DUBAI, Oct 27 (Reuters) - Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden said the kidnapping of five French nationals in Niger last month had been prompted by France's unjust treatment of Muslims, in an audio message aired on Al Jazeera television on Wednesday.
Looks like the new front on Islam's war aginst the West is France. Will they recend their ban on veils? Will they get out of Bush's war in Afghanistan (that's bin Laben's appellation)? I guess we're about see what kind of stuff the French are made of. There are presently 5 million Muslims in France. That's enough to create a lot of havoc.
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
WH bristles over top Republican's remarks
CNN White House Correspondent Dan Lothian
The White House is firing back at Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell after he told the National Journal that "the single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president." With his usual sarcastic tone, spokesman Robert Gibbs told reporters "maybe Senator McConnell is interested in running for President."
Gibbs said there will be time in two years for a presidential campaign, but that "members of the Senate are elected and hired by the people of the United States to get stuff done for the people of the United States, not posture and play political games, gum up the system."
What hypocrisy! The Senate isn’t even in session. There isn’t any business McConnell is supposed to be doing right now. We’re in the midst of a hot political campaign. And on top of all that, isn’t the President of the United States "elected and hired by the people of the United States to get stuff done for the people of the United States, not posture and play political games"? And isn’t his office in session every day of the year? Yet he gets to run around all over the country politicking as usual, lying about the opposition, and generally doing his best to gum up the system. Gibb's hypocrisy is stunning!
The White House is firing back at Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell after he told the National Journal that "the single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president." With his usual sarcastic tone, spokesman Robert Gibbs told reporters "maybe Senator McConnell is interested in running for President."
Gibbs said there will be time in two years for a presidential campaign, but that "members of the Senate are elected and hired by the people of the United States to get stuff done for the people of the United States, not posture and play political games, gum up the system."
What hypocrisy! The Senate isn’t even in session. There isn’t any business McConnell is supposed to be doing right now. We’re in the midst of a hot political campaign. And on top of all that, isn’t the President of the United States "elected and hired by the people of the United States to get stuff done for the people of the United States, not posture and play political games"? And isn’t his office in session every day of the year? Yet he gets to run around all over the country politicking as usual, lying about the opposition, and generally doing his best to gum up the system. Gibb's hypocrisy is stunning!
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
Let the money in...
I'm coming to the conclusion that, with perhaps a few exceptions, as a general principle you really can't buy an election. I say that because Meg Whitman has spent $120 million of her own money yet it looks like she isn't gonna win. Could she win if she spent $200 million or $300 million? I doubt it. People are gonna vote for who they decide to vote for. At some point you have put out as much advertising as you can. Putting out any more just isn't going to change the outcome.
This also leads me to think that the money flows toward whoever is perceived as the likely winner. In other words, the reason so many conservative candidates are likely to win is not because so much money is flowing toward them; the money is flowing in their direction because people think they're going to win. If it's true that as a general rule, the money is the result of success and not the cause, then I say repeal McCain-Feingold (looks like Feingold will be repealed). Why not take all the limits off political contributions? All you really need is exposure of the donor list. My concern all along has been that my rights are being trambled on when the government tells me that I can't give a candidate more than $1000.00. And all it does is impower PACs and big labor. Let's put the money back into politics. With good sunshine laws, the risk of money corruption politicians is greatly limited. And we have done rather well in recent years at discovering the corrupt ones and throwing them out on their ear...sometimes into prison.
This also leads me to think that the money flows toward whoever is perceived as the likely winner. In other words, the reason so many conservative candidates are likely to win is not because so much money is flowing toward them; the money is flowing in their direction because people think they're going to win. If it's true that as a general rule, the money is the result of success and not the cause, then I say repeal McCain-Feingold (looks like Feingold will be repealed). Why not take all the limits off political contributions? All you really need is exposure of the donor list. My concern all along has been that my rights are being trambled on when the government tells me that I can't give a candidate more than $1000.00. And all it does is impower PACs and big labor. Let's put the money back into politics. With good sunshine laws, the risk of money corruption politicians is greatly limited. And we have done rather well in recent years at discovering the corrupt ones and throwing them out on their ear...sometimes into prison.
Monday, October 25, 2010
Saturday, October 23, 2010
Ascension of the moderates?
I heard Rush saying the other day that in the next Senate, it will be the so-called moderates who have the power, being neatly situated between the left-wing flaming liberals on the one side and the right-wing Tea Party extremists on the other. Does this mean that John McCain will morph back into a "moderate"? I'm sure we can count on that. Too bad the good people of Arizona didn't dump him when they had the chance. Does this also mean that the real power brokers in the next Senate will be the cooperators and compromisers like Lindsey Graham, Joe Lieberman, and the Maine girls? Probably. It may be better than having socialists like Reid and Shumer calling the shots, but it certainly isn't much better.
Also, I predict again that by the end of January Hillary will have resigned so she can run for president. The next two years could be very unpleasant for the current occupant of the White House as Bill and Hillary roam the countryside criticizing his every move. I suspect they will make the criticisms from the right look like pablum.
Also, I predict again that by the end of January Hillary will have resigned so she can run for president. The next two years could be very unpleasant for the current occupant of the White House as Bill and Hillary roam the countryside criticizing his every move. I suspect they will make the criticisms from the right look like pablum.
Friday, October 22, 2010
Liberalism at odds with democratic government
Modern liberalism is fundamentally at odds with democratic government because it demands results that ordinary people would not freely choose. Liberals must govern, therefore, through institutions that are largely insulated from the popular will. The most important institutions for liberals’ purposes are the judiciary and the bureaucracies.
In his First Inaugural Address, Abraham Lincoln asserted: "The candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the Government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court...the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their Government into the hands of that eminent tribunal." Lincoln was thinking of Dred Scott. Today, however, his observation is even more pertinent, as we have resigned into the hands of the federal judiciary ever more vital questions affecting the whole people. We have in very significant measure ceased to be our own rulers.
The Supreme Court, without authorization from any law, has changed our policies and our culture. That process continues as the lower federal courts are following the Supreme Court’s example. The courts, without the authorization from law, are taking out of the hands of the American people the most basic moral and cultural decisions. [Robert Bork, 1995]
The most recent example of what Judge Bork describes is a federal judge ordering the military to accept out-of-the-closet homosexuals.
In his First Inaugural Address, Abraham Lincoln asserted: "The candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the Government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court...the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their Government into the hands of that eminent tribunal." Lincoln was thinking of Dred Scott. Today, however, his observation is even more pertinent, as we have resigned into the hands of the federal judiciary ever more vital questions affecting the whole people. We have in very significant measure ceased to be our own rulers.
The Supreme Court, without authorization from any law, has changed our policies and our culture. That process continues as the lower federal courts are following the Supreme Court’s example. The courts, without the authorization from law, are taking out of the hands of the American people the most basic moral and cultural decisions. [Robert Bork, 1995]
The most recent example of what Judge Bork describes is a federal judge ordering the military to accept out-of-the-closet homosexuals.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
