Canada is even a free country (health care rationing, satellite dish restrictions, egregious free speech abridgment, etc.), but that I suppose is still open to debate. And who am I to imply that a free Canada would be good for Canadians.

What is indisputable, though, is that NAFTA is a misnomer.

Sunday, June 12, 2005

Koranarama - the Beat Goes On

Roger Kimball at Armavirumque on Koran handling apologia:
What would Evelyn Waugh make of this? It’s a question I often ask myself when contemplating one or another ghastly facet of contemporary life. Waugh was good on manners and morals--see The Loved One, for example--but he was also splendid about the inanities of military life: he knew first-hand about bureaucratic blundering, about absurd face-saving directives that intervene in a bad situation and make it worse...
Evelyn Waugh just didn't occur to me in this context, but the point is absolutely clear.

Read the rest-
It's always worse than you think, Koran-Handling Dept.


Imperfections as Fatal Flaws

My local newspaper recently published this expanded version of one of my recent posts.

I do not know how long the link will be active, if it fails and you’re still interested, send me an email.

The OpEd elicited this response in the letters to the Editor (3rd letter):
Torture unacceptable

When I was young, I used to call others names when I didn't like or agree with them. I also used to use others' bad behavior as a rationale for my own.

Obviously, Duane Hershberger (Viewpoints, June 3) has not evolved from his adolescent past.

Not every suspect being held in Guantanamo and other U.S. prisons around the globe are "terrorist fascists." And, because torture happens in other countries should not be justification for U.S. agents to commit torture.

America is the greatest country on Earth and I expect our government to set the highest standard for moral behavior. Torture is morally wrong and in most cases ineffective.

Ask Sen. John McCain.

Phillip Korrey
East Lansing
Note: I never mentioned, much less condoned torture. I did not mention torture occurring in any other country. I’m unsure if Mr. Korrey actually read what I wrote.

I am sure that any defense of the United States would have been bothersome for him.

Serendipitously, today, Mark Steyn points out that of 300 plus jihadists released from detention at Guantanamo, at least 12 have been recaptured on the battlefield.

He also notes the utter lack of interest from Islamist fanatics in “the recent suicide bombing at a mosque in Kandahar, which killed 20, wounded more than 50 and presumably desecrated every Quran in the building.”

Nonetheless, we’re continually subjected to semiotically confused tirades, such as Mr. Korrey’s, regarding simple facts about prisoner treatment at Guantanamo. Even if Guantanamo holds a few “not strictly Islamofascist” prisoners, the fact they were shooting at Americans when captured trumps any attempt to hijack rational discourse by naming them victims.

I’m tired of this frenzied condemnation of the United States as evil if it isn’t perfect. (TOTH to Victor Davis Hanson.)

The knee-jerk presumption of American wickedness needs to cease, at least until the rest of the world is within “spitting” distance of US virtue.

Friday, June 10, 2005

Travesty International III

The Foundation for the Defense of Democracies has interesting information relating to my comment yesterday about North Korean Peasants' human rights.
To the average North Korean prisoner, Guantanamo, with its wholesome food, hygienic sanitation, medical care, regular religious services, fresh clothes, forgiving climate, trained personnel, and periodic Red Cross visits would be an astonishing land of plenty. The same goes for the average North Korean citizen.
Full Article: Got Gulag? North Korea Does.

The Gulag is alive and well in Stalinist North Korea, but Travesty International doesn't consider it as "the Gulag of our times".

That's because George Bush isn't running North Korea.

Thursday, June 09, 2005

Travesty International II

Powerline has a good piece on Amnesty's call for the arrest of President Bush and many other US Government officials.

These people are unhinged, they haven't called for the arrest of Kim Jong Il, or even mentioned the lot of the average North Korean peasant - which is worse than any prisoner's in Gitmo.

They are oblivious to this horror in Iran.

They are 10th of Septembrists.

The principle from which they work is therefore not humanitarian. It is simple and absolute opposition to George Bush.

Wednesday, June 08, 2005

A Nice Trashing of the Incumbent Protection Act and its Acolytes

Ryan Sager at Tech Central Station. Good read.
Why, when the free market has gone and created the exact state of affairs the reformers have long claimed to desire, are the McCains of the world looking to crack down?

Because the reform movement has never been about freedom. It has always been about control.

Maroon Rhymes with Buffoon

mid-Michigan types today protested over Representative Mike Rogers' (R-MI) acceptance of money from House Majority Leader Tom Delay's PAC.

Their point is somewhat obscured by other facts.

1- The Maroons took tens of millions from George Soros, 'evil' currency speculator and convicted inside trader.

2- They then used his blood money to distribute ads comparing Bush to Hitler and of the Capitol being blown up - part of a long list of idiocies targeting their far-left
-statist core supporters.

3- While Rep. Mike Rogers, Michigan Republican, did get money from Delay's PAC, the facts ballyhooed by the Maroons were about Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Alabama), but they didn't know it was the wrong Congressman. They took their instruction from a moonbat leftwing Web site. Why not? They're familiar with the genre.

Actually, the facts wouldn't have made any difference to these 20 or so idiots anyway.

They still think Howard Dean had it right when he recommended a jail term for Delay, who has never even been charged with anything. That is the Maroon idea of American justice.

As Bugs Bunny would say - "What a Maroon."

Though in this particular example (I have to play it twice to get the full sentence) Bugs is obviously referring to Howard Dean, the "ultra-maroon."

Tuesday, June 07, 2005

Commerce? BS!

Justice Clarence Thomas dissenting on ALBERTO R. GONZALES, ATTORNEY GENERAL, et al., PETITIONERS v. ANGEL McCLARY RAICH et al.
Respondents Diane Monson and Angel Raich use marijuana that has never been bought or sold, that has never crossed state lines, and that has had no demonstrable effect on the national market for marijuana. If Congress can regulate this under the Commerce Clause, then it can regulate virtually anything–and the Federal Government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers.
Justice Thomas is entirely correct, Congress has been using the Commerce Clause in exactly this "Central Planning" way for decades.

Entire dissent here.

This is the guy Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid says can't write, implies is stupid and insinuates is an Uncle Tom.

I'd say it's the Senator who needs remedial reading instruction and a repeat of Elementary Logic 001.

Travesty International

Is there any remaining reason that we should pay any attention to Amnesty International, aside from condemnation, that is?

Here it is. Until they remove it:

...after sufficient contributions from the Moveon crowd, one must suppose.

Update: 7-Jun, 9:13PM.
See also this Don D'Cruz piece on Tech Central Station.

Blogroll Update

Added to the blogroll. Canadian Content.

The Fraser Institute.

The Fraser Institute focuses on the role competitive markets play in providing for the economic and social well-being of all Canadians and as an international forum for policy ideas.

Monday, June 06, 2005


A reminder of what Canadian Arms and courage once meant when you said "ally."
Almost everyone has at least some knowledge about the invasion of Normandy which took place on June 6, 1944...but relatively few are aware that there was an earlier amphibious assault on occupied Europe. The attack on the French port of Dieppe took place on August 19, 1942. The objectives were twofold. First, the attack was intended as kind of a "feasibility test" for the large-scale invasion which was to take place later. As stated by General Sir Alan Brooke, "If it was ever intended to invade France it was essential to launch a preliminary offensive on a divisional scale." Second, the attack was intended to convince Hitler that an invasion was more imminent than it in fact was, thereby leading to the diversion of German forces from other areas.

The troops assigned to Dieppe were mostly Canadians--5000 of them. There were also British commandos and a small number of American Rangers. Eight destroyers were assigned to the operation, along with 74 Allied air squadrons.
Thanks to Photon Courier.

BEFORE D-DAY, THERE WAS DIEPPE. This is worth reading.


Check Discover the Network. Read about the connections; financial and "intellectual", of:
Human Rights Watch.
Amnesty International.
And, don't miss the ACLU while you're there.

These 10th-of-Septembrist organizations support the right of our islamofascist enemies to due process under US law and the Geneva Conventions; even though those same jihadists would have Amnesty, et. al.'s, heads first.

But Amnesty does not stop with merely comparing Gitmo to the Gulag. No, the particularly despicable Irene Khan of Amnesty International - fearlessly keeps her silence rather than support a "

You have to wonder how she could have been allowed into this conference:
Amnesty International's head's moral status.

Maybe she wore a Star of David on her sleeve.

TOTH to The American Thinker.

Sunday, June 05, 2005

Best Argument for Bolton Yet...

...even if AP is spinning it otherwise.

Here's exactly why Bolton should be confirmed, because he gets in people's faces.

Especially UN people.

Especially incompetent UN people, if that is not an oxymoron.
John R. Bolton flew to Europe in 2002 to confront the head of a global arms-control agency and demand he resign, then orchestrated the firing of the unwilling diplomat in a move a U.N. tribunal has since judged unlawful, according to officials involved.
The United Nations' highest administrative tribunal later condemned the action as an "unacceptable violation" of principles protecting international civil servants. The OPCW session's Swiss chairman now calls it an "unfortunate precedent" and Bustani a "man with merit."
Jose Bustani served up to the standard of Hans Blix. Almost.
...Ralph Earle, a veteran U.S. arms negotiator, told AP that he and others in Bolton's arms-control bureau grew unhappy with what they considered Bustani's mismanagement. The agency chief also "had a big ego. He did things on his own," and wasn't responsive to U.S. and other countries' positions, said Earle, now retired.

Both Earle and career diplomat Avis Bohlen, who retired in June 2002 as a top Bolton deputy, said the idea to remove Bustani did not originate with the undersecretary. But Bolton "leaped on it enthusiastically," Bohlen recalled. "He was very much in charge of the whole campaign," she said, and Bustani's initiative on Iraq seemed the "coup de grace."
Bustani, a Brazilian paper pusher, was undermining United States foreign policy using the imprimature of the UN; a body even more obviously corrupt now than it was when George Bush was placating Colin Powell by playing nice with the Security Council.

Bolton stopped Bustani from a new series of non-Security Council approved "UN initiatives" in Iraq. The AP can barely conceal its displeasure; sympathy for the UN being a given and antipathy toward the US being business as usual.

Even with the AP slant, we can detect John Bolton effectively defending US interests, against UN mandarins. We could ask no more of any UN ambassador. A toast to Jean Kirkpatrick and Patrick Moynihan (perhaps the last honest Liberal).

Any story that presents a character judgment made by a UN tribunal in a positive way - while Kofi Annan stills "serves" - and Annan's son and Benon Sevan are not in prison is, frankly, a joke. And not a very good one.

John Bolton may have bypassed UN protocol, he may have figured out how to finesse UN rules. Who cares? The bottom line is he got what the United States needed.

This is what the Democrats, along with George "No Show" Voinovich and John "Ingrate" Thune are willing to prevent - an effective UN Ambassador.

Vote him up or vote him down, but shut up and vote.

Fake but accurate

Ever since Newsweek got the Gitmo “Koran flushing” story backwards – it was a prisoner who did that, not US military personnel – we’ve been treated to a story a day about the horrors of Gitmo. We’re treated to MSM outrage about US insensitivity to Islam and stand accused of running a “Gulag.”

Tell you what. When the Saudis allow Jews and Bibles to be in their country; when Al-Qaeda stops turning mosques into fortresses and arms caches; when Iran’s prisons appear in an Amnesty International press release - that is, when pigs fly - I'll turn my attention to consideration of how we should display our respect for the trappings of Islam, including the Koran.

Who is asking about prison conditions in Saudi Arabia, North Korea or France? This is not about human rights. It's about the agenda of UNophiles who think it's just peachy that Syria, Cuba and Libya are on, or head, UN committees dedicated to "protection" of human rights.

Where is George Orwell, to point out this newthink, when you need him?

The Pentagon's announcement of actual cases of Koran mistreatment was unhelpful. None of the leftwing usual suspects will give any credit for the Pentagon's self examination, they'll just say "Told you so." and "You're still lying about the REAL abuse." Ref. - Molly Ivins.

Such self flagellation would be unnecessary in a county that wasn't full of decadent pseudo-intellectuals such as are protected from reality in our Universities and in our traditional Press. Leakers and Stalinists.

We tie ourselves in politically correct knots while our enemies make snuff videos of the beheading of civilians. Our press dwells on “fake, but accurate.”

At Camp X-Ray our military “showed disrespect” for the Koran five times. Three were clearly accidental; one resulted in the firing of an interrogator.

The islamofascist thugs imprisoned there committed atrocities against the Koran fifteen times, including urinating on it and the attempted flushing.

If we really followed Wahhabi principles, those prisoners should have been put to death.

We provided the Korans in the first place. We provide Islamic appropriate meals. We provide better medical care than the prisoners have ever experienced. We play calls to prayer five times a day, and probably point out the direction of Mecca for those using the prayer rugs we supplied.

Protocol calls for us to handle the Koran with gloves – a tacit admission that we’re inferior brings.

And what does our own press do with this fawning virtue? Turn it against us.

The Lone Ranger was a man who, when the bad guy was clinging to a cliff by his fingernails, would pull him back to safety in order to continue the fight. That's us.

I still admire the Lone Ranger ethic, but when the onlookers start shouting "Why didn't you consider his impoverished childhood?" and "Who made you the Editor of Newsweek?" - reason demands that we reconsider who is worthy of our virtue.


Saturday, June 04, 2005

Bananada 2

The perfidy of the Canadian Liberal Party continues unabated.

It's all I can do to keep up with it and still pay attention to anything else.

Please check Small Dead Animals for updates.

This debacle is instructive to US citizens in many ways.

Wednesday, June 01, 2005

Blogroll Additions

Angry in the Great White North

Taking sloppy liberal thinking and tearing it a new one -- but always with a touch of class.

The QandO Blog
Free Markets, Free People

Check them out.