Click to bookmark this page!

- Contact Me -
Include your email address

<< April 2007 >>
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
01 02 03 04 05 06 07
08 09 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30


Just in case you weren't sure...
If you want to be updated on this weblog Enter your email here:

Please sign the Ted Kennedy Resignation Petition!


rss feed

Shameless Self-Promotion

Buy this book (not just because it contains two of my op-eds):
Americans on Politics, Policy, and Pop Culture:
The 101 Best Opinion Editorials From OpEds.com


An Interview With the G-Man:
My first (hopefully not last) experience in live radio, being interviewed by G. Gordon Liddy!



Perspective
Joe Mariani

Number of people freed from totalitarian dictatorships by precision use of American military force under George W. Bush:
50 million in just two years

Number of people freed from totalitarian dictatorships by anti-American Bush-bashing terrorist-appeasing whining elitists:
Zero. Ever.
...

The problem seems to me to be the definition of "free speech". Liberals define it as anything they want to say or do that opposes America. I say "speech" ends where "action" begins. Once you pick up a gun for the enemy, throw a rock at a cop during a "peace" march, send money to a terrorist organisation, or travel to Baghdad to block an American JDAM with your ass, you have crossed the line from free speech to costly action.
...

Saying the War on Terror is all about al-Qaeda is like saying we should have fought the Japanese Naval Air Force after Pearl Harbor. Not the Japanese Navy, not the Japanese Army, not the Empire of Japan -- just the Naval Air Force.
...

Complaining about the "waste" when human embryos are destroyed instead of being used in medical experiments is a lot like going to a funeral and complaining about the waste of perfectly good meat.
...

Blaming CO2 for climate change is like blaming smoke for the fire. CO2 is largely a following, not a leading, indicator of a rise in temperature.
...

Cavalier's First Theorem:
Every time, Liberals will fight to protect the guilty and kill the innocent, while Conservatives will fight to protect the innocent and punish the guilty.

Cavalier's Second Theorem:
Liberals are just Socialists who want to be loved... then again, Socialists are just Communists who lack the courage of their convictions.

Cavalier's Third Theorem:
Any strongly moral, hawkish or pro-American statement by a Liberal will inevitably be followed by a "but."

Top News Headlines

Iraq Blogs

The Messopotamian
Iraq at a Glance
Iraq the Model
Hammorabi
Iraq & Iraqis
Nabil's Blog
Road of a Nation
The Sun of Iraq
Healing Iraq

Iraqi Bloggers Central

The Truth About Iraq
Liberating Iraq
Pictures from Iraq
The Iraqi Holocaust: a collection
Iraq's Mass Graves

Mudville Gazette:
News the media can't use

The Other Iraq:
The Iraq you never hear about in the MSM

Michael Yon - Online Magazine
Dispatches not filed from the Baghdad Hilton hot tub


United States Central Command


Humor

Infamous Monsters of Filmland

Day by Day: Chris Muir's witty comic strip with a political bent

The Ultimate War Simulation: Why does this scenario seem so familiar?

What Kind of Liberal Are You?
Save me the trouble of figuring out what kind of idiot you are

Blame Bush
Because Bush is to blame... for everything

Sacred Cow Burgers
Web Archive

Satirical Political Beliefs Test

Communists for Kerry

Cooper's Protester Guide

Fellowship 9/11: Sauron never attacked Rohan, Saruman did! Yet a small group of elitists convinced Middle-earth to divert resources from the real war to attack Mordor for personal gain.


Analysis

When Democrats Attack
Did prominent Democrats switch positions on Iraq just to attack President Bush for political gain? (See the updated list.)

Was Iraqi Freedom Justified?
An honest, step-by-step analysis of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq that Congress voted into law shows that it was.

Saddam's Philanthropy of Terror
Details of solid ties to organised international terrorism

How The Left Betrayed Iraq
by Naseer Flayih Hasan

Did We Botch The Occupation?
No, not of Iraq: of Germany. Read the media's take on how we "lost the peace" in 1946 and compare.

Debunking 8 Anti-War Myths About the Conflict in Iraq

Pictures from Hate Bush/Hate America/Hate Capitalism/Hate Israel/general wacko rallies
- by Zombie

Jihad Watch


2004 Election Links

Looosers: Sorry, Everybody!
Winners: You're Welcome, Everybody!


2008 Election

Peace Through Strength PAC


Duncan Hunter in 2008
official site



Click to join duncanhunterforpresident2008 at Yahoo! Groups

Useful Links

FamilyWishList
Share your wish list with friends and family

Virtual Tourist
Travel tips from real travelers

RemBot.com
Appointment calendar with email/wireless notification

PriceGrabber.com
Convenient comparison shopping


Reading Material

RightWingNews
The best right-wing news and commentary

GOP USA Commentary Corner

Men's News Daily
The New Media

OpinionEditorials.com
a project of Frontiers of Freedom

ChronWatch
SF Chronicle watchdog and conservative news

American Daily
Analysis with political and social commentary

The Conservative Voice
Conservative news and opinion

News By Us
...not news bias

IntellectualConservative.com
Conservative and Libertarian Intellectual Philosophy and Politics

CommonConservative.com
Practical conservatism for the common man

USASentinel
Analysis, Commentary and Opinion on the Real World

PhillyFuture.org
Philly news and blogs


Now Reading

The Fatal Conceit:
The Errors of Socialism
by F. A. Hayek



Articles Previously Published at
Useless-Knowledge.com

- When Good Liberals Go Bad - 05/29/03
- How Stupid Do Democrats Think You Are? - 05/31/03
- Who Are These 'Rich' Getting Tax Cuts, Anyway? - 06/02/03
- How Can We Miss The Clintons If They Won't Go Away? - 06/04/03
- Whining of Mass Distraction: How To Discredit A President - 06/05/03
- Liberal "Rules" for Arguing - 06/10/03
- Liberalism: Curable or Terminal? - 06/14/03
- Filibustering Judges: Hijacking Presidential Powers? - 06/17/03
- Is Hamas Exempt from the War on Terror? - 06/22/03
- How Malleable Is The Constitution? - 06/26/03
- Rejecting Our Biological and Cultural Heritage - 06/30/03
- I Need Liberal Assistance, Now! - 07/02/03
- Bring Them On - 07/03/03
- We Need You Arrogant Warmongering Americans...Again - 07/09/03
- Much Ado About Nothing, Again - 07/13/03
- Double Standard: Blindly Blame Bush - 07/18/03
- Was WWII Also Unjustified? - 07/20/03
- Clinton Backing Bush? Don't Bet On It! - 07/24/03
- How To Be A Hypocritical Liberal - 07/28/03
- The Clinton Legacy: In Answer to Mr. Stensrud - 07/30/03
-What Is 'Good News' To Liberals? - 08/02/03
- Bush's Big Blunder - 08/06/03
- The Meaning of Right - Why I Supported the Iraq War - 08/10/03
- More Liberal "Rules" for Arguing - 08/14/03
- You Can Have Cary Grant; I'll Take John Wayne! - 08/19/03
- Where Is The ACLU When It's Actually Needed? - 08/25/03
- Who's Afraid Of The Big Bad Ten Commandments? - 08/28/03
- From The Weasels: Thanks For Nothing - 08/30/03
- The Liberal Superfriends - 09/02/03
- Liberal Superfriends 2: The Sequel - 09/05/03
- Saddam and 9/11: Connect the Dots - 09/08/03
- Throwing Away the Southern Vote - 11/02/03
- Libya: The First Domino Falls - 12/20/03
- Is the UN Playing Games with American Politics? - 03/04/04


Blogs to Browse

Across the Pond
AlphaPatriot
Arts for Democracy
Betsy's Page
Bill Karl
Blonde Sagacity
Bull Moose Strikes Back
Common Sense & Wonder
Conservative Pleasure
Dangerous Logic
DowneastBlog
ElectionProjection
Everything I Know Is Wrong
Freedom of Thought
Sally Girl
Korla Pundit
LogiPundit.com
MarkLevinFan
Mark Nicodemo
Michelle Malkin
Moonbattery
My Arse From My Elbow
QandO Blog
RadioBS.net
Rebel Rouser
RightThinkingGirl
Sally Girl
Samantha Burns
Semi-Intelligent Thoughts
Sighed Effects
Sister Toldjah
Stark Truth
Take A Stand Against Liberals
The Resplendent Mango
The Right Society
The YNC
Tom's Common Sense
Tom DeLay
Tomfoolery of the Highest Order
Trying to Grok
TS Right Dominion
Violent Daydreams
Watcher of Weasels
Word Around the Net
WuzzaDem.com



Locations of visitors to this page


Tuesday, April 10, 2007
Nancy Pelosi: Fool or Felon?

By the late 1790's, America was fighting an undeclared "Quasi-War" with France on the high seas. France's Revolutionary government, at war with England, began allowing its navy to seize American ships trading with that country. England began interfering with American ships trading with France. Congress authorised the War Department to build six frigates (primarily intended to fight Barbary pirates, no longer confined to the Mediterranean by Portugal) in 1794, but by 1797 only three had been built.

Meanwhile, the French were further incensed by a trade agreement between America and Great Britain. In 1796, France refused to receive American diplomats, and would not restore diplomatic relations until America paid "a large bribe." In April 1798, Congress authorised President John Adams to acquire a dozen ships of war, drastically increasing the size of America's fledgling Navy, and granted those ships the authority to capture armed French vessels found off the American coast. Later that year, Congress increased the authorisation to allow American ships to capture any French ship in international waters.

In the midst of all this tension, pacifist George Logan took it upon himself to "treat unofficially for a better understanding between the two Governments." In June 1798, Dr. Logan went to France to assure that government that the American people wanted peace despite the belligerence of President Adams. His words emboldened the French to continue their seizure of American vessels, undermined US foreign policy and no doubt prolonged hostilities (which lasted two more years) by revealing tensions within the US government, which the French could exploit.

Logan's high-handed activities caused Congress to pass the Logan Act the following year, which prohibits American citizens from attempting to conduct their own private foreign policy initiatives on behalf of the United States. Only the President may speak for the country as a whole when dealing with other governments. The Logan Act (US Code 18, Part I, Chapter 45, Section 953) reads:

Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

This section shall not abridge the right of a citizen to apply, himself or his agent, to any foreign government or the agents thereof for redress of any injury which he may have sustained from such government or any of its agents or subjects.
In April 2007, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) took it upon herself to visit Syria while that country is involved in disputes with the United States throughout the Middle East -- not the least of which is terrorists using that country as a conduit through which to infiltrate Iraq. The White House specifically asked her not to do so, as it might undermine US policy towards Syria and embolden dictator Bashir Assad. Other politicians have visited Syria, but none have done so with the purpose of opening dialogue with that country against the express foreign policy dictates of the President. Representative Tom Lantos (D-CA), who accompanied Pelosi, said of the trip, "We have an alternative Democratic foreign policy. I view my job as beginning with restoring overseas credibility and respect for the United States."

However, Lantos' job -- and Pelosi's -- is to create laws. Foreign policy falls under the purview of the Executive branch of government, not the Legislative. Congress has as much power to conduct foreign policy as the President has to write laws -- namely, none at all. Nancy Pelosi's attempt to conduct her own private foreign policy is a clear violation of the Logan Act, for which she should be charged by the Attorney General... if he has time before the Democrats hound him out of office on yet another trumped-up non-scandal, that is.

Some have said that Pelosi, being a member of Congress, does indeed have the "authority of the United States" mentioned in the Logan Act, and was representing America on her trip. If that's true, then she did it badly. She appeared as a supplicant to Assad, and walked about wearing a headscarf and black abaya, showing her deference -- and America's, as our representative -- to overblown fundamentalist Islamic sensibilities. Pelosi allowed herself to be photographed smiling and showing friendship to a man who is the subject of a US campaign designed to isolate and embarrass him for the part his government played in the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri in 2005. She badly botched a message from Israel's prime minister Ehud Olmert, telling Assad that Israel was prepared to resume peace talks with Syria. Olmert's actual message was that "Syria should first stop supporting terrorism and 'act like a normal country,' and only then would Israel be willing to hold discussions." It's hard to imagine how Pelosi's blundering Syrian junket could have been any more of a foreign policy disaster for the United States.

Since assuming her position as Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi has been leading the power-drunk Democrats in an attempt to reduce the Presidency to the purely ceremonial position it often occupies in other nations. True power in those countries usually resides in a prime minister -- a position to be filled here, no doubt, by Madame Pelosi herself. The recent condition-laden military funding bill was a blatant attempt to usurp the President's authority as Commander-in-Chief, and now the Democrats are trying to take over as arbiters of US foreign policy... and it remains to be seen whether anyone will do anything to stop them.

Posted at Tuesday, April 10, 2007 by CavalierX

Jim
April 10, 2007   02:37 PM PDT
 
Oh, I'm definitely passing this one on to my Senators and Representatives! People need to do something about this!
kap
April 10, 2007   09:11 PM PDT
 
Pelosi should be recalled and prosecuted.
Jimbob
April 14, 2007   09:07 AM PDT
 
The Logan Act prohibits citizens who do not have the “authority of the United States” from conducting foreign policy. I would have thought that Pelosi has some sort of “authority” or legitimacy at least. After all, isn’t she second in line to the throne? Also, I’m not sure that she did try and “conduct” foreign policy, it looked more like a fact finding mission which I believe Congress is empowered to do.
JM
April 14, 2007   12:13 PM PDT
 
Didn't even bother to read before commenting, did you, Jimbob? All your questions have already been answered.
Jimbob
April 15, 2007   08:41 PM PDT
 
Actually, I did read carefully. I don't agree with you, that's all. I think there is nothing wrong with wearing a headscarf (when in Rome, do as the Romans), and I think that the Speaker shouldn't be a messenger for a foreign country - which it seems that she was expected to do.

Also, restoring respect for the United States is a good thing - don't you think? And I don't believe that she actually did any harm - especially because she doesn't have the power to bind the United States by anything she says or does.

Also, I don't believe that the conditions in the military funding bill means that the Democrats were usurping the President's powers: if they have the power to declare war surely they have the power to end it... Also, if they don't do it in this way the troops will either stay there forever or run out of supplies. Job's done, Saddam gone, democracy in Iraq is up to the Iraqis.
JM
April 16, 2007   06:55 AM PDT
 
>I think there is nothing wrong with
>wearing a headscarf (when in
>Rome, do as the Romans),

So should she have knelt facing Mecca at the call to prayer and prayed to Allah, too?

>and I think that the Speaker
>shouldn't be a messenger for a
>foreign country - which it seems
>that she was expected to do.

No, she was expected to stand behind official US foreign policy towards Syria, which she flouted by meeting with Assad.

>restoring respect for the United
>States is a good thing - don't you
>think?

How does kissing the ass of a dictator bring us respect?

>I don't believe that she actually
>did any harm

Sure, because no one could possibly think that there's an internal conflict within the US government that has all the hallmarks of a major power struggle.

>I don't believe that the conditions
>in the military funding bill means
>that the Democrats were usurping
>the President's powers: if they
>have the power to declare war
>surely they have the power to end
>it...

Sure, they can end it by halting the funding. That's their right. Why don't they do that instead of trying to micromanage how troops are deployed? The President is Commander-in-Chief; until they stop the war, he's in charge.

>Job's done, Saddam gone,
>democracy in Iraq is up to the
>Iraqis.

I've already answered this elsewhere:

the Authorization referenced the 1998 Iraq Liberation Act, which made it the aim of America's foreign policy to "support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime." Until that democratic government has stabilised -- meaning, among other things, that it can control its borders and police its own cities effectively, and has undergone at least two peaceful transitions of power through free elections -- the job is nowhere near complete.
Jimbob
April 16, 2007   07:42 AM PDT
 
I don't think that she is Muslim - she therefore shouldn't pray to Allah.

I don't believe that she cannot visit a country just because Mr. Bush says he doesn't like them. If America were at war with Syria it would be different. Also note Baker-Hamilton report.

I don't think she was kissing his ass by visiting Assad. De he kiss hers by receiving her?

There is clearly a major conflict going on - yes, but it didn't become worse through the visit. The visit changes nothing: the confict is already there, visible for all to see.

Yep, I agree that they should simply halt funding if they want to end the war. But isn't it better to give early warning than to just say "the soldiers have to leave today". They are just trying to do things as openly as possible. It is a pity you do not see that.

The job is complete I'm afraid - because the US has outstayed its welcome. There is also very good reason to believe that most of the fighting in Iraq is perpetuated by US presence. Whatever Congress said in 1998, if you want democracy in Iraq you should respect their peoples' opinion. The US is just making the mess worse.
Jm
April 16, 2007   10:31 AM PDT
 
>I don't believe that she cannot
>visit a country just because Mr.
>Bush says he doesn't like them.

Oh, right; that's all it was. Nothing to do with official US foreign policy. Thanks for clearing that up.

>Also note Baker-Hamilton report.

The one that says we should beg the two countries most responsible for unrest in Iraq to pretend to help us stop the unrest they're causing? Yeah, that report was a real laugh riot.

>But isn't it better to give early
>warning than to just say "the
>soldiers have to leave today".

No, it's better not to try and force the US to lose a war for political reasons.

>if you want democracy in Iraq you
>should respect their peoples'
>opinion

The problem is that you Liberals only see the terrorists and thugs as "legitimate" Iraqis, ignoring the millions who voted for the government we're trying to help get on its feet. You WANT the US to lose; you WANT the US to look bad. It's sickening.
homer
April 16, 2007   07:21 PM PDT
 
"I don't think that she is Muslim - she therefore shouldn't pray to Allah."

Well if she isn't Muslim then why should she wear Muslim female slavery garb? Liberals have such "respect" for oppressors and dictators that it makes me sick.
Jimbob
April 17, 2007   06:49 AM PDT
 
Firstly. It's like taking your hat off in church. You can take your hat off in church and be agnostic or atheist - or not? I really don't see the problem: if you actually have a point then make it, but you shouldn't need to pick up on clothes. Anyway, Condi and Nancy have both worn headscarfs - I've seen the pics. Were they also kissing dictator/oppressor ass? Laughable.

Back to the main point: I see a government that is trapped in a Green Zone with no real power, that the US sets benchmarks for: I'm not sure even Bush sees it as legitimate. I was not talking about the "terrorist" desires, but the desires of the people in polls across the country. In fact, I would say that the terrorists do not want the US out at all - the terrorists want to kill Americans, remember?

About America looking bad - the longer it stays there the worse it will get. And what it has done of good (removing Saddam) it has already succeeded in doing. The US also planted the seed for democracy, but it cannot do more than that, because it has to be the the Iraqi people, alone, that make democracy grow and become strong.

About America losing - America hasn't lost, it won the war. But it shouldn't be trying to do what it has no vocation to do. It's like asking a baseball team to win a basketball game. And you are asking for Americans to be killed for no good reason. That just doesn't make sense.
JM
April 17, 2007   07:10 AM PDT
 
Tell you what -- I'll go along with what actual Syrians have to say about Pelosi wearing a headscarf while walking around the marketplace:

"Had Speaker Pelosi worn the Hijab inside a Mosque, this would have indicated respect but for Pelosi to wear it on the streets of Damascus all the while she is sitting with the self-imposed Baschar al-Assad who has come to symbolize oppression and one of the reasons why women are forced to wear the Hijab as they turn to religion to express their freedom is a statement of submittal not only to oppression but also to lack of women’s rights in the Middle East. Pelosi just reversed the work of the Syrian civil society and those who aspire for women’s freedom in the Muslim countries many years back with her visual statement. Her lack of experience of the Middle East is showing."

http://www.reformsyria.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=282&Itemid=66

>I see a government that is
>trapped in a Green Zone with no
>real power

Where do you see that? Not in Iraq. Well, maybe in your fantasy Iraq. In the real world, the Iraqi government has already taken charge of most of the country. A few areas are the focus for terrorists and "insurgents" fueled by outside agencies.

>I would say that the terrorists do
>not want the US out at all - the
>terrorists want to kill Americans,
>remember?

They want to humble and humiliate Americans, too, and you Liberals want to help them do just that.

>About America looking bad - the
>longer it stays there the worse it
>will get.

Only if you and the terrorists win.

>The US also planted the seed for
>democracy, but it cannot do more
>than that, because it has to be the
>the Iraqi people, alone, that make
>democracy grow and become
>strong.

Is that why all US troops were pulled out of Japan immediately after WWII? Oh, wait...

>And you are asking for Americans
>to be killed for no good reason.
>That just doesn't make sense.

Of course, the only people asking for Americans to be killed are the enemy. I'd much prefer the terrorists and insurgents lay down their arms peacefully. And it's too bad you Lefties can't see the spread of democracy as a good reason to help the Iraqis. Well, so much for the party whose leader once promised that "we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty." Screw it! It's too hard! Run away!!
Jimbob
April 20, 2007   08:08 AM PDT
 
I know it's off-topic, but I thought you might find this report interesting.

I'd be grateful if you could give me your opinion on it.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6242891.stm
JM
April 20, 2007   05:04 PM PDT
 
Hard to tell if the article contains any facts; it reads like a standard sympathetic fluff piece from the BBC. Got to love how everyone in Gitmo is really an innocent goat herder or rug merchant who happened to be at the wrong place at the wrong time -- that always makes me laugh. Reminds me of the line that "there are no guilty men in prison" -- just ask any prisoner what he's in for and he'll tell you he's innocent. Nice to see someone talk about China's horrific human rights abuses for a change, though.
 

Leave a Comment:

Name


Homepage (optional)


Comments




Previous Entry Home Next Entry