Saturday, August 13, 2005

If I Could Choose Only Three

There's really nothing new in the world. Liberals are still insane. Terrorists are still insane. Illegal immigrants are flooding across US borders at the rate of 3,000,000 per year with no end in sight, so I must conclude that most of our politicians are insane, as well.

So I'll look at some cars and share them with those of you who are interested.

Last week, our friend, Vilmar, at Ranting Right Wing Howler, polled his readers: If you could have just three cars, money not being of concern, which would you choose?

Here are my three...

First up, the all new BMW M5, arguably the finest performance luxury sedan in the world. It has a 5.0 liter V10 (no doubt using a lot of technology from their F1 program) developing 500 horsepower at 7700 RPM, a 6-speed gearbox, fantastic suspension and brakes, and all the creature comforts you would expect from a flagship BMW M-series. Turn on the A/C and still rip through the quarter mile in 12 seconds, open it up to its electronically-limited top speed of 155mph (without the limiter expect speeds to be closer to 190mph), or putt around town - you can do it all in royal luxury with this car. My choice for a daily driver.

Next up, my choice for what I call "modern fun," the Ferrari 550 Maranello. With a 5.5 liter V12 making 485 horsepower, this car is capable of 12-second quarter miles and a top speed of 199mph. Now, there aren't too many places here in New Zealand where I could open it up to find that top speed as I have yet to find more than a mile of straight road, but it would be fun trying!

Below is the competition version prepared by Prodrive of the U.K. In the 2003 24 Hours of Le Mans, these cars showed greater straight-line speed than the cars in the premiere LMP class, hitting speeds in excess of 220mph on the Mulsanne Straight. And, in grand Ferrari tradition, that V12 makes the most glorious sounds!

Last, but not least, the 1966 Shelby AC Cobra 427SC. 485+ horsepower, 2,000lbs, a 4-speed manual gearbox, no power assisted anything - these cars were brutally fast and uncomfortable, not for the feminized or faint-hearted. Ford's race-proven FE series 427 cubic inch, "side oiler" V8 with its copius amount of torque (over 500lb/ft) combined with the light weight, produced quarter miles in under 11 seconds, and aerodynamically-limited top speeds of 165-170mph were the norm for these cars, although even more modified versions have hit speeds of 190mph on the high banks of Daytona during the 24 hour race. The stuff of which legends are made, the Cobra fulfills what I categorize as "vintage fun."

Thursday, August 11, 2005

He's Baaaaack!!!

Our friend Guy, otherwise known as Oldcatman, or OCM, is hitting the blog again, this time with photos only. Go visit him now.

Speaking of photos, I have some of my own....

Two-Wheeled Eye Candy - My Bikes

As many of you know, I am a motorsports and performance enthusiast, both as a fan and a participant. Ever since I was a little kid I have been fascinated by racing and going fast, and at 40 years of age, I still feel the need for speed.

There's an old adage in racing that goes, "Speed costs money. How fast do you want to go?" For the most part, it's hard to beat a motorcycle in speed per dollars spent, and I love motorcycles. So it was only a natural choice for me, being on a budget, to pursue motorcycle racing.

Here are a few of the bikes I have had for the street and for road racing over the years.

This is a 1985 Yamaha RZ350 Kenny Roberts signature edition. I bought it used two days after I returned from duty in Somalia. Two days after that I was off on a five day, 2000 mile trek across California, during which I took this photo while in Sequoia National Park. I never raced this bike, but I had hours of enjoyment riding it on the mountain and canyon roads of Southern California.

The RZ was a liquid cooled, 350cc two-stroke twin with an exhaust port power valve that varied the exhaust port height based on RPM and throttle position, resulting in a broader torque curve and smoother power delivery, much the same as variable valve timing does in a 4-stroke engine. The RZ was the next and, sadly, last generation of Yamaha 2-strokes available in the US for use on public roads, due to tightening emissions standards. It evolved from this next bike, the RD400...

This was my first competition road racer, a 1977 Yamaha RD400. A 400cc two-stroke twin, it originally started life as a mild-mannered street bike making 36 horsepower at the rear wheel. A few seized and burnt pistons and one completely grenaded motor later I had developed it into a reliable 60-plus horsepower screamer with precision boring, bigger 34mm carbs, racing expansion chambers, electronic ignition, precision head milling to yield tighter (.030") squish clearance and 15:1 compression, and extensive cylinder porting (that I did myself, about 12 hours per barrel) based on factory Yamaha TZ250 production road racer specs. That translates into nearly 75 horsepower when measured at the crankshaft, and, at roughly 24 cubic inches, that translates into 3 horsepower per cubic inch.

I rebuilt the bike from the frame up, using parts from many different machines to upgrade various aspects of performance, but, although it was light (in race trim as you see it here it weighed a paltry 275 lbs.) and fast, it wasn't a very successful race bike because it needed more suspension development to remain stable in high speed corners - the bike absolutely scared the shit out of me in Turn 8 at Willow Springs! But it was fast in a straight line and sounded magical turning over 10,000 RPM at wide open throttle.

So I abandoned that bike for this one....

This is a 1978 Suzuki GS1000 I purchased in boxes for $50 from my friend Todd. If the 1960's was the muscle era for cars, the late 1970's was the equivalent for 1-liter bikes. The 1969 Honda CB750 revolutionized the performance motorcyle, and bikes to follow, like the Kawasaki Z-1, followed by the KZ1000 and the Suzuki GS1000, offered the performance motorcyclist speed and handling that had only been previously available from European marques, namely Duccati and MV Agusta, since the Brits hadn't made a competitive road racer since the late 50's to early 60's Norton Manx.

This bike remained relatively stock. The motor, blueprinted and bored 3mm using Wiseco pistons, was an otherwise stock affair, using all-stock internals including the head, cams, rods, and crank. However, I fitted the engine with larger 34mm CV carbs, electronic ignition, and a sweet 4-into-2-into-1 exhaust header. Still, it made 100 horsepower at the rear tire and made usable power to over 10,000RPM, and was an absolute blast to ride, offering great high-speed stability, thus inspiring confidence enough to garner a few podium finishes.

The forks were fitted with stiffer springs; the rear shocks were longer custom after-market units for more wheel travel; and an aluminum swing arm from the later GS1100 offered less unsprung weight and bolted-up with no modifications. Wheels and brakes remained stock and woefully inadequate.

I was working on another big-port L-model head, milled .040", and had some aggressive Andrews cams to take advantage of the increased flow and compression which would have yielded another 25 or so horsepower. I also had some 18" wheels and brakes with larger rotors and 2-piston calipers from the later GSXR series waiting in the wings, to be fitted for better cornering ability and decreased stopping distance. Then I decided to move to New Zealand.

This is the race bike's identical twin street counterpart. Except for the exhaust, this bike was all stock and original. I purchased it barely running and filthy for $600, but I cleaned it and fixed it up, using it for daily transportation for over a year without a hitch. It was because I had so much fun riding this bike on the street that my friend, fellow racer and former class champion, Todd, talked me into buying his unfinished, identical bike shown above to go racing. This street bike soon became a parts donor for the racing effort.

In contrast to a privateer effort like mine, this is the Yoshimura-prepared GS1000 that Wes Cooley rode to the AMA Superbike Championship in 1979 and 1980. The bike developed over 140 horsepower at the rear tire, could run the quarter mile in the 9-second range with trap speeds just under 140mph, and top out at nearly 170mph, hindered largely due to lack of aerodynamic efficiency. And it handled fairly well for its day, considering that these bikes were pushed well beyond their intended limits in the hands of guys like Cooley.

Wednesday, August 03, 2005

Wonder Why the Zimbabwe-China Connection?

Have you ever wondered why there is a coalition forming between the leaders of China and Zimbabwe, a sort of despots admiration society? That great, reknowned humanitarian, Mad Bob (Mugabe) must have wet himself in delight, being embraced by China's President, Hu Jintao, as it seems they have more in common than a few trade deals. Although not everything is roses, whether or not their domestic policies run the same course, the lives of their peoples mean: "ZILCH"
They came to the village of Shengyou, south of Beijing, in the early hours of the morning.

A gang of more than 100 men wearing camouflage gear and construction helmets, some armed with hunting rifles, clubs and shovels, clashed violently with local villagers. Six people died.

The riot in Shengyou in June was actually nothing new. Such skirmishes over land are getting increasingly common in China.

But what was different about this one - and what ultimately made it stand out as an example of a much wider problem - was that the incident was filmed by a local resident and smuggled out to the international media.

"Legal entitlement of farm land is not clearly defined in China. It looks like it belongs to the farmers, but if the government wants to take it away, it's very easy," he said
Question answered?

Thank You Everyone

It seems like a lifetime has passed me by over the last few months with my mother's illness.

Joe and I put our lives on the back burner for a short spell to ensure that I had the necessary time to assist in my mother's recovery. So I am glad to announce she is fit and running. How can I tell that it is a complete recovery? Like any son or daughter, I am getting on her nerves and she mine...(big grin). So thank you everyone for your prayers, kind words, and thoughts; they were such a pleasure to read and were a great pick-me-up when I didn't have any energy left in reserve.

Kisses to all.

All Bark, No Bite

After a long spell away from the blog, I had a spare moment yesterday to check some of my weird and whacky news sources. Imagine my surprise (NOT) at this discovery, the very first site I chose to look at. If you are not slightly disturbed by the following, DO be, as this is what the moonbats worldwide will endorse with vigour:
WTI Demands Bush And Blaýr Indýctment At ICC
Tuesday, 2 August 2005, 12:54 pm
Press Release: World Tribunal on Iraq
World Trýbunal On Iraq Demands Bush And Blaýr Indýctment At Internatýonal Crýmýnal Court
Interesting headline, don't you agree?
1 August 2005, Istanbul, Turkey – The Final Statement by the Jury of Conscience of the World Tribunal on Iraq calls for the International Criminal Court (ICC) to indict, prosecute, and punish the perpetrators and collaborators for the aggression against Iraq and the related international crimes arising from the subsequent occupation of the country. The statement lists the violations in international law committed during and after this war and also provides recommendations for the prevention of future illegal and illegitimate action.
Now that I have your complete attention, would it not be more sensible for both President Bush and Prime Minister Blair to start taking real affirmative action to justify the actions by groups such as this? My humble opinion may mean absolutely diddly squat, however, at this point, both mens careers being final terms for both, let them stand up and be recognised in history as saviours of freedom, not squanderers of power. The political party animal attitude has to go. They both have nothing to lose but their belief in their cause, and if they don't have the balls to do the job right they should both never have attempted to free the Iraqis in the first place. Why do they not say or act with the attitude of, "WE have nothing to lose now but the right course of action , so let's do the job properly?" MSM and liberals be damned; there is only one way to secure control over these Islamic murderers.
The Statement relies upon the extensive testimony given in written and oral form by international law experts during the Culminating Session of the World Tribunal on Iraq (WTI) in Istanbul between 23-27 June 2005. It also reflects the testimony and submissions on related issues of war crimes and the failure of the United Nations to protect Iraq against aggression.
Laughable, is it not? Crimes to protect Iraq against whom? Where were these fucktards when 10's of thousands were being murdered by Saddam? To hold themselves as being capable (their own minds may regard their superirority, me, NOPE) of being able to discern injustices is ludicrous.
The Chair of the Jury of Consience in Istanbul, Arundhati Roy, said in India “We, the Jury of Conscience, hope that the scope and specificity of these recommendations will lay the groundwork for a world whose future cannot be shaped by multi-national corporations and Heads of State in violation of the explicit and stated will of the people they claim to represent, where journalists and intellectuals will not remain mute, where human security will prevail over the drive for political, economic and cultural hegemony, the insatiable greed of the military-industrial complex and the quest for corporate profit.”
And, as usual, the typical spouting of corporate gain and allied country leaders wanting to be dictators is used as a mantra. However, the word "oil" is not mentioned here. Why? Could it be that, without oil, there would be little or no wealth at all held by any middle eastern country or citizens? How many millionaires and billionaires of Islamic descent are there due to the fact that the western corporations taught them how to mine their liquid gold? As for the MSM and intellectuals being mute, this statement to me is the most disturbing of the above. Since Vietnam, the MSM/intellectuals/actors/actresses have been on a roll, crushing all forms of patriotism and belief in their countries, fighting wars for any against their governments, both vehemently and deceptively corrupting right to wrong, wrong to right, portraying scenarios to their audiences that corrupt morality from within. I found a few of the Jury named at the World Tribunal site along with the supposed charges and courses of action they want. Go read it in all it's glory. Below you will find the named Jurists and snippets of the charges and actions this organisation seeks:
Arundhati Roy, India, Spokesperson of the Jury of Conscience
Ahmet Öztürk, Turkey
Ayşe Erzan, Turkey
Chandra Muzaffar, Malaysia
David Krieger, USA
Eve Ensler, USA
François Houtart, Belgium
Jae-Bok Kim, South Korea
Mehmet Tarhan, Turkey
Miguel Angel De Los Santos Cruz, Mexico
Murat Belge, Turkey
Rela Mazali, Israel
Salaam Al Jobourie, Iraq
Taty Almeida, Argentina
I. Overview of Findings:
1. The invasion and occupation of Iraq was and is illegal. The reasons given by the US and UK governments for the invasion and occupation of Iraq in March 2003 have proven to be false. Much evidence supports the conclusion that a major motive for the war was to control and dominate the Middle East and its vast reserves of oil as a part of the US drive for global hegemony.

2. Blatant falsehoods about the presence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and a link between Al Qaeda terrorism and the Saddam Hussein régime were manufactured in order to create public support for a �preemptive� assault upon a sovereign independent nation.

3. Iraq has been under siege for years. The imposition of severe inhumane economic sanctions on 6 August 1990, the establishment of no-fly zones in the Northern and Southern parts of Iraq, and the concomitant bombing of the country were all aimed at degrading and weakening Iraq�s human and material resources and capacities in order to facilitate its subsequent invasion and occupation. In this enterprise the US and British leaderships had the benefit of a complicit UN Security Council.

4. In pursuit of their agenda of empire, the Bush and Blair governments blatantly ignored the massive opposition to the war expressed by millions of people around the world. They embarked upon one of the most unjust, immoral, and cowardly wars in history.

II. Charges
On the basis of the preceding findings and recalling the Charter of the United Nations and other legal documents indicated in the appendix, the jury has established the following charges.
A. Against the Governments of the US and the UK
1. Planning, preparing, and waging the supreme crime of a war of aggression in contravention of the United Nations Charter and the Nuremberg Principles.
Evidence for this can be found in the leaked Downing Street Memo of 23rd July, 2002, in which it was revealed: �Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.� Intelligence was manufactured to willfully deceive the people of the US, the UK, and their elected representatives.

2. Targeting the civilian population of Iraq and civilian infrastructure by intentionally directing attacks upon civilians and hospitals, medical centers, residential neighborhoods, electricity stations, and water purification facilities. The complete destruction of the city of Falluja in itself constitutes a glaring example of such crimes.
Finally, after all these crimes, causes, and justifications from this group, they post an explanatory note. Why? To confuse, of course. If you read it, they are using the laws of International peace as being their justification, however, note in the second paragraph an ad-hoc disclaimer of their not being a body composed of jurists and international law experts; and ask yourself, "Who are they to be laying such claims against the USA and United Kingdom or President Bush or Prime Minister Blair?" Their group is in place to smear and lay blame on everyone but the terrorists that are doing 99% of the killings of Iraqis in Iraq.
International Law Appendix
Explanatory Note

This international law appendix is intended to back up the Jury Statement that rests its assessments primarily on a moral and political appraisal of the Iraq War. The Statement relies upon the extensive testimony given in written and oral form by international law experts who have a world-class scholarly reputation during the Istanbul Culminating Session of the World Tribunal on Iraq (WTI). It also reflects the testimony and submissions on related issues of war crimes and the failure of the United Nations to protect Iraq against aggression.

The Jury of Conscience was not a body composed of jurists or international law experts. It did not hear arguments supporting the legality of the invasion of Iraq as would have been made before a judicial body under the authority of either the state or an international institution acting on behalf of the international community. The World Tribunal on Iraq throughout all of its session proceeded from a sense of moral and political outrage of concerned citizens from all over the world, with respect to the war. The Tribunal was not interested in a debate solely as to legality. The legal issues were relevant to the extent that they added weight to the moral and political purpose of the Tribunal, which was to expose the Iraq War as the crime it is, appealing to and drawing upon the deep bonds that link us all in our humanity. Therefore the Tribunal sought testimony and evidence to call into question the mantle of respectability thrown over the Iraq War by the aggressors, and the false impression disseminated by mainstream media, that the Iraq War was in any sense justified by political circumstances, moral considerations, or legal analysis.
So what does it all mean? Absolutely nothing. There is one element missing from the "plan:" They have no army to enforce their "rulings." Only the moonbats will wail triumphantly, "Gotcha!" But court rulings only have weight when there are men with guns to back them up. So this is nothing more than an exercise in mental masturbation, something the Left is VERY good at.

One thing is certain, however: Their "sympathy for the devil" attitude will most certainly embolden the enemy further, resulting in more deaths of Allied troops and innocent Iraqis.

Tuesday, August 02, 2005

Misleading Headlines and MSM Bias. Or, What Else is New?

This just pisses me off, but it is a tactic as old as the media themselves: Using misleading or false headlines to generate newspaper sales, TV news viewership, and more recently, "hits" at online news sources. This is an effective tactic because most people will not go past the headline, much the same as they don't go past the soundbite. The average anti-American, anarchist, socialist, tree-hugging,, pansy Leftist will take a headline like this and run with it as Gospel fact (well, maybe not Gospel, because most of them are Godless pagans, too; but you get the idea.) But if you critically read and deconstruct these articles, you will soon find it easy to sift through the bullshit.

Here's the latest I caught today on my "My Yahoo" homepage:
Steroids Headed for Troops in Iraq Seized

By VICTOR L. SIMPSON, Associated Press Writer Mon Aug 1, 4:09 PM ET

ROME - Italian police seized 215,000 doses of prohibited substances as they smashed a ring that supplied steroids and other performance-enhancing drugs to customers around the world, including American soldiers in Iraq, a police official said Monday.
OK, I'm expecting a story with specific names of soldiers and FPO's in Iraq - conclusive proof, a direct link to back-up such a definitive claim in the headline. I read further:
The U.S. military in Iraq had no immediate comment, but the popularity of steroid abuse has long been discussed as American troops and contractors in Iraq work out in gyms set up in bases and even in the mirrored halls of one of Saddam Hussein's former palaces.

Joe Donahue, program director for the Vietnam Vets of America Foundation, who spent 16 months in Iraq — often lifting weights in the Green Zone gyms — said steroids were on offer for those who wanted them. far, not so good. An offer is not a direct link. The article continues:
"I had them offered to me by an Iraqi guy who sure as hell looked like he was using them," Donahue said. "There were guys I'm pretty sure were juicing, but not a lot of them."

He said a pair of Iraqi bodybuilders known casually as "the large brothers" sold steroids and other supplements in the Green Zone building where he worked. "I can say with no equivocation, I was offered steroids," Donahue told The Associated Press.
Still, so far all I know is that Mr. Donahue says he was offered steroids by Iraqis, and that he thinks that some troops may be using steroids. Are you starting to get the picture, beginning to see how to read between the lines?

Now we switch gears to the private sector:
Private security contractors told AP that steroid use also is a problem among their employees because the drugs are readily available in Iraq — as easy as buying a soda from the local stores, according to one contractor.
Now some facts:
The police investigation in Italy began after a post office in Trieste, in northeastern Italy, reported that U.S. postal authorities in Iraq returned hundreds of packets of steroids and other performance-enhancing drugs because they were improperly addressed, according to Mario Bo, head of the Trieste police department's criminal division.

He said authorities arrested two Slovenians last month when they raided an apartment in Trieste. Sasco Tacs, 30, and a 20-year-old woman, Vesna Milosevic, were charged with trafficking in prohibited substances.

The drugs had been ordered over the Internet, and Italian officials presume some reached their destinations, police said, adding that steroids were also sent to customers in Europe, North America and Australia. They estimated the ring may have had as many as 1,000 customers around the world.
Now a brief description of what steroids are and what they can do:
Synthetic derivatives of testosterone, anabolic steroids are thought to enhance aggressiveness.

Steroids have serious side effects, encompassing both psychological disturbance and physical symptoms, such as the development of breasts in men, baldness and cancer, as well as major depression, mania and other mood problems.
Now this next part is deviantly brilliant:
Every war seems to have its drug of choice. German soldiers were said to have been given steroids during World War II to make them meaner. The stress of combat led to use of marijuana by some American soldiers fighting in Vietnam.
Do you see the line of implication the author is trying to draw? The undertone is that: Our troops are using steroids.>Steroids make you meaner.>The Germans used steroids for just that purpose.>Our troops are just like the Nazis!!! Furthermore, the author slips in that little factoid about Vietnam, the conflict the Left loves to compare Iraq to as an unwinnable situation.

Now we have something to exhonerate the troops in Afghanistan and isolate the problem solely to Iraq:
U.S. forces in Iraq and Afghanistan submit to regular drug tests but are not routinely tested for steroid use, according to a report in the military newspaper Stars and Stripes.

In Afghanistan, U.S. Col. James Yonts said: "We do not issue steroids to soldiers for any reason, bodybuilding or whatever, other than for medical purposes. I'm not aware of any investigation or any problem of steroid use by soldiers in Afghanistan."

Inside one of Saddam Hussein's former palaces on the sprawling Tikrit base, a mirror-walled gym rivaling many in the West is routinely packed with heaving soldiers pumping iron on bench presses, arm curls and other equipment.
I love the language, too - "heaving soldiers, pumping iron." Oh, my! Guys sweating and breathing hard while they're lifting weights in a gym?!?!?! How dare they!!! Sorry, but this is nothing new. First, in the USMC if that equipment is available, it is provided by Morale, Welfare, and Recreation (MWR), a private organization. Second, this is only available in "green zones" and other fortified areas. Third, I'm willing to bet that most of the guys working out regularly are not the guys who are out fighting. They are generally the clerk types or those "in the rear with the gear." The guys out kicking ass are using whatever down time they have to rest before the next mission. Trust me on that. The time for working out a lot is back in the States or in Okinawa when you have a lot of time on your hands. Trust me on that, too.

Now we get to the part of the story, conveniently buried near the bottom, where we find out it is yet another story about nothing:
Some soldiers have questioned how some of their more rippling fellow soldiers could have built up such bulk while in a war zone, suggesting that steroid use may have been taking place. But they had no independent confirmation to back up their suspicions.
So, we have the headline that reads "Steroids Headed for Troops in Iraq Seized," and ends with "no independent confirmation to back up their suspicions." In the meantime, the author has maligned our troops as narcissistic, steroid-crazed baby killers with nothing more than a headline and a story loosely fit, via inuendo, around an anti-American agenda. Mission accomplished, just that easily.

Now here's the, "Aha!! This is how it could be happening" part, a sort of disclaimer:
Troops and some contractors receive mail at inexpensive domestic U.S. postal rates, allowing soldiers to order almost anything online. Packages mailed from home are one of the chief smuggling routes for alcohol, which the U.S. military prohibits its soldiers from drinking.
The story fizzles from there, and ends with absolutely nothing.

You can read the rest if you so desire.

Thursday, July 28, 2005


Thanks to David for sending this one:
A man goes into an adult entertainment shop and asks the assistant for an inflatable doll.

"Would you like male or female?" "Female, please."

"Would you like Black or White?" "White, please."

"Would you like Christian or Muslim?"

This question confused the man and he replied, "What has the religion got to do with it? It's an inflatable doll!"

"Well," explained the assistant, "the Muslim one blows itself up."
Bada-bing, bada-boom!

The Doom and Gloom Media Love to Gloat

Here's the headline: US military hits ammunition shortages.

They love the quagmire scenario for our troops, but, upon closer scrutiny, this is a story about nothing. Here's how it starts (italics are mine):
WASHINGTON (AFP) - The United States cannot keep up with military demand for ammunition which has more than doubled since the war on terrorism and the invasion of Iraq were launched, according to a Congress watchdog report.
What report? What watchdog group? By not naming either, the story loses all credibility. Read the rest, and you'll see the story fizzle to nothing.

So why would responsible media print it? Because it attempts to make our efforts look futile, and that makes good copy, not to mention emboldens the enemy. I guess they're not very responsible...or honest.

Saturday, July 23, 2005

I Can't Say it Any Better

I can't say any of this better than Victor Davis Hanson already has. Here are some key excerpts from his latest op/ed at NRO entitled "And Then They Came After Us -
We’re at war. How about acting like it?":
When the U.N. and the EU talked about “refugee camps,” none asked why for a half-century the Arab world could not build decent housing for its victimized brethren, or why 1 million Arabs voted in Israel, but not one freely in any Arab country.
Perhaps the jihadist killing was not over the West Bank or U.S. hegemony after all, but rather symptoms of a global pathology of young male Islamic radicals blaming all others for their own self-inflicted miseries, convinced that attacks on the infidel would win political concessions, restore pride, and prove to Israelis, Europeans, Americans — and about everybody else on the globe — that Middle Eastern warriors were full of confidence and pride after all.

Meanwhile an odd thing happened. It turns out that the jihadists were cowards and bullies, and thus selective in their targets of hatred. A billion Chinese were left alone by radical Islam — even though the Chinese were secularists and mostly godless, as well as ruthless to their own Uighur Muslim minorities. Had bin Laden issued a fatwa against Beijing and slammed an airliner into a skyscraper in Shanghai, there is no telling what a nuclear China might have done.
Typical after the London bombing is the ubiquitous Muslim spokesman who when asked to condemn terrorism, starts out by deploring such killing, assuring that it has nothing to do with Islam, yet then ending by inserting the infamous “but” — as he closes with references about the West Bank, Israel, and all sorts of mitigating factors. Almost no secular Middle Easterners or religious officials write or state flatly, “Islamic terrorism is murder, pure and simple evil. End of story, no ifs or buts about it.”

Second, thinking that the jihadists will target only Israel eventually leads to emboldened attacks on the United States. Assuming America is the only target assures terrorism against Europe. Civilizations will either hang separately or triumph over barbarism together. It is that simple — and past time for Europe and the United States to rediscover their common heritage and shared aims in eradicating this plague of Islamic fascism.

Third, Islamicists are selective in their attacks and hatred. So far global jihad avoids two billion Indians and Chinese, despite the fact that their countries are far tougher on Muslims than is the United States or Europe. In other words, the Islamicists target those whom they think they can intimidate and blackmail.
Go read the entire article here.

Friday, July 22, 2005

UPDATE: Two Suspected Terrorists Arrested, One Shot Dead in Latest London Bombing Attack

Here's the latest from the AP on the failed bombing attack in London earlier today.
Police said one man was detained near Downing Street, site of the prime minister's residence; the other was picked up near Tottenham Court Road, close to the Warren Street subway station where one attack took place.
My only comment is whether this latest attack will strengthen the resolve of the British people, or weaken them in the fashion of the cowering Spaniards. Time will tell.

**UPDATE** The original story I posted yesterday was less than an hour old, and nobody had been shot at that point. Now a London cop shot one suspect:
The shooting took place about 10 a.m., when jittery commuters spotted a man, who witnesses said appeared to be a South Asian, wearing a padded coat in the Stockwell subway station in south London. Police chased him into a subway car, pinned him to the ground and shot him in the head and torso, an eyewitness said.

Metropolitan Police Commissioner Ian Blair said the shooting was "directly linked" to the investigation.

"The man who was shot was under police observation because he had emerged from a house that was itself under observation because it was linked to the investigation of yesterday's incidents," police said in a statement. "He was then followed by surveillance officers to the station. His clothing and his behavior at the station added to their suspicions."
OK!!! GREAT!!! But before that, I read this:
The union for subway and bus drivers said workers would be justified in staying away from work if the government fails to take more precautions to make the operators safe, and newspapers printed headlines like "City of Fear," and "Is this how we must live?"
Did you catch that? "...if the government fails to take more precautions..." Here's where liberals get confused. What kind of precautions? As is the case in the US and elsewhere, the British government has adopted policies that allow these turds to thrive in their country. People are crying for more government protection, but I guarantee you that if the government did anything that even looks like profiling, the same liberals who are crying for more precautions would be screaming about civil rights violations. People must realize that, when they are in public, there are no rights to privacy. All persons should be subjected to searches of their belongings when using public transportation. These anti-terrorist cops are not fucking around; maybe some of you libs and muslim sympathizers will realize THAT! You can't have it both ways, folks.

And this is all the muslim leaders are concerned about:
Inayat Bunglawala, spokesman for the Muslim Council of Britain, said he had spoken to nervous Muslims since Friday's shooting.

"I have just had one phone call saying `What if I was carrying a rucksack?' he said.
Hey, asswad, the guy was carrying a backpack AND he ran from the cops! If you run from the cops when they tell you to stop, don't be surprised if they shoot your dumb ass! The hell with muslim sensitivity!

You ragheads need to understand that these terrorist scum are from YOUR community. Once you stop allowing them to hide amongst the rest of you, people like me may start cutting you some slack, but, until then, we will look at each and every one of you very closely, and judge you guilty until you prove your loyalty to the civilized societies in which you have made your new homes. If you want to live with US, leave your medieval customs in the shithole from whence you came.

There's an old saying that goes something like this: The probability of somebody watching you is directly proportional to the stupidity and conspicuous nature of your actions.

Govern yourselves accordingly.

Wednesday, July 20, 2005

Minuteman Project Arrives in San Diego

It's the same old story, only in a new place. The Minuteman Project arrived in my former hometown of San Diego this past weekend, and the nut-job protestors from the mentally deranged, illigitimate Left were out in force. The seditious agitators, many carrying the banners of and the anarchist flag, turned out in droves at the Campo VFW (private property, btw) where the Minutemen were having a BBQ social while, according to my insider present at the event, there were only 2 sherrif's deputies present initially (you'll notice that the media thought there were enough law enforcement present, but that was only after the protestors had been trespassing for quite a while.) Local TV news was present, but no coverage was shown on TV, according to my source. And, despite the title of the news story cited, "Border Watch and Protest Peaceful," it would have been more accurate if the term "non-violent" was used instead of "peaceful." According to my source, it was anything but peaceful, at least on behalf of the illigitimi from the Left.

The protestors were using bullhorns to sling verbal assaults, calling the Minutemen "racists," etc. What else is new? When the Left doesn't have a logical argument (which is almost never) they pull out the race card.

What continues to baffle me is how self-described, peace-loving Lefties can be so full of venomous hatred and vitriol. The Minutemen are simply a group of legal citizens performing a legal act of upholding already existing immigration laws that our government will not enforce. Not one of the group's members has publicly stated any racist views whatsoever, yet they are constantly referred to as racists. Any claim to that title is pure speculation and implication on the part of the pro-illegal immigration supporters.

It also seems that the protestors energies would be better served if they protested the government to change the laws, not those who are merely helping legal authorities uphold the law, which they are perfectly entitled to do. No illegals have been injured or killed; in fact, the only incident I am aware of was in Arizona when one Minuteman member drew his weapon on those he suspected of being illegals trying to escape in a vehicle. Last I heard, that is called making a citizens' arrest, also perfectly legal.

Here are some pictures taken by my inside source present for the fray at the Campo VFW.
Are these people with whom you would associate? If so, you are my enemy - See ya' on the battlefield.

Here's a sample of the lunatic fringe that showed up to protest the Minutemen in Campo, CA. Note the anarchy flag (black and red) in the left-center background.

My source said this guy was on the horn the whole time, full of verbal assaults. Looks like a peace-loving individual to me, kinda like those of another group that wears towels on their heads...

This is one Armando Navarro, Professor of Ethnic Studies at University of California, Riverside. Notice the sign he is holding (socialist as he trespasses on private property at the Campo, CA VFW . Also remember that his salary is funded by taxpayer dollars.

Here are some "legal observers" from the ACLU which said it would be filing a report. Whether or not it will be supportive of the Minutemen remains to be seen, but I'm not holding my breath.

Friday, July 08, 2005

Suicidal Turkey Sheep

450 Sheep Jump to Their Deaths in Turkey

ISTANBUL, Turkey -- First one sheep jumped to its death. Then stunned Turkish shepherds, who had left the herd to graze while they had breakfast, watched as nearly 1,500 others followed, each leaping off the same cliff, Turkish media reported.

In the end, 450 dead animals lay on top of one another in a billowy white pile, the Aksam newspaper said. Those who jumped later were saved as the pile got higher and the fall more cushioned, Aksam reported.

"There's nothing we can do. They're all wasted," Nevzat Bayhan, a member of one of 26 families whose sheep were grazing together in the herd, was quoted as saying by Aksam.

The estimated loss to families in the town of Gevas, located in Van province in eastern Turkey, tops $100,000, a significant amount of money in a country where average GDP per head is around $2,700.

"Every family had an average of 20 sheep," Aksam quoted another villager, Abdullah Hazar as saying. "But now only a few families have sheep left. It's going to be hard for us."

Q: Is the sheep suicide a protest against the attacks in London or continued American occupation in Iraq?

A: The sheep suicide was very sad. As you know, these sheep jumped off a cliff one by one, each one lining up to be next. The small town looked up and watched as each sheep jumped off. They would have done something, but after the 3rd one – most of them had fallen asleep. HAHAHAHAHAHA

(courtesy: Dr. Duck Answers @ IMAO)

Thursday, July 07, 2005

London Struck by Terrorism

Mae and I were all settled in, watching the charity boxing match between former members of the NZ All Blacks and British Lions national all-star rugby teams when, at about 10:30PM local NZ time, the show was interrupted with this breaking news:
LONDON (Reuters) - Explosions rocked London on Thursday, killing several people and wounding scores in what Prime MinisterTony Blair said was an apparent terror attack coinciding with a meeting of Group of Eight leaders in Scotland.
I just watched Tony Blair's public statement, and he stated what we already know: It's terrorism. Just who is responsible? It's too early to call. It was the opening day of the G8 summit, so it could be the Leftist/anarchist-types; but I doubt it. I'd be really surprised if it's the IRA. However, given the huge impact the Muslims have had in recent years on British society, the number of radical imams and mullahs that live among them, and the modus operandi, I'm putting my money on the great religion of peace.

This story will develop faster than I can cover it, so we'll catch-up in the morning.

Both Mae and I extend our prayers to our allies in Britain and to the injured and dead, their families and friends. May God bless you one and all.

Tuesday, July 05, 2005

Cicero's Prognosis

OK. You're fat, dumb, and happy after your BBQ and beer, or whatever you did on the 4th. So take some time, and read this. Everywhere you see the year "1965," substitute "2005," and it will be just as relevant (Nasser and Tito notwithstanding.) It's a long read, but, hey, you've got the time, right?
**NOTE** The ADA referenced herein is not the American Dental Association or the Americans with Disabilities Act, but is Americans for Democratic Action, America's oldest liberal lobbying group founded in 1947.**
Cicero's Prognosis
-- by --

Justice - Supreme Court
Tallahassee, Florida

Presented at the 22nd Annual Meeting of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, Inc.

October 7-9, 1965, Columbus, Ohio

Reprinted March, 1996

The Roman Republic, the foremost power of its day, had reached its zenith. Its leadership had attained unbounded wealth and unstinted power. The rulers were intolerant of restraint, indifferent to the demands of the middle class, and contemptuous of the Constitution which was designed to curb their ambitions. The time was some 70 years before the birth of Christ.

Young Marcus Tullius Cicero, then a student of law under old Scaevola, the eminent lawyer of his day, was just about to suffer his first great disillusionment with grasping government. Rome, by force of arms, guile and trickery, dominated the world. Its citizens had grown slick and fat, careless of their rights, and had fallen prey to the ruthless politicians who craved more and ever more power and riches.

Young Cicero's first client was a substantial man of business - a man of integrity who trusted his government and his fellow man. But he was a rich man and, because powerful men of government coveted his wealth, he was the victim of bureaucratic chicanery. Young Cicero, retained to plead his cause, submitted documentary proof of his client's innocence to the Judges, confident that justice would prevail.

But for some reason, his case was not going well. He consulted with his great friend and mentor, Scaevola, telling him what course he had followed, and asked why he had failed. Scaevola was disgusted - he slammed the table and, leaning toward Cicero, shouted, "Imbecile! Of what use are records presented to tribunes, consuls, or senators if the government is determined to rob and destroy a man who had displeased them, or who possesses what they want? Have I truly wasted all these years on such an idiot as this Marcus Tullius Cicero!"

Does that have the familiar ring of 1965 and the current raids of government on your substance and your rights?

Nevertheless, Cicero, before the august Senate, pleaded his client's defense against confiscatory taxation, saying "we are taxed in our bread and our wine, in our incomes and our investments, on our land and on our property, not only for base creatures who do not deserve the name of man, but for foreign nations, for complacent nations who will bow to us and accept our largesse and promise us to assist in the keeping of the peace - these mendicant nations who will destroy us when we show a moment of weakness or our treasury is bare. We are taxed to maintain legions on their soil, in the name of law and order and the Pax Romana, a document which will fall into dust when it pleases our allies and our vassals. We keep them in precarious balance only with our gold. Is the heart-blood of our nation worth these? Shall one Italian be sacrificed for Britain, for Gaul, for Egypt, for India, even for Greece, and a score of other nations? Were they bound to us with ties of love, they would not ask our gold. They would ask only our laws. They take our very flesh, and they hate and despise us. And who shall say we are worthy of more?"

Does that sound like 1965 and the billions we are pouring out to such as Nasser and Tito and their ilk?

Cicero did not save his client. But he did live to argue the cause of honest government and to talk with Sulla, the Dictator, about integrity and fair dealing. Sulla had little faith in the people. He believed them too deeply interested in their own welfare to concern themselves, too timid to stand up for their rights. He told Cicero the middle class, the lawyers, the physicians, the bankers, and the merchants would make no sacrifices. He said none of your lawyers will challenge the lawmakers and cry to them, "This is unconstitutional, an affront to a free people, and it must not pass!" He asked "Will one of these, your own, lift his eyes from his ledgers long enough to scan the Twelve Tables of Roman Law, and then expose those who violate them and help to remove them from power, even if it costs their lives? These fat men. Will six of them in this city, disregarding personal safety, rise up from their offices and stand in the Forum, and tell the people the inevitable fate of Rome unless they return to virtue and thrift and drive from the Senate the evil men who have corrupted them for the power they have to bestow?"

Does that sound like 1965 and our indifference to government? Does it remind you of our preoccupation with our personal affairs and our unwillingness to "rock the boat?"

Rome continued to decay. The ambitious were fattening upon its bones. The liberties of the people were lifted one by one in the name of emergencies or traded in on benefits. Catiline, brilliant, uninhibited, and evil, was pressing his suit for leadership and, in his course, curtailing the rights of all those who disagreed.

Cicero, in his Second Oration before the Senate, had this to say: "Too long have we said to ourselves 'intolerance of another's politics is barbarous and not to be countenanced in a civilized country. Are we not free? Shall a man be denied his right to speak under the law which established that right?' I tell you that freedom does not mean the freedom to exploit law in order to destroy it! It is not freedom which permits the Trojan Horse to be wheeled within the gates * * *. He who is not for Rome and Roman Law and Roman liberty is against Rome. He who espouses tyranny and oppression and the old dead despotisms is against Rome. He who plots against established authority and incites the populace to violence is against Rome. He cannot ride two horses at the same time. We cannot be for lawful ordinances and for an alien conspiracy at one and the same moment."

Does that sound like 1965 and its government-sponsored demonstrations?

Cicero continued: "Though liberty is established by law, we must be vigilant, for liberty to enslave us is always present under that very liberty. Our Constitution speaks of the 'general welfare of the people.' Under that phrase all sorts of excesses can be employed by lusting tyrants to make us bondsmen."

Does that sound like 1965 and usurpation by the Supreme Court in the name of "the general welfare?"

As the years went by Cicero continued his struggle, he became Consul and, for a time, stopped waste and thievery. But the people again grew careless, weary of well doing, and the avaricious and the corrupt politicians moved in and sought to banish Cicero. Once again he appeared before the Senate, but this time to plead his own cause. He said "The Senate, in truth, has no right to censure me for anything, for I did but my duty and exposed traitors and treason against the State. If that is a crime, then I am indeed a criminal."

Crassus, Caesar and Pompey were present. He turned and looked at them, but their faces were shut against him. His smile was sad as he said to them, "You have succeeded against me. Be it as you will. I will depart * * *." He then told the Senate: "For this day's work, lords, you have encouraged treason and opened the prison doors to free the traitors. A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and he carries his banners openly against the city. But the traitor moves among those within the gates freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears no traitor; he speaks in the accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their garments, and he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation; he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of a city; he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to be feared. The traitor is the carrier of the plague. You have unbarred the gates of Rome to him."

Does that sound like 1965 and the subversives in high places who have been exposed and those who are not yet exposed?

Cicero was exiled from Rome but not from his conscience. He continued to plead the cause of honest government. But the people he pleaded for were not concerned. His friends, the lawyers, the doctors, and the businessmen told him: "We do not meddle in politics. Rome is prosperous and at peace. We have our villas in Caprae, our racing vessels, our houses, our servants, our pretty mistresses, and our comfort and treasures. We implore you, Cicero, do not disturb us with your lamentations of disaster. Rome is on the march to the mighty society, for all Romans."

Does that sound like 1965 and some of the people you know and meet in your day-to-day walks of life?

Cicero was in despair. He began to write his book De Legibus but Atticus, his publisher, asked, "But who will read it? Romans care nothing for law any longer, their bellies are too full."

And then, later, Brutus, the long-time sycophant of the ambitious Caesar, came to his senses and went to Cicero with his plea that something be done to save the nation. He confessed his error, he said he had believed in Caesar, he had believed he would restore the public, but that he has betrayed his trust.

Cicero's bitter reply was "Do not blame Caesar, blame the people of Rome who have so enthusiastically acclaimed and adored him and rejoiced in their loss of freedom and danced in his path and gave him triumphal processions and laughed delightedly at his licentiousness and thought it very superior of him to acquire vast amounts of gold illicitly. Blame the people who hail him when he speaks in the Forum of the 'new, wonderful good society' which shall now be Rome's, interpreted to mean 'more money, more ease, more security, more living fatly at the expense of the industrious.' Julius was always an ambitious villain, but he is only one man."

Does that talk of a "wonderful good society" remind you of 1965 and its "Great Society"?

I am not sure just where this country is going nor what life in America will be like five, ten, or fifty years from now. But it's clear that the old ideas of obedience to law, public thrift and common honesty, the old laws of supply and demand, and the old concepts of local self-government and individual responsibility have been discarded.

And it staggers the imagination to contemplate the changes which have occurred in the last thirty years. Our manner of government and our way of life are, for the United States, new and novel, with little in common with what has gone before. Our forefathers would be astounded by the insidious encroachments of centralized government in our everyday life.

Government is in the business of housing the people, in prescribing the hours we can work, with whom we must work, the salaries we are paid and the tax to be withheld from that salary, the schools our children can go to and with whom they must sit and play, the highways we can drive on, how and where our food is grown and processed. The government concerns itself with the products you buy, the conditions under which they are manufactured, the manner in which they are advertised; the kind, the shape, and the size of the package in which they are offered; and how they are labeled. It Is meddling with your health, your general welfare, your old age and your retirement, your security after retirement, your savings and the banks in which you place your savings; the conduct of your city, its police department and its department of health; the conduct of the affairs of your state, its law enforcement, its elections, the composition of its legislature; and every other facet of your life, private and public.

But the people of this country may like all this - to say the least, they have asked for it. They have elected the public officials who brought it about and they sit around with their tin cups waiting for more. If that's what a majority of the people of this nation want, those of us who disagree can't complain. The majority has the right to change our form of government if it wishes.

But one unfortunate aspect is that, once the die is finally cast, it will be too late to change our minds; it's altogether unlikely we could then ever reestablish the kind of government, the kind of independence and individuality our forefathers conceived and anticipated for posterity. We will have come too far and given up too much.

For that reason it is important that we give some thought to what is happening and reach some conclusions about what we'd like our future to be. We must count the cost of all the politically inspired humanitarian claptrap and be sure we're willing to pay the price in freedom, liberty, and independence.

The cause of sound government is not without a feeble hope. There is an overriding suspicion and uneasiness. The taxpayers complain of the complexities and the inequities fostered by internal revenue; the farmers complain of regimentation; the lawyers complain of the federal judiciary and its whimsical construction of the Constitution; the police deplore the judicial pampering of the criminals; citizens gener- ally are alarmed by the government stirring up of the caldrons of racial hate; students of government seeking the truth are handicapped by managed news and the dominance of news media by the extreme liberals; many are apprehensive of the coddling of communists in high office and their people generally resent America's subordination to the United Nations and the waste of multiple billions on red satellites.

Well, we ask, in the light of the precarious situation what can we do? The first thing to decide is whether we want to live in a constitutional Republic or under a socialistic despotism. Theoretically, I suppose the vast majority would say they prefer constitutional government, but, as a matter of truth, that same majority is unwilling to jeopardize the spurious but temporary prosperity linked to current socialistic practice. Indeed, it may be we are irrevocably committed - too many of us have sold the future for the hope of free medical care, free college education, social equality, and security against poverty.

But, if you are concerned, I suggest you assess the responsibility for what's happening in government. If you are honest with yourselves you will admit we cannot blame the weak Congress or the bureaucrats, the tax gatherers or the judges or the communists - the responsibility must rest upon our own shoulders.

And while it's obvious that our conduct of public affairs under both political parties has long been lacking in the forthrightness and courage so essential to our independence, we cannot take the easy way out and charge the nation's ills to the ADA, the Bobby Bakers, or the Supreme Court. To put it simply, you and I and the people generally have been negligent in attention to our public business.

In good conscience, we cannot say the federal encroachments upon our rights and the rights of the states have come with any surprise. We have been warned and warned again. Two thousand years ago Cicero told us what to expect, when our ancestors were considering the adoption of the Federal Constitution for the new Republic. Patrick Henry, distrusting a central government, with true and unerring foresight, told the people to "be extremely cautious, watchful, jealous of your liberty. Instead of securing your rights, you may lose them forever." He said, "there will be no checks, no real balances in this government," and looking ahead to 1965, he said "this government will * * * destroy the state governments and swallow the liberties of the people."

George Mason was fearful of centralization and thought there was a very real danger of losing all the Revolution had gained. He said that a consolidated government "is totally subversive of every principle which has hitherto governed us."

William Grayson was suspicious of the proposed Supreme Court. He said, "this court has more power than any court under heaven..." George Mason said the creation of the court would result in the destruction of state governments because, in the absence of restraint, the court "will be the judges of how far their law will operate."

Benjamin Franklin, after the Constitution was adopted, anticipating a people negligent in safeguarding their rights, said he thought our government would be well administered for a few years but that it "can only end in despotism."

At the conclusion of his two terms as President and in the light of his experience, George Washington thought the people of the future should be warned of the dangers inherent in an unrestrained Supreme Court - he said; "If * * * the distribution * * * of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation: for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed."

Thomas Jefferson foresaw the evils of judicial encroachment when, in effect, he said the Court, under its philosophy, made the Constitution a mere thing of wax to be twisted into any form they pleased; that to consider the Judges the ultimate arbiter of the Constitution would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.

Some years later Lord Macauley, the English historian, after a careful study of our government and our Constitution warned the American people "Your Constitution is all sail and no anchor. Either Caesar or Napoleon will seize the reins of government with a strong hand, or your Republic will be as fearfully plundered and laid waste by the barbarians in the twentieth century as the Roman Empire was in the fifth - with this difference, that the Huns and Vandals who ravaged the Roman Empire came from without, and your Huns and Vandals will have been engendered within your own country by your own institutions." It is reasonable to assume he thought the Supreme Court was one of the institutions which would destroy us from within.

Abraham Lincoln thought it necessary to tell the people: "If the policy of the government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by the decisions of the Supreme Court, the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having...practically resigned their government into the hands of that eminent tribunal."

Robert Moses had this to say the other day: "We are living in a second American Revolution, as critical as the first one which established our nation * * * the Supreme Court now legislates and executes * * * It now by-passes the state courts and delegates to lower federal courts authority to tell the states what to do and how to do it * * * the states are reduced to peonage * * * until we change our Constitution, any five judges out of nine - distinguished men no doubt but political accidents not chosen by the people - are ruling the country and determining its future."

No, we cannot have been surprised by what has happened because, from our earliest days, we have been on notice it would happen. We, very simply, have refused to heed the warnings or to acknowledge that our freedoms can be preserved by vigilant action and not otherwise. We have refused to acknowledge that bad government and bad public officials are but the reflection of ourselves as we have cast our votes - that the elected official is nothing more nor less than the instrumentality through which we express our will.

The whole trouble is that, in our civic stupor, we have forgotten that major policies, whether the gift of our substance to the communists or the regimentation of industry, agriculture, business, and the professions, require either the approval or acquiescence of the citizens of this country. What has been done, both that which has contributed to our stability and that which has endangered our future, has been with our consent. But I should tell you that the time is growing short. We must make a choice between the form of government conceived by those who captured our freedoms from Great Britain in the Revolution and this new form of government, a centralization, advocated and practiced by the left-dealers. Whether this nation is to be governed by the rule of law, under the Constitution, or the rule of man, unfettered by any restraint, constitutes the most vital problem of our time.

It is no longer of first importance whether we collectivize the professions or bankrupt the nation in abolishing poverty or in supporting our enemies abroad - the vital question, the question, in the face of which all others fade to insignificance, is whether we save the Constitution of the United States and the Republican form of government established by it.

If we can succeed in that respect and retain the right to elect the Congress and the President, all of us, the timid and the brave, the generous and the greedy, the conservatives, the liberals, and the middle gender moderates, can live with wisdom and folly, frugality and waste, the ADA socialists, and the crafty politicians. But, and never forget it, we cannot exist as a free people nor our nation as a Republic without a Constitution, observed in fact and not in the breach.

Whether the nation moves even further to the left as a socialistic despotism or is re-established as a Republic depends entirely upon the will of the majority. The answer does not hang upon whether you are liberal or conservative, a Democrat or a Republican - the answer, the sole answer, is whether you believe in and are resolute in trying to save the Constitution - as it was written and intended - upon whether you are determined to elect public officials who believe in that Constitution and are willing to boot them out of office without ceremony if they falter in their conviction.

You must face the fact that we have spent thirty years setting up the machinery to destroy that Constitution, and it will take dogged determination and constant, unwavering purpose to save it. You will have to reckon with the human inclination to avoid unpleasant facts. We are reluctant to admit our conversion to socialism or that the Supreme Court has usurped the rights of the Congress to legislate.

But we must admit that many people, many splinter groups, approve one or the other of the encroachments by the Supreme Court upon the rights of the majority. The Negroes are happy in the belief that the Brown decision established superior rights for them over the majority; the criminals are happy with the Mallory and Escobedo decisions because of the great advantage gained over the law enforcement officers and society in general; the communists thoroughly approve the Schware, Konigsberg and the Slochower cases which insure their right to infiltrate the legal profession and the schools. The labor unions like the decisions which gave to them enormous advantages. The urban politicians like the reapportionment decisions which insure their control of the state houses and the Congress.

Some of the changes made in the Constitution by judicial fiat were useful. Some, I would actively support In the political arena, but, as George Washington advised us, they should come in the manner prescribed by the Constitution and not through the unconstitutional usurpation by a court not subject to the vote of the people.

But you must remember that, by coddling particular self-interest groups, one after the other, the "rule by man" forces have built a strong following - a following which is active, vocal and organized.

The devotees of the "rule by man" theory include the moderates, the ADAers, most of labor, practically all of the minorities, many ministers, and many of the business and professional world. But I do not believe the tin-cup crowd constitutes a majority of the people of this country.

The simple majority, and I emphasize the word simple, composed of decent, ordinary businessmen, doctors, farmers, mechanics, preachers, and just people, does not realize how it has been duped. The honest fellow has always been an easy mark - the easiest to rob.

The simple majority is slow to anger. They are not given to sit-downs and sit-ins, to placards and to violence and to hate. But neither is that majority watchful of its own rights and the freedoms it inherited from brave ancestors. The majority is slow to express its opinion - slow to write the Congressmen or the President or the Supreme Court or the newspaper; it is, because of its supinely acquiescent attitude, slow to stand up and be counted.

If you, per chance, are among those who would rather be governed by constitutional law than by the whims of men unfettered by restraint, I suggest that the war will have to be fought on a wide front. You can't win with brush fights in special area. You must join and coordinate your efforts with the professions, with business and industry, with agriculture and all facets of American society concerned with the preser- vation of personal liberty. The centralizers can lick the isolated groups, but they could not defeat a sustained drive by the consolidated believers in constitutional government.

As a conservative, you should scrutinize every political candidate, at whatever level, and support the man who believes in our traditional form of government. You should examine every major governmental proposal and express your convictions at the ballot box and by letter, telegram, and in person. You should devote the same degree of thought and attention to your public business as you give to your personal affairs.

If you are a liberal, you should insist upon a Republican form of government. You should oppose every invalid executive order and shout from the housetops against the Supreme Court of the United States every time it arrogates to itself the power to write new law and to rewrite the Federal Constitution. You should remember that the historic method of stamping out liberalism is to undermine constitutional government and substitute the rule of man. You should remember that in Russia and Germany, in Italy and Red China, the liberals were promised more liberality and more freedoms - that the promisors promised fast action by fiat. They said, as our Supreme Court now says, let's do these good things now - let's not wait for the slow processes of the law.

If you are an ADA left-winger, you should insist upon utopia under the law, not by executive order. You should insist upon the right to live in Mr. Gotrock's house on the beach, the right to a free college education for your children, your right as a Protestant to join the Knights of Columbus - but you should never give Big Brother the power to confer those rights by ukase. Why? Because when the President or the Supreme Court usurps the power to give you something to which, under the law, you are not entitled, the President or the Court can, with equal ease, usurp the power to take from you that to which you are entitled.

If you are one of the American minorities and unhappy with your race, you should exert every effort to improve your position; you can aspire to the social organizations of the other races and endeavor to pull down distinction and level off all differences. But, being knowledgeable in history, you should do all these things under constitutional law. You ought never urge the illegal use of the army in your behalf because, when you have lost your popularity as a cause and are no longer needed at the ballot box, the President can use that same army illegally against you. You should remember vividly, how, in other countries, where constitutional government was abolished, minorities were cooked in the gas ovens or deep frozen in Siberia.

And if I were a left-wing newspaperman wedded to socialism, hating wealth and the wealthy, I would do my writing behind America's constitutional guaranty of free speech. I would emulate the feist dog and bark mightily, but from behind the strong fence of constitutional protection. I would remember only too well how freedom of the press and freedom of those who write for the press have been curtailed in those countries where man has risen above the law. Each morning I would remind myself to remind all my left-wing doctor, preacher, teacher, and racist friends that only under a constitutional form of government, where the rights of the individuals are protected, can we live and breathe and preach and write our thoughts; that under centralized power our only free choice will be to write and preach and teach as Big Brother tells us or to go dig salt in the mines.

But what would you do if your aim is for a dictatorship or a communistic takeover? How would you go about weakening the fiber of the country? You would know that, given a fair choice between a representative Republic and a dictatorship, the vast majority of the people in this country would vote against centralization.

No, your road to successful takeover would involve beguiling the people with handouts, creating false sense of security and, step by step, the dishing out of benefits with one hand and the lifting of liberties with the other. You would encourage the issuance of invalid executive orders, all in the name of humanity to please large segments of the voters. You would persuade the judiciary to ignore constitutional restraint and, in the beginning at least, issue invalid decisions in favor of the so-called downtrodden of our population and, of course, contemporarily, you would have the do-gooders demonstrate and create strife and, in every way possible, debunk and belittle the principles upon which the country grew and prospered and became the first nation of the earth. This prescription, faithfully followed, is likely of success under all conditions and, absent intelligent opposition, can be guaranteed.

These are not just theoretical abstractions - that's the way it's been done throughout history, beginning with Greece and Rome, on down through Russia, Hitler's Germany, Mussolini's Italy, and Peron's Argentina.

But there's a great difference in the composition of nationalities. Three or four hundred years ago the English, pushed to the wall by the power-spawned rule of the Star Chamber courts, pushed back and recaptured their rights. The Russian people, in sheep-like docility, have submitted. The melting pot of America seems content and complacent. Its sycophantic Congress, reflecting public acquiescence, is grovelling at the feet of the President. Its Democratic party has been captured, and its Republican party is without policy or guidance. We appear to be drunk on benefits and slogans, rushing lightheartedly along to self-destruction.

But perhaps all this is in keeping with natural law. The children of Hamlin followed the Pied Piper to ruin, the people of Germany and Italy followed Hitler and Mussolini, the lemmings of Norway rush to the sea to drown, and the grunions of the West Coast rush from the sea to flop on the beach and die. The Roman Republic was destroyed when the urban leaders pampered its populace with free handouts...Perhaps Benjamin Franklin knew what he was talking about when he told the young nation, after it had adopted its Constitution, in substance, that they had gained a free and independent nation but did not have the common sense to keep it.

Pamphlet No. 1047, March 1996

Independence Day

Happy 4th of July to one and all, especially to our men and women in the Armed Forces. We are very proud of you, and we thank you for all that you have done and continue to do.

If you are so inclined, please feel free to comment on what you did this Independence Day and what it means to you; we would love to hear from you.

Last but not least, say a prayer or send your warm wishes to our men and women in the Armed Forces for their tireless efforts as they do their jobs around the globe.

We hope you all have a safe, happy holiday, and take some time to reflect on what this day is about.

Semper Fidelis

Friday, July 01, 2005

Will The Real Liars Please Stand Up?

Full story at

President Bush's reliance on the best available intelligence, though it may have turned out to be wrong, doesn't make him a liar or prove that he made a mistake in attacking. He would have made a mistake had he failed to act on the information he had, especially considering Saddam's self-incriminating behavior.

Democrats are the ones who are lying when they say they weren't relying on the very same intelligence in supporting the Iraq war resolution. And they are lying when they falsely accuse President Bush of lying about the intelligence.

9-11 confirmed that Islamic radicals throughout the world are at war with the United States. The terrorist threat is not localized to Osama and the Taliban in Afghanistan. The Democrats' quixotic refrain that we concentrate our resources only on capturing Saddam reveals how radically they misapprehend the global scope of this war.

But until they demonstrate some comprehension of the global reach and gravity of this war, quit exploiting every morsel of negative news flowing from Iraq for political purposes and start supporting our cause, it's hard to envision a scenario where Americans will entrust them with safeguarding our national security.

- David Limbaugh

Thursday, June 30, 2005

Worldwide 'Islamic revolution'

Iran's president-elect has proclaimed an Islamic revolution of global proportions.

"Thanks to the blood of the martyrs, a new Islamic revolution has arisen and the Islamic revolution of 1384 [the current Iranian year] will, if God wills, cut off the roots of injustice in the world," Ahmadinejad was quoted by the official Iranian news agency as saying. "The era of oppression, hegemonic regimes, tyranny and injustice has reached its end."

I guess this means that the only way for America to survive is to turn Iran into a molten glass bowl.

nuke 'em

Wednesday, June 29, 2005

Car of the Week

This week's feature car is the Mercedes CLK-GTR and CLK-LM. The GTR competed very successfully in FIA GT racing against the Porsche GT and the BMW V-12-powered McClaren F-1 GT in the late '90s, and the sister car, CLK-GTR/LM, was built to meet rules specifications for the 24 Hours of Le Mans. The biggest difference between the two cars was the engine: the CLK-GTR had a thundering 6.0 liter, normally aspirated, 4 cam/48 vlave V-8 that made nearly 700 HP, while the not-so-successful CLK-LM had a 5.0 liter version still making around 600 HP but with a lot less low-end torque which hurt its ability to power out of corners. The interesting thing about FIA GT racing back then was that all the cars had to have a street-legal counterpart that could not exceed $1,000,000(USD) and had to be available to the "general public." The street version as of 2003 was available with a 7.0 liter V-12 making over 700 HP and capable of speeds well over 200 MPH.

Feature Car: Mercedes CLK-GTR and CLK-LM

Racers Auction Their Gear to Help One of Their Own

While motorsport is much safer now than it has ever been, accidents still happen. And while safety improvements have been made resulting in fewer injuries and death in both 4- and 2-wheeled racing, motorcycle racers are still more prone to injury because it's still just a rider and a motorcycle, with no roll cages, HANS devices, or any of the myriad other safety implements afforded to auto racers.

I personally know 2 racers who have suffered serious injuries racing at Infineon Raceway, formerly known as Sears Point, in Sonoma, CA. About 8 years ago fellow WSMC alumnus, Andy Milton, crashed into the wall on the outside of the fast, sweeping Turn 1 at the end of the front straight, leaving him with a permanent spinal injury, walking on crutches, ending his racing career. Now, Vincent Haskovec, another young rider I know from my days racing at Willow Springs International Raceway, has suffered a serious crash at Infineon. Vincent is a Czechoslovakian immigrant who raced very successfully on the national AMA circuit as a privateer, often placing in the top 10 against other riders with big-time factory sponsorship and funding. Vincent had just recently moved into the "big time" and was doing very well when this tragic accident occurred. Below is a story from about racers from all over the world helping another racer and taking care of their own. Hat tip to Todd B. for sending this to us.
Riders Band Together for Vincent Haskovec
Written by: SPEED Staff Englewood, CO – 6/13/2005

Team M4 EMGO Suzuki’s Formula Extreme rider Vincent Haskovec, currently recovering from the severe injuries he suffered in his devastating crash at Infineon Raceway, is the focus of AMA road racing’s largest charity online auction. Top riders in the AMA, MotoGP, and World Superbike paddock are donating their leathers and helmets - to be auctioned through Race Promotion Management (RPM) and The Wegman Benefit Fund - to help offset the huge medical costs already besetting this beloved rider.

The Vincent Haskovec Benefit Auction will begin at midnight June 13 and run through midnight August 28. You can view pictures of all items to be auctioned and make your bids at . At the auction’s conclusion (and after proceeds are collected), there will be a check presentation in the winners’ circle at Road Atlanta. This will occur on September 4 – immediately following the final Superbike race during Road Atlanta’s AMA season finale.

With many fantastic items up for bid, there is sure to be a substantial amount of money raised for Vincent and his long-term medical care. Donations have already been received from Eric Bostrom, who was the first to offer his racing leathers. Eric also donated his purse from Pikes Peak, and went out of his way to encourage others to follow suit. Items up for bid have been received from Ben Attard, Ben Bostrom, Damon Buckmaster, Chris Carr, Mike Ciccotto, Troy Corser, Jason DiSalvo, Miguel Duhamel, Colin Edwards, Aaron Gobert, Jamie Hacking, John Haner, Tommy, Nicky and Roger Lee Hayden, Josh Hayes, Neil Hodgson, John Hopkins, Mat Mladin, Johnny Murphree, Travis Pastrana, Jason Pridmore, Steve Rapp, Chad Reed, Kurtis Roberts, Scott Russell, Kevin Schwantz, Ben Spies, Sebastian Tortelli, Aaron Yates and Jake Zemke. These items include helmets, leathers, boots, gloves, autographed prints and photos, gear bags, team shirts, etc. There will also be two 2006 Kevin Schwantz Suzuki Schools and a Danny Walker Super Camp up for auction.

The Wegman Benefit Fund will collect, manage and distribute these funds to allow Vincent time to concentrate on getting well without worrying about the financial consequences of his accident. The non-profit, 501(c)(3), tax-deductible organization was established in 1987 for the purpose of assisting motorcycle road racers seriously injured in racing accidents. To date, The Wegman Fund has paid out over $170,000 for racers of all levels of competition and racing organizations across the country.

It has taken a tremendous amount of effort to put this together. Many thanks goes to all of those who worked so hard to organize the auction and collect gear, namely Morgan Broadhead – American Suzuki, Leah Sherritt - AMA, Cameron Gray - RPM, Sheri Russell – Cycle News, Jodi May, Marnie Lincoln – Road Atlanta, Bart Moore, and Gordon & Laura Lunde – The Wegman Benefit Fund. Also, we’d like to thank all the riders for their incredible generosity. Their heartfelt gifts are most appreciated.

Please direct all questions regarding the auction, or items you would like to donate, please contact Leah Sherritt at , or Cameron Gray at – RPM, 7951 East Mapelwood Avenue, Suite 328, Englewood, CO 80111. (303) 377-3226.