NY Slimes Admits Anti-Military Bias

Computer issues have kept me away from blogging for a bit, but here's one I just had to struggle through the difficulties to post about.

OpinionJournal.com (whom the link above points to... I refuse to link directly to the NY Slimes) points out that a Times story admits their bias:

James Glanz, a Baghdad correspondent who will become bureau chief for The New York Times next month, said that although he and others had many great experiences working with the rank-and-file soldiers, some military leaders seem determined to protect something besides the privacy of their troops."

As the number of reporters there dwindles further and further because of the difficult conditions we work under, the kind of work they are able to publish becomes very important," Mr. Glanz said. "This tiny remaining corps of reporters becomes a greater and greater problem for the military brass because we are the only people preventing them from telling the story the way they want it told."

(emphasis added by OpinionJournal, but retained by me, cause I thought it highlights the point so very well.)

Whatever happened to "All The News That's Fit to Print?" I guess the military's own story isn't "fit to print," according to the leftists at the NY Slimes.

And they wonder why their circulation is taking a nose-dive.


Here's The Details

For those who wish to read the actual words of the travesty being called an immigration bill now being shoved through the Senate at warp speed, the title above is a link to the text of said travesty, courtesy of The Heritage Foundation.

Read it and be scared.


More on McCain's Immigration Plan

Here's some of the details on that "comprehensive" immigration package that's being pushed through tout de suite, the better to keep the American public from learning the nuts and bolts of it:

Title VI of a draft copy of the bill breaks down amnesty visas into three categories:

  • Z-1 — Illegal aliens present and working in the United States up to Jan. 1, 2007.
  • Z-2 — Parents and spouses of illegal aliens qualifying under the Z-1 category.
  • Z-3 — Children of illegal aliens qualifying under the Z-1 category.

These “Z Visa” holders can stay in the “Z” status indefinitely, which means they never have to pursue “a pathway to citizenship.” They also would be able to get Social Security numbers and benefit from some welfare programs. Shockingly, there is no cap on the numbers of amnesty recipients in the draft language. The only thing the Z Visa holder can’t do is vote — until, that is, a liberal judge declares this limitation unconstitutional or until a liberal president can railroad through a “technical corrections” bill.
Let me highlight part of that: These “Z Visa” holders can stay in the “Z” status indefinitely, which means they never have to pursue “a pathway to citizenship.”

This is what the Republicans in Congress that voted for this bill don't want you to realize. What the Z Visa does is grant immediate and permanent amnesty to essentially every single illegal alien in this nation at this time. Even the terrorists!

And Mr. McCain has decided not only to support this bill, but to try to convince conservatives that it's a good deal.

And people wonder why I absolutely refuse to support McCain.


Immigration Reform? Yeah, Right!

This stupid, idiotic, foolish so-called "comprehensive" immigration package is bound to be bad news for the GOP, who simply cannot get it through the blocks of stone that they (laughingly) call "heads" that people are sick and frickin' tired of borders that just about any Juan, Jose, or Carlos can walk across.

Fred, as usual, nails it:

The fact is our border and immigration systems are still badly broken. We were reminded of this when Newsweek reported that the family of three of the men, arrested last week for allegedly plotting to kill American military personnel at Fort Dix, New Jersey, entered the U.S. illegally more than 20 years ago; filed for asylum back in 1989, but fell off the government’s radar screen when federal bureaucrats essentially lost track of the paperwork. Wonder how many times that’s been replicated?

Is it any wonder that a lot of folks today feel like they’re being sold a phony bill of goods on border security? A “comprehensive” plan doesn’t mean much if the government can’t accomplish one of its most basic responsibilities for its citizens — securing its borders. A nation without secure borders will not long be a sovereign nation.
See why I like Fred so much?

Anyway, this probably spells the end of McCain's campaign, because he's supporting this monstrosity masquerading as an answer to a problem.

And Fred once again looks like another Great Communicator, which we need very much.


Giuliani Doesn't Think Illegal Immigration is a Crime

At least that's what the above-linked report of his interview with Laura Ingraham seems to indicate:

Radio talk-show host Laura Ingraham last week asked Giuliani about the immigration policies he supported in New York City. She asked, “Are you still standing behind your sanctuary city policy?”

Giuliani told her, “I never supported a sanctuary policy.”

He said he was willing to turn over undocumented criminals to federal immigration authorities, but would not turn over illegal aliens who had not committed a crime.
Uh... Mr. Giuliani, what part of illegal do you not comprehend?

Congress and Gas Prices

This is what you get when you elect Democrats, America:

Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) is pushing the Federal Price Gouging Prevention Act. Backed by 86 Democrats and three Republicans, the bill would make it a crime to "sell crude oil, gasoline, natural gas, or petroleum distillates at a price that is unconscionably excessive or indicates that the seller is taking unfair advantage [of] unusual market conditions (whether real or perceived) or the circumstances of an emergency to increase prices unreasonably."

The legislation provides corporate penalties of $3 million a day for civil action and $150 million for criminal conduct, as well as a fine up to $2 million and ten years in prison for individuals. State attorneys general -- usually ambitious governor-wannabes -- also could bring civil actions. Let the lawsuits begin!
To be fair, there are Republicans, notably Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska, pushing similar bills, but if the GOP were in the majority they'd have little trouble stopping this ridiculous idea.

But with the Democrats in control? Well... expect to see de facto price controls soon if Bush doesn't get the veto pen out again.


This is Why Illegal Immigration is a Problem

Can't say it better than the article linked above.

When Elvis and Dritan Duka, two of the three brothers arrested on terrorism charges in Fort Dix, were kids, they were neighborhood bullies. When they got a little older, they became drug dealers.

How do I know? They grew up in my neighborhood, my brother and his friends used to brawl with them on a fairly regular basis. My brother's best friend's mom was friends with their mom. Then they moved to New Jersey and became Jihadis. Of all possible paths for the Duka kids, that one didn't seem the most likely.

They've been here since they were kids, illegally it turns out, lived American lives, went to our public schools, and then decided to try and kill some of our troops. I don't know that I'll ever get used to this world.

If memory serves, weren't many of the 9/11 hijackers also here illegally? I think I remember something about some of them overstaying their student visas, but I could be wrong.

And people wonder why people like me are so up in arms about illegal immigration.

Hat Tip: Wizbang!

Which Is More Offensive?

Simple question... which sign is more offensive and scary?

Or these?

Guess which one is causing a huge kerfuffle?

Hat Tip: Michelle Malkin.

VDH on Al Qaedism

Here's his opening paragraphs:

Why would Albanian-speaking Muslim refugees from the Balkans try to murder American soldiers? After all, the United States — not bin Laden’s rag-tag jihadists — saved Bosnia and Kosovo? And we did that by bombing the capital of a Christian European nation.

But then, why did a mixed-up Albanian Muslim in Salt Lake City, one Sulejman Talovic, go on a shopping-mall shooting spree? Five innocents were killed in the attack before the murderer himself was shot and killed.

And why, after pouring billions of dollars into Afghanistan, did poor, mixed-up Omeed Aziz Popal, an Afghan Muslim, try to run over several innocents in San Francisco near a Jewish center in September 2006?

Or, for that matter, why did an angry Muslim Pakistani gun down Jews in Seattle?

Or, again, why earlier last year, did a 22-year-old Iranian-American Muslim drive his sport utility vehicle into a crowded pedestrian zone at the University of North Carolina?
Read it all (link, as usual, in the title) to find out why.

CAFE and Demonizing the Auto Industry

OpinionJournal takes the occasion of an Obama speech in which he speaks of "the tyranny of oil" to point out some much needed common sense on CAFE standards:

Since 1974, domestic fuel economy has risen by about 60%. The gains initially came through sharp reductions in the size and weight of cars; think of the Pinto or Chevette. Since the 1990s, improvements have been driven by technological advances. But over the same period, oil imports have increased; Americans use more gasoline than ever and hence emit more as well.

That's because the indirect tax of mileage standards is an exceptionally inefficient way to influence consumption. CAFE doesn't affect how many vehicles are on the road (a figure that keeps going up). And by making cars and trucks more fuel-efficient, it may encourage people to drive more. If you get more miles to the gallon, then driving becomes cheaper, so driving demand goes up and offsets any overall efficiency gains.

Designing high mileage vehicles is relatively easy--they're all over Europe--and such cars have been introduced to the American market in the past. Consumers have plenty of such options to choose from now. But aside from fads like the Prius, Americans have proved unwilling to buy them. The miles-per-gallon advances over the last 30 years have translated into bigger, more powerful cars with more features. These are the vehicles Americans actually want.

Not without reason, either: There is a tradeoff between safety and efficiency. The National Academy of Sciences concluded that CAFE standards contributed to as many as 3,200 additional fatalities each year, because downsized cars are less safe in accidents. Other studies from the Brookings Institution and the Competitive Enterprise Institute put that number significantly higher.

(Emphasis in original.)

Obama apparently thinks that the way to the Democratic nomination is to lecture the American people on how they use too much oil. My gut instinct is that Americans generally don't like being lectured to like that.


How the Party of the Donkey Supports the Troops

Democrats, those of the party with the Donkey mascot, love to tell us that they support the troops.

The Party of the Donkey supports our fighting men and women so much, they're playing politics with the money needed to provide troop carriers that can protect the soldiers from injury or death from IEDs.

The armored carrier has a grim black slash across its side, burn marks on the door and a web of cracks along the window.

Like most of the Mine Resistant, Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicles in Anbar province, this one has been hit as many as three times by enemy fire and bomb blasts. Yet, to date, no American troops have died while riding in one.

But efforts to buy thousands more carriers — each costing about $1 million — could be delayed if the White House and Congress do not resolve their deadlock over a $124.2 billion war spending bill.

About $3 billion for the vehicles is tied up in the legislation. The spending plan has stalled because of a dispute over provisions that would set a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq.

But the Democrats support the troops. Just ask them.

They support them so much that they play politics with protection for the troops, who are the sons and daughters of America's mothers, whom we honor this weekend.

Let's all remember this when we go to the voting booth, hmmm?

Hat Tip: BlackFive.


VDH to Dems: Just Be Honest

Victor Davis Hanson, one of my all-time favorite authors on history and the War on Terror, writes yet another excellent article. The crux is this:

When both congressional Democrats and Republicans cast their votes to go along with President Bush, they even crafted 23 formal causes for war. So far only the writ concerning the fear of stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction has in hindsight proven false.

But we no longer hear much about these various reasons why the Democrats understandably supported the removal of Saddam Hussein. Instead, they now most often plead that they were hoodwinked by sneaky, warmongering neocons or sexed-up, partisan intelligence reports.

There is nothing wrong with changing your mind — especially in matters as serious as war. But the public at least deserves a sincere explanation for this radical about-face.

So why not come clean about their changes of heart?

Why not indeed? Probably because they're stuck between the frothing-at-the-mouth MoveOn/DailyKos types that control most of the money they need, and the rubes in what they call "fly-over country" who control most of the votes, they need. To come clean would be to lose one of those, and thus, lose power.

So they keep dancing on that tightrope. And it's quite entertaining to watch.


Aftermath of the French Elections

NRO has a powerful (and extensive) post-mortem on the French election. Here's a tidbit to whet your appetite:

First, the Gaullist exception in both the domestic field and in international affairs has finally been done away with. Domestically, Gaullism has been terrible for the Right. In France, after 1945, the figure of General de Gaulle singlehandedly prevented the consolidation of a powerful and durable Christian-Democratic party as arose in Germany or Italy and as existed in Britain. Even after de Gaulle’s retirement, his legacy prevented the often-attempted establishment of a conservative, right-of-center party. This fragmented the center and the Right, and forced a general shift to the center. The Right was softened, which in turn enabled the rise of an uncouth ultra-right in the form of Jean-Marie Le Pen, whose National Front took a large part of the conservative electorate.

Furthermore, de Gaulle essentially established a pact with the Communist party, which paralyzed the political landscape: Against an erratic coalition of Gaullists and Communists, it was virtually impossible to effect significant change. For the better part of fifty years, the Communist-dominated unions were like a lead balloon burdening the body politic, a powerful lobby on behalf of corporatist status quo.

No figure comparable to that of Mrs. Thatcher ever rose to break the back of the unions, no figure remotely comparable to that of Ronald Reagan ever appeared to free the political system from the poisonous legacy of Gen. de Gaulle. Sarkozy’s ascent represents the consolidation of a genuine right-of-center force in French politics and the final vanquishing of the Gaullist exception.
The summary, of course, ties it all together:
The exceptions of Gaullism, the Communist party, and Le Pen have been fatally weakened or eliminated altogether. The French body politic is ripe for a thoroughgoing reshuffle, and this is what will occur now. A new, post-Gaullist conservative pole will take shape around Sarkozy. Should the new president go to the country to acquire the parliamentary majority he needs, he would consolidate a five-year majority for himself, enabling him to implement what priorities he will select, which, if the campaign is any indication, will represent a pro-market inflection (not revolution) in the étatist policies of the French state.

The Socialist party will be torn by defeat, by the exhaustion of the ’68 generation, by the failure of the post-’68 (Ségolène Royal’s) generation to capitalize on even as calamitous a 12-year legacy as that of the pseudo-conservative Chirac. The moderate, more Social-Democratic types in the Socialist party have been signaling their willingness to deal with the center: Former Socialist government minister Bernard Kouchner, founder of the “French Doctors,” is now talking of joining François Bayrou’s new Centrist (Christian-Democratic) party. Claude Allègre, renowned geophysicist (and noted global-warming skeptic) and a former Socialist minister of Education, was spotted leaving Sarkozy’s offices a few days ago.

The grip of the “Sixty-Eighters” (soixante-huitards) on the political and cultural establishment and the complete connivance between Gaullists, Communists, and ’68ers on anti-American, anti-Israeli, anti-Christian, pro-Arab, pro-Muslim, pro-Russian, and pro-“third world” policies has now been seriously weakened. In his campaign, Sarkozy emphasized national identity and cultural roots (Judeo-Christian, Catholic, French, and Western) — subjects that drive the Left into fits of rage. The ’68ers idolized cultural relativism and multiculturalism; the new president has no sympathy for their shibboleths. The virtues he stresses and the vices he attacks have nothing in common with the worldview of the ’68ers.

With the end of its persistent and toxic “exceptions,” from the so-called French social model to the conceit of French international leadership, and with a new chief executive unburdened by these follies, France will join again the ranks of reasonably governed nations. Good news for the French, good news for us.
There's lots of meat between those two excerpts, too.

Fred... Again

Yes, I know I am posting a lot about Fred. Simply put, he's the only candidate that interests me in a positive way... unlike people like Giuliani, who interest me only negatively.

Anyway, Fred comments on "long wars" and hearkens back to history to make his point. It would be hard to excerpt it without posting most, if not all, of the article, so I'll just say go read it.

Terror Arrest in New Jersey

Details are still sketchy, but it looks like the news is conspiring to show that the war on terror is still going on.

Six people were arrested on Monday in connection with an alleged plot to murder as many soldiers as possible at Fort Dix, according to various media sites.

The men, ethnic Albanians, allegedly attempted to purchase automatic weapons from an arms dealer working with the FBI and were arrested in New Jersey after officials learned of the plans, a law enforcement source said.

The undercover investigation followed the men, three of whom are brothers, from New Jersey to the Poconos, where they allegedly practiced firing automatic weapons.

Officials raided the homes of the men, described as Islamic radicals, and said there is video showing some of the alleged planning.
Betcha some surrender-now Democrats are going to be really upset at this reminder that many Muslims still want to kill us.


Pro-American Sarkozy Wins French Election

Foxnews.com is reporting that Nicolas Sarkozy has won the French election, handing Socialists yet another defeat.

Newsbusters.org is reporting that the NY Times is already calling him names.

I guess sometimes you really can judge someone by his enemies.

Critics Complain about NYPD keeping 2004 GOP Convention Safe

Apparently it's now a violation of civil rights to protect the eeeeeeeeeeeevil Republicans.

What else is one to think when "protesters" sue the NYPD for arresting violent demonstrators outside the 2004 GOP Convention?

Here's a list of some details about the planning of the demonstrations:

Eight weeks before the convention, activists designated Aug. 31, 2004, in online postings as a day for civil disorder, the "Day of Chaos," or "A-31." Groups of anarchists began identifying protest targets in public advisories, press releases and on Web sites.

For many, Madison Square Garden, the convention site, was "ground zero," which activists discussed entering with false identification. Others planned to prevent delegates from reaching the convention by blinding bus driver windows or disabling charter buses, lying under vehicles, and using rented cabs and flotillas of bicycles to clog bus routes.

A least 24 hotels throughout the city hosting state delegations were identified on Web sites as delegation hosts at which protestors could converge to harass delegates and disrupt normal hotel business. Reinforced police presence at the Warwick, the Westin and Roosevelt, Commissioner Kelly said in a 2004 speech, prevented demonstrators from "rushing" the delegates' hotels.

The intelligence files show that activists had also planned, and later attempted unsuccessfully, to close down Wall Street, disrupt traffic at Herald Square and elsewhere, crash delegate parties, stage sit-ins in hotel and office lobbies, seal off subway stations with arrest tape and switch subway signs to disorient delegates. There were plans to vandalize retail stores like Starbucks and McDonalds with what Mr. Cohen called "brick and bomb tactics"; activists were also urged to disrupt Broadway performances attended by delegates on Aug. 31, designated as "Chaos on Broadway."

Other businesses seen as hostile to the activists' agenda--the Carlyle Group, Chevron, the Rand Corporation and Hummer of Manhattan--were designated for "direct actions" ranging from blocking entrances to breaking windows and setting fires. The files showed that activists with previous arrests for violent conduct were monitored by NYPD plain-clothes detectives, and that information about their convention plans was shared with police departments in other states and counties.

Activists discussed the use of disruptive tactics that had worked so well in Seattle--Molotov cocktails, ammonium-nitrate bombs with nails, live CS canisters, Tiki Torches (soup cans filled with flammable substances attached to the end of a stick) water guns filled with flammable liquids and chemical irritants, urine or paint, and mobile infrared transmitters to change traffic signals.

The files document at least eight training sessions in New York and outside that were organized by anarchists and other experienced activists. Techniques for evading or countering the police were taught. The New York City Anarchist Tribes, for example, held martial-arts training in Manhattan in January, 2004. The Syracuse Peace Council, in Ithaca, N.Y., which planned to block traffic in New York, held weekend training aimed at "building our own radical activist infrastructure."

The "Constitutional Rights Enforcement and Support Team," an Internet-based group, stated on its Web site that "many people who join this group will die, be wounded, or jailed" in its efforts to counter "police brutality." Ashira Affinity, a Colorado-based anarchist group, urged members to join protests that were "strategic, ruthless, efficient, as well as chaotic."

In addition to the usual crackpot threats posted in Internet chat rooms, such as the one by a writer who vowed to "fly a 767 into the convention and take care of the American problem on Thursday"--which the police nevertheless could ill afford to ignore--came vaguer if still troubling counsel from would-be protestors: "Give them the New York they are afraid of," urged one listing.

In Queens, police arrested three "Black bloc" anarchists who had three imitation handguns, a butterfly knife, pellets and a map of New York City. A man arrested on Aug. 20 for criminal trespass and possession of burglary tools in the Mandarin Oriental Hotel, had been arrested more than 25 times in California for various offenses.

I'd say the NYPD had plenty of reason to keep an eye on these folks.

But noooooooo, the NYPD watching and in some cases attempting to infiltrate the groups planning this is wrong, because they were protecting the eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeevil Republicans!

Imagine if that sort of planning had been going on for disrupting the Democratic convention. How would the ACLU and ABCCBSCNNNBCPBS react?

That should put it in perspective.


Fred on Some Issues

Stephen Hayes posts more about his interview with Fred Thompson. Here's a quick summary:

Among many other things, we discussed the surge (he's for it, but thinks it was late and should have been bigger); cutting spending (he faults both the Bush administration and congressional Republicans for their failures); the Democrats' attempt to cut funding for the Iraq War ("tragic"); why he chose not to run for president in 2000 (he didn't want to be a "caretaker president"); his reading habits in college (Russel Kirk, Friedrich Hayek, National Review and, to understand the other side, the New Republic,); his frustrations in the Scooter Libby prosecution with the CIA ("they set this whole thing up") and the Justice Department (the case was brought because of "a breakdown" at DOJ); and which longtime Democrat he contributed to in 2006.

Read the whole thing. As usual, the link is in the title.

Giuliani Fumbles on Abortion, Again

The American Spectator's Campaign Crawlers reports that Giuliani is in trouble again:

The most memorable moment in last night's Republican presidential debate came when the candidates were asked about Roe v. Wade. One after another, everyone said what a great day it will be when Roe is overturned. Then came Rudy Giuliani's turn.

"It would be okay," he said, almost shrugging.

As Chris Matthews pressed him into elaborating that he'd leave it to a judge to determine whether it's appropriate to overturn precedent, the fundamental dilemma of the Giuliani candidacy was on full display. A Republican can't win without making peace with the pro-life movement. But Giuliani can't campaign as a pro-lifer without being rightly pilloried as an opportunistic flip-flopper. And while promising not to make Roe a litmus test is regular ritual in general elections, Giuliani actually means it: He'll appoint judges who would probably overturn Roe, but he's not going to make it a priority.
The "electable" candidate is becoming less and less "electable."

And, remember, John "I Voted For the $87 Billion Before I Voted Against It" Kerry was "electable," too.


Democrats and the Culture of Corruption

Remember when Democrats were talking about the "culture of corruption" in DC? Maybe they were looking in the mirror...

The problems stem from [Sen. Dianne Feinstein's (D-CA)] subcommittee activities from 2001 to late 2005, when she quit. During that period the public record suggests she knowingly took part in decisions that eventually put millions of dollars into her husband’s pocket — the classic conflict of interest that exploited her position and power to channel money to her husband’s companies.

In other words, it appears Sen. Feinstein was up to her ears in the same sort of shenanigans that landed California Rep. Randy “Duke” Cunningham (R) in the slammer. Indeed, it may be that the primary difference between the two is basically that Cunningham was a minor leaguer and a lot dumber than his state’s senior senator.

Melanie Sloan, the executive director of Citizens for Responsible Ethics in Washington, or CREW, usually focuses on the ethical lapses of Republicans and conservatives, but even she is appalled at the way Sen. Feinstein has abused her position. Sloan told a California reporter earlier this month that while”there are a number of members of Congress with conflicts of interest … because of the amount of money involved, Feinstein’s conflict of interest is an order of magnitude greater than those conflicts.”

And the director of the Project on Government Oversight who examined the evidence of wrongdoing assembled by California writer Peter Byrne told him that “the paper trail showing Senator Feinstein’s conflict of interest is irrefutable.”

It may be irrefutable, but she almost got away without anyone even knowing what she was up to. Her colleagues on the subcommittee, for example, had no reason even to suspect that she knew what companies might benefit from her decisions because that information is routinely withheld to avoid favoritism. What they didn’t know was that her chief legal adviser, who also happened to be a business partner of her husband’s and the vice chairman of one of the companies involved, was secretly forwarding her lists of projects and appropriation requests that were coming before the committee and in which she and her husband had an interest — information that has only come to light recently as a result of the efforts of several California investigative reporters.

This adviser insists — apparently with a straight face — that he provided the information to Feinstein’s chief of staff so that she could recuse herself in cases where there might be a conflict. He says that he assumes she did so. The public record, however, indicates that she went right ahead and fought for these same projects.
Hypocrisy, thy name is Feinstein.


Bush Vetos Deadline Bill

Bush finally followed through. He vetoed the surrender bill the leftists sent him.

Maybe if he'd used his veto pen more than twice in his Presidency, he'd have more support from conservatives.

That's about all I have to say about that right now.

Al-Masri May Be Dead

There are many reports floating around this morning that Abu Ayyub al-Masri may have been killed. Al-Masri is (or perhaps was) the leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq, or as the leftists might prefer to call it, Al Qaeda In Iraq Which Has Nothing To Do with Al-Qaeda Which Has Nothing To Do With Iraq.

I found this bit from the AP report quite interesting:

"Preliminary reports said he was killed yesterday in Taji area in a battle involving a couple of insurgent groups, possibly some tribal people who have problems with al-Qaida. These reports have to be confirmed."
Wouldn't it be highly ironic if al-Masri died as a result of the sectarian violence which AQI has been working so hard to create?