Precinct 333

Sunday, July 11, 2004

He May Have The Name, But He Lacks The Principles

Less than two months after the death of the most popular GOP president since. . . well, ever, Ron Reagan will tarnish his father's memory by addressing the Democrat Convention in Boston. The younger Reagan will call for the resumption of fetal stem-cell research.
"The conservative right has a rather simplistic way of characterizing it as baby killing. We're not talking about fingers and toes and brains. This is a mass of a couple hundred undifferentiated cells."

He also indicated he will support Kerry or "any viable candidate who can defeat Bush."

From a journalistic standpoint, there are two items of note in the last sentence. The first is the identification of Michael Reagan, the late president's oldest son, as an evangelical despite the fact that Ron Reagan's religious leanings are nowhere mentioned in the article. The second is a bald-faced lie about Michael Reagan's position on stem-cell research. As he points out in his article, "I'm With My Dad on Stem Cell Research," Michael Reagan supports research on adult stem-cells, based upon the best available scientific research on both types of research. And he also quotes his father on the sanctity of human life from the moment of conception:
"My administration is dedicated to the preservation of America as a free land and there is no cause more important for preserving that freedom than affirming the transcendent right to life of all human beings, the right without which no other rights have any meaning."

Perhaps Ron should honor his father by heeding his words.


ICJ Declaration: No Right To Defend Against Terror!

One detail little noted in the uproar over the ICJ's decision on the Israeli self-defense fence -- the decision limits a nation's right to defend itself to attacks by other nations. Response to attacks by non-state actors across international borders are forbidden without the express permission of the UN Security Council. In doing so, the ICJ has rewritten Article 51 of the UN Charter.

Thus, even the US pursuit of Osama bin Laden is suspect under the ICJ's bizarre revision of Article 51, which authorizes response "if an armed attack occurs".

Sounds like one more reason to end our membership, cut our funds, and boot the UN right out of the US.


Bush DIDN'T Lie -- Wilson & Plame Did

We've all heard the denunciations of President Bush as a liar by former Ambassador and Clinton appointee Joseph Wilson. He has repeatedly claimed that his report on Iraqi attempts to buy "yellowcake" uranium from Niger disproved the story, and that the administration knew -- or should have known -- that the British report that Bush relied upon in the 2003 State of the Union address was wrong.

The only problem is that Wilson's charges are false. Not only that, but his report to the CIA bolstered the case for most intelligence analysts.

More damning still is the obvious falsehood of his statements that his wife, CIA employee Veronica Plame, had nothing to do with the decision to send him to investigate. According to the Washington Post,
The report states that a CIA official told the Senate committee that Plame "offered up" Wilson's name for the Niger trip, then on Feb. 12, 2002, sent a memo to a deputy chief in the CIA's Directorate of Operations saying her husband "has good relations with both the PM [prime minister] and the former Minister of Mines (not to mention lots of French contacts), both of whom could possibly shed light on this sort of activity." The next day, the operations official cabled an overseas officer seeking concurrence with the idea of sending Wilson, the report said.

Wilson also claimed that during his investigation, which mostly consisted of sipping mint tea on verandas with VIPs and government officials from Niger, convinced him that the names and dates were wrong on certain documents later determined to be forgeries. One small problem -- the documents were not in US hands until eight months after the Niger trip, and Wilson had never seen them or been briefed on them.

I guess that just goes to show who the liars are when it comes to national security.


Dead Chihuahua Trumps Presidential Candidate

Now I haven't made much attempt to hide my intention to vote for George W. Bush this November. After all, I am a Republican Precinct Chair here in Harris County, Texas, and I prefer him to the crew that would slither in along with John Kerry. That said, I wouldn't mind another viable choice, and I find Libertarian Party candidate Michael Badnarik to be an interesting fellow.

And he certainly deserves more coverage than a drowned chihuahua.

And thanks to the blog at


President reinvited to NAACP

NAACP president Crazy N'Fuming has reinvited President Bush to speak at the NAACP convention in Baltimore.

"I'm hoping the president will change his mind," Mfume said. "We think democracy is enhanced by having both candidates here."

The NAACP head also pointed out that Bush was warmly received at the 2000 convention.

I still think the President should boycott the proceedings. Why? because despite Kweisi Mfume's call to "get over" the strained relations with the group, it is hard to forget some minor details like
1) NAACP "voter education" ads featuring James Byrd's daughter which denigrated the candidate for refusing to sign a hate crimes bill -- while the sounds of a truck dragging shains was heard in the background. It left out the fact that two of Byrd's killers received the death penalty, while the third (who testified against the others) received a life sentence.

2) NAACP propagation of false accusations of disenfranchising blacks against the president and his brother following the 2000 election.

3) Regular outbursts by NAACP officials against the president, defaming him in the most scurrilous of terms, such as NAACP Chairman Julian Bond's statements that the president had "appeased the wretched appetites of the extreme right wing, and he picked Cabinet officials whose devotion to the Confederacy is nearly canine in its uncritical affection."

Besides, on what legitimate basis should he appear before an organization that claims to represent an ethnic group that gave him a mere 9% of the vote in the 2000 election? That ethnic group is "out of play", and will continue to be as long as leaders insist that a president who has placed more blacks in senior positions than any in history is unconcerned about including blacks in the political process.

UPDATE: Bond was at it again in his speech this year
"They preach racial neutrality and practice racial division," Bond said Sunday night in the 95th annual convention's keynote address. "They've tried to patch the leaky economy and every other domestic problem with duct tape and plastic sheets. They write a new constitution of Iraq and they ignore the Constitution here at home."

And they wonder why Bush had no interest in speaking. Maybe it is time for the NAACP to put Julian Bond behind it.


Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons License.