Michelle Malkin comments on her blog that rumors are flying that Castro is dead again. Babalu is quite certain he’s dead. Being as Castro pretty much killed the Cuban economy and civil rights many years ago, no one is completely sure he’s dead. He just looks more dead than not of late. I’m not holding my breath. And, for the immediate future, I don’t think it makes a lot of difference as Castro’s brother or something like that is set to take control. He’s not Castro, and doesn’t look like him, but he doesn’t have much of anything to work with so I don’t see a lot changing in Havana anytime soon. I do have friends ready to invest in Cuba when they do get their senses back. But, all of this babble is just a preface so that I could quote one of my favoritest Monty Python skits:
MEDIA: Here’s one — nine pence.
CASTRO: I’m not dead!
BLOGGERS: What?
MEDIA: Nothing — here’s your nine pence.
CASTRO: I’m not dead!
BLOGGERS: Here — he says he’s not dead!
MEDIA: Yes, he is.
CASTRO: I’m not!
BLOGGERS: He isn’t.
MEDIA: Well, he will be soon, he’s very ill.
CATRO: I’m getting better!
BLOGGERS: No, you’re not — you’ll be stone dead in a moment.
MEDIA: Oh, I can’t take him like that — it’s against regulations.
CASTRO: I don’t want to go in the cart!
MEDIA: Oh, don’t be such a baby.
BLOGGERS: I can’t take him…
CASTRO: I feel fine!
MEDIA: Oh, do us a favor…
BLOGGERS: I can’t.
MEDIA: Well, can you hang around a couple of minutes? He won’t be long.
BLOGGERS: Naaah, I got to go on to Robinson’s — they’ve lost nine today.
MEDIA: Well, when is your next round?
BLOGGERS: Thursday.
CASTRO: I think I’ll go for a walk.
MEDIA: You’re not fooling anyone y’know. Look, isn’t there something you can do?
CASTRO: I feel happy… I feel happy.
[whop]
MEDIA: Ah, thanks very much.
11
Dec
Kofi Annan’s tenure as head of the United Nations in my opinion has been an absymal failure. Nuclear weapons have proliferated all over the world unchecked. Human rights have been violated en masse world-wide. And, conflicts that threaten the next generation have grown without the United Nations showing any concern or planning. Many in the United States have grown to consider the United Nations totally valueless on the world stage, I am one of those. More often than not there is a clear clue which side is right or wrong, the United Nations rarely could come to that conclusion under Annan. Conflicts that were a problem when Annan took office are till a problem to this day. The United States finally elected a President who called the UN for what it was, spineless, indecisive, and expecting the United States to almost single-handedly pay for its existence. He, like a lot of Americans, called for other countries to contribute more, and was rebuked. This President asked the UN to assist in dealing with a very antagonistic ruler who had already been convicted by that UN of using chemical weapons on innocent people and genocide. When push came to shove, the UN, via Annan, ran and hid. The sanctions the UN imposed were meaningless. The UN at that point became equally as meaningless. Oddly enough, the attacks on and within the US stopped at the exact time we did what the UN refused to do. Some say it’s a coincedence, some said it made things worse, including Annan. However, the annual attacks on and in the US stopped. So, rather than address the obvious failures of the United Nations under Annan’s tenure, and they are many and BIG, Annan flew to Independence, Missouri, to compare George W. Bush to Harry S. Truman. And, in a very blatant attempt, to put all the failures of Annan’s United Nations on the US and Bush. Some people will jump all over this speech. Others like me, will see it for what it truly is, an attempt by Annan to deflect his own failures.
- The Oil for Food scandal was covered up and forgotten by the media.
- Iran is threatening Israel with a nuclear holocaust while the UN watches them build the weapons.
- North Korea is building nukes while the UN ignores.
- The US and Iraq are still fighting Muslim extremists funded by Iran.
- Lebanon’s leaders are being killed by Syria.
- Africa is STILL watching as genocide goes unabated and unchecked.
- Israel and Palestine are pretty much going it alone while the world watches them self-destruct.
- The US still has troops in Bosnia under UN command. That was supposedly settled a decade ago.
These aren’t small problems. The bigger problem IMO is a lot of the world is pouring resources into the UN and those resources are not doing anything about the world as the concflicts that have gone on for a thousand years get worse and more dangerous. Kofi Annan had a chance to call out the world’s problems in his final address without fear of retribution, what he gave was utterly useless. That, pretty much sums up his leadership in a nutshell.
I hope the next leader of the United Nations has the balls it takes to deal with the world’s problems. Those problems are not simple, they are deeply ingrained, and, pretty often, they will involve the use of force no matter how ugly that appears. When the might of the many outweighs the threat of one, THEN the United Nations might become something of value to the world. If the NEXT Secretary General of the United Nations recognizes that fact and uses it for the good of the world, THEN we might have something. If not, if they are another Kofi Annan, the United States may as well withdraw from the UN and spend our money enforcing our own will. And when that happens, the United Nations will be bankrupt since no one else contributes hardly anything. Then, we’ll be right back where we were when Harry S. Truman took office. Kofi is too stupid to see the irony in that.
11
Dec
Read an excellent comment on The Hill Blog today by Johgn Berthoud of the National Taxpayers Union. I’ll just grab the part that means the most to me:
…..over the past 25 years roughly two-dozen lawmakers guilty of serious offenses have continued to receive their plush pensions. According to our calculations at the National Taxpayers Union, convicted Representative Dan Rostenkowski (D-IL) qualified for a $96,000 pension in 1995 that could exceed $125,000 this year due to cost of living adjustments. Scandal-plagued Representative Bob Ney (R-OH) could qualify for a deferred pension of roughly $29,000 by the time he is eligible to receive payment.
Incoming Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) is on record wanting to drain the swamp of corruption in Washington. One step in that direction would be for Congress to immediately pass legislation that will revoke taxpayer-funded retirement benefits for any future Representative or Senator convicted of a felony, during or after time in office.
Here’s Nancy’s chance to do something meaningful right off the bat. It makes sense, it would have popular support, and it would make it look like she’s putting her money where her mouth is which so far she’s not and looking bad because of it.
Two predictions regarding this issue you’ll hear first on this blog:
- Nancy Pelosi will NOT submit said legislation.
- William Jefferson will NOT vote for it if she did.
10
Dec
This is pathetic.
New Orleans re-elected William Jefferson yesterday. From most accounts I have read, the issue came down to this:
She wasn’t black enough.
New Orleans used to be one of my favoritest places in the world. I have several very fond memories of Bourbon Street. However, even with trying to still love the city because of Katrina, it’s getting more and more difficult as they just keep hammering home the issue that racism is alive, well, and thriving in New Orleans. First they re-elect the mayor who sold them out during Katrina, now they re-elect the laughingstock of the country who most likely won’t make it through his next term. In both cases, racial issues trumped OBVIOUS ethical problems. That’s pathetic.
You reap what you sew. If New Orleans wants the country’s help, they have to give us people we feel won’t steal our money.
8
Dec
I received another one of those hokey emails that circulate ad nauseum. I get several every day. Most I just ignore after about two lines. This one kept my attention because it makes some sense.
So if the US government determines that it is against the law for the words "under God" to be on our money, then, so be it.
And if that same government decides that the "Ten Commandments" are not to be used in or on a government installation, then, so be it.
I say, "so be it," because I would like to be a law abiding US citizen.
I say, "so be it," because I would like to think that smarter people than I are in positions to make good decisions.
I would like to think that those people have the American public’s best interests at heart.
BUT, YOU KNOW WHAT ELSE I’D LIKE?
Since we can’t pray to God, can’t Trust in God and cannot post His Commandments in Government buildings, I don’t believe the Government and its employees should participate in the Easter and Christmas celebrations which honor the God that our government is eliminating from many facets of American life.
I’d like my mail delivered on Christmas, Good Friday, Thanksgiving & Easter. After all, it’s just another day.
I’d like the US Supreme Court to be in session on Christmas, Good Friday,
Thanksgiving & Easter as well as Sundays. After all, it’s just another day.
I’d like the Senate and the House of Representatives to not have to worry about getting home for the "Christmas Break." After all it’s just another day.
I’m thinking that a lot of my taxpayer dollars could be saved, if all government offices & services would work on Christmas, Good Friday & Easter. It shouldn’t cost any overtime since those would be just like any other day of the week to a government that is trying to be "politically correct."
In fact….
I think that our government should work on Sundays (initially set aside for worshipping God…) because, after all, our government says that it should be just another day…
This version is abridged, I’ve just kept the relevent parts. Although it has several very basic errors in its rhetoric ( I don’t consider the ACLU and Surpreme Court part of "the government" ), the main idea is pretty much what I’ve felt the whole time.
- Sunday is the day of rest according to the Bible. When’s the ACLU going to sue to compel government services be provided on Sunday as any other day?
- Why hasn’t the ACLU sued over recognizing Easter and Christmas as holidays? Sure, they’re trying to take the religious references out of those holidays, but the fact is we shut down the government almost exclusively for those religious based holidays. Does Walmart close?
- I expect members of the ACLU to work Sundays, Christmas, Easter, St. Patrick’s Day ( Saint is a purely religious title ).
I’m going to deviate from he script of the email completely at this point and just ask my readers to contact members of the ACLU and ask them how many Biblical days of rest they have worked recently. And, of course whether they plan on working on Christmas and Easter.
In my home town, we had a whole bunch of hotly contested races that merited re-counts. One of the races that didn’t was the sheriff’s race. The incumbent won with 13,000+ votes, the challenger lost with about 5,000+. It wasn’t even close. So, guess who the only person to challenge the election will be? You guessed, the one guy who got creamed. Now, just a little math to preamble my silly conclusion, there are only about 25,000 voters MAX in this county. Which means the incumbent can’t be beat if his total is correct. So, why is the challenger doing this? He claimed his polls showed him leading in the race. Earth to candidate, your polls were bad wrong.
Why do people constantly rely on polls? There are so many nightmare stories of how bad wrong they are on such a consistent basis that I can not understand how anyone could rely on them. Nationally we had the Gore fiasco that was prompted mostly by polls. Historically there was the Truman "upset". Locally, this guy’s polls were wrong by about 100%. Candidates, like most people who rely on public image, gravitate towards the polls that favor them. It”s a Freudian thing.
Democrat Kentucky Attorney general Greg Stumbo immediately launched a hiring investigation into the newly elected Republican Governor Ernie Fletcher almost before Fletcher could hire anyone. Fletcher said it was political, Stumbo said he was trying to clean up the corrupt Republicans, who were doing what the Democrats had always done before ( that would include Stumbo ). Stumbo wasn’t impressed and dogged the Republican governor every single day for more than a year. The state media was more than happy to oblige Stumbo by documenting every single word he said. It got boring. It became almost nauseating watching the mean old lawyer relentlessly persecute the soft hearted doctor. Then, some funny ( as in odd ) things happened. Fletcher said Stumbo was doing it for political reasons, specifically because Stumbo was going to run for governor. Stumbo of course denied this. So, just to clear things up, Fletcher asked the state ethics committee to give an opinion. They said the investigation was OK so long as Stumbo was not running against the governor. Stumbo promptly dropped the investigation.
Now, Stumbo wants the ethics committee to re-think their opinion that the acting state attorney general should not be allowed to use their state funded position to further their political career by attacking potential competitors for the office they desire.
Fletcher was politically dead one year ago. The more Stumbo proves Fletcher was right in the first place, that Stumbo’s actions were purely politically motivated, the more political life-after-death Fletcher is getting. ( Now don’t get me wrong here, Fletcher is politically indept, but Stumbo is making him look better than he should right now. )
A bill passed Congress yesterday and no one seemed to notice. To wit, Shelley Capito, a Republican from West Virginia, introduced legislation aimed at “Waiving a requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII with respect to consideration of certain resolutions reported from the Committee on Rules and providing for consideration of motions to suspend the rules, and for other purposes.” Now, apparently this bill was rather divisive. 211 Republicans voted for it, none voted against it. 190 Democrats voted against it, none voted for it. The one independent in the House didn’t even bother to vote. What was so divisive that every single Democrat had to vote against it? Let’s look, shall we?
- Resolved, That the requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII for a two-thirds vote to consider a report from the Committee on Rules on the same day it is presented to the House is waived with respect to any resolution reported on the legislative day of December 7, 2006.
- Sec. 2. It shall be in order at any time on the legislative day of December 7, 2006, for the Speaker to entertain motions that the House suspend the rules. The Speaker or his designee shall consult with the Minority Leader or her designee on the designation of any matter for consideration pursuant to this resolution.
- Sec. 3. House Resolutions 810, 939, 951, and 1047 are laid upon the table.
Basically what this is saying is that rather than trying to get a 2/3 majority vote to get something to the floor to be voted on, let’s just go ahead and vote it up or down now. ( So we can go home for Christmas. ) What are those bills it’s referring to about?
- 810 – Stem Cell Research, that Bush vetoed in 2006.
- 939 – Count every vote, which failed in 2005.
- 951 – Video Description Restoration
- 1047 – Pentagon/911 Memorial Coin Act
HR 810 specifically reads:
One Hundred Ninth Congress of the United States of America
AT THE SECOND SESSIONBegun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday, the third day of January, two thousand and six
An Act
To amend the Public Health Service Act to provide for human embryonic stem cell research.Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the “Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2005”.
SEC. 2. HUMAN EMBRYONIC STEM CELL RESEARCH.
Part H of title IV of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 289 et seq.) is amended by inserting after section 498C the following:
“SEC. 498D. HUMAN EMBRYONIC STEM CELL RESEARCH.
“(a) IN GENERAL.–Notwithstanding any other provision of law (including any regulation or guidance), the Secretary shall conduct and support research that utilizes human embryonic stem cells in accordance with this section (regardless of the date on which the stem cells were derived from a human embryo).
“(b) ETHICAL REQUIREMENTS.–Human embryonic stem cells shall be eligible for use in any research conducted or supported by the Secretary if the cells meet each of the following:
“(1) The stem cells were derived from human embryos that have been donated from in vitro fertilization clinics, were created for the purposes of fertility treatment, and were in excess of the clinical need of the individuals seeking such treatment.
“(2) Prior to the consideration of embryo donation and through consultation with the individuals seeking fertility treatment, it was determined that the embryos would never be implanted in a woman and would otherwise be discarded.
“(3) The individuals seeking fertility treatment donated the embryos with written informed consent and without receiving any financial or other inducements to make the donation.
“(c) GUIDELINES.–Not later than 60 days after the date of the enactment of this section, the Secretary, in consultation with the Director of NIH, shall issue final guidelines to carry out this section.
“(d) REPORTING REQUIREMENTS.–The Secretary shall annually prepare and submit to the appropriate committees of the Congress a report describing the activities carried out under this section during the preceding fiscal year, and including a description of H. R. 810–2 whether and to what extent research under subsection (a) has been conducted in accordance with this section.”.
Every single Democrat voted against allowing this bill to be voted on. It may or may not make it to vote at this time, but why would every single Democrat vote against stem cell research the first possible chance they could after the “stem cell election”? ( Yeah, I know, they don’t want it voted on because it would lose. But, that’s political BS. The Republicans took a whipping on this issue and this would be their chance to set everyone straight. It is, after all, sponsored by a Republican. )
Why isn’t ANY media asking them this right now?
Still think some people weren’t taking advantage of Michael J. Fox?
What they are actually voting against is allowing the Republicans to get one shred of credit on this issue regardless of whether stem cell research gets advanced or not.
Still think some people weren’t taking advantage of Michael J. Fox?
Still think it’s only Republicans who have a war against science? ( and here )
This vote was largely symbolic only. However, since it was completely rejected by the Democrats, and totally ignored by the media, the symbolism is lost. When we get responsible balanced reporting then it might mean something. However, if we had responsible reporting in the first place, this vote would never have been proposed.
From Wiki:
In the early hours of December 9, 1981, around 3:51 AM, Philadelphia Police Department (PPD) officer Daniel Faulkner was shot and killed during an altercation that ensued from a routine traffic stop of a vehicle driven by William Cook, Abu-Jamal’s younger brother.
In the trial the prosecution successfully argued that the following events occurred: during the traffic stop, Cook assaulted Faulkner, who in turn attempted to subdue Cook. At this point, Abu-Jamal emerged from a nearby taxi which he was driving and shot Faulkner in the back. Faulkner was able to return fire, seriously wounding Abu-Jamal. Abu-Jamal then advanced on Faulkner, and fired four additional shots at close range, one of them striking Faulkner in the face, killing the policeman. Abu-Jamal was unable to flee due to his own gunshot wound, and was taken into custody by other police officers, who had been summoned by Faulkner at the time of the traffic stop. Abu-Jamal was taken directly from the scene of the shooting to a hospital, and treated for his injury. Witnesses stated that while he was receiving medical treatment, Mumia Abu-Jamal acknowledged that he shot Daniel Faulkner. Cook never testified or gave any public statement about the events except to deny his own involvement in the shooting.
Jamal himself did not give the police his version of the events initially. In fact he did not address the shooting at all until almost 20 years later when his third set of lawyers offered the affidavit of a man who claimed he had in fact shot Officer Faulkner as part of a Mafia hit connected with a desire to keep Faulkner from testifying against corrupt police. Mumia later gave a sworn statement claiming that he had been sitting in his cab across the street when he heard the sound of gunshots. Upon seeing his brother standing in the street staggering and dizzy, Jamal ran across the street to William Cook and was shot by a uniformed police officer (not Faulkner). He also claimed he was tortured by the police before receiving medical aid.
The death of Daniel Faulkner has resulted in a series of legal battles that continue to the present day.
Mumia has since become a cause celebre, of course. The music industry has jumped all over this guy in proclaiming his total innocence and how he should be freed. In an act of utter stupidity and arrogance, the city of St. Denis, France named a street after him. So, today, Congress fired back. Passing a resolution condemnign the city of St. Denis for naming a street after a convicted killer. It passed overwhelmingly, 368-31. I was curious who the 31 would be that thought it was proper for St. Denis to stick it’s nose in our legal process. They are:
Why does this list not surprise me in the least bit? Besides every single one being Democrat, 21 of 31 are on one caucus, the Congressional Progressive Caucus. I’m sure they all have their own personnal reasons for dissing police officers in favor of the citizens of St. Denis, France. However, that is the crux of my problem with them in a nutshell. These people put their personal agendas first and foremost in their consideration of legislation that affects the entire United States. Regardless of whether or not Mumia should be dead by now, it’s none of St. Denis’s damn business what we do in the US. And, what’s even worse is these people obviously don’t even care. I’d like to have their justifications for showing preference to St. Denis over our people serving in the line of duty, but I know I won’t get it from a single one of them. It’s not unusual at all for this group to vote against the interests of the United States. And, it’s even less unusual that they cry the loudest when people question their loyalty to our country. They’ve stated their preference very clearly in their vote on this issue. I do question their loyalty and patriotism. And, I think being in the United States Congress is the very last place they should be. I also have to question how seriously the people that vote for these representatives consider the issues regarding their vote.
- More from Michelle Maulkin
- Specifically, she looks at Chaka Fattah’s vote ( supported the vote along some of the same logic I do ). Fattah sort of proves my point that this group, the Progressive Caucus, is so radical that even their own party can’t identify with them most of the time.
Fla. GOP Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen posted this on The Hill Blog:
I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to pass H.R. 6099, the Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act.
This much-needed legislation would require that women considering an abortion be informed of the pain their unborn child would feel during the procedure, and then offer those women still considering the procedure the option of giving the unborn child anesthesia.
Medical evidence suggests an unborn child can feel pain at 20 weeks, if not earlier.
As such, it is our responsibility as legislators to see women throughout America are informed of the intense pain experienced by their unborn child during an abortion and offer them an option to ease their childs pain.
So far, 94 Congressmen and women have signed on to this legislation.
I think it’s crap. The main reason I feel this way is because in the rush to abolish abortion, everyone tends to ignore the ramifications of doing so. The solution to this legislation’s problem is to simply anesthetize the fetus. The result of this legislation is to discourage those that have already considered the consequences of having a baby and decided it wasn’t the right thing to do. When a person makes that decision, they often have a compelling reason. Those reasons often include crack addicted babies, alcohol fetal syndromes, and other situations which render a healthy baby not likely. Although the "pain" felt by a fetus is fleeting at best, the pain and suffering caused by a lifetime lived with the handicaps caused by irresponsible conception are much more inhumane IMO. I used to work with people who suffered from these syndromes, it’s ugly, people, really ugly. I have seen four potential adoptions fail due to mothers-to-be addicted to drugs. God did what man tried to prevent, he aborted them all. Man now has the technology to save almost any fetus no matter the shape it’s in or the life it will become. What we don’t have is the wisdom of when it’s best to use it or not. Some lives are just not worth saving. Sounds cold, sounds crass, but it’s a fact. Spend six months volunteering for your local mental health/mental retardation board with the profoundly retarded and see how it affects you. Most of those people were born before we had a clue how fubar their lives would be. We now have the ability to know before it’s too late. What we don’t have is the emotional maturity it takes to use that technology and prevent a life of nothing but confusion and pain. Sure, some people will abort for less worthy reasons. But, forcing those that know they are conceiving a being that has no chance to survive and enjoy life is even worse to me.
It’s popular now to bash abortion. But, no one wants to accept the responsibility of the consequences. Until there is a viable means to support all the abandoned, physically and mentally handicapped children this type of legislation will compel on ALL of society, I oppose all anti-abortion legislation.
UPDATE December 7, 2006: HR 6099 failed the House 250-162 ( it needed 2/3 to pass ). Here’s the Party breakdown:
| Yeas | Nays | PRES | NV | |
| Republican | 210 | 9 | 10 | |
| Democratic | 40 | 152 | 10 | |
| Independent | 1 | |||
| TOTALS | 250 | 162 | 20 |
Quite frankly, I’m a little surprised.
