Points to Ponder:
(For Preserving the Historical Record on Iraq)

I don't normally include action items in posts, but in this case I'm going to. Here's the thing--the persistent lie that Bush lied about Iraq's WMDs in order to get the American people to support the war has reached the status of Established Truth. It is, however, a lie. And there is a simple and effective way to counter it.

So, in order to counter it, I'm going to ask you to do two things, neither of which will take up much time. The first assignment is to bring up a Google search window and type in three words: Clinton Iraq 1998. Once you run that search, you will find a treasure trove of quotes from the ancien regime regarding Iraq and the reasons Saddam should be pushed off a cliff.

Poke around in the stories you will find, and you will find yourself illuminated on the subject of Iraq's WMD programs like never before. You will read Madeline Albright arguing that the United States should attack Iraq, and you will read Sandy Berger and William Cohen--Clinton administration figures all--agreeing with her.

You will read a tantalizing quote from Berger arguing that pre-emption is a proper doctrine in a world in which stateless terrorism has become the number one national security threat.

I want you to remember that search string--Clinton Iraq 1998. For good measure, you can add Ohio State to it and you'll zero in on an episode you've probably forgotten. [Bryan Preston as quoted in a Rerum Novarum posting (circa June 17, 2004)]

A Weblog Archive Collection of References to Sean Hannity:
(Aka a Rerum Novarum Recapitulation Thread)

My reason for posting this thread is to avoid cluttering up the thread that will follow it with these references and my notes on each. Anyway, here are all the mentions in the archive of this humble weblog of Sean Hannity in order from oldest to newest. Without further ado...

I have not watched Hannity and Colmes for a while but it is nice to hear that Sean Hannity did the Ash Wednesday show with ashes on his forehead. Now I realize that the Gospel for Wednesday speaks against acting as a Pharisee and I also realize that the homily I posted from Fr. Reginald talked about the significance of wearing the ashes. From most appearances it would appear wrong for Sean Hannity to have done what he did. But in this case I believe he was right...

I am not sure if this is what Mr. Hannity did but frankly it is nice to see a Catholic in the media who by all appearances (and by what he says) takes his faith seriously. And I am sure that for at least one day Alan had a fairly easy day because Sean was probably less inclined to slam his arguments. But not having seen the show I could well be mistaken. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa March 13, 2003)]

I will readily admit that when those words were written, I had a fairly high view of Sean Hannity and listened semi-regularly to his radio program. With the advent of Michael Medved to KTTH and their radio launch in January of 2003, I gravitated to that station as they had many of the radio hosts I had listened to in previous years. But at this time, I was still listening somewhat regularly to Sean Hannity on the radio and watching him on television.

Fox News has picked up Dennis Miller to be a regular contributor. He'll start out doing a weekly gig on Hannity and Colmes, but look for him to get a show of his own before long. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa June 21, 2003) quoting from The JunkYard BLOG]

The above quote was from a JunkYard BLOG (JYB) update of the sort we used to do somewhat regularly on this humble weblog.{1} My listening to Hannity by this point had gone into significant decline compared to in the two previous years.

I remember when Mike Siegel was a flaming liberal on 1090, before Rush Limbaugh's show jumped the shark{1} when Alan Combs (of Hannity and Colmes) used to have a noon show on KVI...

Sean Hannity at noon is up against Michael Medved - I like both shows but I listen more to Medved. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa July 14, 2003)]

I had started sometime before those words were written listening much more often to Michael Medved's radio program than Sean Hannity's. The reasons were varied and if the subject of talk radio is raised in the future on this weblog{2}, I may well explain some of the reasons why.

I agree with Sean Hannity that she can't win nationally. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa November 30, 2003) quoting from an emailer]

That was a comment about Senator Hillary Clinton from an email dialogue posted to this weblog. I am not sure if by that point I had stopped listening to Hannity on the radio completely or if I was still dabbling on occasion{3} but if I was still listening at that point, it was not that often.

Limbaugh's show originated four or five years earlier in Sacramento on a single radio station before it was launched nationally on fifty-six stations in 1989. Since then, he has gone onto be over six hundred stations (including Armed Forces Radio) and accumulate an audience of twenty odd million a week. And with Limbaugh's success came a new format for conservative voices which many others (i.e. Ken Hamblin, Michael Reagan, Michael Savage, Michael Medved, Laura Ingraham, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, etc) were to join making this the first significant challenge to major media. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa September 16, 2004)]

The above was a footnote where I was noting something on conservative talk radio in general and mentioned Hannity in the mix of a bunch of other radio hosts -some I liked and listened to (either at that time or in the past) and others I did not (either then or previously).

I was still at that point giving Bill O'Reilly the old college try but my patience was wearing out on him as someone I could listen to regularly. By that point, I had for a variety of reasons stopped listening to Hannity on the radio but I did still watch Hannity and Colmes on FOX occasionally at that time.

It bears noting here that those who share certain elements of a common view (as Limbaugh, Hannity, Coulter, and Novak do) will tend to have similar views on issues. As far as "tow[ing] the line", they do so with the Republicans much the way counterparts in the mainstream media generally do for the Democrats. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa November 20, 2004)]

That was a response to someone else who mentioned Sean Hannity and a bunch of conservative-minded people. The idea that they all "towed the line" or that their listeners did was what got a response from me -as I had (and have) disagreements with all of them in some areas- not any intention to write on any of them individually at that time.

Few if any of us actually listen to Sean Hannity and at least some of us do not particularly care for Bill O'Reilly. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa July 2, 2005)]

By that point, I was not only not listening to Hannity on the radio (and rarely watching him on television) but I had had it with O'Reilly overall too -though the audio of it does not seem to exist anymore{4} I had noted this on the weblog as of seven months prior to those words being written.

That's nearly a word-for-word exchange that took place on Hannity today--him trying in vain to get her to answer a simple question, her letting those questions pass between her ears as she lurched from one idiotic talking point to another. I kept urging Hannity to just hang up on her, ban her from his show for life, etc, but of course I was only talking to myself. And he kept her on the show and let her keep spouting enemy bullet points and nonsense .[Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa September 16, 2005) quoting from The JunkYard BLOG]

That was a quote from a posting to the JYB on one of update threads in years past. I commented on the overall factor being referenced there but not on the mention of Hannity personally.

If you were paying attention at all, you would know that I am hardly a fan of President Bush's at all. Nor do I care much for Bill O'Reilly or Sean Hannity as a rule. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa March 12, 2006)]

I doubt I have listened to more than an hour of Sean Hannity's radio show in the past four years. That comment was in response to someone who presumed based on stereotyping that I must be a fan of President Bush, Bill O'Reilly, and Sean Hannity. Nonetheless, I only mentioned Hannity to respond to the stereotype being perpetrated -having long since stopped listening to him on the radio and watching him on television.

My reason for noting this recapitulation of Rerum Novarum archive references to Sean Hannity will be made evident in the coming days.

Notes:

{1} Back in the days when Bryan Preston was the proprietor of that weblog as he was prior to about late 2005.

{2} Either on my own initiative to do so or (more likely) if a reader emails me on the subject and I happen in the mood to talk a bit about it.

{3} It is hard to remember with precise dates when I stopped listening to certain programs on the radio or watching them on television.

{4} I would like to find out that all the audios recorded with audioblogger on this weblog between mid 2004 and late 2006 are still accessible somewhere on the web -but thus far am not encouraged that they are unfortunately.

Miscellaneous Musings:

To touch on four issues briefly...

--Just as I am putting the finishing touches on a post about Karl Rove stepping down, Alberto Gonzales' resignation as Attorney General is in the news. I was not a fan of Alberto Gonzales as AG mainly because I could not get past the cronyism that was involved in the appointment. This was one of the same problems I had with the Harriet Miers nomination so that part should not surprise. The one thing this does for sure is derail any possibility of Gonzales ever making it to the Supreme Court presuming for a moment that President Bush may well have another nomination to the court before he steps down in January of 2009.

Basically, the usual moonbat contingent and the mainstream media hacks who has been whining for Gonzales' head finally got it indirectly. That is the only reason I am not pleased with what happened as I rarely like seeing those sorts get their way. Certainly Gonzales did fine as an advisor and with his involvement in the nominations of Roberts and Alito. However, I am not persuaded he did much of anything else of note as AG -I preferred John Ashcroft myself. I will certainly not miss him nor (in light of his apparent view on the illegal alien amnesty issue) speak fondly of him at any point in the future that I can discern so hasta la vista Alberto...

--Also in the news in recent days is George Tenet. I could not recall writing anything on the blog about him prior to this point -a quick check of the archives by word search indicates that his name was raised twice: both of which were in old JunkYard BLOG megapostings and in neither one did I comment on the Tenet-related stuff.{1} Basically, I had nothing nice to say about Tenet and the stuff I did comment on where he was in the general area subject-wise I viewed others in the mix at the time to have greater importance. I viewed him as an administrative hack who was one of those who would tell anyone anything to ensure that he kept his job: basically a classic bureaucrat. And it now appears that my intuition in that area was quite correct.

The sorts of national security breaches involved with the latest CIA/Tenet revelations got me to thinking about Able Danger again and a posting from late last year I was going to reference. However, when doing a search, apparently that post was never finished but was in a draft text from September 29, 2006.{2} For that reason, I will as soon as I can update that thread further and post it to this weblog in completed form.

--I mentioned in the past about certain ideas on this weblog being possibly fodder for state initiatives and in the past couple of months have made contact with the major initiative mover and shaker in Washington state. As they are always on the lookout for initiative ideas, I am putting together some stuff from this weblog's archives to send to them. I have in mind at least two specific initiative proposals designed to make the government more accountable. Perhaps if I am in the mood to discuss these on the weblog in the coming months I will do so but I wanted to note it here briefly for now.

--As it sits now, the party I mentioned earlier in the month that was going to dialogue with me on the subject of the atomic bombings of 1945 has put the finishing touches on their opening comments. So that project will soon be underway -the start date of August 30, 2007 still looks like a go and I will update you on if there are any changes to the time frame prior to that point.

Notes:

{1} I came close once though.

{2} I cannot at the moment remember the reason it was not finished but there are a lot of threads in draft form that get forgotten or pushed down in priority as I try to make do with what time I have for this blogging endeavour.

Miscellaneous Threads Worth Noting:

Briefly on each article...

Creating Effective Incentives (Walter E. Williams)

The article starts off with the following line:

What should our response be if terrorists set off a nuclear explosion, or some other weapon of mass destruction, in one of our cities?

I cannot say I see anything rationally askew in Professor Williams' musings in the article above -it is well worth a read as his stuff so often is. Moving on...

Villains and the Immigration Debate (Jonah Goldberg)

A small taste to whet the appetite:

The beauty of a democratic system is that it depends on democratic arguments. Even if every partisan is a villain, he has to make his case in a way that will convince people. And it's those arguments we're supposed to be dealing with. It's very easy for me to say that while my opponent may say X that he secretly believes Y because he is a member of a supersecret Satanic cabal or because his fern is speaking to him through his dental fillings. But unless I have proof, debate should be confined to X.

The foundation of that position is one that we at Rerum Novarum have applied countless times to a variety of subjects over the years.{1}

And of course I would be remiss if I did not admit that I have used the last line of the article a few times as sarcasm to make a point since I first read it. Moving on...

Allied Angst (Oliver North)

To quote from the first paragraph of the above article:

There was a time when American military leaders worried about whether wobbly allies would rally to us when it came time to stand up to the Soviets. Now it's our allies who worry about us.

Those who approach the US military involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq with the idea that we should pull out and go home would do well to review the above thread and think long and hard about the message such an action would send to our allies around the world. And finally...

Schooling Michael Moore (Michelle Malkin/Bryan Preston)

It has been ages since either a Michelle Malkin or Bryan Preston thread graced this humble weblog. In the above thread, Michelle has a YouTube clip on the latest Moore crockumentary{2} and Bryan attended a screening of it and posted his observations in print. Based on their observations, it would appear that Moore has jumped the shark. Say what you will about Fahrenheit 9/11 but at the very least he got a lot of people conned into watching it. The same cannot be said for his latest crapsterpiece.

Notes:

{1} To note a couple of examples that come to mind offhand from the archives:

Unlike the lions share of people from various outlooks who set forth opinions in the public square, the present writer does not expect anyone to accept any of his statements as some kind of arbitrary out of context injunction simply because he says it. This would base the veracity or lack thereof of his statements on a subjectivist context and would imply that truth does not objectively exist.

If you learn to think in principles you learn to think logically. Principles make thinking a lot easier. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa December 30, 2006)]

And again:

[A] refutation or confutation of an argument must involve objective proof by rational argumentation that said theories or viewpoints or assertions are false or otherwise erroneous. Many who write self-styled "refutations" make references to what they believe to be a refutation or some equivalent which is actually an out of context injunction on their part and properly classified as normative argumentation and thus subjective. This will never do because a refutation properly speaking is non-normative and requires therefore objective criteria for being able to be accurately assessed as to its veracity or lack thereof. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa September 17, 2006)]

{2} To note a definition of crockumentary, I reference the sometimes-reliable Urban Dictionary which defines it here. For those with a sensitivity to certain words, I will abridge the text at that link and provide the following expletive-free version:

crockumentary

The Michael Moore style of filmmaking.

It involves trying to pass off a complete crock...as the truth. Then brazenly calling it a "documentary" when you know...that it's [not.]

Miscellaneous Musings:

Five bits to cover briefly so here goes...

--June 3rd will mark a notable anniversary in that it will be the birthday of one of my closest living friends. I refer to Tim Tull who shall turn...well...I do not want to depress him by noting just how old he is getting so I will leave it at that. Tim has had a few appearances on this weblog thus far{1} and there will probably be more if there are any subjects he feels passionate to write about that can hold a reader's attention span for more than a few moments. That basically means basically anything but detailed engineering dissertations.{2}

--Another anniversary tomorrow is one of your host's biggest tactical blunders in retrospect. This was noted about two years ago in a lengthy appended section to the original "tribute" thread which can be read in its original form here.

--The following email from another friend is of interest so without further ado...

....was up late last night, around 3:30 AM. Briefly stopped at ABC News overnight. It was the end of a report on Fred Thompson's assumed entry into the race. Didn't hear enough of the report to get a feel for it, but I found the follow-up anchor chit-chat interesting. They showed a picture in a newspaper of Thompson and his young wife. The one anchor tossed out to the other: "A lot of people are wondering if she would be an appropriate First Lady."

"A lot of people"?

I live near & work in a pretty large city, Chicago, where people certainly don't hesitate to voice their political opinions, more often than not of a pro-Democrat, anti-Republican bent. Yet it's funny how I've somehow managed to miss any conversations about Fred Thompson's wife. But then, I'm sure after enough newspaper & network folk toss out that concern enough times, it's probably going to turn out to be the case.

The above example illustrates well why I distrust the msm as much as I do so for the time being that is all I will say about that matter.

--In doing some weblog restructuring in a few minutes here and there throughout the week, some adjustments were made to categories. Basically, the "personal" category and the "personal musings" categories were abrogated with all their postings moved into the "miscellaneous threads/briefer musings" categories to eliminate primary category overlap. From there a new subcategory was created titled "prayer requests/personal" to cover all subjects pertaining to one or the other of those matters.

Also created was the first category for individuals other than President George W. Bush and President Ronald Reagan. I intend to create others such as one for President Jimmah Carter and one for President Bill Clinton among others but the personal tag added today was a different personage altogether -namely one Bryan Preston.

I have not seen much of his stuff in the past year or so but for the first few years of this weblog's existence, I read his old weblog The JunkYard BLOG with interest. He (and with occasional contributions by Chris Regan) constituted one of my primary geopolitical reads mainly because our views in that area coincided so often. Since early 2006, he turned over his weblog to someone else who while good nonetheless resulted in that weblog falling off of my regular reads. I have not incorporated his new venture Hot Air{3} into my regular read rotation yet, but in time I hope to. Nonetheless, the following secondary blog tag was added today:

JunkYard Blog-The Bryan Preston Years/Bryan Preston

And that is all I plan to blog on at this time except for one more thing.

--This is the 2200th post to Rerum Novarum in its nearly five year existence.


Notes:

{1} His contributions to this weblog thus far are as follows:

Guest Editorial on Colleges and Their Lack of Faculty Diversity--Written by Tim Tull; Prefatory Comments by I. Shawn McElhinney (circa July 13, 2005)

More Feedback From Tim Tull (circa August 19, 2005)

On the Intensity/Duration Equation, Physics, and Trying to Understand Engineering Majors--With Tim Tull (circa December 17, 2006)

{2} Sorry Tim but our goal here is to enlighten not confuse the readers.

{3} Michelle Malkin is perhaps the most well-known contributor to the Hot Air staff as well as being the founder of the site.

Miscellaneous Threads Worth Noting:

Our comments where applicable will be interspersed...

[Update: The first thread (with its accompanying footnote) was added earlier today to this list while the second one with its accompanying footnote) was added a few minutes ago. - ISM 4/27/06 2:25pm]

Immigrant Boycott Aims To "Close" US Cities (Texas Fred)

Of course the date for this attempted "closure" could not be more of a giveaway to your host: May 1st. For those who have forgotten, "May Day" was a day appropriated for parades and protests by communists. But then again, it should not surprise anyone that these latest rounds of "protests" have settled on May Day for their movement. Or as We have written in the past on these matters:

There is a parallel not often recognized in the modern attempts to manufacture (i) racial strife, (ii) class envy (iii) a war between the genders, (iv) so-called "multiculturalism", (v) certain forms of so-called "sexual orientation" elevated to a so-called "civil right", (vi) so-called "environmentalism", (vii) the attempts to abolish God from the public square under the rubric of a perverted understanding of the first amendment, and (viii) not a few varieties of so-called "social justice" and so-called "peacemaking." The aforementioned parallel is that these are all movements where post-communists have sought to find ways of continuing the marxist weltanschauung under different banners to hide their true intentions. And frankly, anyone who does not realize these facts remains blind to reality.

The marxist in reality does not concern themselves with such "causes" and their feigned "compassion" only fools those who are naive. The only purpose that those "causes" have for the marxist is as tools to subvert the social order of society without concern for just public order or the true common good of society. Indeed, if you strip down any of the above advocacy movements beyond the surface self-platitudes and the incendiary rhetoric of so-called "activists", you will find the beating heart of marxism.[Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa July 3, 2005)]

That is what is present in the aforementioned "immigration boycott"{1} in a nutshell and it should not be forgotten. Moving on...

Goodnight and Good Riddance (Kevin Tierney)

A solid defense of the theory that Tom DeLay -despite being the receipent of a major screwjob by Ronnie Earle and others{2}- nonetheless was not as clean as partisan Republicans would like to (in the interest of putting ideology over principles) claim. Furthermore, his advancement of the very kind of unconstitutional programs under the mantle of so-called "conservatism" is something that needs to be stopped asap.

Society That Thinks Pope Pius XII Rules

This is an interesting weblog from "Piusites" or those who are sick of seeing this "Righteous Gentile" (as he was called by Golda Meir, Pinchas Lapide, Ronald J. Rychlak, and Rabbi David Dalin) get libeled by the MSM. Indeed, the most recent article on the above weblog deals with this subject and is worth reading for those who are interested in actual history and not the stuff revised for the purpose of advancing an ideology in opposition ot the truth.

Sheehan Lies Out Of Habit (Bryan Preston)

The unsavoury character of Cindy Sheehan is documented in part by Bryan Preston in the thread above.{3}

"Smart Fence" (Bryan Preston)

Bryan outlines the obvious inconsistency of those who would favour a wall on the US-Mexican border yet who would oppose the Israeli wall. As far as her motivations, We suspect with the same degree of cynicism her reasons for favouring a "smart wall" on the southern border is because of the unlikeliness that it would be built: thus she can take all sides on this issue in the true tradition of the gutless-politician. As Peter Brown noted in an old Cream song titled Politician:

I support the left, though I’m leaning, leaning to the right.
I support the left, though I’m leaning to the right.
But I’m just not there when it’s coming to a fight.

And do not bank on Mrs. Clinton fighting for this "smart wall" idea...unless you want to make a friendly wager. If the latter is the case, contact Us for the address to mail your money to in advance because you will lose and lose bigtime. Moving on...

Of Pulitzers and Treason (Patrick J. Buchanan)

Pat Buchanan is on target with the above article -and this is said not just because he mirrors a lot of what has been said by Us on the MSM and sedition about three years ago. Whatever one thinks of some of the half-baked geopolitical stances that Mr. Buchanan has taken, he is at the very least a patriot in the proper sense of the term.

Minimum Wage, Maximum Folly (Walter E. Williams)

Once again, Dr. Williams provides an important lesson in economics.

Law or Lynch Law? (Thomas Sowell)

A fine article by Thomas Sowell on the rape allegations of the Duke lacrosse team. The gist of what he wrote can be summed up in a pithy phrase from early in the article that reads as follows:

Apparently we dare not question accusations of rape when it involves the new sacred trinity of race, class, and gender.

Precisely.

Why No Special Prosecutor for the Latest CIA Leak Case? (Christopher Hitchens)

Of course Mr. Hitchens knows the answer to this question and it will be supplied it here for those who do not know: because there is a double standard in how these matters are handled when the one so accused takes the "politically correct" approach as Mary McCarthy has done. In the words of that great western philosopher James Hetfield "sad but true."

WH Press Secretary–Tony Snow? (Beth Cleaver)

Beth asked at the time if this was true and we know now that it is. Our views on this appointment can be read HERE for those who have not seen them yet.

Update on Andrea Clarke (Beth Cleaver)

For Our part, We at Rerum Novarum concur with Beth's assessment on the above subject matter.

The Check Is Not In The Mail (Captain Ed)

For Our part, We at Rerum Novarum concur with Captain Ed's assessment on the above subject matter.

President James Madison's Veto

Those who think that the approach to constitutional matters taken at this humble weblog{4} is too restrictive should consider what the "Father of the Constitution" thought on these matters and see that We are in very good company indeed viz. how these matters are properly understood.

Notes:

{1} There is also the issue of President Bush trying to have it both ways in how this issue is dealt with. And for those who place principles above party loyalty (ala Texas Fred and a growing number of people who are generally sympathetic to Republicans), it could have serious repercussions for The Stupid Party (Republicans) in the elections of 2006 and 2008 without The Evil Party (Democrats) having to do anything at all.

{2} On the DeLay "Indictment" (circa October 1, 2005)

{3} Your host may have to reassess his previous comments on Cindy Sheehan in light of this new information.

{4} Here is a sampling of threads where the unconstitutionality of a lot of what the federal government has done has been discussed at Rerum Novarum (listed from newest to oldest):

Briefly on Claude Frederic Bastiat, the US Constitution, and Socialism (circa December 29, 2005)

Miscellaneous Threads for Reviewing (circa September 29, 2005)

On the High Gas Prices and the Economics Involved Therein (circa September 10, 2005)

A Review of Senator Barry Goldwater's Book The Conscience of a Conservative (circa March 8, 2005)

"My Kingdom For a Viable Third Party" Dept. (circa November 11, 2004)

On Marriage, the Supreme Court, Law in General, Etc. -Dialogue With Charles de Nunzio (circa June 2, 2004)

A Brief Digression on the "Scylla/Charybdis" Conundrum of American Political Parties, Etc. (circa May 24, 2004)

A Rider Reform Proposal (circa January 22, 2004)

Miscellaneous Mutterings (circa October 31, 2003)

"Us and Them" Dept. (circa June 27, 2003)

Weighing in on Sen. Trent Lott's Comments (circa December 12, 2002)

Bryan Preston of the JunkYard BLOG reminds us all that it was 170 years ago today that the Texans routed the Mexicans at San Jacinton and became their own sovereign nation (among other Texas factoids worth remembering)

Miscellaneous Threads for Reviewing:

Briefly on some threads that have been accumulating for a while...

Great Care Should Be Taken in Interpreting Messages From God (Doug Bandow)

The above article is a good one for those who like to interpret natural disasters as messages from God for ideological purposes. It is posted because I remember reading some articles from well-meaning people who opined that Katrina was a "punishment from God" for various crimes of our society. Personally, I find the argument of Katrina being punishment a rather curious interpretation since many of the areas which would seem to be logical targets for chastisement by those who make that argument were left relatively untouched. But that is a subject perhaps for another time.

Who Are You Calling Angry? (Michelle Malkin)

The hypocrisy of Janeane Garofalo ("talk radio host" on Air UnAmerican) is briefly touched on by Ms. Malkin in the above thread. Particularly of interest to your host is her reference to liberal projection: a subject I have spoken of before and may write on in the future if I feel inclined to.

Hillary vs. Moonbats (Michelle Malkin)

I would be lying if I did not admit to feeling a fair amount of schadenfraude after reading the above article :)

Right To Digital? (George Will)

In a word: no, there is no "right" to digital TV. But watch those who are incapable of giving a reasonable working definition of "rights" to claim that there is one. Definitions are the tools of thought and frankly, those who are not willing to define their terms do not deserve to be taken seriously...whether they are misappropriating the term "rights", "neo cons", or whatever.

It’s Time To Investigate Able Danger and the 9/11 Commission (Andrew McCarthy)

As one who has not been quiet on the Able Danger subject myself,{1} I concur with Mr. McCarthy's assessments on the matter in question.

Baseball: The Sublime Game (The Thoughtful Crab)

Many of the reasons your host has long loved baseball are summed up well in the above thread.

And now for some economics threads for consideration...

What's Inflation? (Dr. Walter Williams)

Hopefully more people will know after reading the above thread...

Basic Economics (Dr. Walter Williams)

This time, Dr. Williams discusses basic economics as they pertain to the cost of gasoline...a subject your host discussed back in September in a more technical fashion.{2} But the lessons to be learned in both threads are important ones...particularly since a lot of economically ignorant people vote and tend to vote for socialist candidates based to a large extent on their ignorance of how things work in the real world. And (of course) the above article has two really good one-liners that I may have to use in upcoming "points to ponder" segments :)

Random Thoughts (Thomas Sowell)

My favourite columns from Thomas Sowell are his "random thoughts" columns. I am not sure if there is a connection or not but I believe the whole idea of "miscellaneous musings" on this weblog was indirectly influenced by this feature of Sowell's writing. But give it a read and ponder over the various bits he notes so that your host can forego a "points to ponder" installment for a few more days...

Between Venus and Mars, the Church of Rome Chooses Both (Sandro Magister)

The reality of Catholic Church geopolitics and why they are not as simplistic as certain pseudo "peacemakers" would seek to deceive people into believing

The Genius of Karl Rove, Cont. (Noemie Emery)

I am no fan of Karl Rove's but if any of the above article is correct...well...let us just say I will not complain :)

Bush Gives the Iraq P.R. Machine a Much Needed Tune Up (Greg Mockeridge)

And the president paralleled many of the suggestions set down by Greg in a post he wrote back on December 3rd:

The Bush Iraq P.R. Machine Is Running Better, But Still Needs Work (Greg Mockeridge)

Evidently, the president or one of his advisors got the above memo ;-)

[Update: I decided to extend this thread a little after doing a bit more reading today...and what is noted from this point on is what has been added to the post since this morning. -ISM 12/26/05 8:45pm]

It seems appropriate to close on the war on terror subject and include these two threads...

Huge Weapons Cache Found (Ryan Lenz)

Your host was made aware of the above thread by Bryan Preston of The JunkYard BLOG. And of course remember dear reader that your host mentioned some time ago that it would take time to find any weapons in Iraq if there were any to be found at all.{3} Little by little things have been found but the MSM tends to not want to report them for obvious reasons. If the intention is to be fair and to tell the whole story, then these findings have to be reported on or else the media is engaging in distortion. Thankfully, there is the alternative media (and the much-sneered-at blogosphere) to do the MSM's job for them yet again.

Iraq Stubbornly Continues to Not Be Quagmire (Mac Stansbury)

While not the shill for the Bush Administration that Mac admits to being; nonetheless, your host does concur with the overall position which Mac notes in the posting above.

Notes:

{1} On Able Danger and A Potential Defense Department Coverup (circa September 21, 2005)

Briefly Revisiting Able Danger (circa October 20, 2005)

"Focus on Able Danger Stupid" Dept. (circa November 3, 2005)

{2} On the High Gas Prices and the Economics Involved Therein (circa September 10, 2005)

And while the above thread contains a lot of valuable information on the economics of gasoline production, distribution, and pricing, it does nonetheless also contain a blown prediction by your host viz. gasoline costs. I explained the reason for this missed prediction HERE but to summarize it briefly: I went against one of my rational principles by placing too much trust in the accuracy of the MSM on the matter at hand. The end result of course vindicated the McElhinney Media Dictum yet again even if on this occasion it was because I myself was not faithful to it.

{3} Among the postings that come to mind offhand are this one:

Because so many of the antiwar partisans are ignorant of Santayana's dictum about history, I want to return to it briefly to remind the readers of this weblog that it took longer to find weapons of this sort in countries where there has been greater cooperation than the time thus far spent in Iraq. Until those who parrot the "no WMD's in Iraq" line take these facts of reality seriously -not to mention certain other factors that they also conveniently overlook,[...] I fail to see why anyone should give their statements on this subject (whomever they happen to be)[...] the time of day. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa September 18, 2004)]

And this one:

Finding and getting rid of such weapons in Ukraine, Belarus, Kazakhstan and South Africa took 18 to 30 months, even though those governments all actively cooperated with the U.N. It is fanciful that similar results could be achieved in Iraq in a few weeks.

Not finding the weapons in a fixed timeframe does not mean they never existed. British and Spanish governments have been looking for weapons caches of Basque and Irish terrorist groups for 35 years and have found little. But everyone knows those groups have arms.

On the other hand, the Philippine government still finds weapons caches left by the Japanese over half a century ago. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa December 16, 2003)]

"JunkYard BLOG" Dept.
(A Rerum Novarum Twenty-One Part Salute)

The JunkYard BLOG long form commentary threads on this weblog have become more infrequent and longer in the past eight months. In light of this circumstance, it seems prudent to the present writer to focus on returning this feature to the monthly (or bimonthly) regularity that it had for approximately the first year of this weblog's existence. How many installments each one would have with that frequent a posting depends on what time your host will have for putting such threads together. Nonetheless, that will not stop this update thread from being a rather lengthy one of course ;-) Indeed, the thread you have before you is the one spoken of earlier and without further ado, let Us get to it now starting with the Koran/Gitmo subject...

THE SPECTACLE

of watching Pentagon brass and a big-shot spokesman conduct a press conference over the finer points of how to handle the Koran is really too much. Just too much.

But that's what just happened. I caught it on Fox.

There was General Jay Hood or something like that along with that Pentagon guy that looks like he might have been an extra on Perfect Strangers, taking serious questions from the press corp about who did and didn't do what to the Koran at Gitmo. Like. It. Matters. There was the press asking those serious questions in serious tones, as though it ought to matter whether or not a US military guard ever did anything to offend a terrorist in a cage. Who was caught on a battlefield in either Afghanistan or Iraq. Shooting at our troops. When he wasn't planning to kill our civilians. Or capture contractors and behead them. Violating the laws of war and the standards of basic humanity at every turn of the sod's miserable waste of a life.

We get accused of mishandling a book. They actually cut people's heads off while they scream. Pardon me if I can't get worked up much about the former, m'kay?

Well stated Bryan!!! The idiocies of people who appear more concerned about US soldiers mishandling the Koran or detaining children{1} than with Islamofascists who murder children and cut the heads off of people{2} is inexcusable. For Our part, it is a mystery to Us how such people can sleep at night with a clear conscience but that is a subject for another time perhaps.

As far as the approach being taken towards these prisoners, the present writer is reminded of an audio post he recorded last July on the problems with humanizing formal enemies and unfortunately the United States Military is doing just that (much as the MSM has been). This problem was later discussed in a bit more detail (and a slightly broader scope) by Us in a two part thread of audiomusings from September of 2004. It suffices at the moment to note that in those treatments, your host was highly critical (and with good reason) about the very same kind of coverage we are seeing with this entire Koran/Gitmo situation: it does not bode well for our overall success in the war on terror and that is the bottom line.

The general said something about being extry crispy careful to tread lightly around the religious sensitivities of caged nutcases. The press asked a snarky follow-up. Ad nauseum from now until the war ends.

We are freaking nuts. We are going around and around about this Newsweek story that was based on hearsay generated in all likelihood by some terrorist because his training manuals command him to generate controversy about the military. That Newsweek story should never have seen the light of day because it was nothing but hot air. They had no facts. They had nothin'. That story didn't meet the basic standards for the homeroom newsletter at Paducah Junior High. Yet our entire nation and indeed the entire dumb world has been wrapped around it for weeks.

But Newsweek reported it anyway, and hilarity--if you think deadly riots involving millions of people are hilarious--ensued. And the press keeps circling around this story, as if it was based on any facts. And now we fly in the commanding general all the way from Gitmo to treat the press as if the story would matter even if it were true, never mind it was based on nothing. And to treat the press as if it wasn't populated by well-paid know-nothings who have apparently never set one toe into the real world. Never mind that the injured feelings of terrorists shouldn't matter more than the lives of innocent civilians, but apparently those feelings do matter a great hairy deal.

Sigh. My outrage meter broke sometime last October and I've never gotten around to put it in the shop. Now I don't think I'll bother. I'd just break it again...[Continued...]

None of this is surprising when you consider the depths to which the journalism profession has sunk. As this writer noted recently in some musings on the Deep Throat situation:

The depravity to which the journalistic profession has fallen since the days of Watergate can be to some extent pinned on Woodward and Bernstein...not as much them personally as what they ushered in in the aftermath of the Nixon resignation. [...] The journalistic profession has become one where you "make it" by finding someone whose reputation you can destroy. Ethics are often not a factor, indeed morals and ethics often get the screw from journalists who are trying to "make it" and then (for those who "make it") the same tactics are utilized to try and stay "on top." The same is the case with the legal profession and the political profession: oftentimes those who "make it" do so by screwing other people. So the parallel to prostitution is an apt one. The only difference of course is that prostitutes are somewhat honest about it. But enough on that subject for now.

...Woodward and Bernstein by their approach to "Deep Throat" ushered in a new era of journalism which is rotten to the core. It is comprised of people who seek to create news and who are interested in spinning the facts to advance an agenda rather than report on what is happening and letting the readers draw their own conclusions. The ethics in this field are abysmal and a strong reason why the MSM is slowly becoming more and more irrelevant in this new age of alternative media is because they are no longer a monopoly. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa June 1, 2005)]

That encapsulates the problem in a nutshell. As for the rest of the article, it is worth reading too -particularly what Bryan notes about the ACLU and their handling of the Gitmo situation as well as the Mexican border situation with the Minutemen. Bryan is right, the ACLU should be tried for treason if not for sedition. But enough on that subject as there is a lot left to to cover.


GEORGE GALLOWAY, SADDAMITE SYMP--AND LIAR?

Clinton Watson Taylor distills the evidence pointing to the possibility that British MP George Galloway lied under oath before the US Senate.

So when Mr. Galloway told Senator Coleman that Zureikat...

"donated money to our campaign, which we publicly brandished on all of our literature, along with the other donors to the campaign."

...Mr. Galloway was not telling the truth, at least about his website. This was no mere oversight, because on April 2, 2001, the Mariam Appeal site already had "emblazoned" Mr. Zureikat's involvement as a representative, but not as a donor. A visitor to the site would infer that Zureikat was actually a beneficiary of the Miriam Appeal's books and donations, rather than a £375,000 donor.

Actually, Mr. Zureikat was more than just a contact person for Mariam Appeal. And he was more than just a major donor. In "late 2000 or early 2001," according to Mr. Galloway's testimony, Mr. Zureikat became Mariam Appeal's chairman. Funny, isn't it, how that doesn't show up on the site?

Zureikat is neck-deep in Oil-For-Food shenanigans. His relationship to Galloway, disguised on Galloway's old website and now apparently distorted by Galloway in his testimony before the Senate, may link Britian's most blustery Saddam supporter to the massive UN scandal as well. [LINK]

As one who tends to be naturally suspicious of those whom the MSM lauds, this revelation is not surprising to your host. And if it is true, it points out yet another vocal opponent of the military intervention in Iraq who posed as all morally righteous while (in reality) they were out to protect their own selfish interests. From one example of hypocrisy to another, we get the following gem...

MINUTEMAN APPEARANCE: PROTESTORS TURN VIOLENT

From the LA Times:

The demonstrators had gathered at the Women's Civic Club of Garden Grove on Chapman Avenue about 7:30 p.m. to protest an appearance by James Gilchrist, charging that he and his group were racist.

Gilchrist has denied those claims and insists the group is stopping only illegal immigration. His talk was sponsored by Citizens for Action Now, an anti-illegal immigration group.

The motorist had attended Gilchrist's speech and was leaving when protesters began hitting his van with placards and other objects, said Garden Grove Police Lt. David Kivler. The driver, who was not identified but spoke to a KCAL-TV Channel 9 reporter, said he gunned his car engine to get away from the crowd. The man was arrested.

Authorities said the incident occurred when 100 listeners attempted to leave through the crowd of demonstrators. Kivler said protesters gathered around one of their cars.

"They surrounded it and started beating on it," Kivler said. Then, a second car tried to get through the crowd as well.

"As he was doing so he hit at least three people," Kivler said. All three were transported to a local hospital. None had major injuries, he said.

So apparently these protestors, quick to call anyone who disagrees with their open border stance a "racists," are also quick to try and intimidate and threaten anyone who so much as attends a speech delivered by someone who disagrees with them. That's thuggery. I'm having a hard time blaming the guy in the car here, considering what these mobs are capable of doing. [LINK]

The original link in Bryan's thread was expired and after a bit of perusing the archives, your host found the story. Go HERE for details. As Bryan has a solid trackrecord for citing his sources correctly, your host has no reason whatsoever to doubt him on this matter. But that is neither here nor there.

Remember dear readers, these abusive sorts are the same ones who claim to be "more 'tolerant' than thou." This is why the double standard bears noting: because it shows the blatant hypocrisy of the so-called "progressivists" who claim they are more "tolerant", more "loving", and more "inclusive" than thou. In truth, Fr. Richard John Neuhaus aptly summarized their view in noting that [a]llegiance to the left, however variously defined, was a religion, and dissent was punished by excommunication. And what these so-called "protesters" did was exactly that: seek to utilize a form of "public discourse excommunication" of those who disagree with them from the arena of ideas. So much for their vaunted slogans of "tolerance", "inclusion", and all that other jibberish that they commonly espouse. Aaah but the hypocrisy continues...


DISBAR THE BURGLAR

Sandy Bergler is facing action to disbar him:

WASHINGTON – Sandy Berger, the former national security adviser who pleaded guilty to charges of stealing classified material from the National Archives and lying to federal investigators, now faces an effort to disbar him in the nation's capital.

Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates corruption in government, said today it has filed a formal bar complaint against Berger with the Office of Bar Counsel for the District of Columbia Bar.

Berger knowingly took classified documents, smuggled them out of the National Archives and then destroyed them. Disbarment should be the least of his worries. [LINK]

Precisely. For those who are interested, your host mused on this subject last July in an audiopost. For the record, the minimum that Berger deserves is life in prison for this charade. For that reason, disbarmant should be (as Bryan noted) the least of his worries. Your host should point out that if this was a Republican security head sneaking confidential documents out of the National Archives and shredding them, the MSM would be trumpeting this as a "travesty" and probably refer to it as "Trousergate." But because Berger was a Clinton man, he gets a benign mention at best on the matter; ergo continuing the blatant hypocrisy of the supposedly "non-partisan" MSM. But the hypocrisy continues...


SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE?

A rightwing Republican Congressman has introduced a bill in the House demanding respectful treatment of the Bible. Get yer torches and pitchforks, people, and make sure to ring up the press.

But...

Before you do all of that, I need to clarify a couple of details.

The Congressman isn't a rightwing Republican. He's a leftwing Democrat. And it's not the Bible's respectful treatment he is trying to be made law of the land. It's the Koran.

Where did all the pitchforks go? And where's the ACLU to decry this encroachment on the separation of church and state? Hmmm? [Continued...]

This is a common complaint of sorts from people who identify themselves as "conservative" but it is certainly one with plenty of merit to it. For readers who question this assertion, there is certainly no shortage of evidences that could be brought forward to substantiate the proposition that there are countless examples of media double standards. What Bryan notes above is only the latest installment in that long saga...approximately "part mcmlxxxiv" if we put it in Roman numerals.


IF YOU BAN KITCHEN KNIVES...

...pretty soon only criminals will be able to dice an onion. Somebody must have taken an extra dose of stupid pills today to come up with this:

A&E doctors are calling for a ban on long pointed kitchen knives to reduce deaths from stabbing.

A team from West Middlesex University Hospital said violent crime is on the increase - and kitchen knives are used in as many as half of all stabbings.

They argued many assaults are committed impulsively, prompted by alcohol and drugs, and a kitchen knife often makes an all too available weapon.

The research is published in the British Medical Journal.

The researchers said there was no reason for long pointed knives to be publicly available at all.

This nonsense actually has a history, starting unsurprisingly in France... [Continued...]

Once again, rather than focus on people's behaviour and ways of influencing that, the focus is instead on the inanimate object involved in the bad behaviour. The root and matrix of the problem is one of extreme liberalism being a mental disorder -in this case the disorder of solipsism.

If these people actually sought to look at the subject in question logically, they would hopefully realize that weapons bans do not affect the access of criminals to those banned items. The reason should be obvious: criminals do not play by the rules. That is why the crime rate is as a rule higher in places with strict gun control laws and lower as a rule where such restrictions are minimal if existent at all.

Your host predicts that the British -who have the same kinds of problems with knives that we do with guns in America -will discover this the hard way when crimes with these kinds of knives increase rather than decrease with this new policy. One would have thought they would have realized this by taking note of the significant failure of their gun control policies to curb gun-related violence but then again, that would require a normal intact functioning brain capable of utilizing such tools as reason and logic. With extreme liberalism being the mental disorder it is (and not a political philosophy) their failure to recognize this does not surprise Us. Moving on though, there is the subject of Linda Foley...

LINDA FOLEY CAN'T HIDE FOREVER

But she's trying. But a reporter and member of the Newspaper Guild union is trying to flush her out:

Up to now, your efforts at clarification have merely muddied the waters. I declare myself confused, and I'm not happy about it. I want to be clear about where my union's president stands on this issue.

I therefore call upon you to state clearly and unambiguously whether you believe that any branch of the US military or government has adopted a deliberate policy of targeting journalists in war zones. This is a simple question, easily answered. I can see no rational reason for you to hesitate about answering it.

At a time when the public's trust in the integrity of journalism is at a new low, our profession can't afford to encourage the perception that we're economical with the truth. I trust you'll put aside your hesitation and immediately explain yourself publicly, in a way that leaves no further doubt about your views on this matter.

Rtwt. Here's what I think has to happen for Foley to finally come out of the shadows and start talking. Reporters such as Hiawatha Bray, quoted above, need to not only publicly call on Foley to either put up evidence backing her claims or retract those claims and apologize. Members of the unions Foley leads need to start internal action against her. There is usually a process within these organizations to remove high officers for misconduct or other serious breaches of the union members' trust. Some reporter or preferrably groups of reporters should begin the process to remove Linda Foley. These processes usually entail some sort of investigation, and if the CWA and NP processes do, we'll get some answers. And just starting the action may in and of itself force her to come out of the jungle where she's evidently been hiding with those two 80-year-old Japanse soldiers and start talking. [LINK]

The situation with Linda Foley is yet another example of the rot that often seeks to pass itself off as "journalism" these days.{3} It bears recalling Our musings on the subject of "Deep Throat" and the correlative ramifications thereof to understand with greater precision this dynamic. Another thread pertaining to this subject that comes to mind is one We posted back in December on why many bloggers are more reliable than most who consider themselves "journalists" for getting their facts correct.{4} But enough on that subject and onto a bit of humour in this sequence...

"ALLIES, PART V"

For various reasons, your humble servant was derelict in using any of the previous posts in the Allies series in any JYB update threads. They are to be highly recommended for reading though after you read the above thread. The aforementioned thread summarizes well (and in a somewhat humourous fashion) the reality of the evil we are facing and why so many self-styled "peacemakers" are not taken seriously by social commentators such as Bryan Preston and your humble servant at Rerum Novarum.

WELL, THAT'S DISMISSIVE

Instapundit's quick-take on an important new book:

IN THE MAIL: A copy of Ben Shapiro's book, Porn Generation : How Social Liberalism is Corrupting our Future.

While there's no doubt that porn is much more widespread (amusingly, there's a link to the "Paris Hilton collection" on Shapiro's Amazon page), as I've noted before, there's not much support for the idea that more-available porn (or pro-sex material generally) is doing any harm to America's children.

Yeah, that're real amusing--the fusion of the high-class hotel heiress with gutter entertainment is just a laugh riot.

The book in question is Ben Shapiro's Porn Generation : How Social Liberalism is Corrupting our Future, and here's the blurb from its Amazon page:

In Porn Generation you'll learn: · How porn producers see themselves as shaping and taking over Mainstreet U.S.A. · The real face of taxpayer-funded sex education: nine-year-olds learning about condoms; twelve-year-olds being questioned about their "sexual orientation" · The new collegiate do's (accepting "sexile") and don'ts ("dormcest") · How Hollywood and TV have mainstreamed pornography: why porn stars now turn up regularly on television and in glossy ads—and why celebrities imitate porn stars · Mamas, don't let your daughters grow up to be co-eds: why on college campuses—and throughout the porn generation—sexual relationships are as disposable as used condoms Is there any good news? Yes. A lifestyle of playing pimps and hos—even if dressed up in preppie clothing—can only last so long before disease, despair, and depression set in—and many in the porn generation are beginning to wake up to their tragedy. Ben Shapiro closes Porn Generation with a roundtable discussion that brings together the diverse perspectives of columnist and bestselling author Michelle Malkin, Dallas Morning News op-ed editor Rod Dreher, former Princeton chaplain Father C. J. McCloskey III, and columnist and bestselling author David Limbaugh to discuss how bad things have become and what the prospects are for bringing the porn generation back from the brink. Porn Generation is the book that will define this generation—and provide a warning for generations to come.

It seems to me that Shapiro's book should be at least as important to the father of young children--Reynolds is one, I am another--as Buzz Aldrin's new children's book about space travel, to which Reynolds devotes more pixels today. But that's how Reynolds deals with social issues coming from the right generally--mention them only long enough to take a swipe at them, never giving them any amount of serious consideration.

UPDATE: InstaJerk. Note to publishers: Books dealing with morality are evidently over Glenn Reynolds' head. Don't waste your time sending review copies to him. [LINK]

Those who wonder why Rerum Novarum does not link to Instapundit and does not mention them that often{5}, you now have your answer essentially. The subject of pornography is not a simple subject to discuss for many reasons and complex subjects are not well handled in a soundbyte fashion. For that reason, those with blogs{6} which engage in soundbyte approaches are not generally recommended by Us. Moving on from soundbyte journalism to out and out sedition. if not treason there is this bit on the ACLU...

IF YOU FIND THIS SURPRISING, YOU HAVEN'T BEEN PAYING ATTENTION

The western left and radical Islam have the same enemy--namely, you and me, Average American--and thus are making common cause.

That's why the ACLU is busy trying to tear down Gitmo and free the terrorists there.

That's why Amnesty International chirps at North Korea once in a while but regularly and absurdly bellows at America, calling a legitimate war-time prison for 530 illegal combatants "the gulag of our time."

That's why the legacy media, dominated by leftists, trashes the successes in Iraq and plays up the setbacks.

That's why the NY Times goes way out of its way to out the CIA's ability to move terrorists around, making it that much easier for enemies and hostile governments to track the secret sides of the war.

That's why Newsweek ran the flush story, and why they sat on retracting it for so long, and why many in the press continue to defend it--though it's more than clear by now that there was nothing to the story.

Common cause. [LINK]

The present writer has long felt that the ACLU was a seditious organization that should be put out of business. This is not a mere hunch on Our part but instead a realization (after years of observation and research) that every single group that has sought to assert their own pet pseudo-"rights" to the detriment of the common good of society and society's just public order has had the backing of the ACLU in the process!!! We have long noted what constitute actual rights and what are not so constituted -indeed there are about fifty threads or more in the archives of this very weblog discussing these subjects at sundry times and in divers manners. For the sake of providing a few examples, one will be noted from each year this weblog has been in existence; ergo one from 2002, one from 2003, one from 2004, and one from 2005.

Those who are limited in their time to read all the threads provided can focus on the one from 2004 which was posted in the months prior to the election.{7} That suffices to deal with this matter except to note that this writer concurs with Michael Savage's prescription for dealing with the ACLU by trying them under RICO statutes and (if found guilty), shut down the ACLU, liquidate all their assets, and put their leaders in jail. But as there is more to cover, let Us move on...


DEEP THROAT

So...does this mean that the FBI participated in a plot to bring down a president?

HMMM:

Woodward said Felt helped The Post at a time of tense relations between the White House and much of the FBI hierarchy. He said the Watergate break-in came shortly after the death of legendary FBI director J. Edgar Hoover, Felt's mentor, and that Felt and other bureau officials wanted to see an FBI veteran promoted to succeed Hoover.

Felt himself had hopes that he would be the next FBI director, but Nixon instead appointed an administration insider, assistant attorney general L. Patrick Gray, to the post.

Didn't get that coveted promotion, so he backstabbed the boss? [LINK]

This writer already covered that aspect of it in the larger thread of musings on the subject of "Deep Throat" and the correlative ramifications thereof. The long and short of it is that there was an honourable way and a dishonourable way of seeking to achieve the same end result. Mr. Felt chose the dishonourable way for reasons noted in the thread above...some of which Bryan touched on in his post on this subject.

I DON'T BELIEVE FOR A SECOND

that anyone writing on this left-of-center (and verrrry slow-loading, at least on my DSL) group blog really has anything interesting or important to contribute on the subject of WMD anti-proliferation strategies. I just don't think they're serious.

Take a look at the post I linked, for instance. It's an Ed Kilgore post on why Democrats should oppose John Bolton's nomination to become US ambassador to the UN. Kilgore cites as one reason to oppose Bolton that he "has done a dangerously crappy job in his current position as U.S. non-proliferation chief, in protecting Americans from rogue-state development of nukes, and from nuclear terrorism. Blinded as he is by ideology, and distracted as he is by personal ambition, Bolton has blown many opportunities to build a better international system for containing nuclear acquisition efforts by both states and terrorist groups."

But he never, ever mentions the Proliferation Security Initiative. Long-time readers know I've been hitting upon the PSI for a long, long time as one scrap of evidence that counters two major Democrat critiques of the Bush administration's approaches to the world. They say he is a unilateralist; PSI includes 16 of the world's most powerful countries in terms of economics and military (as well as France, well, just because). PSI is probably the most significant new anti-WMD initiative in the past 20 years, and its construction was the work of one John Bolton. So the above slam about Bolton's blown opportunities to build better organizations is just flat-out wrong. But by never mentioning PSI, readers at that blog will never know that there are facts to counter the argument.

The second major Democrat critique of the Bush administration is that it has no strategy for dealing with North Korea's nuclear program. Two answers flow from this critique. First, yes the administration does, and it's called PSI. The organization was specifically constructed to put North Korea in a shipping box to interdict ships suspected of participating in Pyongyang's illicit WMD trade. Criticizing the strategy itself for any reason is legitimate, but to never mention it at all and just hope your readers never find out about it is dishonest...[Continued...]

Bryan Preston of the JunkYard BLOG believes (as those of Us at Rerum Novarum do) that PSI is an important strategic initiative and that the MSM's failure to even mention its existence is shameful. But there is more on PSI to go over...

SPEAKING OF THE ANTI-PROLIFERATION INITIATIVE THAT DARE NOT SPEAK ITS NAME

See Dubya, guest blogging over at Patterico, has a major post full of good information about how the PSI has worked to contain Iran's nuclear program. The gist is that PSI has stopped 11 shipments in the past nine months, including a recent shipment of ballistic missile parts.

See Dubya goes on to describe in detail what PSI is and what it does, subjects covered at this blog--and apparently only this blog--for the past couple of years. Still, go read his post in its entirety and you'll be up to speed on PSI. You'll therefore be up to speed on why I support John Bolton's move to the UN so strongly--he is the architect of PSI, the one and only proven alternative to the Non-Proliferation Treaty that actually does some good. He is also the architect of PSI's sister activitiy, Caspian Guard, which is specifically aimed at halting WMD traffic on the Capsian Sea. Find yourself a map of that body of water and it will be all too clear what CG is all about.

MORE: More background on PSI and Caspian Guard here. [LINK]

This writer is somewhat familiar with the PSI subject. However, he did not know that John Bolton was a major architect of PSI. If that is true, then Our support for his nomination moves from fairly strong to an easy slamdunk.

WHAT?

Patterico says the Commissar has lost it. I have to agree. Regarding the Senate "compromise" that now seems deader than Latin, Commissar calls into question the judgement, the honesty, indeed the patriotism of everyone who doesn't agree with him:

The Main Stream Bloggers have wholly failed us on the filibuster deal. They are a disgrace. Malkin, Kos, Krempasky, Josh Marshall, Captain Ed, Atrios, Hewitt, Kevin Drum, Powerline, and the rest have reduced themselves to narrow, knee-jerk partisan rantings. They predictably stake out a position precisely skewed one standard deviation to the left or right of their respective Official Party Line on every single issue.

They are incapable of original thought. They are unsuccessful 21st Century Turing machines, imitating human imagination, but not quite achieving it.

---

As we, the so-called "United" States of America, confront those issues, do we want our leaders to spend any time on them at all? Or do we prefer they negotiate judgeships 24x7? And, if they DO manage to squeeze in a few minutes to deal with issues of national security, the economy, or the future, do we want them to do that from the narrowest, most partisan, most divisive posture possible?

These questions are fair; and the answers are obvious. Nor are these questiond the exclusive province of Moonbats and squishy-soft liberals. Anyone with an ounce of patriotism, anyone who aspires to the smallest thought-leadership role, any responsible person with any audience whatsoever, should be able to figure out what position to take on this issue.

The filibuster deal is a good thing; it may not be the "salvation of the Republic" as the Senatorial blowhards claimed last night, but it is a positive thing.

That, sir, is nuts.

The compromise left in place a minority's ability to thwart the will both of the President and the Senate majority--to overturn the last two elections, in essence. The compromise left in place a mechanism whereby the perpetually petulant can gum up the judiciary. The compromise empowered the very same political elements who spend much of their time demonizing their countrymen and very little of their time actually thinking about dealing with real threats. The compromise was and is a sad joke.

And I came by that position quite easily. I thought about it. I looked at what the Constitution has to say about confirming presidential appointments. And I looked at what the deal would actually do. I found it unacceptable.

For that, some guy questions my patriotism. I'm sorry, but that's just dumb. [LINK]

Of course since Rerum Novarum is not a mainstream blog, your host dodges this attempt by the Commissar to shoot at all the ducks on the pond in the hopes of trying to hit one or two of them. The subject of the filibustering is not the minor matter that the Commissar thinks it is. This is why your host wrote on this matter last month and outlined not only the lack of Constitutional grounding for this action but also why this so-called "compromise" actually gives the Democrats the right to filibuster anyone they see fit except the three agreed upon nominees. And since those nominees were being appointed to lower court positions, that also (if we want to get technical about it) does not rule out the possibility that the Democrats would filibuster them if they were to be appointed by President Bush to the Supreme Court!!!

Nonetheless, We point you to Our previously written material on this matter (under the heading "The Stupid Party Strikes Back" Dept.) and also to an earlier thread from the Framers Know Best series which dispatches with the attempts of the Democrats to appeal to any kind of Constitutional precedent for this action. We also covered this in an earlier audiopost on filibusters but for the sake of espediency, the latter threads are connected to the "Stupid Party" thread for a convenient "one-stop" surfing for you the reader.


GOOGLING AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL

Publius Pundit has the formerly well regarded human rights organization dead to rights. And I mean dead to rights--Amnesty International is bashing the United States, a model of human rights and liberty for the world, while nary laying a glove on Castro, one of the world's foremost political prison landlords.

But why is Amnesty selling its credibility for a short-lived cheap shot at the US?

I think Amnesty's turn is a reflection of two things. First and most obvious, knee-jerk left-wing politics nowadays nearly always point the finger of doom at the west and most often at the United States, as though any western country has ever had the abusive human rights record of, say, China or any old Soviet bloc state. Amnesty being a creature of the left, it will likewise villify the west and the US. You will not find, for instance, Amnesty making much of a stink about anything al Qaeda does or announces it will do. But you will constantly find Amnesty harping on the US, even begging other countries to arrest our duly elected leadership when they set foot on foreign soil.

Treasonous? If Amnesty's president--more on her later--were an American, you betcha. Since she isn't, it's just moonbattery as an extreme sport. There is no excuse for it. But there is a reason for it.

That reason is the second thing and to me it is more interesting. And it's related to the first. The fact is pressure groups can get a response from open western-style democracies. Letter writing campaigns, internet pressure drives, press conferences--all of these tools and more are effective against governments that are accountable to voters who can withdraw their support at any time. Groups like Amnesty know that they can call a press conference or issue a press release and just like that they'll have the President of the United States or his spokesman trotting out to refute the charge or offer up some kind of explanation. Amnesty knows the western media will give its charges against the US major play, even if to refute them, no matter how absurd the charge itself is. Amnesty also knows from long experience that it can expect no such response from true tyrannies. Saddam Hussein had probably had a good laugh or two as Amnesty reps skulked out the door of one of his many palaces. And I'm sure the ChiComs just read Amnesty's letters, chuckle, and then shred them. Or maybe they keep them and use them as kleenexes or something. Whatever, tyrants won't trot out to answer Amnesty's charges. They don't give a fig what their own people think--why would they care what at bunch of whiny western leftists think? They don't and they won't...[Continued...]

Extreme liberalism (or so-called "progressivism") is not a political philosophy but is instead a mental disorder. Period.

Indeed, the very methods such people use amply attest to this without ambiguity.{8} But there is more on Amnesty International to touch on in this thread so let Us get to it...


TRAVESTY INTERNATIONAL

Shocking news: Amnesty's top officials are in the tank for the left.

The top leadership of Amnesty International USA, which unleashed a blistering attack last week on the Bush administration's handling of war detainees, contributed the maximum $2,000 to Sen. John Kerry's presidential campaign.

Federal Election Commission records show that William F. Schulz, executive director of Amnesty USA, contributed $2,000 to Mr. Kerry's campaign last year. Mr. Schulz also has contributed $1,000 to the 2006 campaign of Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, Massachusetts Democrat.

Also, Joe W. "Chip" Pitts III, board chairman of Amnesty International USA, gave the maximum $2,000 allowed by federal law to John Kerry for President. Mr. Pitts is a lawyer and entrepreneur who advises the American Civil Liberties Union.

Amnesty stands by its "gulag" nonsense. What I want to know is how can officials working for a charity afford to give in the thousands to any political cause? Whatever happened to suffering for the sake of justice? Amnesty is led by nothing more than latte liberals now. [LINK]

It is not difficult to highlight the reasons why groups with the outlook of Amnesty International act as illogical as they do.

Indeed, tomes of type could be spilled covering various facets of this rather ample subject. For that reason, it suffices to note these things in a few brief bits -along with the latest manifestation of idiocy from Amnesty International- before moving on to the subject of North Korea. North Korea is (of course) a country whose goverment's treatment of innocent citizens makes any minor inconveniences of US policy (towards suspected or actual terrorists) look like Sunday school by comparison. However, you would not know this to listen to the drivel of Amnesty International (more correctly called Travesty International as Bryan noted) on the matter...

TARGET: NORTH KOREA

Clinton W. Taylor sends in a link to this WSJ story about US efforts to deal with North Korea. North Korea is a bit like a hydra in terms of the threats it poses; on the one hand, it is constructing a nuclear weapons program and selling technonogy derived from and used in that program to willing buyers including some of America's most dangerous enemies. On the other hand, NK also deals heavily in narcotics, illegal pharmaceuticals, even fake Viagra and counterfeit cigarrettes, on black markets. NK is also one of the world's leading currency counterfeiters. The latter two illegal trades bring in hard currency which Pyongyang badly needs to shore up its pathetic economy and to purchase technology needed to keep its army viable and its other weapons programs operational. Essentially, North Korea exports nothing but evil and its various illicit industries feed each other and keep the Kim cult in power. And the profits ultimately end up in North Korean reactor facilities funding Kim's nukes.

The linked article goes into much more detail; I am summarizing to get to the point, which is that contrary to assertions from the left the Bush administration is and has long been pursuing a multi-pronged and multi-lateral approach to dealing with the North Korea menace. There was no such strategy during the Clinton years, but there is now.

Correction Bryan, the Clinton Administration had a strategy of dealing with North Korea. It was called appeasement.

The US approach includes the PSI, flogged frequently on this blog, as well as Caspian Guard and something I'd heard very little of before reading the article: the Illicit Activities Initiative. The IAI is the administration's chief weapon to combat North Korea's drug trade, and like the PSI it has been racking up some success even while most of the media and everyone to the left of the political divide pretends it doesn't exist.

All of these activities are being managed through something called the North Korea Working Group, which is an interagency effort to pool resources into a coherent strategy for dealing with the multidimensional North Korean threat. It's the kind of thing that we badly needed before 9-11, when thanks to the Gorelick Wall relevant agencies were forbidden from effectively communicating and sharing intelligence. The maligned Patriot Act went a long way toward tearing down that wall, and my guess is it also made the North Korea Working Group's activities possible and productive.

And it's working..[Continued...]

Which is precisely why the MSM will not report on it.

THE LATEST GULAG POLL

Oh, this could get fun.

ck out the interesting new Gallup poll results on confidence in various American institutions. Despite the constant barrage of negative MSM coverage, confidence levels in the military, police, and organized religion are high, while confidence levels in Congress, the public schools, and the media are plunging.

Hm, why would that be? Military wins wars, kicks butt and takes names. Check. Cops round up bad guys. Check. Most of us are Christians, and Christians don't go around blowing up other people. Check.

On the other hand, Congress looks more and more like a bunch of preening narcissists. Check. Public schools descend into PC sex-crazed madness. Check. Jayson Blair, Eason Jordan, Linda Foley, Dan Rather, Newsweek and nearly every other MSM figure and outlet make a sad joke of ethics and fairness. Check.

It must be acknowledged that the MSM figures are not the only ones to make a sad joke of ethics and fairness.

Liberals are going to hate this poll result. Hate it hate it hate it.

:)

Links and quotes over at Michelle's place. Let the left-wing police state fear-mongering begin! [LINK]

Give them time Bryan...give them time.

Moving from the pleasing to a "grandmaster of the obvious", we come to the subject of Howard the Duck Dean...

MAD HOWARD DEAN

just can't keep both of his feet out of his mouth.

What serious person says Republicans have never made an honest living in their lives?

The answer of course is simple: no one. That is why those who make such assertions are not to be taken seriously by people who are actually interested in ideas rather than ideologies.

What serious person believes the Republicans really have the power to short black districts voting machines? Even in Democrat-dominated districts?

What serious person uses the name of the Lord on the way to smearing the Bush administration as eroding the core of our democracy?

What serious person does any of these things?

No serious person does any of these things. But DNC Chairman Howard Dean does all of them--in one speech! Amazing. He's a walking stereotype for everything that's wrong with the Democrats.

Some will blame Dean's foot-in-mouth disease on his "straight talking." Others will blame it on a Rovian conspiracy.

I blame Cowboy Troy. [LINK]

Those who wondered why your humble servant at Rerum Novarum supported the nomination of Howard Dean to chair the DNC now have your answer...though Bryan's tying in Cowboy Troy to anything related to Howard the Duck Dean is not fair to Cowboy Troy. Nonetheless...

THE WHITE, CHRISTIAN PARTY

HoDean has done it again--this time slamming the GOP as the "white, Christian party." Add it to the litany of over the top divisive remarks to escape Dean's mouth since becoming DNC chair.

Doug Payton tosses up a few stats that, if Democrats were the introspective kind, might give them pause.

But Democrats are not the introspective kind. No amount of statistical evidence, factual counterexamples or information of any kind is going to dissuade the Democrats that they are wrong about anything. Heck, as I write this the entire socialist project in Europe is unravelling before our eyes. For the past decade and more the Democrats have argued that America should become more like Europe, that we should build a healthcare system or a tax system or a legal system or you name it system on the European model. Yet Europe is now before our eyes coming unglued. If the Democrats were the introspective kind, events in Europe might give them pause. But they're not, so introspection is not going to happen.

The problem is a weltanschauung marinated in solipsism Bryan. There is a reason why when this writer decided to define the term solipsism on his Miscellaneous BLOG that it was done after several references to political situations...and in reference to Deanings in general. But rather than write anything new, let Us revisit Our previously written observations on this matter:

[The] epistemological theory of solipsism [is one] whereby the self knows nothing but its own states and their constituent modifications if you will. This is a core philosophical flaw of modern day liberal political views...

This is why certain kinds of people of the extremist liberal mindset such as the Deanings cannot be reasoned with. You can throw all the facts in the world at them and reason until your gray hairs fall out but they will not budge because so much of what you would say does not pertain to them personally. [Excerpt from the Rerum Novarum Miscellaneous BLOG (circa February 7, 2004)]

It should not surprise astute readers that these same problems subsist with many who call themselves "peacemakers" on the war subject.

Here's what's going on. Shortly after the 2004 election there was a struggle for what's left of the soul of the Democrat Party. It was a bit like struggling for the crumbs left over from a Michael Moore Subway session--there wasn't much there--but the struggle was real and it was important.

Indeed. This writer even posted in dialogual form a thread from a reasonably level-headed Democrat who was concerned about this very dynamic.

One side in the struggle recognized that so-called "values voters"--people who generally believe in a strong country, a strong family and a strong sense of right and wrong--voted overwhelmingly for the Republicans and for President Bush. This side of the Democrats saw the loss of the values voters as something that could be rectified with the right approach to issues and the right outreach tactics. This side of the DNC was essentially saying to the other side "Look, we can win these voters back if we stop alienating them and start listening to their concerns."

The other side of the Democrats wanted none of that. They mocked the values voters as hicks living in Jesusland. They smeared values voters as backward fools following Smirky McHilterchimp to our collective doom. This side of the DNC was all but ready even to excommunicate the other side of the DNC, and has all along blamed every single bad thing in the world either on Bush, on Christians, on Republicans or "sellout Democrats" who offer nothing but Republicanism-lite.

The struggle between these two sides played out as the fight to become the next Chairman of the Democratic (sic) National Committee. The Jesusland-mocking side's champion was Howard Dean, who during the campaign had cast himself as represting the "Democratic wing of the Democratic Party." The more moderate side really didn't coalesce around a single candidate, and Dean manuevered well enough to trounce all of his opponents without much of a fight.

So the anti-values voters wing--the anti-Christian wing, the anti-American wing, the anti-morality wing, the anti-everything wing--of the Democrat Party won. With them there is no accomodation for Christians, or indeed with anyone to their political right, which is about 80 percent of the country. Dean is the perfect man to lead what's left of his party right over the cliff. And he's doing a bang-up job of it...[Continued...]

Which is (again) why this writer was pleased that Dean became DNC chairman. It insures that no matter how badly the Stupid Party screws up, the Evil Party will do even worse. But enough on that matter as we have one final installment in this series before wrapping it up.


WHEN ANN COULTER

suggested shortly after 9-11 that we should invade the Arab world, kill off its leaders and convert the region's inhabitants to Christianity, hilarity ensued. If by "hilarity" you mean that she got fired from National Review, had to apologize and has had to live down the comment ever since, that is. Of course the left will never, ever let her live that one down.

But when the leader of Amnesty International suggests that foreign governments should--in a time of war, no less--arrest the leaders of our government on trumped-up claims of war crimes that amount to criminalizing policy differences, the media yawns.

See what was written above about hypocrisy and double standards...

Actually, so did the blogosphere when I blogged about it last week.

But today Captain Ed is on the case, and so is the rest of the sphere. Powerline takes a crack, and NRO links.

Finally. Glad you people decided to catch up.

Anway, for all the hyperbole, at least Coulter was suggesting doing things to the leaders of countries that had for years incubated terrorists who had just attacked us. William Schultz is suggesting doing things to the leaders of our country that would have the effect of decapitating our government in the middle of a war. Where I come from, that's treason. That he did it just to get his mug on the evening news is no excuse, either. Last time I checked, seeking publicity was no defense against a criminal charge.

So, now that the blogosphere has caught up to the JYB, let's lead again and suggest a remedy: Schultz should face charges for treason and he should be tried as an enemy agent of influence. The facts on that are plain--he tried to persuade foreign powers to cripple our government while we are engaged in hostilities. It should be a straightforward trial from that point of view. The discovery portion of the trial should focus on Amnesty's financial records, seeking proof that Schultz and his organization have been bought and paid for by some foreign power (probably via CAIR or some similar Islamist mouthpiece) or by some Soros-esque figure.

Yeah, that's a fantasy, I know. This nation doesn't take treason seriously anymore and doesn't prosecute traitors. If it did, Schultz wouldn't be the only one facing jeopardy. [LINK]

Indeed. As this writer noted earlier, the ACLU should also be tried under RICO statutes for if not treason then at least sedition. If found guilty, they should be put out of business, their assets liquidated, and their spokesmen jailed. The same is the case for Amnesty International and also CAIR. Lucky for those groups your host is not in a position to do any of these things or else all of them would be in deep kim chee. God-willing the Bush Administration will pull their heads out and realize this before these termites and whores of a political nature cause any more damage to our efforts in the war on terror.


Notes:

{1} This writer can think of at least one so-called "progressivist" who would find it more newsworthy that the US military may have detained children in Abu Ghirab rather than focusing on truly horrific news such as the Islamofascists beheading children!!! [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa March 11, 2005)]

{2} A subject that We have covered twice at Rerum Novarum. (See the threads on Nick Berg and Paul Johnson for more details on that subject.)

{3} Whether these be self-styled "journalists" in the MSM or self-styled "journalists" in the alternative media who claim to hate blogs yet who essentially run their own version of Instapundit in all but name.

{4} See footnote three.

{5} By a quick count there are nine Rerum Novarum posts where Instapundit is mentioned. Of those nine, six of them were either JYB Update threads (five) or a Volokh Conspiracy multipost thread (one). There are also two posts which mention Glenn Reynolds by name and one of them is the aforementioned Volokh Conspiracy multipost thread.

{6} And sites which run a blog feature in all but name (but refuse to acknowledge this).

{7} It is about as complete an exposition insofar as this subject can be remotely covered in its many facets in a single weblog post.

{8} Leaving aside for a moment (i) the illogical premises from which they operate and (ii) the the incoherence that logically results from such mental midgitry. There is also (iii) the common (and profoundly disingenuous) manipulation of sources which is part and parcel to their entire weltanschauung but that is enough on the latter subject for the present time.