June 29th 2005
Coming Soon To A Post Office Near You?
Will the U.S. follow Mexico’s lead?
To find out more, see “So…Mexican Racism is OK?” at the blog of the ever-watchful Michelle Malkin.
Archive for June, 2005
June 29th 2005
Five Bucks Will Getcha A Vote
Here’s the full text of a link by Hinderacker at PowerLine:
Democratic Party officials in East St. Louis, Illinois have been convicted of massive voter fraud in last November’s election. The local jury convicted them of, among other things, paying people to vote Democratic. This is, really, only the tip of the iceberg; still to come is an attempted murder trial arising out of the effort by a Democratic Party official to murder a witness who threatened to blow the whistle on the Democratic Party’s electoral fraud. Based on press accounts, I understand that in the attempted murder case, the prosecution will offer into evidence photographs that were shown to the Democratic Party official, which appeared to show the dead body of the witness whom the Democratic Party official had ordered murdered.
Voter fraud has been a key part of the Democratic Party’s electoral strategy for years. Will criminal prosecutions slow down the Democrats’ efforts to commit fraud in future elections? I doubt it, but it is good to see ordinary citizens rising up, through the criminal justice system, to bring the Democratic Party to heel.
Follow the link in the text to a bunch of other interesting material. The convicted party bosses and functionaries bought votes for as little as $5, or some booze or cigarettes. Can you imagine a more disgusting disrespect of Democracy?!
Here’s a fitting sentence: Loss of citizenship. It would serve these slimes right.
June 29th 2005
OOOPS!
From the WashPost:
The U.S.-Asia foreign policy establishment here is positively gaga over a teensy transmission error last week by consultant Chris Nelson , author of the highly authoritative Nelson Report, a must-read for those involved in foreign affairs, especially on Asia.Nelson, who works for Samuels International, prepared an exceptionally frank “special report for the embassy of the Republic of South Korea” titled “Players on Korea Policy in Washington, D.C.”Acknowledging his brutal assessments — his survey left few untrashed — he warned the embassy that “if ANY of this Report is seen by ANY one outside of the embassy, its humble author is going to have to receive political asylum.”
Alas. Nelson, instead of sending the 22-page analysis to the Korean Embassy, hit his list for Nelson Report subscribers, administration officials, Hill folks, think tankers, media types and others — more than 800 people, including many of whom he had skewered or identified as people who talk to him. So it’s most unclear who would offer asylum.
Among the terms Nelson used for various named individuals: blowhard, genuinely mentally unbalanced, difficult, trouble, dishonest by omission.
Nelson’s sheepish follow-up email got it right: “Apology is impossible at this point. I can only ask mercy.”
June 29th 2005
Selling Unocal To China: Insane
Unocal announced yesterday that it has received a waiver from Chevron allowing it to discuss with the Chinese the prospect of selling a pivotal US energy asset to an unfriendly Communist country:
Unocal intends promptly to commence such discussions with CNOOC Limited. There can be no assurance that any agreement with CNOOC Limited will be reached. In connection with entering into the Chevron merger agreement, the Unocal board of directors recommended the transaction to Unocal stockholders. That recommendation remains in effect.
It’s hard to imagine an acquisition of greater strategic value to the Chinese than Unocal. If an oil war (hot or cold) with the US emerges in coming years as many dread they will, it will be about delivery routes and supply. Keep a map of the world in your mind as you consider that Unocal international operations have nearly 12 billion barrels of reserves in country’s like:
- Thailand, where Unocal operates 100 oil platforms
- Indonesia, including 90% ownership of fields around the Makassar Straits, which most oil to China would have to pass through
- Vietnam, critical also to sea lanes
- Myanmar and the Yadana pipeline to Thailand
- Azerbaijan, which is a bit too far west but still could figure into China’s strategic interests in Central Asia.
- Congo, which would go nicely with China’s rabble-rousing in Zimbabwe
And then there’s the US operations. Frank Gaffney mentioned on Hugh‘s show yesterday that Unocal has rare earth mineral resources that are virtually irreplaceable and of significant commercial and military importance.
There are so many reasons why it’s in China’s military interest to buy Unocal, and sea lanes has got to be at the top of the list. From Dawn’s Early Light:
Vietnam is in a strategic geographic position with important oil shipping lanes nearby. Rather than attempting to, as they say, reinvent the wheel, I would like to refer you to Tom Collins’ excellent work (he has a history inside the oil industry) and unique perspective on the visit over at QuillNews.
“But the energy realities of the region remain. Oil and energy security will be on the agenda when Khai visits with President Bush today. However, now instead of competing over oil discoveries and drilling rights nearby, China and its East Asian neighbors are forced to rely on oil and gas shipped from the Middle East. Pressure on security of the sea lanes remains paramount to every state in the region where no one trusts anybody else. China’s military build up, partly in its blue water navy to project military power at sea, continues and is causing nerves to twitch in the region. Now, instead of working to deal with the riches of oil at home, Vietnam and the US find themselves again talking about oil – this time keeping sea lanes for oil transportation open.
The Commerce Department exists to approve deals like this in order to balance our trade deficit. They’ve got to think outside that box on this one!
See also:
Beijing Trying To Buy Unocal
June 29th 2005
I Guess This Says It All
From the LATimes presentation of the Dem talking points, artfully couched as “Analysis:”
Tad Devine, a veteran Democratic consultant, charged that the reason the administration is emphasizing 9/11 again “is simple: It is a strategy of fear. But as the nation is further and further removed from what happened on that day …”
One party faces the the future as if 9/11 actually happened. The other just wants to go back to the days before it happened, and repeat the mistakes that brought the world to that point.
June 29th 2005
Hyperbole Of The Day
“The genius of Canada, almost unparalleled in the world,
is built on shared identity, out of respect for each other.”
is built on shared identity, out of respect for each other.”
That’s Alex Munter, national spokesman for Canadians for Equal Marriage, on Canada’s House of Commons passing a gay marriage bill. (AP)
For quotes that may be more to your liking, visit Defend Marriage Canada.
June 29th 2005
DNC: Missing On All Cylinders
The revamped official Dem National Committee blog may look a bit more professional than the old “Kick Ass” blog — apparently renamed since they’ve the the recipient, not the deliverer, of ass-kickings lately — but it’s still braying loudly and dangerously stupid.
Here’s their summary of what was wrong with the president’s speech on Iraq yesterday evening:
Iraq is not where Osama is –As if the war is only about catching Osama. Besides, as Howdy the milblogger said,
80% of the captured combatants here are foreign. Most are Saudi. Go figure. Most of the 9-11 bombers are Saudi. … Societies like Saudi Arabia breed dissenters and criminals….ultimately making bad neighbors. So, we fight here or on United States soil. See the connection now to 9-11? Why would they come to fight here? Hate brings them, hate brought them on 9-11.
Iraq was not responsible for 9/11 – Ditto. This was the Big Talking Point for the Dems, headlining the obedient media’s follow-up stories:
House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi accused Bush of demonstrating a willingness “exploit the sacred ground of 9/11, knowing that there is no connection between 9/11 and the war in Iraq.”
Besides, that point has been made scrupiously clear by the administration since Day One. Afghanistan was about 9/11, Iraq is about preventing the next 9/11.
Terrorists continue to train, violence and intensity continue to increase – And why do they do so? Because they know that with violence, the DNC will become their ally in dispiriting America,which is the only way we can lose this war. If terrorists can learn from history (the US in Vietnam) why can’t the Dems … especially since they’re so fixated on that war? Anyway, if we were to leave Iraq tomorrow, do you suppose the training of sociopathic jihadists would stop? Isn’t it better to kill them before they’re trained?
The rest is just Bush-bashing. No alternative policies are moved forward. And the words “freedom,” “democracy” and “Iraqi vote” appear nowhere in the post.
Which I guess goes to show you can fool 47% of the people most of the time.
June 28th 2005
Here’s How We’ll Win The War
Charlie Rangle, perhaps the worst example of Democracy in America, but oft-quoted because he’s black, has advice for the president that he feels will help the Bush see the light for an Iraq solution:
“We want to make certain that the President tells us what he is doing, and we won’t agree to anything less.”
“Charlie, George here.”
“Yes, that George, Charlie. … W. … Yes, the president.”
“Let’s see if we can get through this call without any more obscenities, OK Charlie? … Fine, I’ll note that you think my entire family history and administration are obscenities.”
“OK, and Dad’s too. Look, I just wanted to take you up on your suggestion and let you know what I’m doing. I know you won’t settle for anything less.”
“OK, you won’t agree to anything less. Whatever. Charlie, I wanted to let you know that we’re going to be doing a little incursion into Syria tomorrow, and at the same time we’re going to be sending some CIA guys into Iran with 17 suitcases full of money to finance the resistance movement there.”
“Charlie, that was in 1953, for cryin’ out loud! We were trying to stop Stalin from taking over the oil.”
“No, not the ‘Bush-we,’ Charlie, the ‘America-we.’”
“C’mon, Charlie, I said no more obscenities, OK? And finally, in Afghanistan, we just got some pretty good intelligence on Osama, so we’re going to be working with the Pakis and Karzai’s guys in a very sensitive area on the Pakistan-Afghanistan border. It’s pretty darn close to China, and the last thing we want is for them decide to start some war games or something while we’re up there.”
“Remember 9/11, man! Uh-huh … uh-huh … well I wouldn’t put it that way. Look, I just wanted you to know. Now listen, we’ve got a lot of troops and agents at risk in this operation, so I can count on you to not go on TV or put something up on Ariana’s blog, can’t I?”
“Charlie? Charlie?”
June 28th 2005
Air America Cues Up The Prez
I was out of range of my usual talk radio station today, which led to me stumbling onto Air America, where I heard the end of one show and the beginning of another. The subject, of course, was President Bush’s speech, which was still a couple hours away.
Arabs are too dumb to want freedom. That was the message of the first show; an amazing thing to hear from the Left, which supposedly is all about human rights, freedom and the human spirit soaring to be free. The messaging started when a Bush voter called in and was promptly called an “ass.” When it turned out the caller was not exactly doctrinaire in his support of Bush, the host chided him for not learning from history — history that teaches us that there has never been a successful democracy in the Arab world, and therefore there never will be.
Ignoring the fact that there are Arab democracies (Turkey, Lebanon and in a way, Israel), the idiocy and racism of the statement is breathtaking. There never was a Democracy until America; so is Democracy the sole purview of white Eurocentric cultures? The Japanese, Taiwanese and Koreans seemed to have picked it up. Are Asians better than the Arabs? How about the Indians? Blacks … well, true black democracies are rare to nonexistent in Africa, so I guess Air America probably feels that blacks are incapable of wanting freedom and democracy, too. They’d better not say that to their listeners.
The war is only about WMDs. The second show started with a long lead-in about WMDs, full of quotes Rumsfield and Bush probably wish they could take back today. The point was obvious: The war is about WMDs, there are no WMDs, therefore the war is illegal, false, a sham, a run for oil, the Bush/Nazi connection, whatever.
World War I was about the assassination of a Balkan royal. Is that why we fought it? World War II was about kicking butt after our Pacific Fleet was bombed. But is that why we fought it? Vietnam was about a destroyer being shelled in the Gulf of Tonkin. But is that why we fought it?
Iraq is about being left no options by a despot who was starving his people. It’s about stopping a guy from creating (with oil-for-food money) and using (again) WMDs. It’s about destabilizing the current, and unacceptable political reality in the middle east. It’s about North Korea, Iran and keeping the terrorists there instead of fighting them here.
So, in other others, Air America was about what I expected it to be.
June 28th 2005
Paranoids Rule On PBS Watch
Maybe I’m naieve. I just think that if you’re in charge of something, you ought to know what you’re in charge of. The liberal media, knotted up by paranoia, disagree.
Here’s the NYT’s Frank Rich on yesterday’s revelation that Clinton-appointee Kenneth Tomlinson, chair of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, had several PBS shows monitored for their liberal/conservative content:
That doesn’t mean the right’s new assault on public broadcasting is toothless, far from it. But this time the game is far more insidious and ingenious. The intent is not to kill off PBS and NPR but to castrate them by quietly annexing their news and public affairs operations to the larger state propaganda machine that the Bush White House has been steadily constructing at taxpayers’ expense. …
There’s only one obstacle standing in the way of the coup. Like Richard Nixon, another president who tried to subvert public broadcasting in his war to silence critical news media, our current president may be letting hubris get the best of him. His minions are giving any investigative reporters left in Washington a fresh incentive to follow the money.
… Look instead at the seemingly paltry $14,170 that, as Stephen Labaton of The New York Times reported on June 16, found its way to a mysterious recipient in Indiana named Fred Mann. Mr. Labaton learned that in 2004 Kenneth Tomlinson, the Karl Rove pal who is chairman of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, clandestinely paid this sum to Mr. Mann to monitor his PBS bête noire, Bill Moyers’s “Now.”
Now, why would Mr. Tomlinson pay for information that any half-sentient viewer could track with TiVo? Why would he hire someone in Indiana? Why would he keep this contract a secret from his own board? Why, when a reporter exposed his secret, would he try to cover it up by falsely maintaining in a letter to an inquiring member of the Senate, Byron Dorgan, that another CPB executive had “approved and signed” the Mann contract when he had signed it himself? If there’s a news story that can be likened to the “third-rate burglary,” the canary in the coal mine that invited greater scrutiny of the Nixon administration’s darkest ambitions, this strange little sideshow could be it.
So this is the tape on the door of the Watergate office? This is the story that will bring down a president viciously fixated on controlling all aspects of communication about his presidency?
Get real. If Bush were so fixated on dominating the message, he might just be dominating it instead of losing control of it so often. And where, in all of this, is there any evidence that any of the information gathered was used against perpretrators of anti-Bush messaging? Who was fired? Who was demoted? Who’s show was moved to go up against CSI? No one.
So, Rich old boy, you’re a reporter; ask the obvious question: If the information hasn’t been used in a personnel sort of way, how has it been used?
It’s been used to make a case, and it’s a case that Rich and others like him don’t want to cover. That is, public funds which are something like 53 percent Republican by the last count (Nov. 2004), are being used to fund something biased against the Republicans. You can’t make that case — and it’s an important case — unless you have the data. And Tomlinson went after the data.
Admitedly, he did it very clumsily. He should have contracted the study internally, in the broad light of day, allowed spirited debate (which would have been fun, as libs would have shouted, “Don’t look at the Emporer’s clothes!”), and gotten on with the study.
As a PR firm, we regularly analyze media content, looking for how our clients’ messages and their opponents’ messages are showing up. It’s useful information. It helps us hone our messages and occaisionally, we use it to show reporters that why we feel their coverage has been unfair.
We never have, and never would, use it to get someone fired. Neither has Tomlinson.
