Desecrating America

An Anthem's Discordant Notes
Spanish Version of 'Star-Spangled Banner' Draws Strong Reactions

By David Montgomery
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, April 28, 2006; Page A01

Oh say can you see -- a la luz de la aurora?

The national anthem that once endured the radical transformation administered by Jimi Hendrix's fuzzed and frantic Stratocaster now faces an artistic dare at least as extreme: translation into Spanish.

The new take is scheduled to hit the airwaves today. It's called "Nuestro Himno" -- "Our Anthem" -- and it was recorded over the past week by Latin pop stars including Ivy Queen, Gloria Trevi, Carlos Ponce, Tito "El Bambino," Olga Tañon and the group Aventura. Joining and singing in Spanish is Haitian American artist Wyclef Jean.

The different voices contribute lines the way 1985's "We Are the World" was put together by an ensemble of stars. The national anthem's familiar melody and structure are preserved, while the rhythms and instrumentation come straight out of Latin pop.

Can "The Star-Spangled Banner," and the republic for which it stands, survive? Outrage over what's being called "The Illegal Alien Anthem" is already building in the blogosphere and among conservative commentators.

Timed to debut the week Congress returned to debate immigration reform, with the country riven by the issue, "Nuestro Himno" is intended to be an anthem of solidarity for the movement that has drawn hundreds of thousands of people to march peacefully for immigrant rights in Washington and cities across the country, says Adam Kidron, president of Urban Box Office, the New York-based entertainment company that launched the project.

"It's the one thing everybody has in common, the aspiration to have a relationship with the United States . . . and also to express gratitude and patriotism to the United States for providing the opportunity," says Kidron.

The song was being prepared for e-mailing as MP3 packages to scores of Latino radio stations and other media last night, and Kidron was calling for stations to play the song simultaneously at 7 Eastern time this evening.

However, the same advance buzz that drew singers to scramble for inclusion in the recording sessions this week in New York, Miami, Texas, Mexico, Puerto Rico and the Dominican Republic has also spurred critics who say rendering the song in Spanish is a rejection of assimilation into the United States.

This is desecration pure and simple. If they do this, I hope someone puts a bullet in their heads. This is the United States of America, not la Estados Unidos de America. English is our national language, not Spanish, not "Spanglish." If you want to speak Spanish, there is a place for you to do so, just to the south of the border. Singing some bastardized version of our National Anthem in Spanish is an insult to America, its people, and all of those who fought and died to defend this nation.

If these people want my sympathy, they are going about it in exactly the wrong way. If you reject my American culture, if you reject our society, if you reject our language, you have no business being here and you need to leave.

If there are massed marches on Monday, the "Emigres" need to round them all up and deport them. Why is it okay for them to wave their Mexican flags in our faces and not be found guilty of inciting to riot?

I fail to understand this, they claim 12 million, I believe it's more like 20 million, why don't they go back to their country and change things there. Maybe we need to form more "Minute Man" groups to circulate through the "Hispanic" neighborhoods with cameras and document those illegals who are in our communities.

Full Story: English, or OUT!

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Once More, Democrats Abandoning American Citizens

Immigrant Bill Fallout May Hurt House GOP
Strict Provisions Are Uniting Critics

By Jonathan Weisman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, April 12, 2006; Page A01

In the wake of this week's massive demonstrations, many House Republicans are worried that a tough anti-illegal-immigration bill they thought would please their political base has earned them little benefit while becoming a lightning rod for the fast-growing national movement for immigrant rights.

House Republicans rushed through legislation just before Christmas that would build hundreds of miles of fence along the U.S.-Mexico border, require that businesses verify the legality of all employees' status through a national database, fortify border patrols, and declare illegal immigrants and those who help them to be felons. After more lenient legislation failed in the Senate last week, the House-passed version burst into the public consciousness this week, as hundreds of thousands of protesters across the country turned out to denounce the bill.

Yesterday, House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) issued a joint statement seeking to deflect blame for the harshest provisions of the House bill toward the Democrats, who they said showed a lack of compassion. "It remains our intent to produce a strong border security bill that will not make unlawful presence in the United States a felony," Hastert and Frist said.

Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) fired back that "there's no running away from the fact that the Republican House passed a bill and Senator Frist offered one that criminalizes immigrants."

House Democrats acknowledged they helped block Republican efforts on the floor in December to soften the Republican-crafted section declaring illegal immigrants to be felons, but they said ultimate responsibility for the bill rests with the Republicans, who voted overwhelmingly for its passage.

"The Democrats were not going to do anything to make it easier for Republicans to pass an atrocious bill," said Jennifer Crider, a spokeswoman for House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.).

Yesterday's maneuvering underscores how the immigration issue has mushroomed into a fierce political debate with potentially large stakes heading into the November congressional elections. The hundreds of thousands of protesters in the streets Monday vividly demonstrated the power of the issue, which some strategists say threatens to undercut President Bush's long-standing hope of making Hispanic voters a GOP constituency.

"There was political calculation that they could make this the wedge issue of 2006 and 2008, but it's not playing out that way," said Rep. Raul M. Grijalva (D-Ariz.). "This has galvanized and energized the Latino community like no other issue I have seen in two decades, and that's going to have electoral consequences."

Republicans say they could accept that sentiment if they believed they had won political points from the GOP's restive base. But for all the negatives, they don't have many positives to show for their efforts.

"From the standpoint of those who would applaud the House's stand, I'd say we have not gotten sufficient credit," said Rep. Phil Gingrey (R-Ga.), a reliable supporter of House leaders. "I'm somewhat distressed that they have not gotten word of what we've done."

The politics of the issue have shifted markedly since the House acted. Republican lawmakers are increasingly saying they will now consider some avenue to grant illegal immigrants access to lawful employment. And Democrats who voted for the House bill with an eye on their political futures or to preempt feared attacks from conservatives are rethinking their position.

Rep. Ted Strickland (D-Ohio), a supporter of the bill, was greeted by protesters and shouts of "Migration is not a crime" in February when he opened his Ohio gubernatorial campaign office in Cleveland. Now, he regrets his vote, campaign spokesman Jess Goode said.

Attention! American residency is not an international right. Illegal aliens are just that, illegal. How dare these Democrats and gutless RINO Republicans undermine our Constitution and the priviledges of our citizenship? Latinos who are hear legally are of great benefit to our nation and our economy, but those who are here illegally are a net burden. Have you been to the emergency room lately? Our hospital emergency rooms are overwhelmed by the onslaught of illegals availing themselves of our free medical coverage.

Illegals do not pay taxes. Illegals burden our school systems. Illegals do take jobs that American citizens would do. That last is especially true in the construction industry.

There is a bizarre idea circulating, primarily from the Hispanic community, that because some hundreds of Illegals die each year attempting to enter America, somehow this entitles those who make it here to stay. What utter balderdash! Illegals do not earn the right to live here just because they "risk their lives to get a piece of the American dream." Illegals earn a jail cell for risking their lives to get a piece of the American dream. They are breaking the law. They are by definition, criminals (that's criminales for you Latinos).

Juan Jose Gutierrez, Director of Latino Movement USA, apparently doesn't understand how the law works. He appeared this morning on C-Span and in response to one callers statement that he supported legal immigration, and why don't these people immigrate legally, said "The current law doesn't allow them to." So what Mr. Gutierrez, that gives them the right to break our laws?

Worst, is the complicity of the Democrats in aiding this movement. They are not doing so out of conviction, but out of pure political avarice. As usual, Democrats don't care about the people they are using, only what they can get out of them in the way of power.

If they strike, fire them. If your yard maintenance people join the walk-out, fire them. Show your power.

Full Story: Lawbreakers, Everyone.

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Demagogues and Leftist Whiners Pay Attention!

The Battle Over the Blame for Gas Prices
Firms Cite Supply Issues, Deny Abuse

By Steven Mufson
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, April 21, 2006; Page A01

When Severin Borenstein drove by a Shell station in Orinda, Calif., yesterday morning, the price of unleaded gasoline was $2.99 a gallon. When he drove by five hours later, the price was $3.10 a gallon.

Borenstein has a better grasp of why that happened than most. He's a professor of business and public policy at the University of California at Berkeley and is director of the University of California Energy Institute.

"The oil side is one piece of this. The refining side is another piece of this," he said.

Oil prices are soaring, with the price of crude at more than $70 a barrel on world markets and 37 percent higher than a year ago. That works out to more than $1.7o a gallon, more than half the cost of a gallon of regular unleaded gasoline.

The next biggest chunk of the cost of a gallon of gasoline is the cost of refining, which is now about twice the average levels over the past five years. And that has sparked controversy over whether oil refiners have been gouging consumers by holding back on expanding capacity to gain more power over prices.

The oil companies deny those allegations, but what's not in dispute is what's happening at the gasoline pumps.

"What's going on is just a continued reflection of the worsening supply-and-demand balance, and when you get into a tight market, small changes can cause big price movements," said Borenstein, explaining the rising price of crude oil.

He added that the reasons for fatter refining margins were not so clear. "This is the time of year when that number always goes up, but it has gone up more than usual," Borenstein said. "What we're seeing is that refineries are making huge profits. We have not been building refineries, demand continues to grow, and supply is not keeping up with it."

For most consumers, the high prices have been a bit of a puzzle. When oil prices spiked last year, many of the reasons seemed temporary: hurricane damage in the Gulf of Mexico and unusually low inventories of crude oil and gasoline. This year, inventories have mostly been rising since January and hurricane season is still months away. (Yesterday, the American Petroleum Institute said crude oil inventories dipped slightly but still stood 6.7 percent higher than the year before while gasoline stocks fell to 4 percent below the level a year earlier.)

In the absence of a clear explanation, members of Congress have jumped into the fray. "These major oil companies have hooked their hose up to the pocketbooks of American citizens and are sucking money from ordinary Americans into the treasury of the giant oil companies," said Sen. Byron L. Dorgan (D-N.D.), a member of both the Senate Commerce and Energy committees. Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) on Tuesday called on the Federal Trade Commission to make sure the major oil companies weren't intentionally keeping refinery capacity offline to jack up prices. He cited a 5-percentage-point decline in refinery utilization rates.

But the American Petroleum Institute responded sharply. "Any charge that oil companies are intentionally driving up prices ignores the very obvious fact that refinery capacity has been lower because the industry is still in the process of recovering from the extensive damage caused by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita last summer," the API said in a statement. "It is a fact that three refineries remain closed since the hurricanes. The combined capacity of those refineries is 804,000 barrels per day -- or about 5 percent of U.S. refinery capacity, the same amount Senator Schumer mentions."

One indication of the Gulf of Mexico refinery problems was the price of gasoline, which is usually cheaper there than on the East Coast. Currently, the price of gasoline is running about 15 cents a gallon more in the Gulf region.

Okay O'Reilly and Schumer and the rest of you demagogues try, just try and get your simple little minds around the facts for once. Read the entire article (I am not permitted to post the entire article here, but you can follow the link below) and try to understand.

Oil is a commodity. Its price is controlled by the markets, not by "Big Oil." The average profit made by the oil companies on a gallon of gasoline is 8%. For those of you who can't do higher math, that's 24 cents/gallon. On the other hand Chuck Schumer, Byron Dorgan, and the rest of your government is getting 50 cents in taxes off of each gallon you buy. You tell me, "Who's gouging the customer?" Don't believe me? Check this out from the pages of this very Washinton Post.

As you can plainly see, we Americans could have an immediate drop in the price of gasoline of 50 cents/gallon if Congress would just withdraw their greedy little piggy snouts from the oil trough. I doubt very seriously if those on the Left would agree to such a measure. Why, look at all the environmental research that would have to be terminated or at least severely cut back if that were to happen.

I mean old "Microphone Moth" Schumer is whining about 5%...5%, is he kidding...5%? That's one tenth of what the government is sucking out of the consumers pocket. My God people are you so gullible that you believe these liars? Do a Google on Gas Prices and the first article listed this morning, in the New York Times, is titled "Democrats Eager to Exploit Anger Over Gas Prices."

They don't care about the American people or the hardship they're imposing on them. For them it's a game. It's all about power and politics. They couldn't give a Rat's A__ about you. The oil companies care more about your welfare than they do, if only out of a selfish profit motive...push too high, too quickly, and you alienate the customers. Ask too much for your product, and the small operators will step in and undercut you. It's only good business sense.

Wake up America and quit buying these Demagogue's lies.

Full Story: Democrat-Demagogue, What's the Difference?

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Corruption in Iraq Contracting Requires Draconian Response

U.S. Contractor Admits Bribery For Jobs in Iraq
Occupation Officials Got Cash and Gifts for Deals

By Griff Witte
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, April 19, 2006; Page D01

An American businessman who is at the heart of one of the biggest corruption cases to emerge from the reconstruction of Iraq has pleaded guilty to conspiracy, bribery and money-laundering charges, according to documents unsealed yesterday in federal court in Washington.

As part of the plea, Philip H. Bloom admitted his part in a scheme to give more than $2 million in cash and gifts to U.S. officials in exchange for their help in getting reconstruction contracts for his companies. Bloom's firms won $8.6 million in reconstruction deals, with an average profit margin of more than 25 percent.

Yesterday's filings included e-mails that provide insight into the fraud. In one, an Army Reserve officer who allegedly helped Bloom secure his contracts expresses gratitude for Bloom's largesse.

"The truck is Great!!! I needed a new truck . . . People I work with cannot stop commenting on how much they love it," the officer wrote in a Sept. 2, 2004, message to Bloom. The officer then added a bit of reassurance: "If there were any smoking guns, they would have been found months ago."

The reassurance was premature. Bloom's deals soon attracted the interest of investigators, and the case has ensnared three officials of the U.S.-led Coalition Provisional Authority, which ran Iraq for a year after Saddam Hussein's regime was toppled.

More arrests are likely. The documents unsealed yesterday refer to an unidentified co-conspirator who was chief of staff for the CPA office in Al-Hillah, which supervised the reconstruction of all of south-central Iraq.

According to Bloom's plea agreement, which was signed in February, he faces up to 40 years in prison, five years of supervised release and a fine of $750,000. He also must repay the government $3.6 million and forfeit $3.6 million in assets.

The one thing we cannot allow to go unaddressed is corruption involving members of our military, whether active or reservist. Bloom needs to face hard time for his actions, and he needs to do so whether he cooperates or not. All or those involved in this business like the above mentioned officer, who refers to "a smoking gun," needs to face hard time as he is obviously aware of the transgression involved. Those in the military, above and beyond all others in our society because of the oaths they take, must be held to a higher standard.

I am a big defender of the President's war effort and of our military men and women, but this kind of transgression is completely unacceptable. These folks swear an oath upon entering service in the military, what is our military's motto, Duty, Honor, Country?

10 USCcode Sec. 502 (01/24/94) Enlistment oath, and who may administer
(Title 10, Subtitle A, Part II, Chapter 31, Sec. 502)
Sec. 502. - Enlistment oath: who may administer
Each person enlisting in an armed force shall take the following oath: "I, _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _, do solemnly swear (or affirm) 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; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." This oath may be taken before any commissioned officer of any armed force

In committing these acts, these Reserve Officers have violated the "true faith and allegiance" clause of their oath.

Americans can never afford to allow those in the military to escape justice or to violate their oaths. They more than any others in service to the people of the United States, including those in Congress and the President, pose too great a threat to our freedom to allow them any leeway. The military must always remain under the command of our civilian population.

Full Story: Unacceptable Behavior

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Talk About Tone-Deaf

Exxon Chairman Gets $400 Million Retirement Package Amid Soaring Gas Prices
Exxon Made Record Profits in 2005

ABC News
April 14, 2006— Soaring gas prices are squeezing most Americans at the pump, but at least one man isn't complaining.

Last year, Exxon made the biggest profit of any company ever, $36 billion, and its retiring chairman appears to be reaping the benefits.

Exxon is giving Lee Raymond one of the most generous retirement packages in history, nearly $400 million, including pension, stock options and other perks, such as a $1 million consulting deal, two years of home security, personal security, a car and driver, and use of a corporate jet for professional purposes.

Last November, when he was still chairman of Exxon, Raymond told Congress that gas prices were high because of global supply and demand.

"We're all in this together, everywhere in the world," he testified.

Raymond, however, was confronted with caustic complaints about his compensation.
"In 2004, Mr. Raymond, your bonus was over $3.6 million," Sen. Barbara Boxer said.

That was before new corporate documents filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission that revealed Raymond's retirement deal and his $51.1 million paycheck in 2005.

That's equivalent to $141,000 a day, nearly $6,000 an hour. It's almost more than five times what the CEO of Chevron made.

I'm sorry. Now, I'm a hardcore, unappologetic captitalist, but this is just stupid. If these guys were working toward the goal of a nationalized oil industry, they couldn't have chosen a better move. I can only assume that, in this instance, the Liberals are correct (excuse me while I go get some mouthwash). These folks must be so out of touch with the people who buy their products that they live on another planet.

I don't begrudge anyone making as much money as their greedy little hearts desire, as long as they don't violate the law, but there is such a thing as sensitivity to the realities of the world. At a time when gasoline prices around the world have soared to historic highs (unadjusted for inflation), and people are strapped in their ability to pay those prices, there is a difference between what is legal and what is wise. There is a difference between what is legal and what is in good taste.

This kind of oblivious behavior will inevitable lead to growing pressure to restrict the salaries and perquisites of corporate executives by a Congress increasingly sensitive to the complaints of their constituents. This move definitely belongs in the "What were they thinking?" category.

This kind of conspicuous consumption is just plain stupid. But then, looking at this guys picture, he looks like one of those oblivious idiots that were the fodder for so much of Thomas Nast's barbed political cartoons. He could be the poster child for the Socialist Worker's Party campaign.

Full Story: Big Oil Marching Toward Federal Control

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Hateful Harridan Rants Against Reasoned Republicans

The Left, Online and Outraged
Liberal Blogger Finds an Outlet and a Community

By David Finkel
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, April 15, 2006; Page A01

SHERMAN OAKS, Calif. -- In the angry life of Maryscott O'Connor, the rage begins as soon as she opens her eyes and realizes that her president is still George W. Bush. The sun has yet to rise and her family is asleep, but no matter; as soon as the realization kicks in, O'Connor, 37, is out of bed and heading toward her computer.

Out there, awaiting her building fury: the Angry Left, where O'Connor's reputation is as one of the angriest of all. "One long, sustained scream" is how she describes the writing she does for various Web logs, as she wonders what she should scream about this day.

She smokes a cigarette. Should it be about Bush, whom she considers "malevolent," a "sociopath" and "the Antichrist"? She smokes another cigarette. Should it be about Vice President Cheney, whom she thinks of as "Satan," or about Karl Rove, "the devil"? Should it be about the "evil" Republican Party, or the "weaselly, capitulating, self-aggrandizing, self-serving" Democrats, or the Catholic Church, for which she says "I have a special place in my heart . . . a burning, sizzling, putrescent place where the guilty suffer the tortures of the damned"?

Darfur, she finally decides. She will write about Darfur. The shame of it. The culpability of all Americans, including herself, for doing nothing. She will write something so filled with outrage that it will accomplish the one thing above all she wants from her anger: to have an effect.

"Darfur is not hopeless," she begins typing, and pauses.

"Ugh," she says.

"You are not helpless," she continues typing, and pauses again.

"Weak."

She deletes everything and starts over.

"WAKE THE [expletive] UP," she writes next, and this time, instead of pausing, she keeps going, typing harder and harder on a keyboard that is surrounded by a pack of cigarettes, a dirty ashtray, a can of nonalcoholic beer, an album with photos of her dead father and a taped-up note -- staring at her -- on which she has scrawled "Why am I/you here?"

Outspoken and Uncensored

These are mean times.

"I just want to see these [expletive] swinging from their heels in the public square," reads a recent comment from someone named Dave in a discussion about the Bush administration on a Web site called Eschaton.

It's ovbvious Mr. Finkle is infatuated with this shrill Harridan of Hatred. Mr. Finkel, you state:

"Not that long ago, it was the right that was angry and the left that was, at least comparatively, polite. But after years of being the targets of inflammatory rhetoric, not only from fringe groups but also from such mainstream conservative politicians as Newt Gingrich, the left has gone on the attack. And with Republicans in control of Washington, they have much more to be angry about."

In one sense you are correct, Conservatives were angry with the policies of President Clinton and the cavalier attitude with which he treated his entrusted Office, but we rarely resorted to the kind of vile, hatefilled, invective that these Liberals routinely engage in.

The level of hatred and the lack of reasoned argument is what differs the modern Leftist blogger from those of us on the Right and those who in the past, like Gingrich and Limbaugh, called the Left into question. I defy any Liberal to show a single instance of Mr. Gingrich or Mr. Limbaugh using the kind of hateful language that these people use. I also defy you to explain how "they have much more to be angry about" with Republicans in power, than did Republicans after forty years of Liberal Democrat dominance of the government.

Don't worry though Mr. Finkel, your report is typical of the kind of biased "journalism" I have come to expect from the Washington Post. Small wonder you are losing readership and going slowly bankrupt, your paper has no credibility anymore.

As for Mrs. O'Connor, her self-indulgent obsession with hatred of President Bush and the Republicans is a pitiable state of existence (and indicative of an alcoholic personality trait known as a "dry drunk"). How sad that someone has to live consumed by anger and hatred. How sad that she has chosen to spread hatred and emotion rather than reason and logic. Emotion is a poor substitute for convincing argument based on reason. Really Mrs. O'Connor, if you must resort to obscenities and hateful invective, your arguments must be very weak.

Full Story: Living on Hatred and Cigarettes

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

No! Surely They Must Be Joking!

Waste in Katrina Response Is Cited
Housing Aid Called Inefficient in Audits

By Spencer S. Hsu
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, April 14, 2006; Page A01

Nearly eight months after Hurricane Katrina triggered the nation's largest housing crisis since the Second World War, a hastily improvised $10 billion effort by the federal government has produced vast sums of waste and misspent funds, an array of government audits and outside analysts have concluded.

As the Federal Emergency Management Agency wraps up the initial phase of its temporary housing program -- ending reliance on cruise ships and hotels for people sent fleeing by the Aug. 29 storm -- the toll of false starts and missed opportunities appears likely to top $1 billion and perhaps much more, according to a series of after-action studies and Department of Homeland Security reports, including one due for release today.

The government's costliest initiative -- $6.4 billion allocated to place storm survivors in temporary trailers and mobile homes -- has ground to a halt around New Orleans this week, in part because of widespread racial and class tensions. Residents of surrounding localities have refused to accept the makeshift communities.

Only 71 percent of the 141,000 trailers that FEMA estimates are needed are being occupied.

Meanwhile, the trailer program consumes more than 60 percent of funds FEMA is spending on housing aid -- even though it benefits about 10 percent of the approximately 1 million households getting help, according to agency data and the Brookings Institution, which tracks recovery progress.

By contrast, a rental assistance program is serving 800,000 families, or 80 percent of households, at about one-third the total cost, or more than $3 billion. It was dramatically expanded four weeks after the storm -- a sluggish start, critics said -- after intense pressure from Congress and others who said the administration from the beginning should have taken advantage of such proven programs as low-income Section 8 rental vouchers.

In a recent White House report, Frances Fragos Townsend, President Bush's homeland security and counterterrorism adviser, reserved some of the toughest criticism for FEMA's mass trailer initiative. She said that it "foundered due to inadequate planning and poor coordination," and she recommended that the Department of Housing and Urban Development take over from Homeland Security in future disasters.

Citing lack of training, expertise and engagement with other agencies, Townsend's "Lessons Learned" report stated, "The Federal government's capability to provide housing solutions to the displaced Gulf Coast population has proved to be far too slow, bureaucratic, and inefficient."

FEMA officials say that they could have done better, but that Hurricane Katrina has displaced 1 million families outside their home Zip codes nearly eight months after the storm -- a far greater impact than other recent disasters.

Spokeswoman Natalie Rule said that although FEMA is learning from critical reports, "they do not capture everything that was done well and right." She added that "the innovative housing solutions put into place in the aftermath of Katrina will now become ready solutions we can offer in future catastrophes."

Still, the weight of judgments from White House, Congress and analysts is that the housing effort is a failure with many causes, including institutional neglect, lack of funding, and poor planning, decision making and execution.

Neither FEMA nor its predecessors had ever housed hundreds of thousands of disaster victims for a prolonged period, and the collapse of its initial trailer strategy is part of what Dennis S. Mileti, former director of the National Hazards Center in Colorado, called "the largest disaster-response failure in the history of our country."

What? Am I like supposed to be surprised by this? Has there ever been a more suitable moment to say "DUH!"?

It's a government bureaucracy, it is incapable of performing in any other way. There is no entity on Earth more prone to inefficiency than a government bureaucracy. This could easily have been predicted from the outset. In fact it was, I predicted this back when the whole Katrina debacle first laid claim to taxpayer money. How can a bureaucracy known for corruption and inefficiency, like that of the city of New Orleans and of the entire state of Louisiana be anything but what it has historically been?

This once again bears on the entire basis of the Democrat Party, that government should, or even can, be the answer to our citizen's problems. It is a myth based on the lie of Marxism. Using the government to solve a problem is the most expensive, least effective, dumbest concept ever devised by man. What is it about Democrats and Liberals in general that makes them incapable of understanding that simple concept? One can only surmise it is the incomprehensible (and underserved) arrogance they have that tells them, "Even though every nation and civilization that has tried socialism has ultimately failed, I can do it."

Talk about being unable to see the truth...

Full Story: Bureaucrats at Their Most Incompetent

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Republican "Culture of Corruption?"

Ethics Panel Democrat Defends Rise In Assets

By Thomas B. Edsall
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, April 14, 2006; Page A04

Rep. Alan B. Mollohan (W.Va.), the ranking Democrat on the House ethics committee, yesterday defended the surge in value of his real estate holdings and other assets from $562,000 in 2000 to at least $6.3 million in 2004, contending that he benefited from rising values and good investments.

Mollohan did not, however, explain how he came to make many of his lucrative investments in partnership with Laura Kuhns, a former congressional aide who now runs the Vandalia Heritage Foundation. The foundation is a historic preservation group financed mainly by federal earmarks sponsored by Mollohan.

In a statement, Mollohan said he and his wife, Barbara Whiting Mollohan, have seen the value of their investment grow "due to the surge in real estate values in recent years, particularly in the District of Columbia" and in North Carolina.

One of their major investments, which they have held since 1996, is in units they own in a Foggy Bottom apartment building.

Mollohan, whose statement refers to his wife and himself in the third person, said that in calculating his net worth it is important to recognize that he and his wife are heavily leveraged: "the value of their investments is considerably offset by corresponding mortgages on their properties. Their investment properties are heavily mortgaged, and in order to make new purchases, they have borrowed against their existing holdings."

In an April 8 front-page article, the Wall Street Journal detailed Mollohan's investments with Kuhns and her husband, Don, and the legislative earmarks Mollohan sponsored that have financed the Vandalia Heritage Foundation.

My my, Mrs. Pelosi, this is a bit inconvenient, isn't it? Hmmm, Mr. Reid, seems Republicans aren't the only ones with ethics problems, doesn't it. Is that a chicken I see coming home to roost?

What's that? Nothing to say about this? I understand Harry, you must not be able to hear me for all the family members you have lobbying you for your Nevada special interest friends and profitting at the expense of the American and Nevadan taxpayer?

"Culture of corruption indeed!" Democrats ought to know corruption when they see it, they're experts at it.

Full Story: Democrats Ethically Challenged

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

For Leftist Educators, American Flag Too Controversial

Student fights write-up for showing U.S. flag

By Greg Moran
UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER
April 13, 2006

A small American flag, tucked into the back right-hand pocket of her pants.

And for that, the Fallbrook High School sophomore was stopped by a security officer, taken to an assistant principal's office and written up in an incident report that was placed in her student file.

Malia, who is an honors student, said she was shocked, then dismayed at what she believes was a violation of her free speech rights on March 31.

She and her mother contacted the American Civil Liberties Union of San Diego & Imperial Counties, and the ACLU dispatched a letter to district officials demanding that they remove the report from Malia's file.

The ACLU also is demanding that the district fashion a policy that conforms to long-standing law allowing students the right to express themselves on campus. If the district does not agree, a federal civil rights suit will be filed on behalf of Malia, said Kevin Keenan, the ACLU executive director in San Diego.

“I didn't think it was right,” Malia, 15, said of the school's actions.

Officials with the school district, which is on spring break this week, did not respond to phone messages and e-mails seeking comment.

Malia said other students also were told to put flags away, including a friend who was told one day before Malia's encounter to put away an American flag bandana.

Seeing that spurred Malia – after talking it over with her mother, Nikki Fontana – to take the small flag to school the next day.

That was the week of emotional student demonstrations across the county over proposed revisions to immigration laws. In Oceanside on March 29 student protesters faced off with police and hurled milk cartons and other objects, prompting officers to respond with pepper spray.

So this is what we've come to? American citizens are no longer allowed to brandish the Stars and Stripes because it is may be "offensive" to some students. The American flag, the symbol of our nation, the emblem for which millions have fought and died throughout our history is now too controversial for students to wear at school.

These Liberal educators need to be fired. We don't need a bunch of America haters indoctrinating our children.

If their are any students who find the American flag offensive, perhaps the INS should be informed of their presence.

How can brandishing our national symbol be considered a form of intimidation? Only those whose loyalties are divided or who have loyalty to a foreign country, such as Mexico, should be offended by the waving of our flag.

If you are offended, then I say to you, "Leave!" You weren't invited here in the first place. If our nation is so reprehensible, if you so dislike our culture, then get out. No one is keeping you here. You are not a prisoner of the United States government, so take a hike, hit the road, go back to your beloved homeland-wherever that may be-otherwise, SHUT-UP!

Full Story: Throw the Bumbs Out!

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Gutless Generals Taking Pot-Shots at Rummy

Belated Dissenters

By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, April 12, 2006; 8:51 AM

You know the administration's argument: We are slowly making progress in Iraq, but the media are so fixated on car bombs and suicide attacks they never get around to reporting that.

I would suggest this line is growing dated. The war has aroused a growing number of critics who have nothing to do with the MSM and can't by any stretch be called liberal.

When Republicans and former military men are ripping the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld handling of the war, I'd say that Houston, we have a problem.

My only question in these matters: What took them so long?

I'm not saying they're necessarily right. I am saying that I'm suspicious when people leave jobs where they can actually do something about a policy, and only then -- in articles, books and TV appearances, unburden themselves of the grave doubts they dared not voice when it mattered.

That's probably a little harsh, but so be it.

Paul Bremer, for instance, writes a book and suddenly tells us the that Unites States did not anticipate the Iraqi insurgency and that he raised his concerns about the size and quality of our military forces with Bush, Rummy and senior military officials. At the time, he toes the line. The rest of us find out when he hits the book circuit. Thanks a lot.

In this week's Time , retired Lt. Gen. Greg Newbold also goes the belated candor route:

"I am driven to action now by the missteps and misjudgments of the White House and the Pentagon. . . .

"Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's recent statement that 'we' made the 'right strategic decisions' but made thousands of 'tactical errors' is an outrage. It reflects an effort to obscure gross errors in strategy by shifting the blame for failure to those who have been resolute in fighting. The truth is, our forces are successful in spite of the strategic guidance they receive, not because of it.

"What we are living with now is the consequences of successive policy failures. Some of the missteps include: the distortion of intelligence in the buildup to the war, McNamara-like micromanagement that kept our forces from having enough resources to do the job, the failure to retain and reconstitute the Iraqi military in time to help quell civil disorder, the initial denial that an insurgency was the heart of the opposition to occupation, alienation of allies who could have helped in a more robust way to rebuild Iraq, and the continuing failure of the other agencies of our government to commit assets to the same degree as the Defense Department. My sincere view is that the commitment of our forces to this fight was done with a casualness and swagger that are the special province of those who have never had to execute these missions -- or bury the results."

I see Kurtz old boy, you're using tho old non-denial denial routine..."I'm not saying they're necessarily right..." No, but you do seem to be lending them a great deal of column space and by implication credibility. You also fail entirely to report one single statement by Rumsfeld in response to these gutless Generals. But that's alright Howard, I'll be happt to correct your (I'm sure) unintentional omission.

Rumsfeld said he doesn't recall retired Lt. Gen. Gregory Newbold raising any objections to the war planning when he was working in the Pentagon for the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

"He never raised an issue publicly or privately when he was here that I know of," said Rumsfeld.

Just so you know Howard, he also spanked the reporters for doing that which you are so good at, imputing assent to an absence of refutation. When a reporter began to ask a question relating to unrefuted reports in several books about plans by the administration for invading Iraq, Rumsfeld stated that he has a real job to do and that if he was to spend his time refuting all the mythology coming out of the press, he would not have any time to do his job.

You see Howard, how totally irrelevent you are to the administration. You in the mainstream media (MSM) have become, by your own biases, inaccuracies, and misteps, irrelevent in virtually every respect. We in the general public know you for what you are, political hacks out to promote your own Left wing agenda.

The mere fact that the administration had contingency plans in 2001 to invade Iraq means absolutely nothing beyond the fact that those individuals assigned duties in national security were doing their jobs. Every administration draws up contingency plans for every conceivable military contingency they can think of. I would be very surprised if their weren't contingency plans for an invasion of Canada or Mexico. I would be very surprised if their weren't contingency plans for an attack against our closest allies. That's what the military does, that is their job.

I realize that a degree in journalism requires very little actual intellectual power, but really guys I would think that you would want to exercise your little brains to some small degree.

Full Story: More Bias Coverage from Kurtz

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

You Say You Don't See The Threat From Illegals?

Try this on for size, HONKY (you like the term, reader?).

Compliments of LittleGreenFootballs.com

These people don't want to become Americans, they want to dominate and take over this nation. Even better, the Democrat Party is working hand in hand with them to make it happen.

Compliments of WizBangBlog.com

So now you know who to rely on for your national security.

Democrats cannot be trusted with your safety, your jobs, or your freedom. They are dangerously dedicated to winning in November...NO MATTER WHAT THE COST TO AMERICANS.

Once more we see Democrats don't care about you, they only care about power.

Just thought you might like to know...

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

A Good Start: Scoop 'Em All Up and Deport Them

Organizers Expect Crush for Immigrant Rights Rally
Up to 180,000 Protesters May Converge on Mall

By Nancy Trejos and Aruna Jain
Washington Post Staff Writers
Monday, April 10, 2006; Page A01

In churches, shops and sidewalks across the Washington region yesterday, thousands of people bustled in preparation for a rally that immigration advocates say could be a pivotal moment for Latinos and other groups seeking to demonstrate their political clout.

Organizers of the National Day of Action for Immigrant Justice -- or La Marcha , as some volunteers are calling it -- said it could draw as many as 180,000 people to the Mall and hundreds of thousands more in nearly 100 cities nationwide.

Although no one knows for certain how many people will show up at the D.C. rally, the event has the potential to complicate the afternoon rush hour.

This afternoon, scores of buses will begin moving protesters from throughout the region to the District. CASA of Maryland, an immigrant rights group, has arranged for more than 40 buses to take them to Seventh Street NW between Madison and Jefferson drives. Fifteen additional buses will run a loop six times between CASA's Silver Spring office and the Takoma Metro station and are expected to carry about 5,000 people, said Kim Propeack, advocacy director for CASA.

Mexicanos Sin Fronteras, a D.C.-based immigrant rights group, will send about 20 buses from Virginia to Meridian Hill Park in the Adams Morgan area, said Farah Fosse of the Latino Economic Development Corp., a local organizer.

There, the participants will join neighborhood residents in a march down 16th and 15th streets NW to the Mall. Police plan to temporarily close some streets along the way.

A Metro spokesman said officials would monitor the situation and could decide to extend the evening rush, keeping the maximum number of cars on the tracks.

"We are very excited and energized, but at the same time there's a lot of pressure to ensure everything is going to be smooth," said Gustavo Torres, executive director of CASA.

Yesterday, with less than 24 hours to go before the rally, organizers scrambled as they prepared to move thousands of bodies, conceding that they weren't sure how they would do it.

"It's just wild. I don't know how to describe it," Propeack said. "As of 24 hours ago, we said, 'No more transportation,' and people are just phoning us off the hook. They want more."

Projected turnout, said Lt. Kathleen Harasek of the U.S. Park Police, "is well within what we're normally trained to handle. . . . We're comfortable with it, and we're not stressing out over it."

Across California alone, about 20 events are planned for today, ranging from a rally in Bakersfield to a ceremony in San Diego dedicated to immigrants who have died trying to cross the border illegally.

Since when do we memorialize criminals who have died in the process of committing a crime?

Look I'm sorry that an estimated 500 people die a year attempting to break the law and illegally enter our country, but the truth is they are violating our nations laws and they are doing so willfully and with full knowledge of the risks involved.

I know it is the Liberal/Democrat mantra that people shouldn't be held responsible for their actions, but I don't subscribe to that philosophy. If a people choose to endanger their lives in an effort to break the laws of this nation, they should be responsible for endangering their own lives, and should not look to the law-abiding citizens of this nation to be responsible for them.

Rewarding lawbreakers for breaking the law, breeds contempt not respect for the law. When these people prove they are willing and capable of obeying the law by moving back across the border, they I will be willing to allow them, under controlled circumstances to migrate into this SOVEREIGN nation.

Full Story: Lawbreakers Deserve No Respect

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Cowardice Under Fire: Did You Expect Otherwise?

French Government Withdraws Controversial Job Law

By Molly Moore
Washington Post Foreign Service
Monday, April 10, 2006; 7:18 AM

PARIS, April 10 -- French President Jacques Chirac's government Monday withdrew a controversial youth employment law that had ignited more than a month of protests and violence on the streets of Paris and other cities.

Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin, the author of the law, announced he was backing down from the measure, saying that he believes both unions and businesses misunderstood his intentions. "I'm sorry about that," he said in an announcement. Villepin said the upheaval over the law "reveals a social anxiety" in France and said the government will work with unions and businesses to "prepare for the future of our country."

The law, which would have allowed companies to fire young workers under the age of 26 any time during their first two years of employment, set off weeks of strikes and demonstrations -- several of which ended with youths burning cars and vandalizing shops in central Paris.

For Sale: Used French Military Rifle, Never Fired, Dropped Only Once.

Once more the French Government demonstrates the backbone for which they are so famous. Faced with an unrelenting youth movement, Chirac and di Villepin buckle under.

France is a dead country. It's citizens no longer wish to work. Their socialist society has bred a population that depends on public assistance. These folks have rejected a return to the forty-hour work week (they only work 35 hours/week), and now they have rejected the right of a business owner to fire an unproductive employee.

For any who doubt the danger of the socialist economic system so touted by those on the Left, they only have to look to France to see the flaws.

In addition, France's recent problems with its Muslim population is a perfect answer to those apologists for the lawbreaking illegal immigrants who are invading this nation.

Yes America, look to France to see what not to do.

Full Story: Youths Rave, Politicians Cave

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

More Goodies From Wizbangblog

DHS Child Sex Sting Official Is A Democrat

Earlier today we listed some of the strong reaction to the arrest of Department of Homeland Security deputy press secretary Brian J. Doyle for attempting to arrange sexual relations with what he believed to be a 14-year-old female. Much of the reaction was critical of the Bush administration for not properly vetting one of their appointees. That assessment is dead wrong.

Brian Doyle is a career civil servant - NOT a political appointee. Government workers aren't "vetted." Doyle, as a DHS employee probably has a secret or top secret government clearance, but in DC that's hardly a unique commodity in DC. Unless there is some prior history of pedophilia or sex crimes, the background searches and investigation wouldn't have alerted anyone to the possibility that he might get into the kind of trouble he's in now. The kind of hindsight analysis suggesting that the White House should have been "vetting" the civil service employees of their agencies, is laughable considering that the Clinton administration who dogged for years over the FBI files scandal (Filegate). It's also probably illegal...

So what do we know about is Brian Doyle? He's a former long-time Time magazine Washington bureau employee, a civil servant, and a registered Democrat. ***

<

Whoops, I guess the Democrats started crowing a bit on the early side, it appears the pervert is one of their own. Thanks Wizbang for this great revelation.

Full Story: Democrat Pervert Doyle

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Apparently We've Known That Man Isn't Causing Global Warming for Some Time

Sci/TechScientists blame sun for global warming
Friday, February 13, 1998 Published at 19:25
GMT

Climate changes such as global warming may be due to changes in the sun
rather than to the release of greenhouse gases on Earth.

Climatologists and astronomers speaking at the American Association for
the Advancement of Science meeting in Philadelphia say the present warming may
be unusual - but a mini ice age could soon follow.

The sun provides all the energy that drives our climate, but it
is not the constant star it might seem.

Careful studies over the last 20 years show that its overall brightness
and energy output increases slightly as sunspot activity rises to the peak of
its 11-year cycle.
And individual cycles can be more or less active.

The sun is currently at its most active for 300 years.

That, say scientists in Philadelphia, could be a more significant cause
of global warming than the emissions of greenhouse gases that are most often
blamed.

The researchers point out that much of the half-a-degree rise in
global temperature over the last 120 years occurred before 1940 - earlier than
the biggest rise in greenhouse gas emissions.

Using ancient tree rings, they show that 17 out of 19 warm spells in the
last 10,000 years coincided with peaks in solar activity.

They have also studied other sun-like stars and found that they
spend significant periods without sunspots at all, so perhaps cool spells should
be feared more than global warming.

Gee, this was written in 1998, it amazes me that the Chicken Little "scientists" who blame us for global warming can't seem to recall this story. The fact of the matter is, this is the year of peak solar activity, this summer (that's right, 2006) is expected to be the solar maximum.

HURRY EVERYONE!!!
As this banner suggests, tell the President and Washington,
the Sun must be destroyed!


Full Story: Apparently Only Republicans Cause Global Warming

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Apologized? Democrats Never Apologize to Their Victims

McKinney Apologizes Over Scuffle With Officer

By Sue Anne Pressley and Charles Babington
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, April 7, 2006; Page A01

Rep. Cynthia McKinney (D-Ga.), long a lightning rod for Republican attacks, yielded to pressure from her party's colleagues yesterday and apologized to the House for her role in an altercation with a Capitol Police officer.

Flanked by several fellow members of the Congressional Black Caucus and a few white colleagues in the House chamber, McKinney tried to put the March 29 episode behind her even as a grand jury began reviewing allegations that she hit the officer in the chest with her cellphone. She said she wanted to "express again my sincere regret. . . . There should not have been any physical contact. . . . I am sorry that this misunderstanding happened at all, and I regret its escalation. And I apologize."

The incident has put McKinney, 51, a six-term member of Congress, into familiar territory: the middle of controversy. Outspoken, with a style described as either fearless or in-your-face, McKinney has a turbulent history. In 2002, for example, she declared that President Bush had advance knowledge of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks but did nothing to prevent them. She also wrote in 2000 that Democratic presidential nominee Al Gore's "Negro tolerance level has never been high."

This latest commotion, which McKinney dubbed "much ado about a hairdo" -- a hairstyle change may have made it harder for police to recognize her -- has filled Republicans with partisan glee and left Democrats dodging questions about her behavior. Entering the Longworth House Office Building last week, McKinney sidestepped a metal detector, as House and Senate members are allowed to do. But she was not wearing her lapel pin identifying her as a member, and a white police officer -- who did not recognize her -- grabbed her after she ignored his commands to stop.

That was when she allegedly popped him. Last week, with entertainers Harry Belafonte and Danny Glover at her side, McKinney held a news conference at Howard University accusing the officer of triggering all the trouble.

Republicans pounced on McKinney's repeated claims that she was a victim of racial profiling and disrespect. McKinney also accused the officer of inappropriately touching her. The GOP suggested that she reflected Democrats' views on law enforcement and homeland security, angering Democratic leaders who felt the episode was detracting attention from GOP problems, including ethics charges and Iraqi war policy.

Wednesday night, members of the Congressional Black Caucus privately urged McKinney to do something to counter the GOP, and several colleagues renewed the effort yesterday morning. Shortly after noon, McKinney made her brief floor statement.

Apologized? You're joking right? ATL's Miss Piggy didn't apologize to the Capitol Hill Policeman she accosted. She didn't apologize for being an arrogant jerk. Ms. McKinney apologized that "this misunderstanding happened at all." She expressed her regret that the encounter occurred. She continues to deny culpability. Her statement that "There should not have been any physical contact in this incident," reveals that she still doesn't believe that she did anything wrong. She still refuses to acknowledge that what she did in refusing to stop when she was called upon to was wrong. She should be greatful that she was not tackled. The guard was right to grab her arm when she refused to stop and she was wrong.

Why can't Democrats simply say I'm sorry? Why didn't Ms. McKinney say I was wrong to strike the officer, I was wrong to bring racism into this, I was wrong, and I am sorry for what I did?

The answer is clear. They are incapable of believing themselves wrong in anything. They are incapable of seeing their own parts in any wrong. They believe they are the ruling class.

Full Story: McKinney Taking the Blame for Nothing

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Leftists Breathless Over Another Yawner Revelation

Bush Authorized Secrets' Release, Libby Testified
Prosecutor Says Disclosures on Iraq Were Aimed at War Critic

By R. Jeffrey Smith"
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, April 7, 2006; Page A01

President Bush authorized White House official I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby to disclose highly sensitive intelligence information to the news media in an attempt to discredit a CIA adviser whose views undermined the rationale for the invasion of Iraq, according to a federal prosecutor's account of Libby's testimony to a grand jury.

The court filing by Special Counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald for the first time places Bush and Vice President Cheney at the heart of what Libby testified was an exceptional and deliberate leak of material designed to buttress the administration's claim that Iraq was trying to obtain nuclear weapons. The information was contained in the National Intelligence Estimate, one of the most closely held CIA analyses of whether Iraq had weapons of mass destruction before the war.

Fitzgerald said Libby's disclosure took place as the result of "a strong desire by many, including multiple people in the White House, to repudiate" claims made in a July 2003 newspaper article by former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, who was hired by the CIA to evaluate whether Iraq sought nuclear material in Niger. Wilson wrote that "some of the intelligence related to Iraq's nuclear weapons program was twisted to exaggerate the Iraqi threat."

The White House did not challenge the prosecutor's account of Bush's and Cheney's role in orchestrating the effort to discredit Wilson yesterday. Both Bush and Cheney have been interviewed by Fitzgerald, but the details of what they told him are unknown. Fitzgerald's new account is based on Libby's grand jury testimony that Cheney told him Bush had authorized the declassification and disclosure of some of the information.

Bush has been a major critic of leaks of classified information, and his aides have repeatedly said they want to "get to the bottom" of who leaked the name of Wilson's wife, covert CIA operative Valerie Plame, to the media, which touched off Fitzgerald's investigation . But in the past 33 months the White House has never disclosed Bush's apparent involvement in the deliberate disclosure of information meant to undermine Wilson.

Three months before Fitzgerald began his probe in December 2003, Bush said at a news conference that "I've constantly expressed my displeasure with leaks, particularly leaks of classified information. . . . If there's a leak out of the administration, I want to know who it is. And if a person has violated law, the person will be taken care of."

Fitzgerald has not charged anyone with wrongdoing in the initial leak of Plame's name. In the new filing, he did not allege that Bush authorized that disclosure, and he said Bush was "unaware of the role" that Libby, then Cheney's chief of staff, played in discussing her name with a number of reporters.

The revelation of Bush's role in the disclosure effort set off an intense political debate yesterday over the propriety of the White House's use of intelligence information to undermine a critic. Democratic lawmakers lined up to demand that Bush explain his involvement in an affair they called unprecedented.

"If the disclosure is true, it's breathtaking. The president is revealed as the leaker-in-chief," said Rep. Jane Harman (Calif.), the senior Democrat on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.

Legal scholars and analysts said yesterday that the president has the authority to selectively declassify intelligence reports But they also said it was highly unusual for senior officials at the White House to take such an action so stealthily, without notifying Cabinet officials or others in the administration, including the CIA authors of the National Intelligence Estimate.

According to Fitzgerald's account, Libby believed that only he, Bush and Cheney knew about the calculated disclosure. Even Stephen J. Hadley, then the deputy national security adviser, was kept in the dark, and he wasted efforts trying separately to "declassify what Mr. Libby testified had already been declassified." Libby, meanwhile, told the reporters he contacted that the declassified information could not be attributed to him.

Fitzgerald's disclosure, in a document he filed in U.S. District Court here at 11:59 p.m. on Wednesday, came in the midst of a legal battle over Libby's demand for wide access to materials related to Fitzgerald's continuing investigation.

Ho-Hum. Gee, the President leaks information. DUH! Today thousands of Liberal bloggers and the mainstream media (MSM) are breathless in their rush to proclaim their outrage that the President is the "Leaker in Chief" as if this is something that never has been heard of before. Good Grief! This has got to be the most none story story of the year. The President authorized leaks; what President hasn't?

Thos of you who read me regularly know I occasionally mention the great British Comedy series, "Yes Minister." Once more I shall indulge myself, Sir Humphrey Appleby, Permanent Secretary to the Minister (played magnificently by the late Nigel Hawthorne) once stated that "The Ship of State is the only ship which leaks from the top."

For hypocrites like Nancy "Wicked Witch of the West" Pelosi, Diane Feinstein, and Jane Harman to pretend that this is unheard of is truly contemptible. Imagine, did Harman actually declare, "If the disclosure is true, it's breathtaking?" Breathtaking Jane? Really? How is it breathtaking? The only thing breathtaking here is if this didn't happen.

Notice that, like many other Liberal bloggers will do, the Post has managed to include the Valerie Plame leak in this discussion even though there is not even a remote implication in the testimony that the President had anything to do with that. Once more we are being treated to an example of the blind obedience of the Post in toeing the Democrat line.

Full Story: Democrats Shocked, Shocked I Say that President Leaked

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Missing the Point On McKinney

House to Vote on Praising McKinney Police

By LAURIE KELLMAN
The Associated Press
Tuesday, April 4, 2006; 10:03 PM

WASHINGTON -- House Republicans, reacting to the confrontation last week between Rep. Cynthia McKinney and a Capitol Police officer she is accused of hitting, pressed for a resolution Tuesday to commend the police force for its professionalism.

Democratic leaders did not defend McKinney or her charge of racial profiling.

"I don't think any of it justifies hitting a police officer," said House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi of California. "If it did happen I don't think it was justified."

Rep. Steny Hoyer of Maryland, the No. 2 Democrat in the House, said all lawmakers, staffers and visitors in the building have a responsibility to obey Capitol Police. "I think we all should cooperate fully," he said.

Rep. Mel Watt, D-N.C., chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus, had no comment, a spokesman said.

As a federal prosecutor considered whether to press assault or other charges against McKinney, Republicans were introducing their resolution.

"I don't think it's fair to attack the Capitol Police and I think it's time that we show our support for them," said Rep. Patrick McHenry, R-N.C., a sponsor of the measure. Ignoring a police officer's order to stop, or hitting one, "is never OK," McHenry said.

McKinney is alleged to have hit a uniformed police officer who did not recognize her and asked her to stop on her way into a House office building.

McKinney says she took action in self defense after the officer inappropriately touched her. A spokesman for the congresswoman did not respond Tuesday to a request for comment.

The six-term Georgia Democrat says the issue is not about whether to obey a police officer's order, whether she hit him or the fact that she was not wearing the lapel pin that identifies members of Congress.

She and her lawyers have said that a series of confrontations between McKinney and U.S. Capitol and White House law enforcement officers who don't recognize her points to a pattern.

"The issue is racial profiling," McKinney, who is black, told CNN Monday.

Too many are missing the point on the Cynthia McKinney story. This is not about racism, it's about typical Democrat elitism.

Remember folks, Democrats are supposed to be the friend of the working stiff, the average joe, the guy who busts his butt from dawn till dusk and then goes out with the guys and drinks a couple of beers. The Democrats claim to be the union guy's advocate. "We're on your side," they tout loudly, we're not like those "rich Republicans..."

Funny though, when it comes to actually dealing with the working stiffs, it appears that Ms. McKinney (and a lot of other Democrats) would rather be treated like royalty. "How dare that plebian cop not recognize Queen McKinney!" We already know that the other Miss Piggy in Congress, Shiela Jackson Lee, requires limousine service for the two blocks from her apartment to her office. Now we see that Miss Piggy from the ATL doesn't care if the Capitol Police are able to carry out their jobs or not; She can't be bothered! She's too important! This underling ought to know her in spite of her new "fright wig" disguise.

And of course, you knew it was inevitable, that just like Democrats were going to blame President Bush for this event Link, you had to know that the old racism claim would, once more, have to raise it's ugly head...and I do mean UGLY.

How dare this "prima donna Democrat" accuse this guard of "racism!" She should have the decency to go to him drop on her knees and beg his forgiveness. His only crime is trying to protect this jerk from being blown up or shot.

Of course, I never expect Democrats to show any real gratitude unless it is to their political advantage. So much for the Republican "Culture of Corruption." McKinney is just an Arrogant Cow.

Full Story: Democrat Discomfiture at McKinney Rudeness

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

At First Blush: Sounds Reasonable, Might Work

Mass. Bill Requires Health Coverage
State Set to Use Auto Insurance As a Model

By David A. Fahrenthold
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, April 5, 2006; Page A01

BOSTON, April 4 -- The Massachusetts legislature approved a bill Tuesday that would require all residents to purchase health insurance or face legal penalties, which would make this the first state to tackle the problem of incomplete medical coverage by treating patients the same way it does cars.

Gov. Mitt Romney (R) supports the proposal, which would require all uninsured adults in the state to purchase some kind of insurance policy by July 1, 2007, or face a fine. Their choices would be expanded to include a range of new and inexpensive policies -- ranging from about $250 per month to nearly free -- from private insurers subsidized by the state.

Romney said the bill, modeled on the state's policy of requiring auto insurance, is intended to end an era in which 550,000 people go without insurance and their hospital and doctor visits are paid for in part with public funds.

"We insist that everybody who drives a car has insurance," Romney said in an interview. "And cars are a lot less expensive than people."

Tuesday's votes approving the bill -- 154 to 2 in the House and 37 to 0 in the Senate -- were the culmination of two years of politicking and several months of backroom negotiations, as rival health-care plans from Romney and the two Democrat-led chambers were hammered into one.

What resulted is a proposal that health-care experts say is unlike any other in the country. What to do about the 45 million Americans without health insurance has flummoxed both the Bush administration, whose proposal for "health savings accounts" fizzled, and that of Bill Clinton, whose broad plan for health-care changes fell flat.

On the state level, Hawaii and Maine have programs that seek to offer near-universal access to health insurance, and Illinois last year approved a subsidy plan that will widely increase coverage for needy children.

But no state, experts say, has taken the step of making health insurance coverage a legal requirement. The idea was applauded by Uwe E. Reinhardt, a professor of economics and public affairs at Princeton University, who said that he has long believed that the American system of allowing uninsured patients to receive care at the government's expense was nothing more than "freedom to mooch."

"Massachusetts is the first state in America to reach full adulthood," said Reinhardt, noting that the new measure is a move toward personal responsibility. "The rest of America is still in adolescence."

As simple as the idea sounds -- buy insurance or else -- the proposal is complex and, in some cases, still unfinished. For instance, it leaves the task of determining exactly how much some low-income residents will pay for their new, more affordable policies to a new agency that would serve as a liaison between the government, policyholders and private insurance companies.

Because of that uncertainty, some still worry that the residents required to buy insurance would not be able to.

"Who defines what's affordable?" said the Rev. Hurmon Hamilton, a minister in the Boston neighborhood of Roxbury and a leader in an interfaith organization that has pushed for health-care changes.

At last, a solution which sounds plausible. Requiring citizens to carry health insurance rather than requiring the taxpayers to foot the bill for the uninsured is a good first step. I would suggest however, that there should be an alternative of posting a financial bond for those who choose to opt out. That bond should be set at a reasonably high level, sufficient to cover anticipated expenses on a weeks stay in a hospital.

The big problem I see is how to deal with illegal aliens who are a large and growing burden on the system because they are disproportionate users of the emergency care facilities. How do you compel payment from people who do not pay taxes? How do you compel payment from people who do not even exist according to public records? Their burden would still be carried by those who obey the law and do things by the book.

Still, I think Romney has a good concept here, if we are to face the choice between this and fully socialized medical system.

We still need to solve the illegal immigration problem before a system like this will work.

More later as information becomes available.

Full Story: Requiring Health Insurance Might Work

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

"Environmentalist" Interfering With Natural Selection

Crafty Sea Lion Befuddles Engineers

By JOSEPH B. FRAZIER
The Associated Press
Saturday, April 1, 2006; 9:13 AM

CASCADE LOCKS, Ore. -- A particularly crafty sea lion is befuddling the Army Corps of Engineers, who have come to believe the 1,000-pound mammal is either f