January 11, 2007
Now Big Dog thinks this is a symbolic move by the Democrats to show that they're anti-war. Is there really anyone on the entire planet that doesn't know that Democrats are anti-war? Haven't they been screaming since the election that they're anti-war? Isn't that why they claim they were elected in the first place? Obviously EVERYONE knows they're anti-war. So I'm not so sure this is a "symbolic vote" for them.
However, from what I've been able to gather, here is the extent of the text of Kennedy's bill:
Prohibition. -- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no Federal funds may be obligated or expended by the United States Government to increase the number of United States forces in Iraq above the number for such forces which existed as of January 9, 2007, without a specific authorization of Congress by law for such an increase.
That's it, word for word. Really.
Of course, the "other provision of law" is pretty clear (to conservatives, anyway):
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States
So in a logical, real world, this legislation that Kennedy has thrown out there and which has gotten so much press is completely and utterly worthless. It has absolutely zero power of law. But that's in a logical, real world, where today's Democrats have never been.
Instead, the Democrats will actually believe they can do this. Then, when Bush sends more troops, the Democrats will complain and "launch investigations." You see, they don't care, because it's not their money they'll be spending on the investigations. It's YOUR money that they WILL be raising taxes to get more of.
They will demand special councils when instead they should read the damn Constitution. Kennedy should be drummed out of office for even suggesting such a blatantly unconstitutional action. But since he doesn't even get in trouble for murder, why would such a minor thing like breaking Constitutional Law get him in trouble?
It's going to be a long two years with Democrats and their fantasy world in charge. I only hope that few Americans will have to pay for Democrat foolishness with their lives.
Posted by: Ogre at
02:06 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 429 words, total size 3 kb.
By North Carolina State Senator Fred Smith
During the 2006 election, many candidates for office faced questions from voters about the increasing size of North Carolina state government. Questions about the fiscal responsibility of the Easley Administration and Democratic legislative leaders are timely. The past ten years, General Fund spending has grown 24% faster than combined inflation and population growth – translating into a $1,116 increase in real dollars for a typical North Carolina family.(1)
State government spending continues to be out of control with a projected $500 Million revenue shortfall in 2007. The most recent state budget increased spending 9.7%, on top of an 8% increase last year. The failure of the Democratic legislature and Governor Easley to prioritize and control spending has resulted in millions of dollars of inefficient expenditures – instead of worthwhile investments like educating our children or building and maintaining roads. Ultimately, this careless, undisciplined spending has also forced North Carolina to impose on its citizens the highest tax burden in the southeast. Meanwhile, the local tax burden is also increasing.(2) Irresponsible year-after-year increases in spending strain family budgets, stifle private sector growth and damage the ability of small businesses and entrepreneurs to create new jobs.
Even Lt. Gov. Perdue, one of the most liberal Democratic officeholders in our state's history, seems to recognize the problem. She recently penned an email to supporters touting her hot new "reform" idea: a permanent state efficiency commission. The commission, she says, would "present a maximum of ten separate governmental efficiency proposals" to "counter the pressures in the system favoring wasteful spending and loopholes."(3)
Taken as a stand-alone plan, her proposal is not a bad idea. However, Perdue's latest press release misses the larger point. The failure to control spending isn't for lack of boards, commissions, or processes – it's for lack of leadership. The governor already has the power to appoint advisors or seek outside counsel on fiscal issues – or any other state problem. The governor has the veto power on the budget. He controls the Office of State Budget and Management. He has the bully pulpit.
On the campaign trail in 2004, Gov. Easley's "solution" to the spending problem was a self-enforced spending cap. During the 2005-2006 General Assembly, Easley promptly broke that pledge by signing two budgets that blew through his own cap. Now, Perdue has the magic bullet: her permanent efficiency commission. She says the group will create the "institutional momentum" needed to fight spending. Why add a new commission to the over four hundred boards and commissions already in existence, rather than just rolling up our sleeves and tackling the spending problem? Real leaders take excuses off the table, use the tools they have and get the job done.
Some skeptics may look at Perdue's record and fear that her efficiency commission proposal is just political lip service. She can prove the skeptics wrong though by signing on to support the constitutional amendment I have introduced to cap state spending growth.
Our rapidly growing, rapidly changing state doesn't have time for bureaucratic piddling with new processes. Instead of tinkering with the system, we must make real change which requires leadership. My Taxpayer Protection Amendment limits government spending growth to inflation and population growth. This legislation would immediately put real limits on government growth, finally forcing the legislature to prioritize spending.
Talking about fiscal restraint, finding government efficiencies, and getting tough on spending is a lot like talking about going on a diet. There are a lot of gimmicks and new fads, but we all know there's only one real solution: discipline. We don't need a new "fad" plan, we just need a leader with the discipline to make sure government eats less and exercises more. A constitutional spending cap would force government to create a strategic plan for growth, prioritizing what we consume and cutting outmoded, irrelevant spending.
We don't need a new blue ribbon commission. We don't need to pass the buck. We need results – and that takes disciplined leaders who will roll up their sleeves and make tough decisions. At the end of the day, improving government efficiency and reducing unnecessary spending reduces the demand that government places on the private sector, so the private sector can create jobs and economic growth.
(1) "The State Budget." John Locke Foundation: http://www.johnlocke.org/agenda2006/statebudget.html
(2) Lowrey, Michael. "By the Numbers: What Government Costs in North Carolina Cities and Counties." The Center for Local Innovation. http://www.johnlocke.org/acrobat/policyReports/btn2006.pdf
(3) Perdue News Update, December 29, 2006.
Posted by: Ogre at
12:07 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 760 words, total size 5 kb.
January 10, 2007
was written by Victor Kamber and Bradley S. O'Leary and appeared in the October 28-30, 1994 issue of USA Weekend.
Me, I don't remember much past yesterday, much less 1994 (I'm just trying to fit in with the general voting public). It has a whole list of questions (it doesn't take that long) that attempts to measure you on the liberal-conservative scale (yes, another one).
This one was a little different than others I've seen. Go check it out and see how you end up. In case you're wondering, yes, I got a perfect 40. 
Posted by: Ogre at
06:07 PM
| Comments (8)
| Add Comment
Post contains 111 words, total size 1 kb.
by Debbie of Right Truth
John Edwards is running for president of the United States on his same old theme, 'two Americas'. He hopes to get votes by pitting the 'haves' against the 'have nots'. He even chose New Orleans to make his announcement, with the unspoken message that the government failed the poor people and he has stepped in to be their savior.
Edwards is promising universal health care, pulling out of Iraq ,taxing oil company profits and eliminating President Bush's tax cuts to pay for his priorities. Edwards is not alone in his thinking about the evil rich (of which he happens to BE ONE). Yesterday Thomas Sowell had a wonderful article that relates to this, titled 'A Dangerous Obsession'.
Mr. Sowell picked up on the media, the left, and academia's continuous obsession with “gaps” and “disparities” in income. 'As one talk-show host put it, “It makes no sense” that a corporate executive makes over $50 million a year.' Sowell says, "Ninety-nine percent of all the things that happen in this world “make no sense” to any given individual."
If you cannot understand something as simple as making a lead pencil, why should you be surprised that you donÂ’t understand why someone is making a lot more money than somebody else?
Moreover, if this obsession with income disparities is to be something more than mere hand-wringing or gnashing of teeth, obviously the point is that somebody ought to “do something” to change what you don’t understand.
That's what the left, liberals, and Edwards wants to do. They want to correct what they perceive as something wrong, ...some people having more money than others. And how would one go about correcting such an atrocity? That's easy. Take away the excess from one, and give it to another. Or as Mr. Sowell puts it, "Usually that means that the government — politicians — should impose policies based on your ignorance of what is going on."
Of course, such political control of incomes is usually advocated only to deal with “the rich.” But, when income taxes were imposed in the early 20th century, they applied only to “the rich” and they took a very small percentage of their income.
Once the floodgates are opened to this kind of political power, however, we have seen with the income taxes that they not only spread far beyond “the rich,” they took a serious share of even middle class incomes.
Moreover, the income tax has spawned an intrusive bureaucracy, creating so much complexity and red tape that millions of ordinary citizens have to go get some accountant to fill out the forms for them — and then sign under penalty of perjury that it was done right.
If you knew how to do it right, you wouldnÂ’t have to go to somebody else to have it done, would you? ...
It is also worth noting that the people who are said to be earning “obscene” amounts of money are usually corporate executives. There is no such outrage whipped up when Hollywood movie stars make some multiple of what most corporate executives make.
In short, Mr. Sowell is asking, "Whose wealth is it anyway?" Did the government earn this wealth? No, they didn't. Why should they be the ones to decide who is worthy to spend that wealth? Did the government produce any product, any widgets, any business that will employ others? Unless you count the bureaucracies needed to collect and redistribute this wealth, the answer is no.
In reading Mr. Sowell's article, I thought directly of the United States, but Tom at Libertarian Leanings looks at this from a world view.
Israel has nowhere near the natural resources of the Arab states, yet they are wealthier by far. According to the CIA World Factbook, Israel produces a measely 2740 barrels of oil per day. At the same time Saudi Arabia puts out 9,475,000, and Iran 3,979,000. Yet Israel enjoys a per capita GDP of $25,000, while Saudi Arabia and Iran come in at $13,100 and $8,400 respectively. The income gap is not a crisis in Israel because Israelis have the freedom to produce wealth. Arab state citizens have less freedom, less wealth, and less hope for getting it.
Unfortunately, leftists (and Democrats) can't bring themselves to support the spread of freedom. Their antidote to the growing gap between the rich and the poor is to prevent the creation of wealth. Taxation discourages an activity, so the lefty solution to their contrived crisis is to tax wealth (income) at ever higher rates as a person demonstrates ever higher success in creating it. The Arab solution is to wipe Israel off the map. Actually, there are Democrats who seem to be coming around to that view.
This brings me back to the United States, to the Fair Tax, which would replace the federal income tax system with a progressive national retail sales tax. It provides a "prebate" to ensure no American pays federal taxes on spending up to the poverty level, dollar-for-dollar federal revenue replacement and, through companion legislation, repeal of the 16th Amendment.
This nonpartisan legislation (HR 25/S 25) abolishes all federal personal, gift, estate, capital gains, alternative minimum, Social Security, Medicare, self-employment, and corporate taxes and replaces them all with one simple, visible, federal retail sales tax – collected by existing state sales tax authorities.
The FairTax taxes us only on what we choose to spend, not on what we earn. It does not raise any more or less revenue; it is designed to be revenue neutral. (more)
Why should people be punished because they took the risks to build a business, to produce a product, to creat a new widget? Why should they be punished by having the government take away a large portion of their profits, profits that could be used to produce MORE jobs, more widgets, more wealth? Why should the creators of wealth, who give much of that wealth away to worthy and needy organizations, be punished? They shouldn't.
On the world scene, Brad leaves a comment at Thought Streaming
"One can never force a productive, ambitious, disciplined spirit to subsidize weak mindsets girded by overactive libidos, they will always rebel,...". Graeme also leaves a comment, " ...if you give people a "voice" at work, they will produce more. They have incentive to work."
If you let people produce wealth, reinvest wealth, and use it as they see fit without government intrusion, you will actually see more help being given to those in need; more opportunities for those in need of better jobs, higher salaries, more education. Don't punish people for using the gifts and opportunities God gave them.
That my dear friends is what folks like Edwards (and Hillary Clinton) want to do.
Posted by: Ogre at
04:04 PM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 1128 words, total size 8 kb.
Climate statistics show that, with all the "global warming" hysteria today, our temperatures are still not as high as they were back in medieval times. Those medieval folks must have been driving a lot of cars and SUVs.
Isn't global warming funny? Err.. I mean, fun? For every scientist that claims it's real and true, you can find another to refute them. But that doesn't matter to those to whom global warming is a religion. The facts absolutely destroy any concept that man has caused the earth to warm by driving SUVs -- but try making algore understand facts.
Increasing numbers of people seem to think that it is "name-calling" if you refer to someone as a liberal. There are no inherently negative connotations to the word "liberal." If it has acquired negative overtones, that is because of what liberals have done and the consequences that have followed.
That one is so true. "Liberal" used to be a good thing. It used to be based on "liberty." Classic liberalism is a wonderful philosophy. But today's liberals have morphed the word so that Democrat, Liberal, and Socialist are all synonyms.
Can you cite one speck of hard evidence of the benefits of "diversity" that we have heard gushed about for years? Evidence of its harm can be seen -- written in blood -- from Iraq to India, from Serbia to Sudan, from Fiji to the Philippines. It is scary how easily so many people can be brainwashed by sheer repetition of a word.
Seriously. Is there ANY evidence at all that diversity is good (other than nice feelings for a few)? Anything at all. I've certainly never seen any advantage to selecting someone to do a job based on their race, country or origin, color, sex, or any other physical characteristic. When I hire someone, I would prefer to hire someone who is best able to actually DO the job, no matter their heritage.
Civil rights used to be about treating everyone the same. But today some people are so used to special treatment that equal treatment is considered to be discrimination.
Now go back and read that one again. Read any news article complaining about "civil rights." Then go back and see if you can find the equal treatment -- that will be why there's a lawsuit or complaint, nearly every time.
The next time somebody says that the government is forced to intervene in the economy to protect the poor, ask why the government is forcing taxpayers to subsidize municipal golf courses, the ballet, opera and -- the biggest subsidy of all -- surrounding affluent communities with vast amounts of expensive "open space."
This one gets me every time. When they want more money, it's always "for the poor" or "for the children." But when they're spending it, you don't see any poor or children anywhere around. Charlotte, NC is especially good at this trick.
We can only hope that the rumor that Israel is going to take out Iran's nuclear weapons facilities is true. If they do, Israel will be widely condemned by governments that are breathing a sigh of relief that they did.
Amen.
Posted by: Ogre at
02:02 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 590 words, total size 4 kb.
You see, the "County of Durham" decided to sue the state of North Carolina. Since Durham is IN North Carolina, yes, the people who live in Durham have to pay for ALL the expenses for everyone involved. What a deal, huh? Next time you hear about the "need" for higher taxes, remember what they're doing with your money -- they are literally suing themselves. Why not, they can't lose! It doesn't cost them a dime -- the taxpayer pays for everything.
If it weren't such a horrible deal for the taxpayer, this particular lawsuit would be funny. You see, Durham county is suing the state for exercising eminent domain. The county actually claimed that it was immune to eminent domain seizures of the state. Nice idea, but this is North Carolina. In the North Carolina government, state government is supreme to, well, anything and everything (including state and federal constitutions).
It would also be very interesting if the appeals court rules the other way -- that counties are immune from the state's power of eminent domain. That would be very interesting because that would reduce the value of people, individuals, and freedom even more because it would create a new class of land -- land owned by the county -- that is of higher value and protection than any allegedly "privately" owned land. And that could set up a nice argument about property taxes. You see, if I truly owned the land, I wouldn't have to pay a property tax. Therefore, the county actually owns my land, and I pay a yearly rent. Now, if county land becomes immune to state actions, MY land now becomes completely and totally immune to state actions and laws. Yes, I realize that wouldn't get anywhere in court, but only because the courts couldn't stand me actually having any freedom.
Worse, this entire argument is over LESS THAN AN ACRE of land. Millions of dollars taken from taxpayers and spend on lawyers and courts fighting over less than an acre. But to the county and the state, it's not costing ANY of those people one thin dime -- so they honestly don't care how much they spend nor how long the fight takes.
Just remember such utter and total waste when the Democrats come screaming about tax increases "for the children."
Posted by: Ogre at
12:03 PM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 481 words, total size 3 kb.
January 09, 2007
Now I wonder how many of my good readers will complain that you can't see THIS Ogre repairing much of anything. I'd have to agree -- destroying is so much more fun!
Posted by: Ogre at
08:08 PM
| Comments (13)
| Add Comment
Post contains 68 words, total size 1 kb.
But of course, with 24-hour news and blogs, everyone has to talk about something, so the 2008 presidential election is it.
So, Mark Joseph, of the Associated (with terrorists) Press has an analysis that claims that Mitt Romney doesn't stand a chance to get the GOP nod for 08 because of his religion. This will never be an issue with Democrat politicians, because to loyal Democrats, government IS their religion.
However, Mr. Joseph makes the same error (perhaps intentionally) that many "analysts" make -- he associates conservatives with Republicans. The National Republican Party, George Bush included, has nothing to do with conservatives. If you think President Bush is a conservative, you're misinformed. There is almost nothing that Bush has done that could be considered conservative. The same goes for the previous Republican Congress.
Now, do conservatives vote for Republicans? Sometimes simply because they feel that they don't have any other choice. One of the biggest tenents of conservatives that simply has no home in today's national politics is smaller government. If you want smaller government, there is NO home for you at all in national politics today.
But then Mr. Joseph goes on to insult Evangelical Christians by declaring that none of them will vote for Romney because he's a Morman. I'm sorry, but I haven't seen that poll. I know a lot of Evangelicals that vote, and I don't know a single on that would base their decision primarily on membership in the Mormon religion. Instead, Mr. Joseph tries to muddy the waters by mentioning a poll in which 35% of Americans claim they wouldn't vote for a Mormon -- not mentioning how many, if ANY, of that 35% were these evangelical Christian voters.
Perhaps that entire 35% were atheists. There are no links or data for the actual poll, so no one knows.
Mitt Romney's going to have a harder time overcoming the idea that he's from super-liberal Massachusetts than he's going to have convincing people to vote for him because of his religion. But that wouldn't help the AP's agenda of attacking and insulting evangelicals, so that's not going to make the reports, is it?
Posted by: Ogre at
04:02 PM
| Comments (6)
| Add Comment
Post contains 429 words, total size 3 kb.
But as I was glancing over the article, one line really caught my attention:
Economist and Right to Food activist, Jean Dreze told CNBC-TV18
ExCUSE me? Turns out I did read that right. There really is a communist organization that claims that everyone has a right to food:
We consider that everyone has a fundamental right to be free from hunger and undernutrition. Realising this right requires not only equitable and sustainable food systems, but also entitlements relating to livelihood security such as the right to work, land reform and social security. We consider that the primary responsibility for guaranteeing these entitlements rests with the state. Lack of financial resources cannot be accepted as an excuse for abdicating this responsibility.
This is the total opposite of freedom, no matter your feelings on hunger. They specifically advocate the state taking anything and everything they can from anyone who produces something so they can give it to others who do NOT work.
A quick review on rights for those who consider supporting these communists:
Rights cannot, by definition, require anything of anyone else. To claim that "food" is a right, you require others to create, produce, package, and deliver that food to you. That's not rights, that's slavery.
So no, no matter how compassionate you might be, you simply cannot claim there is a "right to food" unless you support slavery.
Posted by: Ogre at
02:03 PM
| Comments (5)
| Add Comment
Post contains 290 words, total size 2 kb.
Now if you listen to his press reports, they all claim the changes will be "revenue neutral." Think about that for a minute, if you will. The primary complaint is that revenues are down and not enough is being collected. Therefore the system needs to be "reformed." But if the reforms are including ZERO increases, then there's no need for the reform, is there? One part or the other has to be a lie:
1. The NC Tax system needs to be reformed because it's out of date, and it's distribution has shifted, and it's not providing the needed revenue.
2. The new, redesigned system will be "revenue-neutral" and not result in an increase to the state.
Logically there's no possible way those two make sense together. Then again, logic and Democrats have never been known to exist in the same space at the same time.
Here's some of their complaints:
Problem: Around 1930, when the current system was put into place, few people went to college. Now, education accounts for 60% of the state budget.
Democrat solution: more, higher, punitive taxes.
Freedom solution: Cut the entire 60% of the budget and let the free market educate people. It works every time it's tried.
Problem: Around 1930, Medicaid didn't exist. Today, Medicaid takes up 17% of the budget and is predicted to take upwards of 53% by 2030.
Democrat solution: more, higher, punitive taxes.
Freedom solution: Cut all spending on Medicaid. I'm very, very sorry if you cannot afford medical care. Know what? I can't afford it, either. But you have zero right in a free society to force other people, against their will, to pay for your poor medical decisions.
Alleged Problem: Services aren't taxes.
Democrat solution: more, higher, punitive taxes. Tax all services, despite the explicit prohibition against doing so in the NC Constitution.
Freedom solution: Hello? Lack of taxes is NOT a problem. Leave it alone.
Alleged Problem: Sales tax revenue have fallen from 41% in 1957 to 35% in 2002. Somehow that can be blamed on the internet despite there being no internet in the 50s and 60s.
Democrat solution: more, higher, punitive taxes. Tax the internet. Tax all sales, no matter who is the seller or buyer, even if it's a clear violation of the commerce clause of the United States Constitution.
Freedom Solution: Once again, the LACK of taxes is NOT a problem. Stop trying to take from those who produce and shut up.
State Senator Robert Pittenger, a Republican in the gerrymandered minority; who would be majority leader if Senate districts were drawn fairly, since a majority of people who voted in NC in the last election voted for Republican Senators; says it right:
I wouldn't address any form of tax increase or broadening the tax base until we have faithfully done our job to streamline our government and operate it in a cost-effective way. That is inexcusable.The government is in my pocket the whole time. I'm saying, get out of my pocket.
Nicely said, Mr.
But again, liberal Democrats have a gerrymandered majority in North Carolina and they are highly likely to get their ideas passed into law. Prepare for any "cost of living wage" you get this year to be quickly absorbed (and more) with higher taxes.
Posted by: Ogre at
12:02 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 603 words, total size 4 kb.
January 08, 2007
WORLD EXCLUSIVE: Mexican Gunmen Involved in Arizona Border Incident Actually Uniformed Mexican Force
by Heidi Thiess at Euphoric Reality
The excursion into U.S. territory last week by “Mexican gunmen” was not a chance confrontation between the Arizona National Guard and untrained illegal immigrants, but a deliberate “perimeter probe” by an infantry-trained, uniformed Mexican force, officials say.
Euphoric Reality has learned in exclusive interviews with high-ranking sources within both the Arizona National Guard and the U.S. Border Patrol that the incident the mainstream media calls a “standoff” was in reality a military-style operation, carried out by a unit of Mexican troops dressed in military uniforms, flak jackets, and armed with AK-47s in an apparent operation to probe the border defenses and test the limits of the National Guard troops. Using easily recognizable infantry movement tactics (such as arm and hand signals and flanking maneuvers), the Mexican unit deliberately moved in a military formation across the border from Mexico, where they were picked up by National Guard surveillance.
As the hostile force moved north over the next three hours, deeper into Arizona, National Guardsmen wearing night vision goggles were able to ascertain that the approaching gunmen were indeed uniformed (including PAGST helmets) and heavily armed. When the Mexican unit came within approximately 100 yards of the EIT site, the Guardsmen repositioned themselves in order to maintain surveillance and tactical advantage. They observed the Mexican unit sweep through the EIT site, and then rapidly withdrew back into Mexico. No shots were fired by either the Mexican gunmen or the Guardsmen. Border Patrol was on the scene within minutes of the Mexican unit's withdrawal.
The Guardsmen, through an Arizona Border Patrol official, confirmed that the incident appeared to be an intelligence-gathering exercise designed to ascertain what the National Guard's response would be to certain tactics. It is not an isolated incident, and many such probes have been reported by the Guardsmen assigned to the area. Though no shots were fired during this particular incident, shots have been fired near and in the vicinity of the soldiers at the EIT site in other situations, though not at the soldiers themselves. It is not clear from the uniforms if the Mexican soldiers were official Mexican federales or mercenaries hired by the drug cartels.
Since then, follow-on news reports have included statements from the Border Patrol that no shots were fired. This was confirmed today by Major Paul Aguirre, a Public Affairs Officer (PAO) for the Arizona National Guard. Rumors have circulated that the Guardsmen were not armed, and thus unable to defend themselves - and that is not the case. Both Major Aguirre and Rob Daniels, a Public Information Officer (PIO) for the Arizona Border Patrol, state that all Guardsmen assigned to EITs are armed, specifically with M16s and sometimes a sidearm. As well, there have been some contradictory news reports that stated the gunmen came "within yards" of the Guardsmen, while other reports state that the gunmen were approximately 100 yards away. Mr. Daniels clarified that the gunmen came as close as 100 yards to the Guardsmen. He also stated that the Guardsmen did not "retreat" but tactically repositioned themselves to maintain surveillance of the group of armed men while simultaneously radioing for Border Patrol agents. He asserted that the Guardsmen had followed their protocols perfectly, and that their services were invaluable to the Border Patrol agents.
The Myth of Troops Bringing Law Enforcement to the Border
National Guard soldiers on the border are volunteers deployed by the federal government for Operation Jump Start. They are not mandated to perform law enforcement activities and, in fact, are prohibited from doing so under the Posse Comitatus Act while federally deployed. They are assigned to the border mission for the sole purpose of supporting the Border Patrol - mostly performing administrative, engineering, and maintenance duties that free up Border Patrol agents for border enforcement.
The ramifications of this incident hitting the public awareness are significant. There are incidents on the record of specially-trained military commandos attacking Border Patrol agents, and videos in existence of uniformed Mexicans, deep in American territory, claiming to be reporters when confronted by Arizona Minutemen. Hundreds of armed incursions have been documented by the Border Patrol. In one year, June 2005 until June 2006, over 250 armed assaults have been reported by Border Patrol agents, and several agents have been killed.
Michael Chertoff, head of Homeland Security, has gone on the record to dismiss reports of armed incursions by a uniformed military force as "navigational mistakes", claiming that the Mexican soldiers were "lost.” However, Chertoff offered no explanation as to why these “lost troops” fired on American agents. The Mexican government claims that uniformed military soldiers coming from Mexico are actually American soldiers disguised as Mexican soldiers. Furthermore, when confronted with the possibility that Mexican commandos called Los Zetas, trained by U.S. Special Forces at Fort Bragg to support the Drug War, have defected from the military and now work as mercenaries for the drug cartels, Mexican officials have worked very hard to debunk such evidence. In an official report presented to the U.S. on behalf of the Mexican Office of Inter-Intelligence Affairs, Mexico claimed that “the Zeta army, or syndicate, is no more real than the crying lady of Puebla.”
Yet, contrary to Mexican denials, Los Zetas do exist, and the U.S. Border Patrol is very familiar with them. In a June 2006 investigative news piece by News Channel 5 in Texas, Zetas discussed their training and murderous missions. They also issued a warning:
“These two members of the Zeta army also have a warning for American law enforcement: They are here, with cells operating in Roma, Rio Grande City and Mission - and more are coming.
‘It is not a lie,’ Zeta-2 said. ‘They need to check good, because it is true.’"
Los Zetas: Guns Gone Bad
During the 1990s, U.S. Army Special Forces trained a number of Mexican federal agents and army units in special warfare tactics as part of an effort to aid the struggling Mexican government in the Drug War involving the violent drug cartels of northern Mexico. It's been said that "the training was remedial in nature, and did not exceed international peace time law of NATO forces training foreign combat forces in tactical warfare." Lest we worry about the operational proficiency of such mercenaries, Wikipedia has this unattributed entry:
“The training lasted a mere three months in the sweltering North Carolina heat. In total, 300 Mexican agents and army officers participated in the summer long exercise. Years later, unsealed documents revealed that the training proved to be no more than an extended boot camp. "It was more a media and propaganda effort then it was for actual tactical training that could be used in combat," one of the US Special Forces Officers that participated in the effort stated. "They brought them [sic] boys here, and most of them could fire a gun already, so we just showed them a lot of video of Special Forces training from the early 70's. We were not about to teach or display tactics that make Special Forces what they are. That's why when I read that these boys that are 'Zetas' were Special Forces trained, I almost wet myself with laughter.’”
What the Zetas may lack in professional specialized training, they make up for in ruthless and savage violence. Last year, Times Magazine exposed much of the brutality in an article called Brutal New Drug Gangs Are Terrorizing The U.S.-Mexico Border, and added further information about the identity of Los Zetas.
“According to Mexican officials, Lazcano was a clean-cut Mexican army recruit from the Gulf Coast state of Veracruz when he was picked a decade ago to be part of the highly trained Airborne Special Forces Group. The unit was sent to the eastern border to battle drug trafficking. But in the late 1990s, Lazcano and more than 30 other members of the special forces began working for drug lord Osiel Cardenas, head of the Matamoros-based Gulf cartel, which at the time controlled almost one-third of the Mexican drug trade. “
Official Mexican propaganda notwithstanding, it can be safely assumed that the Zetas are a paramilitary force that has made regular incursions over our border in sometimes heavily-armed assaults. Whether they are actual Mexican federales or uniformed mercenaries in the employ of the drug cartels remains to be seen. Perhaps a small clue to the uniforms is found in the News Channel Five investigative report:
“‘The municipal police, the state police, the ministerial police, the police of the state,’ Zeta-1 said. ‘The soldiers and the federal preventive police. The military on the border. They are bought by the Zetas.’ The Zeta's tools even include uniforms given by the police themselves.”
Regardless of who the uniformed soldiers are, or who commands them, what is paramount is that our southern border security is breached by foreign troops on an increasingly aggressive basis. While our National Guard troops are effectively hamstrung by political restrictions, foreign military soldiers press the advantage. Border Patrol agents have already given their lives in a heroic effort to guard our border, and it is only a matter of time before we lose American soldiers. Is that what it will take for our government to finally take the matter of border security seriously? This is no longer a matter of local civilian law enforcement; it is a matter of national security. For politicians, no matter their affiliation, to play partisan games with our national safety and security is a betrayal of their constituents' trust, and the constitutional duties of their office.
Kit Jarrell also contributed to this report.
Posted by: Ogre at
11:51 PM
| Comments (8)
| Add Comment
Post contains 1644 words, total size 11 kb.
Your Political Profile: |
| Overall: 85% Conservative, 15% Liberal |
| Social Issues: 75% Conservative, 25% Liberal |
| Personal Responsibility: 75% Conservative, 25% Liberal |
| Fiscal Issues: 100% Conservative, 0% Liberal |
| Ethics: 75% Conservative, 25% Liberal |
| Defense and Crime: 100% Conservative, 0% Liberal |
As usual, the quiz is really worth what you paid. The only part I found really interesting is that if you answer that authority should be questioned, that gives you points towards liberalism. That certainly doesn't fit with Reagan's vision of conservatives, that's for sure.
Posted by: Ogre at
08:02 PM
| Comments (5)
| Add Comment
Post contains 114 words, total size 2 kb.
There's one post there called "Misty fishes with face painting." That post is just really, really cool. And don't worry, those of you who don't like to read (what are you doing here?) -- that post is all pictures. And it's pictures of fish. Painted on faces. And it's really neat. Seriously. Go peek.
Posted by: Ogre at
06:02 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 127 words, total size 1 kb.
For those who have no idea about this carnival, the Tarheel Tavern is a carnival from and about North Carolina bloggers and blogging. Sometimes there's a theme to the carnival, more often it's a whole mixed bag of posts. The primary rule is that the blogs who submit must either be blogging in North Carolina or blogging about North Carolina. So if you want to read about what bloggers in North Carolina are writing about; the Tarheel Tavern is the place to be.
This week, 2sides2ron volunteered to be the host for the 98th Tarheel Tavern. So if you need some reading, why not head on over and see what's happening on North Carolina blogs?
Posted by: Ogre at
05:05 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 169 words, total size 1 kb.
This vote changed rules put in place by Republicans way back in 1994. Under those rules, it required a 3/5 vote of Congress to raise taxes -- in other words, that rule REQUIRED bipartisanship. It REQUIRED members of both parties to support a tax increase in order for Congress to be able to raise taxes.
This is the rule that the Democrats just removed. If you hear the Democrats say one single work about bipartisanship, they're outright lying yet again. With the new rule change, Democrats will be able to raise taxes with a simple majority vote -- and you can be sure they will. I'm willing to bet that the upcoming tax increase bills will pass with about a 51-55% vote -- which means they would NOT have passed without the Democrat, partisan rule change.
When you hear them crying for repealing tax cuts for "the rich," you can be sure they're lying. When you hear them claim they'll have "targeted" tax cuts, that means not for you. And you can be sure they will raise taxes substantially -- it's what they do -- and just as reliably, you can be sure they will claim they're NOT raising taxes.
Keep in mind the "leader" of the Democrats in the House is already talking about how he can raise taxes without raising taxes. And they've promised to make the cost of living rise everywhere in the country with new taxes on businesses by raising the minimum wage -- and remember, any time it costs businesses MORE to produce products, it WILL cost the consumer more to purchase those products.
In fact, Charlie Wrangle is even considering a $50 billion tax increase, saying "It's not good for me, but it's good for the American people." Yes, that's a leading Democrat telling you a 50-billion dollar tax increase is "good for you." Don't you love it when people tell you what's best for you because you're a stupid moron and don't know any better?
Sen. Mary Landrieu is screaming for tax increases. She was outraged when tax cuts were even suggested. Sen. Charles Schumer helps to define the Democrat meaning of the word compromise when he admitted it meant "do it my way." Oh sure, he claimed that that was Bush's position, but that's what Democrats do -- lie and then claim your opponent is the one lying.
The new rule which Democrats put in place requires that "any increase in entitlement programs like Medicare would have to have corresponding tax increases." Watch for Democrats to increase entitlements and then scream that they're "required by the rules" to raise taxes -- these rules they just put in place.
If you're working and productive in America today, the Democrats WILL punish you. You have no incentive to work and produce more, because the Democrats in Congress WILL take it from you. So sit back, work less, and let the Democrats take care of you. The rest of us will work enough to support you. And if you are one of the few who works because it's the right thing to do, in spite of the Democrats, congratulations -- you're in the minority and will need to work harder this year to buy the same amount and to bring home the same amount.
Posted by: Ogre at
04:03 PM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 610 words, total size 4 kb.
Now, however, that's all changed. Now, Toys R Us has joined all the spineless wimpy bastards who cave in every time some whiny scumbag scream "racist."
A review of the FACTS:
Toys R Us had a contest in which they described in the rules that the parents of the winner were required to be legal residents of the United States. One person who claimed to be a winner freely admits that they are NOT legal residents of the United States. No immigration officials, of course, have made any attempts to arrest the admitted criminals who are in the country illegally. Racist, whiny bastards are spreading lies about Toys R Us in an attempt to get free, unearned cash for the admitted criminals.
Having worked in the "corporate world" for many years, I know why Toys R Us is doing this -- whey they have caved in to the uber-racists like John Wang (president of the New York-based Asian American Business Development Center) and Albert Wang (a lying attorney). They caved because of public relations and controversy -- both of which most companies hate.
The company believes that the liars who continue to wrongly claim that Toys R Us is being racist (while in fact it is the liars who are being racist) will have a larger effect on the company than doing the right thing. The company has absolutely zero interest in right and wrong -- only about what they can do to bring in the most cash.
Therefore, they're giving away three times the amount they had originally allotted to the contest -- giving away the money to not one baby, as expected, but three of them. While on the face, this may look like a good idea -- it makes everyone happy; in fact, it will cost everyone money. You see, in order for Toys R Us to get that extra money, they had to earn it first.
So, the cost to bribe the racists and criminals here is to not only the stockholders, who just lost a potential $50,000 in profits; but also to the consumers, who will now have to pay increased prices to make up for the new, extortionist lost.
The company was right the first time. The criminals, racists, and liars were wrong, as they usually are. But they were effective with their racist extortion and forced the company to do the wrong thing. What a sorry state of affairs in America today. Yuki Lin, her parents, John Wang, Albert Wang, and "offended" Chinese-American advocates should be ashamed of themselves. But that would require morals which they are obviously lacking.
Posted by: Ogre at
02:06 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 517 words, total size 3 kb.
In NC now, this punitive wage is $6.15. Rumor has it that the Socialists in the U.S. House are planning on raising the federal minimum wage to $7.15. But of course, to socialists, that's just not enough. The North Carolina Council of Communists, err, "Churches" has weighed in (again). They want at least $12.30 an hour. Yes, they want every single person that works at McDonalds to get $12.30 an hour. Do you know what would happen? The Socialist Democrats of North Carolina do.
Some don't. Rep. Jean Farmer-Butterfield, a Wilson Democrat is either reality-challenged, or a liar. She thinks that the $1 an hour raise will bring "some financial relief." She refuses to admit that if it costs more to produce something, then it will cost more to purchase that item. But she does know that a raise in the minimum wage will affect everyone's wages. I could trot old the old argument that we should raise it to $100 an hour, but why bother? Reality cannot penetrate the minds of these people -- only emotions can.
Rep. Joe Tolson, a Pinetops Democrat, can almost see reality, but not quite. He's "concerned" about how the "new costs" will affect businesses. See, he actually realizes that it WILL cost more to do business! Imagine that! But, he's still a socialist to the core. His solution to fix the problem he JUST created? He wants to give tax credits to small businesses who "provide health benefits." Typical liberal Democrat in North Carolina: use the monopolistic force of government to cause a problem, then attempt to solve the problem with even more government. The concept of freedom completely evades these people.
U.S. Rep. G.K. Butterfield, a Wilson Democrat, says about raising the federal minimum wage, ""There are 6 million people in the nation, ... who will be impacted." No, Mr. Butterfield, again, you are a Democrat in fantasy land! It's not 6 million that will be affected, but over 250 million! EVERYONE will be affected, you lunatic!
Can we pass a new Constitutional Amendment that requires anyone who wants to be in a legislature have at least a basic understanding of economics? Ah, why bother, we don't use those silly old "Constitutions" anyway. They're just sort of guidelines and when we dont' like what they say, we just ignore them.
Oh, how I yearn for freedom.
Posted by: Ogre at
12:05 PM
| Comments (6)
| Add Comment
Post contains 452 words, total size 3 kb.
January 07, 2007
Life Under the Sun
This blog is written and maintained by Michele from New Jersey who is either 45, 19, or 80 years old, depending on the day (and time) that you ask. I can relate to the first two, but I don't think I've ever felt 80 years old. In fact, I'm not sure that when I'm 80 that I'll feel like I'm 80. And you know what? I bet I won't admit it, even if I do. 
So, what's the blog about? I'm not really sure. In the sidebar there's a section for "Blog Description." Here's what it says:
"What has a man from all the toil and striving of heart with which he toils beneath the sun? For all his days are full of sorrow, and his work is a vexation...There is nothing better for a person than that he should eat and drink and find enjoyment in his toil. This also, I saw, is from the hand of God, for apart from him who can eat or who can have enjoyment?" (Ecclesiastes 2:22-25)
So...I guess the blog could be a labor and toil for Michele. Or maybe it's a reflection of that labor and toil. It's certainly not something she eats or drinks (at least I don't think so). But if the blog's enjoyable to Michele, then it must be work and toil, right? So maybe she doesn't enjoy the blog but instead works at it? But if she worked at it, then she would find it enjoyable... so maybe she enjoys the blog and doesn't work at it? I'm so confused.
Anyway...
One post highlights a "Chunkster Challenge." This is one challenge I'm not sure that I'm up to. In it, "You read as many very large books (over 400 pages) that you can in a six month period." Now it's not that I don't like to read, but still -- that sounds like a lot of work somehow. I was perfectly willing to write tens of thousands of words in a month, but I'm not sure I have time to read that many books. Then again, I guess that's the point of the challenge, isn't it? Stop on over if you want to join up.
She has another post up that I really, really wish I would have read before I had my laptop stolen. In it she suggests using an online service to store your bookmarks. For some reason, technological me never thought of such a thing. That would SO simplify things for me in so many ways. On a daily basis I often use as many as 5 different computers -- and each has it's own collection of bookmarks. I have GOT to try this.
And in yet another post, she points out a Bible Map. This combined a Bible with Google Maps with active hyperlinks. Now that's just neat. For anyone who wants to SEE places that they read about in the Bible, this is just cool. Go ahead, take a peek!
So, thanks for stopping by today and for reading about my neighbor. Feel free to head on over there this afternoon and drop by and say hello. I think this is going to have to be a regular stop for me, what with such useful and interesting posts!
Posted by: Ogre at
05:04 PM
| Comments (13)
| Add Comment
Post contains 566 words, total size 3 kb.
.January 06, 2007
The whiners are complaining because Toys 'R Us had a competition. As part of the RULES for the competition, it clearly stated that the parents of the winner were required to be legal residents of America. So, when some illegal aliens appeared to win, Toys R Us quickly disqualified them, as they had quite obviously broken the rules.
I say again, nicely done, Toys 'R Us.
But the illegals, always complaining, feel that it's not fair that Toys R Us make such rules. What I want to know is why these whiny bastards haven't been deported yet. If we had ANY immigration enforcement at all, as soon as they opened their mouths to complain and whine, they'd have been arrested and deported.
But still the whiny slimeballs continue to stretch the truth and scream:
Some Chinese-American advocates say the company's decision smacks of second-class citizenship.
No, it's not "second-class" citizenship, it's LEGAL citizenship. Why do you sorry excuses for people have such a hard time with that concept? This
"People are just pretty much outraged," said John Wang, president of the New York-based Asian American Business Development Center.
Only whiny people who hate America or hate American laws, you worthless bum. People who follow the rules aren't outraged ONE bit.
Albert Wang, an attorney, has launched an e-mail campaign on the issue. "She was deprived of $25,000 intended to be used for her college education because of who her parents are."
Lying bastard. That's absolutely NOT true. That's intentionally spreading a lie there. Blatant dishonesty. Scum. She didn't get the free money BECAUSE HER PARENTS DIDN'T FOLLOW THE RULES.
Again, good job Toys 'R Us. I hope you don't cave into the whiny bastards. And ICE, you are NOT doing your job as long as these admitted illegals are still here.
Posted by: Ogre at
11:55 PM
| Comments (11)
| Add Comment
Post contains 380 words, total size 2 kb.
In the NFC, I'm going with Dallas. I am NOT a fan of the Cowboys. I absolutely hated them when they were called "America's Team." I was insulted by that saying. But that old Parcells must have some magic in that old black hat of his. I think somehow he's going to pull out some tricks and he's going to the Superbowl. I don't think there's any way they'll win it, but I think they're going to find their way there.
In the AFC, it's a tougher choice. I think it's got to be either Baltimore or San Diego that's going to get it. I haven't seen either team play this year (too busy watching the Dolphins when they're on), so I'm not sure on either one. San Diego, to me, has the edge with the running game, but Baltimore has the Defense. I'm going to go with San Diego this time.
So, Superbowl GHJKLI (whatever number) will be San Diego vs. Dallas. San Diego will win 38-9. Who agrees?
Posted by: Ogre at
05:04 PM
| Comments (23)
| Add Comment
Post contains 240 words, total size 1 kb.
99 queries taking 0.1437 seconds, 330 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
