Mar 12, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
This report from Whittier, California has been going around the Net:Antiwar protesters burned and ripped up flags, flowers and patriotic signs at a Sept. 11 memorial that residents erected on a fence along Whittier Boulevard days after the terrorist attacks in 2001 and have maintained ever since.
However, although officers witnessed the vandalism Saturday afternoon, police did not arrest three people seen damaging the display because they were "exercising the same freedom of speech that the people who put up the flags were,' La Habra Police Capt. John Rees said Monday. "For this to be vandalism, there had to be an ill-will intent,' he said. Rees said in order for police to take any action, the owner of the fence would have to file a complaint.
Jeff Collison, owner of The RV Center in La Habra, who has allowed residents to add patriotic symbols to the fence on his property, said he just might do that. "Their free speech stops at destruction of private property. If they are allowed to come on my property and burn flags, does that mean I can go to City Hall or the police station and light their flags on fire because that is freedom of speech? To me, this is vandalism."
... Tracey Chandler, a Whittier mother of four who has maintained the spontaneous memorial since it was created by other area residents soon after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, said... "They trashed 87 flags, ripped 11 memorial tiles made by myself and my children out of the ground and glued the Bob Dylan song to a sign that said, 'America, land of the brave, home of the free.'" [Whittier Daily News, 3/11/03]
Mar 12, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
Washington, D.C.-- Recently, the House of Representatives proposed the "Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act," which would, "prohibit civil liability actions from being brought or continued against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or importers of firearms or ammunition for damages resulting from the misuse of their products by others." Although it should not take an act of Congress to prohibit the punishment of innocents, the only alternative is to have U.S. judges actually read the Constitution--an extremist approach that few in Washington could stomach.
The move comes in the wake of several scapegoat-style lawsuits designed to institutionalize the shirking of personal responsibility, while crushing successful businesses in the process. Just last week, a California judge dismissed a "negligent marketing" lawsuit against several gun manufacturers and distributors, which blamed them for "dumping" guns into areas where criminals and children could buy them. The suit was filed by San Francisco, Los Angeles, Berkeley, Oakland, West Hollywood, and several other California counties. These counties also just happen to have the strictest anti-gun laws in the state. Hmmm.
In what must be completely unrelated news, a Los Angeles police officer was charged today with stealing unlawful "assault" weapons and selling them on the black market...
Mar 11, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
Senate Republicans say they have moved to within a single vote of guaranteeing President Bush one of his top domestic priorities--opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling. [Associated Press, 3/11/03]
Mar 11, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
Hundreds of Zimbabwe's notorious youth militia, nicknamed the "green bombers", are fleeing to South Africa because they say they too are being beaten and starved, and are tired of "killing for nothing"....One youth said he fled Zimbabwe after being forced to take part in the murder of his uncle, a supporter of the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC)....Yet another said he fled to South Africa after being instructed to murder his father, an MDC supporter....They come from the hundreds of youth militia training camps which have sprung up in Zimbabwe, many at secondary schools where pupils are forced to take part in activities or risk death. [Sunday Independent (South Africa), 3/8/03]
Mar 10, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
Here is an exchange between ABC's Diane Sawyer and Dan Harris on Saddam Hussein (as transcribed by the Media Research Center) on March 7:Sawyer: "Well Dan, it's very hard to look at those and think of his meetings as a laugh riot exactly over in Baghdad, but I read this morning that he's also said the love that the Iraqis have for him is so much greater than anything Americans feel for their President because he's been loved for 35 years, he says, the whole 35 years."
Harris: "He is one to point out quite frequently that he is part of a historical trend in this country of restoring Iraq to its greatness, its historical greatness. He points out frequently that he was elected with a hundred percent margin recently."
Like Fidel Castro? Observe how Sawyer and Harris chose to quote those particular statements of the dictator Hussein, yet choose not to present other relevant facts (the Iraqi elections were a farce--there was one candidate, who murders his relatives who oposse him, etc.) in the same context.
On Good Morning America Sawyer spoke with Alice Hoglan, a mother of one of the passengers on Flight 93, the plane which crashed in Pennsylvania:
Sawyer: "And as you hear about the prospect of war with Iraq, do you worry that it will distract from a concerted, concentrated approach to the war on terror with Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda?"
Hoglan: "I think that President Bush's focus on Iraq is consistent with his focus on the war on terror....His actions are consistent. Iraq harbors criminals, harbors terrorists and represents a threat in its own right. I support President Bush and the others, Senator McCain and the others who have spoken out in favor of removing this despot from power."
Busted.
Mar 9, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
Shortly after three o'clock on a hot afternoon 37-year-old Nazif Mamik Tofik, an Iraqi Kurd, approached the border post carrying two five-gallon canisters of fuel. She hoped to cross to the Kurdish-controlled side and sell them for a pound or two, which would help feed her eight hungry children.
As she stepped up to the Iraqi checkpoint, a military policeman suddenly pulled a knife, slashed open the flimsy plastic containers and splashed petrol all over her. Then the head of the Iraqi border guard casually walked up to her, pulled a lighter from his pocket and set her ablaze. Soaked in fuel, she began to burn like a torch. That was on Monday afternoon. Yesterday Nazif lay in Sulaimania emergency hospital, on the Iraqi side, whimpering with pain. She had third degree burns and doctors said she was lucky to be alive....
In a faltering voice, she said: "They said absolutely nothing, just looked at me with hatred. Then they set me alight. My whole body was in flames. I can't describe the pain."
Comments the doctor treating her,
"It will be a month before her skin begins to heal. Only then can we begin the slow, painful process of grafting." [Daily Telegraph, 3/7/03]
So the next time you see an antiwar-monger crying about the "innocents" who might be killed by Saddam when the U.S. overthrows Iraq, think of Nazif Mamik Tofik. [Thanks to Paul Blair for the news sighting.]
Mar 8, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
A French company has been selling spare parts to Iraq for its fighter jets and military helicopters during the past several months, according to U.S. intelligence officials. The unidentified company sold the parts to a trading company in the United Arab Emirates, which then shipped the parts through a third country into Iraq by truck....
The importation of military goods by Iraq is banned under U.N. Security Council resolutions passed since the 1991 Persian Gulf war. Nathalie Loiseau, press counselor at the French Embassy, said her government has no information about the spare-parts smuggling and has not been approached by the U.S. government about the matter....
France has been Iraq's best friend in the West. French arms sales to Baghdad were boosted in the 1970s under Premier Jacques Chirac, the current president. Mr. Chirac once called Saddam Hussein a "personal friend." During the 1980s, when Paris backed Iraq in its war against Iran, France sold Mirage fighter bombers and Super Entendard aircraft to Baghdad, along with Exocet anti-ship missiles....
France now has an estimated $4 billion in debts owed to it by Iraq as a result of arms sales and infrastructure construction projects. The debt is another reason U.S. officials believe France is opposing military force to oust Saddam. [Emphasis added, Washington Times, 3/7/03]
Mar 8, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
In a highly publicized editorial categorized as a "news" profile, BBC NEWS reports on Saddam supporter, actor Martin Sheen:Martin Sheen's President Bartlet is far removed from George W Bush. Bartlet is liberal, idealistic, intellectual and charismatic.
Translation: George W. Bush is a Republican, unprincipled, idiot, who no one really likes probably because he beats up on his mother.
Mar 8, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
Inside the Baghdad stock exchange's two-story concrete building, investors are upbeat. The benchmark BSI index, which closed at 2,212 on Monday, has gained 31 percent this year, according to data provided by the exchange's research department. The big movers: Baghdad hotels such as the Palestine, the Ishtar and the Sadir. Investors are betting that a quick war, followed by the ouster of President Saddam Hussein, will lead to a surge of visitors and tourists. [Bloomberg News, 3/7/03]
I wonder how the press will spin this? Probably similar to the recent U.S. market upsurge after Bush's recent press address, where the BBC claims "New York shares are up on rumours that soldiers may be close to Osama bin Laden, but war jitters continue to hammer markets elsewhere." The truth, as Richard Salsman has reiterated for the past few years is that the so-called "war-jitters" are bullish. [Thanks to Paul Blair for the news sighting.]
Mar 7, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
According to the National Post, at York University in Canada a recent college "protest"--against the removal of dictator Saddam Hussein from Iraq by the U.S.--turned violent as students with an American flag were assaulted by a large group of students and two Jewish students were harassed by anti-war demonstrators. Clearly the motivation of this group of peace-niks is not real peace, but pacifism towards cruel dictators, with violence reserved for the real object of their hatred--free people who dare to disagree with them.Mar 7, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
Writes Richard Salsman, CFA in the February 28th, 2003 edition of the InterMarket Forecaster:Until war is waged, bonds in the U.S. especially corporate bonds will be the best financial asset worth owning. What would be bullish for stocks? We saw a spectacular, but brief (two-month) rally in U.S. stocks starting in early October the same week the U.S. Congress passed a resolution granting President Bush full authority to wage war against Iraq. But Bush has failed (so far) to exercise that authority. He may do so next month. If not or if he acts against Iraq but not against Iran and North Korea investors in U.S. stocks could see a sad repeat of the long, bearish spring-summer of 2002.
[...]
Here's a simple guide for investors in the coming weeks: If the headlines are filled with reports of actual U.S. bombings, battles won and Don Rumsfeld, that'll be bullish for U.S. equities and bearish for commodities; but if the headlines are filled (as they have been for so long) with reports of still-more U.N. resolutions, 'inspectors' reports' and Colin Powell, that'll be bearish for U.S. stocks and bullish for commodities.
Mar 7, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
A New Zealand woman said on Wednesday she was willing to be crucified by President Bush if he pledges not to attack Iraq....
But the deal has a catch--Bush would have to personally hammer in the nails.
"I don't think he would have the courage to do it quite frankly, but that is the measure of a man," she told Radio New Zealand. [Reuters, 3/5/03]
The mind boggles at this kind of corruption. The evasion of the threat posed by Iraq is wholesale dishonesty. The implicit accusation that George Bush is simply interested in causing pain and suffering, and so would be satisfied by crucifying someone, is monstrously unjust. Even to pretend to be willing to sacrifice oneself to such an evil act is the height of irrational self-hatred. And then there is the adoption of the mantle of Christ for the purpose of manipulating the weak-minded by moral intimidation, a vicious power-lust if ever there was one.
Of course, if George Bush were the kind of person who would accept such an offer, he would also be the kind of person to then go ahead and attack Iraq anyway--which shows just how impotent those who hold such a "moral" code are.Mar 7, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
Andrew Bernstein "In Defense of the Cowboy":
Even as our European critics use the "cowboy" image as a symbol of reckless irresponsibility, they implicitly reveal the real virtues they are attacking. European leaders assail Americans because our "language is far too blunt" and because we see the struggle between Western Civilization and Islamic fanaticism in "black-and-white certainties." They whine about our "Texas attitude" and whimper that "an American president who makes up his mind and then will accept no argument" is a greater danger than murderous dictators. In short, they object to America's willingness to face the facts, to make moral judgments, to act independently, and to battle evil with unflinching courage. [Capitalism Magazine, 2/27/03]
Who is more practical--the man with principles or the one who repudiates them? Who is more sophisticated--the man who reaches certitude through a grasp causes, or the one who restricts himself to the "here and now"? The Europeans and their intellectual lackeys in the American universities have swallowed uncritically the dogma of pragmatism--the doctrine, not that one must be practical, but that principles are the enemy of practicality. Their sneers and hostility to certitude are a pose, to conceal from themselves their anxiety at their own cognitive impotence.
The problem with GWB is that he's not principled enough. As Bernstein writes:
The only valid criticism of President Bush, in this context, is that he is not true enough to the heritage of the Lone Star State. When the Texas Rangers went after a bank robber or rustler, they didn't wait to ask the permission of his fellow gang members. Yet Bush is asking permission from a U.N. Security Council chaired by Syria, one of the world's most active sponsors of terrorism.
Mar 7, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
Make sure to browse the photos (from the PaveFrance.com site) of a "friendly little protest at the French Embassy" in Washington, D.C. Some of them are absolutely hilarious:
Here is the best in late night talk show French humor:
"You know why the French don't want to bomb Saddam Hussein? Because he hates America, he loves mistresses and wears a beret. He is French, people."--Conan O'Brien
"I don't know why people are surprised that France won't help us get Saddam out of Iraq. After all, France wouldn't help us get the Germans out of France!"---Jay Leno
"The last time the French asked for 'more proof' it came marching into Paris under a German flag."--David Letterman
And while I am at it, let's not forget Cox and Forkum who have made short work of France's Minor League Quarterback Chirac.
Mar 7, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
This op-ed by James Taranto, which I heard him present the other night, is worth reading. It takes on the bromides of the antiwar position--among them that America is "rushing to war" and that invading Iraq is a "diversion" from the war on Al Qaeda. What interests me most is his third one, which I've been hearing a lot lately: that military action against Iraq will lead to more terrorism:
It will [allegedly] inflame the "Arab street," whip up anti-Americanism and expand the number of potential terrorists.
This, it seems to me, misunderstands the Arab street entirely. What inflames the Arab street is not American strength but the perception of American irresoluteness. Before the Gulf War, the Arab street protested fervidly in favor of Saddam. After the Gulf War, it was quiet. On Sept. 11, the Arab street whooped with delight at America's suffering. It was quiet after we liberated Afghanistan from the Taliban.
Recently I met an Iraqi-American woman who told me that whenever she travels to places like Egypt and Syria, people respond with great enthusiasm...: "[Saddam is] wonderful because he stands up to America."
As long as Saddam is in power, he remains a symbol of defiance against the feckless free world. He personifies the disorder that prevails throughout the Arab and Muslim worlds. This is what breeds terrorism. This is why liberating Iraq is a crucial part of the project America began on Sept. 11, 2001. [OpinionJournal.com, 3/6/03]
The central motive behind bin Laden's attacks on 9/11 was to reveal to the world that America is weak, that it is a paper tiger--because he thought that doing so would rally Arab support. In other words, the person who's in the best position to know, and who's bet his own life that he's right, believes that the perception of American weakness helps encourage terrorists and that the perception of American strength makes potential terrorists give up in futility.
To the question: "What if you're wrong?" I answer: What if you're wrong? Why do you find the risk of inflaming terrorism by going to war to be unacceptable, but the more realistic risk of inflaming terrorism by not going to war to be acceptable?
And even if it were true that attacking Iraq would swell terrorist ranks: Which is more of a threat to us, a few terrorists armed with poison gas, smallpox and nuclear weapons, or a large number of terrorists armed with conventional weapons? Most of these people have no chance of reaching America anyway; but with weapons of mass destruction the arrival of even a few of them would have a devastating effect.Mar 7, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
"If we act we will act, and we really don't need United Nations approval to do so ... When it comes to security we don't need anybody's permission." -- President Bush during his March 6th, 2003, Press Conference.Mar 7, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
WASHINGTON -- Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld indicated Thursday that he wants U.S. troops stationed near the Demilitarized Zone separating North and South Korea to be moved farther from the heavily defended zone, shifted to other countries in the region or brought home. The South Korean military, which has relied on American forces to deter an attack from communist North Korea since the end of the Korean War in 1953, is capable of defending the border itself, Rumsfeld said. [...] The U.S. military, on the other hand, could play more of a secondary role by arranging its forces at an "air hub" and "sea hub" and as reinforcements for the South Korean front-line troops, he said during a question-and-answer session with a group of Pentagon civilians and troops.
This is a brilliant diplomatic move for three reasons:
- It implicitly calls North Korea's bluff. Right when Kim Il Jung is trying to act so tough, Rumsfeld counters by saying that South Korea doesn't even need the US.
- South Korea's new government is fairly anti-American and unhappy with the US presence, so Rumsfeld is forcing them to take responsibility for their defense--to call there bluff, if it is indeed a bluff.
- We need to get out of the business of protecting other countries, especially those who are unfriendly to the U.S.
Mar 5, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
Those AP folks always put an interesting spin on articles. Take the recent piece titled by the AP: "Man Arrested for Wearing Peace T-Shirt". Comments the police chief who made the arrest:"We don't care what they have on their shirts, but they were asked to leave the property, and it's private property," Murley said.
How about "Man arrested for tresspassing and physically refusing to leave despite being asked peacefully to do so"? Malls are places to shop, just likes roads are throughways to drive. They are not created to advertise your support for keeping a ruthless dictator in power. That's what garbage dumps and the Berkely campus are for.
