The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing -- Edmund Burke
Wednesday, April 25, 2007
"A bill before the Florida Legislature, co-sponsored by State Rep. Adam Hasner, R-Delray Beach, would make it illegal to sell or post on the Internet any video that contains criminal activity and that furthers the interest of an organized crime group or results in a profit".
Labels: Canadian soldiers heroes
While the investigators would probably rather be anywhere else than at a Committee hearing,( most of them just want to do their jobs and don't seek the limelight) what recourse did they have when they didn't have whistleblower protection?Where could they turn.....and yet they felt the cases were so important that they continued to follow them up in the hopes that some Superior would finally fully investigate.A lot of this could have been resolved years ago if certain things were followed up instead of stonewalled.These honourable investigators deserve a lot of credit for persevering against all odds.
Labels: RCMP pension
"It is a typical school of education production: How many hours of time do we spend on what kinds of class preparation, what kinds of assignments do we give, how do we make evaluations? At the beginning, the survey asked these fairly reasonable questions, along with a few stupid ones (How many hours a week do your students spend preparing for class? How should I know? Apparently, not many. Do your students have enthusiastic discussions about what happened in class when they are outside of class? Again, how should I know?)
Then the questions began to get strange indeed. I’m going to share some of these questions with you, along with the answers I’d liked to have given, if I hadn’t been limited to “Very often,” “Often,” “Sometimes,” or “Never.”
How often do students in your selected course section engage in the following:"
Labels: Bernthal University survey
"A grandfather from Texas who was the first of 1,000 Americans Gore trained to deliver his Oscar-winning An Inconvenient Truth slide show to schools, Rotary clubs and nursing homes around the nation. Two weeks ago, the last 150 of this hand-picked crew arrived [in Nashville] -- paying their own way for everything but food -- to go through a two-day seminar starring Gore but effectively led by Dunham and a few other graduates of the former vice president's global-warming boot camp. To date, The Climate Project has drawn everyone from Wal-Mart workers to Cameron Diaz. And though the 1,000 mark has been reached, 'we keep hearing whispers that (Gore) might do more,' project director Jenny Clad says. 'I wouldn't call this final.'"
Folks, do not underestimate these people. They're out there. They're out there getting these people -- all these average citizens -- revved up about a hoax, and they're sending them out there as evangelists on this, after a two-day "boot camp" with Algore. This is how you spread propaganda. This is also, to me, an indication that Algore's people don't think that the movie itself stands alone in its ability to get converts. There have to be evangelists out there. Even if I'm wrong about that, the fact that they're just setting up these evangelists and so forth is proof positive that this is a political movement. It's almost a religious movement, and these are preachers that are being trained. They call this a "boot camp." They're going to Algore's seminary, and they're being given sermons, and they're having the words written for them, and they're out there proselytizing and preaching. You know, it's like getting to the point I'm going to advance a notion: "Separation of earth and state," because this is nothing more than a religion, as I have so accurately portrayed and defined on previous editions of this program. So keep a sharp eye for one of these traveling minstrel road shows to come to your town. The Church of Global Warming with order understand a ministers coming to your town and your Rotary Club and your school with their slide show."
"GIULIANI: This war ends when they stop planning to come here and kill us, but until then, if I have anything to say about it, the lesson that I learned coming out of September 11, 2001, is: never, ever again will this country be on defense waiting for them to attack us. (applause) The United States of America will be on offense (applause) and make no mistake about it, the Democrats want to put us back on defense.
RUSH: Amen! It's about time! It is about time. You know, Rich Galen had it right in his Mullings blog. You've got Harry Reid proclaiming defeat. The war is lost! If the Republican apparatus were up and running, they'd be demanding of every elected Democrat, "Do you stand with Harry Reid? Do you agree with Harry Reid," and then people would be calling for Reid's resignation. None of that is happening. Here's another portion of what Rudy had to say.
GIULIANI: The Democrats -- and I could make a lot of other points about this -- do not understand the full nature and scope of the terrorists' war against us. But I listened a little bit to the Democratic debates and I think I could be slightly wrong about this, but I think this is almost correct. If one of them gets elected it's almost like we're going on defense, where we've got a timetable for withdrawal of Iraq. We're going to wave the white flag there. We're going to try to cut back on the Patriot Act. We're going to cut back on electronic surveillance. We're going to cut back on interrogation. We're going to cut back, cut back, cut back -- and we'll be back in our pre-September 11 mentality of being on defense."
Labels: Limbaugh Giuliani Terrorists
"And so the debate stands. Every political decision -- from the Iraq war appropriation vote this week, to the Patriot Act, to the status of Guantanamo Prison, to NSA intercepts, to the presidential election -- is seen through our conceptual squint of the threat or non-threat from radical Islam.
Neither side seems remotely capable of persuading the other of the accuracy of our respective foresights. Two years ago, I wrote a book on the subject. I have talked to thousands and thousands in speeches and millions on radio and TV (as have so many authors these last five years). But the net effect seems to be to re-enforce the opinions of those who already share my view, rather than persuade others to change their mind.
Thus, while others and I will continue to make our case in public, it seems probably inevitable that the correctness or incorrectness of our views will only become persuasive to the multitude when history teaches its cruel, unavoidable lessons. It was ever thus, which is why history is strewed with broken nations and civilizations that couldn't read the writing on the wall. Of course, it is also strewed with sad hulks of false predictors of doom."
Labels: Morrissey Duncan Hunter
Labels: election vote ID
"THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. Seventy-eight days ago I sent Congress a request for emergency war funding that our troops urgently need. I made it clear to Democratic leaders on Capitol Hill that I'm willing to discuss our differences on the way forward in Iraq. But I also made it clear our troops should not be caught in the middle of that discussion.
Yesterday, Democratic leaders announced that they plan to send me a bill that will fund our troops only if we agree to handcuff our generals, add billions of dollars in unrelated spending, and begin to pull out of Iraq by an arbitrary date.
I'm disappointed that the Democratic leadership has chosen this course. The bill they announced yesterday includes some of the worst parts of the measures they had earlier passed with narrow majorities in the House and the Senate. They know I'm going to veto a bill containing these provisions, and they know that my veto will be sustained.
But instead of fashioning a bill I could sign, the Democratic leaders chose to further delay funding our troops, and they chose to make a political statement. That's their right. But it is wrong for our troops and it's wrong for our country. To accept the bill proposed by the Democratic leadership would be to accept a policy that directly contradicts the judgment of our military commanders. I strongly believe that the Democrats' proposal would undermine our troops and threaten the safety of the American people here at home. And here is why.
First, a proposal would mandate the withdrawal of American troops beginning as early as July 1st of this year, and no later than October 1st of this year, despite the fact that General Petraeus has not yet received all the reinforcements he needs. It makes no sense to tell the enemy when you start to plan withdrawing. If we were to do so, the enemy would simply mark their calendars and begin plotting how to take over a country when we leave.
We know what could happen next. Just as al Qaeda used Afghanistan as a base to plan attacks of September the 11th, al Qaeda could make Iraq a base to plan even more deadly attacks. The lesson of 9/11 is that allowing terrorists to find a sanctuary anywhere in the world can have deadly consequences on the streets of our own cities. Precipitous withdrawal from Iraq is not a plan to bring peace to the region or to make our people safer at home. Instead, it would embolden our enemies and confirm their belief that America is weak. It could unleash chaos in Iraq that could spread across the entire region. It would be an invitation to the enemy to attack America and our friends around the world. And, ultimately, a precipitous withdrawal would increase the probability that American troops would one day have to return to Iraq and confront an enemy that's even more dangerous.
Second, the Democratic leadership's proposal is aimed at restricting the ability of our generals to direct the fight in Iraq. They've imposed legislative mandates, they passed legislative mandates telling them which enemies they can engage and which they cannot. That means our commanders in the middle of a combat zone would have to take fighting directions from legislators 6,000 miles away on Capitol Hill. The result would be a marked advantage for our enemies and a greater danger for our troops.
Third, the bill proposed by Democratic leaders would spend billions of dollars on projects completely unrelated to the war. Proposed legislation does remove some of the most egregious pork barrel projects that Democratic leaders had inserted in earlier bills. Yet it still includes huge amounts of domestic spending that has no place in an emergency war funding bill. We should debate those provisions on their own merits, during the normal process -- but funding for our troops should not be held hostage while that debate unfolds.
I know that Americans have serious concerns about this war. People want our troops to come home, and so do I. But no matter how frustrating the fight can be and no matter how much we wish the war was over, the security of our country depends directly on the outcome in Iraq. The price of giving up there would be paid in American lives for years to come. It would be an unforgivable mistake for leaders in Washington to allow politics and impatience to stand in the way of protecting the American people.
Last November, the American people said they were frustrated and wanted a change in our strategy in Iraq. I listened. Today, General David Petraeus is carrying out a strategy that is dramatically different from our previous course. The American people did not vote for failure, and that is precisely what the Democratic leadership's bill would guarantee.
It's not too late for Congress to do the right thing and to send me a bill that gives our troops and the commanders the funds and flexibility they need. I'm willing to meet with leaders in Congress as many times as it takes to resolve our differences. Yet, if the Democratic leaders insist on using the bill to make a political statement, they will leave me with only one option: I will veto it. And then I'll work with Congress to pass a clean bill that funds our troops without handcuffing our commanders, spending billions of dollars unrelated to the war, and forcing our nation to withdraw on the enemy's terms.
"Taylor: The financial front is very big. It includes freezing terrorist assets and implementing diplomatic strategies to persuade other countries to join us in the freezes. It includes tracing money through the global financial system to gain intelligence about terrorist networks. It includes setting up new financial systems in war torn-areas like Afghanistan, Iraq, and Liberia. It includes stopping the spread of financial crises that can destroy economies and thereby breed terrorism. It is a third pillar in U.S. foreign policy, along with defense and diplomacy. Within the executive branch, you can think of the Departments of State, Defense, and Treasury as having primary responsibilities for each of these three pillars, and obviously the Treasury gets the financial front.
There are several reasons why you don’t hear more about it. First, it is largely a good news story, and bad news tends to crowd out good news. Unfortunately this is the reality, and even if there were no bias in news reporting it would be a serious impediment to getting these stories out. Second, news reporters who cover foreign policy or defense issues are frequently unfamiliar with the financial issues. They tend to downplay them; this is understandable because financial issues have never played such a big role in U.S foreign policy, and this takes getting used to. Third, people guess that financial issues are uninteresting to read about and tend to tune out. So in writing this book I tried to buck all three communication barriers by telling unusual but true stories about fascinating people who played an essential role in the fight against terror."
Labels: Financial terrorism
Re: they are terrorists, not POW's.... the Liberals underfunded the military by about $20 billion. The military probably should have had better tanks
long ago if the Liberals were so concerned about Canadians'security. Now it looks like they are more interested in the enemy's welfare --as dedicated Canadian soldiers lose their lives serving their country.