Sunday, December 30, 2007

Will the Bhutto Assassination Impact the primaries?

Will the events of December 27th, 2007 impact the upcoming U.S Primaries?

Some delude themselves into thinking, “Only the GOP Primaries, and those obsessed with fear of terrorism.”

That is the kind of nonsense to be expected of the grossly and willfully ignorant among us.

As they say, “Only in America!”

In Pakistan a group of female Muslim extremists, who’ve taken over two libraries, in response to the razing of a number of radical mosques, know the deal.

What would it take to get them to end their protests, short of their deaths? According to the women, nothing short of rebuilding the Mosques and making Pakistan a Muslim state. One of the women also lamented that Britain and the United States want to eradicate Islam.

Those Americans who don’t understand the “War on Terror” (WoT) would tell that woman, “We don’t want to eradicate Islam at all, at least not most of us.” Of course, those folks would be WRONG, yet again. In fact, that Pakistani female extremist is absolutely right, we DO WANT to eradicate strict Sharia-based Islam, HER Islam, and it’s not merely “some politicians,” or even “only Republican politicians,” it’s Corporate America and the people funding the campaigns of ALL the major politicians running for 2008!Those people KNOW that Jihadist primitivism and the modernist West cannot peacefully coexist...and they intend to act on that reality.
In fact, strict Sharia-based Islam ("radical Islam" or Jihadism) is not only incompatible with Western principles, but more fundamentally it is diametrically opposed to the commercialist consumerism that is the hallmark of the modern West's regulated market-based economies. Neither side can simply "live and let live," because the other is so pernicious, so damaging to the other's cultural view.
So how can a group of Islamic extremist women get it, while so many Americans and Western Europeans don't? Perhaps because the former live it daily, while the latter deliberately don't want to "get it."
Strict Sharia-based Islam is part of the primitive worldview, the tribalist worldview, that sees an interconnectedness of mankind that transcends national borders, language and culture and sees the individual as both subordinate to and devoted to the group, tribe or hive, which in turn is duty-bound to protect and nurture its members. Communism/Socialism is part of that primitive tradition, dressed up in new terms ("scientific socialism," etc.) and like strict Sharia-based Islam, it is at odds with the modern culture, ushered in by the likes of Adam Smith and America's Founders, one based on INDIVIDUAL Liberty, the sanctity of private property, limited and localized governance and the idea that the individual's RIGHTS are innate, or "God-given," rather than bequeathed by government.
There can be no peaceful coexistance between the primitives (tribalists and hivists) and the moderns (the individualist and lone wolves) becuase their worldviews are in fundamental conflict. So, even though the scourge of global jihadist Islam is a "new" challenge to the moderns, it's an old one, in that it mirrors the Communist (Mao & Pol Pot) and Socialist (Hitler & Stalin) challenges of a generation ago.
So will the assassination of Benazir Bhutto impact the U.S. Primaries? At this point it’s really hard to tell, other than to note that for the time being, it’s brought the reality and relevance of international terrorism back to the forefront in America.
What’s unclear however, is for how long?
In the short-term it would seem to boost Rudy Giuliani and Hillary Clinton, over their less experienced rivals, but for how long?
Or perhaps one could ask, “What else will it take to make Americans once again take terrorism as seriously as they need to?"

Saturday, December 22, 2007

Employer Sanctions WORK!!!

In Arizona, illegal immigrants are packing their bags for “greener pastures.”

According to a recent USA Today story, illegal immigrants in Arizona, frustrated over tough new legislation cracking down on illicit employers, are returning to their home countries or trying their luck in other states.

“For months, immigrants have taken a wait-and-see attitude toward the state's new employer-sanctions law, which takes effect Jan. 1. The voter-approved legislation is an attempt to lessen the economic incentive for illegal immigrants in Arizona, the busiest crossing point along the U.S.-Mexico border.

“And by all appearances, it's starting to work.

"People are calling me telling me about their friend, their cousin, their neighbors — they're moving back to Mexico," said Magdalena Schwartz, an immigrant-rights activist and pastor at a Mesa church. "They don't want to live in fear, in terror."
“Martin Herrera, a 40-year-old illegal immigrant and masonry worker who lives in Camp Verde, 70 miles north of Phoenix, said he is planning to return to Mexico as soon as he ties up loose ends after living here for four years.

"I don't want to live here because of the new law and the oppressive environment," he said. "I'll be better in my country."

“He called the employer-sanctions law "absurd."

"Everybody here, legally or illegally, we are part of a motor that makes this country run," Herrera said. "Once we leave, the motor is going to start to slow down."

One thing both sides agree on at this point is that there's no way to know how many illegal immigrants are leaving Arizona, especially now with many returning home for normal holidays visits. But economists, immigration lawyers and people who work in the immigrant community agree it's happening.

State Rep. Russell Pearce of Mesa (pictured above), the author of the employer sanctions law, said his intent was to drive illegal immigrants out of Arizona.

"I'm hoping they will self-deport," Pearce said. "They broke the law. They're criminals."
Under these new employer sanctions law, businesses found to have knowingly hired illegal workers will be subject to sanctions from probation to a 10-day suspension of their business licenses. A second violation would bring permanent revocation of the license.

Nancy-Jo Merritt, an immigration lawyer who primarily represents employers, said her clients already have started to fire workers who can't prove they are in the country legally.

"Workers are being fired, of course," she said. "Nobody wants to find out later on that they've got somebody working for them who's not here legally."
“When (ILLEGAL) immigrants don't have jobs, they don't stick around,” said Dawn McLaren, a research economist at Arizona State University who specializes in illegal immigration.

Of course there are pro-open border extremists who claim that these sanctions WILL indeed send ILLEGAL immigrants packing, but claim that will harm the Arizona economy.

Pearce disagrees that the Arizona economy will suffer after illegal immigrants leave, saying there will be less crime, lower taxes, less congestion, smaller classroom sizes and shorter lines in emergency rooms.

"We have a free market. It'll adjust," he said. "Americans will be much better off."
He said he's not surprised illegal immigrants are leaving the state and predicts that more will go once the employer-sanctions law takes effect next month.

"It's attrition by enforcement," he said. "As you make this an unfriendly state for lawbreakers, I'm hoping they will pick up and leave."

Ironically enough, these illicit employer sanctions validate exactly what I said back in May (May, 21, 2007), "The overwhelming bulk of the illegal aliens here come for jobs that are unavailable in their homelands. The problems for America are (1) this veritable human trafficking serves to deliberately subvert American laws on minimum wage, withholding income and FICA taxes from employees and (2) serves to lower the American “wage floor” – the wage rate paid to all unskilled labor in America and all other wage rates are tethered to that “wage floor.”The bulk of the problem really is "an illegal employer" problem, rather than an "illegal immigration" problem.
So, in that vein, fining employers is a "win-win!" It's good for the government coffers and good for the American people. OK, it's very bad for a very few Americans who are making illicit profits off human exploitation, but it's to the greater good of the vast majority of Americans.Fine an employer $10,000 for hiring an "undocumented worker," and $10,000 for hiring a worker "off-the-books." Those fines must be levied per offense...

“... Once the jobs dried up, the draw would dry up and the illegal immigrants here for work, would then self-deport.The 10-15% or so who are here for nefarious purposes will be caught up in various criminal procedures.”

A GREAT job by Arizona!!!

The entire State should be proud!

Almost Certainly The DUMBEST Misquote of the Year!

OK, it’s only Page Six of the NY Post, so what else would you expect, but THIS example is particularly egregious;
Will Smith: 'Hitler Was a Good Person'

By jwinter
Created 12/22/2007

"Will Smith has disappointed us in ways we could’ve never imagined.

"In an interview, the 39-year-old family man and former-all around good guy says he sees the good in everyone, including Adolf Hitler.

"Even Hitler didn’t wake up going, ‘Let me do the most evil thing I can do today’. I think he woke up in the morning and using a twisted, backwards logic, he set out to do what he thought was ‘good’. Stuff like that just needs reprogramming,” Smith told the Daily Record. Um, yeah, except for the whole killing six million Jews thing. Will, you’ve broken our hearts.

"It’s you that needs reprogramming.”

Hey Ms. Winter, put down the pen and stick to caryons!

In the entire Will Smith quote, “Even Hitler didn’t wake up going, ‘Let me do the most evil thing I can do today’. I think he woke up in the morning and using a twisted, backwards logic, he set out to do what he thought was ‘good’. Stuff like that just needs reprogramming,” Smith NEVER uttered the word, nor even implied that Adolph Hitler was anything close to being a “good person.”

What’s more Smith DID condemn Hitler’s actions in using him as an example of the most irredeemable type of person in history and saying that Hitler’s views were based on “twisted, backwards logic.”

Indeed, Hitler fervently believed that advancing a doctrine of “racial purity” was, as Smith said, “good.”

What Jana Winter has done here, is the worst kind of misrepresentation! She’s deliberately put words in Will Smith’s mouth he did not say and deliberately (if she did it ignorantly/incompetently that would even be worse) miscast that benign quote as claiming some sort of affection on Smith’s part for one of the three worst tyrants in history!

Again, “it’s ONLY Page Six, so what would you expect?”

I don't know, but perhaps the ability to read with some basic comprehension and the ability to write?


The worst thing about this kind of thing, once relegated to places like The National Enquirer and The Weekly World News, is that it's become a staple of the American media from the NY Times on down.

Thursday, December 20, 2007

Sparta's "No Garbage" Activists Are True American Heroes

After Sparta, New Jersey’s Town Council voted unilaterally (without any public referendum and over the objections of the vast majority of those citizens who attended the public hearings on the matter) by a 3 to 2 margin, to sign onto a mandatory trash collection contract with a private carting service, a number of Sparta citizens organized a petition drive to force a voter referendum on the issue.
For that, those grassroots activists are true American heroes. One Sparta resident said, “On Friday morning, I thought I was waking up in the USA, but by Saturday night, I felt as if I were living in another country,”He noted that he felt many Sparta residents weren’t aware that people who refuse or neglect to pay this added “utility charge” could lose their homes through Municipal leins.
“What I’m doing is creating a precedent. Never has a petition knocked down an ordinance. If I can do it, everyone else can do it too. What I’m trying to do is to show the town that we can put the town back in the people’s hands.”
These citizen activists face an uphill fight. They have only twenty days to get the required 15% of the 3,850 who voted in November. The deadline for the signatures is December 26th, and the required 578 signatures are due by that date.
A victory for this citizen's movement is a victory for the people of Sparta, and the people of America as well, for his actions are a beacon to all who’d seek to return government to an indentured servitude to the people and that can only be done via more widespread use of petition and referendum!
Here’s wishing all the independent minded citizens of Sparta success in their current endeavor, as well as a very Merry Christmas. It’s fitting that this petition drive is happening during the Christmas season, as it seeks a rebirth of individual Liberty and more local/popular control.
Pictured above is the boardwalk at Lake Mohawk in Sparta, NJ.

Saturday, December 15, 2007

Bloomy Wimps Out in China

Independently wealthy politicians have a lot in common with eighty year old grandmothers, some good, some bad. Like grandma, they’re prone to say almost anything that pops into their heads. There’s just no governor on their mouths. Sometimes this is good, in that they tell people things they need to hear, unfortunately, at other times they merely babble on incoherently about things they have little or no understanding of.

Recently New York City Mayor, Mike Bloomberg, went to China (China???) and took the time to express his disappointment over “China’s legendary human rights abuses?

Nope, no such luck. He took that venue, some 8,000 miles away from the closest U.S. southern border town to castigate those Americans (according to reports appx. 74% of us!) who vehemently oppose ILLEGAL immigration!

This is one of those “eighty year old grandmother” moments that even supporters of Bloomy find infuriating.

Bloomy complained that anti-immigrant sentiment in America is imposing “staggering damage” on the country, railing that “The xenophobia that unfortunately seems to be gripping parts of America is really very dangerous. One of the things you have to realize is how dependent we are on each other.”

What’s wrong with Bloomy’s “China sentiments?”


First, there is NO significant “anti-immigrant sentiment in the U.S.” Over two thirds of Americans support LEGAL immigration as it now exists, feeling that the current numbers of legal immigrants does not have to be raised nor lowered, proving that there is no widespread “anti-immigrant feelings” in America.

Of course, well over two thirds of Americans vehemently oppose ILLEGAL immigration, BUT ILLEGAL immigration is NOT and never has been a part of the overall “immigration debate.” It’s, quite simply, a criminal matter.

With over two thirds of Americans supporting LEGAL immigration and over two thirds opposed to ILLEGAL immigration, there is obviously a lot of overlap among thoughtful Americans on the issue.

So what’s so bad about supporting ILLEGAL immigration or even “open borders?”

Where do we begin? For one thing, it must be noted that many misguided businessmen have, through the years, also supported chattel slavery (which reduces agricultural labor’s value to mere room and board), indentured servitude (where an “owner” can extract whatever arbitrary price he sees fit on the hapless servant/slave), company towns (where one primary business owns the town, the stores, saloons, etc., and where workers work themselves to early deaths owing significant sums to the company they worked for) and in favor of families selling their children into sexual slavery. What can we say? Some businessmen have always been amoral.

While on the subject of the “horrible kinds of people” who support each position, an estimated 2 to 3 percent of Americans support the abolition of ALL criminal statutes, including those on rape, pedophilia and murder and ALL of those anarchists support abolishing our immigration laws as well.

Does that mean that all those who favor an a more open border policy are tainted by this lawless few?

No more and no less than those who rightfully oppose illegal immigration and open borders should be tainted by those very few (2 to 3 percent?) of their ilk motivated by xenophobia!

Moreover, the economics of ILLEGAL immigration stand starkly against its proponents! The plain fact of the matter is that higher wage rates (1.2% to 2.8% ABOVE prevailing inflation rates) are actually GOOD for the economy. How so? How can cheap labor not be GOOD when it leads to “cheaper goods and services?” Higher wage rates leads to more consumption, which leads to more consumer demand and greater demand for all those goods and services. Unchecked “cheap labor” puts a persistent downward pressure on all prevailing wage rates and that ultimately puts the vast majority of workers in a position where they cannot afford even those “cheaper goods and services.”

So what motivated Bloomy’s latest utterances?

Probably another one of those “eighty year old grandma moments.”

Friday, December 14, 2007

America’s Sports Steroid Nation

Back in August (8/9/2007) I kind of put the current steroid controversy in its proper perspective with;

“I don't blame modern athletes for using "performance enhancing drugs," almost everyone, including "weekend warriors" routinely use some of those same drugs - HgH, Andro and other such performance enhancers are all too common among both athletes and those interested in longevity or "life extension." If Ruth were alive today, he'd almost undoubtedly use them himself. Hell, it'd have been a better regimen than his traditional hot dogs and beer.”

I’ll stand by that. There’s no way, as professional sports and its various Player’s Unions, try to tell us, “Only 3% to 5% of the players use or have used performance enhancing drugs.

That’s utter nonsense on its face. The vast majority of weekend warriors and gym rats use some form of performance enhancers, from Creatine to Andro, to HgH, to synthetic testosterone and other steroids. They are all, not only readily available, but the performance enhancing industry is now a $10 BILLION a year industry!Does that sound like a market that takes in “only 3 – 5 percent of the professional athletes?” Hell, High School kids are taking the stuff. Baseball’s minor leagues and College football and basketball programs are loaded with the stuff.

As I said on August 15th, “Barry Bonds is guilty of living and playing in the age of steroids. Jose Canseco, Mark McGuire, Sammy Sosa, Jason Giambi and scores of others both known and unknown have routinely used steroids and other “performance enhancing drugs,” over the course of their careers.
Hell, millions of weekend athletes and others seeking to “stay younger longer,” have used things like HgH, testosterone, Andro and other such performance enhancers. Hell, testosterone and estrogen replacement therapy is often used by physicians in treating the symptoms of aging!“YES, the records of today ARE “tainted,” but there’s really no way to compare the records of any of the different eras. Babe Ruth played a completely different game than the one played today, just as Roger Maris and Hank Aaron played a different game than either Ruth or Bonds played in.

“When new technologies, new advancements in sports medicine, training, sports gear, etc. are introduced, they’re invariably used. That’s human nature – things evolve, our games and hobbies have evolved.

“Did Barry Bonds take performance enhancers?

“Almost certainly, YES, but so did almost every other player. In fact, high school athletes have been using various performance enhancers for decades now!

“Barry Bonds is the BEST baseball player of the modern/performance enhanced era. He may soon be replaced by A-Rod, who may one day face similar questions of his own.”

Let’s be realistic on this, performance enhancers are here, they’re here to stay and people who depend on their bodies for their livelihoods are going to use them, one way or the other, just as actors use plastic surgery to enhance and add longevity to their appearances and just as writers or anyone else would use such substances if they improved their abilities to do the things they both need and love to do.

Romney’s (and Clinton’s, Obama’s & Edwards’) Managed Healthcare Rx Gets Sick

In the early days of this interminable “2008 campaign,” Mitt Romney made a lot of hay out of the fact that he was the first Massachusetts Governor to sign into law a universal healthcare bill for that state.

He’s been relatively quiet on that score recently...and for a very good reason, it hasn’t worked!

A part of the Romney plan, like the Obama and Clinton plans would, mandated everyone in the state to get healthcare insurance. With the deadline coming the end of this month (December ‘07) almost 400,000 MA citizens have yet to comply, a number that includes the vast majority of those with incomes deemed “too high” to qualify for state subsidies.

See? That’s what happens when you offer “free stuff” and set arbitrary parameters on eligibility, people who don’t qualify (1) resent the arbitrariness of those standards and, as a result, those “freeloaders who glom too much free stuff,” and (2) they wait for those eligibility standards to be widened. At current, a family of four with an annual income of $63,000 qualifies for “Romney-care.”

At any rate, it’s becoming increasingly clear that MA won’t come anywhere near getting “universal coverage” for all MA citizens.

Worse yet, the reforms enacted have NOT, as promised, held down other costs! Health insurance premiums are expected to jump some 10 – 12 percent in the Bay State this year, nearly double the national average. And none of this has stopped the new MA healthcare bureaucracy called “the Connector” from imposing ever new and more complex regulations, including prohibiting deductibles of more than $2,000.

All of the Democratic plans (Obama’s, Clinton’s & Edwards’) all rely on the same managed care mechanism that the Romney plan relied on and failed with. What Romney’s plan has shown is, as Michael Tanner (Director of health & Welfare Studies at Cato) said, “mandating insurance, restricting individual choice, expanding subsidies and increasing government control isn’t going to solve (America’s healthcare) problems.” Tanner rightly asserts that the answer lies in “giving consumers more control over their healthcare spending, while increasing competition in the healthcare marketplace.”

As Tanner notes, “Romney may finally be learning his lesson. What will it take before Sens. Clinton, Obama and Edwards learn theirs?”

What the Huck!!!...And Obama-Messiah

Mike Huckabee’s ridiculous remark that “Mormons believe that Jesus and the Devil (Satan) were brothers,” made all the headlines, but it’s his horrific track record on illegal immigration that’s been ignored.

I wonder why?

Could it be that the American Press Corps (85% of whom are disreputable Liberal Democrats) find religion both fascinating and a sore spot for the GOP, while they agree with the idiotic “open borders” policies endorsed by BOTH Moderate Republicans and Liberal Democrats alike?

Sadly, that seems to be the case, as Hillary Clinton, who’d, without question, answer the querie, “Do you believe that Jesus Christ is the son of God and the savior of mankind,” in the very same affirmative way that both Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney answered it, proves the Press Corp's strange double standard on that topic.

And while you might expect any rational person to be wary of a candidate that holds to a “messianic message” and cult of personality, that’s not been the case, at least so far, with Barack Obama – the Messianic far Left candidate who promises nebulous “change” and an, as yet undefined, “transformation of America.” Oprah recently opined for Obama in Iowa, “For there is born to you this day a savior.” In South Carolina she proclaimed, “We need politicians who know how to be the truth!”

Michelle Obama evangelized, “We need a leader who’s going to touch our souls. Who’s going to make us feel differently about one another. Who’s going to remind us that we are one another’s keepers. That we are only as strong as the weakest among us.”

Let alone that the essence of what Michelle Obama states is both corrosive and inane, what's far worse is that this type of Messianic tone is far more consistent with the likes of Hitler, Castro and Chavez, dictatorial tyrants who sought power based on an “appeal to the man” – to THEMSELVES as a Messianic agent change, than it is for any mainstream candidate for office within a Constitutional Republic.

There isn’t, nor has there ever been a single Evangelical Christian candidate who’s ever run on such a Messianic platform or with such a personal evangelical message, and yet the American Press Corps, which notices any hint of faith among Conservative candidates from either Party, supposedly trembling in faux fear at that trait, has no such problem with an extremely Liberal Democrat with a personal evangelism and a major league Messianic complex.

It’s ironic how ideology can so often make such strange bedfellows.

Monday, December 10, 2007

New York’s Economy Nearly All the Way BACK!!!

Did you know that according to the latest Bureau of Labor Statistics report, New York City is today back within 6,000 jobs of where it was in January of 2001?

January of 2001 saw America in the midst of (actually at the end of) a “tech bubble” and New York, of course, pre-9/11. It’s taken nearly seven years to get back there.

With crime still plummeting in New York, Wall Street rollicking and a stronger, more standards-backed CUNY system New York produced 57,000 jobs last year, boosting its workforce by 1.5%!

Construction jobs continued to surge, while manufacturing jobs continued to lose ground, while BOTH high paying (finance and professional services) and lower paying (education and healthcare) jobs gained ground.

Thursday, December 6, 2007

Gov. Huckabee on the Fair Tax

Mike Huckabee supports the Fair Tax, a plan that would eliminate the burgeoning "underground economy" and finally get the truly wealthy to pay something close to their "fair share."

Maybe that's why he's surged in the polls!

Wednesday, December 5, 2007

TWO Cases Strengthen Property Rights, While Inciting Racial Tensions

In Clear Lake, in Lake County, located in rural northern California, three intruders (who happened to be black) broke into a home and rampaged through it until confronted by the owner’s stepson, whom they beat into a coma with baseball bats.

The homeowner, Shannon Edmonds (who happened to be white), then opened fire upon the assailants, killing two of them and wounding a third.

That would appear to be a case of justified self-defense, cut and dried, despite the fact that at least one of the suspects killed appears to have been shot in the back. Reports are that none of the assailants began to flee until Mr. Edmonds leveled his gun at them.

What is controversial is that the third suspect, Renato Hughes has been charged with his accomplices murder under the “Provocative Act” doctrine that states that anyone who partakes in such a criminal enterprise is guilty of any ensuing fatal response.”

What that means is that to convict Hughes all the Prosecutor has to show is that "it was reasonably foreseeable that the criminal enterprise could trigger a fatal response from the homeowner," said Brian Getz, a San Francisco defense attorney unconnected to the case.

That is absolutely the correct way to view such criminal actions. A store clerk, homeowner or police officer has an inalienable right to self defense in such situations, so they should not be charged with the homicide that results from another’s reckless and irresponsible actions. The thugs themselves are completely responsible, not only for any homicides that they themselves inflict, but on any fatal response perpetrated by their actions, such as Mr. Edmonds defending his stepson and his home with deadly force.

The Provocative Act doctrine is most often used to prosecute defendants engaged in high speed pursuits in which either police officers or civilians are injured or killed as a result of the defendant’s recklessly evasive actions.

Sadly, the State of California is NOT seeking the death penalty for Mr. Renato Hughes.

Meanwhile, in Texas, homeowner Joe Horn (pictured above) has become a hero to property owners and a villain to thugs everywhere.

Homeowner Joe Horn made the 911 call from his Pasadena, Texas home, and he alerted police to two burglary suspects on a neighbor's property. Before he hung up, two men were dead by his hand.

According to CBS News, “Joe Horn, 61, told the dispatcher what he intended to do: Walk out his front door with a shotgun.

"I've got a shotgun," Horn said, according to a tape of the 911 call. "Do you want me to stop them?"

"Nope, don't do that - ain't no property worth shooting somebody over, OK?" the dispatcher responded.

"Hurry up man, catch these guys, will you? 'Cause I'm ain't gonna let 'em go, I'm gonna be honest with you, I'm not gonna let 'em go. I'm not gonna let 'em get away with this ----."

Shortly after, Horn said he sees one suspect was standing in front of his house, looking at it from the street.

"I don’t know if they’re armed or not. I know they got a crowbar 'cause that's what they broke the windows with. ... Man, this is scary, I can't believe this is happening in this neighborhood."

He gets more agitated. The dispatcher asks if he can see the suspects but they had retreated into the target's house, out of view: "I can go out the front [to look], but if I go out the front I'm bringing my shotgun with me, I swear to God. I am not gonna let 'em get away with this, I can't take a chance on getting killed over this, OK? I'm gonna shoot, I'm gonna shoot."

"Stay inside the house and don’t go out there, OK?" the dispatcher said. "I know you're pissed off, I know what you're feeling, but it's not worth shooting somebody over this, OK?"

"I don’t want to," Horn said, "but I mean if I go out there, you know, to see what the hell is going on, what choice am I gonna have?

"No, I don’t want you to go out there, I just asked if you could see anything out there."
The dispatcher asks if a vehicle could be seen; Horn said no. The dispatcher again says Horn should stay inside the house.

Almost five minutes into the call, police had not arrived.

"I can’t see if [the suspects are] getting away or not," Horn said.

Horn told the dispatcher that he doesn’t know the neighbors well, unlike those living on the other side of his home. "I can assure you if it had been their house, I would have already done something, because I know them very well," he said.

Dispatcher: "I want you to listen to me carefully, OK?"

Horn: "Yes?"

Dispatcher: "I got ultras coming out there. I don't want you to go outside that house. And I don't want you to have that gun in your hand when those officers are poking around out there."

Horn: "I understand that, OK, but I have a right to protect myself too, sir, and you understand that. And the laws have been changed in this country since September the First and you know it and I know it."

Dispatcher: "I understand."

Horn: "I have a right to protect myself ..."

Dispatcher: "I'm ..."

Horn: "And a shotgun is a legal weapon, it's not an illegal weapon."

Dispatcher: "No, it's not, I'm not saying that, I'm just not wanting you to ..."

Horn: "OK, he's coming out the window right now, I gotta go, buddy. I'm sorry, but he's coming out the window."

Dispatcher: "No, don't, don't go out the door, Mister Horn. Mister Horn..."

Horn: "They just stole something, I'm going out to look for 'em, I'm sorry, I ain't letting them get away with this ----. They stole something, they got a bag of stuff. I'm doing it!"

Dispatcher: "Mister, do not go outside the house."

Horn: "I'm sorry, this ain't right, buddy."

Dispatcher: "You gonna get yourself shot if you go outside that house with a gun, I don't care what you think."

Horn: "You wanna make a bet?"

Dispatcher: "Stay in the house."

Horn: "There, one of them's getting away!

Dispatcher: "That's alright, property's not something worth killing someone over. OK? Don't go out the house, don't be shooting nobody. I know you're pissed and you're frustrated but don't do it."

Horn: "They got a bag of loot."

Dispatcher: "OK. How big is the bag?"

He then talks off, relaying the information.

Dispatcher: "Which way are they going?"

Horn: "I can't ... I'm going outside. I'll find out."

Dispatcher: "I don't want you going outside, Mister..."

Horn: "Well, here it goes buddy, you hear the shotgun clicking and I'm going."

Dispatcher: "Don't go outside."

On the tape of the 911 call, the shotgun can be heard being cocked and Horn can be heard going outside and confronting someone.

"You move and you're dead!" he shouts. A loud bang is heard, then a shotgun being cocked and fired again, and then again.

Then Horn is back on the phone:

"Get the law over here quick. I've now, get, one of them's in the front yard over there, he's down, he almost run down the street. I had no choice. They came in the front yard with me, man, I had no choice! ... Get somebody over here quick, man."

Dispatcher: "Mister Horn, are you out there right now?"

Horn: "No, I am inside the house, I went back in the house. Man, they come right in my yard, I didn't know what the --- they was gonna do, I shot 'em, OK?"

Dispatcher: "Did you shoot somebody?

Horn: "Yes, I did, the cops are here right now."

Dispatcher: "Where are you right now?"

Horn: "I'm inside the house. ..."

Dispatcher: "Mister Horn, put that gun down before you shoot an officer of mine. I've got several officers out there without uniforms on."

Horn: "I am in the front yard right now. I am ..."

Dispatcher: "Put that gun down! There's officers out there without uniforms on. Do not shoot anybody else, do you understand me? I've got police out there..."

Horn: "I understand, I understand. I am out in the front yard waving my hand right now."

Dispatcher: "You don't have a gun with you, do you?

Horn: "No, no, no."

Dispatcher: "You see a uniformed officer? Now lay down on the ground and don't do nothing else."Yelling is heard.

Dispatcher: "Lay down on the ground, Mister Horn. Do what the officers tell you to do right now."

Two days later, Horn released a statement through an attorney.“The events of that day will weigh heavily on me for the rest of my life," it said. "My thoughts go out to the loved ones of the deceased.”The identities of the men killed were released Friday.They are Miguel Antonio Dejesus, 38, and Diego Ortiz, 30. Official records show that each of them had a prior arrest in Harris County for drug offenses.The men were reportedly shot at a distance of less than 15 feet.

A woman who lives nearby who asked not to be identified told CBS News affiliate KHOU correspondent Rucks Russell that she always saw Horn as a grandfather figure. "He is the guardian of the neighborhood," she said. "He takes care of all our kids. If we ever need anything, we call him.”

But according to Tom Lambright, Horn’s attorney and a friend for more than four decades, he’s the one in need now. “He just needs everyone to know he’s not a villain, he’s not a bad guy,” Lambright said.

He went on to say that Horn voluntarily gave an extensive video statement to police immediately following the shooting.Horn was not taken into custody after the shooting. A Harris County grand jury will decide if charges are to be filed.

Lambright says Horn acted in complete and total self defense and has nothing to hide.

Support for Horn was also running about 2-1 in an online survey of readers on the KHOU Web site.

The incident may prove a test for a new law recently passed in Texas which expands the right of citizens to use deadly force.Under Texas law, people may use deadly force to protect their own property or to stop arson, burglary, robbery, theft or criminal mischief at night.But the legislator who authored the "castle doctrine" bill told the Chronicle it was never intended to apply to a neighbor's property, to prompt a "'Law West of the Pecos' mentality or action," said Republican Sen. Jeff Wentworth. "You're supposed to be able to defend your own home, your own family, in your house, your place of business or your motor vehicle."

Joe Horn did right. He protected his neighbor’s property and his actions COULD HAVE saved lives! If these two thugs had found an unsuspecting homeowner alone, there’s no doubt that they’d have engaged in rape &/or homicide.

Joe Horn deserves the thanks of every single American. There should be 300 MILLION more like him!

Tuesday, November 27, 2007

Australia Gaks Out a Fur Ball

How doomed is a nation if a party whose ONLY platform is "signing the Kyoto Protocols" wins a national election?

Labor’s Kevin Rudd defeated one of America’s most stalwart allies, John Howard on a platform of “signing the Kyoto Accords!

Not terrorism.

Not boosting the economy.

Not lowering debt or avoiding recession, just the Kyoto Accords, which are a sham in that not ONE nation who has signed those accords has come close to abiding by them.Seriously, how frivolous is the electorate when it thinks that this is the most important issue your country &/or the world faces?

Of course, the ONE positive note for Australia and its allies is that Kevin Rudd has pledged to govern as an "economic conservative."

Well, THAT’S good news! Maybe he’s seen that those who’ve governed as Keynesians and neo-socialists have led their nations to economic ruin in short order.

How Local Governments Can Also Over-reach

My wife and I own a second home out in northwest, NJ, in a beautiful, but fast-growing town called Sparta. It used to be an “exurb,” but now it’s more a suburb of New York City, with a constant influx of new people, most of them demanding more services and changing the once picturesque landscape into something a step closer to the urban experience.

It’s an irony that the very things that draw people out here, are often the first things people want to change.

The latest proposed change out there is the township proposing a township-wide solid waste collection, or garbage pick-up.

This has many of the long-time residents there up in arms, as many of them do what part-timers, like my wife and I do, take their own garbage to the local dump. It’s easy and a lot more cost-effective. A basic private garbage contract would run about $35/month or more, while an average trip to the dump costs about $3 or $4 per week (appx. 30 cents per pound). That’s about a week’s worth of garbage to a full-time resident and about a month’s worth for part-timers like my wife and I.

Of course, the local government contract would set a fee, set as either a surplus to one’s property tax bill, or a separate fee and would bar any “opting out” by any resident.

The current estimate of $230/year is based on a house valued at $250,000, a house assessed at $500,000 would be double that. Moreover, the contract is based on a three year contract, which increases significantly each year and does not include either a recycling pick-up, or leaf pick-up and it’s subject to a fuel surcharge.

Suffice to say, my wife and I are looking to attend the community meeting scheduled for 7:30 pm on Tuesday, November 27th to oppose this “service.” I’m heartened to have spoken to many other residents in that area who plan on doing the same.

Now, some of those people in favor of such a proposal may feel that part-timers like us shouldn’t be allowed to have a say in a matter in an area we don’t live full time, and certainly shouldn’t have a vote on such an issue, but the reality is far different. As property owners we SHOULD be among those voting on this proposal, it’s the renters and non-owners who SHOULDN’T be allowed a vote.

A short-sighted renter may get the idea that he may be able to get something (free garbage pick-up) for nothing. Of course, that’s inane! The leasor, must, like ANY commercial entity pass on any and all costs of “doing business,” and renting to tenants is really nothing more than “doing business.” Ergo, the costs of that garbage pick-up will be passed on to the tenants, in fact, since most of the rentals in this area are single family homes, if the garbage pick-up comes as a separate fee for service, that, like oil, phone and electric would probably be left to the tenant to pay.

So here’s an example of a local government run amok. A government who doesn’t really seek to “offer a service,” but set up a contract (perhaps with friends or associates of local politicians, perhaps for unnamed kickbacks) that would force all their neighbors to pay for something a large number of them do not want.

That, is how governments, even local governments one would expect to be more responsive to their immediate communities, often over-reach, and over-reaching is the foundation or beginnings of tyranny.

Thursday, November 22, 2007

America’s Holiday

At least as American as the 4th of July and more deeply rooted in America’s Judeo-Christian roots, Thanksgiving stands alone as a uniquely American Holiday. A day in which we pause to give THANKS for the BLESSING of Liberty, which is the foundation of our Constitutional Republic.

Though the first Thanksgiving was celebrated way back in 1620, before America was even a nation, that tradition has been a part of the fabric of American life ever since.

When George Washington presided over the Republic, the following prayer was offered in 1789, in gratitude over the hard-earned independence the 13 original Colonies had won from England;

“Almighty God, we make our earnest prayer that Thou wilt keep the United States in thy holy protection; that Thou wilt incline the hearts of the citi zens to cultivate a spirit of subordination and obedience to government, and entertain a brotherly affection and love for one another and for their fellow citizens of the United States at large.

“And, finally that Thou wilt graciously be pleased to dispose us all to do justice, to love mercy and to demean ourselves with that charity, humility and pacific temper of mind which were the characteristics of the Divine Author of our blessed religion, and without a humble imitation of whose example in these things we can never hope to be a happy nation. Amen.”

But it was Abraham Lincoln, a extremely taciturn man, who, on Oct. 3, 1863, first established Thanksgiving as a holiday for a nation wracked by civil war, proclaiming;

“I invite my fellow citizens to set apart and observe the last Thursday of November next as a day of thanksgiving and praise to our beneficent Father who dwelleth in the heavens.”

And it has remained an American Holiday ever since. Even more than Christmas, a day for families to give thanks for their blessings and celebrate family and freedom (Liberty).

Happy Thanksgiving!

French Transit Strike is a Referendum on Sarkozy

As France’s transit strike enters its eighth day, French President Nicolas Sarkozy has stood firm in his first attempt to extract concessions from a set of workers, in seeking to curb some of the pension benefits for new workers. Transit workers are able to retire as young as fifty, rather than the minimum cutoff of 60 for most other French workers.

At this point, as many as 38% of the transit workers have sought a return to work.

Sarkozy announced, “France needs reforms to meet the challenges imposed on it by the world,” and he’s absolutely right about that. There’s simply no need, in an age when people are living longer and healthier lives, that some workers are allowed, even encouraged to retire at FIFTY years of age!

When Jacques Chirac sought the same concessions from the same Unions back in 1995, the unions paralyzed France for three weeks and Chirac backed down. That scenario seems highly unlikely today, as Sarkozy has gone about playing public opinion against the transit workers. As a lure, Sarkozy is considering proposing cuts in the labor taxes, in exchange for concessions from some of the workers who now enjoy “special pensions.”

Stem Cell Breakthrough May Ease Ethical Concerns

Researchers have made ordinary skin cells act like embryonic stem cells, and turn them into nerve, brain, heart and other tissues! As human stem cell colony is pictured left.

Laboratory tests on two continents have reported success in this endeavor, which first made headlines five months ago, when it was initially accomplished in mice.

This method will not avoid the ethical concerns over cloning actual embryonic stem cells, but it’s a simpler method for pursuing new treatments for diseases. On the other hand, scientists claim it will likely be years before EST research will be able to offer any new treatments.

So science comes in to rescue ESC research from its ethical concerns, now that’s science at its best!

Tuesday, November 20, 2007

I DON’T Like “Free Stuff”….

...And neither should you!

The other day, in talking about the current Hollywood writer’s strike, legendary film producer George Lucas said, “We need to see a maturing of the internet, in which it becomes a platform you can make money on. Otherwise, all you’ll ever have available are the same free YouTube clips, and there’s only so long those things, before you have to go out and get a real job.”

To date, the internet has seemed to have tried, with mixed results, to circumvent the corporate entertainment industry to offer a “revolutionary platform” that circumvents the pay-go corporate model that has controlled the industry since its inception. Napster tried and lost in taking on the RIAA and YouTube recently lost a similar war with Viacom.

Sure, no one LIKES to pay for things. In a utopian world, EVERYTHING would be free, there’d be no taxes and no one would have to work. But utopia doesn’t exist and since that dream-like state violates just about every immutable law of economics, chances are, it never will exist on earth. Because of that pesky little fact, NOTHING in life is free – not our time, not our efforts, not any of the commodities needed to produce the goods, services and content we all enjoy and depend on.

“Free content” is generally worth the price of admission.

Sure, it can be a useful promotional tool for unknowns trying to get noticed, but it’s “no way to make a living.” The entertainment industry is indeed an INDUSTRY and as the writer’s strike suggests, writers, producers and all the other people associated with that industry NEED to be able to make money and to make that money, all those who consume that entertainment must be required to pay for the privilege.

That’s what George Lucas meant by “maturing.” If the worldwide web is ever to truly “mature,” it must also become a platform on which producers can engage in that unseemly (at least to utopianists) activity of making money.

Profit is GOOD! Profits via purchasing fees make it possible for artists, sales people, producers, etc., to earn income for their efforts.

Some Not So Fun facts for Firefighters....

...Or ANYONE concerned about rising healthcare costs, as the costs of treating people who do jobs like these is staggering and growing larger every day.

The odds of a fulltime, paid firefighter, in the USA, getting cancer are 1 in 2. A firefighter’s chance of getting asbestosis is an astounding 80%!

How so?

Because asbestos is found in so many of the things that firefighters routinely encounter – the insulation found in older tenements, brake linings in cars, etc.

Both gasoline and diesel fuel contain benzenes, which are a highly carcinogenic group of hydrocarbons. Carcinogenic compounds increase your risks of getting cancer tremendously.

Smoking, for instance, increases one’s chances of getting lung cancer by some 25 times. Paid urban firefighting increases one’s chances of getting lung cancer by almost 120 times!

At car fires, battery acid can be aerosolized and those corrosive gases breathed in. Plastics and many other common polymers break down into highly toxic by-products, like various cyanides (ie. hydrogen cyanide is a very common by-product of plastics combustion). PCBs are also a very common carcinogenic substance, found in the breakdown of many various plastics.

I’ve been a paid firefighter in New York City for over two decades and I pay extra for cancer-related health insurance, even though New York State has the “Cancer Bill,” that presumes the cause of many cancers that most impact firefighters to be “job related.”

Advocates of Universal Healthcare have increasingly moved away from touting England’s and Canada’s flawed systems and taken to admiring the Dutch and Swiss systems, which are largely private insurance driven models.

According to Regina E. Herzlinger, a professor of business administration at Harvard Business School and a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, “The Swiss and Dutch systems share one terrific feature - universal coverage. Americans increasingly want this. Both achieve universal coverage using private sector insurers, at far lower cost than the U.S. - 12% of GDP for Switzerland and 10% for the Dutch, versus a staggering 15% for the U.S. in 2003. They also have far better health outcomes than the U.S., even when Switzerland is compared to socio-demographically similar U.S. states such as Connecticut and Massachusetts.

The Swiss are required to buy health insurance themselves, using their own money -- they account for 65% of health care expenditures. If individuals cannot afford it, most Cantons transfer funds to them. There are neither employer nor government health-insurance programs for the poor or elderly. The Swiss government accounts for only a quarter of the health-care spending versus nearly 50% for the U.S.

The Swiss system is consumer-driven because consumers themselves pay for their purchases. The Dutch government, in contrast, funds consumers to purchase their own health insurance to a much greater extent -- five million people in the country are on some sort of government dole. Thus, when the Dutch buy their insurance, they may think they are using other people's money.

“The results? The Swiss have lower health-care inflation - 2.8% versus 4.1% for the Dutch and the U.S. from 1996-2003 -- and substantially more in the way of health-care resources. And Switzerland tops the world in most measures of user satisfaction.”

I'd think that the Swiss system is by far the best and most efficient healthcare delivery system out there. It is consumer-driven and almost entirely privately operated via competing private insurers. It's a systems Americans could live with, apparently free from the healthcare and procedural rationing that plagues most government-run systems.

Wednesday, November 14, 2007

What Happened to "The Steamroller?!"

Yeah, what happened to the guy who was going to "do what he thought was best for the people, no matter what?!"

First he took on Sheldon Silver (State Assembly Chariman) and Joe Bruno (State Senate Leader)...and LOST.

Then he took on the entire State of New York with his recent "drivers licenses for illegal aliens" scheme...and insisted that he was going to force this through, despite all far, he hasn't gotten off the floor.

Today (Wednesday, November 14, 2007) Eliot Spitzer officially pulled the plug on his "licensing illegals" plan, mere weeks after responding to NYC's Mayor Mike Bloomberg's complaint that this plan "may result in a NY State driver's license no longer being OK'd as ID on even domestic flights, that Bloomberg was "Wrong on every level, factually wrong, legally wrong, morally wrong, and ethically wrong."

Spitzer's approval ratings are now, not only lower than G W Bush's, but lower than the current Pelosi Congress's! As Fred U. Dicker of the NY Post put it, "His once sky-high popularity has fallen faster and further than that of any governor in modern state history."

But that's not all, not by a long shot!

Did Spitzer really believe in this plan?

If he did, he should've stuck by it no matter what, no matter the personal cost.

But if he really believed that Mike Bloomberg was factually wrong (he was NOT), then he is ignorant of the facts, if he really believes that Bloomberg was legally wrong (he was NOT), he (a former State Attorney General) is woefully ignorant of the LAW and if he thinks Bloomberg was "morally and ethically wrong" (AGAIN, he was NOT), then that speaks volumes about Spitzer's own morals and ethics!

And it's even worse if he really didn't believe that, as that proves that he's the kind of man who'd say anything to dismiss an opponent and avoid serious thought about the issues. It proves him to be a thoughtless, rudderless, naively Liberal Democrat - the kind that places like New York churn out faster than a Chinese sweatshop churns out toys.

But some good has come out of this humiliation for New York, today the entire country saw that even in Liberal old New York, a hair-brained scheme like doling out driver's licenses to illegal aliens doesn't fly.

As a result, there are fewer people today proudly supporting "open borders," and claiming that "anyone who wants to come to America has a right to come."

Today, the army of the shiftless, shameless and stupid, who support illegal immigration took a haymaker to the chin...a BIG haymaker and today they know, they KNOW that over 78% of Americans want illegal immigration reined in and an "Enforcement First" policy adopted.

For THAT, we have Eliot Spitzer to thank!

Tuesday, November 13, 2007

WoW! Occasionally Those Muzzies Have the Right Idea!

According to British police, Boy George (George O'Dowd, pictured left) was charged Tuesday with falsely imprisoning a 28-year-old man.

The 46-year-old former Culture Club frontman, whose real name is George O'Dowd, has been ordered to appear in a Brittish court before Nov. 22.

The Sun newspaper reported in April that a Norwegian man, Auden Karlsen, claimed he was chained and threatened at O'Dowd's London flat, where he had gone as a photo model.

You know, in Iran, Pakistan or most other Islamic states, George O’Dowd would’ve been happily, or mercifully stoned to death by now . Hey! Even a stopped clock is right twice a day!!!

Unfortunately, we in the West seem to think such fringe kooks and “Friends of Rosie” are actually occasionally amusing.

More’s the pity and a true waste of perfectly good rocks on our parts, at least in my opinion.

Monday, November 12, 2007

Larry Kudlow Makes a GREAT Point....

The other day Larry Kudlow contrasted what happened back in the Keynesian 1970s; "Look what happened: Oil prices rose in the 70s. Stock prices fell. That was global inflation. That was high tax rates. That was crazy wage and price controls and over-regulation," with what's going on in the Supply Side era of TODAY, "Stocks and oil are rising together. That is a global economic growth signal. It is not an inflation signal."

As he notes, "You’ll note that in the 1970s, commodities and the 10-year bond rate both went up together. That was inflationary. Heck, bond rates reached around 15 percent at one point. They’ve been sliding down for several decades. Now commodities are booming, while bond rates are at rock bottom, hovering just above 4-percent.

"It’s all about low tax rates worldwide. It’s all about strong, global, free market capitalism creating high demand for commodities. Production can’t keep up, that’s all that’s going on. That’s why prices are high."

Anyone who was alive during the late 1970s KNOWS Kudlow is right.
For those who weren't, Carter, one of the most inept and ineffectual Presidents in U.S. history (perhaps only James Buchanan, who made the Civil War all but inevitable was worse), continued the failed Keynesian policies of LBJ and Nixon. Keynesian policy was based on the view that more government spending, especially social spending was good for the economy.
As a result, the government taxed productivity (work) heavilly, in fact, so much so, that many construction workers and others would not work overtime unless they were hired under another name at "straight-time plus," that is, if you worked 10 extra hours, your pseudonym (ie. John Smith) would be put down as having worked 15 hours).
Our welfare system was so lavish (by 1990 a person on welfare in NYC made the equivalent of $24,000/year with Section-8 housing allowances, clothing allowances, food stamps, etc., more than enough to serve as a permanent disincentive to work) and so lax (major Municipalities, like NYC had large numbers of people on their rolls who didn't belong there. How do we know? As soon as Welfare Reform took hold, NYC welfare rolls dropped from just over 1 million to under 700,000, virtually overnight) that social spending, like crime was through the roof.
Unfortunately for long suffering Americans, Keynesian policies DIDN'T prove at all "good for the economy, quite the reverse. Even before Carter took office inflation was a growing problem. Presdient Ford had tried, largely unsuccessfully, to cut back on some government spending, but Carter saw those attempts as ineffective and raised tax rates instead of trying to cut more spending.
So, what was the ultimate result?
INFLATION: Currently under Bush, it hovers around 2.3%/year (under 3% for all his tenure)
Under Carter inflation peaked in the double digits! He presided over some of the worst inflation in post-Great Depression history! 1979 11.3%, in 1980 13.5%.
UNEMPLOYMENT: Currently under Bush - 4.5% (it's been under 5% for almost all his tenure)
As for unemployment under Jimmy Carter, well his LOWEST unemployment rate was 5.9% in 1979, 1976 was 7.7%, 1977 was 7.1%, 1978 was 6.1% and 1980 was 7.2%
Interest Rates (Long Term interest rates): Have just budged above 6%, with thirty year fixed rate mortgages still avaliable for 5.9%
Under Carter; In September of 1979 long term rates rose FROM 9.2% to 10.1%!!!
In short, Supply-Side policies SAVED the U.S. economy from "Carterism"/Keynesianism and, yes, Third Worldism."..."
American Ideas Click Here!