Featured Article

The Gods of Liberalism Revisited


The lie hasn't changed, and we still fall for it as easily as ever.  But how can we escape the snare?



Friday, December 30, 2005

S.D. high court rules spanking incident went overboard

Justice Judith Meierhenry said she agrees with the circuit judge’s determination that the mother went overboard in using a belt to spank her daughter, but the justice said the high court’s ruling provides little guidance on the amount of force a parent can legally use.“What appears to be unacceptable in this case is that (the) mother used a belt and hit the child six or seven times with a force that did not leave bruises but made the child uncomfortable,” Meierhenry wrote.
Too few children are getting spanked too few times these days, which is why you have so many kids running around getting in trouble with the law. When I was a kids, I got WAY more than a mere 6 licks with a belt when I royally messed up (and on occasion a switch was used), and it didn't bruise my pweshus wittul ego--it eventually taught me to obey what was right and to stay away from what was wrong.
It's been said many times but remains true, "He who spares the rod hates his son, but he who loves him is careful to discipline him. (Proverbs 13:24).
If you don't care whether your child learns to live in a fashion that is positive and productive (both for himself and those who come in contact with him), then go ahead and let him do whatever he wants. Don't believe me: go ahead and look around at all the parents who are either too lazy or to busy trying to be Mr. Nice Guy or who just don't give a rip about their kids and don't discpline them...and I'll show you some miserable kids, and some miserable parents.
If you saw someone about to stick their hand in a meat grinder, you'd do whatever it took to stop them, right? If you saw someone about to stick their hand into a den of snakes, you'd do whatever it took to stop them, right? Well, undisciplined youth is about as bad, if not worse.
Children don't come born with a developed sense of morality--only a keen sense of selfishness. Their sense of morality and right and wrong has to be developed...by their parents. Sometimes, until they develop the discipline to control themselves, it takes a punishment that is very unpleasant for them to deter them from the things they shouldn't be doing.
Abuse is NEVER allowable; I used to be in law enforcement, and know up close how terrible abuse can be. The difference between abuse and discipline is that abuse is brutal and springs from hate and rage; discipline comes from loving the child enough to do what it takes to teach them the right way, and to keep them from a path that will result in misery and ruin.
This decision (which admits no mark was left on the child) will just make it harder for parents to do their job...and anyone who comes in contact with the children who go undisciplined will pay the price.

Saturday, December 24, 2005

Seattle says shower heads too wet

To prevent a woman from killing the child in her womb is an insufferable intrusion of the government, but we need the shower police to stop these shower heads from getting the soap out of your eyes.

Stars turn backs on America's troops in Iraq

...soldiers in Iraq are more likely to get a show from a Christian hip-hop group, a country singer you have probably never heard of and two cheerleaders for the Dallas Cowboys. - The Guardian

The article points out that while previous wars have enjoyed the support of the entertainment industry, they are missing from action in Iraq. Notable exceptions are Gary Sinise, and Ted Nugent with a Glock at his side.

Surprise, surprise. We support the troops, blah blah blah.

Tip of the hat to Al Franken in the article, though; unlike most of his other Leftist buddies, he went to Iraq to perform for the troops. But having a captive audience is about the only way Al Franken is going to get somebody to listen to him anyway. Still, thanks for the effort, Al.

Friday, December 23, 2005

No happy ending in '05 for Hollywood, as ticket sales drop again

While I'm sure other entertainment options are a factor, maybe Hollywood should take a look at the quality of what they're putting out there.

Family-friendly movies continue to lead in earnings at the box office, but the movie industry insists on pushing trash on us like "Brokeback Mountain," "Memoirs of a Geisha," "Wedding Crashers," "Eyes Wide Shut," "American Beauty," and those awful "American Pie" movies.

It makes sense from a logistical perspective that family-friendly movies would make more money (after all, a family taking the kids to see "Narnia" is going to sell more tickets than just mom and dad going to see "Wedding Crashers" or some homosexuals going to see "Bareback Mountain." But maybe your average American is also realizing that a lot of those filthy moves Hollywood is offering are just pure rot that corrupts your soul--and they don't want to pay to have their hearts darkened.

While they're at it, maybe they should consider the possibility that many Americans (like me) are tired of spending money to support the liberal and anti-American activities of the likes of Sean Penn, Susan Sarandon, Tim Robbins, Martin Sheen, George Clooney, Janeane Garofalo, Woopie Goldberg, Mike Farrell, and their ilk.

Like all Americans, they're entitled to their opinions, but I find it a little distasteful that we're expected to listen intently to their drivel about how America has generally been screwed up it's whole history when their greatest qualification is that they can pretend to be something they're not.

They have their freedom to make complete idiots of themselves in public, and I have the freedom not to subsidize their public display of anti-Americanism. Hollywood would do well to take a look at that when they try to figure out why Americans aren't spending money on their product--an encourage these ungrateful babies to put a sock in it.

More Blatant Spin

Many media outlets are billing the Science magazine's top scientific achievements as proof of evolution. For example, these headlines:

"Evolution takes science honours" - BBC News
"Darwinism hailed as breakthrough of year in snub to creationists" - The Independent
"Evolution named 2005's top scientific breakthrough" - San Diego Union Tribune
"Journal cites evolution studies in 2005" - USA Today
"Evolution comes out tops" - News24
"Evolution 'breakthrough of the year,' Science journal declares" - CBC Ottowa
"Evolutionary studies top annual scientific breakthrough" - People's Daily Online (China)
"Evolution evidence rated as top ‘breakthrough'" - MSNBC

In the article in BBC News entitled "Evolution takes science honours", we hear

"The studies bestowed with the title "breakthrough of the year" by Science include the sequencing of the chimpanzee genome; recreation of the 1918 flu virus in a laboratory; and a study on European blackcap birds which demonstrated how two different populations can become two separate species."

In the Independent we hear these studies "have shown beyond any doubt how evolution underpins all aspects of modern biology."

The people at Science didn't say that at all. According to BBC News (in a stunning stroke of candor), news editor Colin Norman said, "...it was in the realisation that scientists tend to take for granted that evolution underpins modern biology." He didn't state unequivocally that evolution underpins all aspects of modern biology, he said that scientists tend to take it for granted. BIG difference. Kinda like "Bob Ellis is an incredibly handsome guy" versus "Bob Ellis takes it for granted that he's an incredibly handsome guy"--the difference being reality versus my psychosis.

The Independent article did however point out that the people at Science did have their own agenda: "this year some segments of American society fought to dilute the teaching of even the basic facts of evolution. With all this in mind, Science has decided to put Darwin in the spotlight by saluting several dramatic discoveries, each of which reveals the laws of evolution in action."

But getting back to my overall point, these science achievements (chimp genome sequencing, flu virus recreation, and bird studies) don't prove squat about evolution.

The media--Science magazine included--is just looking to ridicule creationism and intelligent design theory, just like they seek to ridicule anything that doesn't fit their secular liberal worldview. They cannot bear any dissent from their "God is dead, and hail to the evolution of communism" philosophy.

The elephant in the living room that evolutionists try DESPERATELY to ignore is that in order for evolution to occur, NEW genetic material must somehow come into being. Yet the only species changes scientists can point to are small changes that ALWAYS result in a LOSS of genetic information. That's not evolution, but devolution, with the resulting organism retaining less genetic diversity, not more.

For instance, the original dog created by God contained enough DNA (genetic diversity) to produce a large variety of dogs (beagles, German shepherds, poodles, etc). The poodle doesn't "evolve" from the original dog; it merely displays a dominant set of genetic characteristics inherited from its ancestor. No new genetic material came into being; instead, the genetic traits that make a poodle a poodle are isolated by breeding two dogs which both have those dominant genetic characteristics.

In the case of the bird studies, two different kinds of birds does not mean new genetic material has come into being; nowhere in the study does it have the audacity to purport that new genetic material has been produced.

In order for man (and all other organisms) to have evolved from the simple, single-celled organism which evolutionists claim we all came from, a LOT of new genetic material had to come into being.

If you can't show new genetic material coming into being, then you have no proof of evolution or evolutionary change. You can spin it any way you like, but in the end what you've spun bears a strong resemblance to a certain emperor's clothes...

Evolving Cars

Some scientists say that because monkeys and humans share mostly similar genetic makeup, that this proves humans and monkeys evolved from the same ancestor.

I guess that also proves that since the Chevrolet Beretta and Chevrolet Cavalier share a similar makeup, this proves the Cavalier evolved from the Beretta...

Thursday, December 22, 2005

Delusional Beyond Belief

Cindy Sheehan interview:

You feel like you were mistreated by the press? They got hold of everything I've ever said and scrutinized it so carefully. They never scrutinized what Bush said. No one said, "Why did you lie to the American people and say there was WMD?" The press found an easy target in Iraq, and they found an easy target in me.

Wow, that's one of the biggest ones I've heard in a long time: I was scrutinized by the press but Bush wasn't! YET...ANOTHER example of liberals trying to mirror the truth (see "Saddam Says He's Been Beaten in Detention" post below).
She got the ultimate pass because of her value as a grieving mother; she was considered immune from criticism (and therefore exceptionally useful to the propaganda press) because, after all, what kind of heartless jerk would criticize a grieving mother (except for me, of course). Meanwhile, Bush has been under such scrutinty that he's even criticized for being physically fit!

Why doesn't this pathetic woman have the self-respect to grieve in person--especially when she's revealing what a complete idiot she is, in the process. You can't even laugh at her pathetic behavior without feeling a little guilty...

Wednesday, December 21, 2005

1st Amendment 'doesn't create church-state wall of separation'

A U.S. appeals court today upheld the decision of a lower court in allowing the inclusion of the Ten Commandments in a courthouse display, hammering the American Civil Liberties Union and declaring, "The First Amendment does not demand a wall of separation between church and state."

Naw, really? This is apparently a "revisionist judge" who invented this silly idea that there is no wall of separation between church and state. I bet this judge probably planted a fake case in the Supreme Court records called Wallace v. Jaffrey where he makes it appear that Judge William Rehnquist said the same thing 20 years ago. In fact, all those quotes from the Founders and authors of the Constitution which plainly illustrate no wall of separation were almost certainly planted in the history books by this revisionist judge, too.

(See Saddam item below for further clarification).

Saddam Says He's Been Beaten in Detention

Saddam would make a good liberal.

After a witness in his trial testified that Saddam's goons had tortured people by ripping off their skin, Saddam then bloviates about some alleged beating and torture he's been subjected to in jail.

That's just like liberals do! They always accuse other people of doing the exact same thing they do! This domestic spying non-scandal is typical: previous liberal administrations have done the same thing (though not in a global war on terror, just during peacetime), but when Bush does it to prevent another 911 IT'S IMPEACHABLE!!!

They also like to "steal" language that reveals what they're doing. Like how Leftists try to revise history to say the Founders weren't Christians, that the First Amendment was intended to keep religion totally out of the public eye, and so on, and then when you point out that their revisionism is without foundation, they accuse YOU of revisionism just for pointing out THEIR attempt to revise history.

Saddam is also tries his best to throw a money wrench in the works when good people are trying to bring bad people to justice; he even throws as good a tantrum as the Senate liberals.

Maybe the libs should consider Saddam for the '08 ticket. After all, still they're doing their best to legitimize him.

Saturday, December 17, 2005

Media Misdirection

Typical media misdirection. USA Today creates a "global warming" article with the title "2005 is warmest year on record for Northern Hemisphere, scientists say" but then you find that "the Earth's average temperature reached a near-record high in 2005."

So actually it's been hotter in the past; 7 years ago according to the article. The fact that there are scientists who believe any heating trend is not due to human activity gets a fleeting mention only.

Nope, no bias here...

Friday, November 18, 2005

"Cowards cut and run. Marines never do."

After months of bellyaching and whining to pull the troops out of Iraq, hypocritical Dems in the House turned tail and ran from their own idea.

As reported by WorldNetDaily (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47489), only three Dems had the guts to put their money where their mouth is and vote for a resolution calling for the immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq.

Of course they won't, but any sane person would have sense of shame enough to shut their pie hole after being exposed as a bunch of opportunists who will eagerly put political opportunity ahead of the welfare of our troops and our country.

Proving once again that the way tell if a Democrat is lying is to check whether their mouth is open.

Monday, November 07, 2005

Bill Clinton Thinks Tax Cuts are Immoral

Immoral to allow people to keep more of their own money? Unethical to give less of other people's money to those who didn't earn it?

"Don't you think people around the world know we do this? And don't you think this has something to do with the way they look at us?" - Yeah, I've seen lots of riots and flag burnings around the world in protest over Americans letting Americans keep more of their own money.

"When I was president we moved 100 times more people out of poverty than in the previous twelve years." - I think he's confusing the accomplishments of the newly elected Republican congress with his own actions--which were nil in this regard before the Republican revolution.

Thursday, August 25, 2005

Of All Gas Consumers, Bush May Be Biggest

Never say the Left can't get more petty.

Tomorrows headline will read "Bush Consumes Air, Exhales Carbon Dioxide: Global Warming Worsening."

As Drudge reports, the Left gets the usual pass.

Wednesday, August 24, 2005

Pat Roberts Scourged, Stephanopoulos Gets a Pass

In typical style, the media crucifies a conservative for saying the same thing a liberal did.
Check out the Newsmax story about what George Stephanopoulos said about assassinating Saddam--you know, Cindy Sheehan's buddy, the one who volunteered as a school crossing guard, fed the homeless, gave away flowers in the town square, and definitely didn't have WMDs or support terrorists.

Tuesday, August 16, 2005

Roberts Unlikely To Face Big Fight

This may turn out to be the case, but if conservatives don't keep their guard up, they may just turn out to be the biggest chumps in recent history when Democrats pull some suprise offensive out of the hat, and they find themselves sitting on their rear ends twiddling their thumbs as they did with Judge Bork and Judge Thomas.

Sunday, August 14, 2005

Some on BRAC panel say Pentagon's $50 billion estimate far overstated

"A majority of the members of the independent commission assessing the Pentagon's proposed list of domestic base closings say that the Defense Department probably overstated the nearly $50 billion in savings projected over 20 years, perhaps by nearly 50%."

Wow! That's a pretty big overstatement!

The report (NYT by way of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel) also says, "47% of the projected savings were from cuts in members of the military who in many cases would simply be reassigned to other installations."

Even if the Pentagon's figures were correct, and they'd save $5.5 billion a year from ALL these closures, with the federal budget over $2 trillion, that means an annual savings of less than 0.275%
To put that in perspective, if you were making $3,000 a month and you saved .275% of that, you'd be saving $8.25. Wow! The cost of a movie over a month's time!
If the government wants to REALLY save money, the should stop cutting one of the few areas of our spending that's actually CONSTITUTIONAL, and cut those that arent--say, the completely UNCONSTITUTIONAL social spending that takes up around 50% of our budget!!!

Democrats struggle to change perceptions in GOP strongholds

Hey, guys. Why not worry more about your actual values than how you're perceived. Oh, I forgot: you don't have any values. At least, not any of the traditional kind that most Americans believe in.

Tuesday, August 02, 2005

Libs are Soooo Compassionate

According to the Wizbang blog, the liberal excuse for talk radio "Air America" embezzeled nearly half a million dollars from a Boys and Girls club. The Wizbang piece is a summary of several pieces done on the issue.

Apparently it's been out there for a while, but the MSM hasn't picked up on it. I wonder why? MSM was pretty hot to trot when Air America made it's debut. Yet MSM has been oddly more quiet since Air America has suttered, sputtered and drooled from the start. Um, kinda like AlGore's new TV channel.

Friday, July 22, 2005

The Pulling of the Wool

According to Newsday, DNC Chairman Howard Dean now says the Democrat Party needs to reach to pro-lifers. More of the same old garbage we've been seeing from the Dems since they got trounced by values voters: trying to pull the wool over someone's eyes.

Now, I'll grant you there are a few pro-life Democrats; I know a handful here in South Dakota. But let's get real: these are your typical single-issue voters, usually the ones hopelessly enslaved to the Social Security pimp who'll do anything (even make a pact with the devil) to protect whatever might be their pet issue. Or one of these arcane folks who can't think for themselves and goes by the tired old "Democrats are for the 'workin' man" baloney. That's about the only way you'll find a pro-life Dem.

Let's face it: no group is 100% bad (were all the Nazi Party members rabid Jew-haters, or were some of them just sucked up into it all), just as no individual is 100% bad (do you think Saddam Hussein never committed a kind act).

But what viewpoint primarily comprises the Democrat Party? Over 90% of the Democrat leadership is avidly pro-abortion--the right of a woman to murder her child in the womb must be protected at all costs, under all circumstances.

Yeah, Mr. Dean: pull my other leg.

Wednesday, July 13, 2005

More "Torture" At Club Gitmo

According to several media reports, a suspected terrorist at Guantanamo was forced to wear a bra, dance with another man and behave like a dog.

Gee, lots of drunken GIs I knew overseas (myself included, back when I was living for the Devil) did that from time to time--and weren't forced to!
Seriously, while such behavior (on the part of the GIs that forced the prisoners) might be classified as "unprofessional," I'm sure our POWs in Vietnam and in Asia during WWII would love to have traded "tortures" with the Gitmo prisoners.
And our guys who were POW weren't a bunch of regressives who went around intentionally blowing up innocent civilians.
Compare this "torture" of a terrorist to a terrorist victim in London (one of the fortunate ones who survived to see his family again).

Monday, July 11, 2005

The Specter of Specter

With friends like Specter, who needs enemies?


From the NY Times:

WASHINGTON, July 10 - Senator Arlen Specter, chairman of the Judiciary Committee, suggested on Sunday that President Bush could name Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who is retiring from the Supreme Court, to the position of chief justice if it opens up.

"I think it would be very tempting if the president said to Justice O'Connor, 'You could help the country now,' " Mr. Specter, Republican of Pennsylvania and a pivotal player in any confirmation hearings, said in an interview on the CBS program "Face the Nation." "She has received so much adulation that a confirmation proceeding would be more like a coronation, and she might be willing to stay on for a year or so."

Both Mr. Specter and Mr. Leahy said they were familiar with an account of a meeting that two senators, one from each party, had had with Justice O'Connor weeks before her retirement, in which they discussed a campaign to elevate her if Chief Justice Rehnquist does step down. Senator Richard J. Durbin, Democrat of Illinois, described the same meeting to The Chicago Tribune last weekend, suggesting that Justice O'Connor had not objected. No one identified the senators.

"I did hear about it," Mr. Specter said, "that there had been senators who had made that suggestion to Justice O'Connor, and that the response that I heard was that she said she was flattered. That she didn't say no."

This RINO needs to do Republicans one single favor and just switch to the Democrat party.

Wednesday, July 06, 2005

Drudge Report: Schumer Caught on Phone Going to War Over Court

According to the Drudge Report, Senator Chucky Schumer (D-NY) was overheard on a cell phone conversation stating “We are contemplating how we are going to go to war over this.”

He also talked about how many of the Republican appointments to the court have turned out to be libs, stating "most of the time they've gotten their picks wrong, and that's what we want to do to them again."

He also made light of the "Gang of 14" Senate sellout on the filibuster deal as irrelevant.

Is anybody surprised by any of this?

Sunday, July 03, 2005

Dems Finally Admit Judges Make Law

"[The Supreme Court] is a totally different ball game. ... A circuit court judge is bound by stare decisis. They don't get to make new law. They have to abide by [legal precedent]."

-Senator Joseph Biden on July 3, 2005 Face the Nation, when asked whether that would break the Senate's much-heralded compromise last month not to filibuster judicial appointments except under "extraordinary circumstances."

Oh, only Supreme Court judges get to make law. I get it now. (Which is why the Dems are fighting so hard for the judiciary...and why conservatives need to wake up and fight like they want to win)!

Dems Finally Admit Judges Make Law

"[The Supreme Court] is a totally different ball game. ... A circuit court judge is bound by stare decisis. They don't get to make new law. They have to abide by [legal precedent]."

-Senator Joseph Biden on July 3, 2005 Face the Nation, when asked whether that would break the Senate's much-heralded compromise last month not to filibuster judicial appointments except under "extraordinary circumstances."

Oh, only Supreme Court judges get to make law. I get it now. (Which is why the Dems are fighting so hard for the judiciary...and why conservatives need to wake up and fight like they want to win)!

Saturday, July 02, 2005

Courts Are Out of Control

It's one of 'dem days, folks.

More evidence that we DESPERATELY need to rein in the courts, to protect the people from these moronic (at best) and malevolent (more likely) idiot-lawyers who are called judges.

He grabbed girl's arm -- now he's a sex offender from the Chicago Sun-Times tells of a man who stopped and grabbed a 14 year old girl's arm and reprimanded her after she ran out in front of his car--and now he's a sex offender. The article mentions nothing about what he did that would indicate any sort of sexual action whatsoever.

In fact, the quotes provided indicate that the court acknowledges this, only indicating that his actions in grabbing the girl by the arm are "often a precursor" of sexual activity.

Well, I'm glad that our almighty courts now have the ability to read minds, see inside people's hearts and foretell the future!!! Idiot judges like this can predict that a man who would grab a girl's arm as he reprimands her for running out in front of a moving car will molest, yet idiot judges let drug dealers and real child molestors go on probation and other slaps on the wrist, further endangering society.

Our judicial system once existed to protect society, to protect the innocent from guilty; now it seems to exist to protect the guilty from consequences!

Here's some more deliberate (and pretty juvenile) obfuscation.

Seems the peace-loving and ever-thoughtful government of Iran have figured out why Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice doesn't like them very much.

TEHRAN: Perplexed by the vitriol of US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's attacks on Iran, one lawmaker believes he has uncovered the secret of her enmity - that she was spurned by an Iranian boyfriend at college.
"The reason that the US secretary of state attacks Iran is because she had her heart broken by a young man from Qazvin while they were students," a confident Shokrollah Attarzadeh was quoted by the ISNA agency as saying.
Somewhat mysteriously, he added: "This is the result of an investigation by a woman MP, who cannot be named."

Oh, I'm glad they cleared that up. I guess it has nothing to do with our people they took hostage during the disasterous Carter administration, the decades of sponsorship of terrorism, the religious opporession, civil rights violations, or any of the other barbaric practices of Iran.

No, none of that matters in the face of a purported college relationship decades ago when Rice was a young woman. After all, PhD accredited former national security advisors and secretaries of state are often known for pining away for unrequited love.

Epitome of Revisionism

Take a look at this article: Humanists seek platform to halt religious advance. Talk about an example of historical revisionism! It would be funny, if so many people weren't duped into already believing this bunk.

They sound as if the world had been secular until just recently, when all this religious garbage suddenly broke out. They "forget" that it was only in the past 30-50 years that America and large parts of the world became highly secularized, and that this "new" surge of religious expression is only people of faith finally realizing that if they don't speak up, their freedom is going to go right down the toilet. "Use it or lose it," they used to say in the military.

Unfortunately, this kind of revisionist thinking serves the purpose of intimidating people of faith into reticence because even so many of them are unsure of history and unsure of their rights. And I think the secularists know that.

C'mon people of faith: will you allow the God-hating secularists bluff you into forfeiting your right to worship your God openly?

Sunday, June 26, 2005

Chinese dragon awakens

We'd better wake up before it's too late (if it isn't already). We need to stop importing Chinese goods--and thus exporting all of our money which pays for Chinese armaments--and quit talking about closing U.S. military bases. The so-called "peace dividend" everybody rah-rahed after the Cold War has turned into more bloated bureaucracy and a new arms race.

Chinese dragon awakens
By Bill Gertz
June 26, 2005
Part I

China is building its military forces faster than U.S. intelligence and military analysts expected, prompting fears that Beijing will attack Taiwan in the next two years, according to Pentagon officials.
U.S. defense and intelligence officials say all the signs point in one troubling direction: Beijing then will be forced to go to war with the United States, which has vowed to defend Taiwan against a Chinese attack.
China's military buildup includes an array of new high-technology weapons, such as warships, submarines, missiles and a maneuverable warhead designed to defeat U.S. missile defenses. Recent intelligence reports also show that China has stepped up military exercises involving amphibious assaults, viewed as another sign that it is preparing for an attack on Taiwan.
"There's a growing consensus that at some point in the mid-to-late '90s, there was a fundamental shift in the sophistication, breadth and re-sorting of Chinese defense planning," said Richard Lawless, a senior China-policy maker in the Pentagon. "And what we're seeing now is a manifestation of that change in the number of new systems that are being deployed, the sophistication of those systems and the interoperability of the systems."
China's economy has been growing at a rate of at least 10 percent for each of the past 10 years, providing the country's military with the needed funds for modernization.
The combination of a vibrant centralized economy, growing military and increasingly fervent nationalism has transformed China into what many defense officials view as a fascist state.
"We may be seeing in China the first true fascist society on the model of Nazi Germany, where you have this incredible resource base in a commercial economy with strong nationalism, which the military was able to reach into and ramp up incredible production," a senior defense official said.
For Pentagon officials, alarm bells have been going off for the past two years as China's military began rapidly building and buying new troop- and weapon-carrying ships and submarines.
The release of an official Chinese government report in December called the situation on the Taiwan Strait "grim" and said the country's military could "crush" Taiwan.
Earlier this year, Beijing passed an anti-secession law, a unilateral measure that upset the fragile political status quo across the Taiwan Strait. The law gives Chinese leaders a legal basis they previously did not have to conduct a military attack on Taiwan, U.S. officials said.

The war fears come despite the fact that China is hosting the Olympic Games in 2008 and, therefore, some officials say, would be reluctant to invoke the international condemnation that a military attack on Taiwan would cause.
Army of the future
In the past, some defense specialists insisted a Chinese attack on Taiwan would be a "million-man swim" across the Taiwan Strait because of the country's lack of troop-carrying ships.
"We left the million-man swim behind in about 1998, 1999," the senior Pentagon official said. "And in fact, what people are saying now, whether or not that construct was ever useful, is that it's a moot point, because in just amphibious lift alone, the Chinese are doubling or even quadrupling their capability on an annual basis."
Asked about a possible Chinese attack on Taiwan, the official put it bluntly: "In the '07-'08 time frame, a capability will be there that a year ago we would have said was very, very unlikely. We now assess that as being very likely to be there."
Air Force Gen. Paul V. Hester, head of the Pacific Air Forces, said the U.S. military has been watching China's military buildup but has found it difficult to penetrate Beijing's "veil" of secrecy over it.
While military modernization itself is not a major worry, "what does provide you a pause for interest and concern is the amount of modernization, the kind of modernization and the size of the modernization," he said during a recent breakfast meeting with reporters.
China is building capabilities such as aerial refueling and airborne warning and control aircraft that can be used for regional defense and long-range power projection, Gen. Hester said.
It also is developing a maneuverable re-entry vehicle, or MARV, for its nuclear warheads. The weapon is designed to counter U.S. strategic-missile defenses, according to officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity. The warhead would be used on China's new DF-31 long-range missiles and its new submarine missile, the JL-2.
Work being done on China's weapons and reconnaissance systems will give its military the capability to reach 1,000 miles into the sea, "which gives them the visibility on the movement of not only our airplanes in the air, but also our forces at sea," Gen. Hester said.
Beijing also has built a new tank for its large armed forces. It is known as the Type 99 and appears similar in design to Germany's Leopard 2 main battle tank. The tank is outfitted with new artillery, anti-aircraft and machine guns, advanced fire-control systems and improved engines.
The country's air power is growing through the purchase of new fighters from Russia, such as Su-30 fighter-bombers, as well as the development of its own fighter jets, such as the J-10.
Gen. Hester compared Chinese warplanes with those of the former Soviet Union, which were less capable than their U.S. counterparts, but still very deadly.
"They have great equipment. The fighters are very technologically advanced, and what we know about them gives us pause for concern against ours," he said.
Missiles also are a worry.
"It is their surface-to-air missiles, their [advanced] SAMs and their surface-to-surface missiles, and the precision, more importantly, of those surface-to-surface missiles that provide, obviously, the ability to pinpoint targets that we might have out in the region, or our friends and allies might have," Gen. Hester said.
The advances give the Chinese military "the ability ... to reach out and touch parts of the United States -- Guam, Hawaii and the mainland of the United States," he said.
To better deal with possible future conflicts in Asia, the Pentagon is modernizing U.S. military facilities on the Western Pacific island of Guam and planning to move more forces there.
The Air Force will regularly rotate Air Expeditionary Force units to Guam and also will station the new long-range unmanned aerial vehicle known as Global Hawk on the island, he said.
It also has stationed B-2 stealth bombers on Guam temporarily and is expected to deploy B-1 bombers there, in addition to the B-52s now deployed there, Gen. Hester said.

Projecting power
China's rulers have adopted what is known as the "two-island chain" strategy of extending control over large areas of the Pacific, covering inner and outer chains of islands stretching from Japan to Indonesia.
"Clearly, they are still influenced by this first and second island chain," the intelligence official said.
The official said China's buildup goes beyond what would be needed to fight a war against Taiwan.
The conclusion of this official is that China wants a "blue-water" navy capable of projecting power far beyond the two island chains.
"If you look at the technical capabilities of the weapons platforms that they're fielding, the sea-keeping capabilities, the size, sensors and weapons fit, this capability transcends the baseline that is required to deal with a Taiwan situation militarily," the intelligence official said.
"So they are positioned then, if [Taiwan is] resolved one way or the other, to really become a regional military power as well."
The dispatch of a Han-class submarine late last year to waters near Guam, Taiwan and Japan was an indication of the Chinese military's drive to expand its oceangoing capabilities, the officials said. The submarine surfaced in Japanese waters, triggering an emergency deployment of Japan's naval forces.
Beijing later issued an apology for the incursion, but the political damage was done. Within months, Japan began adopting a tougher political posture toward China in its defense policies and public statements. A recent Japanese government defense report called China a strategic national security concern. It was the first time China was named specifically in a Japanese defense report.

Energy supply a factor
For China, Taiwan is not the only issue behind the buildup of military forces. Beijing also is facing a major energy shortage that, according to one Pentagon study, could lead it to use military force to seize territory with oil and gas resources.
The report produced for the Office of Net Assessment, which conducts assessments of future threats, was made public in January and warned that China's need for oil, gas and other energy resources is driving the country toward becoming an expansionist power.
China "is looking not only to build a blue-water navy to control the sea lanes [from the Middle East], but also to develop undersea mines and missile capabilities to deter the potential disruption of its energy supplies from potential threats, including the U.S. Navy, especially in the case of a conflict with Taiwan," the report said.
The report said China believes the United States already controls the sea routes from the oil-rich Persian Gulf through the Malacca Strait. Chinese President Hu Jintao has called this strategic vulnerability to disrupted energy supplies Beijing's "Malacca Dilemma."
To prevent any disruption, China has adopted a "string of pearls" strategy that calls for both offensive and defensive measures stretching along the oil-shipment sea lanes from China's coast to the Middle East.
The "pearls" include the Chinese-financed seaport being built at Gwadar, on the coast of western Pakistan, and commercial and military efforts to establish bases or diplomatic ties in Bangladesh, Burma, Cambodia, Thailand and disputed islands in the South China Sea.
The report stated that China's ability to use these pearls for a "credible" military action is not certain.
Pentagon intelligence officials, however, say the rapid Chinese naval buildup includes the capability to project power to these sea lanes in the future.
"They are not doing a lot of surface patrols or any other kind of security evolutions that far afield," the intelligence official said. "There's no evidence of [Chinese military basing there] yet, but we do need to keep an eye toward that expansion."
The report also highlighted the vulnerability of China's oil and gas infrastructure to a crippling U.S. attack.
"The U.S. military could severely cripple Chinese resistance [during a conflict over Taiwan] by blocking its energy supply, whereas the [People's Liberation Army navy] poses little threat to United States' energy security," it said.
China views the United States as "a potential threat because of its military superiority, its willingness to disrupt China's energy imports, its perceived encirclement of China and its disposition toward manipulating international politics," the report said.

'Mercantilist measures'
The report stated that China will resort "to extreme, offensive and mercantilist measures when other strategies fail, to mitigate its vulnerabilities, such as seizing control of energy resources in neighboring states."
U.S. officials have said two likely targets for China are the Russian Far East, which has vast oil and gas deposits, and Southeast Asia, which also has oil and gas resources.
Michael Pillsbury, a former Pentagon official and specialist on China's military, said the internal U.S. government debate on the issue and excessive Chinese secrecy about its military buildup "has cost us 10 years to figure out what to do"
"Everybody is starting to acknowledge the hard facts," Mr. Pillsbury said. "The China military buildup has been accelerating since 1999. As the buildup has gotten worse, China is trying hard to mask it."
Richard Fisher, vice president of the International Assessment and Strategy Center, said that in 10 years, the Chinese army has shifted from a defensive force to an advanced military soon capable of operations ranging from space warfare to global non-nuclear cruise-missile strikes.
"Let's all wake up. The post-Cold War peace is over," Mr. Fisher said. "We are now in an arms race with a new superpower whose goal is to contain and overtake the United States."

Friday, June 24, 2005

RINO Squad is Formed

A herd of RINOs (Republicans In Name Only) has a cover-euphemism for liberals who don't want to admit they're liberals) realize they probably can't win if they reveal their real formed, apparently to combat the execution of Republican ideals within the Republican Party.

Notice how this article quotes Duane Sutton: "We have run as Republicans and have won as Republicans ." That should change. These so-called moderates (a euphemism for a liberal who doesn't want people to know he's a liberal) know they can't get elected on their true values--or lack thereof--, and so "run as Republicans."


Posted on Fri, Jun. 24, 2005
Sutton, other moderates form political coalition
Prompted by actions in Terri Schiavo case
From staff and wire reports

Seven Republican state senators in South Dakota have formed a coalition aimed at giving political moderates a greater voice on the issues.

The focus is at the national level, where moderates don't always have an opportunity to speak their mind without being branded, said Sen. Ed Olson, of Mitchell, executive director of the South Dakota Mainstream Coalition.

Other charter members are Duane Sutton of Aberdeen, Tom Dempster and Dave Knudson of Sioux Falls; Stan Adelstein, Royal "Mac" McCracken and J.P. Duniphan of Rapid City.

The Terri Schiavo case provided a catalyst for action, Olson said.

"I thought it was so inappropriate," he said. "There is a lot of libertarian in all of us. Government is really getting into areas where it doesn't belong."

Group members are trying to communicate their message statewide and are looking for others to join them.

"I think (the group) will give a voice for centrists and moderates of both parties that has been absent," said Adelstein.

Sutton said he is part of the group because he wants to speak out against the direction the government is headed.

"There are some things the government shouldn't be involved in," Sutton said. "We felt the need for action."

But Darrel Smith, president of the South Dakota Family Policy Council board, questions the mission.

"There has been a concerted effort the past several decades to remove God from the public square," Smith said. "What we need is not hostility to religion but a recognition of the Judeo-Christian principles upon which our state and country were founded."

Randy Frederick, chairman of the South Dakota Republican Party, said the party welcomes a variety of voices.

"This is what I talk about," he said. "We don't want to form groups and leave the party, but everyone has a right to voice an opinion. If you are afraid to listen to someone's message, maybe you can't defend what you are doing."

Sutton thinks there are more moderates than most would think.

"I think more people think moderately than they do with either the far-right or the far-left," Sutton said.

Olson said the senators have no intention of leaving the party.

"We have been treated very well by party leadership and have no reason to be disenchanted with the Republican Party or our governor," he said. "But it is our strong belief that we need to get back to a place where people of more moderate persuasion feel more comfortable."

The members of the group still claim to be adamant Republicans.

"We have run as Republicans and have won as Republicans - that isn't changing," Sutton said.

The eventual goal of the group is to have a lay board without state legislators, Olson said.

Thursday, June 23, 2005

Supreme Court Tramples Fourth and Fifth Amendments

The U.S. Supreme court has now ruled that if the government feels like it, they can seize your house.

We're not talking eminent domain, where the seizure is for public use, but for the profit of economic interestes...and ultimately of those state and local governments which will stand to gain from the tax revenue generated by new businesses. A CLEAR conflict of interest!

The usual suspects (Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg and Breyer) voted once again to trash the Constitution.

Read about it at http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-06-23-scotus-property_x.htm?POE=NEWISVA.

The Fourth Amendmente says "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses...against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated..."

The Fifth says, "No person shall be...deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

As Judge O'Connor said, on the right side (this time): "Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random," O'Connor wrote. "The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms."

In essense, the Supreme Court today threw out the 4th and 5th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution in favor of Plank #1 of the Communist Manifesto: Abolition of property in land and the application of all rents of land to public purposes.

When are the American people going to realize the Left has a bullseye on everything they hold dear and hold these despots accountable?

Sunday, May 22, 2005


Saturday, January 22, 2005


Clicky Web Analytics