| |
The Lunch Counter
|
Monday, February 28, 2005
|
|
Having been wrong on everything from the war on terror to our own economy and job market, two New York Senators get tough on parking violations. What?
Diplomats get the (parking) boot. You can thank a pair of New York Democrats -- Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Charles Schumer -- for forcing foreign diplomats posted in this country to adhere to U.S. traffic and parking laws.
And they are paying up, by golly, under threat by Uncle Sam that U.S. aid sent to their countries would get cut by 110 percent of the amount owed in unpaid fines.
For a country like Egypt, which had owed $1.8 million to federal and local police jurisdictions in Washington and New York, this could add up to some serious bucks.
Other countries that made a habit of ignoring traffic tickets included Nigeria, Indonesia, Brazil and Morocco, to name a few.
Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Schumer inserted the clever measure into a current spending bill, the latter remarking that it "is simply outrageous for these individuals to park illegally and blatantly ignore paying their parking tickets -- New Yorkers face severe penalties if they do this and so should diplomats."
-- John McCaslin, "Inside the Beltway" columnist [TWT Politics]
5:30:22 PM 
|
|
Today, the Syrian backed government in Lebanon resigned, amid massive peaceful demonstrations in Beirut, Lebanon. The people swarmed the streets waving their flag, ecstatic of the resignation of the Syrian backed government, clearing the way for elections of their own, ending the Syrian occupation.
Freedom and democratic-like government representation seems to be catching on around the globe where it hasn't existed in decades, if not centuries. So goes Afghanistan, Iraq, Palestine, now Lebanon and Togo.
Togo Sanctions Lifted After Leader Quits (Reuters). Reuters - African leaders lifted sanctions against Togo after Faure Gnassingbe bowed to huge international pressure and quit as president of the West African country, the United Nations said on Saturday. [Yahoo! News: Politics]
So who thinks any of this would have happened, had it not been for the Bush doctrine that keeps us safe for the short run and the long run? Let Freedom Reign!
related link
5:24:13 PM
|
|
|
|
Friday, February 25, 2005
|
|
Liberty Film Festival Review. Ain't It Cool News, the irreverent movie industry discussion site, has posted a review of last weekend's Liberty Film Festival in Los Angeles. The review included some nice words about Brainwashing 101:
If any of the films shown at this festival are going to breakout and become huge mainstream hits, it's either going to be Michael Moore Hates America or [Brainwashing 101]. Directed by new, sharp-witted, gonzo-journalist Evan Maloney, 101 is an unbiased look at censorship and P.C. run amuck on college campuses. This is one of the most horrifying and hysterical documentaries I have ever seen. There was plenty more coverage of Brainwashing 101 and the festival in general. Check it out if you have a minute. [Brain-Terminal.com: Evan's Journal]
4:20:07 PM
|
|
|
|
Wednesday, February 23, 2005
|
|
UK Has Own Abuse Case
You can count on the anti-war press to focus on it.
Iraq abuse soldiers guilty. Two British soldiers have been found guilty of involvement in abuse of Iraqi civilians that culminated in a sex show during which captured looters were photographed being forced to simulate sexual acts. [Telegraph News | Breaking News]
11:49:48 PM
|
|
|
|
Tuesday, February 22, 2005
|
|
What's new about that? The name of course. :)
3:51:41 PM
|
|
Boomerang, the video. Great job.
Boomerang. Maybe you've heard about these billboards that will taunt Hollywood's glitterati as they shuffle into the Oscars for their annual festival of self-congratulation. Well, Anna of Liberty Belles decided to go out and ask some Hollywood residents what they thought of the signs. The resulting video, called Boomerang, shows that most people were a little confused. But one thing's clear: Anna's great on camera. I'm betting this won't be her last video. [Brain-Terminal.com: Evan's Journal]
3:29:56 PM
|
|
Snippet from Evan's Journal
News From That Other Quagmire. Three weeks into the war in Afghanistan, American and coalition forces controlled about a fifth of the country. Eager to compare every American conflict to Vietnam, that's when the media and the American left began their predictable use of the term "quagmire" to describe the conflict. A week later, of course, the Taliban government was crushed and its ragged remnants fled to the mountains. It wasn't widely covered in our media, but last fall, Afghanistan had a rather successful election that was remarkably free of bloodshed. To say the election was a historic event is to downplay it. It was monumental. Now there seem to be even more reasons for optimism:
3:27:48 PM
|
|
|
|
Saturday, February 19, 2005
|
|
On PBS's Gwen Ifill show 'Washington Week' 2/18/05, in discussing the Presidents success in the tort reform legislation, passed today in the Senate, Gwen poses the question; does that success mean the President will have an easier time with Supreme Court nominees, seeing that Alberto Gonzales was confirmed without too much trouble? Joan Biskupic (USA Today) responds No, it won't be anything like Gonzales, Alberto Gonzales's term is 4 years, the Supreme Court Justices are lifetime appointments, and a lot can get done in the 30 years or so that they would likely serve. And 'the courts are where the major laws are set,' she said. She went on to say that democrats would not pass nominees that they don't like, and would do whatever they can to prevent a conservative from serving on the court.
I don't know if none of the 4 other panelists were not paying attention to what she said, or didn't want to call any more attention to their view of who in their minds makes 'major law', or all of them believe that legislatures are not to be trusted and, in absolute rejection of our Constitution, have decided to run the country their own special way, via the courts. Especially the Supreme Court. But this obvious usurpation of the legislature as the lawmaking branch of our government as opined by Joan Biskupic went totally unchallenged if not totally unnoticed by the others; Gwen Ifill, Dana Priest, (Washington Post), Tom Gjelten (NPR), and Michael Duffy (Time Magazine).
She is right about the democrats' dependence on activist judges to make laws that might otherwise not be enacted by the citizens via their elected representatives. Yes, it's going to be a BIG and unnecessary and disruptive and divisive fight, starring the democrats.
12:35:01 AM
|
|
|
|
Monday, February 14, 2005
|
|
So Howard Dean beats out all comers to be the Chairman of the Democrat National Committee. As a conservative I say, good for them. Howard Dean represents exactly what cost them the last election. He embodies the Michael Moore and George Soros and moveon.org wing of their party, which proves to me that they have learned nothing from the last election.
What I can see happening is for Howard Dean to preside over his party in the same way that Dr. Kevorkian did over his patients.
11:23:07 AM
|
|
|
|
Tuesday, February 08, 2005
|
|
As Sen. Minority Leader Harry Reid Morphs Into Tom Daschle And John Kerry
So Sen. Minority Leader Harry Reid, Tom Daschle's successor, turns out to be an amalgamation of Tom Daschle and John Kerry. There isn't a winning combination of any of these democrat politicos, although they try.
On judicial nominations, Senator Reid, in 2001, said that every judicial nominee should get an up or down vote in the judiciary committee and the senate. We all know what an obstructionist Tom Daschle was on judicial nominees, which is why he's living high on his retirement benefits we pay for. It's cheaper for us this way than if he were still in Washington. Now however, Harry Reid has voted NO on cloture votes in the judiciary committee, ie. to deny an up or down vote in the committee as well as the senate, on Pryor, Estrada, Brown, and several others. He was for the normal judicial nominee processes before he was against it.
On saving Social Security, Sen. Harry Reid in 1999, was an advocate of private investment accounts as part of Social Security reform. This was when Bill Clinton first pointed out the problem Social Security faces when it comes time for the baby boomers to retire. At that time you didn't hear anybody, republican or democrat, disputing the fact that there was a looming problem for Social Security, that the present system was headed for insolvency. No one disputed that, although the 'when' this would happen would differ, but the end result was the same. Here again, Senator Reid was for private citizens to hold a small percentage of what would be their taxes to be invested in private and public sector money market accounts that they own. Historically, these investments pay from 2 to 8 times the return that SS historically contributes. He saw the wisdom in this plan 6 years ago. Now however, he says there is no problem in Social Security that raising taxes won't fix. I guess you can say he was for private investment accounts before he was against them.
We are left to wonder why a few years ago, when a democrat was in the White House, the problem with Social Security was perceived to be real, why they now think not only that there is no problem but that private investment accounts will kill Social Security instead of saving it? That is a complete reversal. The fact that a republican is in the White House now seems to have changed the way they see Social Security. It's purely political, which should now be obvious.
Another obvious conclusion one can draw is that, it isn't the peoples' welfare they are seeking to preserve, but rather the inadequate and antiquated Social Security system itself.
2:51:05 PM
|
|
|
|
Thursday, February 03, 2005
|
|
The President's State of the Union speech last night was outstanding. He explained his agenda for the second term. He hit every point, and then some, including illegal immigration and Social Security. He explaned the problems that he believes need solving, and that he expects to work with democrats in a bi-partisan manner to determine the problems, get recommendations, and make a decision on a solution. He repeatedly said the opportunities we face are too important to not involve everyone in the solution. Bush did more than say he wanted to work with the democrats on fixing Social Security, he challenged them.
Then there was the democrat rebuttal. The whole tone of their 'show' was doom and gloom, bringing to question everything Bush has done. All of which was 180 degrees from reality. That and the fact that because they pre-recorded their rebuttal, they made themselves look especially foolish when Nancy Pelosi said that Bush should be doing something to reinvigorate the Middle East peace process between the Palestinians and Israel. This, after Bush had just said that Sec. of State Rice would be going there tomorrow to talk with Sharon and Abbas and others in the area.
Politically speaking, they probably would have been better off if they didn't have a rebuttal. Regardless of the points they were making, the negative tone permeated the program. Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid continued in the Tom Daschle manner of accusing the President of causing harm to the country. They can never just say his plan is not as good as theirs (which they don't have) is, they always say his plans are harmful, like he wants to starve people and poison the air and water. Fact is, business is good, unemployment is down, jobs are up, home ownership is up, interest rates are still low, Iraq and Palestine had elections. People want a chance to vote, even with the risk of being killed for trying. So you can see with all the good news there is in the world, as pertains to the state of our Union, how off-the-wall the democrat response was.
The foreign policy parts of the address was right on. Bush suggested that Egypt and Saudi Arabia give their people a try at democracy like the Palestinians have just done. And he put Syria and Iran on notice to stop supporting terrorist activity in Iraq and to stop giving safe harbor to terrorists. Reminding everyone that we are at war, in a global war on terrorism, in order to protect ourselves and our children and generations to come.
President Bush was positive, upbeat, confident and convincing in his vision while the democrats seemed to do their best at digging themselves deeper, faster.
3:15:44 PM
|
|
|
© Copyright 2006 Ross Calloway.
Last update: 2/13/2006; 11:36:39 PM.
|
|
|
