#4
I, for one, welcome the impending misery that Ecuador has brought on itself. Hoist them as an example of everything leftists don't know about economics.
#5
No problem. The Rantburg investor group will start a bullet train from Ecuador to Tijuana. Lunch with Ted Kennedy and then a short dash across the boarder to awaiting jobs in the US.
Hat tip Western Resistance.
American taxpayers are bankrolling a Latin American leader who's clearly no friend
MARK STEYN
Four years ago, The Economist ran a cover story on the winner of the Brazilian election, the socialist leader Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva. It was an event of great hemispherical significance. Hence the headline: "The Meaning Of Lula."
The following week, a Canadian reader, Asif Niazi, wrote to the magazine: "Sir, 'The meaning of Lula' in Urdu is penis."
No doubt. It would not surprise me to learn that the meaning of Chávez in Arabic is penis. An awful lot of geopolitics gets lost in translation, especially when you're not keeping up. Since 9/11, Latin America has dropped off the radar, but you don't have to know the lingo to figure out it clearly doesn't mean what it did five years ago at the Summit of the Americas in Quebec City. In April 2001 I spent a pleasant weekend on the Grand-Allée inhaling the heady perfume of SQ tear gas and dodging lumps of concrete lobbed over the security fence by the anti-glob mob. The fence itself was covered in protest bras hung there by anti-Bush feminist groups. "VIVA" said the left cup. "CASTRO" said the right. (Cup-wise, I mean stage left.) On another, "MA MERE" (left) "IS NOT FOR SALE" (right). 48D, if you're wondering how they got four words on. That's one big earth mother. I'm not much for manning the barricades and urging revolution, but it's not without its appeal when you're stuck inside the perimeter making chit-chat with the deputy trade minister of Costa Rica.
That was the point: hemispheric normality. As the Bush administration liked to note, the Americas were now a shining sea of democracy, save for the aging and irrelevant Fidel, who was the only head of government not invited to the summit. But, other than that, no more generalissimos in the presidential palace; they were republics, but no longer bananas. When George W. Bush arrived, he was greeted by Jean Chrétien. "Bienvenue. That means welcome," said the prime minister, being a bit of a lula. But what did Bush care? He was looking south: that was the future, and they were his big amigos.
Then Sept. 11 happened. And the amigos weren't quite so friendly, or at any rate helpful, and Bush found himself holed up with the usual pasty white blokes like Tony Blair and John Howard, back in the Anglosphere with not an enchilada in sight. And everyone was so busy boning up on sharia and Wahhabis and Kurds and Pashtuns that very few of us noticed that Latin America was slipping back to its old ways.
Frank Gaffney's new book War Footing is subtitled 10 Steps America Must Take to Prevail in the War for the Free World, and includes, as one might expect, suggestions for the home front, the Middle East, the transnational agencies. But it's some of the other chapters that give you pause when it comes to the bigger picture -- for example, he urges Washington to "counteract the re-emergence of totalitarianism in Latin America." That doesn't sound like the fellows Condi and Colin were cooing over in Quebec. But, as Gaffney writes, "Many Latin American countries are imploding rather than developing. The region's most influential leaders are thugs. It is a magnet for Islamist terrorists and a breeding ground for hostile political movements . . . The key leader is [Hugo] Chávez, the billionaire dictator of Venezuela who has declared a Latino jihad against the United States."
Even Castro's bounced back. Did you see that story in Forbes about the world's richest rulers? Lot of familiar names on there: Saudi King Abdullah, the sultan of Brunei, Prince Albert of Monaco . . . but Fidel came in seventh, pipping our own dear Queen. How'd he get so rich? It can't all be Canadian tourist dollars, can it? Well, no. Castro is Chávez's revolutionary mentor and the new kid on the block's been happy to pump cash infusions into the old boy's impoverished basket case. "Venezuela," writes Gaffney, "has more energy resources than Iraq and supplies one-fifth of the oil sold in America." In 1999, when Chávez came to power, oil was under ten bucks a barrel. Now it's pushing US$70. And, just like the Saudis, Chávez is using his windfall in all kinds of malign ways, not merely propping up the elderly Cuban dictator but funding would-be "Chávismo" movements in Peru, Bolivia, El Salvador, Paraguay, Ecuador.
And Chávismo fans are found way beyond the hemisphere. Señor Chávez will be in London this week as a guest of the mayor, Ken Livingstone. The Venezuelan president said Bush was a "madman" who should be "strapped down" and Blair was an "ally of Hitler" who should "go to hell." What else does a Euroleftie need to know before rolling out the red carpet? Last year, the British MP George Galloway was in Syria to see Baby Assad and gave a pep talk to Araby's only remaining Baathist regime:
"What your lives would be if from the Atlantic to the Gulf we had one Arab union -- all this land, 300 million people, all this oil and gas and water, occupied by a people who speak the same language, follow the same religions, listen to the same Umm Kulthum. The Arabs would be a superpower in the world . . . . Hundreds of thousands are ready to fight the Americans in the Middle East, and in Latin America there is revolution everywhere. Fidel Castro is feeling young again. Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay, Bolivia, Ecuador, Chile are all electing left-wing governments which are challenging American domination. And in Venezuela, the hero Hugo Chávez has stood against them over and over and over again."
At first glance, an Islamo-Chávismo alliance sounds like the bus-and-truck version of the Hitler-Stalin pact. But it's foolish to underestimate the damage it could do. As Gaffney points out, American taxpayers are in the onerous position of funding both sides in this war. The price of oil is US$50 per barrel higher than it was on 9/11. "Looking at it another way," writes Gaffney, "Saudi Arabia -- which currently exports about 10 mbd -- receives an extra half billion dollars every day." Where does it go? It goes on Saudi Arabia's real principal export: ideology -- the radical imams and madrasas the Saudis fund in Pakistan, Central Asia, Africa, the Balkans, Indonesia, the tri-border region of Latin America, not to mention Oregon and Ontario. But, not content with funding the enemy in this great clash of civilizations, American taxpayers are also bankrolling various third parties, like Venezuela. And there's nothing like increasing oil wealth to drive powerful despots down ever crazier paths (I'm thinking of Chávez and King Abdullah rather than Ralph Klein, but the general rule holds).
What to do? Gaffney proposes Americans boycott Citgo gas stations (owned by the Venezuelan government) and switch over to FFVs (flexible fuel vehicles). He's right. The telegram has been replaced by the email and the Victrola has yielded to the CD player, but, aside from losing the rumble seat and adding a few cupholders, the automobile is essentially unchanged from a century ago. Yet as long as industry "reform" is intended to force Americans into smaller, less comfortable, less safe vehicles, it's hard to see anyone taking it seriously. (As a world-class demography bore, by the way, I don't think it's coincidence that the only Western country with healthy birth rates is also the one that drives around in the biggest vehicles: the nanny state can't mandate bulky child seats and then require a young family to drive around in a Fiat Uno.)
After 9/11, Bush told the world: you're either with us or with the terrorists. But an America that for no reason other than its lack of will continues to finance its enemies' ideology has clearly checked the "both of the above" box. It's hardly surprising then that the other players are concluding that, if forced to make a choice, they're with the terrorists. I get a surprising amount of mail from Americans who say, aw, we're too big a bunch of pussies to kick Islamobutt but fortunately the Russkies and the ChiComs have got their own Muslim wackjobs and they won't be as squeamish as us wimps when it comes to sorting them out once and for all. Dream on. Muslim populations in the Caucasus and western China pose some long-term issues for Moscow and Beijing but, in the meantime, both figure the jihad's America's problem and it's in their interest to keep it that way. Hence, Russo-Chinese support for every troublemaker on the planet, from Iran's kooky president to Chávismo in America's backyard. The meaning of Chávez in just about any language is "opportunity."
#1
"Hence, Russo-Chinese support for every troublemaker on the planet, from Iran's kooky president to Chávismo in America's backyard."
Exactly, just like ANSWER organizing the illegal immigrant rallies to disrupt internal American politics along the most volatile faultline. We are being played for fools. Time to keep our eyes on the ball and win this damn war. More, faster, please.
Posted by: DanNY ||
05/18/2006 10:46 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Chinese influence in the Caribbean is just as powerful and dangerous as Chavez in Latin America. The region is truly a basketcase.
Authoritarian rulers have always loved children. Or would it be more honest to say, they feigned their love for the little ones? Perhaps, they realized even though they hated the idea that sooner or later they would have to yield to the younger generation. But they also knew that to win their peoples hearts, it was enough to shower warmth and affection on a few babies and their mothers.
We still remember pictures of Lenin, grandad Lenin to us, surrounded by children, from our schoolbooks, the same grandad who left a bloody trail behind him in history.
We remember old Soviet-era newsreels featuring Josef Stalin holding a little girl, smiling kindly that smile that still makes thousands shudder across the globe as he watches hundreds of jubilant demonstrators marching through the Red Square...
Vladimir Putin toes the line. In his latest state-of-the-nation address, the Russian leader championed the role of motherhood in tackling the demographic crisis in this country. He made it quite clear, though, that the problem of the dwindling population was especially acute, not for the nation on the whole, but for the Defense Ministry, being short of children meant it had trouble manning Russias ailing armed forces.
Putin voiced concern over the pace at which the Russian population has been shrinking over the past decades. Demographics researchers warn that if the most pessimistic models hold, the decline could make the country a vast, under-populated state within four or five decades, a country with too few healthy people for a competitive work force or a capable army.
It seems that the Defense Ministry is the only institution that understands why it is necessary to solve the demographic problem in Russia, Andrei Illarionov, former presidential aide and, since recently, vocal critic of the Kremlin regime, said commenting on Putins remark that the Defense Ministry understood quite well the importance of such notions as love, women and children.
What do they know about love in the army? While love means nothing without respect for human life and dignity, the Russian armed forces are plagued with bullying, so-called non-statutory relationships, with conscripts beaten, molested and driven to suicide? Kids left disabled, crippled for life with their genitals amputated! And he says the Defense Ministry understands such things as love and children
Had he been just a bit more honest although he is quite frank, of course he could have openly said: Give us cannon fodder! Indeed, he did not go as far as Josef Stalin, as The New York Times noted last week, and encouraged women to give birth by offering Medals of Maternal Glory to repopulate a country thinned by repression and war.
What Putin did offer, though, is financial support to women who give birth to more than one child and families who adopt children. Not in the form of cash payments, of course, for he knows better how to deal with those seemingly enormous sums of money. Families will apparently be entitled to certain benefits and subsidies, while real cash will go to maternity hospitals, schools, and property developers.
I dont have any children. Never wanted any. Never knew the joy of childbirth, and, to be honest, dont miss it. I would not have children for money. It sounds indecent, at least. Much has been said and written lately in Russia about the immorality of surrogate motherhood, but there at least we have an honest contract a woman sells her body to a desperate couple who need her help in carrying their child and once it is born she can rest assured he, or she, will be loved and cared for.
Our government wants us to have children, for a meager fee that real estate professionals say would not even suffice to secure a mortgage loan Then they will send our children to war (even if officially Russia is not at war with anyone) and have them beaten, molested, driven to suicide, or killed.
I am not talking here of Chechnya alone, the ever-bleeding hot spot of Russia that is likely to bleed for years ahead.
They are trying to solve the crisis through good old militaristic methods. At the same time they insist that their objective is to build a free democratic society under the rule of law.
Vladimir Putin has given me another excuse for not having children. Ever.
Posted by: Steve ||
05/18/2006 08:33 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[8 views]
Top|| File under:
#2
Russian analysts estimating a demographic loss of at least 50.0Milyuhn by 2050. Having many many kids as a way to increase odds of familial-societal survival works only when parents believe change is possible - once they believe change is not possible, having extra kids only adds to their perennial problems, and no longer represents a solution. * "IFF MEN BUILD IT, THE WOMEN WILL COME OR SPEND IT" - Russia and its aging, dying, declining population should serve as an example of why world Socialism, West and East, and regardless of form, both need to adopt the American model, NOT the other way around. EUROS, includ RUSSIA + EASTERN EUROPE > Americans are several times richer than the Euros despite the Euros having a larger total population and enjoying myriad public benefits than Americans do.
While its certainly better to be a Fascist Socialist than a Communist Socialist, Fascism including Clintonian Communist-controlled Fascism, aka Leftism-controlled Rightism, is at best a TEMPORARY SOLUTION to the internal or ideo defects or problems of Govt.-centric Socialism, i.e. Governmentism. When Socialism tells men that Govt., Public Institutions, Society, or Third Parties will do everything for them, that men are no longer needed for anything save to be a sperm donor, the male psyche tells a man he no longer has to worry or care about anyone or anything except his male-centric, self-centric, personal individual needs and desires, NOT women, NOT family, NOT kids, NOT S-E-X or Romance or Marriage, Not the Job or the Mortage or the Taxes or Retirement or the Car(s) or the Investments, Not Society or Govt or the City or the Nation, nada and no one, everyone nor everything. The man's job becomes to enjoy himself, by and for and only for himself, no longer the Babe or the Kid(s) or the World or even God. Someone else is now the Warrior-Leader-Protector-Provider-Organizer-Innnovator in any each every and all things. A Man now becomes a lazy ass hedonist-bohemian whose sole purpose in life is to collect and spend the Monies Govt gives him, and only for him, before he dies.
Here is the most insincere question a liberal TV news star can ask: How can President Bush turn around his poll numbers? Imagine how they would have reacted if Rush Limbaugh had pretended to worry how Bill Clinton was going to turn around his fortunes. The medias crocodile tears are not even laughable, just nauseating. Pushing down the presidents approval rating seems to be their daily task.
The newest manufactured brouhaha over the National Security Agency creating a database of phone records to track terrorist phone patterns -- was just the latest in a long string of stories trumped up to make Bush look not just incorrect, but dictatorial, even evil. USA Today hyped the story, and the media pack lapped it up, but it failed the first test of newsworthiness: is it new? No. USA Todays scoop was mostly a retelling of what the New York Times reported last Christmas Eve, that the phone companies had given the NSA access to streams of international and domestic communications.
If this wasnt merely a partisan media ploy to pound Bushs reputation into a finer powder, wouldnt the networks hype a story whenever it felt a White House was intruding on the personal privacy of Americans? Yes, but we do not have an equal-opportunity media when it comes to scandal creation.
For a sense of the Earth-shaking tone the anchors used against Bush, heres how NBC anchor Brian Williams began his broadcast in 2006: It started on page one of USA Today and exploded all over the morning news. The super-secret National Security Agency is using phone company records, just about all the phone calls made in this country, to build a massive database of phone calls and e-mails.
Ten years ago, when the Clinton administration was rifling through the FBI files of former Republican officials, it was extremely distasteful to object. Here is Brian Williams in June of 1996, after the White House admitted collecting FBI reports on 338 GOP officials (later revised upward to more than 900), and after Bob Dole compared it to Nixons enemies list: "The politics of Campaign '96 are getting very ugly, very early. Today Bob Dole accused the White House of using the FBI to wage war against its political enemies, and if that sounds like another political scandal, that's the point."
At that time, Washington Post media reporter Howard Kurtz admitted the press blew the FBI-files story. Why? There was a "feeling that...a political snooping operation was not the kind of thing they expected from the Clinton White House, whereas if hundreds of files had been obtained by Ed Meese in the Reagan administration on Democrats, I think this story would have rocketed to the front page."
Now were observing that role reversal. Granted, the scope of the NSA database is much larger. But its also less personal than FBI files, full of raw personal allegations. How's that for a double standard: The Clintons built a treasure-trove of personal data on their political adversaries, and the networks called the Republicans who objected "ugly." But when the NSA builds a database to discover terrorists in America, it's time to impeach the dictator.
The Clintons were absorbed in database creation not to protect the country, but to protect and perfect their grip on power. "Secret System Computerizes Personal Data," declared a June 26, 1996 front-page article in The Washington Times. Reporter Paul Rodriguez detailed how the White House Office Data Base (WHODB) tracked personal information on those who visited the Clintons, including their Democratic National Committee donation records. Network coverage? Not a word on ABC, CBS or NBC.
Seven months later, the Los Angeles Times and Time magazine broke the story again, discovering the Clintonites routinely turned over personal information of supporters to the DNC, mingling White House funds and party-building activities. Then CBS and NBC aired one story. ABC did not. But again, it was a Republican allegation, not a Los Angeles Times story.
On CBS, Dan Rather found Republicans have again attacked on the database of 350,000 names, and Republicans say that this was a blatant fundraising operation and that taxpayers were stuck with a $1.7 million tab to create it. Thats basically what the newspapers said, too, but CBS smarmily cast as a negative partisan campaign. Reporter Rita Braver concluded by spinning for Hillary: Now the documents we obtained showed that the First Lady personally pushed hard for this system...she confirmed that. She also insisted she only wanted something to track who came to official White House functions.
Its only when Republicans hold the White House that the networks fear an imperial presidency. But the problem for Americans is an imperial media, so assured of its own self-congratulatory role as defender of Americas freedoms, but such an emperor with no clothes of fairness or balance.
We can stop talking about Karl Rove, super-genius, now, can't we?
President Bush's speech on immigration might have been aimed at the moderate wing of the moderate moderates, but it made the base feel like they'd been invited to the prom and stood up by Vicente Fox in drag.
It didn't have to be this way. A sturdy endorsement of a fence coupled with repudiation of amnesty and massive deportation would have roped most of the disaffected strays back into the corral. They'd grumble, but who doesn't?
Instead the base got the political equivalent of Dubai Ports World running the Mexican border under the direction of Harriet Miers. Herewith an imaginary conversation with an administration spokesman:
Q: Hi. Speaking as a supporter of immigration who values the contribution of hard-working, pro-family Hispanics, can we have a big, long, tall fence?
A: Of course. Well, no. Well, yes; you can have a virtual fence, which will prevent virtual immigrants. We can use technology to track them into the country, see where they go, find out which schools their children attend. Using GPS, we can then send them a postcard, in Spanish, requesting that they leave by '09.
Q: You call that a disincentive?
A: Yes. The postcard will not be printed in some of the regional dialects common to Latin America. In any case, people could tunnel under a fence. Gigantic Tijuana rats, lashed together in bunches of six, could dig a tunnel wide enough for a man to slither through, if he laid off the carbs.
Q: But it would cut the flow by 90 percent. Presently there are 24/7 bus caravans bringing in the illegals ...
A: We prefer the term "pre-approved guest drywallers."
Q: Fine. But. Why does the White House have a fence? Why not a virtual fence, with a path to legal status for all assassins who make it into the foyer? Just have the Secret Service periodically shoot into the ground, in case anyone's tunneling.
A: The paperwork involved in discharging a weapon is onerous and discouraging.
Q: Like the paperwork involved in legal immigration, right?
A: Exactly. But if you want armed defense, you should be pleased to note we will soon deploy the National Guard. Of course, we do not have a shoot-to-kill policy; we have a yell-to-scare policy, so the Guard will free up the Border Patrol to shout warnings at non-documented un-citizens.
Q: Again with the Guard? We invade Iraq, we need the Guard because we don't have enough soldiers. We send the Guard to the border because we don't have enough guys to patrol our legal perimeters. Are they going to have to call out the Guard to help seniors figure out their new Medicare benefits? The Guard can be withdrawn in a day. A fence stands until it crumbles, providing you don't buy the cement from the Sopranos. How about a bold new vision, something that reframes the debate and moves beyond the tired slogans? How about ... an Ellis Island of the Southwest?
A: Ellis Island is in New York.
Q: Yes, yes. But Americans would have instantly grasped what that meant. It would have harkened back to the days when we took the tired, huddled masses unto our bosom with the understanding that we got the chance to thump 'em for TB and take their names down first. It would have connected the ideas of control and compassion, and given us a rhetorical focal point this debate lacks. Heck, it would rank with "Axis of Evil" as a touchstone for the Bush presidency. Unless you think "stepped-up unmanned aerial drone patrols" is one of those lines that set the base on fire. Right?
A: Well, we believe the president laid out a bold, new vision.
Q: And that's the problem.
A: That's not a question.
Q: We're out of questions. Aside from where do we go from here, of course. And we know the answer: Mulish Republicans stay home, there's blood on the Capitol steps in November, key conservative issues are lost in the shuffle, and nothing gets done.
There may be some jobs that Americans won't do, but ruining golden opportunities isn't one of them.
May 17, 2006
Posted by: Steve ||
05/18/2006 09:24 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I really like the idea of an Ellis Island of the Southwest except I'd consider putting it in Puerto Rico. ;^)
A fisking of the Harvard study about the jewish/israeli lobby hijacking US foreign policy.
A couple months old, but still an interesting read for thoses interested.
#2
Top ten ways you know that the Mersham & Walt "scholarly" study of the "Israel lobby" is a load of fetid dingoes' kidneys:
10. Half the footnotes refer to the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.
9. The other half refer to postings on Democratic Underground.
8. David Duke gives it a favorable review in the Arab News.
7. Cynthia McKinney quotes it on C-SPAN.
6. The "Rantburg" fisking of the article gets more hits than the author's homepage.
5. A LiveJournal posting by 13-year old Yvette Cranchford of Pine Barren, New Jersey, describing her best friend Amber's eating disorders in painful and poorly-spelled detail, gets more hits than the author's homepage.
4. The 404 error page at the old Pets.com site gets more hits than the author's homepage.
3. Helen Thomas, American journalism's batty old aunt in the attic, condemns it as "too loopy."
2. Dan Rather refuses to interview the authors, calls the piece "unbelievable, even by CBS standards."
And the number one reason . . . .
A pack of fetid dingoes holds a rally in front of the authors' place of work at Harvard, chanting "We want our kidneys back!"
Posted by: Mike ||
05/18/2006 12:04 Comments ||
Top||
How many times have you seen the phrase "in a jealous rage" in newspapers reporting about a homicide in your area? Or "a crime of passion"? They may seem like clichés, but clichés are born out of fact. And surely using a gun in the act of committing a crime of rage or passion happens far too often in this country.
Why is it necessary to be able to buy a gun - the only commercially marketed product designed solely to kill - with so little restrictions, precautions, safety requirements or investigation to determine whether or not the purchaser has a history of crime or violence? Yet for most of this nation's history, this has been the case. And daily headlines betray our lack of concern for this tragically preventable loss of life. ...
The Gun Control Act of 1968 established categories of prohibited gun purchasers and possessors, including convicted felons, fugitives from justice, minors, individuals with a history of mental illness, anyone dishonorably discharged from the military, expatriates, and illegal aliens. But, until the implementation of the Brady Law in 1994, gun sales operated on an "honor system." A prospective firearm purchaser merely had to sign a statement attesting that he or she was not legally forbidden from purchasing a firearm. In most states, no follow-up was conducted to make sure the statements made on the form were true. ...
from the Brady Campaign to Control Gun Violence (but not sex).
Why Should I Have to Wait to Buy a Koran?
How many times have you seen the phrase "Allah made me do it" in newspapers reporting about a beheading in your area? Or "a punishment for blasphemy"? They may seem like clichés, but clichés are born out of fact. And surely using a Koranic verse in the act of committing a crime of rage or passion happens far too often in this country.
Why is it necessary to be able to buy a book - designed solely to inspire killing - with so little restrictions, precautions, safety requirements or investigation to determine whether or not the purchaser has a history of crime or violence? Yet for most of this nation's history, this has been the case. And daily headlines betray our lack of concern for this tragically preventable loss of life.
The Koran Control Act of 2008 established categories of prohibited book purchasers and possessors, including convicted terrorists, fugitives from Guantanmo, IED manufacturers, individuals with a history of mental illness, anyone dishonorably discharged from penitentiaries, known to insert explosives in their shoes, or with a pathological hatred for Jews. But, until the implementation of the Koran Control Law in 2008, sales operated on an "honor system." A prospective purchaser merely had to sign a statement attesting that he or she could write. In most states, no follow-up was conducted to make sure the statements made on the form were true. ...
#1
The Brady Campaign are such losers. They have what, a couple thousand members? Yet the MSM bills them are more mainstream than the extremist NRA, which has 4.5 million. Also, the NRA is funded by grassroots efforts, whereas the Brady Campaign relies upon Soros-type money to stay afloat.
The National Security Agency's surveillance program is news again. News reports based on anonymous sources - always a good cover for the media - fed stories this past week that the NSA demanded and got tens of millions of domestic phone call logs from Verizon, BellSouth, and AT&T in the wake of September 11, 2001.
The major media, beginning with USA Today, ran with the leaked information, apparently deeming anything that sounds negative for the Bush Administration or for major corporations as sufficiently credible on its face. Already, Verizon, BellSouth, and AT&T have denied the reports. The firms categorically deny having provided the phone logs that the news media said the companies gave NSA. Indeed, the phone companies said as well that NSA never asked for the information. Other phone companies reportedly said the same thing - meaning that this story should be filed under the headline "didn't ask, didn't tell."
There are, of course, columnists who have the same story line ready to go each day: the headline is "Bush Administration Responsible for Disaster," though the details change day-to-day. If, as now seems likely, the mass release of phone records is one of those really good news stories that has the minor defect of being a total fabrication, that may change some of the details in future stories about the NSA program. But it won't keep a swarm of anti-Bush columnists from slamming the administration for having (supposedly) conducted this large-scale surveillance operation. Just as it didn't keep self-appointed privacy watchdogs from filing suit almost immediately asking for $200 billion in damages from the companies named in the news stories.
The NSA stories have generated great interest and the usual hyperbolic commentary. As with the Texas National Guard story that brought an all-too-eager Dan Rather's career to a close, some members of the publishing and pundit classes have staked out territory well ahead of the support that is at hand. This has occasioned the predictable calls for congressional hearings, prosecutorial investigations, and even impeachment. The familiar voices are once again claiming that in authorizing the NSA program, President Bush has committed a crime.
He hasn't. Not even close.
The legal issues aren't simple, and the practical issues aren't simple. But one issue is: those who want to portray the NSA surveillance program as the far-fetched creation of a megalomaniacal president abusing his power and flouting the American constitution have to develop some new material.
The starting point for any perspective on this has to be 9/11. More Americans were killed in a single day from one event than at any time since the Civil War battle of Antietam. We were shocked by the attack's occurrence, by its callous brutality, and by the sudden expectation that something very much like this could happen again and again. We demanded that our government find out who was to blame, discover how the signals had eluded us, and identify future threats before thousands more were killed. Talk-radio stations, political commentaries, and public personalities of every stripe demanded that we improve our ability to "connect the dots" more swiftly and accurately.
Our officials quickly determined that the al Qaeda organization was to blame and almost as quickly sought - and got - congressional approval for sweeping changes to our laws that would make it easier for government to find, monitor, challenge, capture, and detain al Qaeda and other terror suspects. Few people were in a mood to ask questions. Government officials weren't precise in framing what they were asking for and congressmen and -women weren't precise in deciding what they were authorizing.
Congress expressly authorized the President to use "all necessary and appropriate military force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines" were involved in 9/11. All force necessary and proper to make us secure. Not all force consistent with prior legislation. Not all force consistent with scruples about individuals' privacy concerns. Military force historically has included intelligence-gathering as well as front-line combat. What did our representatives intend with respect to that? It's doubtful that anyone could have said at the time. They knew we'd been attacked and might be attacked again and didn't want to answer to the American people if they failed to authorize whatever it took to prevent that. That's what President Bush promised Americans he would do: whatever it takes.
When The New York Times revealed NSA's electronic surveillance of international communications (including communications into or out of the US) aimed at suspected al Qaeda operations last December - four years, two military campaigns, and a few Administration problems later - the civil libertarians in and out of Congress suddenly remembered what this use of force resolution meant. They said it meant only that the President could pursue al Qaeda operatives in Afghanistan, not that he could authorize information gathering that would include surveillance of their conversations, especially not if one conversant were in America. They recalled specifically that the extensive restrictions on electronic surveillance put in place in the 1970s, under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, were to be maintained fully in the new regime. The sudden recollections went hand in hand with assertions that there was no other legal support for the NSA's action, not in statute, in the Commander-in-Chief clause of the Constitution, or in Article II's clause vesting the Executive Authority in the President.
While not all the President's men sprang to his defense, some advocates of the NSA program pointed out that more recent legislation trumps earlier legislation, that the Commander-in-Chief clause long has been thought to authorize pursuit of intelligence against enemies who threaten to use force against us, and that the vesting clause of Article II traditionally has been interpreted as giving broad latitude for presidential authority over foreign and military affairs, even in the face of contrary congressional command. They marshaled quotations from Presidents, presidential advisers, and judges - stretching back from the Clinton administration to the time of the Framing - to support that construction of the law.
Neither side has a hands down case. Presidential detractors probably have at least as good a case, and possibly a better one, on the issue of statutory authority. The far more general instruction in the authorization for use of military force can plausibly be read as supplanting FISA, and it may make practical sense to use a very different approach than FISA demands. But there is very little clear evidence of a design to replace FISA in the authorization for use of force. The President's defenders, on the other hand, have the better constitutional argument. The argument based on the vesting clause is especially strong. That clause, like the parallel judicial vesting clause, conveys some measure of executive power, and executive power long has been understood to include some independent element of foreign affairs power.
Mostly, however, the President's supporters have right the essential insight that, far from using the law to advance personal ends or pursue political vendettas, this President is engaged in a struggle that is critical to the future of our nation. He is fighting a threat that is real, an enemy who has struck Americans repeatedly and whose attacks can have devastating consequences if allowed to proceed undetected and undeterred.
The proper weight to be given to privacy concerns is a matter of debate, just as it should have been when President John Kennedy and his Attorney General, Robert Kennedy, authorized warrantless wiretaps directed at Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. The weight to be given to personal liberty relative to national security can be argued, as it should have been when President Franklin Roosevelt and Governor Earl Warren backed internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II. But while critics can question President Bush's weighing of policy concerns and the legal grounds for his positions, his commitment to our security - and its central role in shaping the NSA surveillance program - should be beyond question.
If liberty is a too-frequent casualty in war, truth is a too-frequent casualty of political reporting, especially in the Blame-It-on-Bush era. Calls to round up the usual suspects should be seen for what they are - better suited for keeping our interest than for keeping us secure.
#1
"The major media, beginning with USA Today, ran with the leaked information...Verizon, BellSouth, and AT&T have denied the reports. The firms categorically deny having provided the phone logs that the news media said the companies gave NSA."
I smell a set-up but its great!If only a handful were even briefed on this program, the leaker will be easily identified. I wonder if this had anything to do with Sen. Rockefeller's timely back surgery? Sen. Levin is much less contentious in the hearing for Gen Hayden.
Porter Goss has just resigned his post as director of the Central Intelligence Agency. His executive director, Kyle "Dusty" Foggo, is apparently under investigation. Goss' designated successor, Air Force Gen. Michael Hayden, faces a tough confirmation fight.
What is going on at our premier intelligence agency?
The Goss appointment, back in September 2004, was yet another political effort to deal with serial leaking of CIA classified information. Many agency analysts, both employed and retired, have been in veritable revolt against the general strategy of the war against terror - in particular, the effort to depose Saddam Hussein and birth a democracy in his place.
Somewhat quiet during the once-popular three-week victory over Saddam, CIA hands increasingly have been loudly assuring us that they were not responsible for someone else's messy three-year reconstruction in Iraq.
Paul Pillar, a national intelligence officer at the CIA from 2000 to 2005, publicly insisted that counter-terrorism should not be a matter of war. Indeed, he wrote prolifically in the middle of the ongoing Iraq war that it was all a colossal mistake.
Retired CIA analyst Ray McGovern, who endlessly trumpets his former service, recently shouted down Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld at a public forum and has insisted that American foreign policy is captive to Israel.
Another former analyst, Michael Scheuer, wrote a scathing critique of the war against terror. Writing under the pseudonym Anonymous, Scheuer, while still employed at the agency, also voiced the similar refrain that Israel is the cause of many of our troubles in the Middle East.
Recently fired CIA analyst Mary McCarthy leaked classified information about purported agency detention centers to Dana Priest of The Washington Post, who won a Pulitzer Prize for the story.
The list of often-praised leakers and loud former and present CIA wartime critics goes on.
During the Cold War, suspicious liberals would often try to curb such CIA freelancing. They'd allege that its cowboy operatives made up their own rules, from Iran to Guatemala - or that after retirement they tended to rejoin the political ranks of the hard right.
Back then, the CIA's retort was that such insiders knew the real stakes involved in fighting global communism. Some of these misguided operatives supposedly followed a higher calling and felt that the ends - our survival - often justified the means, of either breaking the law or becoming loud public hardliners.
Yet now liberals are sympathetic to this new generation of similarly self-appointed CIA lawbreakers and partisans. But intelligence analysts should never undermine the policy of their elected governments, either through unlawful leaks or posing as in-the-know loud public critics privy to classified information.
Instead CIA officers should do what they were hired to do before appointing themselves partisans - especially since their record at intelligence gathering and analysis has been pretty awful for a long time.
The United States, thanks in large part to a clueless CIA, has been unable to anticipate everything from the Yom Kippur War in 1973 and the fall of the Shah in Iran in 1979 to, more recently, Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait in 1990. Then, of course, there was the failure in advance of September 11. In the last few years, the U.S. got wrong Saddam's weapons of mass destruction capability, while underestimating the extent of the WMD arsenal in Moammar Gadhafi's Libya.
So Gen. Hayden will have his hands full justifying an intelligence agency that is ever more political and ever less competent.
Remember that we already have intelligence agencies galore in the State Department and the individual branches of the military. We are also unsure whether a CIA simply replicates much of the also costly FBI, National Security Agency and Defense Intelligence Agency.
So, if appointed CIA director, Gen. Hayden's task should be either to merge the agency with another intelligence bureau or radically downsize it.
The problem is not just that the CIA consumes too much money, has too many employees and gathers too much superfluous intelligence while missing the landmark events of the age. Or that too many analysts can't do their own assigned disinterested jobs. Or even that both Democrats and Republicans periodically try to rein the CIA in with their own political appointees when they suspect it has become openly hostile and insubordinate.
No, the deeper worry is that there has grown up at the CIA an entrenched enclave and an arrogant "we know best" attitude in which self-appointed moralists are often convinced that they can make up their own rules and code of conduct. Gen. Hayden will have to end that culture - or end the agency as we know it.
Gen. Hayden's task should be either to merge the agency with another intelligence bureau or radically downsize it. The problem is not that it ... consumes too much money, has too many employees and gathers too much superfluous intelligence while missing the landmark events of the age. Or that too many analysts can't do their own assigned disinterested jobs. ... No, the deeper worry is that there has grown up at the CIA an entrenched enclave and an arrogant "we know best" attitude in which self-appointed moralists are often convinced that they can make up their own rules and code of conduct. Gen. Hayden will have to end that culture - or end the agency as we know it.
Why Iran wants War
Ahmadinejad & Co. starring in Armageddon
By: Slater Bakhtavar
"The Iranian nation will wipe the strain of regret on the foreheads of those
who want to bring about injustice", President Ahmadinejad scorned at a
recent rally in the province of Zanjan. Iran "will cut off the hands of any
aggressor", any attack would be met with a response that is double-fold
including suicide attacks across Europe and the United States, he warned.
"Israel should be wiped off the map", the predominately Jewish nation
"cannot survive" and is headed "towards extinction" quipped the fanatical
President.
If one were to listen to his rhetoric alone, even the most astute political
intellectuals would think Iran is a nation equipped with the most dangerous
military arsenal capable of challenging any nation. But Iran's rhetoric has
little to do with their outdated and dismal military, their fledging economy
or their detested government. The root of the government's fiery tone may be
traced to their Shi'te ideology messianic belief in a mysterious, mystical
twelfth imam who ventured into hiding over a thousand years ago.
The Hidden Imam is a central concept in the teachings of Shi'te Islam. Born
Muhammad al-Mahdi he ventured into a cave in 941 AD hidden by a gate called
the Gate of Occultation. The doctrine of Occultation professes Allah aided
the cloaking of the Imam away from the eyes of man so that he could be kept
alive until his return. Shi'tes believe that the Twelfth Imam will return to
lead the religious battle between good and evil when the world has become
consummately nefarious.
According to Shi'te orthodoxy humans may not force or hasten the return of
the Imam, but the Hojjateiehs a group of which Ahmadinejad is a member,
opine that humans may stir up chaos to encourage his return. With his
recent rhetoric vowing for the destruction of Israel, demanding deportation
of the Jews to Europe and denying the Holocaust that the President seems to
be doing just that. In fact, his messianic axiom of the Twelfth Imam and the
subsequent suppression of the forces of evil [modern day US, UK, Israel and
many other nations] is central to Ahmadinejad's foreign policy. The Iranian
government's official policy has undercut efforts of the international
community by rejecting a United Nations deadline to suspend Iran's nuclear
program, threatening to quit the Non-Proliferation Treaty and vying that
"nothing can stop Iran's path to nuclear technology." In anticipation of a
stand off with the West Iran recently clinched agreements with eight
different Middle East insurgency groups to carry out suicide attacks against
Israeli, British and US interests across the world. Ironically this plan is
called 'Judgment Day.'
During a private meeting with an Iranian cleric in November Ahmadinejad
claimed that while giving a speech before the United Nations he felt "the
atmosphere change and for 27 to 28 minutes the leaders did not blink" "they
were astonished.. it had opened their eyes and ears to the Islamic
Republic." He further said that he felt the hand of God upon him as he
delivered his omniscient speech. In his egocentric fantasy world the Iranian
President likely sees himself as a deputy of the Imam with a divine mission
to encourage his arrival. His references to the Imam in conjunction with
threats to wipe countries off the face of earth should be taken seriously.
Foreign policy experts should examine the Islamic Republic from both a
political and religious perspective. To the clerical regime the return of
the Imam is not a mere possibility, but a surety. Their attitude towards the
international community seems to point at their preparation for that day.
International concerns aside, there are domestic reasons for the regimes
erratic behavior. After 27 years of executions, floggings, stoning,
oppression of political dissent, violation of women's rights, oppression of
religious minorities, the largest brain drain in the world, rampant
prostitution, crime, drug use and mass unemployment the Islamic Republic is
domestically quite loathed. In fact, recent student polls show that close
to eighty five percent of the population supports fundamental democratic
changes in the regime. Iranian students have consistently poured into the
streets in pro-Democracy protests only to be violently suppressed, jailed,
tortured and often murdered. But, dictatorships can only oppress for so long
and it's only a matter of time before Iran explodes in a pro-Western
democratic revolution. The regime knows that the only way they can leave
any kind of legacy is by invoking nationalistic pride by pushing the country
into another war and unlike the Iran-Iraq war this time they're paving the
way for the return of the Twelfth Imam.
From challenging the world to enhancing Iran's nuclear programs every issue
is implemented for the arrival of Mahdi. The Islamic Republic is not vying
for war because they're too arrogant to understand they will be crushed.
They're vying for war because they believe Mahdi will return to help them
defeat the United States and others who dare stand up to them. Ahamadinejad
and Company's Armageddon may be coming to a theater near you and it's
probably the scariest movie we'll ever see unless we aggressively invest in
the overthrow of the regime before it's debut appearance.
#5
President Armageddonjihad is gambling that the US won't or can't commit any ground troops, and that his regime - and his nuclear program - can survive an aerial campaign. He figures it's a win-win situation. If there's no attack then the nukes get built. If there's an attack, the nukes will only be delayed, and he goes straight in at number one in the Ummah Hit Parade. Even a lot of sunnis will be dancing to his tune, at least until MC Osama finishes his long-awaited second album.
There is an interesting historical parallel between the modern reorganization of the Central Intelligence Agency and that of the US military, many years ago.
At one time, the US military relied exclusively on the military academies to train its junior officer corps. However, by the time of the Civil War, this proved insufficient to produce the number of officers needed, and so the Reserve Officer Training Corps was born, at schools all over the United States.
Today, the CIA suffers from a similar problem, not, however, based in quantity, but in the quality of its personnel.
That is, the CIA is overdependent on recruiting from only two of the Ivy League schools, Yale and Harvard. And, while they might have once had a reputation for quality greater than the other universities throughout our nation, this is belied by the enormous number of deadwood and uninspired pencil pushers that have recently been dismissed from their ranks.
The "honorable schoolboy" problem is well known, the recruiting, retention and promotion based more on school ties than proficiency or excellence. A similar situation destroyed British Intelligence during the Cold War, costing hundreds of lives and multiple billions of dollars to them and their allies.
So therefore, a modest proposal.
Like ROTC before it, the CIA should establish an Intelligence Training Corps (ITC) which operates on the campuses of major universities throughout the United States; and which recruits and trains students to eventually become agents, operatives or employees of the Central Intelligence Agency.
Here, more than anything else, they would learn the philosophy of intelligence gathering, its history, and its value to our nation and the free world. Advanced subjects could cover all sorts of complex geopolitical analysis with respect to understanding the motivations of governments, religions, non-governmental organizations, and multi-national businesses in an integrated manner.
But wouldn't this have a magnetic attraction to villains and spies of all types, hoping to infiltrate the CIA?
Actually, no more than the occasional 8-ball or kook who joins the ROTC, with some bizarre expectation, only to find himself in a dull map reading class and doing far more physical exercise than he could possibly enjoy. Background checks, classroom and field performance, and instructor evaluation eliminate virtually anyone who really shouldn't be there.
In the case of the ITC, students would get an education unique in the university environment: to put it all together and what do you have? Integrating the history, commerce, politics, demographics, and cultures of the world into a zeitgeist that explains *why* we need a CIA, *what* the CIA does and should do, and *how* such analysis moves the world from barbarism to civility. You take such classes to understand the world.
But wouldn't having an ITC on campus, especially in some of the more radical leftist universities, drive the moonbats stark raving mad?
Absolutely. In fact, in anticipation of faculty pouring gasoline on themselves in protest, the ITC act should include a provision similar to military recruiting or ROTC on campus: namely, if you want federal funds, you have to permit the ITC to conduct classes and recruit on campus.
Of course, more conservative universities such as Texas A&M, Brigham Young, etc., would have far larger and more capable programs that say, Berkeley, where the perpetual smell of gasoline-soaked professors would be off-putting at best.
Ironically, the CIA might not really obtain very many agents from such a program. But those who grasped the concept, who excelled in the instruction, and who were enthusiastic in field training over the summer months, might find themselves teaching the course to the next generation of students.
That is, only the cream of the crop would become the very few who would be recruited. However, thousands of students would finally be taught what has been systematically been denied them from universities across the country. And the influence of that on the intellect of America would be astronomical.
#2
Genius! Make all the students anonymous. Practice counter-insurgency against the left-wing campus groups. Fund it through point-shaving in collegiate athletics.
--Todd McCarthy - VARIETY.COM
"An oppressively talky film that isn't exactly dull, but comes as close to it as one could imagine with such provocative material."
-- William Arnold, SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER
"Retarded, ridiculous and crushingly dull."
-- Devin Faraci, CHUD
"Its not often that this thought comes to mind while watching a Tom Hanks movie. But in The Da Vinci Code, the actor is solidly miscast."
-- Richard Horgan, FILMSTEW.COM
"At once cerebral and melodramatic, 'The Da Vinci Code' should please both those who think and those who feel."
-- Harvey S. Karten, COMPUSERVE
"about as good a movie as can be expected from a novel that is decidedly un-cinematic."
-- Sean McBride, SEAN THE MOVIE GUY
"The Da Vinci Code is as slavishly faithful to its source as the first two Harry Potter pictures, which explains the film's deadly, stop-and-start pace."
-- Rene Rodriguez, MIAMI HERALD
"Perhaps an interesting side-piece to those already fanatical about the book, but ultimately a lifeless adaptation that reveals the flaws of its source. So Dark, the Con of Dan Brown."
-- Joe Utichi, FILMFOCUS
"Opens the door for many spiritual seekers to think afresh about Jesus, sexuality, the Sacred Feminine and the great mysteries that cannot be contained in dogmas."
-- Frederic and Mary Ann Brussat, SPIRITUALITY AND PRACTICE
"A polished affair with moments of interest, but simply far too long, too talky and just not interesting or clever enough to engage let alone entertain."
-- Garth Franklin, DARK HORIZONS
"...overblown so-so suspense flick..."
-- JoBlo, JOBLO'S MOVIE EMPORIUM
"Part conspiracy thriller, part religious epic, part family melodrama, but not satisfying on any level, this vastly disappointing film will frustrate viewers who know the book and will bore those who don't due to the rambling and confusing storytelling."
-- Emanuel Levy, EMANUELLEVY.COM
"For people who insist that the movie is never as good as the book, your case just got stronger."
-- Matt Pais, METROMIX.COM
"There might be a riveting adventure thriller to be made from Dan Brown's controversial bestseller, but this is not it. Melodramatic, overlong and dare I say occasionally boring, Ron Howard's The Da Vinci Code gets lost in the maze of its puzzles and media"
Posted by: Steve ||
05/18/2006 08:57 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[9 views]
Top|| File under:
#3
I read the book in one sitting. When I heard that they made a movie I said to myself, "How do you make a movie out of this? There's not nearly enough material. They would have to add a lot to the story." Not surprised that it stinks.
Posted by: Mike N. ||
05/18/2006 15:14 Comments ||
Top||
#4
tu3031, see if you can get her to see "Over The Hedge" instead.
When Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez met with the Pope earlier this week, he assured Benedict XVI that he is a Christian. And he told the press that has a special friend who is one too. Sort of.
"Our Bolivarian revolution is very Christian and I have a friend who isn't Christian, but lately has said he is a Christian in the social aspect: his name is Fidel Castro," Chávez announced. "I talk to [Castro] a lot about Christ each time we see each other, and he told me recently, 'Chávez, I'm Christian in the social sense.'"
Chávez calls Jesus Christ a socialist and a revolutionary. And that's the kind of Christ he wants to follow. It is not clear how much the Pope was persuaded. The Vatican has criticized efforts by Chávez's revolutionary government to curtail the influence of the Catholic Church in Venezuela. Chávez has called the Catholic Church's hierarchy a "tumor," while Venezuelan Cardinal Rosalio Castillo Lara has accused Chávez of aspiring towards a dictatorship.
It will be no surprise if we soon see left-wing American clerics investing Chávez with a mystical reverence previously reserved for the likes of Fidel Castro and, during the 1980s, Sandinista honcho Daniel Ortega. Indeed, the canonization of Chávez in some quarters has already begun.
LAST FALL, Chávez addressed a rapturous crowd of fans at a United Methodist Church in Manhattan's swank Upper West Side. (Here's a photo.) Castro and Daniel Ortega have paid similar visits to liberal churches in Manhattan.
As he marched into the Church of St. Paul and St. Andrew, the strongman was greeted with loud applause and chants (in Spanish) of, "Chávez, friend, the people are with you." Chávez shared the pulpit with Jesse Jackson. Former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark, who's never met an anti-American dictator he couldn't support, sat appreciatively in the audience. Also present were officials from the Cuban government.
"I felt a love for the Bronx and New York starting with my visit today," Chávez noted in the church, while wearing a red shirt that symbolizes the Bolivarian revolution. He pulled a crucifix from his pocket and declared himself to be an "authentic Christian" who serves the poor. He was preceded by a Methodist minister and Catholic priest, who praised the Chávez regime for its literacy and healthcare programs. Chávez himself introduced the local Methodist bishop, Jeremiah Park.
ACCORDING TO A SUPPORTIVE METHODIST CLERIC who was in the audience, Chávez said, "I preach the word of Jesus Christ. He was a revolutionary. Christ is the good news. A revolt of hope is taking place today--hope for justice." He continued: "Cuba and Venezuela are accused of being a destabilizing force in the hemisphere but the greatest destabilizing force is poverty. . . . I reach out my hand in friendship to the Bush administration, even though 'you are the lion and we are the lamb.'"
Earlier this year, in gratitude for his brand of Christianity, some church groups helped organize a National Solidarity Conference for Venezuela in Washington, D.C. Sponsors included the Maryknoll Office for Global Concerns and the Methodist Federation for Social Action. In 2004 the Maryknollers sent a solidarity delegation to Venezuela, led by Fr. Roy Bourgeois. Bourgeois is perhaps best known for leading demonstrations against the U.S. Army's training school for Latin military officers at Ft. Benning, Georgia. While in Venezuela, Bourgeois met with Chávez and appeared on his daily television program, Aló Presidente.
After his visit, Bourgeois was enthusiastic about Chávez. "We've got a president and a government here that's on the side of the poor that is offering the poor a vision that gives them hope and promise for a better way of life," he explained, continuing:
[Chávez] recommends books. You know what one of the books was that he recommended? Noam Chomsky! He's recommending all these articles that he has read in the newspaper--he is a teacher! He is looking at Latin America like few have: through the underside of history. He is looking at it through the eyes of the poor and the oppressed. And when you do that you are going to have a lot of enemies. And he's got enemies.
Bourgeois warned that "the United States and George Bush are here to do everything they can to make sure that this revolution fails. Because if it succeeds, if the poor here will get justice, if there will be a real re-distribution of the resources here (especially the wealth, the money, the power) and in a country like Venezuela, this will spread to other countries. And so, what is at work of course and this is no secret, the U.S. is pumping money into Venezuela as we pumped money into Chile when Allende was there."
The American Religious Left is prepared to support Chávez. When Pat Robertson quixotically suggested--and later retracted--that the United States could assassinate Chávez, many mainline church officials responded with immediate outrage. Slamming Robertson for his latest inanity was no doubt a pleasure for them. Sadly, these clerics will likely view defending Chávez from more serious international criticism not just as a pleasure, but a duty.
Mark D. Tooley directs the United Methodist committee at the Institute on Religion and Democracy.
#2
And dont get me started on the Maryknolls. Pope Benedict is going to bascially disband them if they try any of the claptrap social activism protest garbage under his watch.
#3
Every rational human recognizes that Chávez is nothing more then a poser and a headline whore. Thats not to say he doesnt present potential problems but I seriously doubt that even he believes the majority of chum he trawls out.
#4
I haven't got the time to Google around and find it, but Chavez made a speech not too long ago in which he declared that there is no afterlife and true Christianity consists of building the socialist paradise on earth.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
