Meeting the McCain Challenge
February 7, 2008
While we are vociferously opposed to John McCain's candidacy, we don't want it to be said that we haven't given him a fair chance. So in that regard, we have decided to respond to his request, uttered at a Phoenix news conference on Wednesday, that conservatives "...just calm down a little bit and see if there's areas we can agree on.'' Ignoring the poor grammar (mine may not be great, but even children educated in public schools know to not end a sentence with a preposition), we took that as a challenge.
Let's look at where most conservatives stand on a variety of issues and compare that with McCain's positions on those same issues. For this purpose, I will use reports from the most recent polls on each subject.
|Bush Tax Cuts||Broad support||Voted against Bush Tax Cuts twice||
|Amnesty||Broad opposition||Co-authored McCain-Kennedy Amnesty Bill||
|Same-Sex Marriage||Broad opposition||Opposed Marriage Amendment that would have banned same-sex marriage||
|War in Iraq||Broad support||Strong support||
|Guantanamo Terrorist Detainment||Broad support||Will close Guantanamo detainment camp, move terrorists to US soil and give them the same rights as you and I enjoy. Would he punish soldiers who aided in water-boarding???||
|First Amendment||Broad support||Co-authored McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Bill (often referred to as the "Incumbent Protection Bill"), that denies activists freedom of political speech||
|Second Amendment||Broad support||Has an "F-" rating from the Gunowners of America - 'nuff said||
|Conservative Judges||Broad support||Conspired with Democrats to form the Gang of 14, to block Bush's most conservative judges and also voted for liberal judge Ruth Bader Ginsburg||
|Drilling in the Anwar||Broad support||Cast the deciding "NO" vote on drilling in the Anwar and leans toward the Gore position on global warming||
|Trustworthiness||Demand||Claims that he does not support amnesty, even though he co-authored a major amnesty bill. He thinks that by calling it "Orderly Immigration," we won't realize that it is Amnesty. If you still trust him, just read the bill. Also claims that he never called Alito "too conservative," despite reports from numerous credible people who heard him say just that.||
In fact, on those occasions when McCain does vote with Republicans, it is most often on issues where the vote is not even close and on those occasions when he votes with Democrats, his is often the the deciding vote or one of only a few deciding votes. As I have stated before, that's like a baseball player getting all of his singles, when there are no men in scoring position and striking out every time the bases are loaded.
Furthermore, although he brags about his 82.3 lifetime ACU rating, that means little for a man who has been in office for 20 years. To begin with, the lifetime ACU rating for all GOP Senators, as of 2006, is 84.5, which puts McCain below average for Republican Senators. In fact, among all 100 Senators, that puts him in 40th place.
But, it gets much worse. McCain was much more conservative in his early years, than he is today. In 2006, his ACU rating was only a very poor 65. Then, consider that the average ACU rating for all Senate Republicans, in 2006, was 80.8. By the way, that puts McCain in 45th place, out of 100 senators or near the very bottom of the GOP pack, along with the likes of Arlen Specter and Lincoln Chafee. How conservative is that?
Now, we challenge McCain or any of his liberal supporters to show us any other issues important to conservatives, besides the War in Iraq, where he is on the same side as conservatives.
So now that Mitt Romney, the last real conservative in the race, has dropped out, what are real conservatives to do? Both McCain and Huckabee are very liberal, except on a very limited few issues. Obviously, Ron Paul can't be considered, since not only is he a marginal candidate, he has joined the "Blame America First" crowd. It leaves us in a real quandary.
I find myself in a position of which I never believed possible. I may actually have to vote Democrat, in order to help save the Republican Party.
You read it right. I would even vote for Hillary, in order to keep McCain from winning the presidency and destroying what little Dubya has left of the GOP.
I know that the idea of voting Democrat is just so obnoxious to some conservatives that they couldn't vote Democrat, even if the Republican nominee was Adolph Hitler, reincarnate. I have to respect that commitment, so for those people, rather than vote for McCain, we recommend that you sit out that race, in the general election. As for me, I will take an option that I have always railed against. I will vote for the lesser evil. If McCain is the GOP nominee, I will vote Democrat.
The reason is simple. A McCain presidency will doom the GOP. I will vote Democrat, before I will do anything that will so certainly destroy our party.
For more on this, I refer you to this Ann Colter article.
McCain is Nowhere Near Conservative
February 3, 2008
If the recent polls are to be believed, John McCain is apparently fooling a lot of conservatives into believing that he is conservative. This of course, has been aided by the liberal media, who see him as a reasonable Republican alternative to having Hillary or Obama in the Whitehouse.
In fact, McCain repeatedly cites his lifetime ACU (American Conservative Union) rating of 82.3%, as proof that he is conservative. However, there are two things wrong with that inference.
First of all, 82.3% just isn't that high. In 2006, that put him at position 39, in the Senate. To put that into perspective, remember that there are only 49 Republicans in the Senate. To be 39 of 49 is not that great. For comparison, two other GOP candidates, who have already dropped out, Duncan Hunter and Tom Tancredeo, have lifetime ACU ratings of 92.0 and 97.8, respectively.
But, a lifetime rating, for someone who has been in the Senate for 24 years can be misleading. In fact, for John McCain, it is very misleading. In the most recent ratings year, 2006, McCain's ACU rating was a very poor 65. That puts him just barely ahead of Democrat Senator Ben Nelson (NE), whose ACU rating was 64. Several House Democrats actually ranked substantially higher than McCain (Boren-OK at 72, Marshall-GA at 72 and Melancon-LA at 76, to name just a few). The average rating for all Senate Republicans is 89.2. Suddenly McCain's 65 rating looks even worse.
But, we can't stop there. It gets much worse. John McCain actually co-authored the McCain-Feingold Bill (Campaign Finance Reform) and the McCain-Kennedy Bill (Amnesty for Illegal Aliens). Both were widely scorned by conservatives. Yet, despite his recent active support for Amnesty, McCain now tries to make us believe that he is on our side, by telling us that the McCain-Kennedy Bill did not really contain Amnesty for Illegal Aliens. Hello??? I wonder what he has been smoking.
I suppose that he has been dealing with liberals for so long that he forgot that he is now dealing with conservatives, who can actually read. Speaking of reading, I invite you to read it for yourself, by clicking here. To read the amnesty portion, scroll down to Title III and click on Section 301. It's in there, in black and white. It's AMNESTY and McCain not only authored it, but he now denies that his bill contained any amnesty. That not only puts him on the wrong side of amnesty, but makes him untrustworthy, as well.
But, McCain's liberalism doesn't end there. He made a back-room deal with the Democrats to break a deadlock on Bush's judicial nominations. He voted against a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. And, to top it off, he voted against the Bush tax cuts. Are these the actions of a conservative?
A closer look at McCain's votes shows a remarkable pattern. He most often votes conservative on bills where a win is predestined and the wrong way, when there is only one or two votes needed for conservatives to win. I read a relevant analogy somewhere that this would be like a baseball player getting all of his singles, when there were no men in scoring position and striking out every time the bases were loaded.
I, for one, am a conservative who will never vote for McCain, under any circumstance.
I would rather see a Democrat in office, than McCain. Why, you ask? Let me give you just one example. If McCain, as a Republican, pushes another amnesty bill at Congress, its chance of passage is a lot greater than if Clinton or Obama were to push the exact same bill. When Bill Clinton was president, Republicans proved that they were willing to stand up to and defeat a liberal Democrat president. Conversely, while Bush has been president, they have knuckled under to many of Bush's liberal initiatives.
If the best Republicans can do is to nominate a RINO, like McCain, then I would rather see a ranting and raving liberal Democrat in the Whitehouse, so our GOP congresscritters will once again develop a backbone. We need at least one branch of government to be conservative and if McCain wins, we will have none, since the Republicans in Congress have proven that they have no taste for standing up to a RINO president.
Update: Within a few hours after posting this article, I had received several angry emails from people who asked how a conservative could support a Democrat over McCain? Then I got an email that made me feel vindicated. I learned that conservatine columnist/author, Ann Coulter has taken the same position on McCain, as I. In other words, she has pledged to fight McCain all the way to inauguration, if need be, even if it means electing Hillary. Her reasoning was essentially the same as mine. She believes that McCain would "co-opt Republicans" in congress, in a way that Hillary could not. Read the article here. The plain fact is that a McCain presidency would rip the soul out of the GOP, in a way that even Bush has not been able to achieve.
Huckabee Would Deny Americans
Rights to Dual Citizenship
In yet another move against the rights of US citizens, Mike Huckabee now wants to deny American citizens the right to use a second passport.
"So, what's wrong with that?" you might ask. "Aren't those, who have two citizenships, being unpatriotic?"
The answer is simple. It has nothing to do with patriotism. Those Americans are just trying to protect themselves.
First of all, according to several studies by travel organizations, a US passport is the second most dangerous passport that you can carry - right behind an Israeli passport. If you are ever find yourself in a hostage situation your chances of dying go up dramatically, if you are traveling on a US passport. Islamic terrorists will go after Israelis first, Americans second and Brits third. The simple solution for Americans, is to travel on a passport from another country - preferably a small, non-controversial country. In that case, you get to be one of the hostages who is freed, as a sign of good faith.
Huckabee's attack on dual-citizenship affects more than just foreign-born Americans. In fact, it is a much more important issue for native-born Americans, since native-born Americans look and act like Americans.
There is a second related, but much less important travel issue, of which many Americans are quite familiar. When you travel on a US passport, in certain countries, the level of service available to you drops significantly. Try visiting Paris on a US passport. Even the best hotels will likely treat you with disdain. Compare that to the excellent treatment that they give other travelers. But, France is not the only country guilty of such actions. The point is that if you carry a US passport, there are many places in the world where you will be treated as a second class guest.
Finally, US law prohibits US citizens from investing in certain very lucrative investments that are available to the rest of the world. It's not like those investments are not secure. In fact, many have a far better track record than most similar US securities. Our government doesn't want US citizens to be able to take advantage of such lucrative foreign investments, not because they are trying to protect us, but because they are protecting their friends on Wall Street, who don't get their piece of such investments. They want to force American investors to deal with Wall Street only. As a result, because of US pressure, most foreign brokers will not deal with US citizens.
Once again, the solution is to hold a second passport and then invest as a citizen of that other country. Now, I certainly don't advocate breaking US law. But, I also realize that many Americans believe that an immoral law should not be obeyed, just like immoral orders from a military superior should not be obeyed (Re: Nuremberg). There is certainly nothing moral about denying millions of US citizens the opportunity to make a decent profit, for no better reason than to favor a handful of US stock brokers.
Once again, Mike Huckabee has shown that he just shoots from the hip and doesn't think complex issues through. In a weak attempt to make us forget his poor record on immigration issues, he is now trying to look strong on those issues. But, as on so many other complex issues, he completely failed to consider that many native-born US citizens carry a second passport for very good reason.
Good on a Few Issues
Bad for Real Conservatives
Until the recent unexpected rise of Mike Huckabee, in the polls, we have not felt it necessary to address the Huckabee candidacy, in any way. Frankly, for reasons that I will explain, we never saw him as a viable candidate, in the first place. Due to the changing polls, we now feel it necessary to point out some issues of extreme importance, concerning Huckabee.
I don't want anyone to get the wrong idea. It's not that I disagree with Huckabee on important issues. In fact, I, like many conservatives, agree with him on more than a few of the issues important to conservatives - enough that if it were not for one major problem, I would find it easy to support him. The problem is that, above all, he is a single issue candidate.
I don't mean to suggest that Huckabee doesn't hold passionate positions on other issues. It's just that while he may be passionate about a number of issues, he is absolutely committed, only to a very few issues and the whole world knows exactly what those issues are. This makes him extremely vulnerable to being subverted on any or all of those other issues, by knowledgeable political operatives.
Anyone knows that you don't play a game of poker, where your hand is the only hand, face up on the table. But, if Huckabee were to be elected president, that would be exactly the case. Let me give you an example of what would likely happen, using two issues on which both Huckabee and I agree - the Fair Tax and defining marriage as a union between one man and one woman.
Many political movers in Congress, on both sides of the aisle, realize that the Fair Tax threatens their gravy train and want to keep the income tax, just as it is. Those people also know that Huckabee is an evangelical Christian, who would give up on his passionate goals, like the Fair Tax, if he thought that he might possibly be able to get enough votes for a marriage amendment, to which the devoutness of his religion commits him. That's a major weakness. The same or a related weakness could be used to turn him from his Second Amendment support.
The point is that any politician, who is publicly committed to only one or two issues, cannot possibly be a good political negotiator and could actually be dangerous. It's like playing poker, with your whole hand showing.
President Reagan was called the "Great Negotiator," because he could get the other side to give up things that they very much wanted, in exchange for insignificant concessions from him. He was able to do this, because the other side never knew what he was willing to give up. When he told the other side that a particular proposal was not an option, it gave them pause, even if they didn't entirely believe him. He kept all his cards close to the vest. At the same time, he played to their weaknesses. But, they knew of none of his.
Mike Huckabee would enter office with his hand exposed. The other side, regardless of what the other side might be, on any particular issue, would know that they could trade nominal support for one of Huckabee's pet issues, in return for Huckabee allowing them to push their own agenda.
I would never vote for any evangelical Christian, for the same reason that I would not vote for someone like one of two of my personal heroes, Larry Pratt or Wayne LaPierre. While I am a major Second Amendment supporter, I realize that they are identified as people who will give up on some of their other values, in order to gain concessions for their pet issue (gun ownership rights). The same applies to John Linder, who is identified as heavily favoring the Fair Tax. The point is that if a candidate is identified as one who has "favorite" issues, as does Mike Huckabee, other politicos can and will use that foreknowledge to subvert him, on other important issues.
We need a committed, broad-based conservative, who doesn't have any known favorites, on any issue. Such a committed conservative, would be able to negotiate much better deals, because the other side would not be aware of any pet issues that they could use against him. Mike Huckabee is most definitely not such a person.
While we have not yet decided who to actually endorse, it is an absolute certainty that Mike Huckabee is not going to be endorsed by ActionAmerica, either for the primary or the general election. In fact, if Huckabee were to some how manage to actually win the GOP nomination, we would be forced to endorse a third party candidate, for the November election.
GOP Primary (Non) Endorsements
How Not to Endorse Evil
We have received many feedback forms asking us who we endorse in the GOP Primaries. At this point in time, I can only name the RINOs in that race, who we do not and will never endorse, under any circumstances. There are, in fact, at least three REAL Republican presidential candidates, who are at the very least, acceptable. The reason why we are not yet ready to endorse only one of these candidates, is because the ones who we favor most, are not top-tier candidates and as such, one or more of them may drop out after the New Hampshire or Iowa primary. I will however, name our favorites, later in this article.
Most importantly, we encourage our readers to keep in mind, when considering for whom to cast their vote, that a vote for the "lesser evil" is effectively, an "endorsement of evil."
This is particularly important in this election, where we have several RINOs running for the GOP nomination. In particular, I am talking about Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney and John McCain - all of whom are Republican in name only (RINO). None of them would stand a chance of winning the general election.
Let's take the current leading candidate, Rudy Giuliani. He has two huge GOP constituencies opposed to his candidacy. Both Christians and gun rights advocates strongly oppose his candidacy. Both of those constituencies are comprised of people who will not vote for the "lesser evil." If only one of those groups opposed him, he might stand a remote chance. But, with two of the largest constituencies in the GOP passionately opposed to him, he doesn't stand even a remote chance of winning. Both Romney and McCain have similar large GOP negatives, which will sink their chances in the general election, as many in those constituencies will either vote third party or not vote at all.
Is a third party vote wise?
There are two points to keep in mind, when considering a third party vote. First, you must ask yourself if the GOP candidate is really a Republican, especially on the most important issues. If not, then you must accept that you might as well be voting for a Democrat. Second, you must remember that a vote for the lesser evil is nothing more or less than an "endorsement of evil." Many people who voted for Bill Clinton did so, because they saw him as the "lesser evil." But, remember that Clinton wasted no time claiming that those votes constituted a mandate for his far left agenda. So, if you vote for a RINO and he gets elected, expect him to use your vote as a mandate to implement his liberal agenda.
I promised that I would name names of those whom we favor, at the end of this article. They are, in order, Congressman Duncan Hunter (CA), Congressman Tom Tancredo (CO) and former Senator Fred Thompson (TN) - the latter, less so than the first two.
Besides being good solid Across the board Republicans, both Hunter and Tancredo have demonstrated that they are willing to do the right thing, even in the face of strong political pressure from the RINO, who currently occupies the Whitehouse. Both have actively opposed any attempt at anything that even resembles amnesty for illegal aliens. Also, unlike some other Republicans, who wait to see which way the wind blows, before jumping on board an issue, they have both proven that they are leaders and not followers, in their strong support and co-sponsorship of the FairTax. While others talk about tax reform and simply mean playing with the margins, both Duncan Hunter and Tom Tancredo are solidly on board with real, meaningful tax reform.
As for Thompson, he has proven himself to be a real Republican, but not a leader, as he is one who has often waited to see which way the wind was blowing, before supporting a necessary issue. For example, he is one who talks about tax reform a lot, but has yet to tell us what really is his idea of tax reform.
Republicans must reclaim our party from the "compassionate conservatives" (RINOs). We must send a message to our candidates and that message must say, "If you expect our vote, then you better be able to demonstrate that you are a REAL Republican and not just a Republican in Name Only (RINO)."
October 4, 2007
It's that time of year again. Once again, the IRS has quietly released their latest Tax Collections Data (for 2005) and once again, we aren't letting it stay quiet. Our systems detected the new data only minutes after it was quietly added to an area deep within the bowels of the IRS web site and we are publicizing it and making it available to all who are interested in this sort of thing.
Here is just a sample of some of what it shows:
• The top-earning 1% of taxpayers earned 21% of the income.
• The top-earning 1% of taxpayers paid 40% of taxes collected.
• That's roughly double their share, based upon income.
Who says the rich don't pay tax?
There is lots more in the new data. Read our analysis of it here. You can also download the whole spreadsheet in XLS format, from the IRS website, by clicking on the button at the bottom of that article.
FDA & VeriChip try to
Spin Spychip Scandal
September 11, 2007
After a recent investigation by the Associated Press uncovered the fact that substantial evidence exists, linking FDA-approved, human-implantable spychips, manufactured by VeriChip Corporation, with cancers found in numerous lab animals and at least one pet dog, both the FDA and VeriChip have been in full spin mode, trying to avoid a full-scale investigation that has the potential to bring down not only VeriChip, but quite possibly former Health and Human Services Secretary, Tommy Thompson.
It's important to note that Thompson was Secretary of the department that oversaw the FDA, at the time that VeriChip received its FDA approval for their spychip, resigned that post two weeks after that approval and within five months, held a very lucrative position on the board of directors of both VeriChip and its parent company, Applied Digital Solutions. Was this payback? I don't know. But, if this wasn't payback, it was certainly an extremely convenient and lucrative coincidence. Is it any wonder why this exposure has all parties involved cranking up their spin machines?
In fact, that's all that it is - pure spin, without any hint of relevant fact. Let's look at what these spychip proponents are saying and then look at the facts.
- VeriChip said that it had not been aware of the studies cited in the report.
- The several studies that were available, at the time of Verichip's FDA application, had all been published in recognized veterinary and toxicology journals.
- If the Associated Press could find these studies, related to VeriChip's spychips, why couldn't a company in that business find them?
- It isn't reasonable to conclude that a company in that business could have "overlooked" all of those studies, relating to their product, especially in a day and age, where you can electronically search such medical journals, for articles containing certain words, like "chip." If VeriChip didn't know about those studies, then that alone is evidence of such gross incompetence in their field, as to bring into question the validity of all of their past research.
- A spokesperson for the FDA said, “At this time there appears to be no credible cause for concern.”
- Researchers found these cancers, when they were not looking for them and in some cases, even stated that they only noted the most obvious tumors.
- The cancers most often had completely encased the implanted spychip. You have to wonder what the FDA does consider "cause for concern."
- The studies in question were looking for other results and the finding of cancer around the chips was coincidental. Since there were no controls in place to look for such cancers, spychip proponents suggest that these adverse results should be completely ignored.
- In at least two of the studies, the researchers made note concerning the cause of the cancers, with comments like "clearly due to the implanted microchips." Such authoritative comments should never be ignored, but should signal a serious need for more specific research, to get a better handle on the incidence rate - research that never took place.
- In most cases, the cancer completely encased the microchip. This is supposed to be coincidental?
- Although the lack of specific controls does render the findings of VeriChip-related cancers somewhat less accurate, they do not mean that the studies have no veracity. Those studies prove the connection. But, without specific controls the incidence numbers may not be as accurate as they would be, with such controls in place.
- We have to believe that since the researchers only noted the "most obvious tumors," had specific controls been in place, the incidence would likely have been even higher than the original studies indicated.
- The benefits outweigh the risks.
Spychip apologists even go so far as to suggest that since doctors now know that there may be a serious cancer risk associated with the chips, this could actually be a good thing, since doctors would perform cancer screenings on those with implanted spychips, more often. You say that you don't believe that any sane person could come up with such an incredulous idea? Read it for yourself, here.
- According to this kind of warped logic, we should all be injected with a known carcinogen, just so doctors will screen us for cancer more often. Fantastic!
- That incredible claim ignores two facts. 1) We all know that a person who has had any type of cancer is far more prone to get cancer again. 2) An aggressive cancer can progress from non-existent to cause of death between even annual screenings (see next bullet point). Yet, these people want us to get cancer earlier in life, so they can treat it sooner. I suppose that they think that younger cancer patients will last longer and thus, generate more revenue.
- Dr. George Demetri, director of the Center for Sarcoma and Bone Oncology at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston said that In humans, sarcomas (like those found around the spychips), which strike connective tissues, can range from the highly curable to "tumors that are incredibly aggressive and can kill people in three to six months."
- The spy chip does not store your medical records, but rather responds, when queried, only with a simple serial number that is used to access your medical records online. How does placing a potentially lethal device in your body outweigh that risk, when the same exact data can be stored on a bracelet or on a card in your wallet? Think about it...
- Prior to AP's uncovering the spychip scandal, Tommy Thompson stated that he would get one implanted in his arm, saying "Absolutely. Without a doubt."
- Yet, to date, Thompson has not done so. Why???
- Perhaps Thompson knows what Dr. Robert Benezra, head of the Cancer Biology Genetics Program at the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York, knows. Dr. Benezra said, "There's no way in the world, having read this information, that I would have one of those chips implanted in my skin, or in one of my family members."
Watch for the spin and then look at the facts. Remember that the more you hear spin, the more you should suspect that someone doesn't want you to know the truth. I don't want to speculate on what the truth might be. But, it is clear that we are not being told the truth. Although I am not a big fan of Senate or House inquiries, the amount of damning evidence and the level of risk that it represents, as well as the political placement of the players involved, would seem to call for just such an investigation.
Read our original story on this subject here.
Suggested Google words for this story: spy chip cancer (also spychip, spy-chip & VeriChip)
iHype or iCool
The verdict is mixed
September 5, 2007
Today, after much media hype leading up to it, my favorite computer company, Apple, announced some new products and upgrades to others. So, was there real reason for all the hype or was it just a lot of wow about not-ready-for-prime-time products, like the iPhone? Well, until we can get our hands on those new products, we can't be sure, but the new products sound awesome. On the other hand, the upgrades to the iPhone amount to little more than a Band-Aid to treat a compound fracture.
Since I am a Mac Evangelist, I'll talk about the good stuff first. The whole iPod line has been revamped But, the biggest news is what appears to be a marvelous new iPod Touch.
The Touch looks and operates much like the iPhone, with the same kind of touch-screen, but without the phone. It even has wireless capabilities and will also allow you to access the iTunes Store from any Starbucks store. Neat, huh? It will also sport a version of Safari. However, there was no mention that the browser would work at Starbucks. This leads us to believe that the only place that the browser will work will be wherever you already have a trusted network. However, since that product will not ship until October, we probably won't be able to find out all of the details till then.
Now for the caveat. Did Apple use the same crippling, recessed headphone jack that it used in the iPhone or did they actually listen to all of the complaints about that worthless iPhone jack and actually make the Touch jack useable. If they used the same jack, then I would strongly recommend that music fanatics avoid the iPod Touch, since your audiophile headphones that likely cost as much or more than your Touch, probably won't fit the jack. (That jack, by the way, is just one of the many reasons why I returned my iPhone four days after I bought it.) If Apple has not ported the headphone jack problem to the Touch, then the iPod Touch might well represent the next revolution in portable music players. We'll just have to wait and see.
As mentioned above, Apple has also revamped it's entire iPod line. The most exciting, is the iPod Nano, which has been flattened and widened, so as to include a large 320x240 pixel, 2-inch video screen. You read that right - video on the Nano. It is also the highest pixel density that Apple has ever shipped. The Nano will also support games and cover-flow. The storage will be twice that of their older siblings, for the same price - 4GB for $149, 8GB for $199.
The standard iPod has been upgraded and is getting a new name. It will be called the iPod Classic - obviously, to distinguish it from the new iPod Touch. It sports an all-metal case that is slightly thinner than it's older sibling and claims 40 hours of music or 7 hours of video on the 80GB version, that will sell for $249. But, get this. There will be a 160GB version, as well, for $349.
Now for the Downside
Apple also made a much hoped-for, but largely disappointing announcement, concerning the iPhone. First, they have finally added customizable ringtones to the iPhone - at least, in a fashion.
"So why did you include this announcement this in the Downside section," you might ask. It's because that fashion is more in line with 2004, than 2007. You see, you can only make iPhone ringtones from tunes that you purchased from the iTunes Store (not from CDs, tunes that you generated yourself or ringtones that you want to port from your old phone). But even then, you can only use "certain" tunes from the iTunes Store, at that.
In other words, if you didn't buy it from the iTunes Store, you can't make a ringtone out of it. If you are like me, most of my favorite ringtones came off of CDs that I bought years ago. But, even if you did buy the song from the iTunes Store, you may well find out that iTunes will block you from making a ringtone out of it, since only a portion of songs on the iTunes Store are authorized by Apple, for ringtone generation. Then, to top it off, Apple wants to charge you $0.99 for a ringtone made from a song that you already paid $0.99 to buy from them, in the first place. Hello?!!! What's wrong with this picture?
Then, Steve Jobs attempted to convince us that ringtones cost about $2.50 each. Yeah, right! And I once saw a pig fly. Only the terribly uninformed pay for ringtones anymore - at least not since the advent of PhoneZoo. That's a web site where you enter you phone model and phone number, upload any song that you own, use their easy-to-use web tool to crop the section that you want to use and send it to your cell phone. It's that simple. And, what does this cost? Zilch! Zero! Nada! It's FREE! And it works with just about every cell phone and smart phone on the market, except the iPhone. The iPhone still has a long way to go, to match even the most basic cell phone, on ringtones. In fact, the iPhone still has a long way to go (period).
The really great part of the iPhone announcement was that they are cutting the price of the iPhone to just $399 for the 8GB model and doing away with the 4GB model. Unfortunately, even that announcement was dramatically tempered by the fact that Apple had failed to address any of the myriad other far more important shortcomings of the iPhone than mere ringtones, such as the headphone jack that won't fit most headphone plugs, the missing copy and paste facility and the lack of voice dialing, a video camera, instant messaging, Java or Flash support or Bluetooth stereo support. Like many others, I gladly paid the $599 for my iPhone, before I realized that is was not yet ready for prime time. A price cut is welcome, but until they fix the serious shortcomings with the iPhone, it will remain just a toy and serious users won't care.
Apple put into the iPhone some truly great features, but left out many of the most basic, useful and even necessary features and they expect us to get excited about a crippled ringtone download application and a price cut? I am afraid that if Apple doesn't get off the stick soon and really fix the serious shortcomings of the iPhone, they will lose the tenuous lead that all the hype has given them. In fact, the Nokia N95 already features a 2.8" screen, integrated GPS, HSDPA, 802.11g WiFi, Bluetooth stereo, a microSD slot (up to 2GB hot swap), stereo FM radio, a user replaceable battery and a 5MP still/video camera, with flash, a headphone jack that fits all standard headphones and it works all over the world on any carrier. Sure, it's not as easy to navigate, but it does important things that the iPhone doesn't. An 8GB version of the N95 is about to be released. How long will it be before Motorola, Samsung, Blackberry and others release full-featured, large screen products to compete with the iPhone?
As a long time Mac evangelist, it pains me to have to admit that I bought an 8GB iPhone on June 29 and returned it on July 3 and am now seriously considering a Nokia N95 or a Blackberry 8820, when it comes out in the USA or picking one up on my next trip to London. After all, as much as I LIKE the glitz of the incomplete iPhone, what I NEED is the functionality of a complete product.
Hype or Home Run?
Apple's announcement comprised element's of hype, while hitting one or more balls that may turn out to be home runs. The new iPod lineup is an absolute home run. The iPod Touch has home run written all over it, but it could fall far short, if Apple included the same recessed headphone jack that they put on the iPhone. The Touch is, after all, a product designed for high end buyers, most of whom have already spent hundreds of dollars on the very best 3rd party headphones on the market - sometimes even more than the cost of the iPod Touch. Those users won't want to go back to Apple's inferior headphones, just for the glitz of the Touch. When the Touch is released, the headphone jack will be the deciding factor for many potential buyers. As for the iPhone announcement, the price cut was welcome, but only brought the price down to where it should have been in the first place and only had it included the features that have become "standard" on all smart phones, which it still does not. Some people may find the iPhone's new ringtone download feature useful, but with the easy availability of free tools like PhoneZoo, being limited only to music that Apple thinks is suitable for ringtones, is not likely to be acceptable to most people.
America's Most Wanted Airs
Second Show on Border Scandal
The DOJ tried to quash the first show and now AMW exposes even more scandal.
Kudos go to the Fox Network show, America's Most Wanted, for staying on top of the mockery of justice, surrounding the US Department of Justice's railroading of two honorable US Border Patrol Agents and an equally honorable Deputy Sheriff, at the orders of the Mexican government. America's Most Wanted has now aired two features on this travesty, the second adding new and even more damning information.
Their first story on this scandal was aired on February 3rd, when they included a feature story titled, "Jose Compean and Ignacio Ramos - Miscarriage Of Justice At The Border." It should be noted that the Fox Network is to be commended for standing up to the Department of Justice, who twice tried to quash this critical exposé into government run amok. The second show exposing this developing scandal was aired on March 24th, in a feature titled, "366-Day Sentence For U.S.-Mexico Border Deputy." Be sure to read the summaries of both of those shows on the America's Most Wanted web site. Just click on the links, above.
When the story of the Ramos and Compean railroading first broke, government spinmeisters had it sounding like two bad cops, were getting their just rewards. But that fabrication began to unravel quickly, as more and more information became available to the public. One after another, the facts began to paint quite a different picture - a picture of two honorable and respected Border Agents, who our own government is vilifying, so as to send an ominous message to law enforcement officers, all along the border. That message is very clear. It says, "IF YOU ATTEMPT TO ARREST ANYONE COMING ACROSS THE BORDER ILLEGALLY, BUSH WILL HAVE HIS JUSTICE DEPARTMENT FRAME YOU AND PUT YOU IN JAIL."
It also sends a clear message to illegal aliens, drug smugglers and terrorists, who want to sneak into the US. That message is, "Have no fear, Bush wants you here." In fact, as hard as it is to believe, I am beginning to wonder if Bush isn't intentionally leaving our borders unprotected, in order to allow terrorists to get in and perpetrate another major attack, so as to justify more subversions of our constitutional rights, more government intrusions into our private business (Patriot III?) and maybe even justify the invasion of Iran, in the eyes of the anti-military crowd (Pelosi and Company).
But, it gets worse. Since that first show, Deputy Sheriff Gilmer Hernandez has also been improperly convicted for attempting to enforce the law and stop fleeing human traffickers. Incidentally, it was the very same US Attorney, Johnny Sutton, who pressed the Ramos and Compean case, who also prosecuted Hernandez. Yet, with all of the US Attorneys who Bush fired for "performance reasons," he didn't fire Sutton. Is a picture beginning to develop here?
Once you are aware of all the facts, the conclusion, though quite obvious, is inconceivable. It's a story of a US Attorney who ignores physical evidence, the testimony of two respected Border Patrol Agents (one who had just been nominated for Border Patrol Agent of the Year) and a US Army doctor, in favor of the unsubstantiated claims of a known repeat drug smuggler. It's a story of a turncoat Border Patrol Agent, who helps his drug smuggler, childhood friend build a case against the good Border Patrol Agents. It's a story of government suppression of exculpatory evidence. It's a story of a US Attorney who repeatedly misrepresents the facts of the case, both to the court and to the media. It's a story of a jury that was not allowed to hear all of the facts in the case and that received grossly improper instructions from the judge. It's a story of that very same US Attorney, who then sets out to destroy the career of a well respected Deputy Sheriff, by sending him to prison for just doing his job. It's a story of known drug smugglers and human traffickers getting Green Cards, in exchange for their testimony against our honorable law enforcement officers. It's a story of two honorable and respected Border Patrol Agents and an equally honorable and respected Deputy Sheriff, who are now serving time for doing their jobs - too well to suit George W. Bush.
We hope that you will learn all about this case and then write your congressman, your senators and the Whitehouse and demand:
- that Agents Ramos and Compean be exonerated (not simply pardoned) and returned to duty immediately, with reimbursement of their legal fees and back pay for all but the maximum 5-day suspension that their minor errors would have normally justified,
- that the Whitehouse issue a formal apology to these two brave and grossly mistreated agents, for the injustice to which they have been subjected and a copy of that signed apology inserted into each agent's file,
- that U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton be immediately fired, with no possibility of rehire, in any government position and an investigation be launched to determine if Sutton was acting on his own or if he was acting under orders, from above,
- that turncoat Agent Rene Sanchez be fired, with no possibility of rehire, in any US law enforcement agency, for conspiring with his drug smuggler, childhood friend, to get him immunity and build a phony case against respected Agents Ramos and Compean,
- that Deputy Gilmer Hernandez be exonerated (not simply pardoned) and that his legal fees be reimbursed and
- that the Whitehouse issue a formal apology to Deputy Hernandez for the injustice to which he has been subjected and a copy of that signed apology inserted into his FBI file, making it clear that nothing concerning this incident would prevent him from returning to duty or taking another job in law enforcement (Note: Since Hernandez is not a US government employee, Bush cannot order him returned to duty, but the town has made it clear that they want him as their next Sheriff.)
You might also want to demand that the current absurd Border Patrol "Rules of Engagement" that prohibit pursuit, without a supervisor's explicit authority, be changed. Keep in mind that under any reasonable "Rules of Engagement," Agents Ramos and Compean would have done absolutely nothing wrong. They simply pursued a drug suspect, fleeing toward the border, without a supervisor's explicit approval. Maybe those Rules of Engagement should be changed to read that if a fleeing suspect does not stop after being ordered to stop, in both English and Spanish, agents should fire a shot on the ground in front of the fleeing suspect and if the suspect still does not stop, they should be allowed to use whatever force they deem necessary to stop the suspect, up to and including deadly force.
Our southern border is a virtual open back door, not only to illegal aliens, who just want to come here to get work and take advantage of our welfare, but to terrorists and drug smugglers. Fox News reported that in the first eight months of the 2005 fiscal year, 70,000 "Other Than Mexicans" (OTMs) were apprehended crossing our southern border. That's 230 OTMs a day and those are just the few who are actually caught. So, while you and I face unreasonable scrutiny at airports and international shipments face costly delays, for anti-terrorism reasons, terrorists can easily walk a dozen nuclear devices across our southern border every night. Our borders must be protected. Our brave Border Patrol Agents and other law enforcement officers in the region must have the authority to do their jobs.
Anything less than a complete exoneration and reinstatement, with back pay and reimbursed legal fees, for both Agents Ramos and Compean and Deputy Hernandez, still sends the wrong message to our brave law enforcement officers across the nation. Until Agents Ramos and Compean and Deputy Hernandez are completely reimbursed and reinstated, law enforcement officers across the country will be forced to stop and second guess every decision, sometimes, at our peril. That is not acceptable. Our brave law enforcement officers must know that their legitimate actions, in the line of duty, are protected by our government.
Until U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton is fired and possibly even charged with conspiracy, U.S. Attorneys and District Attorneys across the nation will still feel free to misuse their office, in pursuit of their own agenda, to go after good, honest law enforcement officers, who were only doing their duty. This kind of abuse of power must stop. U.S. Attorney Sutton must be fired and investigated for conspiracy.
This kind of miscarriage of justice has to stop. Examples have to be made. Make your voice heard now.
Well over a quarter million petitions have already been delivered to the Whitehouse and key government offices on the Ramos and Compean case (the first of the two cases). Add your name now. Then call your congressman and senators and ask that they contact the President and demand, on behalf of their constituents, that Agents Ramos and Compean be exonerated and returned to duty, with back pay and reimbursed legal fees. Don't wait. Do it now. Then, do the same thing for Deputy Hernandez. Sign that petition here.
Important Update: Late Saturday evening, February 3rd, Agent Ignacio Ramos was severely beaten by five prisoners, shouting slurs and yelling in Spanish, "Maten a la migra!" That means, "Kill the Border Patrol Agent!" Does anyone really believe that Agents Ramos and Compean were put into a prison known to hold many illegal alien drug smugglers and placed in the general population, by accident? This was more of what is becoming very clearly a Bush administration effort to send a message to all law enforcement officers along the border. That message is, "Watch, but don't interfere with the illegal aliens, drug smugglers and terrorists, crossing our borders, or Bush will railroad you into prison."
It comes down to this. Bush was unable to get more cheap foreign labor for his big business buddies, since his amnesty bill was shot down. So, he is now risking our security, with a back door attempt to insure a free flow of illegal aliens, which translates into a free flow of terrorists and now, two fine Border Patrol Agents and one fine Deputy Sheriff are paying the price for his arrogance.
Here's another good idea. The Pollard & K.C. in the morning show at WTVY in Dothan, Alabama makes a daily call to the Republican National Committee, asking them to ask President Bush to pardon border agents Ramos and Compean and Deputy Hernandez. Then they call the Whitehouse comment line to urge Bush to pardon these fine law enforcement officers. Finally, they urge their listeners to do the same, with both numbers. If nothing else, it's tying up the Whitehouse comment line, since that number is now almost always busy.
2006 State of the Union or
Spin of the Union?
Once again, George W. Bush gave us a State of the Union that left conservatives wondering if Bush was schizophrenic. On the one hand, he has a definite conservative plan to win the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. But then, in the next breath, he lays out a series of domestic initiatives, much of which sound like they could have come from Nancy Pelosi's own notes. It sounds like Bush learned nothing from the last election. (Read more)
Aaron Russo's exceptional documentary, AMERICA: FREEDOM TO FASCISM, is now available on DVD. If you missed it in theaters, then here is your chance to see it.
Russo, the award winning producer of such films as Trading Places and The Rose, has turned his hand to producing a documentary of such significance, that it has many in government worrying that Americans might actually learn how our government works. It began as a project to debunk the claims of some of his tax protester friends and ended up being an exposé of the IRS and the Federal Reserve.
Todd David Schwartz, of CBS called it, "The scariest film you’ll see this year. Makes Fahrenheit 9/11 look like Bambi." Jarret Keene, of Liberty Watch Magazine tells us, "If you ever questioned income taxes, the Federal Reserve or the IRS, Aaron Russo answers your fears. They're true."
From beginning to end, every minute of AMERICA: FREEDOM TO FASCISM is packed with solid facts, from reputible sources. Even so, there is only so much that you can pack into 107 minutes. Those who are politically attuned will probably find a lot of what Russo exposes to be nothing new. On the other hand, Russo has managed to get some very interesting interviews that you won't find elsewhere. But most importantly, Russo presents these facts in a manner that the masses can easily understand.
If you are concerned about the direction that this nation is going, then I encourage you to Order AMERICA: FREEDOM TO FASCISM now and watch it with your friends.
Every year, between September and February, the IRS releases information concerning its tax collections, based on income category or "percentiles". The latest numbers are usually about two years old. As in previous years, these numbers shatter the popular illusion that there are so many loopholes in the tax code that the rich don't pay tax. In fact, in 2004, the top-earning 1% of taxpayers earned 19.00% of the income and paid 36.89% of the tax collected or almost double their share, based upon income earned. So, regardless of how liberals and the media may try distort the facts, this shows conclusively that the rich pay roughly double their share of the tax load.
The new IRS data also dispels the myth that the Bush tax cuts benefited the rich. The most recent data clearly shows that even with Republicans in control of the Whitehouse and both houses of Congress, the trend is still to punish the wealthy even more, for the crime of earning more money than the government thinks they should earn. In fact, the most relevant benchmark of tax load, the ratio of percent of total income earned, to the percent of total tax paid, by the top-earning 1% of income earners, has been higher in each of the years 2001 through 2004, than in any of the prior four years. For the record, 2002 was the first time that the top income earners paid double their share of taxes. This data is not based on some spinmeister's weird equation, but rather, on actual IRS collections (money deposited in the US Treasury).
Gun owners beware. The NSA's recently disclosed, monumental database of phone records may well end up being used against gun owners.
While Bush blithely brushes off concerns about the blatant illegality of his unilateral authorization for the NSA's unwarranted and indiscriminate collection of the phone records of hundreds of millions of US citizens, most media sources tend to focus only on the 4th Amendment issues, as though that is all that there is to it. In fact, this immense database poses one of the greatest threats to the 2nd Amendment that we have seen in modern times. In fact, it poses a serious threat to a lot of different groups, for reasons that the media tends to ignore.
The NSA admitted to Qwest Communication officials that the database would be shared with other agencies. So, when the BATFE get's their copy, they have but to run a simple data-mining program against it to generate a fairly accurate list of gun owners. Such a "universal" list of gun owners is the first step toward gun confiscation.
Without the massive NSA phone record database, it is highly unlikely that the gun grabbers would ever achieve anything close to "universal" gun registration. However with it, a defacto "universal" gun registration is available at the push of a button or two.
(Although Action America does not make it a habit to accept Op-Ed pieces, occasionally an Op-Ed piece is submitted to us that is of such exceptional caliber that we feel that we must print it. Such is the case with this piece.)
Larry Pratt, Executive Director of Gun Owners of America, points out that refusal to profile has led to Washington bureaucrats and policy
makers tending to view the entire population as suspected
terrorists. Further, he points out that the definition of "terrorism", at the Department of
Security Subjugation" sets up a preference for genocide over self defense! I'm not kidding! It does!
We have often been criticized by the "my party, right or wrong" Republicans, for our continuous criticisms of Dubya's "Homeland Subjugation" policy, based upon its remarkable and increasing similarity to that of the Gestapo. The mantra of Dubya's minions is always, "Well, if you aren't doing anything wrong, then you don't have anything to fear". Right!. And, pigs fly. This piece shows just how easily even good, law-abiding conservative Christians can get caught up in the broad, unthinking tactics of Dubya's despotic "Homeland Subjugation" policy.
You see, the Department of "Homeland Subjugation" has determined that ANY group that is engaged in an armed struggle against a government, as well as those who provide material support to the group, even if the government that they are fighting is engaged in genocide, are "terrorists". That means that if you, as a concerned humanitarian, donated money to Christian Freedom International, a Virginia organization that has helped the Burmese Christian refugees, who are resisting extermination by the Rangoon government, then by "Homeland Subjugation" standards, YOU are a "terrorist". So if you donate to such worthy causes, don't be surprised if, the next time you go to buy a new car, you have trouble getting a loan or the next time you plan a vacation, to find yourself on a "No-Fly" list, thanks to our "Big Brother", RINO president.
Action America releases
more counters and clocks
Because of the huge popularity of our Gun Self-Defense Counter and our Wham-Bam-Tram Ram Counter Action America has created two more statistical devices (such as the Gun Self-Defense Counter, shown at the top of this page) for our readers' edification.
Each year, using data compiled by the Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA), the Tax Foundation calculates "Tax Freedom Day" for that year. That is the day on which the average US taxpayer has labored long enough to earn enough money to pay all of his taxes for that year. The Tax Freedom Day Clock counts down the months and days till that time and after that time, counts the months and days since you have been allowed to keep the money that you earn. (more...)
Since President Ronald Reagan, became the first president to not only declare war on drugs, but to actually do something about it, the "War on Drugs" has become the greatest waste of taxpayer money in history. After more than 20 years and hunderds of billions of dollars spent prosecuting the "War on Drugs", not only are matters much worse than before, but it has also become an excuse for tremendous increases in government power and a catch-all phrase used by our government to subvert the rights of all citizens (not just drug users). So, as a constant reminder of how much taxpayer money is being wasted on the War on Drugs, the Drug War Cost Clock uses data from the two most authoritative sources available, on the the monetary cost of the Drug War, to display the amount of money that the government has wasted, since the beginning of the year, in the bogus name of fighting the Drug War. (more...)
The National Disaster Plan's Real Weakness
September 9, 2005 - After studying the response of federal officials, to the Katrina disaster in New Orleans, two things become obvious. First, the federal response was slower than it should have been. If you look no further than this, it would appear that the Whitehouse and other federal officials, simply acted slowly. However, it's not that simple.
When you look deeper, the second point that becomes obvious is that the delay was caused by a missing scenario in the federal disaster plan and it was a scenario that is hard to blame them for missing. You see, nobody in the federal government could have ever imagined a scenario, where there would be a total breakdown at both the state and local levels of government. Nobody in the federal government had envisioned a scenario where state and local governments would fail to even begin to follow their own disaster plans.
New Orleans had a disaster plan in place and the Mayor failed to follow it. Specifically, it called for extra help to be provided in advance to residents with "special needs." That term means, among other things, anyone who has no means of transportation out of town. That help didn't materialize until it was too late to take them anywhere but the "shelter of last resort", the Superdome.
Furthermore, in all previous hurricanes and other natural and manmade disasters, the Governors of the affected states immediately called for federal assistance, since federal law specifically does not allow federal troops to enter a state without a request from the governor. Yet, in this case, the Governor waited until Wednesday to call for federal assistance. Not only that, but the Louisiana National Guard initially kept the Red Cross disaster volunteers out of New Orleans. The failure at both the state and local level was epic.
The federal disaster plan attempted to take into consideration, all reasonable possibilities. But, what reasonable person could have ever predicted that there would be such a total breakdown of authority at both the state and local levels? Prior to this, such a possibility was unthinkable. The result is that federal officials, who have extensive disaster plans in place for just about every conceivable disaster, were totally blind-sided.
As those who have read my previous works should know well, I am far from being a fan of Dubya. In fact, he has done more damage to the Constitution than any president in history. But to be fair, the only fault that I can find in the handling of the federal disaster response in New Orleans, cannot be laid at his feet. That fault lies firmly with the Mayor of New Orleans and the Governor of Louisiana. Hopefully, though it will probably never be needed again, future federal disaster plans will include the possibility of total state and local incompetence in their disaster response. But even then, we must be careful. This is, after all, still a "republic". To allow the federal government to enter a state without the authority of the governor, would destroy the last vestiges of what is left of our republic.
Dubya has done more than enough for which to be criticized, in other areas. In earlier days, his legislative attacks upon the Constitution alone, would have been cause for impeachment. We don't need to be inventing imaginary evils to apply to him, especially now. Tens of thousands of people are probably dead, many others still need rescue and hundreds of thousands of others are displaced. Like it or not, Dubya and the federal government have done a respectable job.
Granted, the federal response could have been better. But, considering that this is the worst natural disaster that this nation has ever faced and the massive failure at the state and local levels, the federal response has actually been better than should have been expected. Instead of trying to figure out a way to spin the facts to blame Dubya, we need to focus on the recovery. Then, after it's all over, if people want to try to spin the blame, they should go for it. But, after all is said and done, Dubya will probably end up looking fairly good, as concerns the recovery efforts.
As I have said here before, even a blind pig finds an ear of corn once in a while. Though Dubya has done more damage to our republic than any president in history, I must give credit, when credit is due. Chalk up one to the blind pig.
London Bombings Prove that
the War on Terror is Succeeding
July 22, 2005 - While the main-stream media keeps playing into the hands of the terrorists, by harping about how the bombings on July 7 and 21, were "coordinated" and "well-planned", we would like to point out some major flaws in such reporting. In fact, we will show that the recent bombings show just how successful the War on Terror has been.
Let's look at what we know about the July 7 bombings. Yes. They were coordinated. There is no doubt about that. But, let's get real. How much trouble or intelligence does it take for four idiots to decide to blow themselves up at the same time? Think about it... All it takes is four cheap watches and four brainwashed idiots and even then, they still didn't do it all at exactly the same time. Somehow, I don't think that quite qualifies them as great planners.
Then, look at the bombs that were used. They were Acetone Peroxide (TATP). Although such bombs are fairly destructive, they are not of the military grade that terrorists have used in the past. They were likely homemade - built from chemicals that are easily attainable by most people. Look at the images of the bus that was bombed in London. You can still tell that it was probably a bus. Then think back to some of the images of busses that were bombed in Israel, where all that was left was four wheels and a frame. If the terrorists had used a real high-explosive, on those trains in London, authorities would not have dragged the damaged cars out of the subway, with a big piece of plastic around them. They would have been lifting the pieces out through the hole that the explosion left in the ground.
Finally, I ask you to look at the result of the July 7 bombings. The best that the terrorists could do, after all of that "supposed" planning, was to kill just 56 people and disrupt business in London for a day. Certainly, it's terrible when even one person dies at the hands of a terrorist. But, the point is that we should put this into perspective. Such an attack, had it taken place on September 10, 2001, would have killed hundreds. The fact that only 56 died, demonstrates that the War on Terror is succeeding.
Then, look at the July 21 attempted bombings. The operative word is "attempted". In fact, all that they did was to injure one person and shutdown a few subway lines, for a few hours. Worse, one of the terrorists barely got away, after he was chased down and tackled by some citizens and he would probably be in custody or dead now, if all of those British citizens had not been disarmed by their own government. The fact is, that terrorists are past the point of having to use even second string terrorists and are now down to using incompetent rookies, who can't even figure out how to blow themselves up. That's because most of the terrorists who had any real ability to carry out such attacks have either been captured or killed around the world - mostly in Iraq.
We don't want to suggest that the terrorists are no longer dangerous. In fact, there will almost certainly be more terrorists attacks and some may be carried out by some of the few really dangerous terrorists who have not yet been captured or killed and those incidents may be more damaging. But, the important point to keep in mind, is that starting with the 9-11 attacks and proceeding through the Madrid and London attacks, the scale and frequency of terror attacks have been trending steeply downward. Many such attacks have actually been thwarted. As sad as it is, when terrorists kill even one person, we must keep our eye on the ball.
The big story is not the "everybody be scared" hype that the major media is reporting. That's just playing into the hands of the terrorists. The real story is that this consistent downward trend in the effectiveness of terrorist attacks, proves one thing...
The War on Terror is succeeding.
There is another story here, that is being downplayed by the major media. That story is how political correctness is keeping the police in both England and the USA, from using the most powerful tool in their arsenal - racial profiling. It is an absolute, undeniable FACT, that more than 99% of the terrorists are Middle-Eastern males, between the ages of say, 16 and 30. Let's put all of this into perspective. These nut cases are trying to KILL large numbers of innocent people and our government officials are worried about political correctness?
Let's get our priorities straight. Which is more important, lot's of dead people or political correctness?
RACIAL PROFILING WORKS. It should be used.