Kicking Conventional Thinking

New Home

2006-09-12T07:08:00.000-07:00

The blog may be viewed at its new page http://www.AmericanYank.com

Thanks
Infinite Speculator

Gay America: Chasing Their Identity

2006-08-30T10:39:00.000-07:00

On June 15, 1981 the US Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in Atlanta reported multiple cases of pneumocystis jiroveci pneumonia, a rare pneumonia that is commonly linked to severe weaken immune systems, which had been contracted by several gay men in Los Angeles. This would be the beginning of the mysterious AIDS (Anti-Immune Deficiency Syndrome) virus. Although several would be inflicted by the disease either by blood transfusion or drug use involving contaminated hypodermic needles, the gay community, which would be the most impacted by this disease, would rally for more research and federal funding as 1982 began.

At the time Ronald Reagan was the US President. The Reagan administration did not even publicly acknowledge the existence of the disease even after it had been documented multiple times by the press. Reagan was an on the record conservative and opposed to gay rights. After the administration’s recognition of the disease in 1985, under his administration federal funding totaled $5.7 billion over the course of his remaining tenure in office.

What Reagan and his staff realized was that AIDS was not airborne or carried through the water supply. No the spread of AIDS began in gay bathhouses where gay men would engage in anonymous consensual sex. In order to address AIDS coupled by a federal bankroll (tax dollars) there would have to be responsibility on behalf of Gay America and not monies just thrown to the wind. In other words, despite his critics, Reagan would implement fiscal responsibility. In this author’s opinion Reagan wasn’t about to allow the White House to become a sounding board for gay rights either.

No matter what his critics have said Reagan did jumpstart AIDS research. What they didn’t like was his contingency for the funding. These are the same critics who lambaste the current Bush administration for the federal deficit and oppose social program cutbacks in favor of a strong defense, although these programs inadvertently create multi generations of dependency and entitlement. However when it came to Gay America and throwing taxpayer dollars at AIDS research they predictably choose the other side of the coin.

This entry isn’t intended to defend the policies of Reagan and his administration- there is no need to defend them. No this is to address his foresight or at least the foresight of his administration. The Reagan administration knew a thing or two about responsibility in one’s personal life as it related to promiscuity and specifically what was being experienced in gay bathhouses.

Now fast forward to the present time and allow your author to discuss a current epidemic ripping apart the gay male population of America. It is a trend that is beyond description. An idea that mitigates everything the federal government and our funding has attempted to accomplish as it relates to AIDS. It spits in the eye of Reagan’s critics who attempted to demonize his name at the time of his death as it relates to AIDS and his administration’s policy. It is a choice they are making that is beyond comprehension. It is known as chasing the bug and it is something that, once again, Gay America has refused to address.

What is chasing the bug? It is considered an underground movement where gay men engage in anonymous sex in the hopes of contracting AIDS/HIV. Yes in the hopes that they will become infected with the virus. It often takes place in either gay bathhouses, which are now referred to as all male fitness clubs or on the dance club scene, often under the influence of methamphetamines and alcohol.

The theory or thinking behind chasing the bug is thought to have been based around the idea that once a gay man contracts AIDS he will no longer have to practice safe sex. They become a part of something or attempt to identify with a group. While psychologists begin to analyze this lunacy and figure out why men would play Russian roulette, conservatives should take note that this is being buried or at least not admitted to by the gay population. Once again personal choices and responsibilities or lack of rule the day and not reliance upon the federal government to combat AIDS.

Gay America continually changes as the wind blows. At first they wanted to be accepted by society, nearly forcing themselves upon others for their acceptance and weave their way through legalization of same sex marriage. This was on the heels of being gay doesn’t make you different. In prior times they wanted to be known as a minority due to their sexuality. In other words something about them distinguished their group from the rest of society. They did so by attempting to latch on Black America, as well as other well known minorities and the lumping together of minority status with anyone except a white male protestant. They still cry more for AIDS but yet have failed at keeping their own house clean. They are a group that continually spins out of control and fails to find an identity.

Dissecting a Peanut

2006-08-22T17:39:00.000-07:00

Surprisingly former President Jimmy Carter’s interview with Germany’s Der Spiegel Magazine has brought little in the way of recognition with regards to the US Big Media Machine. It certainly did not escape your author’s attention as he will dissect nearly the entire interview and remind the reader of poignant memories during the 1976-80 term of the then US President. Your author will supply much of the entire interview along with his analysis and commentary. So let’s begin….

SPIEGEL: Mr. Carter, in your new book you write that only the American people can ensure that the US government returns to the country's old moral principles. Are you suggesting that the current US administration of George W. Bush of acting immorally?

Carter: There's no doubt that this administration has made a radical and unpressured departure from the basic policies of all previous administrations including those of both Republican and Democratic presidents.

Yes President Carter the current administration has taken a radical departure from previous administrations both Republican and Democrat. This is due to the fact that America was attack on September 11, 2001. The havoc wreaked on this country that day was unparalleled. Unlike previous calls to war, this enemy knows no geographic boundaries and is fueled by a violent culture that has been absorbed by an entire generation.

SPIEGEL: For example?

Carter: Under all of its predecessors there was a commitment to peace instead of preemptive war. Our country always had a policy of not going to war unless our own security was directly threatened and now we have a new policy of going to war on a preemptive basis. Another very serious departure from past policies is the separation of church and state, which I describe in the book. This has been a policy since the time of Thomas Jefferson and my own religious beliefs are compatible with this. The other principle that I described in the book is basic justice. We've never had an administration before that so overtly and clearly and consistently passed tax reform bills that were uniquely targeted to benefit the richest people in our country at the expense or the detriment of the working families of America.

Yes President Carter you are correct, with previous administrations peace was the intended solution and to avoid war at all costs. If this was the case then why even have a military? Well President Carter when airplanes are rammed into two towers that were The World Trade Center, another into the Pentagon Building and one other plows into a Pennsylvania field, which resulted with nearly 3,000 dead you know there is no negotiating with these individuals.

As far as the separation of church and state, where do you see this being violated? You as a Baptist should recognize this immediately as the ACLU have ramped their efforts to dismantle Christmas displays throughout many towns and cities to remind everyone of the separation of church and state.

Where does basic justice fall in the category of tax relief or taxing the citizenry? If the politicos in the Greenbelt followed your author’s advice we wouldn’t have an income tax. It would be one less item to politicize about and by the promises made by both parties regarding the income tax only fuels class warfare. Note to President Carter, please be advised that an income tax is a direct intrusion that pierces right through the privacy of every American citizen and furthermore many risk their lives relocating to see a new life in our golden streets, which coincidentally is often coincided with wealth obtainment.

SPIEGEL: You also mentioned the hatred for the United States throughout the Arab world which has ensued as a result of the invasion of Iraq. Given this circumstance, does it come as any surprise that Washington's call for democracy in the Middle East has been discredited?

Carter: No, as a matter of fact, the concerns I exposed have gotten even worse now with the United States supporting and encouraging Israel in its unjustified attack on Lebanon.

President Carter, this is where the interviewer should have brought out a few questions, but I will ask them-first which Arab countries hate us? I will give you Syria and Iran as an obvious two, both have hated us, especially Iran when you were President.

SPIEGEL: One main points of your book is the rather strange coalition between Christian fundamentalists and the Republican Party. How can such a coalition of the pious lead to moral catastrophes like the Iraqi prison scandal in Abu Ghraib and torture in Guantanamo?

Carter: The fundamentalists believe they have a unique relationship with God, and that they and their ideas are God's ideas and God's premises on the particular issue. Therefore, by definition since they are speaking for God anyone who disagrees with them is inherently wrong. And the next step is: Those who disagree with them are inherently inferior, and in extreme cases -- as is the case with some fundamentalists around the world -- it makes your opponents sub-humans, so that their lives are not significant. Another thing is that a fundamentalist can't bring himself or herself to negotiate with people who disagree with them because the negotiating process itself is an indication of implied equality. And so this administration, for instance, has a policy of just refusing to talk to someone who is in strong disagreement with them -- which is also a radical departure from past history. So these are the kinds of things that cause me concern. And, of course, fundamentalists don't believe they can make mistakes, so when we permit the torture of prisoners in Guantanamo or Abu Ghraib, it's just impossible for a fundamentalist to admit that a mistake was made.

Now this interesting, we have to go back in history and analyze Carter’s former constituency of voters. As many know Carter is a Georgia native and served as their governor before ascending to the position of President. Georgia and much of the southeast are collectively referred to as the Bible Belt by the press. Carter held a deep commitment to his Christian faith from an early age and throughout his political career would continue as a Sunday school teacher.

His early political career was described as a conservative Democrat. These were the days, which are long gone for those keeping track, when the party literally controlled the southern political scene. This is traced back to the days of the Civil War following the Republican Reconstruction and soon the Democrats were known as Yellow Dog Democrats-vote for a yellow dog over a Republican any day. So committed to the southern Democrat cause, Carter would forego an opportunity to run for the US House of Representatives and throw his hat in the governor’s race. Carter thought anybody but a Republican and although losing the primary nomination on his first attempt, his campaign would force a series of events to occur that led to the election of Democrat Lester Maddox.

Now there is no doubt that Carter appealed to the conservative Christians of his state. The previous bit about his Sunday school teacher role was often cited. So is it safe to say that these early Carter supporters were fundamentalists? Your author reminds you of the Bible Belt reference. Obviously this nomenclature had to be derived from some element of truth. So entrenched was the southeast with their Christianity that they represented, by the press at least, the distinction of taking their Christianity to the voting booth. Is this so? Would they not be, given the lack of distinction in other parts of the country for such characteristics, be considered fundamental? Would Carter not be considered part of this group? The reference to fundamentalist here in America and fundamentalists throughout the world is interesting. Is he implying or comparing Christian fundamentalists in US with being on par with Muslim fundamentalists? President Carter cuts this comparison short.

SPIEGEL: Do you think the United States is still an important factor in securing a peaceful solution to the Middle East crisis?

Carter: Yes, as a matter of fact as you know ever since Israel has been a nation the United States has provided the leadership. Every president down to the ages has done this in a fairly balanced way, including George Bush senior, Gerald Ford, and others including myself and Bill Clinton. This administration has not attempted at all in the last six years to negotiate or attempt to negotiate a settlement between Israel and any of its neighbors or the Palestinians.

How has America provided leadership for Israel? Do you mean Israel and America are close allies? The last time I checked the Israeli political scene is intense and citizens vote their leaders in. Why should the US government attempt to negotiate a peace plan between Israel and Palestine? I mean all other attempts, including yours and others, have all been failures. Have you forgotten that before his stroke then Israel Prime Minister Arial Sharon that in 2005 he led the controversial act of removing Jews from the Gaza Strip and giving a portion back to the Palestinians? What has since happened? Well for starters the remaining synagogues that were left behind found themselves quickly looted by the Palestinians. Secondly have you seen this nasty Palestinian group known as Hamas, who have since attacked Israel? Maybe that is a sign that holding hands, whipping out pens to sign treaties and negotiations aren’t the answer. So why go down this road again and again?

SPIEGEL: What makes you personally so optimistic about the effectiveness of diplomacy? You are, so to speak, the father of Camp David negotiations.

Carter: When I became president we had had four terrible wars between the Arabs and Israelis (behind us). And I under great difficulty, particularly because Menachim Begin was elected, decided to try negotiation and it worked and we have a peace treaty between Israel and Egypt for 27 years that has never been violated. You never can be certain in advance that negotiations on difficult circumstances will be successful, but you can be certain in advance if you don't negotiate that your problem is going to continue and maybe even get worse.

Many have heralded the Camp David Peace Accords as a success and by some degree it did produce fruit. However it should be noted that Anwar Sadat, then President of Egypt, was assassinated in October 1981 and that cannot be ignored. Before his untimely death and after The Accords, Sadat had cracked down on professors, journalists, Islamists, communists and student groups. Who was behind the assassination? The leader was Khalid Islambouli and other prime conspirators were Ayman al-Zawahari, Omar Abdel-Rahman and Abd al-Hamid Kishk. It should be noted that al-Zawahari would later be proven as an ally of Osama Bin Laden. Camp David cost Egypt, they were banished from the Arab League and not until 1999 were they readmitted.

Now here is where The Accords failed to cut the mustard and where other factors come into the attempts. At the time Egypt had a disastrous economy and look to forge business ties with the United States. It should also be noted that Israel would only have the opportunity to negotiate with Egypt. Strangely enough The Accords employed the then Romania Communist dictator Nicolae Ceausescu as a go-between with Palestine’s PLO.

SPIEGEL: But negotiations failed to prevent the burning of Beirut and bombardment of Haifa.

Carter: I'm distressed. But I think that the proposals that have been made in the last few days by the (Lebanese) Prime Minister (Fuoad) Siniora are quite reasonable. And I think they should declare an immediate cease-fire on both sides, Hezbollah said they would comply, I hope Israel will comply, and then do the long, slow, tedious negotiation that is necessary to stabilize the northern border of Israel completely. There has to be some exchange of prisoners. There have been successful exchanges of prisoners between Israel and the Palestinians in the past and that's something that can be done right now.

It is true, Carter does have much to be distressed about because in the past, these negotiations have always been long term failure. Successful exchange of what prisoners Mr. Carter? Last I checked Palestine has abided by the cease fire but just weeks prior they too felt like launching a few against Israel.

SPIEGEL: You've written about your meeting with Fidel Castro. He appears seriously ill now and Cuban exiles are partying already in the streets of Miami. You are probably not in the mood to join them.

Carter: No, that's true. Just because someone is ill I don't think there should be a celebration of potential death. And my own belief is that Fidel Castro will recover. He is two years younger than I am, so he's not beyond hope.

It should be noted that this portion of the interview contained a photograph of the former President and the Cuban Dictator tossing the first pitch at a baseball game in Cuba. While Carter is showing his genuine Christian belief with regards to the celebration that has been experienced because of the belief Castro is near death; Carter must surely give equal time to the thousands of Cubans that have been impacted by Castro’s reign. This is where recognition of those who died, often times tortured before succumbing, fighting against Castro’s revolution, which could be described as a capitulation to poverty. Additionally what about the many who braved 90 miles of water to leave the island nation?

SPIEGEL: You sought to normalize relations with Castro, but that never happened. Has anything been achieved through Cuba's isolation?

Carter: In my opinion, the embargo strengthens Castro and perpetuates communism in Cuba. A maximum degree of trade, tourism, commerce, visitation between our country and Cuba would bring an earlier end to Castro's regime.

How did he seek to normalize relations? While in Office he basically refused to take a pro-active stance with the Mariel Boatlift. This was when a mass exodus of Cuba immigrants, about 125,000, landed on the shores of south Florida. As a result a moment of chaos, which in some cases resulted in rioting, was experienced. This event occurred in October 1980. By then Carter was so down in the polls to California governor Ronald Reagan that he would lose the Presidential election in one of the worst landslides in American history. Reagan would take 91% of the electoral vote. Carter just didn't care.

Carter makes this bold statement regarding Castro’s continuance of power. He suggests that if America eases up on relations with Cuba that communism would fold in Cuba. This is where he gets it wrong. While the reign of Castro has been impressive it has been at a cost to the island. What if free-trade was initiated with Cuba? Well since Castro, by sheer force and control, has the last say all the riches would find their way back to him. Would this not strengthen his grip? Once again Carter fails to address the legacy of Castro’s brutality. Additionally Cuba enjoys free trade with Canada, the United Kingdom and Spain. The latter being one of their most active trading partners. Has this relieved Cuba? Has this diminished Castro’s clinch on Cuba? Strangely enough Carter believes America should be pro-active as it relates to Cuba but with other matters we should come together under the veil of the UN or some other type of group think.

SPIEGEL: You've been called the moral conscience of your country. How do you look at it yourself? Are you an outsider in American politics these days or do you represent a political demographic that could maybe elect the next US president?

Carter: I think I represent the vast majority of Democrats in this country. I think there is a substantial portion of American people that completely agree with me. I can't say a majority because we have fragmented portions in our country and divisions concerning gun control and the death penalty and abortion and gay marriage.

Here is where President Carter goes overboard. The vast majority of Democrats he speaks of do not exist. Their party, in significant portions, has been hijacked by the likes of Michael Moore, the DNC head Howard Dean, the moveon.org and George Soros crowd. Do you speak for them President Carter? Is that why you and Moore were standing next to each other at the 2004 Democrat National Convention? Once again he whines the three most commonly heard pseudo hot button issues-gun control, death penalty and gay marriage. I am surprised he forgot to mention national healthcare. Most polls will indicate that a vast majority, apparently you don’t represent them- are against gay marriage, gun control and support the death penalty. Just like he got it wrong in 1979-80, he fails to see the apparent truth. This says more about the rank and file, muscle men behind the Democrat Party then anything else.

SPIEGEL: Does America need a regime change?

Carter: As I've said before, there is a self-corrective aspect to our country. And I think that the first step is going to be in the November election this year. This year, the Democrats have good chance of capturing one of the houses of Congress. I think the Senate is going to be a very close decision. My oldest son is running for the US Senate in the state of Nevada. And if just he and a few others can be successful then you have the US Senate in Democratic hands and that will make a profound and immediate difference.

Does America need a ‘regime’ change? This sounds like something out of Karl Rove's playbook! I find it interesting that his son, who did win the Democratic nomination, is running for the Nevada seat. I would have thought with all of Carter’s political moxie in Georgia that his son would be a shoe-in. Oh yes that’s right the Democrats have lost much of Georgia and the rest of the previous political stronghold over the southeast. Will you be advising him Mr. President?

Whether you agree with Jimmy Carter or not, you have to admit he does enjoy candy coating his legacy. It was a legacy that saw the misery index jump by 50% for every year he was in office, when high unemployment and inflation ruled the day. It was doom and gloom. It was a time to legitimize hijackers and failure to see America’s will. Upon his exit it was also a time of hope and success.

The Grim Reaper Is Coming To A Town Near You

2006-08-16T17:59:00.000-07:00

Although The New York Times fails to inform the reader of the carnage inflicted on Israel, although having no reservation in giving a daily update of the similar havoc on Lebanon, they also have no problem with informing the world of the most recent spokesperson for the left wing branch of the Democrat party. The spokesperson is none other than Michael Schiavo, former husband of Terri Schiavo and the famous Florida case that became a national outcry in defending life. In fact Schiavo’s new image as a political mover and shaker was featured on The Times’ front page.

Many of you will remember Terri Schiavo sat over a decade in a vegetative state, while her husband Michael and her parents Robert and Mary Schindler, who desired to care for her, battled it out in Florida courts. Michael Schiavo maintained the stance that as last of kin he should be able to make the decision to turn off her feeding tube and cause her death. He also made the unfounded claim that if Terri was ever to become incapacitated that it would be her wishes to terminate her life. That in itself is a profound statement from a then 26 year old woman. In October 2003 Florida Governor JEB Bush signed what would become known as Terri’s Law in order to prevent the permanent removal of her feeding tube. This law was eventually overturned by Florida’s Second District Court of Appeals. In no surprise to your author a portion of Schiavo’s legal team was comprised of ACLU attorneys. The US Senate in a controversial move passed what would become known as The Palm Sunday Compromise in order to delay the Florida Court’s ruling. The law would have transferred Schiavo’s case to the federal level. Following The Supreme Court’s overturning the law, Schiavo’s feeding tube was removed and she passed on March 31, 2005.

What was alarming to your author was the passion to fulfill Michael Schiavo’s wishes that was displayed by certain members of Congress. Florida Senator Bill Nelson, a Democrat, refused to support the federal bill. Florida US Congresswoman from Florida, Democrat Debbie Wasserman Schultz, lit into a fiery defense of not supporting The Compromise. Many other freshmen Democrats also displayed the same intensity for the cameras. Another moment that was a cause for concern was Michael Schiavo’s tenacity to see his wife’s life terminated. Michael Schiavo even received offers of over $1million USD to stop his attempts and refused. While this in itself was heralded that he genuinely cared for his wife’s quality of life, what would one expect him to do? If he had ended his stance or changed his decision he would have been seen as attempting to profit from this event. In other words once he stated his desires for her to die there was no turning back. It should also be noted that his love for his wife and the goal of euthanasia obviously did not impede on his personal life as he took up a common law wife and had several children by her. The couple met in 1995 and have since officially married.

Just when you think Michael Schiavo would go away, he is back and has taken up a predictable drumbeat. He appears to be the newest representative for the far left in this country, falling inline with the likes of Cindy Sheehan and others. In December 2005 Schiavo jumpstarted TerriPAC, a Political Action Committee and as of this date has raised $25,000 USD. He supported Ned Lamont’s thin victory for the Democrat Primary in Connecticut over incumbent Joe Lieberman who had supported the previous federal attempt as it related to Terri Schiavo. Michael Schiavo has since hand delivered a critical letter to Republican Congresswoman Marilyn Musgrave of Colorado who supported the federal law. Musgrave’s opponent Democrat Angie Paccione was quoted saying, “He (Schiavo) is the human face of government intrusion. We need more individual citizens like him to step up and put an end to it. People trust somebody who looks like them, talks like them and has their experience.” This would all be well and good if it was not centered on a human life and her parents’ desire to care for her, thus relieving Michael Schiavo who by all appearance had gone with his life. Would you trust Michael Schiavo? Your author believes that every time a Democrat opposes a tax cut and supports items such as the death tax that these are intrusions on his life. Additionally Florida Democrat Representative Jim Davis, who is currently seeking the seat of that state’s governorship, has been parading around a letter through a distribution campaign that is an endorsement by Schiavo. Davis supported Schiavo’s successful attempt to end his wife’s life.

The only thing your author is able to ascertain from Schiavo and his PAC is that the Democrat Party is becoming ever increasingly desperate for anyone they can extract national support from. The Party is quickly falling out of the mainstream and the big US media machine will have an increasingly difficult time explaining the party’s objective. The far left that is visibly represented or at least exemplified by DNC head Howard Dean, has already proclaimed they control the Democrat Party. If anything similar chaos that surrounded the Lieberman-Lamont nomination battle will become a consistent theme.

Just as Cindy Sheehan took her son’s death in the Iraq War to mean a battle cry against conservatives so has Schiavo. Sheehan’s son Casey, it should be noted, voluntarily joined the Armed Forces and reenlisted knowing full well he would be sent to Iraq. In fact on the day of his death he was a volunteer for the US Army’s Quick Reaction Force, whose sole purpose was to rescue stranded troops. At the very least Casey Sheehan should be remember for his bravery and commitment, a celebration of his life and not used as fodder by the fringe element. In both tragic incidences Schiavo and Sheehan have formed a new identity. When it comes to Schiavo he is celebrating his wife’s death while veiling it with the argument against government intrusion.

As the Democrat Party, who your author often refers to as Demo-Wimps due to their lack of having teeth behind anything of substance, embraces more and more of the far left fringe elements it is important for the reader to note just what this faction represents. If led to their own devices they would create an anarchic society, which they would refer to as a utopia, with no boundaries or common universal moral code because moral relativism rules the day and the importance of theory overrides actual results. It is a land where life is not valued by many of them as evidenced by their emotionally charged support for such things as partial birth abortion and quick draw euthanasia. Where pro-action is not the norm and desperate reaction to failures is commonplace. It is a society that your author wishes not to be considered a member.

Heathrow: Multiculturalism Fails

2006-08-11T21:16:00.000-07:00

The recent thwarting of a would be plot to blow airplanes out the sky that were departing out of London’s Heathrow Airport is once again a testament of the United States’ efforts in combating terrorists. Yes the British authorities are certainly due a loud thank you but the big U.S. media machine has yet to say “Gee maybe the SWIFT program and homeland security are really combating terrorists and would be terrorists”. No the big media machine has continually referred back to the United Kingdom’s past history in combating the IRA. This certainly exposed the UK and forced them to deal with terrorists, allowing them to gain valuable insight. However the US big media machine will never do an about face, eat crow and admit their criticism against President Bush is poorly founded. No they maintain their stance against Bush following the President’s comments where he described the terrorists as Islamic fascists. Predictably the Muslims in America are chiming in with the critics, citing Benito Mussolini as a fascist and maintaining that the phrase was in poor taste.

A fascist or fascism is defined as a practitioner or practice whereby the government is the central authority, dominating the economy and society led by a dictator. Well the last your author checked Osama bin Laden and others of the same ilk wish to dominate the world or at least Western Society and are Islamic. So what’s the problem with stating the obvious?

This entry is not to restate the obvious or criticize the pundits. This entry is to explain the failures of multiculturalism. The would-be terrorists of London were not immigrants but rather homegrown. This was the same case in early June 2006 when Canadian citizens belonging to Toronto’s Muslim community alleged to have plotted a series of terrorist attacks in Southern Ontario were arrested. The March 2004 Madrid train bombing was carried out by terrorist cells living within the city. Later that year, in July, the London subway system was rocked by a series of bombings. The bombers were found to be husbands and sons, living and working outside of London. They were not shuttled in during the dark of night from a Mid East country.

Multiculturalism is defined as the following: a policy that emphasizes the unique characteristics of different cultures in the world, especially as they relate to one another in receiving nations. In this case Spain, the United Kingdom, Canada and the US were the receiving or hosting nations. In each violent strike the perpetrators were unable or refused to assimilate with society. The host nations had welcomed them, educated many of them and allowed them access to their society’s resources.

In 1957 multiculturalism popped up in Switzerland, however by the mid 1960s Canada was embracing the idea in droves. Soon it became commonplace in Australia and Europe, particularly in France, The Netherlands, Great Britain and Scandinavian countries.

In America there was the Melting Pot Theory, which can be defined as immigrants and the existing citizenry mixed together with little state intervention. This worked well, although with a bumpy road to travel, beginning in the late 1800s-early 1900s. However because of racial or ethnic prejudices this idea is thought to have been a failure by conventional thinkers. Note-The Melting Pot theory did not fail, mankind and his prejudices intersected its progression. Later the press dubbed Black leadership-defined as Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and Louis Farrakhan-would gravitate towards the idea of multiculturalism. The multiculturalism theory certainly impacted the political parties and they too adjusted their policies to address their practicing constituents. What has become apparent is that multiculturalism bred groups defined by culture ties and usually congregating in what would become known as ghettos. In other words there was no reason to venture out and there was no need to advance on the socio-economic scale. As long as your surrounding area was ‘just like home’, with street signs in your native language and your neighbor favoring your features, then why bother? As long as the infrastructure was to your advantage, this often seen in social programs and assistance, why would it be worth your while to assimilate? In fact divisions among groups of people are often ignored by these same supporters, which in its purest essence contradict the same goals of Dr. Martin Luther King and his vision of mankind embracing one another. Multiculturalism, as it has become known today with its practice, effectively turns out the light on King’s “Dream”.

In 1971 Canada adopted multiculturalism with their government body known as the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism. This was in response to French speaking province of Quebec and their demands to be well… different. What occurred was we stay on our side and you stay on yours but give us our federal monies at the same time. This led to idea of Quebec breaking away to form a separate country and only in 1995 was the issue settled with the famous referendum. At the time of one of the most outspoken critics of multiculturalism was Canadian Progressive Conservative Party leader and one time Prime Minister John Diefenbaker. To suggest Diefenbaker was a proud Canadian is an understatement, he feared and rightfully so a ‘hyphenated’ Canada. In The States we are not free of such descriptive as we suffer from this same popular cultural tagging. This is when African-American, Gay-American, Muslim-American, etc. become the norm in describing individuals. When did Black not become beautiful or the gay population who in the past have been rabid about crying that their sexuality does not differentiate them from society, suddenly embrace their difference? Often times this hyphenation to ad nauseam ooze of individuals desiring some kind of a lineage to a culture they know little about. They suffer from the identity factor and feel lost, much of this by their own perception and unwilling to embrace society. Oh they may read books on a country’s particular history or actually visit this place for a holiday, but really they know next to nothing about the inner workings of that country’s society. They do not have a lifetime experience living in that country nor could possibly fully appreciate that society’s history. I cannot begin to relate to a body of cultural history with my English and Scottish roots, despite several trips to both countries. How could I expect to be able to relate to an area where my ancestors vacated some 150 years ago? I cannot and neither can the individuals who practice such silliness with a noticeable degree of fervor.

In America we have the answer to multiculturalism and it has been under our nose this entire time. The Bill of Rights, a simple but ingenious document, protects one’s right to assemble and practice whatever religion to their heart’s content. It guarantees certain inalienable rights. Your author can only wonder whether these particular countries or regions, which are deemed important for those who tag them in their own description of themselves, have such a document. Your author must also ask himself why the supporters of multiculturalism with their hyphenated descriptions leave their country of origin. An even more perplexing notion is why do the citizenry of a particular country-in this case United States, Canada or any of the several European countries previously mentioned-stay and choose not to relocate to Africa, Mexico or a country that is dominated by a particular religion? Of course before these individuals can answer these questions they would label your author a bigot.

The aborted terrorist attempt originating in London’s Heathrow Airport along with the others previously cited had no direct ties to Osama bin Laden. It would be a safe assumption to state these violent figures were ‘inspired’ by him and his al Qaeda group. This should be a key component in tailoring legislation here in The States but the Democrat Party has decided to use the ‘get bin Laden’ chant as a backdrop to their attempts to regain a majority in Congress. In a direct contradiction with this battle cry they have also embraced far leftist thinking or idealism. The far left can be described as Cindy Sheehan, Michael Moore, Howard Dean and the supporters of MoveOn.org. This group’s running theme is to stop the Iraq war. What if the Iraq War did conclude-would terrorist strikes or attempts as recently witnessed in London cease as well? Not likely. So are we committed to getting bin Laden, Islamic terrorism in general or do we want to end all wars? We can’t have it all.

Following the deployment of Allied Forces in Afghanistan and later with Iraq, former Florida Democrat Senator Bob Graham began criticizing Bush’s foreign policy as it relates to the war on terror during a television appearance. Graham, who did not seek reelection in 2004 because it was very clear to many he would not win despite being reelected in two previous senatorial races and having never lost a campaign, lambasted Bush and referred to bin- Laden as ‘Osama-Been-Forgotten’.

What Graham and many of his colleagues failed to recognize is that bin-Laden was merely a face in a much larger-scale movement of violence and chaos. As with many conventional thinkers, Graham and others were stuck on World War II where geographic boundaries and leaders with faces were clearly defined, failing to see the macro picture. In each of the terrorist attacks described, along with others as they relate to the Islamist jihad movement, none of the participants were leaders of a large military, held an elected position, commanded influence over a political party and for the most part none had previous military training. They were disenfranchised individuals, many living in ghettos or within the confines of their neighborhood. More importantly they were the end result of multiculturalism.

Whether they are misled and absorbed in al Qaeda propaganda or tagging themselves to denote a particular cultural lineage, sexuality or religion; they are lost. Your author is reminded of The Ramones. The Godfathers of New York punk music released an album entitled Animal Boy in 1986. Within the body of work is a song entitled Looking For Something To Believe In. Unfortunately the politicians, pundits, critics and talking heads aren’t listening to the same tune.

Fidel's Ghost, French Lunacy and Democrats

2006-08-03T20:05:00.000-07:00

Latin Leftism

Your author apologizes for not fulfilling his promise with launching of a piece on the leftist shift currently impacting Central and South America. However with the pause came the breaking news of Fidel Castro, in ill health, temporarily bequeathing power over Cuba to his brother Raul. While Fidel has been a prominent favorite for the media in his over 40 year domination over the country, Raul has quietly worked behind the scenes ensuring the Castro duo’s control over the day to day life of the average citizen of Cuba. The Fidelista regime and Raul’s lesser known role in its security has enabled him to become known as the longest serving defense minister.

The media pundits are already asking the ‘what ifs’, while Cuban-American, particularly ones that lived a great deal of their life under Castro’s rule and immigrated late to the United States, believe that Castro is either dead or close to kicking the bucket. Their rationale is that the Cuban government would not have made such a drastic move nor announces it in such a public fashion unless it was critical.

By the mid 1990s Cuba had been outcastes in the arena of global economics. The powerful Soviet Union had been dismantled and the island nation lost major financial assistance. Raul Castro implemented a program to allow small, mom and pop type businesses to operate. The most notable of these were cafes. While this attempt flourished, the Euro currency, American and Canadian dollars rushed in. The Cuban peso was viewed so poorly that the American dollar began to show up more and more. In other words the home currency was deemed worthless. Economic freedom would naturally cause the citizenry to question Fidel Castro and his failed revolution. Your author describes it as a failure because time and time again the peasants of the country, ones that Fidel said he represented in his lofty and famous speeches, were willing to risk a 90 mile oceanic passage to Florida. Note: When people are stating they would rather die than live another day under a particular regime, the curtain is nearly set to close on that country’s infrastructure and their leader.

Embarrassed by the flood of US dollars Fidel shut down the experimental program. Now he is dying. Raul Castro, if his brother does indeed pass, will assume full control of the nation. The Cuban military, managed by Raul Castro, fuels over half of the country’s $2billion GDP. The infrastructure, like every other nation under the communist cloak, is in tatters and ruined.

Will Raul embrace capitalism? Within the Cuban American population centered in Broward (Ft. Lauderdale) and Dade (Miami) counties, it is thought that millions will pour back into Cuba. The only way to reasonably predict his move is to watch for one of these three scenarios to occur: A. He loses control over the military. If this is the case there is no guarantee gravitation to capitalism will materialize. B. He quickly pays Washington DC and the European Union a visit. It is almost certain where he is leaning. C. He strengthens ties with Hugo Chavez of Venezuela. If this plays out then all hope of Cuban Americans will be lost. Whatever scenario takes place, Latin America is still chugging along with a leftist tilt. This may in itself be the lasting testament to Fidel Castro.

One of the most controversial of the countries as it relates to the theme of leftism is Mexico. Your author has already penned an essay on the country that by all appearances suffers in dire straits. Following their July 2nd election the country has been absorbed in protests and demanding a vote recount. The current president Vicente Fox due to the country’s constitution is unable to seek another term. The challengers were Andres M. Lopez Obrador, formerly the mayor of Mexico City, candidate for the centre-left party Democratic Revolution and Felipe Calderon of the centre-right party National Action Party. Prior to Fox’s presidency the Revolution party had dominated Mexico politics for over 75 years. The Revolution party is socialist and for their domination, Mexico would make a slow grind to becoming one of the most impoverished nations in North America.

The election was close, the closest of any Mexico’s presidential run-offs. In a voter turnout considered historical, well over 75% registered voters participating and churning out 42million ballots, Calderon won by a mere 240,000. The opposition is alleging fraud and protesting continues. Obrador has since announced that he does not plan to vacate the Mayoral position. Scenario: If Obrador maintains his popularity and given the closeness in his defeat, the next election will surely grant the power back to the Revolution institution.

In a closely watched election Nicaragua is showing a signs that it will embrace another Sandinista government. Herty Lewites, a centre left candidate dropped dead of a heart attack recently. The centre right candidates-Eduardo Montealegre and Jose Rizo-are in back with former Sandinista Daniel Ortega gaining steam. Will the Sandinista gravitate towards modernizing Nicaragua, something the countries political elite has failed to do or will they fall inline with the leftist storm that is a brewing? Another question that faces the citizens of Costa Rica, Nicaragua’s southern neighbor, is how it will impact them and their tourist trade?

Coming down to South America lies the incarnation of Fidel Castro except he has oil on his side-Hugo Chavez. Your author has previously predicted many of his strategic moves-banishing Christian missionaries and practically nationalizing the oil industry. Due to an ever increasing global demand for oil, Venezuela has placed their small country in the forefront of global news. Chavez has been criticized for demanding oil production to be curbed, thereby increasing the price as it relates to steady demand.

Chavez is described as anti-global and a nationalist. He has criticized the international oil firms based in Venezuela-remind yourself they provide jobs and referred to the Catholic Church as ‘not walking in the path of Christ’. He has since taken control or extracted the most influence over oil firms Royal Dutch Shell, Chevron and Spain’s Respol.

Entering into an election year in 1998, Chavez experienced a landslide victory. In 2002 his popularity had dropped dramatically but ‘amazingly’ he won a second term. Much of the reason behind his reelection was brought about civil unrest and demonstrations. Critics have long alleged that Chavez second victory was based on voter fraud.

Another point that is worth reviewing is Chavez’s role as it relates to their neighbor Colombia. The country that is synonymous with cocaine cartels has enjoyed a strong presence of democracy- a testament owed primarily to US foreign aide and is now attempting to market their country as a tourist’s destination. Their president, Alvaro Uribe, is beginning to enjoy his second term. However the most serious threat to his presidency are leftist guerilla groups-Revolutionary Armed Forces and National Liberation Army. It is long thought that these groups are funded by drug lords. In what is becoming an increasingly cried allegation is that Chavez is sticking his wallet and rhetoric in the guerillas’ cache. If Chavez is marching to the beat of Fidel Castro this would fall inline with Cuba’s dictator previous attempts in what has become known as Bogotazo. It was April 9, 1948 and youthful Castro was in Bogota taking in Pan American Union conference. Castro picked up arms and became involved in a riot that resulted in the beginning of La Violencia (The Violence), which resulted in an estimated 200,000 murders.

When Evo Morales ascended to the chair of Bolivia’s president the international media heralded him as a native, not of Spanish extraction and somehow this was an important element. However the conventional big media machine failed to see the forthcoming prediction made by yours truly in a January 2006 blog entry. Bolivia, who was about to enjoy the riches from natural gas exportation, had experienced a long history of nothing but chaos. Morales owed his victory to the Central Obrara Boliviana (COB), Bolivia’s strongest union and one that incorporates workers in the natural gas industry. The COB had long dominated Bolivian politics. Within 24 hours the COB issued Morales an ultimatum-nationalize the industry or face massive rioting. By May he had fulfilled his promise, then became cozy with both Chavez and Castro. He currently faces a tense situation within in his country, pitting the capital La Paz against the eastern city of Santa Cruz. The gas industry lies in on the west coast but the wealth is found in the east.

In Ecuador, Occidental Petroleum derives an estimated 100,000 barrels of oil per day and over the past five years has invested $1 billion into the country. The country is run by a nominal head-Alfredo Palacio. Recently the parliament approved a 50% tax on foreign oil interests. The response from Occidental, the US government and others has been to cancel trade talks with the country. While Palacio is an underdog, America has enjoyed successful discussions with Peru and Colombia. If Palacio’s policies are fully implemented Occidental will in all likelihood pull out of the country and direct foreign investment will dry up. If he loses his reelection fails many of these firms will have been long gone. Either way Palacio’s attempts to mirror Chavez and Morales will leave his country in bleak conditions.

The bright spots in Latin America continue on-Argentina, Chile, Peru and Brazil. Both the governments Paraguay and Uruguay are active in market reform. As Cuban-American rally around the prospects of Castro dying and what if scenarios that could take place with his brother as the new leader, his ghost and legacy continues live on with the rest of Latin America. A legacy of failed economic reform built upon civil unrest, murder and paranoia felt by the citizenry.

Socialized Medicine: Bad for your body

In late July the Wall Street Journal reported that during the heat wave pounding on much of the world, France can out due any country when it comes to lunacy and laziness. Despite their pride with their socialized medicine, a trademark for all of Europe, the French government was dealt a blow as doctors and specialists tied to an estimated 600 private clinics decided to go on strike. French Health Minister Xavier Bertrand had to dip into the medical school students and retired doctors pool in order to combat as the French citizenry suffered from scorching temperature. Your author being from Florida has little sympathy.

While the doctors and others took a vacation in order to demand more pay, your author began to consider the ramifications of such an event if the United States implemented socialized medicine. How he recalls the days of Hillary-care, Senator Hillary R. Clinton a Demo-Wimp from New York during her attempts to initiate such proposal as First Lady. Somehow the idea of striking doctors and other medical staff members was not considered. Meanwhile the French are recalling the 2003 heat wave that took the lives of 15,000.

Democrats: More Chaos

We all remember the 2004 election where the Demo-Wimp party took a steep downturn and grabbed for anyone that would vote them. This was when Michael Moore was caught chumming it up with former Demo-Wimp (Grandpa Wimp) President Jimmy Carter at the Democrat National Convention. When moveon.org was considered something of importance and anyone but a conservative should be considered for office. In the end it ultimately failed.

Well we have seen signs of this coming again with the reelection campaign of Demo-Wants to be a Republican-Joe Lieberman of Connecticut. Lieberman was once described as what a Democrat or any other politician was once: respectable, rationale and diplomatic. Well he is down in the polls against Demo-Wimp rival Ned Lamont. However what the press isn’t reporting is the chaotic situation surrounding Connecticut’s senatorial campaign. As always your author will cut through to expose the hypocrisy and recall previous events that impact the bigger picture.

Ned Lamont is a millionaire, a cable company owner and this in itself speaks volumes about the Demo-Wimps tried and true hatred for anyone who is rich. Unlike the constituency he claims to represent-the poor, minorities, down on their luck and anti-war mongers, Lamont is an ivy-league graduate. He owns Lamont Digital Systems, a 35 employee firm specializes in the production and operator for advanced telecommunications that can found in universities and gated communities. His grandfather was a chairman for JP Morgan, which allowed Lamont’s family to inherit over $90 million. Just prior to his decision to run, Lamont resigned his membership from a racially restricted country club. In other words this is the exact opposite that Demo-Wimps claim to represent.

If the glaring hypocrisy in ideology as it relates to the actual candidate is bad enough, the Clintons have decided to play this one that leaves them on both sides. Former President Bill Clinton has openly supported Lieberman while Senator Hillary Clinton has said she will support whichever candidate wins the primary. Furthermore recall in 2000 when then Demo-Wimp Presidential nominee Al Gore, who at this moment trying to scare modern society with claims of global warming, desperately needed Lieberman as his vice presidential running mate. It pained many of us who support Lieberman to see him bow to his party’s wishes. Where is Al Gore in this quagmire? Silent! And even more recently supposed and alleged civil rights leader Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are endorsing Lamont. They both cite Lieberman’s loyalty to the Demo-Wimp party while they don’t seem to mind the prior country club affiliation and choice lifestyle enjoyed by Lamont. Lamont has big bucks, Jackson with his Rainbow PUSH Coalition and Sharpton’s National Action Network of Harlem, NY and I will let the reader for their own conclusion with that trio.

If Lieberman fails to cinch the nomination he has vowed to run as an Independent-more power to him. This is only furthering the notion that the Demo-Wimp party is in total meltdown.

Israel: On The Road To Iran

2006-07-22T18:40:00.000-07:00

After a wonderful vacation the Infinite Speculator has returned.

Needless to say recent news events have been dominated by Israel’s march to stomp out Hezbollah. The actions taking place in Lebanon and moving forward is not an aggressive state but rather a response to the conventional thinking of United Nations. Your author will guide you through the most recent events that have led to this battle and why it may be the finale that sets the stage for the downhill slope for the Muslim terrorist groups.

Ariel Sharon became Israel’s prime minister in 2001. In this author’s opinion he could be compared to US President Harry Truman. Sharon talked softly and by appearances wished to engage in diplomacy with the Mid East but also carried a big stick just in case. Just as Truman took his bumps from wimpy conventional thinking critics, so did Sharon from the international press for his prior role as Israel’s Defense Minister during the Lebanon War of 1982. Why is it when men and women of conviction with clear goals and determination to achieve them are labeled as thugs by lefty types? The ultimate “Trumanesque” test or example came in August 2005 when Sharon ordered Jewish settlers from the ill famed Gaza Strip. However was this gesture of goodwill a test for the Palestinian State? Sharon may have known when you give an inch you may as well give a foot. We will never know what he was thinking or predicting because in December 2005 Sharon suffered a massive stroke, lapsing into a coma and today remains in this vegetative state. Ehud Olmert, Sharon’s Vice Premier, became acting head of Israel.

While Jewish settlers were being forced from Gaza, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was elected as president of Iran and within months he made references to wiping Israel off the map. Israel along with the United States and Great Britain felt Iran’s nuclear capabilities were serious enough to implore the United Nations to consider sanctions on the tyrannical Ahmadinejad. Olmert gave probably the first signs of his contempt for Ahmadinejad when he struck back comparing the Iranian leader to Adolph Hitler.

Then in January 2006 the Hamas party gained a significant portion of the Palestinian Parliament. Their opposition, the Fatah Party, still maintains control but by a thread and the country’s president is Mahmoud Abbas, who by appearances wishes to end the continual violent civil unrest. Your author first discussed the potential conflicts that would arise once Hamas members were put in place on the eve of the Palestinian elections. Predictably violence escalated in Palestine, thus proving when you give an inch with regards to Gaza and in May Hamas key terrorist Ibrahim Hamed was arrested by Israeli forces. The US State Department along with several international newspapers would drop a bombshell when it was revealed that Muslim Shiites in Iran were funding the operations of Hamas. Remember Iran as your author will bring them back in the fold at the close of this piece.

Now rewind back to June 1976 Syria, sharing the borders with Israel and Lebanon for those who are geographically challenged, sent 40,000 troops to Beirut. The group, along with the Arab-Catholic Maronite militia, pushed Palestinian forces out of the capital and into Southern Lebanon. Syria would remain in Lebanon providing their brand of justice until 2005. The removal was prompted only when the Bush administration and the post 9-11 attitude towards organized Muslim terrorist groups had changed. With the southern area of Lebanon being saturated with Palestinians launching rockets, Israel began to engage in a series of battles and eventual occupation to secure their northern border. Attempting to flex their collective muscle and seeking legitimacy, the United Nations established Resolution 728 in 1978. The decree called for the removal of Israeli troops but nothing in respect to the Palestinian occupiers. In other words Israel could engage in battle as long as it was south of the border but no global collective answer to the Palestinians. Israel wisely ignored this document and only in 2000, after increased global pressure and the idea that diplomacy may bring peace to the Middle East, withdrew from Lebanon.

Despite leaving Lebanon, the seed for what is being unfolded on the news wave was in place back in 1982. It was in that year that Hezbollah was founded as a radical political group representing the Shia or Shiite Muslim faction of Lebanon. The Shiite Muslims take their kool-aid from the ideology of the infamous and actually scary looking Ayatollah Khomeini, leader of the Iran Revolution in 1979 and top mullah until his death in 1989. The reader can thank Khomeini and his followers for about 90% of the upheaval in the Mid East and anywhere else in the world where Muslim terrorists are involved.

While Hezbollah gained political power in Lebanon they also began a series of social service implementations. While not fighting with the Lebanese government the group has established hospitals and schools. It is no great secret that Iran (see once again) finances Hezbollah. This should make the reader think next time they change the oil in their car.

So now you have Hezbollah kidnapping Israeli soldiers and playing quite possibly their last card in what will be a very nasty game. Strangely but a welcomed sign are Sunni nations such as Egypt and Saudi Arabia keeping quiet. Maybe, despite the United Nations’ inability to effectively deal with Iran’s Ahmadinejad, they know that all trails lead back to Iran? Now with the removal of Saddam Hussein in Iraq and the Mid East effectively having one less tyrant, maybe Ahmadinejad will attempt to prepare for a jihad with expectations of being greeted by dozens of virgins in the afterlife? Israel has previously taken the Demo-Wimp (Democrat party) approach by trying to hold hands and sign agreements for peace now they will deal with this the only way it can be dealt with and one that ensures their own safety. Will they march to Tehran and lead an all out assault built on decades of rage and previous loss of life? Will the rest of the world see this is as a chance to finally shut down the terrorism spurned from the Mid East? If Israel fails to take it to the hilt and the global conventional thinkers of the left become critical then we will only be revisiting the same scenario in years to come.

Humor…

Big Media Machine’s Response

Maybe Israel and your author along with the Bush administration get the picture with Israel, Hezbollah, Iran and terrorism? Since the Israeli march into Lebanon began the big media machine have been spitting out Demo-Wimp catch phrases such as diplomacy, ceasefire, negotiations and peace process. PBS’s McLaughlin Group, a gaggle of media folks, contributed the same spew and failing to see that it is Israel’s time to finish off something that began because they have tried to attempt ‘diplomacy’, ‘negotiations’, etc.

In today’s issue (July 22) of The New York Times, the collective wisdom at that rag comprised a series of editorials. Here is a sample for your viewing pleasure:

Stop Bombs, Start Talks
THE international community should urgently insist on a cessation of hostilities. Such a measure is needed for two reasons. First, it will make it possible to organize humanitarian relief for the tens of thousands of civilians in southern Lebanon who are trapped in their villages and have already run out of water, food and basic medical supplies. Second, it would give international political efforts a chance to succeed. A week more of bombing will only delay the political process and cause further devastation and loss of life.
With a break in the violence, the international community could help the Lebanese Army assert its authority throughout the country, particularly in the southern suburbs of Beirut and in the south of the country. The political settlement to follow should induce Hezbollah to return the two soldiers it seized last Wednesday and to hand its heavy weapons over to the Lebanese Army. It should also require Lebanon and Israel to return to the Lebanese-Israeli armistice agreement of 1949, and it should insist that Israel release Lebanese captives from its jails.
PAUL SALEM, the director-designate of the Carnegie Middle East Center.

Resolve to Put Lebanon Back In Charge

THE United Nations Security Council must pass a new resolution insisting that Lebanon take full charge of its territory. Already, the Lebanese and Israeli governments agree that Lebanese control is necessary; that is sufficient common ground on which to build. This new resolution would also demand that the parties fulfill the militia disarmament clause of a 2004 United Nations resolution — a requirement that, together with the need for free Lebanese presidential elections, remains unmet.

The immediate question is how to minimize casualties, bring the hostilities to a halt and make the cease-fire permanent. Hezbollah should surrender the two Israeli soldiers to the Lebanese government, and ultimately to Israel, whereupon a cease-fire will go into effect. The resolution should demand that the Israeli and Lebanese governments begin negotiations through the Security Council to address all outstanding issues that are governed by international law: borders, refugees, water, Lebanese prisoners in Israel and Lebanese citizens who collaborated with the Israeli occupation from 1982 to 2000.

To keep spoilers and extremists at bay, the Security Council should issue a stern warning that any local or regional party that obstructs the process will face grave consequences, including the seizure of assets, travel bans and the possibility of indictment for war crimes. A robust international force can help the Lebanese government assert its exclusive sovereignty over its territory against any possible Syrian, Iranian or Israeli encroachment.
— CHIBLI MALLAT, a professor of law at St. Joseph University and a candidate for president of Lebanon.

Meet Your Enemies
THE United States must rekindle the kind of diplomatic activity that befits its status and furthers its interests. Of the six players most directly involved in the confrontation — Israel, Hezbollah, Hamas, Syria, Iran and the elected Palestinian government — the only one with which we talk is the one with which we agree. As a result, the United States, facing one of the more severe crises in decades, has been missing in action. Watching the United Nations from the sidelines, it has subcontracted diplomacy in a region it deems vital to a party it doesn’t trust.
American diplomacy should focus on immediate reciprocal and verifiable cease-fires, prisoner swaps, preliminary steps toward Hezbollah’s demilitarization and, on the Palestinian side, allowing the Hamas government to govern by easing the financial boycott. This cannot work without engaging Syria and Iran and renewing efforts to establish a comprehensive peace. None of this will be easy or tidy. But it is certainly preferable to a policy that in one breath tells innocent civilians that our thoughts are with them, and in another that the time for a cease-fire has not yet come. Our thoughts they can do without. It’s action they need.
— ROBERT MALLEY, the director of the Middle East Program at the International Crisis Group.

More Humor…

Beltway Provides More Fodder
Your author noticed that Washington response to Israel has been rather quiet. It is an election year and that certainly is an influential factor. To her credit Democrat Florida Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz issued the following statement on July 13.
"I am following the rapidly changing events in the Middle East with deep concern, and I want you to know that as your representative in Congress, I will always use my platform to help advance the prospects for peace and security for Israel."

"The recent escalation of unprovoked attacks against the government and people of Israel is unacceptable and represents a very troubling deterioration of stability within the region. The first duty of a government is to protect its citizens, and I stand by Israel’s right to defend herself against these acts of aggression."

"Hezbollah’s capture of Israeli soldiers was unprovoked and only escalates the tension among all nations involved. I call on the governments of Iran, Lebanon and Syria, who have influence over the fate of the captured Israeli soldiers, to secure their immediate and unconditional release. Any nation that refuses to act against terrorist networks stands as a willing accomplice. The world community must be unified in its condemnation of these acts of aggression against Israel."

"We must send a strong message that our South Florida Jewish community stands with Israel during this tense and difficult time."

Schultz is best known for launching a speech in the House that criticized the federal government’s response to the Terry Schiavo ‘right to life’ plight. I find it strange that someone would launch their career with such passion on whether the feeding tube should be pulled for a comatose woman while her mother and father wish to care for her. She also supports banning offshore oil drilling despite the fact that America desperately needs a fresh crude strike and hopefully lessening the nation’s dependency on oil produced in such countries as Iran. Now couple with this with her stance on what she has deemed inflated gas prices. Her office supports oil companies disclose their pricing techniques. She fails to take in refinery capacity, oil supply and current demand along with prices impacted by futures trading pits. She also believes in economic protectionism or what amounts to such with regards to jobs in the United States. In other words don’t let Mrs. Schultz support for Israel fool you.

Speaking of Demo-Wimps, three others popped up and made the following statements:

"What's going on in the Middle East today" wouldn't be happening if the Democrats were in power” Howard Dean, Chairman Democratic National Party.

No a Demo-Wimp president would be haggling with the United Nations to determine when would be an ideal time to meet for lunch to discuss Iran. Then afterwards they would throw their hands up in the air when a goal wasn’t established and then deploy US troops to Lebanon to hand out bags of rice as bombs were blazing next to them. Who knows that President may cough up a stipend in the billions to payoff (extortion) that country’s threats and attempts ala Bill Clinton and North Korea.

The most cantankerous of all Demo-Wimps, no not Ted Kennedy, Senator Joseph Biden of Delaware told “Meet The Press” when asked last month if he would support troop deployment to Iran. Biden responded [only if the Iranians went] "full-speed-ahead with their program to build a nuclear bomb." In others only when a bomb is built so that it could be detonated on the world but not until then. No, no matter how much money they flow to Hezbollah, Hamas or any other Muslim extremist group content with destroying the world. No, not even then but let them advance their science and technology with Ahmadinejad’s finger on the button to launch it, then and only then will Biden support taking a pro-active step. No only when Hitler takes over Great Britain and is bombing the shores of United States’ East Coast will Biden react. However by then it will be too late.

Another focus by the media has been the displaced Americans caught in Lebanon. I have to wonder why thousands of Americans decided to take a vacation to Lebanon. Whatever the reasons cannot explain why individuals with assumed capable minds and cognitive thinking would venture to a country that just a year ago was occupied by Syria. Whatever the answer is, it doesn’t matter to old man Demo-Wimp Harry Reid who isn’t happy about the military’s response in getting them out of Lebanon. Reid responded to cameras stating that the handling of the Lebanon evacuation was “mini Katrina” in reference to Hurricane Katrina and New Orleans. Never mind the fact we are discussing a war zone and Katrina was a act of nature that played out on the Weather Channel long before hitting The Big Easy and residents making a conscience decision to stay behind for the fun.

And on the international front, well France’s President and Le Wimp Jacques Chirac issued a call for ceasefire and that only then, when everything is secure, will the big bad French troops be deployed to assist in relief. No we won’t assist our allies nor attempt to take substantial steps to knock out terrorism, despite having the streets of Paris filled with rioting Muslim youth back in 2005. Maybe when Iran’s Ahmadinejad points the nukes toward Europe Chirac and others will see the light.

Surprise, Surprise!

Something that is not related to the main topic but very funny given the Demo-Wimps attempt to garner Latino voters as it relates to illegal immigration-

Guess who received the National Hispanic Youth Initiative Award for Leadership? Was it Ted Kennedy from Massachusetts, Nancy Pelosi of California or Demo-Wimp chief Howard Dean? Wrong on any of your choices, it was former House Speaker and leader of the 1994 Republican revolution Newt Gingrich.

7/21/2006 12:13:00 PM
To: National Desk, Health Reporter
Contact: Megan Meehan of Center for Health Transformation

WASHINGTON, July 21 /U.S. Newswire/ -- Center for Health Transformation Founder Newt Gingrich has been honored by the Interamerican College of Physicians and Surgeons (ICPS), receiving the National Hispanic Youth Initiative Award for Leadership at the ICPS National Hispanic Youth Initiative Leadership Banquet, held on the evening of July 19, in Washington, D.C.

The National Hispanic Youth Initiative Award for Leadership was established by the Interamerican College of Physicians and Surgeons in order to recognize those individuals whose exceptional accomplishments and service set the standard for Hispanic students to emulate.
Dr. Rene Rodriguez, president, Interamerican College of Physicians and Surgeons, introduced and presented the Leadership Award to Speaker Gingrich at a dinner for the 2006 NHYI Scholars. Following the award ceremony, Gingrich spoke about current healthcare trends to an audience that included more than 100 Hispanic high school students, emphasizing the importance of careers in health-related fields as vital to America's continued prosperity and to the creation of a 21st Century Intelligent Health System.

Speaker Gingrich encouraged the Youth Leadership Banquet's attendees to focus on five rules for living: dream big, work hard, learn every day, enjoy life and be true to yourself. "If you don't dream big while you are young, you will never dream big when you're older. Have the courage to dream big," said Speaker Gingrich. He called on the students in the audience to challenge themselves to make the world a better place, encouraging them to make a commitment to transforming health and healthcare. "You could be the generation that makes an enormous difference -- really angels of health," he said.
-----
Tomorrow I will throw out my thoughts on the leftism in Central and South America coupled with the controversial election in Mexico and the tornado surrounding Senator Joseph Lieberman and support from the Clinton regime. Thanks for viewing this very long entry.

Beating Around The Bush

2006-06-28T16:45:00.000-07:00

Why on earth would a group of Haitians with nothing better to do than play like they are terrorist do so given the priority of post 9-11 national security? Well if convicted they will have a few decades to think about.

A group of seven Miami misfits decided to boast to an FBI informant their allegiance to al-Quaida and now some in the mainstream media are stating that the task of prosecuting such figures is a joke. The Oregonian, a notoriously left wing publication, has even gone so far as to say if these individuals had jobs with the blah- blah (over the top per hourly wage for flipping burgers, healthcare, free housing, etc) that they would not have been congregating. Needless to say this side of the coin did not acknowledge the possibility that other Muslim terrorist cells (genuine or not) operating in North America may think twice about who they are chatting with and the actual content of their conversations.

The arrest of these persons may have been an attempt to steer away from The New York Times’ (along with The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post and Los Angeles Times) article that ran days prior. In summary the article detailed what is known as The Bank Secrecy Act, which is a portion of the overall security package known as The Patriot Act. The Bank Act was groundbreaking in the scope and field of investigations as it relates to questionable financial transactions. Items such as large cash deposits or odd depository trends fall under The Act’s discerning eye. Additionally the SWIFT (Society of Worldwide Inter-bank Financial Telecommunication) network of Belgium was being used to monitor transactions. These tools allow the federal government greater monitoring capabilities than ever before.

This all sounds fine and dandy, right? It should appear on the up and up unless one is engaged in questionable activities. Unfortunately this is not shared with several in the big media machine. The Times and others felt it was necessary to throw a ‘big brother is watching’ and embrace ‘civil liberties’ spin with their reporting. However in their reporting they erred in two incidences. The first was that the FDIC, for those in Belle Glade that is the Federal Depository Insurance Corporation; a government agency that insures deposits in the event of a bank failure; has by law and a general responsibility to the public the authority to monitor banks through the Federal Reserve’s Comptroller of Currency division . It is a regular, often annual, occurrence for FDIC insured banks to be audited at the state and federal level. How many banks fall under the eye of the FDIC? Oh your author would claim 99% of them do. In other words the idea of the federal government having the ability and authority to monitor banking transactions is not some profound nugget of new information. Additionally in the matter of SWIFT, the organization is not some secretive group as The Times and others attempted to present.

The second failure of The Times and others was their inability to see the wide range of prosecutorial fodder that could be obtained with this measure. The last conviction of a crime boss in America, ‘Big Joey’ Massino of the Bonnano mafia family, was accomplished by the use of accountants and bank records. Not only does this authority allow effective evidence gathering in the war against terror but also in the pursuit and conviction of criminal figures and criminal groups.

In a move that surprised your author, President Bush fought back and publicly decried that the papers were acting irresponsible and endangering national security. Your author would like to see these publications come under a greater light and to determine if some of them have violated federal national security laws. Bush in what would be uncharacteristic of his administration could ban these papers from attending press briefings. Your author under The Infinite Speculator's essays section has already analyzed the likelihood that The Times and several of their competitors in the mainstream media print businesses are facing a hard road, which would explain some of their ridiculous assertions they have made against Republicans, Conservatives and The President in recent years. Speaking specifically of The Times and their continual lambasting of the President, the paper seems to glom onto the notion or idea of possessing the next Woodward and Bernstein and another Watergate is around the corner, even if we have to create it!

Whether he bans The Times or not will have little impact on what is becoming a noticeably bias media. They and others will continue to dance around the First Amendment to advance their agenda, while questioning the relevancy of other Amendments. No what Bush should do is close rank and stop the leaks that have plagued him the past several years (Scooter Libby-Valerie Wilson, internal problems at the CIA) and move forward. As my essay suggests these news agencies are doing a fine job of self-implosion. Then he can get back to focusing on terrorists- genuine threats or wannabe disenfranchised losers.

A national language with disasterous consequences.

2006-05-20T12:31:00.000-07:00

This week the Republicans have been busy in front of the cameras to propose a federal law that requires English to be the official American language. This is part of a puzzle that has exposed both political parties with the realization they have seriously erred in their caculation of the citizenry's attitude towards illegal immigrants and immigration reform. Your author commented that the only viable, albeit radical, solution is to build a wall on the southern border with several gates that allow a set number of immigrants to pass through. Additionally current laws on books to hiring illegals should be enforced. However both parties played such games as employment tracks and cards that validated the illegal's indentification instead of listening to their constituency.

Senate minority leader Harry Reid, Democrat from Nevada, has describes the idea of a national language as being 'racist'. I don't think the idea is racist. It may be practical but not racists. The idea of a national language could come to bite America if Democrats are able to get back control of the Congress. Here is why...

Since 1969 with the passage of the Officials Language Act, Canada has had two official languages-French and English. Originally the national language was English. However Quebec and their influence over Ottawa allowed them to legalize French as the second national language. Now mind you only 23% of Canada's population speaks French. This legitimized and stoked the idea that French speaking province of Quebec should be independent. Thankfully, after decades of intense debate, the issue of independence for the province ended in 1995 when a referendum was voted down.

However despite winning the battle to secure Canada's national sovereignty, French and English languages were across the country. Because it was federal law everything from product labeling and signage were changed to incorporate both languages. All this did was guarantee an additional inflationary cost that was passed to the consumer. A cost that was not necessary and only coddled 23% of the population. It then took 25 years later to end the Quebec debate. If Quebec had been granted independence the end results would have been potentially disasterous-a new currency, a geographically divided country, a new government, etc.

Now back to the United States-if English is required as a national language and the Democrats do get a majority back in Congress; how quickly will Latino voters pursue the someone in the party to propose to institute a second national language? How many businesses and signs will be impacted? How much of a cost will be absorb by our wallets? How many states with a strong Spanish influence-primarily Florida, California and Texas will propose for independence after pushing Congress to pass a second national language? This may sound extreme or radical but so was the idea of an independent Quebec.

Thanks for reading.

Spying On Equal Justice

2006-05-12T06:09:00.000-07:00

It is old hat that Democrat Congressman Patrick Kennedy of Rhode Island dodged a serious bullet when he was able to skirt around his recent auto accident. The incident, which occurred during the wee morning hours of May 4th, caused Kennedy to reevaluate his life and enter a rehabilitation program. Kennedy had claimed that the prescription Ambien, a sedative to treat insomnia, caused him to dress himself and drive to the House before crashing his car.

What is truly sad with Kennedy is like his father, uncles and cousins before him-he is immune to prosecution. The US Capitol police did little to enforce the law by allowing Kennedy to leave, not administering a sobriety test or a trip to downtown booking. Back in July 1969 his father, Democrat Senator Ted Kennedy from Massachusetts, was able to run a car off of Chappaquiddick near Martha’s Vineyard, Cape Cod allowing Bobby Kennedy campaign aide Mary Jo Kopechne to drown. Kennedy was never charged or investigated for vehicular manslaughter. In fact he was nowhere to be found and only produce himself 24 hours later. Then in 1991, while taking in the sun at their Palm Beach estate, both father and son became members of central casting when Kennedy cousin Dr. William Kennedy Smith was charged with rape allegations. The Kennedy clan bonded together and Smith was later acquitted. During the trial one of the witnesses claimed she was chatting with Patrick Kennedy when an obvious intoxicated Ted Kennedy staggered in minus his trousers.

Three common threads link all Kennedys-substance abuse problems, immunity from U.S. state and federal laws and big money that allows them to live in a bubble. Your author has long been critical of the family spurned from the seed of former bootlegger Joe Kennedy. However even sadder is that Patrick Kennedy used the ‘gotcha’ and what should have been an arrest to martyr him in many ways by announcing he will enter rehab, thus joining many others who struggle with addiction. In other words it wasn’t bad enough that he was above the law now he will use this scandal as an attempt to relate to the ‘common man’. It’s get better, the Democrat Party has announced they will support Kennedy and his reelection bid. Your author wonders why Rhode Island continues to elect this pompous brat. Then again he also wonders about the good folks of Massachusetts as it relates to his father. He is still waiting for the answer.

Conservative talk radio Godfather Rush Limbaugh on the other hand was able to buy his way out from prosecution. Prior to Kennedy’s recent fiasco, Limbaugh agreed to one count of doctor shopping in what appears to be a weak case brought forth by Florida’s States Attorney involving Limbaugh and his addiction to prescription painkillers. Limbaugh will continue addiction counseling and agreed to a thirty thousand dollar fine. While he was able buy his way out on what were some serious felony charges, Limbaugh is not an elected official unlike Kennedy.

Meanwhile the debate rages on whether how intrusive the federal government should become in this era of national security concerns. The Bush administration along with the National Security Agency (NSA), within the jurisdiction of federal laws, has been compiling phone records. This is all under the cloak of national security and terrorism.

The biggest critics have been the big left leaning media machine and the Democrat party. While both love to conjure up references to George Orwell's 1984 and Democrat Senator Dianne Feinstein of California assures America that the NSA and the Fourth Ammendment-protection against illegal search and seizure-will face a showdown; the Infinite Speculator wonders where was this hysteria and concern when then First Lady Hillary R. Clinton set up an exploratory committee to contemplate the implementation of nationalized healthcare. One of the big criticisms of such proposal, besides the fact that the consumer would not have a choice, was that the federal government would have access to personal medical records. Where was the Democrat Party, Los Angeles Times or the New York Times then? They were too busy debating the merit of this so called 'bold attempt' by an unconventional First Lady. She was unconventional for a role that has no official power and for also being the first to occupy such position while she and the sitting President obviously practised an 'open marriage' given the number of countless allegations of adultery. I digress....

To no surprise the media machine and Democrat Party players miss the boat when comes to the NSA, war on terror, national security and general concerns of the average American. The citizenry that votes and pays taxes while not living in a protective bubble found in Los Angeles, San Francisco, Boston or Manhattan. According to the May 12, 2006 Washington Post-an ABC News poll found that 66% of their surveyed audience were not bothered by the NSA probing into phone records and found this manner of investigation to be acceptable. Then the shocker that 51% approved or did not object on how the Bush administration was handling privacy matters.

So there you have it-Democrats hide behind The Constitution when it benefits them, big media will fruitlessly fuel fires while disguising them as intelligent debate and once again when combined both entities fail to convey the heartbeat of the United States. Of course phone records and national security don't apply to the Kennedy clan- they can weasel, squirm and buy their way out of any situation. For the rest of us who don't vacation on a six acre waterfont compound located at Hyannis, Cape Cod or spend our winters overlooking the blue Atlantic Ocean at a Palm Beach, FL estate, I'm glad someone is looking after our national safety. It is, sadly, quite obvious who isn't sharing our concerns.

Success & Disaster: Natural Progression

2006-04-22T09:46:00.000-07:00

In a previous blog your author saluted the achievements of magazine pioneer and profile in Black American success John Johnson. It pleased your author this week when he read this -Black-owned businesses in America grew 45% from 1997-2002, as indicated by the US Census Bureau. Most of these entities appear to be self-proprietorships or businesses with just one or two employees. Additionally according to the Census Bureau the majority of these businesses are found in New York, California, Florida, Georgia and Texas. Your author again salutes Black achievement in making solid inroads in the free market system.

Now with this great news what has been the response by the so-called Black leadership? Your author will identify them as the following: NAACP, Louis Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam and Rev. Jesse Jackson of the Rainbow PUSH Coalition. Why not? This is a group, minus Rev. Al Sharpton, that makes the headlines. Well strangely enough, following a review of their respective web pages, your author could find no mention of this profound declaration of Black achievement.

NAACP's webpage greeted the author with continual references to the aftermath caused by Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans and concerns over Medicaid/Medicare. The civil rights group also stated that race and urban location may be a factor when attempting to gain access to healthcare, according to a report labeled NAACP Urges Passage of Tri-Caucus Healthcare Legislation to Address Disparities Affecting Racial and Ethnic Minority Americans. To their credit the group is actively attempting to bus in displaced New Orleans natives to vote in their mayoral election.

Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam (NOI.org) greets the viewer with the Minister's recent visit to Cuba. The photo shows a smiling Farrakhan shaking hands with Cuban dictator Fidel Castro. The visit was described as being 'anticipated and successful'. While shaking hands with the dictator, who has caused his island country to fall near the brink of poverty in his failed socialist revolution, Farrakhan felt it necessary to remind everyone in attendence that President Bush had declined Cuba's offer of 1,600 doctors to assist in the Hurricane Katrina aftermath. Minister Farrakhan was part of a twenty three member group in Havana to study disaster relief preparedness. Since I have experienced several hurricanes in the past I can probably could have spared NOI a plane ticket and told Farrakhan-leave, leave long before the storm hits the shore. I can only wonder if the Minister was able to travel outside Havana and see the impoverished conditions of Cuba?

Farrakhan summed up his visit in an essay entitled The Good Samaritan; A study of Cuba. He praised Cuba's response to hurricanes, noting that there had been no loss of life or property damage. Well Minister Farrakhan would Cuba even bother reporting on a death toll? More importantly when the rank and file of the island's citizenry live in huts how can one assess property damage? Yes I know Minister this doesn't compare to the greatest nation that has allowed you and the NOI exist compared to Cuba, where the self appointed dictator would have shut the lights out of an organization such as yours and where they have no freedom. Farrakhan then went on to say that the United States was a Christian hypocrite, who hated their neighbor because they are socialist. No, quite the opposite Minister, asked the Cuban refugees, those who lived and died coming to America. They hate Castro and his legacy of poverty. You see Minister freedom to these refugees is worth dying for, better to die free then live under a regime. This is a point obviously not considered during your rant.

While over at Rev. Jackson's Rainbow PUSH Coalition's site, where the viewer is greeted with a flash of photos showing Jackson through the years, nothing is mentioned on the Census Bureau report. The 'good Reverend' who counseled then President Clinton during his adultery fiasco with a White House intern while he had fathered an out of wedlock child himself, is having his crew rally behind trying to change Medicare drug reform. Minister Farrakhan states we don't take care of our own in the realm of healthcare while the NAACP and Jackson believe more should be done, you decide. Reverend Jackson reminds the reader that on April 29th (go grab a pen and paper to jot this down) he will be marching in New York City for 'peace, justice and democracy'. Here is a clue Reverend, America is the poster boy for all three and only in a free nation can you demonstrate, a point you appear to have forgotten. Finally Jackson has penned an essay relating to the recent Duke University lacrosse team case, where a stripper has claimed she was raped and yet there is no DNA evidence to substantiate these claims. Your author only scanned through the essay, it brings up facts that are not relevant to the case. Ten to one says if Duke donates to Rainbow PUSH Coalition, Jackson and his crew will head back to Chicago. Any takers?

Each of these groups have been critical of the Bush administration and their handling of the New Orleans Hurricane Katrina disaster relief. Your author has already commented on this at the time it transpired. However it was the failures of the New Orleans local government, led by Mayor Ray Nagin and Louisiana governorKathleen Babineaux Blanco along with social welfare state that plagues the state that should be placed under the microscope. What did they want the Bush team to do? Some have said send military troops. This cannot simply be accomplished, not according to the US Constitution (a document that enables these critics) as it states in Amendment III.

No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Now whether or not any of these groups, individuals or other groups critical of the President were aware of this is secondary. It is obvious that most of these fringe operators, which is also quickly encompassing the mainstream media, are clueless to this important document. No what is important with this post is to demonstrate how out of touch the so-called Black leadership (identified by the mainstream media as such) with Black America. Call it that small voice inside your author's head but something tells him that the 1.2 million businesses owned by Black entrepreneurs, churning out $89 billion in revenues, that grew at a rate 45% from 1997-2002, aren't paying Jackson, Farrakhan and the NAACP much attention. They have realized it is achieved by one and not a group, which is what socialism prescribes in its bare essence.

For the record here are the statistics for 1997-2002.

• The number of all U.S. businesses grew by 10% to about 23 million.
• The number of businesses owned by women grew by 20% to 6.5 million.
• The number of businesses owned by men grew by 16% to 13.2 million.
• The number of Hispanic-owned businesses grew by 31% to nearly 1.6 million.
• The number of businesses owned by white entrepreneurs grew by 8% to 19.9 million.

Black entrepreneurs owned 1.2 million companies in 2002, or about 5% of nonfarm businesses. Hispanics owned about 7% and women of all races and ethnicities owned 28% (US Census Bureau).

Upon reading the press release for this fantastic news Commerce Department's Minority Business Development Agency chief Ronald Langston commented and I will conclude with his words: "We do have challenges. We are making progress, this is the real challenge: to move these smaller businesses into the next step of growth."

These are genuine results, true achievement and tangible evidence of Black America; not the rhetoric and balderdash spread by these press dubbed 'leaders' for their followers are becoming fewer and far between.

infinitespeculator.com

Clinton and Cruise-Reality Check

2006-04-15T12:10:00.000-07:00

A few days back Senator (D-NY) Hillary R. Clinton, a mover and shaker within a dismal political party, said the following regarding potential threats to the US's current robust economy:
"skyrocketing health-care costs, widening trade and budget deficits and disappearing middle-class jobs."

The health care moment was a mere recollection back to her first few days as the First Lady. It was then that Senator Clinton formed an 'exploratory committee' to entertain the idea of socialized medicine. Fortunately is much to do about nothing especially when it became obvious that an overwhelming of Americans were not in favor of such program. Anytime an American proponent of socialized medicine suggests we must have such programs everyone who values good and sound healthcare must asked themselves the following-'has this person ever lived in a society where such program has been enacted and what have been the long-term consequences'. Without a doubt your author can assure you they have not and such programs produce long term bleeding spicket effects. Often times patients, who have no choice other than to do without, are left to die literally waiting in line. Doctors and other healthcare professionals flee the country for other places that do not have such social programs and wages are competitive. Socialized medicine caps earnings potential and research flounders, there are no initatives.

The growing US trade defecit, which to hear Clinton like minded folks speak of just popped up overnight, has long been a problem with the States. However a large portion of this deficit is due to imported oil. How to solve this problem? Well you can opt out for alternative energy, which has made significant progress in recent years or we can drill off our coasts. The problem with the latter are environmentalist types that are from the same ilk as Clinton.

The budget defecits can be resolved by overhauling the complex and inefficient tax code that is presently in place. One school of thought is a fixed income tax. Yet another is a national sales tax coupled by repealing any income tax. While both have their merits and are better than the current chaotic system, a consumer driven economy should be driven with a consumer tax. Yet neither of these suggestions made so much a consideration during the eight years of the Clintons. Now discussion of such items is more commonplace and it is only a matter of time.

When asked about the current financial crisis happening at General Motors, Ms. Clinton was asked if the federal government should step in and assume GM's mounting pension debt. Her reply: "the government could help by relieving some of the costs auto companies bear for retiree health care in return for getting them to 'expedite a move toward energy efficient products'.''

As always Ms. Clinton offers no solution to what is going to become a serious quagmire in the future for many key industry players. She believes in creating a bigger welfare pool instead of overhauling current pension laws. Of course this all based on cow dung (methane) operated automobiles. However the energy need and price incline was never addressed during her eight years as First Lady. No instead everything was just fine while gas sat at less than a dollar per gallon.

Once again Ms. Clinton has provided no answers. Although not officially declared, Ms. Clinton is thought to be a guaranteed nominee for the Democrat party in the 2008 presidential election. Who would elect her? Only to see Billy ride in again with his gaggle of misfits including but not limited to Robert Reich, Madeline "Put America Last" Albright, Janet "Ms. Indecisive" Reno, Leon Panetta, Warren "Lawyer Hack" Christopher along with any leftovers nuked from the Carter administration?

A Not So Silent Hypocrite

Famed Hollywood star and practising scientologist Tom Cruise has said he will allow his girlfriend actress Katie Holmes to use painkillers during the birth of their child. This contradicts his previous criticism of actress Brooke Shields and her use of ant-depressants during episodes of post natal depression. Scientology practises or at least claims to practise 'silent birth' void of little medical interaction.

Holmes had to disavow her Catholic faith to be the lovely side companion to the popular Cruise. The actor, who your author has previously stated lacks true theatatrical talent and only possesses pretty boy charm, clearly stated that he and Holmes are pure Scientologists. Miss Holmes' family is said to be skeptical of Cruise, his religion and having a child out of wedlock.

Finally it should be noted that Scientology was founded by L. Ron Hubbard. He was a known liar when it came to academia claims, authored several fictional works centered around the pulp era of writing and later became a bit of a self improvement guru. Later in life, after having founded Scientology, he created his greatest achievement as a widely distributed author. It should be noted that his works were aimed directly at his followers, which provided an immediate albeit small in size audience.

Unions Rightfully Sold Down The River, Si Senor!

2006-04-11T17:31:00.000-07:00

Today your author read where Transport Workers Union Local 100 President Roger Toussaint may find himself in the pokey. As many recall it was Toussaint that led the transit strike in New York metro despite warnings from a judge and Mayor Michael Bloomberg. The final gavel, besides the insignificant lingering 10 day trip behind bars and $1,000 fine, will be when Toussaint signs the check for the $3 million fine imposed on his union by the district court.

Let us recall what the union wanted-a significant increase in pay and paid healthcare insurance. During the 60 hour strike MTA union members created an internet message board to get a feel for their support from New Yorkers. A summary could be described as follows: "Get back to work! I wish I made what you are asking along with the 100% paid healthcare benefits! Public transportation 'ain't' cheap!" The majority of combined responses did not support their strike. Needless to say this was a serious blow to the rank and file when they quickly realized a potentially nasty public would be facing them upon their return.

Organized labor has been on a fast and slippery downhill decline for the past thirty years. In the decades prior to modern day labor law they did serve a useful purpose. This was when men and children worked 80 hours for peanuts (sounds similar to the current labor pools that can be found in China). However in this day and age of global competition they should be relegated to a museum along with the buggy whip and carriage.

Unions themselves hold much of the blame as the guilty party for throwing such cities as Cleveland, Detroit, Rochester, Buffalo, Toledo and Gary, Indiana into forms that are mere shells of their former selves. Detroit and Cleveland in particular have experienced a severe economic downturns as industry no longer to compensate higher demands from unions seek shelter or cease to exist. Competition is everywhere-academia, athletics and industry. Labor pricing is not immune to this element.

What the rank and file of any union should be asking themselves is not whether to strike or not, that will only accelerate the downhill pace of decline but rather what has the union done for them. By all evidence the union body has done next to nothing while the inevitable became a reality. Thousands of union members have stipends from their paycheck deducted on a regular basis. These funds are sent to the governing union body. What is facilitated by this extracted annuity? It isn't benefits packages or retirement, no the vast majority goes straight to political contributions. The National Institute of Labor determined that in 2004 $925 million of these dues were sent to political causes, most notably the Democrat Party. One would think that for their hard earned money they would have invested it wisely but that is not the case as Republicans continue to take the lionshare of political moxi. Not since the Nixon reelection campaign of 1972 have significant amounts from organized labor been funneled to the Republicans.

Due to the exborbitant demands placed on industries by the unions the need for practical and cheaper labor became critical. This is where big labor gets it wrong. For they are, whether they admit this or not, pure socialist. The big unions either believe it or try their best to sell that somehow they are entitled to more than a fair share of the profits generated by their employers. This is a mere 'redistribution of wealth', a fancy descriptive for socialism and social welfare. The phrase harped on to ad nauseum by New York Democrat Senator Hillary Clinton. With this type of thought process or belief system only two things will transpire for the long term-businesses cease to invest because their is no incentive thus causing them to become obsolete or they shut down.

Now consider the current immigration fiasco that neither party is willing to touch and at best can barely look at it with their eyes wide open. As stated the wave of foreign workers, illegal and legal, spurned out of the necessity for cheaper labor. Democrats (often fundamentally socialist leaning) will say 'the rich fat cat executives only want to get rich and care little for the workers'. Well yes they want to get rich, a fundamental principle of capitalism and free markets. However the portrayal of downtrodden workers at the hands of a rich overlord harkens back to the era Charles Dickinson and the early industrial age. As previously stated modern federal labor laws have addressed these ills. In other words the Democrat Party and big labor's argument are antiquated and at best have little relevancy.

Your author listened to Massachusetts Senator and Democrat Party icon Ted Kennedy attempt to affect a Spanish accent while addressing a group of Latino protestors. Senator John McCain, who barely cuts the mustard as a Republican, joined Kennedy in an attempt to institute new immigration policies, which amounted to a load of loopholes and delegitimizing of the foreign worker visa program, that fortunately failed to pass the Senate.

If big labor is losing clout by the handfuls with each passing election year and Senator Kennedy is doing his best, albeit comically, to resonate with Latino supporters who wish decriminalize illegal passage into the United States; then who is looking after the rank and file of organized labor? In other words why hasn't the Democrats been asked this by the same union that has been historically a guaranteed cash cow?

For more fun facts about the truths and organized labor, check out Union Facts.

Critical Update

2006-04-10T16:43:00.000-07:00

Just when your author was about to say something redeeming about France, Chirac goes and blows it for him. Your author mistakenly thought France had teeth behind the recent labor law that allowed employers the right to fire employees that were 26 and younger. Now things have changed dramatically with French President Jacques Chirac pulling a 180 and yanking the law, bowing to protestors. Hey let's institute some economic reform, better not have any protestors or we will fold to the pressure of whining college students.

If a few protestors, your author has it under good authority that the number was significantly exaggerated by the American media machine, can thwart off attempts for the French government to institute labor laws and attempt to improve their production; then how well have they dealt with the prior riots involving Muslim youth? Your author would be willing to bet the farm if he owned one that little has been done to prevent another bonfire from occurring. France crumbled and only a negative impact has been left. Say au revoir to civility and bonjour to future calamities and socio-catastrophes!

Meanwhile the media has been filling the waves with blow by blow coverage of the Italian election. Your author has commented enough on the prior two most recent entries and will spare his audience. Whether the incumbent narrowingly takes the cake or the left leaning Romano Prodi is given the honours, there is no solution and appears to be none on the horizon.

If you listened to American media you would think that the domestic society is on the near of collapse following the Senate's failure to pass serious immigration reform coupled with the Latino led protests. What exactly are they protesting, one is not sure and their opinions take two sides. One such side is for what is comparable to amnesty while the other is declaring tough immigration laws. Some of the more brazen protestors brought out the flag of Mexico, which in your author's opinion must symbolize some pride or patriotism. However why do the protestors identify with the flag of a country they in all actuality are fleeing from? Someone must have said 'best not to fly that too high'. These protestors bring out the best and clearly can be seen as a tool for the left. From what your author gathered the majority of them have been ditching free public education or college courses to get in front of the television screen. Sounds like they may have some French revolutionists on their side.

Politicians, Promises and Pork

2006-04-08T17:07:00.000-07:00

A few things of interest.

Le Miserables Is Miserable
The death of socialism proves to be a long and dangerous road. In France students are protesting, which has gone from demonstrations to rioting. The country passed legal measures that allow businesses to fire workers under the age of 26 without having to negotiate with a union or offer severance compensation. In other words allow business owners to be true business owners. The outcome from the citizenry have been predictable. They are in essence protesting their ‘right’ to engage in poor work performance and laziness. Surprisingly the French government bit down and refused to grant concessions. Now contrast this with what is going on in America. The illegal immigrant problem, which stems primarily to the lack enforcement with America-Mexico border, derives their problem with those who want to work.

All Eyes On Mollohan. Who?
Who is Mollohan? Well he is West Virginia Dem. Congressman Alan Mollohan. One could speculate that Mollohan may fill the shoes for the long time West Virginia Senator Robert Byrd, formerly of the KKK. While the Democrats are grabbing for anything to stick to President Bush-the Abramoff scandal, the war in Iraq, his low approval numbers Scooter Libby and the list goes on-Mollohan may prove to be the most irreprehensible of them all if the allegations are true. One would have to comb the Wall Street Journal to find the entire story and predictably the big media machine of America provides a different angle. With editorials railing against Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Condi Rice and what they had for breakfast; they have yet to voice their concerns with Mollohan.

As representative Tom DeLay opted not to seek re-election, which caused a fizzle in the Democrat party’s war chest, Mohollan has declared he will not step down from Congress’s ethics committee. Nancy Pelosi, Democrat party top dog, has refused to address this dilemma.

Just who is Rep. Alan Mollohan? Well the twelve term congressman has been able to slip or ‘earmark’ funds for special pet projects in his home state. The funding, a total of $178 million in the past five years, facilitated the nonprofit institution that have spurned job growth. Sounds great, right? This would be nice except for Mrs. Laura Kuhns. She heads up the nonprofit group known as Vandalia Heritage Foundation. The group is financed from the funds that Holloran was able to steer towards his state. Vandalia along with several nonprofits Kuhns heads up are overseeing the construction of the Institute for Scientific Research, which is located in Fairmont, WV. It should be noted that, according to The Journal, Kuhns earns a salary of $102,000 from her nonprofit work and is a former Mollohan staffer.

While Mollohan may appear to wash the backs of this former staffer with his ability to land financing, his is equally clean and with great reward. Mollohan and his wife are partnered with Kuhns and her husband on several real estate partnerships. These include ones located on Bald Head Island, NC that are valued at around $2million (tax assessed). Furthermore rental income from these properties has allowed the Mollohans to invest in other properties on their own. It should be noted, according to The Journal, that none of the properties were located in the Congressman’s home state.

Strangely enough Mollohan has only now stated he become aware of an investigation into his financial transactions. He had previously garnered mentioning when it was revealed that ill famed lobbyist Jack Abramoff’s MZN, Inc, which sought to win influence regarding the Native American casino industry. Mollohan returned the donation. Former Republican Congressman Randall Cunningham of California was sentenced to prison for his role in the scandal. Tom DeLay, Texas Congressman and Republican majority leader, has agreed not to seek reelection. Republican Congressman Bob Ney still may answer to charges. Louisiana Democrat Congressman Thomas Jefferson is still being investigated for his role.

However the press was quick to demonize DeLay, although his charges are about the misappropriation of campaign funds, they cheered when Cunningham was sent off and Ney has already been convicted by them. Additionally the Democrats have sung the same song as well, often screaming cronyism and signs of the supposed ‘corrupt’ Bush party. However when Republican House Speaker Dennis Hastert called for Mollohan to step down from the House’s ethics committee. Democrat Congresswoman of California and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi has refused to address the Mollohan’s investigation. Instead and predictably, she said the following:

"Speaker Hastert and his Republican cohorts are responsible for the most corrupt Congress in history, and the American people are paying the price at the gas pump, at the pharmacy and with record-high deficits," Pelosi countered. "The speaker should join me in directing the ethics committee to get to work, and not cast aspersions on the independent and distinguished ranking member."

Part of Pelosi’s anger and denial to address this issue, which if anything questions the concept of ‘arm’s length transaction’ and ‘conflict of interest’, could be the continual slipping slope that the Democrats find themselves in at the present time. She can only criticize and rant against her enemies while shushing her party’s own dirty laundry under the rug. Another aspect is that presently Mollohan faces electoral competition in what is being watched as a key state for the 2006 election. In 2004 George W. Bush swept the state with 56% voting for him. Senator Robert Byrd will enjoy yet again an election year where he faces no competition. If and when the allegations levied against Mohollan ever make it to the front pages and when West Virginian voters see how rich he has become under questionable business transactions, while their state ranks third in per capita income; only then (hopefully) he will be denied Byrd’s heir apparent role. However I would not expect him to retire back to his home state, as his financial disclosure form indicates, Mohollan and his wife can enjoy their real estate spoils on their oceanfront home dubbed the Peppervine House, located on Bald Head Island and not on Mountain Mama.

Italy: Arrivederci!
In a previous blog post the Infinite Speculator criticized the people of Italy and their leaders for their inability to address hard economic reform, scanning through The Economist your author came across the article entitled Basta, Berlusconi (4/6/06 issue).

While the magazine, which has provided your author with great investment ideas in the past, has always been a critic of Berlusconi; they fail to address the seriousness of country’s woes. They cite Berlusconi’s ethics and domination in Italian media, but it would take a success story from the private sector to pull a 180 for the country. They then went on to provide scant detail, very scant detail, regarding Berlusconi and the mafia. I find this strange because while under Berlusconi the camorra (Mainland Italy’s equivalency to the Sicilian mafia.), prosecution and searching down wanted fugitives have hit a feverish pitch but I digress.

The Economist describes Berlusconi’s tenure as a failure. It may have been a failure in the conventional and immediate sense but what is the true failure is the rolling ball of chaos Italy has become at the present. Whether if it was Berlusconi or Il Duce, no elected figure and their party could have curbed what took place in 2005-zero economic growth and growing dependence on the state facilitated welfare system.

However a reformist or at least one that is suitable to The Economist is nowhere to be found, nor to your author for that matter. Berlusconi will probably lose to Romano Prodi, former prime minister and his centre left opponent. Prodi’s crowning achievement was ushering Italy into the Euro currency. This did force Italy to take some serious fiscal reform but later as president of the EU, Prodi proved ineffective and watched as the economic group, which was originally founded on the idea of sound currency, morph into the protectors of socialism. Additionally Prodi, if he wins, will be dependent on a coalition of smaller political parties for support. He will need to grant concessions to Fausto Bertinotti, leader of the Communist Party.

By all accounts the Italian citizenry is unaware of just how bad their economic scene has become. This may prove to be the saddest aspect of them all, especially when one considers Italy is deemed crucial for Europe’s economy, as their country slips into an economic abyss of the likes the EU may not be equipped to handle.

I need surgery-let’s go to Mass
As your author has demonstrated with various essays and opinion blogs, socialism for the long haul almost always fall flat on its face. Economies going on all cylinders could be flying on rocket fuel if they threw off the shackles of socialism. It is the economic theory that wedges between capitalism and communism, attempting to draw upon both. One of traditional hallmarks of socialism has been socialized medicine.

The state of Massachusetts has all but finalized a law, which Republican governor and possible 2008 presidential contender, Mitt Romney has said he will support that will require medical coverage. The government mandated health insurance programs currently in existence is one of the reasons the problems with insurance costs exist however your author will save his assessment until the close of this posting.

What the law states, in layman’s terms, is that employers who do not offer coverage must pay an annual fee of $295 per person. Additionally all others who can afford, must pay for coverage and those who don’t but can, will be fined $1,000. For perspective, the per capita income for 2004 was $42,102 (wikipedia.org). The law allows for those living at $9,500 a year or less free coverage. Those that live at $48,000 or less with a family of three will also have access to free coverage. There is an estimated 500,000 uninsured, which is remarkable when one considers that the state’s population is 6,398,743 (2005).

Now let’s see some figures-

For scenario analysis let us assume that the 500,000 uninsured work for the same employer who pays the $295 per head, which equals $147million. Now according to Kaiser Family Foundation in 2005 single coverage costs nearly $8,000-10,000 per year. A $1,000 fine or $8,000-10,000 a year in coverage? Maybe the estimated 500,000 uninsured represents those who refuse to take on personal coverage this would mean $500 million in fines going straight to the politicians.

Finally for the drum roll-Mass lawmakers have already stated that the first year expected cost will be $316million, given that these are government estimates, one could safely put that figure north of $350millon. By the third year this will total $1billion and once again adjust the figure given the estimation's origin. Furthermore Mass will be eligible to receive a significant portion of funding coming from the federal government and existing state spending. Given the state's past and if this figure climbs higher at a breakneck pace, watch the state government levy additional taxes to compensate the ‘existing state spending’. This is merely a redistribution of wealth, whether it is in dollars or medical service.

While your author applauds the Massachusetts’ lawmakers for their bold attempts it would have been suitable to have this bill coupled with serious tort reform. Why? Well for starters trial lawyers have been getting rich with malpractice lawsuits and it comes at the expense of policy holders. Massachusetts legislators could have put out a referendum where voters could clearly state whether trial lawyers’ fees could be capped. The idea being that true victims of malpractice are justly compensated with a reasonable judgment instead of attaching millions on the original allegations. Maybe change malpractice cases so they would be decided by a judge and not an emotionally sympathetic jury or members of such pool that see ‘payday’ for the plaintiff?

What will become of the medical community? Will doctors and nurses, along with every other profession in the field, leave for states where theoretically their earnings aren’t capped? Don’t think it cannot happen. Currently in Canada doctors, nurses and such are moving to The States. Your author has encountered many our northern neighbors practicing in the field right in his backyard. Your author will throw out some free investment advice-buy stock in insurers and medical saving plans providers doing business in Canada. The government cannot run the system efficiently and more expenses are coming from out of the pockets of Canadians. This free market competition and capitalism 101.

Spiking Rates
Finally and a rather brief conclusion-the unemployment rate is now under 5% for the United States. The 5% is considered a benchmark and by all accounts the economy appears to be going into overdrive. This sounds good but full employment is considered and often results in higher than expected inflation. The Federal Reserve will continue to gradually raise rates in order to offset this assumed outcome of too few dollars buying too few goods. The dollar continues to ‘feel’ weaker and domestic equity markets are exhausting themselves to rally. The foreign markets-in particular the Nordic region, Asia, India and South America have been bull market strong. As the dollar falls in value foreign currencies' values rise, thus appreciation sets in. Investment advice-ditch many US equities and especially homebuilder stocks in favor of commodities and foreign markets. Your author thought that maybe the commodities bull market was slowing with supply ramping up except the demand has kept pace. Buy gold, silver, lead or Japan-just buy!

Thanks for taking the time to read this abnormally long entry!

Infinitespeculator.com

Let Blonds Run The World

2006-04-03T17:07:00.000-07:00

Israel and Palestine-Stuck in the mud
By now most know that the Kadima Party has won the majority in the recent Israel elections. The Kadima party was a breakaway party formed by the now incapacitated Ariel Sharon. The party was able to convince some members of the Likud party (right) and Labor party (left) to join their camp in an effort to effectively address the Palestine situation after years of stalled efforts. Ehud Olmert will represent the majority.

The election was a bit of a disappointment producing very low voter turnout and Kadima did not win enough seats in their parliament to exert control. Olmert, who is currently the acting prime minister, needed at least 60 seats out of 120 in what may prove to be a deadlocked government.

Olmert will not only face the fractious representation but the Hamas controlled Palestinian government and by all outward appearances the peace process may be stalled for now. Olmert has already effectively been given a green light to release more of the West Bank and Gaza Strip settlements to the Palestinian authority. However upon hearing that Kadima would win enough seats to set the political tone for Israel, Hamas responded by declaring it would not negotiate and thus only proving that Palestine will only be satisfied once they have dominance over Israel.

If the peace process appears to be stalled, domestically things aren’t too rosy for Olmert and Kadima. They will have to negotiate and give concessions to Labor, which is led by Amir Peretz. Labor wishes to focus on Israel current stagnant economy and attempt to shore up social welfare programs.

In what appeared to have originally been a sign of progress, these election results have already laid the groundwork for what will be uncertain times for Israel. In what began as a significant progress under Sharon has now been forgotten and the Israel-Palestine conflict may be entering a new phase.

Italy-Just plain stuck
In 2001 Silvio Berlusconi became the prime minister of Italy along with center-right party, which captured nearly all representative seats. With an impressive lock on Italy’s political attitude Berlusconi, a billionaire media king, had promised sweeping economic reform. Few results were delivered and in 2005 Italy experienced zero economic growth. Berlusconi offered little in the way of explaining Italy’s economic woes and on a visit to Sicily, a political stronghold for his party, he urged voters not to believe the economic figures.

What should have happened was an overhaul of social reforms the likes the country has never seen in the past. Italy’s overall social and economic structure is saturated with entitlement programs, quotas and extreme government oversight. All this has achieved is the shoring up of small-time, specialty manufacturing that is being gobbled up by cheaper labor pools found in Asia. You can read what has become the inevitable in this article written by your author in August 2005.

What Italy should have done was build up their tourism, being that they are of historical significance and promoted their coastal region. The government could have slashed tax rates, which averages 23% for corporations and ranges from 23-43% for personal income. Then they could have promoted self directed private retirement funds thus curbing the reliance upon their pension for a graying population, a common problem facing most of Europe and finally opening up their banking sector to foreign institutions, thus allowing direct foreign investment.

However, none of these or any type of serious initiatives was proposed, despite the promises made by Berlusconi. If serious and genuine economic reform is not implemented and done so quickly, whether Berlusconi is reelected or not, Italy will face a far worse future.

Finally some humor
Your author could not end without a comment regarding Hollywood, a land of myth and fantasy. The Infinite Speculator wonders if the players themselves do not live in a fantasy land as well.

There are a group of actors who represent a looking good, big salary and little talent pack of pseudo thespians. In this group you could include Kim Basinger, Michelle Pfieffer, Sharon Stone (our subject) and Demi Moore. Now in all fairness their male counterparts include Alec Baldwin (once married to Basinger), Ben Affleck, Kevin Costner, Brad Pitt, Leonardo DiCaprio and Tom Cruise. In all only Tom Cruise is able to ring the register but still the talent is not there while the pretty boy charm and good looks are well placed. In the days of when studio heads controlled the film industry, which resulted in the delivery of a good product, few if any from this group would have made it. This is the same group that often finds themselves in movies that are based on previously done ‘works’ (a word I will use lightly). These fine films include Charlie’s Angels, Dukes of Hazzard, Mission Impossible, War of the Worlds and the Batman series, in other words crappy pseudo thespians for crappy films for the viewer at exorbitant ticket prices. This would probably explain why the Infinite Speculator cannot remember the last time he went to watch a movie at the cinema.

Back to Stone…

Sharon Stone is the personification of a ditzy blond. This past week she was quoted twice by the media. Here is one snippet as it relates to teens and sex:

"I was in the store the other day and I watched a young girl trying on clothes, showing her abdomen. Her mother was trying to talk to her about not being inappropriately luring. I said, 'Gee that would look much nicer with a camisole under.' "Her mother walked away, and I said to the girl, 'I'd like to give you a two-minute conversation about sex.' "Young people talk to me about what to do if they're being pressed for sex? I tell them (what I believe): oral sex is a hundred times safer than vaginal or anal sex. "If you're in a situation where you cannot get out of sex, offer a blow job. I'm not embarrassed to tell them." Source: NewsBusters.org March 28, 2006.

Who is Sharon Stone to give advice over a teen’s parent? Of course providing this claim of counseling actually occurred, which doesn’t seem likely. This from the woman whose greatest claim to cinematic contribution would be her panty-less crotch flash in the film Basic Instinct and several tawdry scenes with Joe Pesci in Casino. One can imagine she is falling back on her professional experience. Where are the feminists? Why can’t Stone say knee the guy in the crotch? Your author feels safe in believing this was just part of the marketing campaign for her newest release that will be discussed at the conclusion of this message.

Stone then was quoted for her expertise regarding the Presidential chances of New York senator Hillary Clinton (she appears to have dropped her maiden Rodham):

"I think Hillary Clinton is fantastic. But I think it is too soon for her to run. This may sound odd, but a woman should be past her sexuality when she runs. Hillary still has sexual power and I don't think people will accept that. It's too threatening." Source: PoliSat.com March 27, 2006.
This is where Sharon Stone lives up to my labeling her the personification of a ditzy blond. Stone believes sexuality or lack of should be a prerequisite for the highest elected office in America. She gets it wrong again with implying that Hillary Clinton has sexual power, alluding that she is sexy or ‘hot stuff’. The Infinite Speculator has yet to find someone else that shares Ms. Stone’s opinion. Maybe Ms. Stone was confused with the other half of the Clinton combine?

Alas an explanation may be provided for these ridiculous statements, words mind you that consumed precious oxygen to utter, for Ms. Stone was set for the release of Basic Instinct II. This must have been part of her marketing blitz. These words fell either on deaf ears or were met with laughter. The film, well it has been a flopped too and Ms. Stone’s career will predictably continue to slip, no matter how many times she flashes her crotch.

Infinitespeculator.com

Slick Willy chums it up across the pond.

2006-03-28T18:15:00.000-08:00

The Infinite Speculator recently read where a growing number of crystal meth addicts are coming from the baby boomer generation. By how this article reads I wonder if former US President Bill Clinton is not one of them.

Clinton calls Blair’s government the ’envy’ of the United States(AP)28 March 2006

LONDON - Former U.S. President Bill Clinton said on Tuesday that Britain’s economy, environmental policy and attempts at modernization were envied in the United States, where comparable policies under President George W. Bush were lacking.

Speaking to a packed audience at London’s Guildhall, Clinton specifically responded to criticisms that British Prime Minister Tony Blair and his Labour party were “long in the tooth,” or past their prime.

“If you live where I live and you look across the Atlantic, it does not look that way,” he said.
Clinton’s 45-minute speech on progressive politics and globalization, organized by the Smith Institute, a Labour-leaning political think tank, touched on a wide array of topics, including the war in Iraq, job outsourcing, the threat of communicable diseases and even the Danish cartoons that infuriated much of the Muslim world earlier this year.

The 59-year-old former U.S. president, who was introduced by British Treasury chief Gordon Brown, also emphasized the potential impact of global warming, saying that, if unchecked, it threatens to destabilize the global economy.

“This is both the greatest threat and the greatest opportunity of our lifetime, and we’re not acting like it is,” Clinton said.

Clinton briefly spoke about the U.S.-led occupation of Iraq during a question-and-answer session, calling it a delicate issue that, if handled incorrectly, could create a “launching pad” for terrorist regimes in the Middle East.

About 50 picketers from Britain’s largest trade unions stood outside the Guildhall during
Clinton’s speech to protest government plans to scrap a key pension rule allowing public sector workers to retire and collect their pension at age 60.
___________________________________________________________________

How do The States envy the United Kingdom, let me count the ways? There was once an expression that said 'the sun never sits on the Queen and her Kingdom'. This meant that the United Kingdom, by far a clear example of imperalism, had their flag planted in all corners of the globe, from Asia to the Caribbean and everywhere in between. Today they are shell of their former self, a blip who struggles for their own independence and having to make tough choices on whether or not to be a full participant of the European Union. This is a far cry from the 19th century when the UK dominated the globe economically and militarily. They are now politically fragmented but not between Downing Street and the world but rather between Scotland ,Wales and Northern Ireland. The Welsh demand their language be recognized although the beneficiaries are very small in number. Northern Ireland is a disaster as they watch Ireland expand economically and reap the benefits. The Scotish see themselves as seperate from London.

Given Mr. Clinton the benefit of the doubt and possibly recognizing that maybe he was playing to his crowd at the moment, a classic Clinton trait; his words are of little relevancy. There is no doubt he was paid well for this engagement. Your author is no way critical of the United Kingdom or their fine citizens, for they are a long standing ally to the United States. However it would have been fair if Clinton reminded the crowd of this fact, or at least himself, that in their darkest hour during Hitler's march and when the Muslim terrorists blew apart their transit system in 2005, who did PM Blair call upon? He did not look across the English Channel at their immediate French neighbor and instead called across the great pond, the Atlantic and was assured of America's support. Blair knows who butters his bread as does the United States when it comes to international policy and critical issues. The two will be bonded for years to come as they have been for over two hundred years with an unspoken rule of blind support. Your author suggests Clinton reconsider this the next time he attempts to legitimize balderdash. Then again, going by his past rationalizations, the fees may not warrant such admissions.

Exchanging Votes for Lady Liberty?

2006-03-27T18:47:00.000-08:00

Your author could not allow the recent chaos and legislation proposals addressing immigration pass without comment. There is no simple solution. This hopelessness has been brought on by politicians and leaders having been asleep at the wheel. However this is par for the course with most governments.

The number of illegal immigrants residing in The States is hard to track and most numbers place this figure at 8-10 million. Many on both sides of the political aisle have proposed a guest workers’ program, whereby guest workers would be issued an identification card and work a portion of the year, returning back to Mexico when their tenure has expired. As nice as this proposal sounds to the ears it is filled with many holes.

History has shown us in Germany with their Turkish guest workers following post World War II that the ebb and flow did not work so smoothly. The Turks often times did not assimilate and nearly refused to become part of Germany. Many Turks from Hamburg don’t identify with being German or Turkish. Germany has repeatedly addressed the issue of having dual language system-Turk and German. Each time they have to remind themselves they are German. Germany experienced a calamity following the fall of the Berlin Wall when waves of East Germans flooded into Austria and plowed into West Germany. The costs to their infrastructure were foregone as they were waved in and Germany paid the economic price.

This is unlike what happened in Ireland, a country that experienced a decline in birthrates because a significant portion of their population fled following the infamous potato famine of the late 1800s coupled with an aging population. Beginning in the late 1980s Ireland gave incentives for individuals to migrate to their green fields. The country specifically gave priority to those who possessed skills and education, a mixture of specialized blue collar and professional white collar workers. Along with other economic policy changes, this program worked and with great success.

Your author asks does a guest worker program assume that the participants will abide by the law and return to their home country. Who will prosecute such figures when they commit crimes? Will they be relegated to the prisons in the United States, thus costing the country or will they return back to Mexico only to be released? A likely scenario would occur if upon their return they were slapped on the wrists and simply slipped back in. In other words, just like true liberalism, it assumes the best in mankind. This may look good on paper but with terrorist attacks occurring on an international level and American prison population climbing past two million we know otherwise. A safer and conservative approach would be to hope for the best but assume and expect the worse case.

President George W. Bush and others who favor such action are garnering for votes. The Republicans have been scrambling for the Latino vote and by all accounts they have them in their back pocket. Bush and others argue that illegal immigrants take jobs most Americans won’t ever think of doing. These include flipping burgers, sweeping sidewalks, mowing lawns and picking produce. This is nothing new the early Irish, Asian and Italian immigrants from the late 1800s immigration wave to The States took what menial jobs they could find. However Bush continuance harping on an economic vital necessity is of little meat. The earliest Mexican immigrants, legal and otherwise, were chiefly employed working in the orange groves of Florida, the vineyards of California and cucumber patches in Michigan. What occurred is an agrarian economy with an ever greater dividing line between the rich and poor, along with a shrinking middle-class because there was need for them. And this what America has become?

What has happened to result in such a proposal can be laid at the feet of Congress. While many cry prosecute those who hire illegal immigrants, which would comply with current laws; Congress has felt comfortable allowing this issue to escalate to the point of near socio-economic chaos. How can Congress and the White House be serious about security when they can’t even enforce their own laws as they relate to the borders? What has the role of the touted Homeland Security been as it relates to illegal immigrants slipping in?

No the only solution is to uphold, prosecute and punish as the letter of the law demands. However even then these actions do not produce desirable results when illegal immigrants just popped right back in. As stated in a prior blog entry Mexico is an ally we cannot afford to ignore. There is little room for their own as it relates to the job market and social programs, therefore it is the country’s best interest to encourage if not give a wink to their own as they illegally cross the border.

Now let us assume this guest workers program is initiated and becomes law, then what about the next country? The Infinite Speculator wonders if other illegal immigrants from Central and South America will not simply just start walking north with the hopes of obtaining this workers’ card? One can toss out the green card and give them the green light. The card itself, how easily will it be duplicated and can black marketers make a nice dime with counterfeiting? Take note at how many times the US paper currency has changed appearance in attempts to thwart off copycats. What are the costs involved with keeping track of these ‘guests’? This cost will continue to be borne by the American taxpayer as the wages these workers are expected to receive can’t even begin to rectify the expense. Your author can nearly guarantee that the per hour wage most guest workers would receive pales in comparison to that of someone who is responsible for keeping the tabs on their whereabouts.

Chaos- that is exactly what the guest workers’ program is proposing to combat what is already becoming a situation that borders on lunacy. Your author proposes the following: A wall. As maniacal as this may sound it is justified given the current situation and the bulk of the expense will be sunk at the point of completion. In other words it won’t be recurring. A wall from Texas to California, with several gated points of entrance and standing at fifty feet tall and twenty feet deep. Then along with this plan a set number of immigrants are granted passage on a per day basis. Each state could opt out for the number gates or entry points, which will be armed twenty four hours a day. This would free up INS authorities and allow Customs to run much more efficiently because right now, they aren’t and we are paying the price. Then maybe laws can be enforced since they aren’t now.

The issue of illegal immigration isn’t about menial jobs, although their relevancy cannot be ignored nor passage to a better life, which is assumed. The adjective speaks for itself-illegal and that is the crux of this issue. A stronger border proposal, like the one just outlined, could potentially drive down narcotics trafficking, uncover possible terrorists hiding in human labor trains of desperate Spanish speaking individuals and quite possibly bring some order of civility.

Lady Liberty utters the following: Give me your tired. Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free. The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed, to me. I lift my lamp beside the golden hour.

Nowhere does she say at all costs, whether it be social, economic or legal. Nowhere does it state for menial jobs that citizens do not want nor will take. Finally, nowhere does it imply or hint for building an electoral constituency or assuring a campaign victory.

Risking our most helpless

2006-03-21T17:44:00.000-08:00

Today your author logged into the excellent webpage townhall.com and as always first read Thomas Sowell's column. In your author's opinion Sowell is a true genius and a philosopher who last the ages. Below is his most recent installment, the author felt as if he should copy and share with his readers.

Alternatives to reality
Mar 21, 2006
by Thomas Sowell

Horrifying stories about the rapes and murders of children, and about judges who go easy on sex offenders who prey on the young, have prompted some state legislatures to tighten up the laws and restrict the sentencing discretion of judges.

Few in the media or among the intelligentsia have been as outraged about these sadistic crimes against children as they have been about whether terrorists' phone calls have been intercepted.
Part of this is current politics but part of it is the continuation of a tradition that goes back more than two centuries, de-emphasizing the punishment of criminals.

People who today point to the flaws of "society" as the "root causes" of crime are echoing what was said in the 18th century by Condorcet in France and William Godwin in England, among others.

So are those who speak loftily of "alternatives to incarceration" or who continue to rely on hopes of "rehabilitation" or "prevention."

People with this mindset engage in much hand-wringing about what to do with sexual predators. While many ordinary people would say that they should be locked up -- and, if they are too dangerous to be at large, we should lock them up and throw away the key.

But those whose whole sense of themselves is based on their presumed superiority to ordinary people can never go along with such ideas. They balk even at notifying the public when some convicted sexual predator is released into their neighborhood.

Their thinking -- if it can be called that -- is that sexual predators who have been released from prison have "paid their debt to society" and so the slate should be wiped clean and these sadists allowed to hide their past.

It is amazing how many innocent young lives have been sacrificed for a half-baked phrase.
Going to jail doesn't repay anything. People are put behind bars as punishment and to keep them out of circulation. Child victims of rape and murder cannot be made whole. The debt can never be repaid.

The most we can hope for is to spare other children and their parents from the anguish inflicted by evil people -- not "sick" people, but evil people. Sexual predators know exactly what they are doing, know that it is wrong, and either don't care or enjoy it all the more for that reason.
Saying that they are "sick" implies that there is some treatment or cure that other people can apply to them. How many more lives are we prepared to sacrifice on the altar to that notion?
The illusion of being able to control sexual predators who are set loose in secrecy among families with children has taken many forms and has been couched in much soothing rhetoric.

"Supervised" parole is one of those soothing phrases. The reality is an occasional reporting to a parole officer who has huge numbers of parolees -- who cannot be controlled the other 99 percent of the time when they are not reporting.

The latest pretense of control is the global positioning satellite which can be attached to sexual predators.

Think about it. What would a global positioning satellite have told us when a sexual predator had two girls imprisoned in his basement? That he was home. What reassurance!

While rising public pressures to get serious about protecting children have forced some state legislatures to make some efforts in that direction, resistance and evasion are still the order of the day in many places.

In California, the state legislature is considering bills to use global positioning satellites to track released sex offenders -- but only those deemed "dangerous."

The sponsor of one of these bills describes GPS as "incredibly valuable technology." Not doubt it is -- if you are lost and want to find your way. On the other hand, if you don't want to be found, you can always take it off.

The bills in the California state legislature are presented as alternatives to a ballot initiative by which the voters could impose "Jessica's Law" with some real teeth in it as far as sentencing is concerned, instead of these political alternatives to reality.
___________________________________________________________

Currently the appropriate punishment for sexual predators, in particular those who prey upon children, is coming under intense scrutiny in the states of Ohio and Vermont. In Ohio Judge John O'Connor sentenced an admitted child predator to probation. In Vermont Judge Edward Cashman fell under a national criticism when he sentenced a child rapist to 60 days. In Vermont a Democrat party led front blocked passage of Jessica's Law. The law, named for the raped and murder Florida girl Jessica Lunsford, would call for long prison sentence for first time offenders and life for repeat perpretators. It should be noted that an overwhelming amount of data suggest rapists will commit violent acts, which often result in murder, over and over again.

Now your author was glad to see that the evil acts, which resulted in the rape and murder of 11-year old Carlie Brucia of Sarasota, committed by Joseph Smith were dealt the harshest punishment. Following a well-publicized with surveillance camera footage capturing Smith kidnapping Brucia, Circuit Judge Andrew D. Owens sentenced Smith to death. In a previous pre-sentencing phase Smith had begged the court to have mercy on his life and sentence him to life because his execution would upset his family. It should be noted that Smith blamed his drug abuse on his acts and in essence refused to accept responsibility. It should also be noted that due to Florida's death row laws, Smith is automatically entitled to an appeal, with court appointed attorneys and at the taxpayers' expense. Given that the convicted's time on death row amounts on average to 10 years, he will have plenty of time to prepare his family for the anguish they will face if and when Smith faces lethal injection. Carlie Brucia's family does not have that luxury.

Additionally Judge Owens may have actually spared Smith with what would have truly constituted cruel and unsual punishment by removing him from the general prison population. Death row inmates are housed seperately and spend very little time out of their cells. If Smith had been given life the chances of being subjected to a brutal demise at the hands of a fellow inmate would have been certain. All one has to do is speak to an inmate or former inmate and they will tell you that pedophiles and rapists represent the lowest. They rank at the bottom end of the pecking order or socially acceptable totem pole, even below jailhouse snitches. Then again the taxpayer would be spared for housing the likes Smith if they were thrown in regular population.

At what cost or costs will our elected officials politicize issues that need to be addressed immediately, especially when the alternative is risking the lives of our most vulnerable? Who or whom rationalizes whether ankle bracelets and counseling are effective when we know as a society that the most evil among us will not and cannot stop their deathly impulses? What do we risk? We risk the innocent for the sake of prolonging the longevity of the deadliest.

"...mercy to the guilty is cruelty to the innocent... " Adam Smith, Economist and Philosopher

Death of a tyrannical patriot and an inept foreign peace broker.

2006-03-15T18:54:00.000-08:00

Your author could not allow the death of Slobodan Milosevic without a comment. His death may have been a disappointment for the hundreds of thousands that met a bloody fate as they waged a war against the eventual ousted president of Serbia. There is one, maybe a few more when international elements are factored in, who breathes a sigh of relief-former U.S. president Bill Clinton.

Your author is unapologetic with his assessment and critique of Clinton’s inept administration. An administration truly built on public opinion polls and cronyism, failing at every opportune moment to stand for some virtue. It is apparent more now than ever; chalk it up to rearview imagery, with Clinton’s inability to address radical Muslim terrorists. Lest we forget, Milosevic’s bloody reign was before the rise of Muslim based terrorism and it was during this time of massacre that the world truly saw how ineffective Clinton’s administration was when it came to foreign affairs.

In the early 1990s the USSR was spiraling into an abyss of social anarchy as former bloc countries began to break away in droves. Yugoslavia, a country once important to the communist empire, was no spared. Milosevic, through constitutional wrangling, was able to capture the presidency. One by one each of the regions were succumbed to Milosevic’s violent determination.

In 1995 the Dayton Peace Accords was ushered by the Clinton administration as a success. In many ways it was but by now the bloodshed had already been accomplished. Having Milosevic a part of this agreement only legitimized his previous death and destruction. The final blow was that while Clinton allowed the agreement to be brokered in Dayton, Ohio; it would be enforced by the United Nations. Once again it was a pitch for global opinion polls by the US president that allowed him to be hands off, for if he was hands on, US soldiers could have died and that would have definitely influenced the polls back in the United States.

When the CIA became directly involved in Serbia, one event stands out and that is the accidental bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade. Strangely enough, given criticism from the left now with US intelligence data gathering of Iraq, the dissenters were not too loud.

As stated prior to his death Milosevic was planning to subpoena Clinton and a host of international leaders-Chirac of France, Blair of Great Britain, Kofi Annan of the UN and former Germany chancellor Helmut Kohl. Now with his death and assumed conclusion of the war crime trial, will these figures ever answer the question ‘Why did it take so long to become involved?’

Milosevic was no doubt a tyrannical nationalist who was set against destroying any opposition with his attempts to controlling the now shambles of what was known as Yugoslavia. Once again where were these left leaning critics who are now spewing under the Bush administration? They were silent and Clinton again slipped away from accountability.

Great Wall Street Journal article here (France)

2006-03-14T18:36:00.000-08:00

Proof positive that socialism only benefits the ignorant, ultra-rich and politicians during election time. Infinitespeculator.com

Les MisérablesMarch 14, 2006; Page A18

Off Paris's Boulevard Saint Germain yesterday, students from France's most famous university faced police in riot gear. Non, it's not 1968 all over again, when student riots marked the beginning of the end of the career of Charles de Gaulle. Somehow the Sorbonne doesn't make radicals like it used to.

This generation's bête noire is something called the "First Job Contract." That's legislation championed by Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin and passed by the National Assembly last week in a bid to reduce France's youth unemployment rate of 23%. Make that 50% or higher for France's poor minority suburbs, which exploded last fall when out-of-work young men set hundreds of cars on fire night after night.

The new law makes it more attractive to hire people 26 years and younger by letting employers fire them more easily if things don't work out. Such special contracts are widely used elsewhere on the Continent and have proved an effective way of getting around the European Union's rigid labor codes.

The student protesters, in league with the labor unions, say Mr. de Villepin's reform chips away at France's hallowed social model that protects people in jobs at the expense of those without. Naturally, the young people who are able to find jobs include graduates of elite institutions such as the Sorbonne. Their idea of "revolution" these days is protecting a status quo that favors them over their less-well-educated, poorer peers.

Overall unemployment in France has been stuck at about 10% for the good part of the past two decades. Here's a truly revolutionary thought for the student demonstrators: Tell France's leaders to stop tinkering around the edges and overhaul the entire rotten system.

Rev. Jackson and Illegal Immigration

2006-03-10T15:53:00.000-08:00

While skimming through news articles today your author came across this item. Most readers would glance over such item and not think twice about it. Your author then began to put some puzzle pieces together that may very well paint a clearer picture.

Back in May 2005 Mexico president Vicente Fox made some disparaging remarks involving illegal Mexicans and Blacks. He said (paraphrasing) "Illegal Mexicans take jobs that Blacks don't even want'. Now whether this is true or was a faux paux on Fox's part is up for debate. However we can all agree the statement was in poor taste. Like a hero to minorities across the States, 'Reverend' Jesse Jackson took it upon himself to visit Mr. Fox. Your author knows full well that Fox could have booted Jackson out or worse-fed him to federales. However in the case of President Fox, politically speaking, is in a race for his life. Mexico had experienced a century of political domination from the PRI (Institutional Revolutionary Party). Fox was an outsider when he became the country's leader, representing the minority party known as National Action Party (PAN). Since his victory in 2000 and re-election in 2005 Fox has seen the PRI gain more seats in their Congress and signals that PAN's time in the spotlight may be over.

Your author makes no excuses for illegal immigrants except for the fact that they do work the menial and labor intensive jobs that many in America do not want. Because of the socialist leanings in Mexico it is in their 'best interest' to have their impoverished to slip into America and support their families back in their home country. This means that they are less of a drain with what is probably a very, very limited supply of government resources. In 2002 various estimates placed Mexico's total population between 103-104 million with 40% of this figure at or below poverty level. Additionally jobs may very well be scarce in Mexico with 1.2 million entering their labor pool each year. It serves Fox and the overall interest of Mexico to keep the illegal immigration stream flowing to their northern border and into the United States.

Back to the 'good Reverend'....

It struck your author as odd that Fox was able to get away with these comments with what appeared to be a slap on the wrist by 'Reverend' Jackson. The 'good Reverend' himself has waged far worse detriment or punishment against Corporate America when angles could be shown regarding quotas and often times bogus claims of racism. Wherever the word 'racism' can be brought up in the spotlight, 'Reverend' Jackson and his flock will surely appear. Remember this was same person that waged a protest against Wal Mart and their attempts to set up stores in the West Side and South Side of Chicago. Strangely enough Jackson would rather see these places remain in bleak economic conditions then allow for immediate jobs to arise. For more on that outcome, check this out.

Now with a national leader and especially one that governs a nation bordering his home country one would assume that this would be Jackson's shining moment. This would be bigger than when he took on Denny's or when he kissed PLO's Yasser Arafat! But alas this was not to be for Jackson, your author feels comfortable that he did receive a nice tour of the country, which was funded by Fox and Jackson's Rainbow PUSH Coalition. However maybe Jackson was using this moment of Fox's ill remarks for future favors? Remember Don Corleone in The Godfather 'keep your friends close and your enemies closer' or maybe for Fox's benefit Jackson was 'going to make him an offer he can't refuse'?

To tie this all together your author finds it interesting, no almost predictable given the post Jackson visit to Mexico, that immigrants in Chicago would protest legislation proposed by Wisconsin Republican Rep. James Sensenbrenner that would make assisting illegal immigrants a punishable offense (imagine that?). I mean we have the laws on books but yet the U.S. Congress has collectively deemed this issue too hot to handle. Your author notes that such protests failed to materialize in States where one would find a greater Mexican population (legal & illegal) such as California, Texas and Florida. However not in Chicago as the article indicates, some 75,000-100,000 (a rather broad estimate) came out to be heard. Oh and your author almost forgot to mention, Jackson's Rainbow PUSH Coalition is located on 930 East 50th Street...you guessed it..in ole Chicago.

For more on Jackson and his other side, check out Ken Timmeran's NY Times Bestseller Shakedown:Exposing The Real Jesse Jackson. For more on Mexico, check out this one from yours truly. See article below.

Immigrants stage massive protest in Chicago
10 Mar 2006 21:05:25 GMTSource: ReutersCHICAGO, March 10 (Reuters) -

Tens of thousands of Mexican and other immigrants held a massive rally in Chicago on Friday to protest proposed changes to U.S. immigration laws.

Waving flags and carrying signs reading "We're people, not criminals" and "Working hands do not deserve handcuffs," they streamed on foot into the downtown area, overwhelming a square at the federal court house where the rally was held.

Chicago police said from 75,000 to 100,000 people were involved in the march and rally.
The target of the protest was legislation sponsored by Rep. James Sensenbrenner, a Republican from Wisconsin, which passed the U.S. House of Representatives last year and is being considered in the U.S. Senate along with competing proposals.

His bill would make it illegal to assist an undocumented immigrant, something that priests, ministers and other social workers have said would turn those who routinely help immigrants into criminals.

Critics have said the legislation would stiffen punishments for millions of illegal immigrants currently in the country without creating a way to set them on a path to citizenship.

Conflict of Interest and Deceit

2006-03-06T17:15:00.000-08:00

Scenario: Let’s say you own so many shares of a publicly traded company. You eagerly anticipate the firm’s annual statement. The company is governed by a board of directors. Many of them bring expertise from other or similar fields your company derives their earnings from. Now within the context and makeup of the board exists Conflict of Interest Statements. Say for instance, board member John Smith holds an interest in a private partnership that engages in business with the subsidiary owned by the company. Maybe a board member supplies assets to the company. Would you like to know? Of course you would and this is bare minimum of corporate governance. Today Dick Morris’s piece in the New York Post asks this same question.

What has become unraveled in light of whether a United Arab of Emirate state-owned company should be able to manage several ports based in The States isn’t a matter of national security or trust but rather a conflict of interest. New York Dem. Senator Hillary R. Clinton didn’t feel it was necessary to divulge such conflicts when she labeled the UAE firm as an ‘unacceptable risk’.

What might this conflict of interest be one would ask, if they haven’t heard by now? Well it is apparent, no a fact, that her husband former US President Bill Clinton has been pocketing big bucks from his relationship with Dubai. Here is what has been uncovered and if the past is any indicator, much more will certainly come to light.

$300,000 was paid to Clinton for UAE speaking engagements.

Both the Clinton Library and William Jefferson Clinton scholarship funds benefited handsomely from UAE contributions.

In 2002 the former president was hired as a ‘senior advisor’ for Dubai based Yucaipa Co. LLC. Who formed this partnership? Crown Prince of Dubai, Sheik Mohammed bin Rashid al Maktoun.

Now let’s assume that the Clintons, rarely seen together in public, file a joint tax return. Are we to believe that the good Senator did not know this considerable contribution to their combined personal income? Once again she is playing into the foolish minds, a gross assumption both of them shared, of the average American. You didn’t know Mrs. Clinton? How could you have not known?

She then approved of a 45 day investigative period. I suppose this was to assure her constituents that the UAE would be ‘okay’ in managing the ports, which the country has agreed to, do so in light of the controversy surrounding this story. However, once again, Bill Clinton had his finger on the button and what is now being reported is that he pushed the UAE to agree to such terms.

Where is the conflict of interest Senator Clinton? You are the same person who gave the ‘stand by your man’ spiel on 60 minutes and became his chief marketer, essentially standing by him. In your desperate attempt to convince the American public you actually are concerned about national security, when your previous record indicates otherwise, you have once again shown your deceitful nature.

So Senator Clinton where is the conflict of interest statement and the truth you should have revealed while you lambasted the Bush administration. Something tells this author that your husband slept in the doghouse after this fiasco provided he actually comes home these days. This kind of playing both sides of an issue may have worked twenty years ago when the big mainstream media machine dominated the news waves but not anymore. The tide is turning and we are still waiting to hear the truth from you. Once again, why did you not divulge the conflict of interest?

Quail hunting, Emirates and Mass Media Hysteria

2006-02-27T22:11:00.000-08:00

Once again in what is becoming more and more apparent, the biased mainstream media machine completely lost it, not once but on several recent occasions.

So Vice President Dick Cheney accidentally shot his friend while hunting for a covey of quail. The media did not appear to be concerned with the condition of Cheney’s hunting companion Harry Whittington but rather why they weren’t informed the very moment it occurred. The VP made sure his friend received proper care in what must have been a scary experience then informed the White House of the event.

With an angry media in full force, wild opinions and preposterous suggestions became the norm. Everything from a comparison of Cheney’s accident with that of the bloodshed he has directly causing in Iraq to his ability to be able to properly manage his role as President if Bush was to suddenly die while in office. Then you have the ‘button’, you know the fictional button that can launch nukes to parts unknown, which Cheney could fire from the hip in a fit of rage and slap it, causing destruction to parts unknown!

The media reported the accident not for one week but for two in an apparent threat to not let the big story die. The only problem was that no one seemed to care and once again the big media machine in America got it wrong. Of course progress and advancement in Iraq wasn’t important enough to report on. Mr. Whittington has since left the hospital and is recovering at his home. Where is Barbara Walters or Katie Couric? Why hasn’t the media swooped down on his residence? Oh well maybe someday the media will get the true picture.

The United Arab Emirates are coming! The United Arab Emirates are coming! Suddenly the Democrats are concerned with port security and President GW Bush has once again divided the Republican Party.

Earlier, actually the story originated around Valentines Day, that several ports in the States were being pursued by the UAE state owned company for management. It should be noted that a firm based in the UK had previously managed these same ports, which will be comprised of six locations.

Now there is no doubt issues regarding the proposal are relevant, however the rush from both sides of the political aisle was something that mystified your author. New York senator Hillary R. Clinton has been one of the leading voices of criticism. In fact she did what a politician does best, whether it is The States’ best interest or not, she is proposing legislation that would make it illegal for foreign governments managing seaports.

This would all be well and good if it wasn’t for the fact that Clinton represents New York City and New York State specifically. Dying on the vine, rank and file International Longshoremen’s Union (ILA) is part of her constituents and she is certainly looking for their vote. In your author’s opinion, the ILA is the reason why an American firm isn’t managing the ports, due to their demands that ultimately have driven such companies into insolvency and that is one portion of the equation not being addressed. The votes are the crux of her proposal and criticism of President Bush and not security. If this wasn’t the case, then her husband as President would have had Bin Laden held and avoided much of the chaos we are facing. In other words she has never prioritized America’s security and if anything she has always been critical of The States.

As far as capitalism and global economics, she should ask her husband about his repeated trips to the UAE doing whatever he does when he isn’t self-promoting himself and charging speaking fees. He could teach her a thing or two. For the record the UK firm previously mentioned, P&O Ports, they have since set sail for ports in Shanghai, Taiwan and Hong Kong-where there is profits and no presence of an ILA docks thug.

Oh and regarding UAE state owned firms, check out this lead in from Claudia Costabile for John Hopkins Gazette:

Johns Hopkins Medicine and the General Authority for Health Services in the United Arab Emirates have agreed to a 10-year affiliation that involves the management of the Tawam Hospital in Abu Dhabi, one of the largest and most prestigious hospitals in the country. The affiliation provides Johns Hopkins Medicine with complete managerial oversight of the 469-bed hospital.

To conclude, did anyone catch Nation of Islam potentate Louie Farrakhan addressing something called ‘State of the Black Union 2006’? Probably not, Minister Farrakhan stated that called for America to torn down and rebuilt. A sample of his rant:

“America has become so degenerate and the church so weak in following Jesus Christ that you are afraid to teach what God is against. We are in the most dangerous position because as God awakens the people, they will kill leaders and preachers in their pulpits for lying to them."

Both The Rush Limbaugh Show and The Sean Hannity Show provided listeners with this portion of the recorded speech:
“America must be burned! America’s no good at all!”

Now compare to this when televangelist Pat Robertson made the ridiculous comment suggesting that the United States government should assassinate Venezuela dictator Hugo Chavez. Do you remember how he was demonized and ridiculed by the mainstream media? Where were they with Farrakhan? Maybe a universal policy exists where they (media) make a conscience effort not report on the questionable Nation of Islam? Maybe Robertson, since he is a Christian, is held in a more stringent light?

Farrakhan bitch fest centered on the treatment of supposed post hurricane Katrina victims of New Orleans. Many of them possessed perfectly working autos that could have been used to drive away but instead opted to hunker down and eventually seeking refuge in their respective attics as floodwaters began to rise. Let us remind ourselves that Louisiana, with all of their rich history has a legacy of corruption and has been the last of the Southern states devoted to the Democrat party.

InfiniteSpeculator.com

Global Elections Send Mixed Results

2006-01-26T17:16:00.000-08:00

Your author originally wanted to pen this summary of elections, allowing the reader to dissect and digest the material, forming their own conclusion. However after some thought your author has decided to provide his analysis. Your author will tabulate the list of elections by moving from the right to the left of the aisle.

Canada: We Want Our Money Back!
American media was abuzz over Canada’s recent election. Not since Canadian voters voted down the Quebec referendum in 1995 has there been so much focus on Canadian politics.

The Canadian voter brought their wallets to the polls when they delivered a stunning defeat to the Liberal party. The party had enjoyed a 12 year reign, which experienced noticeable economic growth in the province of Alberta. This was fueled primarily for US’s demand of beef and grain imports and strong global prices for oil. The Liberals were washed with cash, having brought eight years of consecutive budget surpluses and declining inflation.

However under Liberal Party head and Canadian PM Paul Martin, Ottawa passed tax after tax. The most unpopular being the national value added tax or GST. Stephen Harper took notice that Canadians wanted a change. Harper, Ontarian by birth and adopted son of Alberta launched his political career in Calgary, jumpstarting the dormant Conservative Party (Tories).

Harper campaigned on tax cuts, reducing the GST, building up Canada’s military force; improving relations with The States (Canada’s biggest trading partner) and he gave Alberta a voice. Canada has a history of producing prime ministers primarily from the Ontarian and Quebec provinces. Harper’s victory was also assisted with recent scandals uncovered within the Liberal Party. One of them involved a kickback scheme where Quebec based advertising agencies split profits with the Liberals by contributing heavily to the party. This eventually led to the New Democratic Party (NDP) breaking away in support of the Conservatives and calling for a no-confidence vote.

However if overcoming the Liberal Party’s grip on Canadian politics was a hoop to jump through, Harper and the Tories must be prepared to climb yet another mountain. While Harper was able to win the PM’s seat his party failed to pick enough seats in Canada’s parliament and thus it may be gridlock for his tenure. Out of the 308 House seats, the Conservatives hold 124, Liberals with 103, the Bloc Québécois holding 51, the left of center NDP with 29 and 1 for an Independent. Harper also made strides in Quebec as the Tories picked up 10 seats. Given the history of the Bloc Québécois, Harper may very well have a tough time convincing his French counterparts to support his initiatives even if his party has made strides in the province.

Liberia: A Change For The Better
Since the end of the Cold War and collapse of the Soviet Empire, the one time US ally Liberia has continued to spiral out of control. Plagued by civil wars and poverty, the country hit a critical point when then President Charles Taylor sought exile in August 2003. Decades of guerilla violence and nearly the entire population living at poverty standards left the country in shambles.

Finally the country may have gotten something right. On January 16th the country elected Ellen Johnson Sirleaf as their president. Sirleaf, who as a young mother worked her way through college and graduated from Harvard, campaigned on constitutional reform. Her professional background consists of posts held at the World Bank and United Nations. She will have the foreign lenders watching her like a hawk, since there is a concern they may refuse additional funding and now the country has become reliant on such stipends. While Sirleaf appears to be daring in her bold initiatives, quite possibly the most important issue is the leadership of the African Union or coalition of African nations. Without this resolve her efforts may prove fruitless. Your author salutes the citizens of Liberia, the first African nation to elect a female leader and knows that the only way the country can move is forward, they have no other choice.

Chile: Moving Left? Not A Chance
Women made another stride in the most unlikely of continents-South America. Michelle Bachelete defied the odds and became the first woman president in Chile. Bachelete, an admitted socialist, is the daughter of a former army general. Both father and daughter openly opposed Chile’s notorious dictator Augusto Pinochet, with her father dying in prison after being a labeled an enemy of the state. Ms. Bachelete would ultimately live in exile until it was safe for her to return, later gaining a name as a well regarded pediatrician, defense and health minister.

Chile, primarily due to farming and copper mines, has experienced strong economic growth over the past several years. Despite their socialist leanings, the country has sliced poverty by 50% since the 1980s and Bachelete campaigned on continuing their strong economic reform. Wall Street didn’t miss a beat and the consensus is that Bachelete will not do an about face. Will she be able to take a developing nation through the door and allow to become fully developed? This will be by far her biggest hurdle to conquer while not rolling the country back.

Portugal: Back From The Ashes? Not Likely
With the global media either focused on the Canadian national elections or a movie about gay cowboys, your author still hasn’t found someone that has actually seen it despite the global media hype for this rather (pardon the expression) queer production. Oh how the Village People must be proud to see one of their own characters being heralded by the likes of Hollywood but your author digresses.

The election in Portugal did not appeal to the media. The country has been in a bit of a doldrums since they ceased to be an influential global power following the 1755 Lisbon earthquake and tsunami. Following an occupation during the Napoleonic War, the country leaned to the left and embraced liberalism, a cultural influence that was often forced upon their citizens. This would continue until the 1970s, with the majority of large-scale industries being nationalized and leaving a country heavily in debt. The 1980s weren’t much better for them as the government began attempts to privatize them.

It wasn’t the legacy of liberalism that stymied their prosperity, although it certainly didn’t provide a positive contribution that brought about a dying economy. It was the country’s macro-economy. As part of the European Union the country was protected from global competition and was able to sell their goods to readily available buyers (fellow EU members). Prime Minister and member of the Social Democrat Anibal Cavaco Silva would lead the country from 1985-95. This worked well until the Chinese and other countries with cheaper labor costs began to eat away at Portugal. The country remained heavily dependent on their EU trading partners and watched as industries shut down. The political climate then made a hard, emphasis on hard, turn to the left by electing Socialist Party (PS) candidate Jose Socrates. Things went from bad to worse when GDP growth failed to break past 1%.

On January 23 the Portuguese voted Silva back in. It was actually a bit of a mix of left and hard left candidates. The Socialists, Communists and Left Bloc coalition were all represented and totaled five candidates. Cavaco received just over 50% of the votes. However if serious infrastructure changes aren’t implemented in their economy, forcing the citizens to take pain, then Portugal shows no sign of a prosperous future no matter who takes office.

Bolivia: A Catch 22?
Traditionally Bolivia has been a quagmire of economic and political mismanagement. Beginning in 2000 the country started to have a chance when their rich natural gas supplies were in high demand. However what occurred, as it often does with countries heavily reliant upon their own natural resources for trade, was a noticeable wedge between the poor and rich, with no middle-class. Your author is now more convinced than ever that a clear middle-class must be developed if a country expects to sustain prosperity for generations to come.

With this class difference apparent, Evo Morales campaigned for the presidency and won. Morales is unique because he is considered a native (sometimes referred to as an ‘Indian’ or one who is not from Spanish extraction) and is a first to hold the leader’s seat. Morales will soon begin to implement a strategy to prosecute drug traffickers and not coca leaf farmers. This was a campaign promise he made to the farmers’ coalition and is also an attempt to appease nations actively battling drug trafficking.

Your author believes that Bolivia will not break their shackles and probably lean heavier into a socialist abyss with Morales in power. He has campaign promises to fulfill. His support came from peasant and mine workers, most of them involved with Bolivia’s Central Obrara Boliviana (COB). The COB, Bolivia’s strongest labor union, has literally been the driving force in Bolivian politics since the 1950s and one can reasonably conclude is responsible for the country’s chaotic legacy. In fact within 24 hours of becoming the country’s president the COB issued a statement that would allow Morales three months to nationalize the gas and energy sector or else face demonstrations on the streets. Morales could very well be in a sticky situation, facing massive strikes and potential civil unrest if he allows capitalism to blossom or shut off trading partners if he grants the COB’s concessions. In the past Morales relationship with the COB has been uneasy at best. However what should be on the mind of all the readers is that both Venezuela’s Hugo Chaves and Fidel Castro have embraced Morales’ win.

Palestine: Legitimizing Radicalism
By now the world is well aware of the Hamas political party gaining significant portion of seats in Palestine’s government. While their opposition, the Fatah party, was justifiably labeled corrupt and ensure the party’s victory.

The Hamas have made no illusions of their supporting of Muslim terrorist groups or the recent election of Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Additionally Hammas’ highest ranking member and Palestine’s President Mahmoud Abbas allowed a violent radical arm into the party. The Hammas is committed to completely wiping Israel off the map.

Previously Fatah leader Yasser Arafat enjoyed global celebrity status, compliments of western liberals, as leader of the Fatah and their armed guard, the PLO. It is strange how liberal elitist types will stand behind a rebellious tyrant such as they did originally with Castro and Che Guevara. In fact even today Che is seen as sort of a cultish hero within many college campuses.

How will this group of liberal minds now view Hamas especially given the obvious embarrassment when it was revealed that Arafat had siphoned millions out of the pockets of his party in favor of his own bank account? Will they stand behind the party as they are more than likely begin to engage in war with Israel? Palestine’s attempts may very well be at the end of their proverbial rope.

If and when Israel forgoes the peace process, which has all but effectively ended with this recent election and favors a military interaction, this bloody conflict will finally be put to rest. Palestine has already been given back significant portions of the Gazza Strip and West Bank. They won’t be satisfied until they are able to claim all of Israel. With their two primary allies consisting of Syria and Iran, their attempts will falter unless left leaning, ignorant and misguided sympathizers decide to put global pressure on Israel and once again legitimize chaos. In light of the seriousness of Muslim extremists, now encroaching on many of these same Western nations, will these countries be quick to support President Mahmoud Abbas knowing they are in essence in the same bed with Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad? The world needs a Churchill now more than ever.

Well there you have it, the world as your author sees it and in many cases I do hope to be proven wrong on my scenario analysis. Thank you for reading.

InfiniteSpeculator.com