Say Anything Blog

There has been a ton of gum-flapping about the minimum wage hike and its supply-side effects.  No one has addressed the demand-side issues, and I believe there is plenty of meat on that bone.  When looked at from that perspective, the minimum wage increase is a bad thing.

(more...)

This article was censored on Newsvine, taken down, we’ll see how it does here. 

Bathed Barack Obama will Run in ‘08

Springfield, IL:  February 10, 2007 - Senator Barack Obama (D-IL), 45, is running for President of the United States, a freshly bathed Barack announced today in an historic moment set in the Land of Lincoln ’in the shadow’ of the old State Capital building in Springfield, Illinois.  In the state Obama has represented as Senator for the past two years, and the state he has made his home, residing there these past 20 years, he currently has a home on the south side of Chicago.  He was introduced by Dick Durbin (D-IL).  With his wife and two young daughters by his side, they soaked up the early applause prior to his making the historic announcement of the first articulate, clean, black man to seek the office of the Presidency.

(more...)

Matt May has three posts up today celebrating the anniversary of Abraham Lincoln’s birth.  They are all worthy of your attention.

In the first, Shall Not Perish From The Earth, Matt notes President Bush’s scheduled trip to Springfield, Illinois today for the dedication of the Abraham Lincoln Presidential Library and Museum, and the ironic similarity of the crises faced by both Presidents.

True to the spirit of the day and the memory of the Emancipator, President Bush’s remarks will be brief…

Yet that is not the only reason why it is most appropriate that this particular president is in position to help dedicate this particular presidential library…

As President Lincoln was blamed for the beginning of hostilities for harboring American naval vessels near Ft. Sumter, President Bush has been excoriated for waging war on Iraq on false premises. That President Bush was upholding a truce violated by Saddam Hussein, and had every moral, legal, and logical reason to enforce it with arms was seemingly lost in the hysteria to label President Bush a war criminal. That his opponent in the 2004 election was an admitted war criminal did not seem to bother those same critics who evidently would gladly shed sovereignty to the very body that could not enforce its own laws, creating the problem in the first place…

Lincoln and Bush will be remembered by history as liberators who risked their electoral lives to ensure that the Union would endure, and that those who suffered in the bondage of oppressors would be free. When President Bush addresses the throng in Springfield today, it is not only an honor that comes as a perk of the presidency and a quirk of serendipitous timing, but it is an honor that he richly deserves.

In the second post, Lincoln’s Faith Matt uses the recently republished work of Dr. G. George Fox, a Jewish Rabbi and scholar, to examine Lincoln’s “Faith Based Leadership” including Lincoln’s not so well known familiarity with the prophets of the Old Testament and the deep and abiding comfort his non-denominational faith provided our 16th President.

It has pleased Almighty God to prolong our national life another year, defending us with His guardian care against unfriendly designs from abroad, and vouchsafing us unto in His mercy, many and signal victories over the enemy, who is of our own household. It has also pleased our Heavenly Father to favor as well our citizens in their homes, as our soldiers in their camps, and our sailors on the rivers and seas, with unusual health. He has largely augmented our free population by emancipation and immigration, while he has opened to us new sources of wealth, and had crowned the labor of our workingmen in every department of industry, with abundant rewards. Moreover he has been pleased to animate and inspire our minds and hearts with fortitude, courage and resolution, sufficient for the great trial of civil war into which we have been brought by our adherence as a nation to the cause of freedom and humanity, and to afford to us reasonable hopes of an ultimate and happy deliverance from all our dangers and affiliations.

As Matt wisely notes, just imagine if George W. Bush said that today.

In the third post, A Mighty Weapon Matt examines Lincoln’s use of the language through Dr. Douglas Wilson’s recently published, “Lincoln’s Sword.” It is no exaggeration to say that language was Lincoln’s most devastatingly effective weapon, and he used it with a rare and careful artistry.

Matt quotes Wilson’s critique of the first line of the famous Gettysburg Address to make the point.

“In many respects, the linchpin of that extraordinary first sentence is surely the word ‘proposition.’ To the discriminating eye, it seems at first to be a word out of place, which is why both Seward and Senator Charles Sumner were said to have objected to it. Matthew Arnold is supposed to have refused to read any further. But as Sumner eventually saw, there is no other word for what Lincoln wanted to say. It perfectly conveys the sense in which the most revolutionary of American ideals, however revered, was not a universally accepted principle, but was instead something that needed to be demonstrated. If Lincoln had already formulated this template by the time he heard about the memorial cemetery being established at Gettysburg, the word that would have helped make the connection was ‘dedication.’ That the ‘new nation’ in his Euclidean version of the founding is dedicated to the ideal of equality provides an opportunity to connect it linguistically with a ceremony to dedicate a national cemetery for fallen soldiers. How a talented writer might exploit such a connection is given a definitive illustration in the Gettysburg Address.”

As Matt explains it,

In examining the laborious manner in which President Lincoln wrote and thought, Dr. Wilson effectively demonstrates that of all the strengths Abraham Lincoln brought to his presidency – and they were considerable – his ultimate weapon fit neatly between thumb and fingers and defined the Union like no other before or since. Lincoln’s blunt instrument of force was his pen.

I invite everyone to read these three brief and intriguing essays, and by all means the works of both Dr. Fox and that of Dr. Wilson as well.

In my latest post to the Louisiana Conservative I ask NOW a few pertinent questions about their lack of interest in the bestial way women are treated in Islam:


Dear NOW,

I was wondering if you could answer some questions for me. I was just perusing your web site and I saw that you take a stance on many issues, from teen contraception to endorsing Hillary Clinton for president. I see that you’re calling for an end to the war in Iraq. I see that you endorse minimum wage and Roe vs. Wade. It looks to me that you champion women’s rights related to a variety of issues. That being said I have some questions:

I was just wondering why I don’t see you saying anything at all about the women of Islam. I guess that the only assumption would be that you don’t know they can’t vote. And, did you know that in many places they can’t own property? Did you know they can’t drive? Did you know that they themselves are little more than property in many cases?

Did you know that under the much touted Sharia law the woman has virtually no rights, not even to leave the house without being covered from head to toe and looking through a slit in a hood, a little like a cross between Cousin It and the Black Knight from Monty Python?

Did you know that punitive or revenge gang rapes are common, or that in Palestine right now if a man isn’t with the Hamas program his wife is stripped naked and forced to walk through the public streets to humiliate him. Not her. Him.

I give several more examples of the single minded misogynistic brutality women face every day in the Islamic world such as beatings and stoning, and the general degradation they're faced with, then I end up with this:

I haven’t heard one single peep from you on this stuff. What ever happened to “I am woman, hear me roar!” I’m not even hearing you squeak on this subject, much less roar.

Can it be that you save all your roaring for safer targets, like the white male majority of this country? They aren’t likely to call you racists or bigots if you speak out on behalf of their women, are they? They’re safe. Terrorists like to call targets that can’t or won’t fight back “soft targets.” Is the American male a soft target for you?  Is Islam and its misogynistic, brutal treatment of its women too big and scary of a target?

Just asking.

Think anyone will answer me?

Read the whole thing at http://louisianaconservative.com/

By the way, Jeff Blanco just put up this site and he’s still working on it. It’s new, with not as many bells and whistles yet as some of the more developed sites. It’s gonna get better.

We’re not ready to make nice.

While troops are busting their behinds fighting for a cause they believe in, the left wing of the music industry has stuck it to ‘em again. Liberals are the main source of division in this country we call the United States of America. Not content to persuade their Democratically elected representatives to strip funding from US Troops fighting in Iraq, they stick a knife, edgy and dull, into the stomach of each soldier and twist it again and again like they did last year, and the year before that and the year before that and the year before that.

(more...)

So says William E. Odom in a thought provoking article chalk full of myth refuting zingers in Sunday’s Washington Post. It’s unlikely to convince those who see withdrawal from Iraq as the triumph of liberal pansiness but its appeal to common sense is articulated clearly and its points will undoubtedly be raised often in the next year or two.

Weird Al has got to be the most creative entertainer in a generation. I’ve known about this for a while now but today was the first time I’ve seen the video. I much prefer the Weird Al version to the original. He’s up for a couple of Grammys tonight. Good luck dude!

Sam of Uncle Sam’s Cabin.

An opinion piece by robert108

Instead of focusing on the consequences of our retreating from Iraq to the Iraqis and the rest of the Middle East, let’s consider its effect on the United States:


Muslim advocacy groups have claimed that there are somewhere between 6 million to 8 million Muslims in the United States. It is probable that this number is inaccurate, and that there are fewer Muslims than that residing here. For the purposes of this discussion, let’s assume that there are only 1 million Muslims living in the US at this time.


Furthermore, although most sources claim that the percentage of Muslims who are radical Jihadists compose about 20% of the overall Muslim population, for the purposes of this discussion, we will assume that only 10% of the US Muslim population is dedicated to violent jihad against all infidels.


One other assumption: to use the Bell Curve analysis, then, we would also assume that there is another 10% of the US Muslim population that is completely loyal to the US and our way of life, and has not interest in imposing Islam on anyone else, no matter how dedicated they are to their religious beliefs.


So far, in this very conservative estimate, we have about 100,000 radical Jihadists here in the US, and another 100,000 Muslims who totally support the US as it is. That leaves 800,000 US Muslims who are “sitting on the fence”, in terms of who they support. Even though they might not advocate violence to impose Islam on the rest of us, they might be OK with a political or legal takeover. At best, they are ambivalent; while they aren’t into violent jihad, they might think that their way is best, and that the US would be better off if we all converted to Islam or if we had to live under Islamic law and customs.


In light of these numbers, what might be the consequences of a defeat for the US in the Middle East? If we end up withdrawing from Iraq due to being unable(or unwilling) to defeat the terrorists, which way might those 800,000 “fence sitters” be inclined to go? Wouldn’t it be reasonable to suppose that they might be influenced to become more radical? If the US appears to be unable to defeat Islamic terrorism, wouldn’t that encourage more participation in jihad among the “moderate” Muslim population?


Even though we have assumed that there are a population of 100,000 US Muslims that are completely loyal to America, as far as I know, there is no evidence that such a group exists. Logic would tell us that there must be some US Muslims who are immune to the call of violent jihad, but they are not making themselves known in any definite manner. There have been no antijihadist demonstrations here, and I question whether there are many instances where Muslims loyal to the US have actively turned in the violent ones in their midst.


It is also unnecessary to assume that the 80% who are “fence-sitters” will become violent jihadists and start making beheading videos, strapping bombs on children, and all the rest. They may choose to defeat us quietly, by becoming school board members, local politicians, policemen and policewomen, judges, members of Congress(Keith Ellison) and even President(Barack Hussein Obama?). Since the Consitution is now a “living document”, in the view of some Americans, and since it is no longer necessary to convene a Constitutional Convention to amend it in practice, the way is clear for a gradual political takeover by those who would like the US to be a Muslim country. We might even be told that “Affirmative Action” should apply to Muslims, thus guaranteeing them a quota in many govt institutions. I’m sure there are ACLU lawyers ready to draw up those briefs, should the need arise. The borders are open, and what is to stop an influx of Muslim immigrants, legal and otherwise? We have already set the precedent for such an invasion.


One more thought: If there is a political takeover of the US by radical Islam, what happens to those Muslims who are not sympathetic to the jihadists? Ultimately, won’t they be forced to join the killers to avoid being killed themselves?


Oh, yes; those numbers in the fourth paragraph of the article; multiply them by a factor of 3 or 4 to get a sense of the real problem.


What sort of America do we want?

I’ve started writing a regular piece for Jeff Blanco at the Louisina Conservative blog. This is an excerpt from my first column there:

People are murdered in New Orleans at an alarming rate and what’s even more alarming are these juicy statistics: Number of murders in 2006 – 162. (bear in mind that New Orleans has about half of its former population right now.) Number of those solved – 68. 17 of the subjects identified in these murders are dead themselves, victims of their own criminal folly. 4 others still remain at large. That means that out of 162 murders, 73 remain unsolved. 22 of the cases cleared by arrest in 2006 have yet to be charged by New Orleans District Attorney Eddie Jordan.

Here’s a real kick in the head: So far in 2007 there have been 20 murders. Of that twenty, only FIVE (5) have been solved, and three of those because the killers themselves were killed by others of their ilk – no great loss there. Only two have been cleared by an arrest.

And then there’s this gem from the “can you top this?” file:

Another factor is the prevailing culture of New Orleans, one that has by and large replaced the culture of old, of which I’ll cite an example. Yesterday a 17 year old named Clarence Johnson got into a fight with another 17 year old boy and lost. Clarence went home and told his mother, 44 year old Vanessa Johnson. Did she empathize with him or scold him as parents have for thousands of years? No.

She gave him a handgun and told him to get revenge. He did. He went out, found the other boy, and killed him. A fine example of humanity, don’t you think? When police interviewed and subsequently arrested the mother (the boy is still at large as I write this), they found cocaine and a picture of the boy posing with money, drugs, and guns. It was hanging on her wall. Not exactly a Norman Rockwell picture, is it?

Read the whole thing at http://louisianaconservative.com/.

It’s sad but we’re eye witnesses to the rapid decline of a great city. The barbarians are at the gate.

An interesting article in today’s WaPo from William Odom, a retired Army lieutenant general.  In the past he was head of Army Intelligence and director of the National Security Agency under President Ronald Reagan. He also served on the National Security Council under President Carter.

He writes: “the collision of the public’s clarity of mind, the president’s relentless pursuit of defeat and Congress’s anxiety has paralyzed us. We may be doomed to two more years of chasing the mirage of democracy in Iraq and possible widening the war to Iran. But this is not inevitable.  A congess, or a president, prepared to quit the game of ‘who gets the blame’ could begin to alter American strategy in ways that will vastly improve the prospects of a more stable Middle East.”

He makes these excellent points:

1. Getting out of Iraq is the precursor to finding and implementing new strategic options in Iraq. “Withdrawal will take away the conditions that allow our enemies iin the region to enjoy our pain.”

2. The U.S. cannot, itself, bring democracy to Iraq nor stabilize it.

3. Current U.S. policies are destablizing the region, not strengthening it.

4. Stabilizing the region, not bringing a democracy to Iraq needs to be the priority and goal of our involvment in Iraq.

And finally, he argues:

Realigning our diplomacy and military capabilities to achieve order will hugely reduce the numbers of our enemies and gain us new and important allies.  This cannot happen, however, until our forces are moving out of Iraq.  Why should Iran negotiate to relieve our pain as long as we are increasing its influence in Iraq and beyond?  Withdrawal will awaken most leaders in the region to their own need for US.-led diplomacy to stabilize their neighborhood. 

Food for thought and discussion.

read the entire article

By Richard Gray, Science Correspondent, Sunday Telegraph

Another country heard from:

Man-made climate change may be happening at a far slower rate than has been claimed, according to controversial new research.

Scientists say that cosmic rays from outer space play a far greater role in changing the Earth’s climate than global warming experts previously thought.

In a book, to be published this week, they claim that fluctuations in the number of cosmic rays hitting the atmosphere directly alter the amount of cloud covering the planet.

High levels of cloud cover blankets the Earth and reflects radiated heat from the Sun back out into space, causing the planet to cool.

[...]

He said: “It is a relatively new idea, but there is some evidence there for this effect on clouds.”

Read the whole thing.

I guess the globalwarmingists will try to demonize this guy, as well.  Science marches on.

Since she’s re-writing history elsewhere… What if we took the flip flop on her war vote and applied it to another area of her life...

MANCHESTER – New York Sen. Hillary Rodham said yesterday her alleged marriage to William Jefferson Blythe Clinton was “not a vote for co-habitation,” but instead a show of support for progressive liberal marriage policies.

The Democratic Presidential front-runner, who has been criticized by groups for not apologizing for Bill‘s womanizing, emphasized that distinction in a telephone interview from Washington.

While fellow candidate John Edwards, a former senator, has not apologized for his marriage, Clinton again equivocated.

“I will let others speak for themselves,” she said. “I have taken responsibility for that act. It was based on the best assessment that I could make at the time, and it was clearly intended to demonstrate support for co-habitation elsewhere.”

(Note for the humor impaired: The above is parody.)

By Matt May

Forget Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s arrogance in voting to raise the gas tax on Americans five times while she is squired around the Federal City in a government SUV that is exempt from such a tariff.

Forget that a single trip on a presidential-like Defense Department jet for the Speaker and her minions from Washington to San Francisco and back would cost the Treasury $300,000 while round-trip tickets on commercial airlines start at a little over $200.

Forget that the amount of fuel it would take that plane to haul Speaker Pelosi’s fat staff would render her carbon footprint bigger than Sasquatch’s - or even Al Gore’s.

Forget that the Speaker is demanding a state-of-the-art communications system on her military plane that rivals that of the executive and forget that the White House is apparently not going to object to this abject ridiculousness.

Forget all that for a moment. Instead, try and remember when the Speaker of the House of Representatives suddenly ascended to the equivalent of the President and Vice President. When did that happen?

[...]

Being Speaker of the United States House of Representative is a high honor. But as Speaker Pelosi is showing - and Speaker Hastert showed - most anyone can fill the office. Directing legislation, committee assignments, and ordering Steny Hoyer around is probably really taxing, but by no means requires the special accoutrements of power Speaker Pelosi is demanding. The Speaker is first among relative equals in the House. But if the Speaker needs a presidential plane, so does the President Pro Tempore and everyone down the line of succession. Where does it end? It’s time Speaker Pelosi - and, indeed, each Member of Congress - remember why they are in Washington and to whom they are beholden. It’s time they remember their place.

Read the whole thing.

As far as I’m concerned, Pelosi brought this on herself with her hyperbole about “draining the swamp” and the “culture of corruption” in the Republican camp.  Now we find out the truth, finally.  Too bad we didn’t know her true nature before the election.

MADISON, FEDERALIST No. 10
(The Union as a Safeguard Against Domestic Faction and Insurrection)

The latent causes of faction are thus sown in the nature of man; and we see them everywhere brought into different degrees of activity, according to the different circumstances of civil society. A zeal for different opinions concerning religion, concerning government, and many other points, as well of speculation as of practice; an attachment to different leaders ambitiously contending for pre-eminence and power; or to persons of other descriptions whose fortunes have been interesting to the human passions, have, in turn, divided mankind into parties, inflamed them with mutual animosity, and rendered them much more disposed to vex and oppress each other than to co-operate for their common good. So strong is this propensity of mankind to fall into mutual animosities, that where no substantial occasion presents itself, the most frivolous and fanciful distinctions have been sufficient to kindle their unfriendly passions and excite their most violent conflicts. But the most common and durable source of factions has been the various and unequal distribution of property. [Emphasis added] Those who hold and those who are without property have ever formed distinct interests in society. Those who are creditors, and those who are debtors, fall under a like discrimination. A landed interest, a manufacturing interest, a mercantile interest, a moneyed interest, with many lesser interests, grow up of necessity in civilized nations, and divide them into different classes, actuated by different sentiments and views. The regulation of these various and interfering interests forms the principal task of modern legislation, and involves the spirit of party and faction in the necessary and ordinary operations of the government.

No man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause, because his interest would certainly bias his judgment, and, not improbably, corrupt his integrity. With equal, nay with greater reason, a body of men are unfit to be both judges and parties at the same time; yet what are many of the most important acts of legislation, but so many judicial determinations, not indeed concerning the rights of single persons, but concerning the rights of large bodies of citizens? And what are the different classes of legislators but advocates and parties to the causes which they determine? Is a law proposed concerning private debts? It is a question to which the creditors are parties on one side and the debtors on the other. Justice ought to hold the balance between them. Yet the parties are, and must be, themselves the judges; and the most numerous party, or, in other words, the most powerful faction must be expected to prevail. Shall domestic manufactures be encouraged, and in what degree, by restrictions on foreign manufactures? are questions which would be differently decided by the landed and the manufacturing classes, and probably by neither with a sole regard to justice and the public good. The apportionment of taxes on the various descriptions of property is an act which seems to require the most exact impartiality; yet there is, perhaps, no legislative act in which greater opportunity and temptation are given to a predominant party to trample on the rules of justice. Every shilling with which they overburden the inferior number, is a shilling saved to their own pockets. [Emphasis added]

It is in vain to say that enlightened statesmen will be able to adjust these clashing interests, and render them all subservient to the public good. Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm. Nor, in many cases, can such an adjustment be made at all without taking into view indirect and remote considerations, which will rarely prevail over the immediate interest which one party may find in disregarding the rights of another or the good of the whole.

The inference to which we are brought is, that the CAUSES of faction cannot be removed, and that relief is only to be sought in the means of controlling its EFFECTS…

...From this view of the subject it may be concluded that a pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert result from the form of government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions.  [Emphasis added]

While many Americans decry the current political climate and call for bipartisianship, our founders saw it differently.  These parties and the “distinct interests” each represents are all that stand between our liberty and the destructive nature of democracy.  To hell with biparitisianship if all it means is the interests of both sides will be equally served at the expense of “personal security or the rights of property.”

It would appear not. So, naturally they are also blissfully unfamiliar with the concept of Separation of Powers. And strangely enough, those on the Senate Judiciary Committee are the ones most in need of a refresher course on Constitutional Law.

WASHINGTON (AP) — A Senate panel advanced a bill Thursday to curb the Justice Department’s power to replace federal prosecutors indefinitely, after seven forced resignations sparked accusations of political favoritism.

The Judiciary Committee voted 13-6 to send the measure to the Senate floor.

“I’m going to do everything I can to get it to the floor next week,” said Senate Majority leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.

Three Republicans, Sens. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, Charles Grassley of Iowa and Orrin Hatch of Utah, joined all the panel’s Democrats in backing the bill.

U.S. attorneys serve at the pleasure of the president and may be dismissed for any reason, or no reason at all. It’s the process of replacement that, the bill’s proponents argue, should prevent political cronyism.

Sponsored by Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., the measure would strip a provision in the anti-terror Patriot Act that gave the attorney general new power to replace fired U.S. attorneys indefinitely, avoiding the Senate confirmation process.

Feinstein’s bill would allow the attorney general to appoint interim U.S. attorneys for 120 days. If after that time the president has not sent up a nominee to the Senate and had that nominee confirmed, then the authority to appoint an interim U.S. attorney would fall to the district court, according to Feinstein’s office.

The bill would apply to any interim U.S. attorneys who have not received confirmation, including those appointed to replace the seven prosecutors who have been fired since the Patriot Act reauthoriztion went into effect, according to a spokeswoman for Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt.

The Justice Department opposes the bill, saying the attorney general’s authority to choose prosecutors should not be handed over to courts.

The Justice Department has it exactly right. For a Court to have the power to appoint regular federal prosecutors who are then tasked with presenting and prosecuting criminal cases before the court is clearly an unconstitutional breach of the separation of powers. An executive officer, such as a US Attorney, who by law serves at the pleasure of the President, can not be appointed to that office by members of either of the other two branches of government.

Perhaps we could start up a fund to purchase a Con Law refresher course for Senator Feinstein. Something for her to read on her next flight (commercial) back to California from Washington.