Friday, July 15, 2005


1. Talking "off-record" to the press is not a smart thing to do for any Republican in general and as a member of George W's administration in particular.
The reason being that it has been blatantly obvious that the Democrats and it's propaganda section (the MSM) will use any means, fair or foul, to discredit George W (i.e. Dan Rather and the forged documents.)

2. Karl Rove will undoubtedly offer up his resignation again (for the third or fourth time) but W should refuse it again (assuming, as it appears, that Rove did not break laws or behave unethically... since Republicans actually do care about ethics,) and, because it does not matter one way or the other. Does anyone really think W or the Republicans will get any kudos (or brownie points) for Rove's resignation? W and his administration will be trashed no matter what it does so why cave and give the Demwits what they want.

3. Republicans are WAY too concerned with what the Democrats say and the MSM prints... who cares???? They are NEVER going to give the Republicans or the Right any slack so quit reacting to it or even worrying about it.

4. Republicans should NEVER take the advice of Democrats. When Democrats tell Republicans what to do, Republicans should immediately do the opposite and 99.9% of the time they will do the right thing. The biggest hindrance to the Republican Party's political dominance of in this country has been their tendency to compromise with Democrats, (perfect examples would be Justice O'Connor and the 'read my lips' defeat of Daddy Bush's second term.)

Sunday, July 10, 2005

LIBERALISM 101: A Look At An Endangered Subspecies: The Thinking Liberal

Christopher Hitchens proves that 'thinking liberal' is not an oxymoron after all... but you'd best take notes... he is a rare and endangered species.

In his article, Pluck vs. defeatism after the bombs, he comments on the man-in-the-street interviews depicting the "vox populi encounters (that) disclosed an identical, almost camera-ready, ability to emulate the stoic forebears" and an email he received from a friend: "He recounted the almost pedantic willingness of citizens to make way and say "after you" as the doors finally opened and as emergency staff made an appearance on the platforms. As anyone who regularly uses Edgware Road station, or anyone who goes to soccer matches, can attest, Londoners don't normally behave this politely, so again I assume that there is a subliminal script that so to speak "kicks in" when things get nasty."

To wit Hitchens recounts a brief historic tidbit describing how the "sturdy phlegmatic Londoner" stereotype wasn't altogether true. Upon which he comments: (At least) "There were no serious demands for capitulation. But last Thursday the blood wasn't dry on the wall of the British Medical Association in Bloomsbury, with the lower stairway covered in body parts, before the call for surrender was being raised."

He then unleashes upon the lunatic left: "First out of the trap was George Galloway, the renegade Member of Parliament who has been Saddam Hussein's chief propagandist in Britain. Within hours of the atrocities, he had diagnosed their cause, or causes. These included the presence of British troops in Afghanistan and Iraq, the photographs from Abu Ghraib, and the state of affairs at Guantanamo. This can only mean that Galloway knows what was in the minds of the bombers, and knows that it was these subjects (and not, say, the Wahhabi hatred of unveiled women, or their fury at the liberation of East Timor) that had actually motivated the attacks. If he really knows that much about the killers, he should be asked to make a full disclosure of his sources to Scotland Yard. If he doesn't know, he should at least have waited until the blood was dry before opening his ugly mouth. Scant chance of the latter."

... In 2001 there was an enemy to hit back at, and some business to conclude with the Taliban. Since then, there has been unfinished business with Saddam Hussein and his notorious fedayeen. But from now on, we must increasingly confront the fact that the war within Islam is also a war within Europe. It's highly probable that the assassins of 7 July are British born, as were several Taliban fighters in the first round in Afghanistan. And the mirror image also exists. Many Muslims take the side of civilization and many European fascists and Communists are sympathetic to jihad."

These are not the bright, clear lines that many people fondly imagine to be heritable from a heroic past. But the nature of the enemy is somewhat similar. Like the fascists that they are, the murderers boast that they love death more than we love life. They imagine that this yell of unreason is intimidating and impressive. We shall undoubtedly go forward and put these grave matters to the proof but, meanwhile: Death to them and Long Live London!"


SCARBOROUGH: You know, obviously, a man that you or I have little respect for, George Galloway, a member of Parliament and also a frequent critic of the British involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan, had this to say about the attacks. We argued, as did the security services in this country, that the attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq would increase the threat of terrorism attacks in Britain. Tragically, Londoners have now paid the price of the government ignoring such warnings.

HITCHENS: Well, he got a very good rebuke from the Labor defense minister today. And I hope The Daily Mirror will publish what I think of him tomorrow. I mean, according to him, it's not the perpetrators who are responsible. They didn't kill anybody. The murderer is Tony Blair. I mean, that's all you have to believe, really, morally to agree with a man like him. Well, you should additionally believe that the root cause of terrorism is the resistance to it.

I suppose the simplest reply would be to say that the first three British people killed fighting in Afghanistan, the first three citizens, were, I'm sorry to have to tell you, fighting for the Taliban. So, this movement of jihadist forces, some of them homegrown, was operating in and out of Britain long before there were any British soldiers in Afghanistan or Iraq. But I think that takes care of the logic, don't you?

SCARBOROUGH: Christopher Hitchens, earlier today, you had Hillary Clinton, senator for New York, coming out and actually criticizing George Bush, criticizing our government, saying that we're just not spending enough money on counterterrorism. Take a listen to what she had to say.

CLINTON VIDEO CLIP: But the fact is, the president's budget calls for a $50 million cut in what we appropriated last year. Last year, although Chuck and I wanted more money and the Senate unanimously passed a bill for $570 million, we got $150 million out of the Congress."

SCARBOROUGH: Mr. Hitchens, is Senator Clinton correct?

I have no idea. My presumption would be that she's just fooling with the numbers. But that's just because I don't like her and can't stand the sight of her. It's not a matter of money. I mean, I used to not say this, because I didn't want to give anyone even the idea. I didn't want to even feel that I was... That's if it could be stopped with extra expenditure, there would be nothing to worry about. We are vulnerable precisely because we live in an open society. Surely, that's the root problem, to begin with. You can't spend your way out of that."




In another interview the next day with Ron Reagan, Hitchens tips over yet another Sacared Cow... I like RadioBlogger's description of the exchange:
"Christopher Hitchens from Vanity Fair was involved in a complete verbal undressing of Ron Reagan (on Connected). Reagan, like all the other feel first, hate Bush second, think last lefties, is so intent on re-writing history to make the case that the war in Iraq was illegitimate, got boxed around the ears by Hitchens."

RonReagan: Christopher, I'm not sure that I buy the idea that these attacks are a sign that we're actually winning the war on terror. I mean, how many more victories like this do we really want to endure?

ChristopherHitchens: Well, it depends on how you think it started, sir. I mean, these movements had taken over Afghanistan, had very nearly taken over Algeria, in a extremely bloody war which actually was eventually won by Algerian society. They had sent death squads to try and kill my friend Salman Rushdie, for the offense of writing a novel in England. They had sent death squads to Austria and Germany, the Iranians had, for example, to try and kill Kurdish Muslim leaders there.

If you make the mistake that I thought I heard you making just before we came on the air, of attributing rationality or a motive to this, and to say that it's about anything but itself, you make a great mistake, and you end up where you ended up, saying that the cause of terrorism is fighting against it, the root cause, I mean.
Now, you even said, extraordinarily to me, that there was no terrorist problem in Iraq before 2003. Do you know nothing about the subject at all? Do you wonder how Mr. Zarqawi got there under the rule of Saddam Hussein? Have you ever heard of Abu Nidal?

RR: Well, I'm following the lead of the 9/11 Commission, which...

CH: Have you ever heard of Abu Nidal, the most wanted man in the world, who was sheltered in Baghdad? The man who pushed Leon Klinghoffer off the boat, was sheltered by Saddam Hussein. The man who blew up the World Trade Center in 1993 was sheltered by Saddam Hussein, and you have the nerve to say that terrorism is caused by resisting it? And by deposing governments that endorse it?

RR: No, actually, I didn't say that, Christopher.

CH: At this stage, after what happened in London yesterday?

RR: What I did say, though, was that Iraq was not a center of terrorism before we went in there, but it might be now.

CH: How can you know so little about...

RR: You can make the claim that you just made about any other country in the Middle East, including Saudi Arabia.

CH: Absolutely nonsense.

RR: So do you think we ought to invade Saudi Arabia, where most of the hijackers from 9/11 came from, following your logic, Christopher?

CH: Uh, no. Excuse me. The hijackers may have been Saudi and Yemeni, but they were not envoys of the Saudi Arabian government, even when you said the worst...

RR: Zarqawi is not an envoy of Saddam Hussein, either.

CH: Excuse me. When I went to interview Abu Nidal, then the most wanted terrorist in the world, in Baghdad, he was operating out of an Iraqi government office. He was an arm of the Iraqi State, while being the most wanted man in the world. The same is true of the shelter and safe house offered by the Iraqi government, to the murderers of Leon Klinghoffer, and to Mr. Yassin, who mixed the chemicals for the World Trade Center bombing in 1993. How can you know so little about this, and be occupying a chair at the time that you do?

RR: I guess because I listen to the 9/11 Commission, and read their report, and they said that Saddam Hussein was not exporting terror. I suppose that's how, Christopher.

CH: Well, then they were wrong, weren't they?

RR: No, maybe they just needed to listen to you, Christopher.

CH: Well, I'm not sure that they actually did say that. What they did say was they didn't know of any actual operational connection...

RR: That's right. No substantive operational connection.

CH: ...which was the Iraqi Baath Party and...excuse me...and Al Qaeda. A direct operational connection. Now, that's because they don't know. They don't say there isn't one. They say they couldn't find one. But I just gave you a number, I would have thought, rather suggestive examples.

As a liberal, Christopher Hitchens is on the opposite side of most issues from Write Wing Warriors, however, he definitely understands the War on Terror and does not follow the mandates of the Liberal Manifesto, if indeed he even has a copy.

Friday, July 08, 2005



"The State of Delaware has seized upon this obscure body of law (costal zone management) to launch a NIMBY war against economic development plans on neighboring New Jersey's side of the Delaware River.

The tiff began when oil giant BP proposed building a $500 million natural gas terminal in Logan Township, which sits on the Jersey side of the river. Delaware, citing terrorism and pollution, immediately asserted what it called its right to block the building of a necessary pier that would jut out in the river. Delaware's lawyers pointed to a 17th century pact between Mr. Penn and Lord Baltimore, which set Delaware's territorial boundary up against New Jersey's shoreline. That ancient pact has long been a bone of contention -- so much so that, in 1935, the U.S. Supreme Court not only upheld the peculiar border but reportedly enjoined citizens of either state from ever bringing the issue back before the Court.

So instead of litigating, New Jersey and Delaware at first mulled other ways of pursuing their disagreement. Delaware officials threatened to mobilize the National Guard if New Jersey proceeds with its plan to invade Delaware by building the pier.

New Jersey's acting governor, Democrat Richard Codey, wasn't worried. "I'm sure we'd kick their ass," he said, adding that the state could defend itself with the U.S.S. New Jersey, a mothballed dreadnought now berthed on the Camden waterfront, whose 16-inch guns last saw action during the ill-fated U.S. intervention in Lebanon in the early 1980s.

OK, Dover, Del. is beyond the range of the New Jersey's guns (though not the cruise missiles it once carried!). New Jersey Assemblyman John Burzichelli has proposed instead a boycott of one of Delaware's biggest industries, its credit card issuers, and also pulling state pension money out of Delaware-registered corporations and other assets.

Costal zone management laws, which aim to improve water quality and protect fisheries, are often used to restrict growth or send development projects into bureaucratic purgatory. Delaware is pushing NIMBY to a new level by trying to block development in another state.

As much as the Supreme Court once hoped to be rid of the issue forever, the Justices very likely will be hearing from both parties in coming weeks -- unless, of course, the Supremes want to be responsible for a new civil war along the Delaware."


Opinion Journal
Friday, July 8, 2005

"An assertion was made yesterday on the Web site of an al Qaeda affiliate claiming responsibility for the terrorist bombings in London: "Britain is now burning with fear."

This is not true; and it cannot ever be true, because it is alien to the British character to "burn." And even if ardor were not so damned un-British, "fear" would never make for kindling in Britannia. Some nations are too stoical, too suspicious of disarray, to panic or wilt in the face of hostility.

It really is considered unseemly to complain, or to feel sorry for oneself, among Britons: This aversion to self-pity is bad for the terrorists, who thrive on attention and the sowing of chaos. They won't get much satisfaction in Britain. Londoners will not retreat into their shells, and they are unlikely to do as the Spaniards did and draw out the tragedy with a lot of public recrimination, or to capitulate in any way.

The secret of British composure is that Britons really do feel proud of their civilization. On the whole, they apologize for very little, which is as it should be. Their message to terrorists is always likely to be straight and robust: "How dare you! I'm British!" "


'Close Guantanamo'?
Our politics fiddles while London burns.
Friday, July 8, 2005 12:01 a.m. EDT

In cities everywhere men and women board buses daily for work or school, and you don't need a U.N. declaration on human rights to understand that part of the deal is that no one blows up the bus. You don't blow up the office building. You don't blow up the train. It's too easy. It is the most cowardly cheap shot one can imagine. But they keep doing it.

So maybe for starters, we don't want to close Guantanamo.

... What happened yesterday in London was an attack on the modern world by pre-modernists. Tony Blair said, "Our values will outlive theirs." Maybe. Ours might not, though, if against theirs of wanton murder, our answer is "close Guantanamo." But there is a better example of the fundamental inability of our politics to sustain seriousness against such a threat: the Bolton nomination to the U.N.

If the U.S. Senate wanted to send a signal of resolve and seriousness to whoever bombed London, Democrats would join with Republicans their first day back to dispatch proven anti-terror warrior John Bolton straight to the U.N. They won't. They'll keep playing political fiddles while London burns.

The standard response to all this is that if George Bush and Tony Blair hadn't done Iraq, we'd all be as one in the war on terror. The standard response before September 11, was that if we weren't so close to terror-beset Israel, none of this would ever happen. For 30 years, the standard response to this terror has gotten many of us killed.

Thursday, July 07, 2005


Editorial in The Australian: “Just as the world united behind New York on September 11, 2001, this morning we are all Londoners.”

London Mayor Ken Livingstone: “Whatever you do, however many you kill, you will fail.”

Australian Labor Party leader Kim Beazley: “This is an attack on our family.”

Australian Prime Minister John Howard: “I express my horror and disgust at this cowardly attack on innocent people. These sorts of attacks will not alter the determination of free countries to do the right thing. It's important that we stand shoulder to shoulder with our British allies at a time such as this.”

Irish Prime Minister Bertie Ahern: "This is terrorism and violence perpetrated against ordinary people. It's just a black mark on society, a devastating blow against people. This is a huge emergency. A terrible, sad day."

US President George W. Bush: “The contrast between what we've seen on the TV screens here, what's taking place in London and what's taking place here [at G8 summit] is incredibly vivid to me."

"On the one hand you've got people here who are working to alleviate poverty and to help rid the world of the pandemic of Aids. They're working on ways to have a clean environment and on the other hand you have people killing innocent people. The contrast couldn't be clearer between the intentions and the hearts of those of us who care deeply about human rights and human liberty and those who kill. The war on terror goes on!

European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso: "It's absurd, those criminal attacks against innocent people that have nothing to do with the problems that are raised by the terrorists. This criminal act [is] not only against Britain, against the British people but against all civilised people in the world that do not tolerate these kind of crimes. All of us from President Chirac to the president of China expressed sympathy to Tony Blair and Britain. There is a strong consensus on the need to defend our values."

Dutch PM Jan Peter Balkenende: "Terrorism is an evil that threatens all the countries in Europe. Vigorous cooperation in the European Union and worldwide is crucial in order to meet this evil head on."

Russian President Vladimir Putin: “What happened today demonstrates yet again that we are doing too little to unite our efforts in the most effective way in the battle against terrorism. The response to these inhumane crimes wherever they take place - be it London, New York, Moscow or other countries - should be absolute condemnation. All civilised countries should unite in the fight against international terrorism.”

Rudolph Giuliani, Mayor of New York on 11 September 2001: "My heart goes out to the people who were affected by this, it reminds me so much of 11 September. I feel very sorry for them and I offer all the support and help and assistance that we can give. I was right near Liverpool [Street] Station when the first bomb went off and was notified of it and it was just to me very eerie to be right there again when one of these attacks takes place. These are dastardly cowardly acts and the best way to react to them is to stand up to them and do everything we can to support the people that were affected by it, but not to let these terrorists affect our way of life."

Hamid Karzai, President of Afghanistan: "This terrorist act is shocking and despicable. It is aimed at killing innocent civilians, and I condemn it in the strongest terms. The Afghan people send their sympathies to the people of Britain. Afghans have suffered at the hand of terrorists for many years and understand the pain and suffering that terrorism causes. My thoughts are with the families of the victims and those injured."

Spanish PM Jose Luis Zapatero: "Spain has suffered the scourge of terrorism for decades and on 11 March last year it was the victim of the most horrific attack recorded until then in Europe. For that reason, we, the Spanish people, well understand the suffering that today the British people are undergoing. We share their pain intensely, just as they and so many other peoples of the world did with us on other occasions."

Tim Brown, an Australian working in London: “I am so angry these bastards have struck to disrupt a gathering of leaders which offers so much hope to so many. Once the buses and tubes are running again we all intend to use them.”

London-based Australian tourist Trent Mongan, who’d been in Bali during the 2002 bombings, on Network Seven: “We’ve got to bind together to beat these bastards.”

London-based Europhobia: “I tell you what, if this is an “Islamic” terrorist attack, they’re doing a piss-poor job. The pubs are all packed out, people sipping their pints happily, all a tad pissed off, but basically fine with it. Nice one, Al Quaeda - you profess to be from a teetotal religion, and you’ve given the pub trade a massive mid-week boost.”

Andrew Sullivan, who forgets the Australians: “How dumb are these fascists to take on the Brits and the Americans?”

Hamas deputy chief Moussa Abu Marzouk: “Targeting civilians in their transport means and lives is denounced and rejected.”

Khaled al-Maeena, editor of Arab News: “Whoever did it, whether al-Qaeda or the animal liberation front, they are animals.”

Silent Running: “Where is Gorgeous Georgie Galloway, MP for Tikrit South, and champion of the oppressed Muslim masses? What will be the first words to pass his odious,lying lips in response to this atrocity? Inquiring minds want to know.”

MP for Tikrit South George Galloway: “We argued, as did the security services in this country, that the attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq would increase the threat of terrorist attack in Britain. Tragically Londoners have now paid the price of the Government ignoring such warnings."

US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice: These terrorists attacked without warning on 11 September 2001. They have attacked in Madrid, in Jakarta, in Morocco. This is a worldwide war against ideals. There is no separate peace to be made with terrorism. They are after our way of life and we have to deal with them. There is no other way other than with strength.

HAT TIPS: Tim Blair and Peace Journal.

"It was with deep sorrow that we heard the news of the bombings in London, and of the civilian casualties," Ibrahim al-Jaafari, the Iraqi prime minister, said in a message to Mr. Blair. "This terrorist action that has no connection to any religion or any humanitarian values."

"I'd like to send my deep condolences to you and through you to the British people generally, and to the victims' families especially," Dr. Jaafari said. "All countries that experience terrorism must work together to defeat it and create a peaceful world."

The Iraqi president, Jalal Talabani, a Kurd, offered his own condolences to Britain, and echoed Dr. Jaafari's sentiments. "Terrorism is an international plague, and all nations should fight it together, because if we don't it will spread even further than it already has," he said.


"The idea that al-Qaeda was no threat until we created it does not stand the slightest scrutiny of events in the 1990s -- from the first attack on the World Trade Center in 1993, to the bombing of the USS Cole in 2000 and, of course, the September 11 atrocity a year later. And no one seriously thinks that only America was in their sights. The ideology of Islamism doesn't stop at the superpower's borders; its ambitions sweep through Europe; indeed that is where it is breeding so many of its jihadists" -- London Times columnist Gerard Baker.

SPECTATOR Editorial comment: Friday 8 July
"Yesterday's disgusting attack on London will naturally beseized upon by politicians of all hues to advance their various agendas. Opponents of the war in Iraq have lost no time in blaming Tony Blair and British engagement for the bombs that hit London and killed dozen and injured many hundreds. They have a point. As the Butler report revealed, the Government was explicitly warned before the Iraq war that our involvement would exacerbate the risk of terrorism in this country. But that does not for one moment mean that if Britain had not been involved in Iraq, then London would have been safe. It bears repeating that more British people died in the attacks on the World Trade Centre than in yesterday's brutal outrages, and it must never be forgotten that 9/11 preceded the war in Iraq and the war in Afghanistan, as did the series of vicious Islamicist bombings in Paris in the 1990s..."

Friday, July 01, 2005


If the bloodbath must come, then lets get on with it! --Ronald Reagan

WHAT CHOICE WOULD DRIVE LIBERALS BONKERS was the question tossed around by WWW over coffee this morning. Then, low and behold, we found it being discussed over at Lone Star Times (a Texas oriented blog that has national appeal, produced by Dan Patrick, one of my favorite radio talk show hosts of all time.)

Let's throw this question out to all my loyal readers (1)...

What nominee (viable or fantasy) do you think would most annoy liberals?

Some of the suggestions thus far:

John Ashcroft
Robert Bork
Dick Cheney
Zell Miller
John Bolton
Tom Delay

BUT the winner so far.... IMNSHO


She even has some pretty impressive legal credentials.

- Graduated with honors from the Cornell University School of Arts & Sciences, and received her J.D. from University of Michigan Law School, where she was an editor of The Michigan Law Review.
- Clerked for the Honorable Pasco Bowman II of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit and was an attorney in the Department of Justice Honors Program for outstanding law school graduates.
- Practiced law in private practice in New York City.
- Worked for the Senate Judiciary Committee, where she handled crime and immigration issues for Senator Spencer Abraham of Michigan.
- Litigator with the Center For Individual Rights in Washington, DC, a public interest law firm dedicated to the defense of individual rights with particular emphasis on freedom of speech, civil rights, and the free exercise of religion.
- Named one of the top 100 Public Intellectuals by federal judge Richard Posner in 2001.


KEWL, Big H made number one in the Top Ten BOOMS WITH A VIEW list by Realty Times.

1) Houston - Power of Freedom Festival -- Houston cuts loose. Look to the skystage for planes, parachutists and unique aerial entertainment, followed by Sky Freedom, Houston's largest Fourth of July fireworks display.

The evening's headliners are Clint Black and LeAnn Rimes. Fireworks are launched at 9:30pm along Buffalo Bayou west of Sabine Bridge. Military exhibits, a crafts market, beer garden, sand volleyball court and a kids' zone with rides and games add to the fun

The rest of the top ten choices for great Independence Day Celebrations were:

2. Washington DC

3. New Orleans

4. New York City

5. Charlotte

6. Philadelphia

7. San Deigo

8. Boston

9. Raleigh

10. Seattle


Sam Houston Race Park
The northwest Houston racetrack will host special two-day festivities on Sunday, July 3 and Monday, July 4. Post time for live Quarter Horse racing on Sunday and Monday is 5:00 p.m. The exciting and patriotic fireworks extravaganza, presented by Miller Lite, Citgo, Joe Myers Ford Mazda Kia and Saturn, will begin following live racing over the Infield. The Infield offers a fabulous view of the colorful show over the lake and families are welcome to lounge on the grassy area which also features a playground, concession stands and mutuel clerks for wagering on the ten live Quarter Horse races.

There will also be a band in the infield, Urbana, and one on the Bud Light stage, Lone Star Ramblers, playing throughout the night. Children's activities will include a giant slide, two moonwalks, face painters, pony rides, inflatable obstacle course, rock wall and inflatable basketball hoops. Sam Houston Race Park’s Winner’s Circle Restaurant will present a special Independence Day Buffet. Each table has a prime view of each of the live Quarter Horse races and a private television set.

The Houston Symphony provides one of the city’s oldest holiday traditions with its Star Spangled Salute, a rousing program of patriotic music. The finale of Tchaikovsky’s 1812 Overture complete with cannon blasts, signals the start of a lavish fireworks display over Hermann Park on July 4, and it’s free. Web sites: or

Six Flags AstroWorld Independence Day Celebration
All-American activities, patriotic music, rides, slides and entertainment. The fireworks display takes place at Six Flags SplashTown this year. For information visit

AND the one that the Write Wing Warriors will be attending this year...

Independence Day Fireworks Spectacular over Clear Lake on July 4 delivers dazzling views to those on shore, on the water or at lakeside restaurants. Beginning at 9:15, fireworks will be shot from a barge in Clear Lake delivering dazzling views to those on shore or on the water. For even more spectacular views over the water, you can line up on the Kemah Boardwalk for its annual fireworks display shot from a barge in Galveston Bay beginning at 9:30.

Other things we may do this weekend: Armand Bayou Nature Center , 8500 Bay Area Blvd; Kemah Boardwalk; Space Center Houston; San Jacinto Battleground Monument


"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself." -John Stewart Mill


WAR ON TERROR: All Americans need to understand that the the first World Trade Center bombing was an early warning signalling the intentions of Al Queda to wage war on Americans. Since that warning wasn’t properly heeded, the terrorists staged other successful attacks until, ultimately, on 9-11-2001 the clarion call rang throughout the canyons of Manhattan and we finally began fighting the war declared by the terrorists.

We are now waging a war against the Aggressors that attacked us. It will be fought on many battlefronts, against many enemies. It is NOT the War on Afghanistan... nor is it the War on Iraq. It won't be the War on Iran or North Korea... it is a WAR ON TERROR! It will require determination, endurance and unity if we are going to be victorious.

Now, for those who cannot understand the difference between revolutionaries (such as our Minutemen) and terrorists... namely one Brian Williams, anchorman with NBC (plus most other liberals)

"Many Americans woke up to a curious story this morning: several of the former Iran Hostages have decided there is a strong resemblance between Iran's new president and one of their captors more than 25 years ago. The White House and most official branches of government are ducking any substantive comment on this story, and photo analysis is going on at this and other news organizations. It is a story that will be at or near the top of our broadcast and certainly made for a robust debate in our afternoon editorial meeting, when several of us raised the point (I'll leave it to others to decide germaneness) that several U.S. presidents were at minimum revolutionaries, and probably were considered terrorists of their time by the Crown in England." SEE STORY.

Let us explain:

GUERILLA FIGHTERS: Patriots who liberated this country used guerilla tactics some of the time (much to the dismay of the more coventional, marching-on-parade-ground British Army.) Guerilla fighters (aka Minutemen, Freedom Fighters, Revolutionary Army, Resistance, etc) violate some of the rules of war -- they may not have military uniforms. They strike quickly, kill a few soldiers, and attempt to melt away into the woods or perhaps disappear into the civilian population.

This does not make them terrorists or comparable to terrorists. Because, unlike actual terrorists, guerilla fighters strike legitimate military targets (enemy soldiers, enemy bases or enemy's political control structure.) They DO NOT strike civilian targets or intentionally kill civilians, their goal is to defeat the enemy's military.

Any war can have angry or undisciplined soldiers (conventional or otherwise) who commit atrocities and kill civilians or prisioners. These soldiers are criminals and could be characterized as "terrorists." But these have been aberrations in US wars, and the culprits are usually brought to justice.

TERRORISTS: Guerilla Fighters are terrorists if their primary goal is to shock and terrorize a civilian population into acquiescence and appeasement. Terrorists may switch between legitimate targets (our troops and Iraqi recruits) and non-military targets (civilians and hotels.) There are no switch hitters in the terrorism business... if they deliberately and intentionally advocate, enable or physically attack specific civilian targets with the purpose of killing said civilians then they are terrorists, no matter how much they like to pretend otherwise.


Press Release
For Release Monday, June 27 to New Hampshire media
For Release Tuesday, June 28 to all other media

Weare, New Hampshire (PRWEB) Could a hotel be built on the land owned by Supreme Court Justice David H. Souter? A new ruling by the Supreme Court which was supported by Justice Souter himself itself might allow it. A private developer is seeking to use this very law to build a hotel on Souter's land.

Justice Souter's vote in the "Kelo vs. City of New London" decision allows city governments to take land from one private owner and give it to another if the government will generate greater tax revenue or other economic benefits when the land is developed by the new owner.

On Monday June 27, Logan Darrow Clements, faxed a request to Chip Meany the code enforcement officer of the Towne of Weare, New Hampshire seeking to start the application process to build a hotel on 34 Cilley Hill Road. This is the present location of Mr. Souter's home.Clements, CEO of Freestar Media, LLC, points out that the City of Weare will certainly gain greater tax revenue and economic benefits with a hotel on 34 Cilley Hill Road than allowing Mr. Souter to own the land.

The proposed development, called "The Lost Liberty Hotel" will feature the "Just Desserts Café" and include a museum, open to the public, featuring a permanent exhibit on the loss of freedom in America. Instead of a Gideon's Bible each guest will receive a free copy of Ayn Rand's novel "Atlas Shrugged."

Clements indicated that the hotel must be built on this particular piece of land because it is a unique site being the home of someone largely responsible for destroying property rights for all Americans.

"This is not a prank" said Clements, "The Towne of Weare has five people on the Board of Selectmen. If three of them vote to use the power of eminent domain to take this land from Mr. Souter we can begin our hotel development.

"Clements' plan is to raise investment capital from wealthy pro-liberty investors and draw up architectural plans. These plans would then be used to raise investment capital for the project. Clements hopes that regular customers of the hotel might include supporters of the Institute For Justice and participants in the Free State Project among others.

More details

On 23 June 2005, Supreme Court justices Stevens Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Kennedy decided, in the "Kelo et al. v. City Of New London et al." that local governments may seize property from one property holder and transfer it to a private citizen or firm, if the new use would "promote economic development".Justices O'Connor, Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas dissented.( )

On 28 June 2005, Logan Darrow Clements of Freestar Media contacted Mr. Chip Meany, Code Enforcement Officer, of Weare, New Hampshire (where Justice Souter owns a home) and proposed that the town of Weare transfer Justice Souter's home to Mr. Darrow, so that Mr. Darrow might knock down Mr. Souter's home and build a hotel and museum to lost liberty on the site.( )

By signing this pledge, you agree to pay for lodging in the "Lost Liberty Hotel", once it is built at 34 Cilley Hill Road, Weare, NH.It is expected that during one's week of residency in the hotel in Weare, lodgers will contribute significantly to the local economy - not just staying in the hotel, but shopping, buying gas, eating at local restaurants, etc.

This pledge is important, as it will help to demonstrate(a) the large public demand for lodging in a hotel built on what is currently Justice Souter's property(b) the large economic benefit to the citizens of Weare that will occur once the hotel is built.


Howard Dean on Softball with Chris

DEAN: Chris, I think the Downing Street Memos and other pieces of evidence, including the 9/11 Commission, have indicated that the administration was not truthful to the American people about how we got to Iraq. I think that's a fact. The administration would like it not to be a fact but it is a fact. It has been confirmed by many mainstream organizations, including a commission lead by a Republican and a Democrat. A well respected Republican and Democrat.


AP LONDON - British Prime Minister Tony Blair said Wednesday the "Downing Street memos" paint a distorted picture, and he insisted that the Iraq war was not predetermined by the United States.

"People say the decision was already taken. The decision was not already taken," he said in an exclusive interview with The Associated Press.

Blair added he was "a bit astonished" at the intensive U.S. media coverage about the leaked memos, which actually were leaked minutes of a July 23, 2002, meeting between Blair and top government officials at his Downing Street office.



Here is my take on anyone desecrating the American flag: if you stomp on it, spit on it–or burn the American flag, you are not deserving of being protected by the many men and women who are putting their lives on the line every day. And you are degrading the lives of those who died in combat, protecting Americans, and innocent civilians in other countries.

If the stompers and flame happy ant-flag protestors view their actions as "freedom of expression" rights–well, they have a real problem other than just hating war or the symbolism associated with the American flag. Most view the reprehensible act as nothing short of "offensive" behavior.

No, I don’t worship the flag, but I have a deep sense of pride and respect whenever I see "Old Glory" waving in the wind, because it represents freedom for deserving and "undeserving" Americans, along with adulation for the bravery executed by our fallen soldiers, who were anything but selfish or cowardly.

When former President Clinton was involved in desecrating the American flag in Russia, he was showing our enemies what he thought of America. This is definitely not the way to show respect for one’s country. It was during this period that antiwar protestors set the stage for the immense disrespect now saturating our country, with the same destructive mentality, that was displayed in the 60's era.

A constitutional amendment to protect the flag is being considered for a vote in the house scheduled sometime this week. While this move is admirable–it shows an alarming trend–pointing out how far removed from civility some people actually are. When the leaders of a country have to pass and enact fundamental laws in order to preserve traditions that are hundreds of years old–the problem is much more deep-rooted than most initially thought. If you ask me: with 81% in favor of the flag protection amendment, this is one of the times lawmakers had better be prepared for a political fallout if they oppose the amendment. I must commend the five Democrats –especially Senator Dianne Feinstein of California, and Ben Nelson of Nebraska who are supporting the amendment. But it doesn’t say much for the majority of the Democrats who are in opposition of the amendment . . . right?

To even imply that the flag protection enactment would "infringe" on the "freedom of expression" is totally ridiculous! To point out how ridiculous: some might look at murdering someone as an expression of freedom . . . right as well.

Kaye Grogan


One of the Demwit gurus (a Berkeley linguist and author of "Don't Think of an Elephant: Know Your Values and Frame the Debate,") George (Go Jump in a) Lakoff has been dispensing some framing tips to the Democrats recently.
"For a while last week, the Democrats were doing better at framing the issues. The poll numbers showed that Bush's approval rating was down, that around 60% of the voters had turned against the Iraq War, that support for Bush on his handling of 911 and terrorism was lower, but still pretty high."

Lakoff has just said that a political goal of the Democratic Party is to turn the American people against the war the country is now fighting. Perhaps the Dems will now demand that Lakoff desist from questioning their patriotism. *

---James Taranto (WSJ-Best of the Web)

I think I LIKE this Lakoff... what could be better than for the Demwits to frame their values and put them right up there on wall in plain sight for everyone to see... they they would at least have to quit pretending that were not hoping for an American loss in Iraq...

Oops! MY BAD... forgot who I was talking about for a moment. These are the people who would swear the sky was purple if George W said it was blue... then scream to high heaven, demanding Karl Rove's resignation for lying because he said that the left thought the sky was purple.

* They (liberals) have to hope Iraq fails because for it to succeed means that the liberal approach will forever be rendered meaningless and impotent. Their lack of initiative that led directly to one of the worst tragedy’s in American history and was the catalyst for the spreading of democracy through the Middle East generated by the War on Terror, specifically in Iraq, will be forever intrinsically tied to success through pre-emptive action.

--Lee P Butler, Vice Chairman of the Richmond County Republican Party where he resides with his wife and three children and has been published in several outlets including The Richmond County Daily Journal,, The North Carolina Conservative, The Lasting Joy, and is the owner/publisher of

You have a right to your own opinions - You do not have a right to your own facts!