6/15/2004

Not that I believe that the Democrats believe anything they say, but the charge that Bush has ignored terrorism in favor of a war in Iraq is gaining with me. It looks like terrorists have used the war in Iraq to organize around Africa and parts of Europe and are ready to make hellacious trouble.
If Ledeen doesn't scare you to the toilet Daniel Pipes sure will. He has a blog that I haven't read for a week what with the funeral and a graduation, but he is loaded. Item One:

Brit tax payers foot most of the bill for huge mosqe in London. BBC touts the opening without mentioning the speaker is one of the most radical of the radical Islamists; Jews and advocates violence against non-Muslims.
This amounts to official patronage for jihad, covered up once again by the BBC. Go HERE.

Then, like in big surprise, Pipes tells of Islamist terrorists who tried to spring the the badly wounded ringleader of the massacre in al-Khobar. They were dressed in burkas as many attacks before, they couldn't find their pal and Saudi security guards let them escape. Hello!!! Big article HERE.

And if you think Powell has a "grasp" of anything try this one on:
Once again our State Department has "goofed". Their latest "Patterns of Global Terrorism" report is a highly politicized document, reflecting the Washington debate and diplomatic imperatives, but this year it has veered into unreliability and even falsehood. It's a dangerous document likely to harm the war on terrorism.

Subsequent Patterns of Global Terrorism reports have been no less unsatisfactory, but they seemed untouchable, for who can or will tell State to clean up its act?
Read this.

Next, if you didn't read it, Pipes believes there is already a Civil War in Saudi Arabia. I forget that he has a daily blog and with the funeral and my feelings I neglected to read him for a week. If you haven't been there you better go. Pipes is close to the best.

Everything You Wanted to Know About the Signers of the Petition

but were afraid to ask. Here is a list of the signers of the "letter" condeming the Bush policy in Iraq; demanding the impeachment of the president. I have put the LAT descriptions in parenthesis at the beginning of each entry. They fall into three categories. The first would be supporters of Kerry and outright Left Democrats; the second would be stand up guys who see the policy as a failed one (I have put these in bold), by far the largest are the people who don't like seeing what they have built up over thirty to forty years destroyed. They built the UN alliances (now revealed as almost totally corrupt), the alliances with France, Germany, most of Africa, and the Arab states. They mourn for the good old days. The LA Times and other media won't dig into who these people really are. The signers:

Alexander Watson----(LAT:assistant secretary of State for Inter-American affairs, 1993-96; deputy permanent representative to the U.N., 1989-1993. )Truth: not mentioned in most places, he is part of the Charity Daisy Chain with Teresa Heinz Kerry. A big time member of The Nature Conservancy" an outfit outed in a book called: "Undue Influence: Wealthy Foundations, Grant Driven Environmental Groups and Zealous Bureaucrats That Control Your Future" by Ron Arnold. An eco extremist org. Think this guy isn't a Kerry guy?

Retired Adm. Stansfield Turner, the CIA Director under Carter (let's all remember that fiasco) who is pissed that Tenet was fired. This unbiased guy is a member John Kerry's Senior Military Advisory Group, now advising John Kerry. Late add He was also a guy who stripped the CIA.

Retired Air Force Gen. William Y. Smith; (LAT:deputy commander in chief, U.S. European Command, 1981-83. )Amplified: this guy goes all the way back to the Cuban missile crisis. He's close to 80 years old (West Point ‘48) and has been associated with Democrats all his active life. Could be one of the sincere ones, then again...

John E. Reinhardt; (LAT:professor of political science, University of Vermont, 1987-91; ambassador to Nigeria, 1971-75. ) Amplified: this guy goes all the way back to Edward R Murrow. An associate of virtually every Democrat since the 50s

Michael Sterner---(LAT:deputy assistant secretary of State for Near East affairs, 1977-1981; ambassador to the United Arab Emirates, 1974-76) Truth: a long time predictor of Arab "Moderates" being our friends. Member of Columbia University Middle East Institute which is funded in part by PLO, Saudi interests; imports pro terrorist speakers. This guy is hard core left

Ronald I. Spiers---(LAT:undersecretary-general of the United Nations for Political Affairs, 1989-1992; ambassador to Pakistan, 1981-83. ) Truth: has joined with plenty of Arabs and Palestinians in denouncing Bush II endorsement of Arial Sharon and all the latest efforts in the Israel-Palestine area. He's against the wall, the lack of PLO participation, and on and on. He is pro-PLO to a huge degree. He's also against Tony Blair.

James Daniel Phillips---(LAT: ambassador to the Republic of Congo, 1990-93; ambassador to Burundi, 1986-1990.) Truth: this guy really was an ambassador to almost everywhere at one time or another. Bush I appointed him and Clinton appointed him. Cut the guy some slack, he probably signed without any ties to the Left or Kerry.

Phyllis E. Oakley: (LAT: assistant secretary of State for intelligence and research, 1997-99.) A classic of leaving things out. Let's see, she serves on the U.N. Population Fund with such luminaries as Susan Sarandon, Bette Midler, Jean Rather, Gail Sheehy, Mrs. Cyrus Vance, and a ton of other lefties; she has spoken out against interventions (Somalia etc) with her associates Cynthia McKinney of Georgia, Alcee Hastings (as a Judge impeached and now a big time Democratic congressman); she has spoken out against discrimination against Arabs with a string of Lefties, and so. This may be just a natural function of who she is. But impartial? No way.

David D. Newsom (LAT:acting secretary of State, 1980; undersecretary of State for political affairs, 1978-1981; ambassador to Indonesia, 1973-77) He's a liberal, has spoken out against the "clumsiness" of the Bush foreign policy and is opposed to the Iraq War. Nothing wrong with the guy but he ain't unbiased.

George E. Moose (LAT:assistant secretary of State for African affairs, 1993-97; ambassador to Senegal, 1988-91). Another of the doctrinaire liberals in the foreign service. Nothing dangerous about him. His name is another in the Daisy Chain of Charities sacking the tax system and Atlantic Council of the United States, his deal is ranked very low by Charity Navigator. Unbiased? Ho ho.

Retired Air Force Gen. Merrill A. McPeak (LAT:chief of staff, U.S. Air Force, 1990-94) Truth: he is much more than that and has a long record of heroic and honorable service. Fought Clinton tooth and nail about military cutbacks and thinks Bush is totally wrong. Good guy.

Donald F. McHenry (LAT:ambassador to the United Nations, 1979-1981) Truth:.Long history of accomplishment and is an academic. He was appointed to UN by Carter. He voted for a viciously anti-Israel resolution in the UN but he may have been acting under Carter's direction; he is another "by the numbers" liberal. Believes what he signed.

Jack F. Matlock Jr. (LAT: ambassador to the Soviet Union, 1987-1991; director for European and Soviet Affairs, National Security Council, 1983-86; ambassador to Czechoslovakia, 1981-83) Truth: This is a serious player. He has written books on the collapse of the Soviet, called Reagan more than correctly in books; also called Gorbachev. If he details his opinions, read them.

Princeton N. Lyman (LAT: assistant secretary of State for International Organization Affairs, 1995-98; ambassador to South Africa, 1992-95). This is a guy who has spent most of his life focusing on Africa. He is very angry at the Bush Administration's lack of focus on what he sees is a most serious terrorist threat in Africa, and as of this writing al Qaeda could take over the Nigerian oil fields. He thinks Bush hasn't focused on the right terrorists around the world.

Samuel W. Lewis (LAT: director of State Department policy and planning, 1993-94; ambassador to Israel, 1977-1985). Truth: this guy is a legit expert on Israel and he thinks Bush has completely screwed up policy over there. Long before this "letter" he was interviewed in the Washington Post and he blasted Bush to pieces over his bad policies in Israel. Narrow focus but a serious guy.

Robert V. Keeley (LAT: ambassador to Greece, 1985-89; ambassador to Zimbabwe, 1980-84) Truth:.This is a serious guy who is very pro Palestinian. He is one of those guys who knows history and thinks the thug down the street is acting because of a similar understanding of history. Again, a very narrow focus on one area only. Not a whack job and not a hater.

H. Allen Holmes (LAT: assistant secretary of Defense for special operations, 1993-99; assistant secretary of State for politico-military affairs, 1986-89) Truth:.this was Clinton's guy who was supposed to be in charge of counter terrorism regarding WMDs. He said Clinton was doing all that could be done and so on. He also claimed that agencies were working together. Now he signs something about Bush. ???? You've got to read his testimony before the Armed Services committee to know that this guy is a total incompetent. He should have been called before the Gorelick Committee. He thinks Bush stinks? Wow.

Retired Marine Gen. Joseph P. Hoar (LAT: Commander in chief of U.S. Central Command, overseeing forces in the Middle East, 1991-94; deputy chief of staff, Marine Corps, 1990-94.) A serious player who was opposed to the war long before it started, for most of the reasons stated by many other Generals. He just signed what he has been saying all along. He called Chalabi a fraud quite a while back.

Arthur A. Hartman (LAT: ambassador to the Soviet Union, 1981-87; ambassador to France, 1977-1981)Truth: this could be the most serious of the serious signers. A Reagan appointee and no liberal lap dog. He has a huge reputation. His Google runs for pages. He is widely quoted.

William C. Harrop (LAT: ambassador to Israel, 1991-93; ambassador to Zaire, 1987-1991) Truth:
a persistent critic of the State Department going back to Clinton. Nobody paid any attention to him. He is just one more former State Department guy who has seen a lifetime of building alliances with dictators, Sheiks, and corrupt UN members come falling down. He feels he has wasted his life.

Charles W. Freeman Jr (LAT: assistant secretary of Defense, International Security Affairs, 1993-94; ambassador to Saudi Arabia, 1989-1992) Truth: this guy is on a crusade against the American Empire through something called "Committee for the Republic." He serves with a ton of Arabs on Middle East Policy Council, He doesn't want us to win anywhere. He writes about it. Of course he opposes Bush.

Donald B. Easum (LAT: ambassador to Nigeria, 1975-79) Truth: this guy has been ambassador to everywhere, a career State Department apparatchik. He has also done a world of good for a million or so people through his involvement in the River Blindness Foundation which is NOT one of the Daisy Chain charities. One of the people who doesn't like to see everything he's spent his life working for destroyed. Wants the old system back.

William A. DePree (LAT: ambassador to Bangladesh, 1987-1990) Truth: the only "ghost" of the bunch. Just a guy who was an ambassador and that is it.

Jeffrey S. Davidow (LAT: ambassador to Mexico, 1998-2002; assistant secretary of State for Inter-American Affairs, 1996) Truth: that's what he is. Another State Department guy passing the time as well as he can.

Retired Adm. William J. Crowe Jr. (LAT: chairman, President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Committee, 1993-94; ambassador to Britain, 1993-97; chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, 1985-89.) Truth: Awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom (as did Wesley Clark, Jessie Jackson, and a ton of others). This is a scandal ridden guy, part of the group that sold Anthrax to Saddam. Crowe now owns 13% of the company that is selling anthrax vaccine to the DoD. A sub has been paid more than $4 million and the company hasn't delivered a drop. Where's the money??? Oh, when the company was inspected it was so contaminated they were forbidden to ship anything. The funding from the Pentagon from his pals at the Joint Chiefs stinks. He has also stated that there is a 100% chance of a bio attack on the U.S. Not a trustworthy person.

Avis T. Bohlen (LAT: assistant secretary of State for arms control, 1999-2002; deputy assistant secretary of State for European affairs 1989-1991) Truth: one of those pedigreed people; her grandfather was the semi-legendary Charles "Chip" Bohlen who was ambassador to Russia when Stalin died; her mother (also named Avis) was a big shot. She is a missile hawk wants a credible defense. Another serious but lesser known player.

William C. Harrop,(LAT: ambassador to Israel, 1991-93; ambassador to Zaire, 1987-1991.) Truth: 39 years in service. Another guy who is probably pissed that all he worked for is being destroyed. Been everywhere done it all. Former ambassador to Israel and Arabia and knows the area. Is adamant about alliances, that is his history, and he will do all in his considerable power to topple Bush and return things to the U.N. France, Germany etc.



6/13/2004

Response to Leftist Charge #3:

REAGAN SHOULD HAVE GONE TO JAIL OVER IRAN-CONTRA

Link to response to charge #1 HERE and response #2 HERE
IRAN CONTRA: A secret arrangement in the 1980s to provide funds to the anti-Communist Nicaraguan Contra rebels partly from profits gained by selling arms to Iran in exchange for the release of hostages held in Lebanon by Iran supporters. That's it. But of course it has a little more hair than just that.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

The press and academia are controlled by the Left therefore much of what we read is a Left "slant". The American Left has been supporting Communist governments since the 30s. In the early 80s they wanted a non elected Communist "Sandinista" government that invaded Nicaragua from Costa Rica and Honduras in 1979 to retain power in Nicaragua. The Democrats did everything they could to keep the Sandinistas in power including passing legislation in Congress to assure the Communists were not touched by the Reagan Administration. The Sandinistas (don't call them Communists) were originally an old line revolutionary movement formed in 1962 ostensibly to kick out a dictator named Anastasio Somoza Debayle (AKA Somoza). Somoza, like all dictators was corrupt as hell, the family had been in power since 1936, and ran things in the usual way. FDR made the famous remark: "He's an SOB but he is our SOB" referring to the first Samoza, not about Trujillo as it was originally reported. The assassination of La Prensa publisher Pedro JoaquĆ­n Chamorro Cardenal by Samoza's son in 1978 meant that no matter what the Sandanistas stood for, everyone wanted the Samosa family gone. In January a nationwide strike began and the workers demanded an end to the military dictatorship.

It was on tough guy Jimmy Carter's watch that the Sandinistas launched an offensive from Costa Rica and Honduras during 1979 that finally threw the last Somoza out. They did not hold elections and the American Left approved. Instead, they established a junta. Translation: the "Sandinistas" invaded in order to throw out the dictatorship of Somoza and established a Left Wing military dictatorship. Nicaragua is a very poor country and the Sandinistas nationalized such industries as banking and mining, "postponed" elections, and moved steadily to the left eventually espousing "Marxist-Leninist" positions (not Communist to the Democrats in Congress). Ortega and his Sandinista Party was a dictatorship loved by the American Left, especially the Hollywood Left, because the government actually owned the institutions of production instead of controlling them. (I don't get the distinction either.)

By 1984 Sandanistas had taken control of practically everything in the country – mass organizations, the army, police, labor unions, and the media. They censored all freedom of speech, suspended the right of association and crushed the freedom of trade unions. They also started a "re-education" program on the Indians who lived on the Atlantic side of the country forcibly "relocating" the Indians from their land. Then like Stalin, Pol Pot, and Mugabe they used state-created famine as a weapon against these "enemies of the people." By 1983, the number of political prisoners in the Sandinistas' Nicaragua were estimated at 20,000. Numerous human rights organizations, including Amnesty International and the United Nations Human Rights Commission, have documented the atrocious record of Sandinista human rights abuses, which stood as the worst in Latin America. This is what the American Left supported and the Democratic Party wanted to remain in power.

For some reason that horrible Ronald Reagan was opposed to them.

For some side reading check this out.

Castro supposedly supported the "Sandinistas" with money and arms while they were in the jungles, but this isn't possible. Castro was broke. This support actually meant Russian support. The Sandinistas clear and stated goal was to spread Communism to the rest of Central America. Their government in Nicaragua was opposed by U.S.-supported guerrillas (Reagan support) known as Contras . In 1984, Sandinista leader Daniel Ortega Saavedra (Always called "Ortega", Danny Glover's pal) won the Nicaraguan presidency in an actual election that was tainted by mistrust. Lots of opposition groups boycotted it. The arms for money and hostages occurred two years later.

HERE'S THE "SCANDAL"

The Democrats wanted the Sandinistas (oh no, not Communists) to retain power in Nicaragua. The Democratic controlled Congress passed legislation, known as the Boland amendments, that prohibited the Defense Dept., the CIA, or any other government agency from providing military aid to the Contras from Dec., 1983, to Sept., 1985 and then passed even stronger amendments. Reagan basically defied Congress and got around these limitations by using the National Security Council (NSC), which was not explicitly covered by the law, to supervise covert military aid to the Contras. Under Robert McFarlane (1983–85) and John Poindexter (1985–86) the NSC raised private and foreign funds for the Contras. This operation was directed by NSC staffer Marine Lt. Col. Oliver North. All this was legal.

The scandal part: McFarlane and Oliver North were also the central figures in a plan to secretly ship (sell) arms to Iran in exchange for hostages held in Lebanon by pro-Iranian groups. This despite a U.S. trade and arms embargo on Iran. The people involved in this deal wanted to placate "moderates" within the Iranian government figuring not only to secure the release of the American hostages held in Lebanon but to influence Iranian foreign policy in a pro-Western direction. The arms were sold. The money obtained was used to aid the Contras conducting their guerrilla war against the Sandinista government of Nicaragua. This transfer was in violation of the Boland amendments. The sale of arms was a violation of the arms embargo. What made it even worse was that there was bookkeeping fakery that when exposed meant that the "scandal" could not be covered up when and if anyone got wise.

Somebody did get wise. A Lebanese newspaper blew the whole arms for hostage deal out of the water; we'll leave it up to the reader to decide if "moderate" Iranians leaked it or not. Reagan went on television and vehemently denied that any such operation had occurred. He retracted the statement a week later, insisting that the sale of weapons had not been an arms-for-hostages deal. Despite the fact that Reagan defended the actions by virtue of their good intentions, his honesty was doubted. Polls showed that only 14 percent of Americans believed the president when he said he had not traded arms for hostages. At any rate the Communist supporting American Left had their meat and they went after it. Lawrence E. Walsh was appointed a special prosecutor . Congress was after Reagan and everything was done to involve him. There was some testimony implicating Reagan, Vice President Bush, and William J. Casey (former director of the CIA, who died in May, 1987). But nobody figured out the extent of the involvements. Poindexter resigned before the end of the month; North was fired. Under a grant of immunity North testified before Congress in July, that he believed Reagan was largely aware of the secret arrangement.

Although laws had been broken, and Reagan's image suffered as a result of Iran-Contra, his popularity rebounded. In 1989 he left office with the highest approval rating of any president since Franklin Roosevelt. I interpret this to mean that the American public approved of the effort against another American Left supported dictator and showed it.

Later on, criminal convictions resulted, including those of McFarlane, North, and Poindexter, but North's and Poindexter's were vacated on appeal because of immunity agreements with the Senate concerning their testimony. Former State Dept. and CIA officials pleaded guilty in 1991 to withholding information about the contra aid from Congress, and Caspar Weinberger, defense secretary under Reagan, was charged (1992) with the same offense. In 1992 then-president Bush pardoned Weinberger and other officials who had been indicted or convicted for withholding information on or obstructing investigation of the affair. It is general consensus that Weinberger was railroaded.

Whether you think this is a big deal about nothing other than going after the Communists in Central America, criminal activity on the part of a U.S. president who belongs in jail, or a Communist suporting Democratic Left that was furious that their Communist pal was under attack, the facts remain that nobody went anywhere, except for Ortega who went out of office in 2002. Reagan's poll numbers dived more than 20 points in three weeks and it took quite a while for them to recover to new highs. People now shrug their shoulders and shake their heads over this obvious violation of the law by a President who in every other respect was one of the most ethical ever. Many think that this was when he showed "he was losing it", but we will never really know. The fact that Bush I pardoned everyone seems to speak that the Iran-Contra Affair happened and that Reagan was involved. This is the only albatross the Left can hang around Reagan's Administration and they do all they can to "keep it alive" while covering up the human rights record of one more Communist government that they did everything in their power to prop up.

As a side observation: Nobody in the Reagan Administration knew how to deal with politics in the Middle East either. Had they known they would never have tried to deal with "moderates" in Iran. Nothing means anything to anyone over there and the Iranians almost succeeded in bringing Reagan down.

Sandanista acts: What the American Left Approved and Reagan opposed after the Sandanistas took over:
A "weak" judiciary continued to hamper prosecution of human rights abusers.
Discrimination against women is a "problem".
Violence against women and children, including domestic abuse and rape, remained a "problem". (If women are victimized by communists it's OK on the American Left)
Discrimination against "indigenous people" (the Indians are being totally screwed) is a "problem".
Child labor also remained a "problem".
Trafficking for forced labor and trafficking in women and girls for the purpose of forced prostitution is a "problem".
FSLN (Sandanista)leaders continued to threaten, in speeches and public statements, the use of violence for political ends.
Judges' political sympathies or acceptance of bribes reportedly often influenced judicial actions and findings.
Bad boy Ronnie. Bad boy. Oh, and biggest Sandanista supporter in U.S. Senate? John Kerry.

6/12/2004

Was out in the Simi Valley area for a junior high graduation and the crowds were already lining the freeway at 1:30. There is a picture on Yahoo that captures it completely. Crowds that completely stopped the freeway and covered the hill. Bill Quick has a great shot of the crowd leading up to the cemetary from the freeway. The post grad party with twenty or so adults were all talking admiringly about Reagan and had been talking to their kids about him. We have all learned a lot about our 40th president this week. Totally different than the viciously lying press had ever told us. I'll bet Reagan books dominate Amazon this weekend.

Several emailers have suggested that you need to understand the 1966 race for governor of California to really "get" Reagan. This is the race where he was viciously attacked for being an actor..."he's an actor and you know who killed Lincoln don't you?"---His opponent, Pat Brown, spoken to a child. The only known book is "The Right Moment: Ronald Reagan's First Victory and the Decisive Turning Point in American Politics" by Matthew Dallek; criticized for stiff writing.

You could do a lot worse than reading Peter Schweizer's "Reagan's War: The Epic Story of His Forty Year Struggle and Final Triumph Over Communism". Many of the other books, like his letters, suffer from rushed editorial practices that don't "fill out" certain subjects even though the material was available.

The bad news for Bush out of this graduation party talk is that almost all commented regarding his seeming lack of any authority in government, his failure to fire people, and the fact that everybody who leaves trashes him. This funeral only serves to remind everyone how lacking in basic communication skills our current president is.

And as all of us now know, the no class Clintons both appeared to have "nodded off" for National TV, showing publicly their contempt. Naturally the best large photo of the snoozers is HERE. However FOX has a picture of the same two people appearing to be sleeping in a much wider frame context. It appears that they are standing. paragraph is false. They were not sleeping

See the LA Times shot from another angle to include 20 other people. They were caught looking like they were sleeping. I'm inclined to cut the Clintons some slack here. Nobody in the picture looks good. Don't rush to judgement. Looks like a Right Wing hit piece without checking. They were NOT sleeping.

6/11/2004

As you know, I'm a reader of super spy Herb Meyer but have failed to note his recommended reading of a person he considers "never wrong". I have taken some time during this day of National Mourning to read what she has published. I urge your to take a trip through ten or so pieces listed here when you have some time. She's consistently called the shots. Start at the bottom and work up, you will see now CIA Director Tenet was wrong from the start and stayed wrong. Why he was allowed to stay on is one of the great mysteries of our time. I hope you read her stuff, it's an education.

The perfect documentation of my piece yesterday is run by Sullivan today. The Left is composed of pretentious cowards afraid to do anything, including challenging the slaughter of millions. It's a cabal, against Reagan and now Bush.

6/10/2004

Response to Leftist Charge #2:
REAGAN DIDN'T WIN THE COLD WAR

Link to Response #1 is here
"The Russia would have collapsed anyway story"---a look at Reykjavik--It's Reagan, an old line labor leader and negotiator vs Gorbachev, a communist to his core and under pressure at home. A man who never negotiated with anyone in his life. He gave orders or followed them.

"Not winning the Cold War" absurdity ignores the fact that the policy in Washington had been MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction), Detente (Let's be friends while armed to the teeth), and Balance of Terror. Reagan thought living like that was MAD. Reagan as early as 1958 had been articulating and writing on the concept of attacking Soviet Communism economically. He wanted to win, not just hang around "saber rattling". Win! Something not one Lefty wanted to do; they were afraid. By 1986 Reagan had already done great damage to the Soviet economy; he had "allowed" the Russians to steal a phony computer code which the Russians had put into gas and oil pipelines. The stolen code resulted in the largest explosion inside Russia since they tested an atomic bomb. He had cut off credits. He had made hard currencies almost impossible for them to get so they couldn't trade effectively. He had run them out of Afghanistan at huge cost to them. He wanted to meet with Soviet leaders, but "they kept dying on me" said Reagan referring to the endless string of Soviet leaders who died of old age while in office.

When Gorbachev took over and met with Thatcher she told Reagan, "I think we can talk with this guy." Reagan met briefly with him in Switzerland and proposed a zero zero solution; zero weapons on each side which was basically shrugged off. But groundwork had been laid and they parted. Gorbachev requested another meeting to be held in Reykjakik Iceland.

Now here is where everyone (all the liberals running the media) misses one of the great strengths of Ronald Reagan. He had been the president of the Screen Actors Guild labor union. In this capacity he had to negotiate contracts with three of the toughest bastards in business. Harry Cohn, the head of Columbia, was a thug and a real gangster think Al Swearinger the whore house saloon owner in the HBO Series "Deadwood" and you've got Harry Cohn). Everybody was afraid to cross him because they realistically feared him. Louis B. Mayer was the toughest businessman on the planet and you crossed him at peril for your future, meaning you would never work again. Jack Warner of the Warner Brothers was a super ruthless guy who violated labor agreements whenever he could. These three guys had already busted one huge Hollywood craft union combine called the CSU that the actors and teamsters did not join. This CSU was lead by a Communist (Herbert Sorrell, not proven but close) and the strike exploded into real violence all across Los Angeles that involved the communist Harry Bridges led longshoremen and the newspaper guild which was regarded as a communist union too.

Strikebreakers and goons "were armed with chains, bolts, hammers, six inch pipes, brass knuckles, wooden mallets, and battery cables." Steel-helmeted county sheriffs were armed with "30-30 Garrand rifles and two were weighted down with an arsenal of tear-gas bombs."
Cutting to the chase, the studios eventually "settled" with a gangster controlled IATSE craft union and the strike was crushed. Gangsters took a huge role in Hollywood instead of Communists. A Teamster Union Leader (Joe Tuohy) immediately became a high official in one of the studios, and so on.

Reagan went nose to nose with these really tough guys who had made deals with gangsters who could blow your brains out if they didn't like your hair style. He did this on a regular basis and hammered out contracts that were increasingly favorable to actors. It was said his "charm" was impenetrable. He was always in "good spirits" and the gangsters probably liked him a little. Many think that the demise of his movie career was caused partly by the real anger the studio heads bore him for his role in the negotiations of the 40s.

At any rate the "negotiations" between Reagan and Gorbachev was like Tyson vs the referee. Gorbachev didn't know who he was in with. He entered the negotiations with no strength at all. Reagan also knew from super CIA agent Herb Meyer that the Soviet economy was crumbling on the spot. SDI (Star Wars) was key. Gorbachev and Reagan came close, but Reagan wouldn't budge on Star Wars. Not one inch. Keep in mind this old labor negotiator was bargaining with nothing. There was no Star Wars. Reagan knew it. Knew it was still a laboratory concept but he acted like he was going to pull the whole union out on strike. Gorbachev demanded that Star Wars "stay in the Laboratory" but he had no bargaining chip, nothing to negotiate with; Reagan saw him as Harry Cohn on a bus stop bench ten cents short of the fare; he could take the studio. Finally they parted:
"It is a question of one word," Reagan said. Gorbachev agreed, saying, "It's 'laboratory,' or goodbye." Gorbachev could not go home and tell his people that he had agreed to eliminate ballistic missiles while allowing Americans to develop a space-based defense system. As a tight-lipped Reagan escorted the general secretary to his limousine, Gorbachev said, "I don't know what more I could have done."
"You could have said yes," replied the president.
The old line labor union negotiator knew there would be more. There always is a settlement. Eventually. Well this time there wasn't. The company (Soviet Union) went broke within three years. What every left wing labor leader (which is what Reagan was in the 40s) dreams of. In fact Barry Goldwater thought he was a Communist.

Every liberal on the planet would have agreed with Gorbachev and prolonged the enslavement of millions for another ten years. None of them, like in nobodeeee, wanted to win other than Ronald Reagan. Reagan WANTED to win, and that is why the Left hates him. They hate winners.

Reagan won the Cold War and nobody else.

Some side reading on the Hollywood strikes of the 40s is available around the web, much of it is Communist stuff, but all is interesting. I didn't go into the details in this piece.

Insults lead to death in the Middle East. Reports from the Arab League Summit in Sharm El-Sheikh, when Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi of Libya and Crown Prince Abdullah of Saudi Arabia exchanged insults in open session, accusing each other of selling out to colonial powers launched an assassination plot against the Saudi Prince. Pipes has the story, but this has to affect oil prices. We are dealing with primitive thugs.

6/09/2004

"Right Wing" FOX is all over Rumsfeld AND Bush for their total confusion over Iraq. Here we can learn plenty from Reagan. Reagan formed his ideas over a period of thirty years before he became president. He really knew Communism, really had solid ideas about lowering taxes and what the 90% tax rate was doing to America. He was fixed. Nothing was going to get him off the target. He had written and formulated his ideas over time.

Bush and everyone else in Washington is not prepared in the least for Islamofacism, terrorism, or any way to deal with it. Once again O'Reilley was all over the "White House" in an interview with Robert Kaplan of Atlantic. Kaplan was also angry. He was "embedded" with the Marines who ended up in Fallujah for eight weeks. He said our Marines are fighting with one hand tied behind their backs in deference to the "confused" politics in Washington. If FOX is going there you can bet your ass that Bush and Rumsfeld are out to lunch here. Kaplan did not argue with the O'Reilley statement that the brass are fed up with Rumsfeld.

After we get Reagan in the ground we will still have this meandering President and his "brilliant" Defense Secretary hoping their seeing eye dogs show up to bail them out. The real problem is that nobody in either party has a clue. The Democrats just want to feed the crocodile. The Republicans want to defeat a hundred million primitive fanatics on the cheap.

We have real problems and I don't see a solution.


Response #1
REAGAN CREATED THE GI BILL FOR THE REGULAR PEOPLE

The Roman Legions used the short sword for centuries to stab and hack at opponents. It was effective because the stabbing motion could disable an enemy (peer competior to the Kerry crowd) and allow a Roman soldier to move on to the next peer competitor and respectfully adjust his ability to compete. Reagan has been disabled since 1992, but perhaps because they feared that "The Great Communicator" could somehow fight back they let him alone. Not now. The short swords are out. Stabbing thrusts punched from mostly webzines, the New York and LA Times, as well as the Networks are meant to disabble a corpse. It's as if a dead Ronald Reagan could still menace them with his smile. Like he might sit up in his coffin and destroy them with

...all in all I'd rather be here than in a government program."
The current attacks are an election tactic by the Left. They don't want Bush to get any traction from Reagan. The networks all put out the same deficit story last night, so it can't be an accident. The charges being made against him are two: that he lied about a deficit by lowering taxes and created a $4 trillion dollar debt, and that the Soviet Union would have collapsed anyway; that Reagan had little or nothing to do with it. Side issues of the "crime" of Iran Contra, the usual accusations of racism, ignoring AIDS, and hurting little people fill out the dance ticket.

TODAY I'll examine just the 4 trillion deficit. Twenty million "tax generating" new jobs were created for a deficit cost of $4 trillion, probably not an accurate figure because lots of the money went to government entitlements, but let's work with the 4 tril. Dividing it out, twenty million jobs were created at a cost of $200,000 per job. Some of the jobs were new businesses. Microsoft was nothing. Software was nothing. Computers were toys. There was no Dell. HP made calculators. Biotech??? Hi Tech? There was only Texas Tech and Georgia Tech. But business creation exploded. Each one of those new jobs and businesses in turn paid back in taxes and job creation how much? . Nobody can say, but Reagan's policies certainly created more tax revenues EVENTUALLY than the cost of the twenty million new jobs.

Deregulation was part of the package. The Deregulation of the phone company in 1984 reduced telephone costs to the consumer by $40 billion per year. When Reagan took office it was illegal to have a phone answering machine. If you wanted an answering machine you had to hire an answering service at a cost of $30 per month and up. You HAD to have a phone manufactured by Bell approved companies (Western Electric out west) and they rented phones to you at a fixed cost every month. Private switchboards were not allowed, they had to be approved by the phone company. So you have to count the amount of money pumped back into consumer pockets as part of the "deficit".

At the time Reagan was elected I was the national sales manager for The American Entrepreneur Association (Entrepreneur Magazine). It was a very small operation. We had great product aside from the magazine. We produced manuals on how to start and operate more than 100 businesses. When the 70% tax was cut to 28%, our company grew 300% in a matter of 6 months. Suddenly all kinds of people decided to go into their own businesses because it finally made economic sense. We went from grossing about $500,000 per month to nearly $1,000,000 per week. Our customers were black, Arab, Asian, white, and everything else you can think of. That tax cut was raw meat for millions of people who wanted to start their own businesses. I remember talking to a woman who "didn't understand" a manual she had bought from us. She was telling me that she just couldn't start a business because she wasn't educated. I remember that I told her to read the manual carefully and if there was one word in it about having to be educated I'd give her a 200% refund. The SBA had told her she wasn't qualified; they told her in effect that she was too stupid to go into business for herself. The manual told her how to start her particular business from her house at a total cost of three or four hundred dollars. I called her back a week later and she told me she was going downtown to get her business license in the morning; she could hire a bookkeeper when she needed one; she bought another manual we had on promoting a business for no money. She made the decision when she simply factored in the deductions for running a small business under the new tax laws (simple math). The tax cut "made her feel good". Made her feel that anything was possible for her. Anything is possible for any of us, we just need the frame of mind to try. Reagan gave us that. Reagan gave that lady the confidence to try.

The four trillion was a creative deficit, eventually. The stock market advanced twenty per cent per year for more than eight years, increasing wealth exponentially and generating even more taxes; capital gains and income. The Dow went from under 1,000 to more than 2,000; the S&P rose 113%, the smaller indexes gained even more. Unemployment went from 10% to just over 6% (at that time 6% was considered full employment and anything lower than that was supposed to be ruinously inflationary).

The question for us today is only this: why the nastiness about our 40th prez? It's because Reagan cut the government out of the success story. He asked and answered the question: isn't it better to put policies in place that will allow individuals to create our own jobs and opportunities than to have government do it with make work programs? Don't the private sector jobs last longer than a bridge building project? Yes, he ran up a 4 trillion dollar deficit. I think what was produced was more than worth it. A GI Bill for regular people.

The current criticism is not over the deficit. The criticism is over cutting government out of the process. The Left now attacking Reagan would have taxed everyone to death and put people to work on government projects. Reagan didn't play that game. He is still the moron to the Left. Even dead and buried he is a menace. He must be stopped. Then so must Jefferson. People have said that if Thomas Jefferson was alive today he'd be in jail. If it were up to liberals that is where Reagan would always have been.

Tomorrow I'll look at the Soviet Union collapse.

Still another "White House" blunder The Kurds were left out of the resolution so they may walk. You have no idea how stupid this is. The Turks would like to kill every one of them in a micro-second as would the Shias. Without some kind of counter balance they have no chance. Bush ain't no Reagan. He has no plan, no core idea, nothing for the area. My old post on the conflicts in the area is HERE

EVERYBODY'S HATEFUL BUT ME----MY PART IN THE SEWER MEDIA

Every media outlet that is Right of center is pointing out how filled with hate the media on the Left has become. How morally depraved they are. How superior the rest of us are. But what about us? What about the writing that is to the Right? Kerry is "Fuck Face", Shit for Brains, French Piece of Shit, and so on. The Democrats are traitors, scum, liars and whatever.

Once I call you a liar, them's fightin' words. And nothing moves forward from there. Literary shit fights are not new in this country. Read any of the old newspapers before the advent of government controlled radio and TV. You will read the same and worse. Starting with Jefferson the papers were vicious; politicians "bought" their own papers so they could lie back. Falsifications, accusations, and disgusting personal attacks were the staple of 18th and 19th century journalism, tactics that carried through the early part of the 20th century til radio and then TV ended it because they were "public airwaves" and government controlled what was said. We just haven't grown up with a pamphleteering type of press. The web has allowed all our bar conversations, filled with school yard expletives, dirty jokes, and urges to kill or maim a politician to be "out there" for all to hear and read. All our wishes for the death of a political figure we disagree with are published. The Democrat websites over the past few days have been disgusting, but are we any better? This is bar talk brought out of the alcohol fumes and into the public air for all of us to hear is just new to us. It's well to keep in mind that when we read the Democrats we read ourselves too, it's just that we on the Right pretend a higher plane.

Reagan's death has made me realize how bad I have been in this arena and how much more effective I can be if I allow a better side some sway. It is pretentious beyond reality to say that I have not become part of the sewer media. Because that is what the web is, or has become.

I'm moving to a better sewer.

6/08/2004

READ MY LIPS IRAQ DOES NOT HAVE A DEMOCRATIC GOVERNMENT, not only are all these people appointed, lots of them live and work in the U.S. Everybody I'm reading seems to think this is democratic. It's a step toward a possible democracy. The Shia majority wants a Shia state governed by Shria Law and you better be ready for it. The current government is NOT Iraqi, it's exiles. Not a democracy by any stretch of the imagination.

Iraq thanks U.S.---TWICE but Bush Hating Media doesn't report it. Read this.

6/07/2004

Markets and Economy
A REAGAN RALLY?

I'll defer to the experts here who say today's 150 point Dow move and huge NASDAQ move are related to "feeling good" about Reagan one more time. I personally think it's more related to oil prices hitting $38. I'd remind you that we are in a trading range still, with the lower end being pierced pretty good for a few days. As a political aside here I'd caution you. The communication skills of this White House are still pathetic, especially when compared to "the Great Communicator" and this rally, if it is a Reagan Rally, will drop like a rock. Nothing has changed. Bush's problems are of his own personal shortcomings in that he is the least articulate politician since Ford.

We will have to see. The nastiness of the Media Elite and the Left are still to be seen regarding our late President. They still hate Bush and there will be no civility from them. I say that either this week's hiatus by Bush will somehow magically create a man who can simply talk to people or it will be more of the same. I predict it will be more of the same.

The trading and investing rules still apply. Just look at this rally as one more set of numbers, pay no attention to the real emotion you may feel, and stay detached. The employment numbers are good, the indicators are good, but just look at the numbers generated by the market itself and not the crap coming from all media, websites, blogs, and your local drug dealer.

IT'S OFFICIAL

From the Left today: Reagan did not end the Cold War, he prolonged it. He was responsible for "progressive" (Communist Governments) being illegally eliminated in Central America; for the defeatist Left's version you can go here for just spin without foul language. Somebody has written that somewhere along the line Liberals have lost all courage to try anything other than hide out and hope everything will go away; we call it feeding the crocodile. Anyway, Reagan and Thatcher did nothing that wouldn't have happened anyway, the sources for all this are the old line Communists from Russia. Have a great day, but pay attention to what is going on and let Reagan sort of rest.

BTW: FUCKING DETROIT beat the Lakers Some are blaming Bush, others Kerry. In Detroit they credit Reagan. And you can always feel better by getting the real news from PAGE SIX; like this doozy with a great pic

"PLANET of the Apes" starlet Estella Warren went bananas at Scores the other night, performing a steamy, topless lap dance for boyfriend Peter Berg. The model-turned-actress shocked patrons when she whipped off her top during a bawdy bump-and-grind for her man. The maitre d' spotted Warren's striptease and ran over to demand that she cover up.
Now THERE'S REAL NEWS. ANOTHER BTW: I've been saying for months that John Kerry's awful wife Terayyyyzzzah is a horror story that will destroy him if nothing else will. Check this out, her speech delivered an hour late at a Dem fund raiser.

Now the Iraqis are accusing the USA of covering up the Oil for Food Program Make no mistake, tens of thousands of Iraqis died as a result of this scandal, and it looks like Bush is trying to cover it up. This thing not only has legs, it is growing arms. After all of us get through feeling bad about Reagan we might find that the Iraqis are so pissed they might throw us out.

Meanwhile the Arabs are calling Reagan a criminal; they must be reading American Left websites.

"....an economist is a fellow with a Phi Beta Kappa key on one end of his chain and no watch on the other. That's why they never know what time it is." Peggy Noonan has a terrific recollective column on Reagan today. You could do worse than read it. Then go to Nancy Reagan's last essy on her husband. "They broke the mold after they made Ronnie."

6/06/2004

#1 Four Trillion deficit
RONALD REAGAN'S FIRST POLITCAL VICTORY

How Ronald Reagan Cleaned the Communists from the Screen Actors Guild and effectively ended the Communist Party in Hollywood.

First, understand that the "Hollywood Ten of the 40s were not Liberals, they were Communists. They lied and dodged the questions before the HUAC; the media to this day claims they were NOT Communists. They WERE Communists. There were two groups: the 1947 Hollywood Ten who were Communists and actual agents taking orders from the Comintern; they have admitted so and in fact bragged about it. Then there were the "left overs", the Communist agents who were not called, and people who stayed cocktail party Communists through the fifties.

The "Ten" had plenty of company. All admitted later outside meetings that they had loaded scripts with party line messages.htm Others felt the Communist Party was a "social club" (gulags, the slaughter of millions, etc., was a "social club" to these jerks), others admitted they structured scripts and scenes at the "direction of the Comintern". In other words they HAD to stick together and defy Congress or risk going to jail. Many went to jail. Ronald Reagan was a member of a Communist Front organization, exposed by hostorian Arthur Schlesinger, until this time. He resigned "when he found out what they were up to". He remained a registered Democrat til 1962.

The Hollywood Left and the Communists rallied around a cry of "Right of Free Association"; that is anyone has a right to believe in anything they want to believe in and to associate withomever they choose. The scream is still so loud that the truth can't be heard. The truth is that "Free Association" has no connection with working for a foreign power, which the CPUSA clearly was. And that foreign power advocated the violent overthrow of the U.S. government. That's what the Hollywood Ten was doing. Period. Check everything including the Venona intercepts but leave out Sparticus and the rest of the Left Wing references on Google.

Getting back to Reagan, the question arises around what the 50s Communists were doing and what they were capable of doing

First, they had the same "Red List" that exists today; only Left people would be hired if they had anything to say about it. Secondly, they tried to write movies in which the business people were evil; priests and other clergy did bad things, conservatives were old villains, and they wrote movies about an underdog with "a social conscience" (liberal) who challenged the horrible people and beat them. The "film noir" was mostly about the evil of all governments. The writers, directors, and actors came out of The Group Theatre in New York and assembled on the West Coast in "The Actors Lab". But what exactly did they do that was "un-American"? Did they advocate the overthrow of the American Government by force or violence? Did they send money to Moscow to fund the KGB? Were they engaged in activities that could result in a revolution? It is now a matter of record that the Communist Party USA was under the direct control of Moscow and Stalin. Something all Lefties deny.

What the 50's Hollywood Left and the Communists wanted to do was organize Actors, Writers, Directors, and all the crafts under one single union dominated and controlled by Communists. This single union could then dictate content of scripts, casting, and employment. They could sledge hammer all negotiations with the threat of a unified walkout over any and every issue that Moscow wanted. This grandiose plot never got past the usual phony Hollywood "let's have a meeting" stage once Reagan stepped in. The Hollywood "activists" then as now lacked the guts to really follow through when it was their careers that they would have to put at risk. They were mostly cocktail party limp wristed big mouth fakes who could only operate within a group. They stuck with the mob of Lefties. Ronald Reagan alone stopped the Screen Actors Guild Lefties and Communists in their tracks and effectively ended the plot. He was not part of a group.

This is what went down and what made Reagan "someone to watch". Reagan was a registered Democrat; he was a New Deal Democrat in the FDR mold and president of the Screen Actors Guild union . He could never have been elected had he not "been in the club". Back in the 1957-58 period the Communists in the Guild wanted to combine with Communist dominated AFTRA (the TV and Radio people) to form one giant union of actors. They then would combine with the equally communist members of the Directors and Writers Guilds and form one Giant Hollywood Union that would control scripts, actors, and directors; their fantasy was to make Hollywood an "agit prop" arm of the Left.

The first step was to be the takeover of the Actors Unions by uniting them. The reasons the Communists and their pals gave for this uniting of unions were that medical insurance would be better and cheaper, credit union would be stronger with more members, and a contract could be negotiated that would be so strong that no producer, network, or studio would dare step out of line.

Reagan and a few others in the Guild were hip to what the Communists masquerading as Democratic Liberals really wanted. Reagan had an ace to play and waited. He knew that actors in Hollywood couldn't negotiate contracts for newscasters in Des Moines, disc jockeys in Memphis, and announcers in Dallas any more than the aforementioned radio and live TV people could negotiate contracts for actors on sound stages all over the world. He didn't play the card early. He allowed the Communists and their allies to bring the unification issue from committee to a SAG meeting for a vote, a vote they "knew" they would win. How do I know? I know because I was a Left Wing young asshole on the committee. I didn't know shit about Communists, I knew a lot of the committee members were "Left" but I thought their stated reasons for uniting unions were valid. I had no idea of what was really going down. I only knew that the Lefties on the committee hated Reagan's guts. I didn't know why.

HOW REAGAN DID IT.
The motion to combine unions was to be brought up at the SAG meeting held at the Hilton Hotel Ballrooms in Beverly Hills. Attendance was a record for that time because the subject of Union Unification was of interest to everybody, the stars didn't show of course because they are always too good to associate with day players. Reagan allowed the motion to come to the floor and be seconded. He then showed his real political savvy. He threw the floor open to all discussion without any restraints on the free speech of anyone other than a three minute time limit. This happened at around 8:15PM.

Just imagine several thousand whacked out actors, many on the drugs of the time; alcohol, pot, and "bennies"; on release from their therapists; nut cases on Left and Right; as well as the opinionated semi-educated and the well educated who think they know everything, getting into a "discussion". It went on. And on. And on. Eight thirty became Nine. Nine became ten. Ten became eleven. And the endless accusations, pontifications, prepared and unprepared statements droned on. Everyone was ready to nod off. The "discussion" was in the never never land of actor pot dreams.

Reagan siezed the "moment" of maximum exhaustion. He took the floor on a "point of order" (and trust me, not one actor in a thousand had the foggiest notion of what a "point of order" was). He did 45 seconds of really impassioned oratory. He asked questions: "Do we want a union run by thugs from back east like the Teamsters? Do we want a bunch of stupid disk jockeys telling us how long we rehearse? Do we want a bunch of news readers (snide as hell) telling us what our working conditions on remote locations in the jungle should be?" Do we want anybody but actors decding what actors should have as a contract? And he immediately "called the question" (another thing not one actor in a thousand knew anything about). The only people to vote in favor of union unification were the Communists and Lefties.

That was the end of the Communist "plan" to take over the Hollywood unions. The two actors unions didn't combine until a few years ago, and then only in a carefully crafted way which was eventually tossed out.
.
AN END NOTE:
The 1947 Commies, the people who went before the HUAC and "stood up" (lied) were not brave. First, they "stood up" in 1947, long before Joe McCarthy, but during the time that Nixon exposed Alger Hiss as a Russian spy (Venona Link); an accusation now proven by old Soviet documents. The focus of the Left was that Nixon was lying and that Hiss was innocent. The "Ten" were called up and there was a huge left opposition, but the country was convinced of the guilt of Hiss and the committee had broad public support. This is what producer (Salt of the Earth, 1954) Paul Jerrico had to say when asked the inevitable question, "In the event of a war between Russian and America, would you support the United States?". He stood mute. Reagan became a target of choice for all Liberals after the union vote. He registered as a Republican in 1962

A great LINK to Reagan's early thinking regarding the economic vulnerability of the Soviet Empire and his ideas as early as the 50s.

A MEMORY THAT WILL NEVER REST

"You and I have a rendezvous with destiny. We will preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on earth, or we will sentence them to take the first step into a thousand years of darkness. If we fail, at least let our children and our children's children say of us we justified our brief moment here. We did all that could be done."

And the press that slobbers over his death now, never stopped calling him a dope.

6/05/2004

Ronald Reagan Dies

"When the Lord calls me home ... I will leave with the greatest love for this country of ours and eternal optimism for its future," he wrote on Nov. 5, 1994. "I know that for America there will always be a bright dawn ahead."
The Left will always hate the man who killed Communism, but the rest of us around the world can thank God he came along. We know. They don't. Then there is Reagan's opinion:
"You and I are told we must choose between a left or right, but I suggest there is no such thing as a left or right. There is only an up or down. Up to man's age-old dream-the maximum of individual freedom consistent with order or down to the ant heap of totalitarianism. Regardless of their sincerity, their humanitarian motives, those who would sacrifice freedom for security have embarked on this downward path. Plutarch warned, "The real destroyer of the liberties of the people is he who spreads among them bounties, donations and benefits."
Let's hope there will be another Reagan and may God forgive those people on the Left who attempt to ridicule and dishonor him. I am feeling a deep sense of personal loss, as if a close friend or relative had died. Forgive me if I'm totally pissed at the people who insult him.

Warning: addictive game link

Saturday Help Wanted

CREATIVE TALENT WANTED

Air America seeking LIBERAL RADIO COMEDY WRITERS. Must be able to switch all dumb blonde jokes to stupid American jokes, switch all racist jokes to Republican or American soldier jokes; Example switch from anti Black joke:

What do you call an American Soldier with a wooden leg? A: Shit on a stick.";
"Why do more Republicans get hit by cars in the winter? A: They are easier to spot."
These two jokes got us more email praise than our Saddam Hussein Legal Defense Fund show. In order to broaden our base we need more pro-Muslim material like this one that got our show blockbuster ratings in Dearborn Michigan:
"How many jews can you fit in a VW Beetle?
A: 54, two in the front, two in the back, and fifty in the ashtray.
This also got us a donation from an Arab charity. You need to be able to write snappy satirical songs comparing cowardly American soldiers to brave French soldiers and German Gestapo heroes; this sample rap lyric got a standing ovation at Berkeley
None of ouer soljers is brave like da French
They don't have the qualities, just sit on the bench
The French be brave cuz dey growed up in France
Our soljers is just white boys with small dicks in dere pants.
; composers must be able re-arrange all the old Nazi marches to bouncy happy polkas and waltzes (The Horst Wessel Polka, The Dead Jew Boogie etc.), you must be able to write hilarious comedy bits about teachers being raped by Republicans, urproarious routines about home invasions, street gang murders, and violence against animals, comedy sketches about abortion, Global Warming killing millions, and other issue orented laughs and chuckles. Anti-Semitic college students will be given preference; anti-white African Americans will be guranteed employment equal to their representation in the population; women will be over represented; support for genocidal Middle Eastern dictators will not be reasons for exclusion (torture chamber jokes, so long as they are not hateful, will help spread understanding and diversity; the "What do you tell a Jewish bitch with one black eye?" joke is still a torture chamber classic and got big yuks at the Move On dot Org rally for Islamic Jihad). Pay is negotiable depending on oil prices coming down.

DuToit strikes. I'd only add that Kerry apparently will name the world's biggest feminist moron to head the Joint Chiefs. He has her on his military advisory staff now. Her name is Claudia Kennedy, the first female three-star general -- a feminist famous during the Clinton years for charging a fellow general (whose advancement she hoped to stop) with "inappropriate touching." This is the same feminist moron who once bragged to West Point cadets that "this is not your father's Army anymore!" She doesn't like the word "enemy"; she relies instead on the term "peer competitor." Another "accomplishment" of hers was the COO program. And what does a special forces soldier learn in COO? Why COO stands for Consideration of Others. We have to be considerate of terrorists world wide. Her allies include Hillary Clinton who sits on the Armed Services Committee. Kerry increasingly looks like the worst of the Political Correctness of the Clinton Administration and no economic brains at all. Ten million (now only nine) new jobs so we can import six million new unskilled immigrants to fill them? Wow.

TIME TO LOOK AT POLITICAL CONFUSION

Over the next few months, I hope to write a fair bit about the dominant feature of our political life: polarization. I hope to figure out how deeply split the nation is, and what exactly it is we are fighting about ? questions that leave me, at present, confused. Simon links to
this piece from the op ed pages of the NYT today written by David Brooks. Well worth the read and well worth thinking about. I too have been wondering about it. If you would check the newspapers of the 40's and 50's you'd be astonished at how many of today's wild lefties are taking the same positions the reactionary Right took back then. The only thread that I can see is the broad one of economic control from government and the lack of it. Republicans used to be isolationist, now it's the Left. The entire purpose of the Left of the "Greatest Generation" was to have an EU formed so that no more European Wars could pull the world to a conflagration. They wanted trade. They would fight to stop an imperialism. There is no way the old Left would allow the massive starvation in Africa. There is no way the old Left would have permitted Saddam to so much as START what now may turn out to be a worse slaughter than previously imagined. My hunch is that when the Left went so far Left that they were supporting communist governments and movements over democratic movements things began to change, but nobody in the political parties caught on. Hence supporting the Communist Sandanistas in Nicaragua was seen as the same thing as supporting workers in the work place, etc. We have a confused electorate. The Left is the Right of the 40s and 50s, a fascist control of the University system and news outlets, hostile toward all religion and so on. The Right supports free trade and is demanding freedom of speech in the university system as well as news rooms. The Right supports rights to get out of the Public School System, demands teachers be better, demands that kids learn while the Left "supports" a failed teachers union. I hope Brooks writes more. I'm confused too.

SOURCES ANONYMOUS NEEDS A TWELVE STEP PROGRAM

Emailer William F. sent me a missive from the fringes of the Left that apparently has currency there. Dated 6/4, the piece is by the Lefty, Alexander Cockburn, and is typical of the crap that is coming out of both extremes in our country these days. The Cockburn site claims twenty million viewers and could be easily titled "Godisapig dot com". Out of deference to all writers, I won't quote his entire piece but you can go there. He says
1. that Bush is insane,
2. that the White House is like Nixon's in the "Last Days"
Then spins a tale of a "Richard III" nightmare, without the limp but with a hump on Bush's back called Christianity and God. A short reminder here that Richard III is a story of pure fiction about the real King Richard that Shakespeare made up to please Queen Elizabeth and get more funding for his theatre. Perhaps Cockburn is seeking funding from King George (Soros)for his theater of the absurd. You can link to the entire pile of puke HERE. The plagiarized source of the attack is Capitol Hill Blue and you can link to the original article. I quote one short paragraph to demonstrate the total absence of sources

"It reminds me of the Nixon days," says a longtime GOP political consultant with contacts in the White House. "Everybody is an enemy; everybody is out to get him. That's the mood over there."
You will note that even the anonymous sources use anonymous sources, a new record. More point:

3 Goes into obscene tirades and calls Democrats enemies of the state.
4. Links Bush to a drunken Nixon and implies that a crazy person has his finger on the nuclear b utton
5. Claims Bush fired Tenet in a fury after Tenet challenged him at a meeting.
6. Claims that Bush calls people "fucking assholes" in front of other staff, and/or "unpatriotic" or "anti-American."

All anonymously sourced. It is becoming very clear that Christianity is the demon to the Left, and you ought to read Cockburn's very short piece to see it. This is a "hit piece" without a single named source. Can internet libel be the coming thing?

6/04/2004

Simon has what sounds like a great drink recipe. The recipe leads me to the "getting loaded ritual", something that pot doesn't really have any more; I mean you can buy it from some loser at the Post Office these days. In my old days "scoring shit" had a sort of ritual that made getting loaded sort of exciting. You "knew somebody" who had "good shit" (there was only two kinds in my youth: good shit and bad shit). We (always "we" because it was part of the party) would drive to a darkened street that contained six or eight cookie cutter apartment buildings, locate the address, then go around the block six times "checking for the heat" before parking a block away from our "connection's" pad. Now, this is really cool. We'd walk up a flight or two of stairs to the apartment. The "connection" would answer the door. The connection always wore sunglasses, I mean that was the deal, nobody would deal with a connection that didn't look cool at midnight. After a pause, he would let us in. He always had this mysterious piece either sitting on the floor or on the arm of a chair; the mysterious piece usually wore shades too. What the tip off was to "really hip" as opposed to just "cool" was if she was nodding her head in time with Chet Baker or Shorty Rogers jazz records playing softly in the background. Some really cool connections had their shade masked chick answer the door and just stare at us for a minute while allowing us to check out her body, (while moving slightly in time with Chet and Shorty in the background) now that was insane; I'd always rather deal with a connection that had a hot babe answering the door. Buying good shit while I had an erection was the coolest. The connection never introduced his chick and she would never speak to anyone either, we would always presume the shit our connection was going to sell us was so strong that it rendered women speechless, and therefore an easy lay. In those days we bought it in nickel bags ($5) or "a dime" ($10 baggie) and without much conversation he'd look at us and inquire, "nickel"? Then, and this was always so cool, he would go to the hiding place for his stash which was something like inside the leg of a kitchen table. So we'd help him turn the table over and he'd unscrew the leg and pull out a nickel bag from a literal treasure trove of "good shit". Then we'd all sit around and take "hits" from his own personal shit, tell a joke or two and leave.

That was the "pot" ritual. The drink ritual as described by Simon is much more sociable and actually just as much fun. It would be even more fun if Daiquiris a la mode de Simon were illegal and you faced five years in the pen for drinking them.

But you can't have a total ritual anymore.

It's the Republicans.

Oil and gasoline prices Here are a few facts on gasoline and the mis-interpreted expansion in refinery "capacity". Maximum refinery capacity is 90 per cent because they always shut down for maintenance and for the required resetting for the environmentally required mixes for every area. We are getting as much gasoline from our refineries as is possible; OPEC production could increase 100 percent and we'd still only produce the gasoline we do now.

We currently import 35% of our gasoline from Europe, because WE CANNOT refine enough. Why does Europe have more refining capacity than we do? Our jerk environmentalists and nuclear power.

Steven den Beste has a post about the fallacy of "new" fuel sources. Long but thorough, as usual. Note: den Beste link is now correct

Another quater million new jobs created in May.

Nonfarm payroll employment rose by 248,000 in May, and the unemployment rate was unchanged at 5.6 percent, the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the U.S. Department of Labor reported today. The May increase in payroll employment follows gains of 346,000 in April and 353,000 in March (as revised). Job growth in May again was widespread, as increases continued in construction, manufacturing, and several service-providing industries.
The Democrats have nothing to talk about other than Tenet and Iraq. More than a million new jobs in four months can do that.


DEMOCRATS WILL DEMAND A "BENIGN" REPLACEMENT FOR TENET

Tenet---his fault or ours? The "reports" from the Gorelik committee are going to blame the CIA. In fact the fault is Congress's. It was they who castrated the agency back in 1976 and continued when Bush I cut the funding for CIA drastically, through Clinton. We elect the Congress. Now we will have the patriots like Pelosi, Clinton, Kerry, etc. "reforming" the CIA. There is no way these super-Left politicians will allow anyone strong to head the agency. The person will have to support abortion, parental leave, diversity, and all the rest; precisely what got us here. Bush will have to prove that he interviewed Blacks, Hispanics and women to head the agency before the new head can be approved. If you think this is fantasy, check this link courtesy of Terpsboy. On the plus side of the CIA etc., is that there has not been another terrorist attack since 9/11 and that has to count for something; just check out this, the latest terror attack in a Moscow shopping mall so the CIA has done some things right. The CIA didn't trust Chalabi from day one and it may turn out that overriding that concern was a huge mistake. Some of the "spin" going on now is that the bureaucracy is full of Democrats who wanted to stab Bush in the back. Well, Bush could have fired every Democrat in the place when elected and he chose to keep both Tenet and that moron Minetta. I have been super-critical of Bush's inability to fire people and Tenet clearly should have been fired. But we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that the ENTIRE agency let us down, as did the FBI (Robert Hanssen), but they played within the rules set by Congress. NRO has a good piece today, and has a clear focus on the "softness" of the intel as well as the fact that leaks from both agencies who only police themselves have cost us thousands of lives.

It is a mess, but one created in large part by Congress.

6/03/2004

A little perspective on Tennet Sometime back I posted the following and referred to super spy Meyer who was gracious enough to endorse what I wrote:

We are faced with the reality of gathering intelligence from inside a tribal culture both in Iraq and the entire Middle East. This is why we are continually surprised by Muslim groups. Going back to WWII and the Cold War you will note that dam near every spy of note on both sides were people who turned against their own governments. Note the Burgess-Maclean "Cambridge Group" etc. in Britain and all the Hiss-Rosenberg etc. guys in the Roosevelt administration. We had many top Nazis and Kremlin people feeding us from inside their governments too. We had no actual spies crack those countries. We had racial similarities, language skills, and people who could easily assimilate into the cultures of both Germany and Russia who could spy, but no outside spies were able to get anywhere. We and they had handlers to work with the turncoats. I cannot recall any story of a U.S. spy penetrating Japan; we cracked their codes, not their political structure. We penetrate only with "handlers".

Think of a Muslim country where we have both physical dissimilarities and a serious language gap. It's not easy to find Westerners capable of putting on a show. The main impediment to "spying" is the nature of Muslim culture itself. Muslims marry within their extended family almost exclusively (cousins). They trust no one outside of their own families. They will kill any outsider who gets too close or nosey. This is extreme tribalism. It is impossible to crack these "tribes" from the outside. The only way we can get intelligence is to have somebody "turn". It seems that the pressure from inside the Muslim community is too great for this to happen.

Most every voter's approval of the castration of our own intel, starting with the Church Commission back in 1976 in order to rein in FBI activities that were clearly out of control at the time, is the problem. We, the voters, did not insist on looking at the FBI and CIA again. We made sure we had a weak intelligence service. It will take ten years minimum to get intel working on the ground within any Muslim Tribal Society. Somebody has to "turn" a person within a family in order to get reliable intelligence. Don't look for this to happen any time soon. We have a horrible reputation of running away and leaving people to die in torture chambers. And if Kerry or Hillary Clinton ever get elected that is just what will happen, and every highly placed Muslim knows this and spreads the word.

Muslim tribes throw in with each other under the banner of their religion to accomplish multi-tribal goals that are usually restricted to kicking somebody's ass. Robert Kaplan's must read book called "Eastward to Tartary" relates incident after incident where they were suddenly stopped by little local tribes armed to the teeth who wanted money. He pointed out that Muslim young men who had no money couldn't marry because of dowry requirements, and their religion forbad sex. They have no other way to express their manhood other than fighting and profiting from confrontation with outsiders. These "tribes" will only join with each other under the banner of religion, and then only for the purpose of violence. I'm afraid we are going to continue being "surprised" by Muslim tribes who join together for a time. That is their tradition.

There is another point, elequently stated on NRO this morning, by Herb Meyer who is THE intel expert of experts, who makes the point that intel is largely a function of "insight", of spotting what is obvious and connecting the dots. It's a good read.
Nothing has changed. People who talk about "live intel" don't know what they are talking about. Two emailers who claimed to be former CIA told me that "every good spy in history" was a turncoat from within. Remember that the load of Communist spies in the Roosevelt Administration were all Harvard, Yale, and other Americans who turned. This won't stop congressional posturing screaming for the impossible.

When things get tough I always go to Page Six in the New York Post.

June 3, 2004 -- WHICH pro basketball player, husband of a world-class beauty, is said to be having a torrid affair with a recently divorced actress? And when he's not with her, he's chasing other foxes . . .
See what I mean. Karmizin is replacing Eisner too. Hot Model there too. Who cares about anything else?

Latest Chilabi spin, now you have to be sitting down to really get this one: "Intel agencies fear that (cough, tears in eyes) Iran "used" Chalabi to Lure U.S. into Iraq." Tennet has just resigned and right after this news. I can connect dots that don't even exist.

Why is Sadr so successful at getting an "army" together? Middle East "armies" differ from our street gangs like Blackstone Nation, the Crips, Bloods, and the Mafia. It is true that most members of both groups are ignorant and many are just plain stupid. It is also true that they engage in thuggery, robbery, and murder. But the Sadr army, like al Qaeda, Islamic Jihad and other terrorist armies in the Mid-East are composed of people who have great faith in a God. Today Bill Quick refers to Eric Hoffer, a 50s icon now out of favor because to believe him is to abandon most mass movements now required by Leftist thinking. Here's just one quote from that 50s philosopher that might make you realize why somebody of great faith becomes a terrorist.

Faith, enthusiasm, and passionate intensity in general are substitutes for the self-confidence born of experience and the possession of skill.

The substitute for self-confidence is faith ... the substitute for self-esteem is pride; and the substitute for individual balance is fusion with others in a compact group.

In the chemistry of the soul, a substitute is almost always explosive if for no other reason than that we can never have enough of it. We can never have enough of that which we really do not want. What we want is justified self-confidence and self-esteem.

We can be satisfied with moderate confidence in ourselves and with a moderately good opinion of ourselves,........

But the faith we have in a holy cause has to be extravagant and uncompromising, and the pride we derive form an identification with a nation, race, leader, or party [religion] is extreme and overbearing."
Just think Crips and Mafia. The world is filled with people with grammar school educations willing to follow a successful ruthless leader. When you put GOD into the equation you get Islam. When you put in a human substitute like Hitler you get Hitler Youth and the Japanese "code of the Samurai" (Bushido). Think the Vikings (not Minnesota). When you add well educated people you get total fanatics, sure in their belief system and direction; top Nazis, Communists, Mulims; you can never stop the educated fanatics unless you kill them. All, the uneducated and the educated, "know" that death in war is the highest possible way to die; that death in battle, even suicide in battle, guarantees Heaven.

Guarantees Heaven. Think about that. Every bad thing you have ever done is erased by a grateful God. Every loser can achieve Paradise just by killing someone and dying in the course of doing it.

Combine faith with peer approval and parental approval, and you have the street thugs of Iraq and the terrorists of Islam. If the U.S. gangs ever had a purpose higher than money, drugs, and sex you would see the same thing here. And don't think that can't happen; see Nation of Islam and our pal Louis Farrakhan.

The daisy chain of "news" continues today as Sullivan, quotes New Republic (a liberal mag) which quoted a pollster by the name of Greenberg; Sullivan also side links to a story in the NRO. The story is then spun about how and why rural Republicans are defecting from Bush. What Sullivan and presumably the New Republic leave out is that relied upon pollster Greenberg, is an exclusively Democratic poll guy, and generally an extreme liberal poll guy. In other words DO NOT TRUST in the truth category.

The main source of this story is in the National Review on Line yesterday, which cites an ABC poll that Bush support among conservatives generally is slipping

Rather, I think President Bush is paying the price for having abandoned conservative principles on too many occasions over the last three and a half years, which has sapped his support among the Republican party's base.

Poll data support this analysis. According to the latest ABC News/Washington Post poll, almost all of Bush's decline in support has come from his base.

The speculations about rural voters are just that, speculation. I am an American Rural Type, having grown up in one of the smallest of small towns (then, not now). Unlike the old days of getting news in bars, from the guys on the street, or a newspaper, the ARTs now get their news from TV, a few go on the web. TV is Left and there is no doubt that CBS/NBC/ABC shapes rural opinions. Farm prices shape even more, and farm prices, including cattle and hogs, are on the moon; it has been decades since farmers have had the incomes they enjoy today. I really suspect the "rural" defection. You have to be there and none of us are. BTW Sullivan leaves out the NRO conclusion which is that conservatives have nowhere to go because Kerry is worse in every category conservatives are concerned about. What is not mentioned is that a lot of conservatives may just stay home.

Anyway, there's the daisy chain as of 6:50AM EDT. See what you want to see.

6/02/2004

LOOK FOR THE HATE AMERICA U.S. LEFT IN IRAQ ELECTIONS

Reality in Iraq: A successful democracy in Iraq is just as bad for the American Left as for the dictatorships in the Middle East. We only have to look at our country to understand that politicians take cheap shots in order to win. The Iraqi political candidates will start to attack all Americans as the source of everything that is wrong, and the American Left will be at the forefront "coaching" them in tactics. By the middle of the campaign Iraq may be too dangerous for Americans to remain and the Left will be after Bush big time. This is the goal of the American Left. As I said, this is could be what winning really looks like. You saw what one punk like Sadr could do. A population with an average 6th grade education can be stirred up in a micro second and we need look no further than our own Black populations in our major cities to see it. Look for Chomsky and the rest of our horrible Left to be involved up to their ears. A Michael Moore movie?, don't count it out. "Air America" and Franken?, don't be surprised. Sontag, Soros (of the billions and billions), Moveon.org, and all the rest. They hate Bush, hate anything he might accomplish and will do anything, as in anything, to ruin him. If democracy in Iraq fails, it's just part of the "game".

Many bloggers, as well as others are suggesting that we all support Spirit of America, a "charity" that supplies things like carpentry tools, equipment, and so on to U.S. Military so they can "build" Iraq. I don't oppose this, but I am pissed about it. We taxpayers have chunked out around $200 bil of our taxes so that our super hero government can fail to build TV stations, supply the tools for rebuilding, the soccer balls, uniforms and so on. Click on the link above if you want to get involved. I guess it's a worthy purpose and I may throw a few bucks at it after I calm down. I just think that $200 bil is enough.

I'm not totally into this but Roger L has a good piece ripping Moore's epic 9/11 on one set of "facts". I assume he and others will get on it once they've actually seen it and find more "facts" that exist only in the mind of Moore and the Left.

Chalabi, cutting to the chase "Accusations" that Chalabi told an Iranian that we had broken their code is now making the rounds. But, if he did tip off an Iran official why did that official continue to communicate using the code after being tipped?(The Ledeen argument) It could be that Iran wanted Chalabi out on his ass and this was the perfect way to do it. When we get to talking about code breaking these days, almost everyone in that business knows that a process called quantum technology can break almost any code; another way of saying that there ain't no codes except ones that change with every transmission. But new technologies jump up every day, and who knows? Remember, we never broke that Nazi Enigma code without getting our hands on one of their coding machines. Letting info out that a code has been "broken" is just as likely to be dis-information as information. Another way of saying just stay tuned because this story has long legs and an even longer tail.

What's the news? Anything horrible happen? So did Don Imus segue into the news this AM. This is the mind set, the attitude, and the focus of the Left. They like it when our guys get killed, when Iraqis get killed. Just as sick as can be.

6/01/2004

TODAY IS A GREAT DAY, make no mistake as the new government in Iraq is formed. By Iraqis and not America or the UN. The Left is already attacking it by saying that a New Tet is around the corner, uprisings will happen, and that nothing has been done. Here is what has been done:

1. This new government is composed of Shia, Kurds, and Sunni.

2. The oil industry is up and running

3. No mass refugee exodus has happened.

4. More electric power is being generated than before the war.

5. The casualty rate is actually low when compared to all past conflicts other than Gulf War I and the Bosnia fight. Total casualty rate of about 2.5%; it's 1.5% if you include navy and airforce in the total troop deployment. Compare to:

Civil War (Union forces): 29% (Southern may be as high as 40%)
Mexican War: 22%
War of Independence: 11.6%
Korean War: 7.8%
World War I: 6.8%
World War II: 6.6%
Vietnam War: 6.2%
Philippine War: 5.6%
War of 1812: 2.3%

6. We have liberated a country of 25 million with an army of around 130,000
7. Saddam himself is our prisoner and not dictator
8. Most children in Iraq have been vaccinated.
9. Hospitals have been rebuilt and stocked with medical supplies including medicine.
10 Thousands of schools have been opened and teacher salaries increased 1,000%

I could go on, and you can bet the White House will be silent as usual. The Left has no problem immediately attacking. If not Bush, who? I wish there was somebody.

WHERE "MISTRESS" IS A JOB CATEGORY

The Kauster waxes hot about privacy on Slate, and then goes off on a guy at "E" suing management for promoting friends ahead of everything. Nothing, and I mean nothing, is as nepotistic and "friend" hiring as Hollywood. Mistress is a job category at the unemployment line near Beverly Hills. Look behind every string of credits for every movie and you will find family, sex partners, and people "owed" as contributing something. If someone were to "Fiske" the credits on ten major movies this year you'd have ten sex scandals, five illegal tax shelters, two dope deals in the works, and at least three "Teresa" like charity scams funneling tax exempt money to the DNC.

IS BIG MEDIA IS NOW LOSING "THEIR" WAR?

Is the Media losing THEIR war? Which is the one they declared AGAINST the War in Iraq, our troops, and Bush. I'm beginning to think so. The non-reporting of success, or ignoring failures that turn successful is beginning to seep into the common sense of the population. Today's Journal has an interesting piece on Fallujah. Now the Journal is not "main stream" but they are the loudest voice (highest circulation) outside of the main stream and has impact much like The New York Times. The Journal points out what I said in my piece "Suppose You Didn't Know what Winning Looked Like; an Iraqi solution to an Iraqi problem is in the works and you never stop "negotiating" with an Arab. The incomprehensible incompetence of the "White House" shown by the premature release of a president of Iraq has resulted in another Iraqi Soulution which will work out better for all concerned.

I still say the biggest problem with Iraq is the "White House" (Bush) and their (his staff) near total ineptitude regarding communication skills. And it's BUSH, not a bunch of staff he hires. He either is or ain't the President. Along this line, NRO is reviewing (or hyping) a book out today called The Connection also says that the Bush administration has failed "abysmally" to communicate. This failure is nearly a disaster for our country, and if anyone was running who was an American I'd vote for him in a nano-second.

The few oil refineries left in the U.S. are making record profits. This is a result of the combination of environuts and the ageing beyond usefulness of others. Refineries have been upgraded to handle all the new mixes and it took them almost 15 years to do it. With the single exception of dams, refineries are the most capital intensive operations in the modern world. Current capacity is only 18 million barrels per day. The UK version of the Financial Times has a good story. I don't know how accessible it is.

US refineries were unlikely to spend more capital because they had earmarked $20bn (£10.9bn) to upgrade plants for stricter emissions laws, leaving them with little money to expand capacity. Mr Saunders said: "It's going to cost more to make gasoline. They will want to wait a few years to see their money back before spending more funds.
As an add here, we have a refinery in NoCal (Tosco now owned by Conoco/Phillips) that is so old that employees are being killed, but this makes no difference to the environmental lobby. In a sane society it would be closed down or completely rebuilt. It ain't likely that new refineries will be built in California. In fact, from 1985 to 1995, 10 California refineries closed, resulting in a 20 percent reduction in refining capacity. Further refinery closures are expected for small refineries with capacities of less than 50,000 barrels per day (1 barrel = 42 gallons; 50,000x42 divided by 2=a lot of gasoline. Half the production of a refinery goes to gasoline). The cost of complying with environmental regulations and low product prices (now changed with the $40 crude price)will continue to make it difficult to continue operating older, less efficient refineries.

To comply with federal and state regulations, California refiners invested approximately $5.8 billion to upgrade their facilities to produce cleaner fuels, including reformulated gasoline and low-sulfur diesel fuel. These upgrades received permits since low-sulfur diesel fuel regulations went into effect in 1993. Requirements to produce federal reformulated gasoline took effect at the beginning of 1995, and more stringent state requirements for CARB reformulated gasoline went into effect statewide on April 1, 1996.

It won't get better because because a large part of the refining capacity is in NoCal, home of the Pelosi Democratic enviro-Nazi hordes. They produce around 145 million gallons of gasoline each day, some of it from really old refineries that have not been allowed to upgrade.

California refineries supply gasoline to most of the southwest (AZ, NV,) and some to southern Oregon. I'm not prepared to give the national stuff right now.


Thanks Mel "The Passion" as a musical? The artistic whore set that is our "entertainment business" is doing it. A musical opens in September, "The Ten Commandments", produced only to make money will hopefully die. I'm looking for Brad Pitt as Moses (he is taking singing lessons as I type), Brittney Spears as one of the Marys (she is taking virginity lessons as I type). The actual Ten Commandments will be played by Tom Cruise (he is at the Actors Studio learning to be a slab of granite as I type).

An add to my post Murder in Saudi Arabia, on damage to the oil business in Saudi Arabia Pipes, in a radio interview, thinks that terrorizing westerners out of the country would be a bigger coup for the terrorists than destroying or damaging refineries. Either way the Royal Family will now have to deal with the terrorists because they have killed Saudi citizens, as opposed to killing Westerners. Crude is up $1.07 over night. Late add up 1.31 in New York. Keep in mind that a barrel of oil yields around 21 gallons (depending on quality) of gasoline so this represents around five cents per gallon if it holds.
Pisssst you are up $1,500 on your gold if you bought at my buy in of $383. Watch it, gold is linked to oil. And DO NOT roll forward. Get out.