The United States has just finished transporting 550 metric tons -- that's over 1.2 MILLION pounds -- of yellowcake uranium from Iraq to Canada. The Iraqi government sold it to a Canadian firm which supplies nuclear fuel for power reactors.

This prompts the obvious question: where did the yellowcake come from? After all, Joseph Wilson assured us that Saddam was NOT trying to get his hands on the stuff.

I, for one, question the timing. WHY is this story coming out now, over five years after we invaded Iraq?

The only thing that makes sense is that it took this long for Halliburton to get all the uranium together and fake the rest of the evidence that indicates that it was, indeed, part of Saddam's non-existent nuclear program.

That's gotta be it.

Permalink | Comments (24) | TrackBacks (0) | Linking Blogs
Filed under: War On Terror

It never gets mentioned much in the dramas about our founding fathers, but one of the big reasons for the American Revolution, was money. You see, the British Empire was about two goals; power and wealth. The American colonies represented quite a bit of each, and while the phrase 'cash cow' did not come into use until much later, it's a apt phrase to describe how the King and Parliament saw them. This, in short, meant that whenever the British government decided it needed to raise funds, an early and popular plan was to raise taxes in the American colonies. This reached a point where the colonists were angry enough to protest, and when complaints were ignored, to resist. I mention this, because our Federal government seems very much inclined to go down the same road.

A good example is the price of gasoline. There is a great deal of talk about concern for the consumer, but no serious action. Indeed, despite promising to lower gas prices to below $2 a gallon, the present Congress has sat idly by while prices instead doubled. Plans have been suggested which could address the problem, both in the short and long term, yet the government stubbornly clings to unproven hysteric theories rather than act in prudent fashion. Neither party is really addressing the problem from the perspective of the average citizen. As usual.

The federal government gets more than two trillion dollars of our money every year, yet they manage to run a deficit and to waste a lot of it on garbage projects to please their own egos. Two trillion dollars is about fifteen thousand dollars a taxpayer, every single year, not including the taxes you pay to a city, county, state or other tax authority. Leaving statistics aside, you have to pay when you get your wages, you pay every time you buy something, you pay for where you live, any nearby schools, a lot of your roads and bridges, and all sorts of fees even when you don't use what they're paying for. You get taxed on your phone - if I recall correctly, we are somehow still paying for the Spanish-American War, you get to pay taxes everytime the US government decides it wants to help someone else. That's one thing when we are helping disaster relief, but something else when we are paying folks for not working, for a politically motivated cause, or for their personal campaigns. And then, after all this paying without our consent or in many cases much informing, we get to file income tax returns, which if done wrongly will lead to threats and penalties by the government.

As we celebrate the anniversary of our independence from Britain, it might be time to notice that someone else wants to make us their colony, their cash cow for whatever they please. And perhaps it is once again time to make clear that we are the nation, not those mandarins - Republican or Democrat - who claim 'public service' but only serve their own.

Permalink | Comments (22) | TrackBacks (0) | Linking Blogs
Filed under: Miscellaneous

Last Friday, as President Bush was giving a speech to a bunch of brand-new American citizens (wow... imagine becoming an American on Independence Day, with the President himself attending and congratulating you. Makes me almost wish I hadn't been born an American so I could do something like that.), the narcissistic assholes at Code Pink showed up and raised their usual ruckus. And, as usual, the cops hauled 'em off.

The first Pink Stinker to strike is "Desiree Farooz," who runs at the president waving her banner or pantaloons or something. If that name seems familiar, it's because she was the same dipshit who assaulted Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice last October.

Missed that? Secretary Rice was in the Capitol to give testimony to the Senate Appropriations Committee when Farooz, from the audience, leaped up and charged her, shouting and waving bloody hands. She got close enough to put her hands around Secretary Rice's head and stood there for several seconds before security officers hauled her off.

Here's video, posted by someone who wholeheartedly approves of Farooz's actions:

As I watched the Rice/Farooz video, it seemed strangely familiar to me. Nothing about the action or the people or the consequences of it, but the general atmosphere, the timing, all put me in mind of another incident where a nutjob got a little too close and escaped scrutiny:

By the timers on each video, Hinckley got off all his shots in about two seconds. Farooz, on the other hand, got within literally inches of the Secretary of State of the United States and stayed there, shouting and waving her hands at her head, for about twice that.

At the time of the Rice incident, I said that if I were President Bush, I'd inform the congressional leadership that they had seen the last of any administration officials on Capitol Hill until some serious guarantees were given for their physical safety. SOMEONE gave Farooz and her fellow psychopaths passes to the hearing, SOMEONE told the Capitol Police (who have had more than their share of run-ins with Code Stink) to not make sure they were excluded, SOMEONE made sure that there was no security officer in front of Dr. Rice, only behind her.

And it just isn't Code Pink and their stupid theatrics. Farooz assaulted the person third fourth in line for the presidency. Numerous other conservatives have been the victims of assault and battery for the sin of being an outspoken conservative.

The trick, you see, is to use a pie as your weapon. If you attack some public figure with a pie, then it's only a prank. No one takes it overly seriously.

That's why the guy who pied Vermont's sitting governor, Jim Douglas, will most likely not get charged with anything serious.

Other conservatives have been given the pie treatment at public appearances. Ann Coulter managed to dodge two thrown by assholes in Tuscon. Pat Buchanan got nailed with salad dressing. (That one I can almost accept, it being Pat Buchanan.) William Kristol was pied in Indiana.

Those are just four off the top of my head. I'm sure that you folks can name your own.

Yes, a pie in the face is classic slapstick comedy. But it's also assault and battery. It's also a form of the "heckler's veto" -- shutting down the speaker through physical means. (Coulter, Kristol, and Rice continued their scheduled appearances; Buchanan, who was quite thoroughly messed, canceled his speech to go clean himself up.)

These are the same people who tend to say things like "violence is never the answer." (Unless, apparently, it's funny and applied to people you don't like.) These are the ones who shout most loudly about THEIR rights, as they cheerfully violate those of others.

And I wonder where it will lead.

Shouting and waving signs used to be the traditional forms of protest. That didn't work well enough. So now the protesters need to get literally "in the face" with their adversaries and MAKE THEM SHUT UP.

I see how this can lead, and I don't like it. Sooner or later some speaker (or a security guard) will see the pie-wielding would-be assailant rushing the stage and stop them -- forcefully.

Maybe even fatally.

Then we'll really hear the howls of protest. "Murder" will be the least of the charges they'll make.

I was 13 when President Reagan was shot. I saw that video above over and over and over and over. I don't need to wonder what might happen when some psycho with something in his (or her) hands gets too close to someone prominent, I've seen it.

So when I see some crazed person rush someone of some renown, like President Bush or Secretary Rice or Coulter or Buchanan or Kristol, I find myself hoping like hell that the most serious casualty will be a suit of clothes.

And not another Ronald Reagan. Or Pim Fortuyn. Or John Lennon. Or Theo Van Gogh. Or Rebecca Schaeffer.

All attacked (and, with the exception of the amazingly lucky Reagan, killed) by nutcases that got too close and weren't stopped.

Code Pink has exactly one useful purpose: they serve as a handy way to identify a whole group of assholes at once. And I think they are rapidly approaching (if not past) the point where that continues to be a useful function.

Time to shut them down before someone gets hurt.

If we're lucky, it'll only be one of them.

Permalink | Comments (26) | TrackBacks (1) | Linking Blogs
Filed under: Attention Whores

Last week, I got considerable grief when I revealed that one of my favorite songs from childhood was David Gates' "Goodbye Girl." I think part of it was oversaturation -- I enjoyed a local DJ, and that was the song he'd play as his sign-off song when the station went off the air. (It was the 70's, and a small-town station that went off the air at night.)

Well, I might like that song, but it's not one of my favorites. And some of the ones that do qualify as "favorites" have a bit more bite to them.

Now, some of you folks probably think of Phil Collins as the whiny nice guy. Well, that's a fair rap, especially since he started doing more and more Disney stuff. Truth be told, he's always had a bit of that in him, ever since his second recording as lead singer -- "More Fool Me" on Genesis' "Selling England By The Pound" album. Since then, songs such as "Misunderstanding" or "One More Night" or "In Too Deep" or... well, you get the idea.

But Phil Collins can rock.

Or, at least, he could. once.

You want proof?

I don't care what anyone else says -- not even Phil, who co-wrote the song: it's the Psycho song.

Permalink | Comments (7) | TrackBacks (0) | Linking Blogs
Filed under: Music

Today's winner is Melvin Gonzalez. He gets the award for the following.

Melvin Gonzalez, a welder, was motoring through Hialeah early Thursday morning in a van filled with with gasoline, acetylene, compressed oxygen and other tools of his trade.

He lit a cigarette. The van exploded.

The flash fire incinerated the inside of his van, peeled the paint right off the exterior and scattered knives, a hydraulic jack, and wrenches onto the street.

But it didn't kill Gonzalez -- although his near self-immolation was captured by a surveillance camera from a nearby business and made it onto CNN. Firefighters found Gonzalez sitting on the side of the road.

He was taken to the Ryder Trauma Center at Jackson Memorial Hospital and was expected to be released as early as Thursday night.

''Apparently there was a leak,'' said Luis Simon, spokesman for the Hialeah Fire Department, ``We noticed the hose coming out of the tank. If there was a leak, it must have been a build-up of gas.''

It happened around 7 a.m. at East Fourth Avenue between 13th and 14th Streets.

The cigarette ignited gas fumes in the van and set off the explosion.

The van's roof ended up in the parking lot of a shopping mall across the street. The explosion took out a royal palm tree that was about 40 feet away. The heat from the blast bent the security steel bars on the front of some of the businesses.

''What saved him was the passenger-side divider that apparently directed the blunt of the explosion behind him,'' Simon said.

The blast occurred in front of a day-care center. None of the children was there at the time of the explosion.

Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0) | Linking Blogs
Filed under: Florida, Knucklehead of the Day

Well, it's been about a week since retired General0 Weasely Wesley Clark made his pronouncement that there is nothing about John McCain's military service that "qualifies" him to be president. I've been mulling that off and on, and I've come to the conclusion that Clark is absolutely right.

According to the Constitution, the qualifications for president are pretty simple, and military service is not part of them. Clark is absolutely right. One need not have served in the military to be president. Indeed, some of our finest presidents had little or no military experience -- Ronald Reagan, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and Woodrow Wilson come to mind. On the other hand, some of our most disastrous presidents were men with distinguished military careers -- Ulysses Grant, Jimmy Carter, and (I'm ashamed to admit) New Hampshire's own Franklin Pierce all come to mind.

Indeed, the veteran status of our candidates has been of varying importance, often depending on how it favors the Democratic nominee: in 1992 and 1996, men who had been genuine war heroes were defeated by a man who actively avoided military service. The pendulum swung the other way in 2004 and 2008, when the Democratic nominees had the superior records. Now it seems it's back the other way, as a genuine, indisputable war hero is running against a man who never served (but, unlike Mr. Clinton, came of age after the draft was abolished and service was entirely voluntary).

So, it seems that Mr. McCain's military record really wouldn't be a good indicator of how well he would do as president. What, then, might it indicate about his character and judgment and personality?

Let me make one thing clear: I am not an enthusiastic McCain supporter. He wasn't my first choice for nominee. (That was Fred Thompson.) Nor was he my second or third choice. (Those were Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani.) At one point, I had them both at my third tier of preferences, under the "I think I can live with them as president" category.

Since then, as I've learned more about Obama, he's fallen quite a bit in my eyes. McCain has dropped a little, too, but the simple fact of the matter is that they are the two choices we have.

So, General Clark doesn't like what McCain's service record says about his qualifications to be president. He joins a long list of distinguished Democrats who have chimed in on McCain's service.

Senator Jay Rockefeller:

"McCain was a fighter pilot, who dropped laser-guided missiles from 35,000 feet. He was long gone when they hit. What happened when they [the missiles] get to the ground? He doesn't know. You have to care about the lives of people. McCain never gets into those issues."

Senator Tom Harkin:

"I think he's trapped in that," Harkin said in a conference call with Iowa reporters. "Everything is looked at from his life experiences, from always having been in the military, and I think that can be pretty dangerous."

Harkin said that "it's one thing to have been drafted and served, but another thing when you come from generations of military people and that's just how you're steeped, how you've learned, how you've grown up."

(Harkin, it should be noted, was busted lying about and exaggerating his own military record during Viet Nam.)

Barack Obama backer and Democratic candidate for the U.S. House Bill Gillespie:

"Admirals' sons," Gillespie said, unopposed for the Democratic nomination in the 1st Congressional District held by Republican Rep. Jack Kingston, "were treated like royalty. They were privileged people. They were given a silver spoon. Their careers were prepared for them."

Gillespie, a former Army officer who served in Iraq, said McCain was the kind of admiral's son who became a "maverick."

McCain, Gillespie added, was "somebody who needed to stand out, someone that needed to draw attention to themselves and ... was usually out for themselves."

He said his "heart grieves" for McCain's suffering as a POW.

"After that," Gillespie said, "he was somewhat of a celebrity and it went to his head. ... I think he was a self-promoter for the last four years (in the Navy.)

OK, that's one way of looking at John McCain's service record. Just for fun, for balance, let's look at it another way, shall we?

John McCain was a Navy pilot who mastered one of the most challenging -- physically and psychologically -- tasks any pilot can do: landing a jet on an aircraft carrier. That particular feat has been described as a "controlled crash landing," on a moving target. As I understand it, you have to land an aircraft moving over 100 MPH on to a runway that's moving away from you at over 30 MPH. And you can't do it straight on, you have to do it at an angle -- the landing strip on a Forrestal-class carrier (where McCain served) is about 10 or so degrees off to the left. To do this requires incredible focus, concentration, spatial perception, hand-eye-coordination, courage, and an instinctive knowledge of physics. To do this, repeatedly, is almost superhuman.

Toss in such conditions as crappy weather and darkness, and it gets even more impressive.

John McCain served in the military during a time of war, and participated in that conflict. What lessons might he have taken away from that? Well, as someone who's seen war up close and personal, who lost friends in that war, he knows better than any other candidate (probably since Admiral James Stockdale or Senator Bob Dole) just how horrific war can be, and how it should always be the last resort of our nation -- but that there are worse things than waging war -- such as waging a war and not winning, or not waging a war today that will prevent an even more horrific war in the future.

John McCain was shot down and captured by the North Vietnamese, where he was tortured for literally years before being released. What might one take from that experience? Well, that America has enemies, and those enemies can really, really, really hate us and will hurt us at any opportunity. And that it has been a very, very long time since we faced a foe that actually respected the rules of war. (I'd say that the last one was Nazi Germany, and while they generally abided by the rules of war, they had plenty of other moral and ethical failings that should keep us from growing too nostalgic.)

While a prisoner, McCain was coerced signing a "confession" of war crimes for the North Vietnamese. He says -- and rightly so -- that the lesson he learned was that every man has a breaking point, and he found his. He also learned that, under torture, a person can be compelled to say or do anything -- but will still be able to repudiate it after the torture has ceased.

John McCain was offered early release, as he was the son of an admiral, and refused. What might that say? That he understood his duties and obligations under the military's code of conduct (and even more important, but unwritten, rules of honor) and obeyed them: he refused any preferential treatment, and insisted that the rules and regulations regarding US military personnel taken prisoner be followed.

John McCain was not only tortured while a prisoner of war, he was permanently crippled -- he can't raise his arms above his shoulders. He probably qualifies under the Americans with Disabilities Act. As such, he's not only likely to be sympathetic to those who labor under disadvantages and disabilities, he's also an example of how to adapt to and meet those challenges, and how to not let them prevent you from succeeding in life in spite of them.

John McCain commanded men in a Navy squadron, a training squadron based in Florida. During his command, he helped teach a lot of young men how to do the nigh-impossible (cited above) and during his tenure, turned it from a mediocre squadron to an award-winning one. This shows both leadership, and the ability to get things done.

John McCain spent 24 years on active duty in the United States Navy, retiring at the rank of Captain to run for Congress. One way of looking at this is that this is a man who has devoted his entire adult life to public service, to serving the nation in any way he can.

Now, do I believe all of what I just wrote? Hell, no. Some I think is true, some I think is flat-out spin, and most of it is some of both. But it's just as valid an interpretation of McCain's record as that being spun by Barack Obama's proxies -- if not more so.

The truth lies somewhere in the middle. Large parts of his military experiences would serve a President McCain well. Other parts would not. His utter lack of experience in the private sector, especially, would be a detriment. Fortunately for him -- but unfortunately for the rest of us -- his opponent has a similar utter lack of experience in "the real world."

Exploring the aspects of John McCain's service record, and how it would affect his possible presidency, is not only fair, but downright mandatory. But to denigrate that service, to slam what he did, is to spit in the faces of all of our veterans who did the very same things during their own careers.

Jay Rockefeller didn't insult John McCain. He insulted every bomber pilot who ever flew for our nation.

Tom Harkin didn't insult John McCain. He insulted every man and woman who chose to make a career out of the military.

In their haste to cut down McCain, they cut too wide a swath, and there was plenty of "collateral damage" among those we should most honor. That is disgusting and disgraceful, and that these two men are highly influential United States senators (and one of them the scion of one of the wealthiest and most powerful families the world has ever known).

But, in the end, if it means that a Democrat will win the presidency, that's all that matters, right?

Permalink | Comments (36) | TrackBacks (0) | Linking Blogs
Filed under: 2008 Presidential Race

Today's winners are Gerald(Missouri) Mayor Otis Schulte and former Gerald Police Chief Ryan McCrary. They get the award for the following.

Bill A. Jakob, 36, of rural Washington, Mo., may have pulled off the ultimate scam when he convinced an entire police force, mayor, and board of alderman, he was a federal drug agent.

Representatives of the FBI, the MSHP, and the Franklin County Sheriff's Department executed a search warrant Tuesday afternoon at a home of Police Chief Ryan McCrary in the 200 block of West Springfield, according to Gerald Mayor Otis Schulte. McCrary was placed on administrative leave on Monday. Investi-gators removed computer equipment and several other items. A routine trash collection at the resi-dence caused a near panic agents poured out of the house attempting to halt the trash truck as it pulled away. Two agents jumped in an SUV and pursued the truck with their lights flashing. They were able to retrieve the trash. Det. Scott Briggs, Franklin County Drug Task Force is shown carrying the trash container back to the garage.

As a result, Police Chief Ryan McCrary, Lt. Scott Ramsey and officer Shannon Kestermont were placed on paid administrative leave Monday afternoon and fired Tuesday (see box on top left).

According to McCrary, Jakob first came to Gerald about three months ago. He showed McCrary a badge supposedly issued by the Department of Justice, Multi Jurisdictional Task Force. He explained that his job with that agency was to help small communities by providing extra resources to help fight illegal drugs.

A con artist conning law enforcement. It was all easily preventable too. Linda Trest of the County Republican claims to have found out Jakob's past in about an hour. Jakob once owned a trucking company but had gone bankrupt, he briefly worked for small police departments in IL and MO but never gained certication as a law enforcement officer, and once pled guilty to misdemeanor sexual assault.

The blundering by local officials is still under way. Jakob is a free man, in spite of his taking part in over a dozen illegal raids on people's homes. If he put restraints on even one person, that's battery. Why hasn't those charges been filed at least? This story broke in mid May but only gained national attention in late June. Just recently a civil rights lawsuit on behalf of over 15 people has been filed asking for 11 million dollars. After the truth was discovered, most of the Gerald police department including its chief were dismissed. Now residents are asking the Mayor to resign. Schulte continued to defend Chief McCrary in the aftermath of this scandal.

If you want to read more about the Bill Jakob, go to the Gasconade County Republican website and conduct a story search. Bill Jakob may well deserve the award, but instead I'm naming Gerald(Missouri) Mayor Otis Schulte and former Gerald Police Chief Ryan McCrary today's Knuckleheads of the Day. They should have known better in addition to letting down the community they were elected or appointed to serve.

Hat tip- Jonathan Adler at the Volokh Conspiracy

Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBacks (0) | Linking Blogs
Filed under: Knucklehead of the Day

Helms, who was first elected in 1972, was the longest serving Senator in North Carolina history. Raleigh's WTVD writes-

In North Carolina Helms was a polarizing figure, and he freely admitted that many people in the state strongly disliked him: "They (the Democrats) could nominate Mortimer Snerd and he'd automatically get 45 percent of the vote." Helms was particularly popular among older, conservative constituents and was considered one of the last "Old South" politicians to have served in the Senate. However, he also considered himself a voice of conservative youth, whom he hailed in the dedication of his autobiography. He is widely credited with helping to move North Carolina from a one-party state dominated by the Democratic Party into a competitive two-party state that usually votes Republican in presidential elections. Under Helms' banner, many conservative Democrats in eastern North Carolina switched parties and began to vote increasingly Republican.

Because of recurring health problems, including bone disorders, prostate cancer and heart disease, Helms did not seek re-election in 2002. His Senate seat was won by Elizabeth Dole, wife of long-time colleague and former Senator Bob Dole. Helms remains to date the longest-serving popularly-elected U.S. senator in North Carolina history.

Hat tip- James Joyner at OTB

Permalink | Comments (20) | TrackBacks (0) | Linking Blogs
Filed under: Breaking News

Much has been made recently of the meaning of the plot-line behind WALL-E, Pixar's newest animation. Conservatives have been debating whether this movie is an attempt at environmental indoctrination of our kids or a well camouflaged conservative message. World Magazine did an interview with Andrew Stanton, WALL-E's filmmaker, for its June 28th edition and asked about the movie's meaning. The entire interview is worth reading, but this part is particularly interesting:

WORLD: How does WALL•E represent your singular vision?

STANTON: Well, what really interested me was the idea of the most human thing in the universe being a machine because it has more interest in finding out what the point of living is than actual people. The greatest commandment Christ gives us is to love, but that's not always our priority. So I came up with this premise that could demonstrate what I was trying to say--that irrational love defeats the world's programming. You've got these two robots that are trying to go above their basest directives, literally their programming, to experience love.

With the human characters I wanted to show that our programming is the routines and habits that distract us to the point that we're not really making connections to the people next to us. We're not engaging in relationships, which are the point of living--relationship with God and relationship with other people.

WORLD: The depiction of humanity is pretty stark in this movie.

STANTON: Well, when I started outlining humanity in the story, I asked myself: What if everything you needed to survive--health care, food--was taken care of and you had nothing but a perpetual vacation to fill your time? What if the result of all that convenience was that all your relationships became indirect--nobody's reaching out to each other? A lot of people have suggested that I was making a comment on obesity. But that wasn't it, I was trying to make humanity big babies because there was no reason for them to grow up anymore.

That's the argument that conservatives have been making against more government control and womb to the tomb governmental care. It will make Americans, independent and resourceful by nature, lazy and unambitious. In my book, that's a good message for American kids - all kids - to learn today.

Megan Basham, the author of the World piece has a side bar in which she offers her take on the movie and she offers this:

And though on the surface WALL-E looks like it's selling the easiest, trendiest message going today - environmentalism - it's too smart for that.

True, the foundation for the story is that humanity has left the planet heaped in garbage. But far weightier themes - like how technology distances us from the wonder of creation and how that distance cripples us spiritually - play a bigger role. In fact, if Stanton criticizes people for anything, it's for worship of leisure. Because they live to be cared for rather than to care, the few human beings WALL-E meets have become, to use Stanton's words, giant babies - literally feeding on milk rather than solid food. In contrast, WALL-E, the meek little trash collector, accepts stewardship in a way that people have rejected. And because love springs from service, he comes to love the creatures that inhabit Earth. That's not an environmental message, it's a biblical one.

Permalink | Comments (7) | TrackBacks (0) | Linking Blogs
Filed under: Movies

Back before fireworks and cookouts and beer and parades, Independence Day was about one thing, and one thing alone:

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

Permalink | Comments (11) | TrackBacks (2) | Linking Blogs
Filed under: History

Not to London.

Yes, this is the fourth piece on Wizbang featuring Joe Horn, but that's because his story resonates across so many levels.

England is, socially, touted as superior to us in many ways. They have socialized medicine, they've banned handguns, and they have a very hefty immigrant population that they are bending over backwards to accomodate. (Both the head of the state church and now the nation's Chief Justice have endorsed allowing Shariah law to be upheld in Jolly Old England.)

Now, the mayor of the nation's capitol is going on record recommending that his city turn into a population of neighbors of Kitty Genovese.

Here's the fun thing: if everyone is, morally, a neighbor of Kitty Genovese, then it logically follows that everyone is a potential Kitty Genovese.

A city where no one will get involved in helping a neighbor being victimized is a city full of potential victims who can count on getting no help from anyone when they are the victim.

That's the logical conclusion of putting more and more and more faith in the government, more and more dependence on the government to fix everything. You get out of the habit of looking out for yourself and your neighbors.

In my earlier piece, I said we need a nation of Joe Horns. I think England needs them even more than we do.

Maybe they can just clone John Smeaton?

Continue reading "Hey, Joe, Where You Goin' With That Gun In Your Hand?" »

Permalink | Comments (32) | TrackBacks (0) | Linking Blogs
Filed under: Justice

More wild and crazy news from around the Sunshine State.

The scarlet letter lives. Jacksonville man has the words 'wife beater' carved into his chest.

Happy meal. Man found with 55 grams of cocaine in a McDonald's bag.

I feel faint. Palm Beach Post columnist Jac VerSteeg thinks the US Supreme Court was wrong in banning the death penalty for child rapists..

Maybe he should pick Fuschia instead. Man breaks into woman's home and then flees but not before putting on one of the homeowner's blue shorts.

Assault with a deadly kielbasa. Central Florida man hits his mother with a Polish sausage.

He ought to be in pictures. Walmart security guard chases gets struck over the head with a 19-inch television set as he attempts to prevent a theft.

What drugs will do to your brain. First a crackhead assaults a woman, then ten minutes later returns to the scene of the crime to tell police, 'I did it'.

Listen to me carefully or Fluffy will die. Wellington woman steals neighbor's cat in order to get her dog back.

Hat tip- SFDB

Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0) | Linking Blogs
Filed under: Dumb Criminals, Florida, Media, Odd News

Today's winner is Thomas Rolle. He gets the award for the following.

TAMPA, FL -- Tampa police say robbery suspect Thomas Rolle probably ought to to find a new line of work because he's not a very observant crook.

Police say Rolle saw an easy mark to rob outside Lee's Grocery on Central Avenue, a 68 year old man in a wheelchair. But Rolle apparently didn't see the police car parked a few feet away.

According to a police report, Rolle robbed the wheelchair bound man in broad daylight right in front of two Tampa police officers. The report adds, "The suspect robbed the victim by snatching money from his front left shirt pocket. During the robbery, Officer B. Bishop and MPO J. Dausch observed the confrontation and exited their vehicle. The suspect attempted to flee at which time he was immediately taken into custody.

Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0) | Linking Blogs
Filed under: Dumb Criminals, Florida, Knucklehead of the Day

Jay and I have been bantering the 'Joe Horn' case, discussing various aspects of it and what it means to the greater society. Along the way, Jay mentioned the concept of 'duty to retreat'. The concept is based on the idea that when faced with an aggressor, a person has a moral duty to avoid confrontation, to give up ground and back away. That when a criminal gets it in his head that he wants to take something, we should just let him do so. That if he hurts someone, we should not try to prevent it. That the most we are allowed to do, is to stay out of the way, and if we feel guilty about doing nothing we can call the police later on and they will file a report about it.

This concept frankly strikes me as obscene, but more to the point, it is un-American. Concepts like duty to retreat seem to be very much how Liberals see the world. Such a concept explains how they can see Iraq's freedom from Saddam Hussein as a bad thing - we should not have taken him down, you see, it was somehow "wrong" to free millions of innocent Iraqis from a mad dictator. Same thing in Afghanistan; the Left would argue that even an evil usurping group like the Taliban somehow constituted a 'sovereign government', which we were wrong to confront and remove, even though they protected and supported Al Qaeda and the monsters who committed 9/11's horrors (for which the Left also blames America - we should not have gone outside our borders, you see, should not have promoted business anywhere in foreign lands, even where we were invited, should not have raised living standards and therefore expectations in third world countries, etc.). We see it in Europe now, where governments facing seditious thugs trying to tear apart their societies, actually apologize to the monsters and tell the victims not to make trouble. The established traditions and cultures of more than a thousand years are being dismantled, by the very governments which should be defending them, because those governments fear confrontation. It is a worse offense than cowardice, because a coward only shames his own name; the proponents of this concept would coerce a general condition of fear and self-loathing, all in the name of appeasement.

But I said this concept is un-American. Some who hate President Bush for protecting the nation, have claimed that his decisions and directives have hurt our standing in the world. I say rather the opposite, that the iron in his spine makes us taller in the view of everyone else. More and more nations copy the American model, in government, in business, and in culture. And what's more, President Bush is well in line with American tradition on that point. It is important to note that our nation was born in blood, though not a fight we wanted to have. When the British took to not only occupying major American towns in order to enforce its tax decrees, but quartering troops in American homes, they sparked a general rebellion which grew to drive a new nation into being. When the Barbary pirates raided our vessels and demanded tribute, we did not answer long with money, but soon replied with naval gunnery. The War of 1812 may well have been foolish, but by the time it was over, Europe knew better than to dictate terms to us. When we went to war with Spain over Cuba and the Philippines, we did not settle for a diplomatic victory, but removed Spain from those countries. And to address our attitude in World War 2 towards our enemies, one need only consider any of the public statements made by General Patton or Admiral Halsey. Only when we let ourselves get talked into considering our missions to have limits, do we lose wars. When we do whatever is necessary to win, we win easily.

This does not mean that war without restraint is always the most desirable, but it does mean that when we are attacked, we are right to answer in full force. When our objective protects our homeland, we are right to put our goals ahead of other nations'. Our friends must ever be aware that we will accomplish our missions, and our enemies must be made to know that there is no greater foolishness than to provoke our wrath. Mister Obama is very much wrong on that point - there must indeed be preconditions to any meeting with an adversary, the chief being that our enemies must know that they cannot hope to defeat us, that any attack against us will be answered, fully but in such time and manner as suits our plans, no one else.

Americans do not retreat.

Permalink | Comments (47) | TrackBacks (0) | Linking Blogs
Filed under: National Security

For the last few weeks, I've had a song from my childhood stuck in my brain. I've done everything else I can think of to get rid of it, and nothing's worked. So I'm stuck trying one last desperate move -- to hope that it's contagious, and if I simply give it to someone else, I'll be free.

Apparently, Hootie and the Blowfish covered this song, too. I'll stick with the David Gates original, thank you very much.

Permalink | Comments (16) | TrackBacks (0) | Linking Blogs
Filed under: Music

The other day, my colleague DJ talked about Joe Horn of Pasadena, Texas, and his shooting of two men robbing his neighbor's house. I'm not going to go into the particulars of Horn's case -- DJ did a fine enough job on that -- but I'm going to expound on what DJ wrote, and give my own thoughts.

"Rights" are an essential part of our American identity. One of the most revolutionary elements of our Constitution was that it does NOT grant Americans any rights. Rather, it RECOGNIZES them.

That is a critical distinction. It was one of the things that distinguished our Constitution with that of tyrannies like the Soviet Union. There, the people had all sorts of rights -- on paper. And they were granted by the government.

And as I've heard -- and repeated -- so many times, anything someone else gives you, someone else can take away.

It's the foundation of my militant opposition to the "new" educational system, which fosters "giving our children self-esteem." I fear that it will be ultimately destructive to them. Should we get our children dependent on others to give them self-esteem, then they might not ever develop the ability to earn it on their own, to take it as their rightful due. In the name of making them feel better, we make them dependent on others -- their so-called superiors -- for affirmation.

So it is with fundamental rights. In the Soviet Union, the government giveth -- and, far too often, the government taketh away. Here in the United States, the government has been told what rights we have, what rights they can not infringe upon.

But that is only half the equation. To steal a couple of hoary old lines, "with great power comes great responsibility." Or, as Paul Harvey likes to say, "self-government without self-discipline is self-defeating."

I don't think of myself as having a "right" to vote. I think of myself as having a duty to vote. If I can't find the time and energy and interest to cast an informed vote in an election, then by god I have forfeited my right to complain about the results.

And I have little use for "voter registration drives." Registering to vote is NOT that difficult, people. Nor is getting to the polls. And if you look at the record of organizations that do the most to get people registered to vote, you see a rather appalling record of agenda-driven moves and the rankest, most disgusting, most corrupt practices -- that, by rights, ought to put their asses in jail and their groups banned -- at least from receiving federal money, if not out of existence entirely.

So, how does that tie in to Mr. Horn's case?

Because Mr. Horn -- in his own mind, and in the eyes of many others -- took his citizenship as not only a right, but a duty. He saw a gross assault on the civil contract we all share -- to look out for our neighbors, to "love them as you love yourself," to put a religious spin on it -- and protected his neighbor and his neighbor's interests. He was asked by the neighbor to protect his property in his absence, and took that responsibility literally -- he protected the man's home as if it was Horn's own.

At first, Horn did precisely what everyone agrees he should have done. When he saw people breaking into his neighbor's home, he called the police. But as the old saying goes, "when seconds matter, the police are only minutes away." The police were not going to arrive in time to prevent the crime from being committed, so Horn intervened.

OK, I lied. I am going to go into the specifics of the Horn case.

Two men broke into Horn's neighbor's house, stole a bunch of the guy's possessions, and were shot and killed by Horn as they tried to flee.

The argument I have heard so many times when the subject of killing of criminals is "no material possession is worth more than a human life."

I don't disagree with that argument. I reject it.

That is the case made by the thieves who threaten their victims. "Your money or your life." "Gimme or I'll hurt you."

The argument made by the unwilling would-be victim is this: "I value my right to keep what is mine above your right to take it from me. And if you push it, I will demonstrate that with force."

One of the most obscene legalisms I have ever heard of is a doctrine called "the duty to retreat." It says when a person is confronted by a criminal in a place where the would-be victim has a legal right to be and the criminal does not, the would-be victim does NOT have the right to use force in his or her self-defense if they can safely withdraw. In short, you have a legal duty to run away and can not stand and defend yourself and your home.

Mr. Horn did not obey that doctrine, and thank heavens for that.

Mr. Horn's neighbor was away from home, and asked Mr. Horn to look after his home in his absence. Mr. Horn did that, and more. He defended the man's home precisely as if it was his own.

I don't know the precise reasons for Mr. Horn's actions, but to me, they speak of the duties of citizenship at its highest. Mr. Horn was legally obligated to do exactly nothing. Morally, he was required to notify and summon the police, which he did. But they weren't going to arrive in time to do anything besides say "tsk, tsk, what a shame" and take some notes. He was in a position to stop a crime -- and two criminals -- in progress. He was in a position to save his neighbor from being robbed. And he did so.

That the two thieves were killed in the process is, to me, irrelevant. That they were both illegal aliens with lengthy criminal records is icing on the cake, as it were, but also irrelevant.

Mr. Horn had the right -- and saw as his duty -- to stop them as best he could, with the tools he had available to him at the time. He did just that.

Good for him.

Good for all of us.

I'd like to live next door to Mr. Horn. Hell, I'd like to live in a whole neighborhood of Mr. Horns. I'd like to live in a whole nation of Mr. Horns.

Because he understands that citizenship isn't just a right, just a privilege, just a blessing. It's also an obligation, a duty. And he not only accepts that, he embraces it.

Permalink | Comments (57) | TrackBacks (1) | Linking Blogs
Filed under: Justice

In addition to Keith Stansell, Thomas Howes and Marc Gonsalves regaining their freedom after five years of captivity, former Colombian presidential candidate Ingrid Betancourt also made a successful escape from their FARC captors.

Dr. Taylor at Poliblog calls this 'This is fantastic news and yet another blow to the FARC.'

BOGOTA, Colombia -- Colombia's four most famous hostages -- three American defense contractors and a former presidential candidate -- were rescued from the jungle after years in the hands of leftists rebels, the Colombian defense ministry announced Wednesday.

Authorities also captured a top FARC leader, "alias César," who was in charge of the hostages, and another guerrilla.

In describing "Operation Checkmate," Defense Minister Juan Manuel Santos said Colombian military intelligence managed to infiltrate the top hierarchy of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia and arrange for a transfer of hostages purportedly to be handed over to Alfonso Cano, the rebel group's maximum leader.

The government mole arranged for the hostages to be brought together from three different locations to one camp, and then taken to a helicopter the FARC believed belonged to a friendly aid group that would take the hostages to Cano.

Instead, it was a military helicopter piloted by intelligence officers, who whisked a total of 15 hostages to freedom.

Free are American defense contractors Keith Stansell, Thomas Howes and Marc Gonsalves; former Colombian presidential candidate Ingrid Betancourt; and 11 soldiers and police officers.

"They are free, safe and sound," Santos said at a press conference.

Betancourt was kidnapped in 2002 on the campaign trail, instantly becoming a in both Colombia and France, where she also has citizenship. Her campaign manager was released from captivity earlier this year.

A year after Betancourt's kidnapping, the Americans also were taken by FARC guerrillas. The Americans were working for a U.S. defense contractor corporation, Northrop Grumman, taking drug crop surveillance photos when their plane crashed into Colombia's jungle, which at the time was overrun by leftist rebels. The three were taken captive by the FARC and held as pawns for a prisoner swap.

Betancourt has been in captivity for six and a half years; the Americans five and a half.