When cultural worlds collide The duel over dual (religious vs civil) courts

When the Archbishop of Canterbury gave a lecture on civil and religious law… from the religious perspective… at the Royal Courts of Justice on Feb 7th of this year, I was quick (as were the media and other bloggers) to hit the “publish” button with my opinion. I figured this is a “no brainer”, right?

Certainly the Archbishop has taken more than his fair share of criticism in the wake of his published opinion. But first, let’s establish just what the Archibishop said as perspective: You can read his lecture, linked above. But I’ll pull shorter summaries from a report about his interview with BBC on his website.

The Archbishop made no proposals for sharia in either the lecture or the interview, and certainly did not call for its introduction as some kind of parallel jurisdiction to the civil law.

Instead, in the interview, rather than proposing a parallel system of law, he observed that "as a matter of fact certain provisions of sharia are already recognised in our society and under our law" . When the question was put to him that: "the application of sharia in certain circumstances - if we want to achieve this cohesion and take seriously peoples' religion - seems unavoidable?", he indicated his assent.

Since February, I’ve been watching to see just how the UK was going to respond to what appears to be the advocation of a dual court system (however the Archbishop doth protest...). I certainly got a whiff of the latest news - first on our Independence Day when The Lord Chief Justice, Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, weighed in on the issue in a speech to a Muslim audience at the London Muslim Centre, saying that residents of Wales and England had to accept the laws as they found them.

“There is no question of such [Sharia] courts sitting in this country or such sanctions being applied here.

“So far as the law is concerned, those who live in this country are governed by English and Welsh law and subject to the jurisdiction of the English and Welsh courts,” he said.

snip

“Those who come to live in this country and benefit from the rights enjoyed by all who live here also necessarily come under the same obligations that the law imposes on all who live here.”

He stressed that Muslims were free to practice their religion without being in conflict with UK laws, but that some Sharia court sanctions (i.e. flogging, chopping off hands, stoning, executions) were clearly not applicable to Muslims in the UK's jurisdiction. All in all, sounds like a strong statement, yes? As the infomercials say... but wait! There's *more*!

Let's get a bit of groundwork leading up to this most current debate. One might say it came to the forefront (again...) just a month before when Dr. Suhaib Hasan, a judge in an east London Sharia court... yes you heard me right, a judge in an existing Sharia court in London... started pushing for integrating Sharia law into the British legal system, saying if Sharia law is implemented, this country will be a haven of peace."

Dr Hasan, who has been presiding over sharia courts in Britain for more than 25 years, argues that British law would benefit from integrating aspects of Islamic personal law into the civil system, so that divorces could be rubber-stamped in the same way, for example, that Jewish couples who go to the Beth Din court have their divorce recognised in secular courts.

He points out that the Islamic Sharia Council, of which he is the general secretary, is flooded with work. It hears about 50 divorce cases every month, and responds to as many as 10 requests every day by email and phone for a fatwa - a religious verdict on a religious matter.

Dr Hasan, who is also a spokesman for the Muslim Council of Britain on issues of sharia law, says there is great misunderstanding of the issue in the West.

In fact, the first English Muslim court opened for business in 1982. Since then, they've grown to ten courts: three in London, others in Birmingham, Rotherham and Dewsbury. Unlike the hardline courts in Islamic law Muslim nations, they handle more mundane and financial issues according to Muslim beliefs.

Speaking to The Times, Suhaib Hasan, from the Islamic Sharia Council, who also acts as a judge, said his organisation receives 10 to 15 e-mails a day about different aspects of Sharia, from inheritance to marriage.

“From the beginning, people have wanted our services. More and more come back to us,” said Dr Hasan. “Each month we deal with 20 cases.”

snip

Though their rulings have no basis in law, participants abide by them voluntarily and often settle their disputes without referral to British law authorities.

I certainly think the "haven of peace" bit from Dr. Hasan escapes me with his argument, but I sure got the idea that he wanted that "no basis in law" bit to change so that their rulings can be accepted as legitimate in British law. Which seems rather one sided as the Sharia law doesn't appear to accept English law decisions (i.e. divorce) with the same legitimacy.

Naturally we all make leaps to Sharia court decisions that are the height of western injustice. One relatively "tame" example might be the 28 year old Malaysian woman who's husband converted not only himself, but their three children to Islam without telling her. Then he forced her into a Sharia law court for a divorce and custody terms. As a non-Muslim in an Islamic law nation, she did not have the Malaysian constitution on her side.

Then there are the more brutal sentences associated with Islamic law, an example of which is the Afghanistan student, sentenced to death in Feb of this year for downloading and distributing a report on abuse of women in Islam, and asking for a debate.

But this is not the first time the Sharia court debate - or in fact it's Jewish court counterparts - has been raised. Canada also has it's history of addressing the same problem, and a recent Feb 2008 article by James Sturcke on the Guardian blog, gives us a recap.

After Canada's 1991 Arbitration Act, both Catholic and Jewish communities set up faith based tribunals to alleviate the back log of court cases on divorce, inheritance and custody issues. In 2003, the Islamic Institute of Civil Justice announced it's intention to follow suit for the 400K Muslims in Ontario.

Needless to say, da sheeeet hit the fan and the protestors hit the streets in Canada. And that included many Muslims averse to the prospect... such as Iranian Homa Arjomand, who organised International Campaign Against Sharia Court in Canada, saying that such a creation would set back Canadian law by 1,400 years.

Premiere Dalton McGuinty equalized all with a stroke of a pen, deciding to ban all faith based arbitrations in Canada in 2005.

I admit I had no knowledge of the existence of the Jewish or Catholic courts in other countries. Even Australia's Melbourne has a Jewish court, and in 2005, Australia underwent the same debate Canada did - also rejecting the proposal. Under the circumstances, Canada's Premiere McGuinty did exactly as he should... separate *all* church and state courts.

Back to Britain's current day debate and the pros and cons. As was pointed out, there are already 10 Sharia courts operating in the UK today. Those that have benefited are those caught between two cultures and Muslim lands. i.e the cases of divorce. In Islam, unless the husband says he divorces you, women cannot remarry. Thus Islamic women can obtain UK or Australia civilian divorces, but they are not recognized by the Muslim faith, and are not free to remarry.

In this instance, an Islamic woman's divorce thru western civil courts gives her no relief. In order to claim her rights and status as an unmarried woman, she must go thru the Sharia court. One might almost say that the lack of those courts is actually denying her a right to be divorced according to her religion. ahhhh... the plot thickens.

On the flip side, some of these same Islamic courts have taken overstepped the bounds of sensibility by taking their justice into the criminal realm as well, freeing some London Somali youths accused of stabbing another.

Youth worker Aydarus Yusuf, 29, who was involved in setting up the hearing, said a group of Somali youths were arrested by police on suspicion of stabbing another Somali teenager.

The victim's family told officers the matter would be settled out of court and the suspects were released on bail. A hearing was convened and elders ordered the assailants to compensate the victim.

"All their uncles and their fathers were there," said Mr Yusuf. "So they all put something towards that and apologised for the wrongdoing."

As is usual with most our debates, what appeared to be a "no brainer" issue is actually clouded by legitimate concerns on both sides of the religious court debate. But one overwhelming issue remains at the center. If Sharia courts are granted some legitimacy with British law, where does that legitmacy begin and end? How can one draw a dividing line between the more mundane financial and divorce decrees, and those that may then tread on a UK citizen's human rights?

And more importantly, should we be setting up these "compromise" legal systems anyway?

Which brings us to today's latest from the London Times, "The Sharia debate: we can't all be equal under different laws", where journalist Matthew Parris was less than bowled over the Lord Chief Justice's speech to the Muslim audience.

“Equality” is a dummy concept in the philosophy of law. Here it allowed both speaker and audience to overlook real differences between them, because everyone is in favour of equality. But Lord Phillips was wrong to say that only recently has English law developed a respect for equality. Common Law and Statute have always regarded everyone as “equal before the law”, but depending on who and what you are and what you've done, your rights may differ. A cat burglar and a householder are not equal before the law.... snip

The only interesting question is whether these inequalities are fair and in the public interest. This must depend on moral and cultural standpoints, which change over time. The argument about “equality” for (say) women who wanted the right to vote, gays who want the right to marry, slaves who wanted to be free, or convicted paedophiles who want the right to be considered for employment in children's homes, has only and always been about the suitability of these categories to enjoy the rights urged for them; not whether the law should be “equal”.

No more than English law does even the most brutal Sharia advocate “inequality”. It simply reflects a cultural belief that women are different. Lord Phillips ducked that by taking equality as his theme.

Certainly Parris has valid points here, for women's rights in Islam are far from equal... even in divorce. But it is later on that he brings this down to a subject near and dear to both my own, and Wordsmith's, hearts. And that is this whole collide of cultural worlds highlights nations created of a subset of hyphenated citizens, each adhering to, and demanding, a different perspective of laws.

But the second claim that Lord Phillips endorses is more dangerous. Decoded, Dr Williams is saying that in a multicultural society it is fine for people within a culture to agree not to exercise certain rights, even if English law would allow them to.

This is a charter for male dominance. It's a charter for cultural bullying; for peer-group pressurising; for self-oppression.... snip

Peer-group pressure and cultural bullying. Yes, that can describe America's prevalent affirmative action mentality in a nut shell. We already see the resurgence (and worse yet, acceptance) of hypenated Americanism as this 2008 POTUS election progresses. We, ourselves, have a large constituency of American Muslims who may see both the benefits, and pitfalls, of attempting to force a legally recognized Sharia court in the US.

The burning question is, will we see this same battle come to our shores? And how will that legalized "hypenating" affect our nation's unity?

UPDATED:Dangerous liaisons, oil & appeasement policyA vision of our future?

There is a slow groundswell in the West. There is no longer a proud and defiant movement to battle the jihad movements who carried out, assisted, or cheered on the 911 bombers that hit US soil in 2001.Instead the US finds itself inexplicably drawn to appeasement foreign policy, driven by war weary denizens.

It is the military families who bear the sacrifices for the war. For the majority, Americans are unaffected… except now – in their minds - in their wallets. Not for the actual war spending mind you, but because of the link from Iraq to the rising price of oil worldwide.

And so we come to the odd 6 degrees of separation between dangerous liaisons, appeasement foreign policy and the price of oil. It's ironic that it will ultimately be gas prices that herd Americans thru the gates to appeasement. But years of "the war is lost" or "this war cannot be won militarily" have taken their toll on the dangerously misinformed US voter.

We are taught Iraq and Bush are the cause for oil prices. They listen to Cindy Sheehan, as she continues the lie that Cheney still owns part of, and profits off of, Halliburton. Too many give a derelict Congress a pass. Increased global demands by a fast developing India and China, an ailing dollar, and topped with speculators fueling commodies are never factored into reality.

Facts tend to be inconvenient to political ends, and mean nothing to the disgruntled. They only know they are paying almost twice the amount they did last year for filling up their gas tanks, and seeing the effect domino into the cost of groceries. We are a nation of blame... as long as it's anyone but ourselves.

And any villain at hand will do. Mostly especially big oil - the industry America so loves to hate. Yesterday we had yet another rerun in Senate Hearings… just as in Nov 2005, Mar 2006 and May 2007, the oil industry execs appear for their annual reaming from Senators, diverting the attention from themselves to wealthy oil barons. Just as nothing happened back in 2005, nor in the decades before, nothing will again be done. But it makes for good political theatre in an election year.

As long as the US equates war on jihad elements with oil, they will support any and all attempts to extract ourselves from that battle... and hang the consequences. This same mentality that ties the two will curtain future military endeavors as a way to guarantee lower gas prices. Therefore a withdrawal from Iraq goes hand in hand with a new approach in foreign policy to accomplish that objective. Appeasement replaces military response.

Thus we come to a vision of our future. A world where our military hesitates to enter Middle East battlegrounds, and diplomats cut deals that ply our enemy with enough incentives to stop the bombs going off daily, achieving a false sense of relative peace.

Americans, desperate for a return to what they see as prosperity lost, are set to elect leadership that will lead us down the rosy path of appeasement foreign policy to accomplish just that end. Even more distressing, that trend is global in nature.

Obama, likely nominee (if you ask him), promises he will be an American President who sits down unconditionally with the enemy. Britain, formerly one of the US's strongest allies, has already placed a pacifist - PM Gordon Brown - at the helm who fits nicely with a President Obama's ideas. Brown has been busy making appointments of diplomats that echo his own sentiments.

____________________________________

UPDATE 5/24/08 - Britain's Foreign Sec'y "queries" Obama's Iran policy

Well now, surprises never cease. While on the surface it appears an Obama Presidency would be a match made in heavey with Britain's PM Brown and Foreign Sec'y Miliband, it's even more likely (and frightening...) that Mr. Obama is too extreme even for the very liberal Brits in power. Oh my...

David Miliband (see "appointment of diplomats" link above) has met with all three Presidential candidates during a trip to the US this week, feeling them out individually on their foreign policy. Apparently, in as polite of terms as possible, he's not terribly impressed with BHO.

Exact accounts of the conversation with Mr Obama differ and there is certainly acute anxiety on the part of the British not to be seen as stoking political controversy in America’s presidential elections. In the past week Mr McCain has repeatedly hammered Mr Obama for what he claims is a “naive” commitment to hold direct talks with foreign dictators.

snip

Mr Miliband, in a press conference with US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, reiterated Britain’s support for the united front on Iran adopted by the US and its European allies, which he believes is beginning to pay dividends. “Our position, jointly, has always been that as long as Iran exercises responsibilities, then it will be able to forge a more productive and positive relationship with the international community,” Mr Miliband said.

An aide later told The Times that the Foreign Secretary was being very careful to avoid direct criticism of any presidential candidate’s positions. But the same source added: “We know Obama wants to engage more, but we don’t know what route he will take or what he means by ‘no pre-conditions’. It has not unravelled yet and, when it does, we will be able to see where it converges or conflicts with what we’re doing.”

A Foreign Office spokesman later said: “I just want to stress that David Miliband is not confused about Obama’s policy. It would be quite wrong to say that.”

END UPDATE
__________________________________________



Australia’s Kevin Rudd is certainly more reserved in military use than John Howard, the previous strong US ally. Tho Rudd remains a strong ally in Afghanistan, and rejects Ahmadinejad, he is still a question mark in the march to appeasement foreign policy.

Pakistan, now under the PPP, has already implemented Obama'esque appeasement policy. They have made pacts with Baitullah Meshud in the S. Waziristan area, and finalizing a similar pact with the Maulana Fazlullah in the NWTA.

Mehsud has had Pakistan dancing to his tune over the past few months. At the beginning of the year, militants ravaged Pakistan with numerous suicide attacks and then suddenly proposed a peace agreement. Under immense pressure from its vulnerable domestic political and economic situation, Pakistan accepted the peace deal and then also accepted the militants' demand for the swapping of prisoners.

The world's reaction to Pakistan’s back room deals? Britain's Brown officials predictably applaud Pakistan's appeasement deals. The Taliban themselves are overjoyed. With the agreements, they have again reinforced their numbers, freeing 55 Taliban militants ranging in importance from the lowly fighter to commanders. As if freedom wasn't enough, Islamabad also "paid a sum of 20 million Pakistani rupees (US$287,000) to the militants."

We all must wonder - was the money paid to the freed jihad terrorists provided by the US for their cooperation in the global war on jihad movements? And will future appeasement deals – paying freed terrorists - also be funded by US incentive money? Such is the ugly reality of striking “deals” with the enemy.

A few of these jailed militants are former guests of Club Gitmo, including Muslim Dost. Mufti Yousuf is again running around free, while Maulana Abdul Aziz of the Lal Masjid (Red Mosque) in Islamabad is expected to be released soon. A fighter who promises to drive Pakistan to a Islamic revolution.
Where is the sanity in the Pakistan government letting loose a fighter, determined to evoke revolution?

Qari Ziaur Rahman, another freed militant they say is destined to become legendary, was also released in exchange for Pak military hostages in the Meshud appeasement agreement. Ziaur is in charge of Taliban finances.

The few not applauding this foreign policy movement is the current WH administration, and those countries who will be most affected by this “illusion of peac” - countries (like Afghanistan) who end up with these beasts proliferating in their own back yard because of another country's "truce". Other traditionally liberal countries, also directly affected with an increasing Muslim immigration that refuses to assimilate, have elected new, more conservative leadership (i.e. Italy, France and the Netherlands). Apparently, for those on the direct receiving end of these kinder/gentler tactics, it’s only a matter of time before the truth hits - one side of the parties only honors compromise.

As the US, as well as other western nations, start caving in to the appeasement trend, what is it we can expect from "peace" with such men, again running free? Do we assume that their hatred of the west dissipated with their release? Will the west be left alone if the US pulls out of Iraq, but stays in Afghanistan?

These beliefs are the delusions of the hopeful and naivel. The Taliban and other jihad movements, fresh off a propaganda victory, are recognized, forgiven, released *and* compensated for their "unjust" confinement. They have reprieve to regroup, re plan. Only this time, they may enjoy new financial and political incentives to bolster their cause. They already head back to their respective battlefields, relishing their second chance to fight the US and the west.

The bombs may go dormant in Pakistan and other places temporarily. But the new wave of global leaders, embodied by a President Obama, leads us to a fool’s paradise. A world of dangerous liaisons where the enemy has been enabled financially, politically and militarily by us - their targets. Time is not on our side.

Ex Veep Gore touts Myanmar tragedy to pimp global warming agenda

Andrew Bolt at Australia's Herald Sun as done a magnificent job examining the tragedy of Myanmar's unthinkable mass murder by Mother Nature. I'm not sure I can add anything of value to his article, Burma Killed by Tyranny". . He has already stated it in direct, non-PC terms.

What I can do is summarize. But I suggest an entire read is in order.

On Gore, morbidly promoting his pet cause.

ThE vultures are circling over Burma's dead. Hey, isn't that fat one Al Gore?

Sure is. And - flap, flap, plop - there he lands, the first to go picking over carcasses for scraps to feed his great global warming scare campaign.

What the world should be learning from this terrible loss of at least 60,000 people in the cyclone that hit Burma last week is that tyrannies kill more surely than any freak of weather.

But Al Gore, who won a Nobel "Peace" Prize for terrifying people with his error-riddled An Inconvenient Truth, wants you to blame instead his pet bogeyman. Tremble, sinners, before the wrath of a hot planet!

In an interview on America's NPR on Tuesday, Gore claimed Cyclone Nargis was actually part of a pattern.

Gore then goes on to cite recent storms in Bangladesh and China. Storms that were actually less intensive than many that hit decades ago when the world's gas emissions were nary a glint in Momma Gore's eye. Bolt does well, pointing out the research that debunks the nonsense the frequency and intensity of storms is not necessarily tied to the world's climate changes. There is no consensus among scientists of such nonsense. Gore, however, doesn't skip a beat for truth.

The *real* culprit:

But what's worse this time is that Gore's blundering attempts to blame global warming for Burma's agony distracts attention from the real causes of this catastrophe - despicable causes we may at least hope to do something about.

If Cyclone Nargis had struck not Rangoon, but Melbourne or Tokyo, it is unlikely more than a few dozen people, if that, would have died. And that's because we are free, and rich - as free people tend to be with capitalism. Even Bangkok would have survived this far, far easier.

But in Burma as many as 100,000 are now feared dead - victims not of global warming, but of a tyranny that has left them poor and defenceless.

snip

Whenever the Burmese people tried to protest against this junta-made poverty, and to demand democracy, they were shot - so often and in such numbers that China is now about the only ally the junta has left. In this way does resource-ravenous China, Olympics host, export its tyranny to the world.

Now consider how this junta - so brutal, unaccountable, incompetent, tyrannical and isolated -- has handled this latest disaster.

Two days before Cyclone Nargis hit, India's Meteorological Department warned the junta's minions it was coming, and where.

But Burma's state-owned media, one of the crudest propaganda outfits I've seen, issued no mass alerts. Indeed, illegal Voice of America broadcasts probably did more to warn Burma's civilians to take shelter than did Burma's own radio station.

The lack of warning to the population, who live in shacks and shanty's that make many of New Orlean's wards appear as mansions by comparison, was unspeakable. Even US Florida citizens, many of whom live in manuf homes, know their protections against the elements are severely limited. But at least they are told of impending doom and given the change to relocate to safer digs.

As if the Burmese/Myanmar authorities hadn't committed enough cardinal sins against their people, they are risking even more lives with their stubborn refusal to allow US aid.

Even now, the junta is killing people with its paranoia. Disaster assessment teams and helicopters from the United States have been blocked from coming in to prepare a huge rescue, and foreign aid teams not already in-country had their applications for visas stalled and aid shipments stopped.

Foreign journalists, whose reports would help raise appeal money, have been banned.

The UN is now "intensely" negotiating with the junta to let in aid workers and ease customs regulations on aid - literally begging the junta to let the world save its people.

So slow has the junta been to let in help, that French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner, founder of aid group Medicins Sans Frontieres, suggested the UN Security Council adopt a resolution allowing aid to be flown into the country by force. China, naturally, is against such interference in the affairs of its "friend".

Apparently, the "junta" has allowed some shipments in... as long as they were bribed with sufficient cash. Which makes them not much more despicable than Gore, dutifully marketing his global warming panic to further line his fat ass pockets.

Beam me up, Scotty. I am quite sure I do not belong on this planet anymore.

Code Pink hits the trail Avoids face off with biker Marines

Code Pinko cowards have much in common with other criminals. They only like to assail easy targets. Once they had notice that the Marines Biker Club was paying a visit to Code Pink's headquarters in Albany, the lily livered cowards left only a sign as their welcome wagon.

"Sorry we missed you boys."

Sure they are... Club member, George Newkirk, hit the nail on the head.

"Yeah, I look at that as the enemy always runs when the marines have landed."

You make me proud, boys. And remember, the rubber side goes down.

Nanny state mentality vs economic realities

Australia had a meeting of the health minds... and left to their own devices, they concocted a plan for their utopian future for Australians' future generations...

i.e...

1: anyone born after 2008 would be banned from buying cigarettes

2: junk food would be taxed

3: everyone in the nation would be mandated to take a fitness test by 2020

Health Minister Nicola Roxon said one idea put forward in a submission was an annual national fitness test where citizens would receive a financial incentive if they pass.

Health stream participants in the 2020 summit also discussed increasing public education about how death can be a "positive experience" to avoid patients panicking when they reach hospital emergency departments.

Health participant, Meredith Sheil, a former Westmead Children's Hospital pediatrician, said many participants had suggested a ban on cigarette sales by 2020.

"A lot of the health submissions suggested a ban on smoking by 2020," she said.

"You would say, 'OK, from now on everybody born after 2008, you are not allowed to sell cigarettes (to)'."

The brillant minds figured that they can make healthy food cheaper by taxing junk food. Might I point out that increasing one food substance over another with higher taxes is NOT not reducing prices of "healthy" food. It's just makes one yet more expensive. It's all relative by comparison.

But right when you think it can't get worse for intrustive Aussie government legislation, it does. They also talked of "sharing patient medical records nationally, to allow a hospital in a regional area to effectively treat an inner-city patient."

Uh... has anyone noted the increased hackers' abilities of late?? That's what we'd all like... putting a database of health records online to invite hackers. Uh huh...

So why would we care about what some nanny wackos in Australia think? Well, there's few socialists that have a lick of originality in their blood. So if one nation goes that route, another nation - most especially a generation of Obamabots - might also eye the same path. Needless to say, the American smoker has been a national pariah for some time now. And we're in the midst of an election where the leading DNC candidates are jumping all over themselves to promise universal health care. That funding has to come from somewhere.

But what about the economic realities of this utopian world of non-smokers?

In a simple word... disasterous. But only until they can find another group of Americans to transfer the tax loss to.

Let's start with just how much individual states rake in from those they so love to demonize. A quick glance at this Jan 2008 chart with the amount of tax cents PER PACK of cigarettes gives you a sober reality check. Mind you... this doesn't include the local county or city taxes that can also be added.

The 51st lowest (they count DC as an add'l district/state in the stats) is South Carolina at 7 cents per pack. They are followed by the lowest tax rate by Missouri and Mississippi at 17 and 18 cents per pack respectively. Kentucky and Virginia are tied at 30 cents a pack. Followed by Florida at 33.9 cents per pack. Seven states in all with 34 cents per pack or under in state taxes.

By contrast, the big three are New Jersey (257.5 cents per pack), Rhode island at 246 cents per pack, and Washington State with 202.5 cents per pack.

In all 51 state/DC districts, 25 have at least $1 per pack tax rates. Six more range between 80 to 99 cents per pack.

When you combine the highest state/local tax combination, look no further than Obama's home town, Chicago... a whopping $3.66 per pack total.

Facts are, according to Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids: via CNS News:

43 states and the District of Columbia have increased cigarette taxes since January 1, 2002, more than doubling the average state cigarette tax from 43.4 cents to $1.073 a pack

Yes folks... targeting the despicable smoker in the nation is big and easy business. No one cares if they raise taxes on smokers, save those low life smokers themselves. Afterall, they're subhumans that care little for their bodies.

The point? There's unbelievably big bucks in each state's budget that's absconded only from smokers. And if you eliminate them, just what do you think the state legislators are going to do? Cut back on their budgets?

If you do, there's most definitely a bridge to nowhere that's just awaiting your offer to purchase.

Fact is there's a rush by many states to fund socialized health care using tobacco funds. They increase the taxes per packs (even more than now), and put the extra cash against the state funds for the program. There's a similar analogy to high gas prices and taxes. But let's not confuse the issue on just who is actually raking in the cash on high fuel prices...

But back to tobacco. The devil in the details behind SCHIPs legislation had much to do with tobacco tax revenue. And according to the Heritage Foundation, states were facing a budget loss of at least $1 million annually, with 17 states facing over $10 mil in tax revenue. It was worse under the Senate version... $1.4 mil annually, with half the states losing over $10 mil annually. California, Ohio and Pennsylvania would lose over $50 mil.

Increasing the tax to support new and ever more expensive programs, combined with the peer pressure to stop smoking, is a recipe for economic disaster. One increases demands for revenue while the other results in less smokers to provide that newly needed revenue. So much for that socialized health program funding. Now where do they turn? DOH! There's no hiding from the money grubbing elected official.

But it doesn't end there. What about that dreaded "big tobacco" industry itself - almost as much a demon as "big oil" in today's society? Those tobacco companies not only employ 100s of thousands of Americans, but they also are frequently backers for state bonds. What happens to all those newly unemployed for a non-smoking world? Let's not forget the farmers now out of a marketable crop. Thus you will notice most of the low tax per pack states tend to be states that have vast tobacco farms.

Last but not least, what happens to the bonds when the sources backing them are no longer in business?

But let's not just stop there. How about our trade deficit? A real "hot button" in today's 2008 prez campaign.

According to a 1997 report from the Friends of Tobacco... a name I'm sure most will find not so endearing:

The output of cigarettes from U.S. factories was 725.6 billion. Of the total, 11.5 billion cigarettes were shipped to overseas forces, including Puerto Rico and other U.S. possessions and 220 billion to other countries.

From 1993 to the 1997 report, there was a $2.9 billion decline in tobacco purchases. We're already losing cash from the smoking subhuman.... how much more can we do without it affecting all the healthy denizens in their wallets?

Yet the US is only #2 in the tobacco producing world. The first? China, of course... producing 2.3 times more than the US. I doubt they will be prodded into feel good health legislation anytime soon.

Too few think of the repercussions of legislation on economics. And that includes those entrusted with writing and passing that legislation - Congress. They won't be reducing their spending any time soon - regardless of which side of the aisle they occupy. So when the money dries up, they merely look for new and more inventive ways to make up the difference on everyone.

The lesson to be learned is... love your fellow neighbor smoker. And don't forget to say thank you! He/she is keeping the US economic merry-go-round fueled, and keeping the taxes of the non-smoker low. The day you force them to adhere to your health standards is a day your pocketbook will rue forever.

Is the "Dumbing down of America" successful?

Fascinating article by Bradley Gitz from the Arkansas Democrat Gazette that echoes some of my fears that the dumbing down of America may be successful.

Several political stories congealed in recent weeks with the cumulative effect of saying something troubling about the intelligence of the American electorate, or at least the intelligence of the American electorate as reflected in the eyes of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. For one, Clinton erred in making claims about touching down in Bosnia under sniper fire. Because there was no doubt about the discrepancy between what actually happened and what she said had happened, the word “lie” was beneficially reintroduced to our political vocabulary. Second, Obama gave an eloquent speech seeking to explain the views of his pastor and mentor, Jeremiah Wright, and to provide an explanation for his failure to disassociate himself from those views. Third, John McCain came under attack for allegedly having said that America will be fighting in Iraq decades after he, everyone he knows and the rest of us are all pushing up daisies.

snip

Per Gitz, Clinton thought we were all dumb enough to blindly accept she put herself in bodily harm to demonstrate her courage on our behalf. BHO sought to extract himself from the Wright association by claiming "everyone has racial baggage and, in the case of Wright, such baggage is understandable in light of our nation’s sorry history of racial discrimination."

In the case of McCain, Gitz points out that "anyone who read the full transcripts of his remarks would readily grasp that he did not remotely mean what his critics, among whose ranks are included Clinton and Obama, say he meant."

Certainly it takes a "dumbed down America" to buy into Clinton's repeated tale of her dangerous Bosnian visit. An America who lazily prefers to believe media headlines, and ignore facts not so readily provided until push comes to shove.

I can only add that a "dumb America", if you read the media reports, also chose to buy into Obama's "A More Perfect Union" speech as perfectly logical, and managed to ignore the not-so-subtle promise of a more socialized American and increased affirmative action'esque policies under his WH admin. Even Americans craving socialism reject preferential treatment under affirmative action. So why they choose to miss this little tidbit boggles the mind.

For McCain, he didn't have much of a fighting chance - being the nominee of the party so many want to hate. Truth of statements would get in the way of that pure emotionalism.

Gitz considers the media slam on McCain as the worst of the three... with both DNC candidates and the media assuming that Americans would be too ignorant to read McCain's actual full statement, and realize that we may very well be in Iraq a century from now... just as we are still in Germany, Japan and Korea a half century plus after those wars were fought. Both the media and DNC assume we - dumbed down America - can not discern the difference between foreign base deploment, and an active fighting force.

Clinton's behavior he passes off very briefly - a sign of her and Bill's desperate ambition to reclaim 1600 Pennsylvania Ave again as their mailing address.

Obama - in the forefront of repeating the McCain's "100 year Iraq war" mischaracterization - proves himself hypocritical... passing himself off as a new and more honest politician while demonstrating just the opposite by perpetuating such insulting mistruths to rally supporters.

Gitz's last sentence?

The cumulative effect of it all was to convey a low regard for the intelligence of the American people. And also to create the nagging hunch that such low regard is perhaps justified.

And herein lies perhaps an ugly truth. The American electorate has been dumbed down enough to be dangerous. We are, in overwhelming numbers, willing to place our political and current events education in the hands of an politically driven media with an agenda. We allow our public schools to utilize textbooks with revisionist history, striking any language considered un-PC in today's hypersensitive world.

Even worse, we are anxious to elect a POTUS and Congress who will put in massive safety nets that provide government care and money from cradle to grave because we are too lazy, lack the ambition, or find it just too hard to take care of ourselves. And to achieve that false sense of security under government control, we're willing to believe anything. It is only when it is too late that the reality of what we lost for that safety net will come home to roost.

Which brings up the tacit notion that Democrats constantly infer by their political policy suggestions. That the majority of American citizens are incapable of making a wise decision for their own welfare, so the government must do that for them. They place government in the position of a doting Mom or Dad, constantly bailing the foolish teenager out of trouble. Tough love is not a position of the liberal progressives.

It's taken decades and generations of public education to indoctrinate our youth into adults who feel their future in the US - with all it's advantages and opportunities - is "hopeless". BHO and HRC both play on this "victimized class" for voters, with BHO actually having the audacity to use the label "hope" prominently in his campaign slogans. It's no surprise, and certainly no scandal that the man states in his speeches that Americans are "bitter". It is wholly in keeping of his view of dumbed down America... again incapable of rising to the changing business climate and world of global trade that costs the US high paying, union industrial jobs.

As for the GOP'ers. There are still a few of us - adamant holdouts for control of our own lives, smaller government and more fiscal responsibility. But judging by Congressional membership voted in (when one of them actually decides to quit or dies....), and the GOP choice for POTUS this year (very liberal in domestic policies) even that segment of America is dying off.

So it may be that the long, hard task of dumbing down of America is, indeed, successful after all.

Haditha "massacre" myth quietly dissolves Ignored by media and ACLU

FrontPage Magazine's Ben Johnson article today, "The Party of Defeat’s Haditha Lie Crumbles", brings two very important points to bear.

1: The media hype, stoked by Murtha's accusations of murder in cold blood, kept Haditha in the forefront of headlines. Now that the electorate has formed an opinion of Murtha, as the defender of the Iraqi innocent, and the US Marine as a cold blooded killer, the media ignores the dismissal of charges of the third of the fourth defendants. The charge? Not murder. But failure to "properly identify every target before opening fire."

In reality, terrorists had fired on the squad from inside the house, and the room where innocent people had been killed was smoke-filled; moreover, according to multiple witnesses, everyone heard an AK-47 “racking” – that is, getting ready to fire upon them. A positive identification would have been both impossible and suicidal. The investigating officers report further observed, according to the prosecution's case, Tatum would have been absolved of throwing a grenade into the room without positively identifying everyone inside, but not firing his rifle. The government ultimately found his actions had not violated the rules of engagement.

In reality, terrorists had fired on the squad from inside the house, and the room where innocent people had been killed was smoke-filled; moreover, according to multiple witnesses, everyone heard an AK-47 “racking” – that is, getting ready to fire upon them. A positive identification would have been both impossible and suicidal. The investigating officers report further observed, according to the prosecution's case, Tatum would have been absolved of throwing a grenade into the room without positively identifying everyone inside, but not firing his rifle. The government ultimately found his actions had not violated the rules of engagement.

There was also the prosecution's star witness, Lance Cpl Humberto Mendoza, a Venezuelan citizen “trying to get his application for U.S. citizenship released by the Naval Criminal Investigative Service, which is holding up his papers.” Mendoza accused Tatum of issuing orders for Mendoza to kill and, upon refusal he says, Tatum pulled the trigger.

Minor detail in the he said-he said battle. Tatum passed a lie detector. Mendoza failed.

2: What about torture? Isn't the ACLU, Congress and the electorate all up in arms about "torture"? Or is "torture" acceptable because it's performed on US soldiers?

If leftists genuinely cared about U.S. troops, they would have protested the conditions of the Haditha soldiers' interrogations. Investigators refused to provide attorneys when requested, questioned the men for 12 hours at a time, and did not allow them to take bathroom breaks, forcing the men to relieve themselves into bottles. This far outstrips most of the accusations made against U.S. soldiers.

Certainly many of the above conditions are what constitutes "torture" to the left. Which begs the question of where is the ACLU in all this?

I suggest their distinct absence on behalf of the Haditha accused shows that the ACLU cares not about torture, but about giving comfort and opportunity for freedom to our enemy. They are, plain and simple, on the wrong side of the battlefield.

Poll confirms idiocy abounds in American electorate

Unbelievable... the "American people", as all those elected elite and media talking heads like to term the 1000 or so poll responders, demonstrate an amazing amount of smugness in their current events knowledge.

Case in point... there's a poll that says our elected officials should listen to the polls.... HUH? This from an article by Claude Salhani, UPI.

This is, of course, a poll in response to Dick Cheney's ABC interview March 19th where Martha Raddatz suggested his indifference to 2/3rds of American's being against the war in the latest polls was rather shocking. Cheney clarified: (on pg 3 of interview transcript):

No, I think you cannot be blown off course by the fluctuations in the public opinion polls. Think about what would have happened if Abraham Lincoln had paid attention to polls, if they had had polls during the Civil War. He never would have succeeded if he hadn't had a clear objective, a vision for where he wanted to go, and he was willing to withstand the slings and arrows of the political wars in order to get there. And this President has been very courageous, very consistent, very determined to continue down the course we were on and to achieve our objective. And that's victory in Iraq, that's the establishment of a democracy where there's never been a democracy, it's the establishment of a regime that respects the rights and liberties of their people, as an ally for the United States in the war against terror, and as a positive force for change in the Middle East. That's a huge accomplishment.

Cheney's point is quite valid. While our officials are certainly aware of poll results (being as they are in our news face daily...) you cannot expect an electorate, educated by agenda driven media and not privvy to intelligence and military briefings, to form qualified opinions on America's policy.

And to demonstrate that "agenda driven media" point home a bit further, lets look at the quote provided below in the ABC accompanying story to the interview, as compared to the actual interview text provided above.

"You don't care what the American people think?" Raddatz asked the vice president.

"You can't be blown off course by polls," said Cheney, who is currently on a tour of the Middle East. "This president is very courageous and determined to go the course. There has been a huge fundamental change and transformation for the better. That's a huge accomplishment."

Yo? What happened to all that middle stuff analogy about if Lincoln used polls to determine the fate of the Civil War? Or did that make too much sense to include? Here lies the dangers of allowing media educated poll responders to dictate America's policy. They merely respond indignantly to what the media decides to share of the Cheney interview (casting a negative light), instead of reading the interview to see what Cheney really said.

Polls are nothing more than a reflection of the latest media headlines. And I don't need Americans, too lazy to read the source material, speaking for me. Let's face it. The majority of American's DON'T read the source material. If they did, all these "polls" we hear about would have seriously different results.

That "too much sense" bit (on what Cheney said) is what brings me back to the original point... the absurdity of a poll that says elected officials should listen to polls.

This latest poll conducted by WorldPublicOpinion.org is part of a larger international research project managed by the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland. The study was conducted Jan. 18-27 on a total of 975 Americans by Knowledge Networks. The margin of error was plus or minus 3.2 percentage points. Here's what they found:

When it comes to making an important decision, 81 percent say government leaders "should pay attention to public opinion polls because this will help them get a sense of the public's views." But that is assuming government leaders really care what the public thinks, especially when they are not up for re-election.

Only 18 percent of respondents said "they should not pay attention to public opinion polls because this will distract them from deciding what they think is right."

Sounds impressive, eh? 81% say.... Folks, they asked 975 people. And based on what these 975 people say, government policies and direction should be tempered and guided by polls?? Why not go take a poll of the neighborhood and find out what you should make for dinner, even tho they are unaware there is a diabetic in the family... yeeassh.

This is so unbelievably stupid that I hardly know where to begin. If you genuinely believed that the American voice should be heard prior to major decisions, then the only way to get a true measure is to have a national poll, and require every body present in this country to express their opinion.

Yet even that does not negate the same problem - misinformation fed to us daily by media, and the refusal of the majority to research the source material for higher education.

But there is no doubt - 1000 people or so just doesn't cut the mustard as a viable slice of America. In fact, the only purpose of this poll might be for the DNC as proof positive that the average voter doesn't have the intelligence to make wise decisions for his/her own future.

Or at least 780 (the 81%) of them don't.

Unite? Translation: Acquiesce! The rallying cry for a Socialist America

Gov. Richardson calls for an end to the "bloodletting" in the DNC.

``Maybe after the remaining primaries,'' which conclude June 3, Democrats should ``come together and look at who's ahead when it comes to delegates, when it comes to the popular vote, the number of states,'' Richardson said today on ``Fox News Sunday.'' ``I just feel the time has come to come together behind a candidate,'' said Richardson, who endorsed Illinois Senator Barack Obama this week.

Considering the uphill math for Clinton, there's no mistaking whom Richardson proposes "uniting" behind. Yet one has to wonder, as more and more about the less vetted Obama pops up in the media - quite after the fact - do those who voted in the previous primaries feel as confident about their early votes in the wake of the Pastor Wright bruhaha?

Richardson, himself a minority political leader, said he made up his mind based on Obama's speech on race.

"As a Hispanic, I was particularly touched by his words. I have been troubled by the demonization of immigrants--specifically Hispanics-- by too many in this country... Senator Obama has started a discussion in this country long overdue and rejects the politics of pitting race against race."

"...specifically Hispanics.."?!? What? No concern for immigrants of other nationalities, also subject to the same rules of immigration law? Or is he just confirming his ever so subtle bias of white America, and his agenda tends to favor his own nationality and race, just as Obama's does his?

The odd thing is that for two men who say they want to transcend race, they both have based their decision making and opinions because of race. There were many things about that speech that really nagged at me. Perhaps one of the most eyebrow raising passages:

In the white community, the path to a more perfect union means acknowledging that what ails the African-American community does not just exist in the minds of black people; that the legacy of discrimination - and current incidents of discrimination, while less overt than in the past - are real and must be addressed. Not just with words, but with deeds - by investing in our schools and our communities; by enforcing our civil rights laws and ensuring fairness in our criminal justice system; by providing this generation with ladders of opportunity that were unavailable for previous generations.

It requires all Americans to realize that your dreams do not have to come at the expense of my dreams; that investing in the health, welfare, and education of black and brown and white children will ultimately help all of America prosper.

There is a similarity in the "victim" mentality of both Richardson and Obama. Indeed, as a ticket, they are certainly the perfected vision of the two largest minorities... leadership that epitomizes the victimized class of citizenry. It would be no surprise that the black and brown agenda will be given weight and advantage in this particular administration combo.

Yet they are examples exactly the antithesis of what Obama preaches... that white America's dreams came at the expense of the dreams of America's minority.

While specific statistics are at best, guesses, the commonly held theory is that Obama has been firing up a new generation of youthful voters. Considering that the Civil Right Act was signed into law July 1964, Johnson signed EO #11246 enforcing affirmative action for the first time 11/24/1965, and Nixon follows up with the Philadelphia Order in 1969, one can safely concur that 18 to 25 year old voter did not suffer the discrimination and lack of opportunity that drives Pastor Wright and ilk's hatred of America. They are, instead, using the past as an excuse for today's personal failings.

Which brings me back to this insistence for "unity" that permeate the "can't we all just get along" crowd. It sure sounds idyllic and benevolent in theory, but few have stopped to examine just what it would take to achieve "unity". And just how such a quest is so ironically hypocritical from a political party that likes to consider it's middle name, "diversity".

For "unity" can be summed up in one word. Acquiescence.

To get behind Obama as the DNC nominee, the Hillary supporters need to acquiesce to Obama's candidacy. Of course, the opposite is true for a Clinton candidacy.

Yet considering the close margins of votes and delegates, and how personally vicious each camp is, just how willing to "acquiesce" will either side be in order to achieve party "unity". Any majority for the winner will be, by all standards, very slim. And of course, the problems can be compounded by superdelegates should they pick against the popular delegate/primary count. Hey their rules... the DNC, in their infinite wishy-washy'ness, orchestrated their own gridlock today.

This "unity" nonsense carries over into Congress as well. For "unity" to happen on the fate of Iraq withdrawal timelines, one side needs to "acquiesce" their position to the other.

Such lockstep mentality is not the stuff this country is made of. It is not the mentality that made it great as an industrial nation and economic/military superpower. It is our differences and debates (more civil in the past than today) that contributed to our progress. It is our lack of unity that allows this nation to be a melting pot of different cultures, and on the path to ever improving conditions for all Americans equally.

This cry for "unity" aka "acquiescence" is, however, the stuff of socialism. So it's not surprising for the inspired youth vote, historically grounded in the "love the one you're with" and "financial equality for all" mentality, to be supporting a socialist candidate such as Obama.

Manifestation of such desires in our government would, however, prove disastrous over the long term. We will become a country of "equals"... or perhaps better described, outstanding or special will become a characteristic of the past. Diversity will be dashed and run out of town by the very party that purports to cherish it.

What's wrong with this picture??

Indeed, what is wrong with this picture? Mother Cindy Sheehan (in the background) and her obviously spell-challenged flock display banners proving that they not only think we've been in Iraq "5 years to many", but that they believe 12 years of public education must be 12 years TOO many! Perhaps a few hours less spent protesting, and more hours with a nose down to the books is in order?

Many thanks to GatewayPundit for giving me a big grin today!

From the "HUH?" files

IHT's Bernd Debusmann has one absurd article today, "Hypocrisy never makes for good foreign policy". It's mostly a story of Michael Scheurer, the former head of the "get Bin Laden" unit under Clinton, bemoaning the fact that US leaders - present and past - don't understand the "whys" of the Global Islamic Jihad Movement.

In his recently published book, "Marching Toward Hell: America and Islam after Iraq," Scheuer argues that the United States faces more trouble because its leaders refuse to recognize what drives terrorism.

President George W. Bush argues that terrorists "hate our freedoms, our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote." But polls show that the bedrock of support for militancy among the world's 1.3 billion Muslims is the detestation of U.S. foreign policies.

Scheuer faults U.S. leaders for failing to acknowledge the grievances that bin Laden laid out in precise detail, which were adopted by the followers he inspired. They were: the U.S. presence in the Arabian Peninsula; unqualified support for Israel; U.S. support for states oppressing Muslims, especially China, India and Russia; U.S. exploitation of Muslim oil; U.S. support and financing of authoritarian Arab regimes.

Were one to use Scheuer's route to peace, there would be no US embassies - nay, even a Mickey D's - present in the Middle East, we'd be cut off from Middle East oil supplies, and our trade with China and India would be no more. That's the price, right Scheurer? Just adopt Middle East isolationist policies in order to appease those miffed jihadists, and we're safe?

Well blow it out your ear, Bubba. No wonder we never got Bin Laden under Clinton, with bozos like this at the helm. And to think there was a moment in one article in the past where I thought he might make strategic sense??? Shame on me for that moment of gullibility.

But WAIT.. there's MOOOOOORE! Get this next excerpt.

Polls show that radicals - potential suicide bombers and hostage takers - and moderate Muslims are in favor of moving toward more democracy, a process stifled in many places by authoritarian rulers who enjoy the backing of the United States.

HUH???... try this quote from AP's Cairo division, Jan 12, 2005 on for size:

In a 33-page address last month, bin Laden, the Saudi-born millionaire-turned-terrorist, called for turning Iraq into an Islamic state that would eventually be part of a worldwide Islamic empire.

snip

Bin Laden's message also scoffed at plans for Iraqi elections, saying democracy was un-Islamic.

Just to show that OBL's not the lone wolf on the "democracy is un-Islamic" front:

From The Sidney Morning Herald's Iraqi rebels decree democracy is un-Islamic:

A statement, posted on the website of the Ansar al-Sunna group on Thursday and co-signed by the Islamic Army in Iraq and the Army of the Mujahideen, told Iraqis not to take part in "the farce of democracy and elections". It described democracy as "un-Islamic" and polling booths as "centres of atheism".

Or how about the more recent Dec 28th article in the Daily Times (Pakistan), quoting the Taliban leader (who asked not to be named) when battling JUI-F's Maulana Fazlur Rahman over boycotting the Pakistan elections:

BANNU: A senior Taliban leader warned parties on Thursday against “using religion for electoral gains”, saying they would join parties urging boycott of January 8 polls.

“In Shariah, democracy is un-Islamic. Our movement is completely against what you call democracy in which a small majority can decide irrespective of the fact whether what they have done was good or bad,” the Taliban leader, asking not to be named, told Daily Times in an interview here.

He said the Taliban were “against elements who are using Islam for electoral gains”.

For the definition-of-terrorist-challenged, it can be said that all Muslim jihadists (i.e. "radicals") are seeking implementation of Shariah/Islamic law.

Now let's revisit that inane statement... "the polls show radicals - - potential suicide bombers and hostage takers - and moderate Muslims are in favor of moving toward more democracy..."

Either one must admit the poll results are utterly worthless. Or that this author, or Scheuer... probably both... about dumber than dirt about the global jihad movement. You guys want believe the idiots who conducted that poll? Well, I got some swamp land to sell ya in Baghdad....

Oh the irony.... CodePink's Meda calls on Marines for personal safety

Chutzpah... that's all I have to say.

Eamon Kelley, the young Marine who is featured in Move America Forward’s TV commercial that ran on Fox News earlier this week, could hardly believe his own ears when Benjamin called on the Marines for help.

Kelley, who is recovering from back surgery, spent his day in Berkeley, where CodePink continues with Berkeley council’s blessing, to keep a virtual blockade at the recruit center, expanding its efforts to harass American troops and to turn back any young Americans looking to enlist.

snip

“While we were at the protest in Berkeley from 12 to 4 p.m., a white Volvo drove by and a man spat upon CodePink,” Kelley wrote in an email to MAF’s Melanie Morgan. “They chased him down the street and got into a verbal altercation. The police were NOWHERE in sight.

“That’s not the best part, ready for this?

“Medea Benjamin yelled and I quote “Marines!” She actually yelled for our help because this man had stepped out of his car. I even asked her if she was yelling Police and she told me, “I said Marines” then put her arm around my friend Allen (the Marine Vet). Ironic?”

snip

Yesterday in front of Shattuck Ave., Berkeley, Calif., Medea Benjamin gave new meaning to the old adage: Ah, the things you see when you don’t have your camera.

read article in entirety here

Oddly enuf, haven't seen this in a US media outlet yet. Canada's Canadian Free Press picked it up, johnny on the spot.

Berkeley vs the USMC - UPDATE

It was Feb 9th when I last posted that the Calvary was enroute to Berkeley in the wake of their "Marines uninvited and unwelcome here" letter and attitudes. That calvary was comprised of pro military supporters in the form of veterans, ex-veterans, military families, and private business that were threatening boycott of anything Berkeley.

The following week's council meeting... after hearing 125 speakers - pro and con - battle over the USMC recruiting office on University... resulted in the council opting to NOT send the letter to the USMC "uninviting" them. However they still refused to apologize for the rigamarow, and sealed the event with an official kiss and blessing - siding with the anti-war supporters.

Guess what... NOT GOOD ENUF! sez many with cash in their wallets.

Today's Contra Costa Times (thank heavens, a brief EX stomping ground for me...) sez business in Berkeley is having trouble.

"We're hearing of folks canceling reservations and canceling hotel rooms, and we know there is a direct correlation. How big, I don't know. We're in a tough economic period anyway," said Ted Garrett, chief executive officer of the Berkeley Chamber of Commerce.

The chamber has received an estimated 300 e-mails, letters and faxes from people upset about the council's action and its refusal to apologize, he said.

snip

Mo Hallaji, owner of Pollo's at Shattuck Avenue and Addison Street, said his business has declined 10 percent to 15 percent this month because of the traffic jams and fighting associated with the protests.

"They are killing our business," he said. "Everybody is against the war, but that is not the right way to go about it if you want to accomplish something."

Quentin Moore, owner of Berkeley Hardware on University Avenue, is not far from the U.S. Marine recruiting center, at 64 Shattuck Square, and the protests might be causing a downturn in his business.

"I see maybe two or three customers in here, and maybe (the protests) are the reason," he said.

snip

"The downtown is like a full-time circus right now. There isn't a day when we're not hearing the drums and the noise. I think it's off-putting," said Susie Medak, managing director of the Berkeley Repertory Theatre.

snip

Many were angered by the move that they viewed as anti-troop and anti-American. An estimated 30,000 e-mails were sent to City Hall, condemning the council's move.

Gee... wonder why? It appears that the council's half-hearted withdrawal of their insidious letter is not the only deterrent. Code Pink and their new cohorts in business/economic crime - the orange wearing The World Can't Wait (what a clash of colors...) are still on the warpath in the streets, trying to ram their agenda down the community's collective throats. To top it off, they refuse to take any responsibility for the business decline, blaming it on the economic downturn instead.

CodePink leaders, who went door-to-door Tuesday passing out sandwiches and pink window signs reading "Another Berkeley Business for Peace," deny that the protests are affecting downtown business.

"If they want to blame the downturn in the economy on a protest against the Marines, it's a pretty bad excuse," CodePink co-founder Medea Benjamin said.

City Councilwoman Dona Spring also does not view the protests as a problem. She said only the businesses on the same block are being affected.

"Every anti-war group in the East Bay wants to come and protest. This is where the action is," she said.

Right... These people need to get a *real* job to fill their day.

The final two graphs are a real hoot...

Deborah Badhia, executive director of the Downtown Business Association, said the fallout and the protests have been a "hardship" on businesses.

"In spite of any political issues that are going on, we still want the public to know that they are welcome and invited in Berkeley," she said.

That is unless you are a USMC warrior, or any pro-military/veteran citizen in the USA.


H/T to Dinah Lord

The NYTs is busy doing what??

Ray Robison's latest at American Thinker, and a more updated version here at his blog, has proven that even the busiest of guys** can invest what's left of his little free time and blow the doors off the work of full-time pundits at the New York Times.

**Robison holds down a full time job as a mil-ops research analyst for a major defense contractor, while simultaneously engaged as a part time media consultant, writer, and has his nose down peddling his latest book from his Iraq Survey Group days.

Or, as he succinctly puts it:

While The New York Times invests the efforts of a cadre of writers to investigate the wisp of rumor concerning McCain, Democratic leaders get a free ride with regard to close ties with lobbyists and doners.

Gasp... can it be true? That stellar, "most ethical" Congress we voted it is still up to old tricks, lining it's own pockets? After we, the electorate, put our faith in their promises?? Say it ain't so, Ray....

Robison starts out with connecting the dots - as he does so well - between Pelosi, the bill called the Early Treatment for HIV Act (ETHA), and the $23K of donations that magically appeared in her coffers from Emogen, the pharmaceutical giant. Rather than repeat what Ray covers very well, I defer to his posts and articles.

And it may be a moment to interject a little ditty here. This is directed to those who are quite sure that evil "big oil" is the largest profit American industry. Would you be surprised to learn that the #1 spot is actually held by the pharmaceutical industry? Oil is down 3rd or 4th, behind tobacco. I must refind that chart with the figures to archive. So many URLs, so little time...

Makes you wonder how the GOP can be the party of evil corporations. If they were so darn good and supportive, as the DNC tells us, the GOP would be the chosen few of the drug people. Gives you pause for cause. Like why would they be supporting anti-big business talking heads in Congress?? Could it be because our elected ones, spouting their "I'm for the little guy" BS actually specialize in forked tongue and itchy fingers hidden behind their backs? But I have sidetracked...

Robison continues, showing that the incoming buck didn't stop with Pelosi. Add to the hefty kitty Hillary's campaign bundler, who has also managed benefit from HRC's like kind vote with a generous stack'o'cash to his lobbying firm from Amgen.

Bloomberg recently reported that President Clinton's former White House Deputy Chief of Staff Steve Ricchetti, now a lobbyist was paid $1.7 million to his firm from Amgen. He serves as a bundler for Senator Clinton's campaign. That means she is now receiving financial contributions from a lobbyist at a firm that profited from her vote.


One of those types of contributions was from Howard Moon, former Pelosi advisor who donated $2,300 to the Clinton campaign a few weeks after Clinton voted to stay the hand of Medicare. In addition, in the days just before and after Pelosi submitted the ETHA bill in the House on Aug. 2nd, 2007, a slew of Amgen executives made almost $30,000 dollars in private donations to the Pelosi campaign.

The Senate version of the ETHA bill was cosponsored by Senator Clinton.

His Messiahship, Obama, has also seen a boom of $12K in contributions from Amgen execs. Bummer for him. He can probably use extra cash since he's outspent Hillary about 3 to 1 with contributions to the "Superdelegates", easily surpassing HRC's meager $205,500.

Obama, who narrowly leads in the count of pledged, "non-super" delegates, has doled out more than $698,200 to superdelegates from his political action committee, Hope Fund, or campaign committee since 2005. Of the 82 elected officials who had announced as of Feb. 12 that their superdelegate votes would go to the Illinois senator, 35, or 43 percent of this group, have received campaign contributions from him in the 2006 or 2008 election cycles, totaling $232,200. In addition, Obama has been endorsed by 52 superdelegates who haven't held elected office recently and, therefore, didn't receive campaign contributions from him.

Maybe that's why Hillary's only getting 12% of her Superdelegates upfront backing... not enuf payola!

And speaking of that Obama "Hope Fund", it was created 1/25/06. Interesting since the Senator was merely elected to serve his first term in the beltway just 2-3 months before. Seems a tad quick to me. How about you? Obama obviously is a political toddler who instead of having the patience to learn to walk, decided to belly crawl right to the coffee table and nab the keys to the Ferrari for a career test drive. Lordy, man... at least take your Congressional oath before setting yourself up for a run at the Oval Office! I guess that what he means by the "fierce urgency of now"... wait! Isn't that a MLK saying??

So what's the point of all this bru ha ha, anyway? Simple, actually... we, the humble and easily duped-by-media-and-pols electorate "been bamboozled" by the bamboozle accuser, his opposition candidate, AND their compadres, the newly elected majority elitists in Congress.

DISCLOSURE OF PLAGUARISM: "Bamboozle" - a phrase used by Obama, no.. that was Denzel Washington... no wait!... That was Denzel playing Malcom X! Right... Uh. Wasn't there an old blues song with that too?)

The only way the public will ever figure out we're being "had" big time by the same guys who are promising us we'll never be "had" again is... wow, where was I?... if some truly ethical journalists with large readership start doing some oversight that isn't based on a partisan agenda.

Uh huh... I'm holding my breath.

Instead, as Robison astutely points out, the powerhouse media like the NYTs is too busy spending it's payroll on jokers, chasing "almost or maybe" not so sexual scandals of the guy they just finished endorsing months before. They can't be bothered with the true research of real issues. Things like financial corruption will have to be left to dedicated patriots like Ray Robison... one of those guys Hillary likes to lament has "too many jobs" to spend enough time with family, or just plain have some fun.

Feh...

Michelle Obama - "fair weather" First Lady

Certainly Michelle Obama's speech faux pas about being "really" proud of this country "for the first time in my adult life" has made the media and blog rounds. Spinning is coming from everywhere. Obama supporters on the talking heads circuit often use the "what she meant was..." phrase, implying either their intimacy with the woman, or boasting of their personal mind reading abilities.

Fact is, there's only two people who can clarify the statement: her speech writer, as it's been in at least one other speech. And Ms. Obama herself. She hasn't been saying much, instead letting others speak for her:

On Monday, Obama spokesman Bill Burton released a statement in response to the controversy: “Of course Michelle is proud of her country, which is why she and Barack talk constantly about how their story wouldn't be possible in any other nation on Earth.

“What she meant is that she's really proud at this moment because for the first time in a long time, thousands of Americans who've never participated in politics before are coming out in record numbers to build a grassroots movement for change.”

His Messiahship Barack's explanation?

"What she meant was, this is the first time that she's been proud of the politics of America," he said. "Because she's pretty cynical about the political process, and with good reason, and she's not alone. But she has seen large numbers of people get involved in the process, and she's encouraged."

BUZZER! Nope... wrong answer. We've all been cynical about the political process.. and many of us a lot longer than Ms. Obama. Nor is this the first large grassroots movement in the country in Ms. Obama's adult life. Or perhaps, because it wasn't all about "her" or her husband, it escaped her attentions.

It's disingenuous to suggest it's all about new found energy in politics. Consider she's been a part of that political process for over a decade in the IL State Legislature, and now the Congress. Not even a sense of pride in Obama's elections? Or what he has accomplished? Oh right... there is that rumor that he hasn't "done" anything. Humm... perhaps her cynicism is deserved.

But what does it mean for this nation to consider a potential First Lady who only takes pride in our country when politics are going her way? Is this an envoy we want to present as part of the most powerful couple in the world?

And something else bothers me. Is is just possible that this statement in her speeches, obviously screened and approved by Ms. Obama herself, reveals that she is one of those believe all of the world's ills originate with the US?

Capt. Ed is on the same page I am. And lately, that's rather unusual.

Barack Obama knows that he has to push back against this comment, not because Michelle Obama got misunderstood, but because it reveals so much about the Obamas. (via Michelle Malkin)

Yep... Obama revealing and unveiling. There's been a dearth of that lately by an adoring, star struck press. But if he's the nominee, we should demand to see more of the real family, and less of the prose happy entertainer who dazzles while saying nothing.

Michelle Malkin, link referenced above in Capt Ed's quote, has a personal essay of comparison between herself and the "other Michelle" that did give me a grin.

My column this week gives you two Michelles, two Americas. John Edwards was right after all!

Michelle Obama’s America—and mine
Michelle Malkin
Copyright Creators Syndicate 2008

Like Michelle Obama, I am a “woman of color.” Like Michelle Obama, I am a working mother of two young children. Like Michelle Obama, I am a member of the 13th Generation of Americans born since the founding of our great nation.

Unlike Michelle Obama, I can’t keep track of the number of times I’ve been proud—really proud—of my country since I was born and privileged to live in it.

snip

Mrs. Obama’s statement was met with warm applause from other Barack supporters who have apparently also been devoid of pride in their country for their adult lifetimes. Or maybe it was just a Pavlovian response to the word “change.” What a sad, empty, narcissistic, ungrateful, unthinking lot.

snip

I believe it was Michael Kinsley who quipped that a gaffe is when a politician tells the truth. In this case, it’s what happens when an elite Democrat politician’s wife says what a significant portion of the party’s base really believes to be the truth: That America is more a source of shame than pride.

Both Malkin and Capt Ed go thru the plethora of American generosity and achievements just over the past "adult life" of Ms. Obama... all of which should generate pride in any of us.

I believe not that Ms. Obama made an error of expression, but that she was expressing her core beliefs to a like-kind audience of friends - expecting no backlash nor disagreement for such a simple observation. That has to make me believe that she must think most of us consider this nation "a source of shame".

She may be right, and only November will tell us for sure. But I, for one, do not wish to have a "fair weather" First Lady in my WH.

It depends on what the meaning of "if Musharraf won't act, we will" is..

It sure didn't take long for the Obama handlers to start their back peddling, spinning Obama's stated "cowboy policy" towards Pakistan as phantom words that never happened.

McCain, presumed GOP nominee, has started to whittle away at Obama's shining armor.

One day after Obama scored double-digit victories in Wisconsin and Hawaii in his drive toward the Democratic presidential nomination, McCain blasted him for advocating a bombing of Al Qaeda hide-outs in Pakistan. "The best idea is not to broadcast what you're going to do, that's naive," said McCain, who also questioned the very notion of "bombing Pakistan without their permission."

Obama camp response?

In a conference call with reporters to respond, Obama foreign policy advisor Susan Rice said that McCain was "misrepresenting and distorting Barack Obama's positions" and argued that the Democrat "never suggested bombing an ally."

"McCain promises more war in Iraq," she said. "Obama will end the war in Iraq and focus on terrorists in Afghanistan."

Really now? Let's see... Obama's promise of unilateral action in Pakistan is replicated all over the news. He's repeated the same promise of unilateral action in debates.

From his Aug 1st, 2007 speech, posted on his own website:

The first step must be getting off the wrong battlefield in Iraq, and taking the fight to the terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

snip

Above all, I will send a clear message: we will not repeat the mistake of the past, when we turned our back on Afghanistan following Soviet withdrawal. As 9/11 showed us, the security of Afghanistan and America is shared. And today, that security is most threatened by the al Qaeda and Taliban sanctuary in the tribal regions of northwest Pakistan.

Al Qaeda terrorists train, travel, and maintain global communications in this safe-haven. The Taliban pursues a hit and run strategy, striking in Afghanistan, then skulking across the border to safety.

snip

I understand that President Musharraf has his own challenges. But let me make this clear. There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will.

Technically, the Obama campaign is correct. He did not use the word "bomb". But now, in this new era of "change", we instead find ourselves regressing to the 90s and the "it depends upon what the meaning of 'is'... is" mentality.

Or in this case, it all depends on what the meaning of "if Musharraf won't act, we will" means...

Just how would Obama act on "actionable intelligence" within Pakistan borders, sans their permission? Would it be predator bombing? Manned aircraft bombing? Boots on the ground?? "Acting" means doing something.

Or perhaps he'd have us believe he's going to have a bunch of diplomats sneak across the border to meet with Bin Laden for talks in secret as "action".

I believe what Obama meant was laid out clearly, just a paragraph or two later in the same speech.

I will not hesitate to use military force to take out terrorists who pose a direct threat to America. This requires a broader set of capabilities, as outlined in the Army and Marine Corps's new counter-insurgency manual. I will ensure that our military becomes more stealth, agile, and lethal in its ability to capture or kill terrorists. We need to recruit, train, and equip our armed forces to better target terrorists, and to help foreign militaries to do the same. This must include a program to bolster our ability to speak different languages, understand different cultures, and coordinate complex missions with our civilian agencies.

Obviously Obama considers Bin Ladin a direct threat... one in which he would not hesitate to use military force. So putting two and two together, if Obama enter Pakistan to confront Bin Laden with actionable intelligence, then I for one don't need him to speak the word "bomb", "predator" or "troops" to know that he is talking military action. Only the greatest of fools would assume otherwise.

We went into Iraq to depose Saddam. Obama and ilk liberals like to say we "invaded" Iraq... which they prefer to "liberated" Iraq. They don't use "pro death", opposite of "pro life", for the abortion issue - another Obama serious flaw. They use "pro choice" to minimize the death of a fetus. It's a game of words, words and more words.

Apparently whoever comes up with the best words on the campaign trail is going to win over a duped, media herded electorate. And at this sitting, we have two attorneys and a career Senator/ex POW out there pounding the concrete for the POTUS. Look around. Only two of them, both DNC, are garnishing the majority of the broadcast airwaves. So take a wild guess - who do you think is better at the "words", and getting them spread out to the voting public?

To deny such word play, and mask Obama's stated Pakistan threats, is absurd. Yet the cult-like zombie following, mesmerized by vague promises of change and sweeping social programs because they so *want* to believe, will never figure it out. I, for one am bracing to have our nation and denizens learn lessons, unfortunately, the hard way. We will find no utopia, no squeaky clean pol in Obama. We will only find a naive, pacifist fool, fresh at the onset of his career politician path, who specializes in words.