Wednesday, September 28, 2005


Something caught my attention while reading "Power Line At The Movies: A Report". So I decided to take note of it and thought that whoever is reading FORWARD (lol) right now would find this interesting:

We got an email from someone at Warner Brothers a couple of days ago, asking how they can get us to do private screenings and reviews of their movies, too. These folks have figured out that the major bloggers have audiences that exceed those of most movie reviewers

I want to hear libs say this alot more of this in the future:

"We consider our work, therefore, to have been brought to an end."

Who said that?

Skye, over at quoting an "International Freedom Center" statement after Governor Pataki scrapped the project that was going to be imposed against the wishes and desires of most Americans by a few kooks. Such as Richard "Nice Try" Toefel the president of the proposed museum.

Here's a few excerpts from the video and the transcript at that last link:

O'REILLY: ...Then this guy Toefel put his — actually patted her [Deborah Burlingame] on the back and whispered "nice try." In a sarcastic way, would you say?

BRIAN KILMEADE: Yes, it was in the studio. Then he took off into the green room. I don't think it was meant for me to hear. So I asked her as she started crying again, "What did he just say to you?"

She said he said, "Nice try."

I thought he patted her way too hard, as well.

So I quickly followed him to the green room. And I said, "What are you doing?"

He said, "You don't know the whole story."

I go, "All I know is you should not be talking to her like that and don't touch her again. It's totally inappropriate."

...No apology. Had to be convinced to leave the building. This to wait for a woman who's in studio and, clearly it is if — and I would just use this analogy. Imagine going to somebody's wake and going and mocking the widow. That's how inappropriate his comments were. Debate the Freedom Center all you want, but I don't understand the anger, the smugness, and the arrogance of this guy.

Monday, September 26, 2005

tim said...

"You are F'ing crazy!"

I don't know. Could a crazy man draw like this?

Friday, September 23, 2005

Able Danger Troubles

AJStrata has covered this story well, if you are interested in this story, you need no introduction here.

After reading some of the comments on Captain Ed's blog about this, I have to say:


This SecDef would not play the bad guy for no reason

If Atta was tracked in other places, including Germany, under other names, and the SecDef doesn't want specifics to get out (even to Congress right now) it is probably not because the intel would embarrass some of our political opponents - it must be because the investigation is ongoing and may be compromised!!! The War On Terror is ongoing. And there were other things going on before it.

We know that Saddam Hussein has been neutralized. But not all of America's enemies, foreign and domestic, have been.

It may be good to remember WWII and the Cold War right now. I'm reminded of the Venona Project, the secret Army unit that was set up by Col. Carter Clarke in the 40s for the purpose of breaking the Soviet code.

He told neither Truman nor Roosevelt about it for operational security. That was a wise move. As Ann has pointed out:
It can now be said that McCarthy's gravest error was in underestimating the problem of Communist subversion.

Hundreds of Soviet spies honeycombed the U.S. government throughout the forties and fifties

among which include the following:

Alger Hiss at the State Department; Harry Dexter White, assistant secretary of the Treasury Department, later appointed to the International Monetary Fund by Truman; Lauchlin Currie, personal assistant to Roosevelt and White House liason to the State Department under Roosevelt and Truman; Laurence Duggan, head of the Latin American Desk at the State Department; Frank Coe, U.S. representative on the IMF; Solomon Adler, senior Treasury Department official; Klaus Fuchs, top atomic scientist; and Duncan Lee, senior aide to the head of the OSS.

America had been invaded by a civilian army loyal to a hostile power. There was no room for denying it. Soviet operatives were stealing information from atomic, military, radar, aerospace, and rocket programs.

After all the righteous indignation of the New York Times about "McCarthyism," to say nothing of that paper's defense of Hiss, the Rosenbergs, Owen Lattimore -and for the record, Stalin, in the classic reportage of Walter Duranty- the Venona Project might have been at least as important as the July 2001 story on how, if you don't count the military ballots, George Bush might have won Florida by only two hundred votes.

Monday, September 19, 2005

Glorious News! (via


The AP reported that North Korea has officially "committed to abandoning all nuclear weapons and existing nuclear programs and returning at an early date to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards, according to the agreement."

I remember the the nay-sayers crying that the President should forget about making NK agree to six-party talks, crying that we should deal with NK the old way! Now what!

This is spectacular progress!

Next, Iran.

Saturday, September 17, 2005

Evidence of 9/11 Coverup and Collusion?

"That the man [bin Laden] will not be swayed by the plant leaves [*] of Whitman [**] nor by the 'Adventures of Indiana Jones' [?] and will curse the memory of Frank Sinatra every time he hears his songs."

Doing a review of my last post, I had to ask: DOES ANYONE remember this passage from a column in one of Saddam's propaganda papers, published in Iraq, JULY 2001? [***]

That looks like a "Go" communication to me.


[*] Atta Papers Destroyed on Orders -by Matt Margolis, September 15, 2005
[**] Poetic Licentiousness -by Nick Gillespie, July 1998
[***] Coast Guard website. See also Pgs S8525 and S8526 of the Government Printing Office's Congressional Record/Homeland Security Act of 2002 PDF.
[?] I have a very strong educated guess about who al Qaeda is referring to by this. Obviously, its not here because it could be wrong.

Regime Change in Iraq - and Why

This Post is For You, "Liberal American."

Where did we leave off? Oh yeah, the comments at Jessica's Well, at her Never Forget post, this past Sunday..

I like to multitask, so this is also "Part II" of the Fortitude essay which I was supposed to post yesterday. If you came for that, you can go ahead and skip I. in the Table of Contents and just scroll down to II. or if you're interested in "what happened to the weapons of mass destruction!" go down to III.


I. Q&A - Kind of. With " "Liberal" "American " " (blah, blah, blah.)

II. Iraq + Al Qaeda (more info)
-A Body of Coincidence, or of Evidence?
-How Quickly We Forget

III. WMD (links, references)

IV. End of Debate

This was supposed to be a more "formal" presentation, but thanks to "someone's" silly statements and my own reluctance to just ignore them, the plan changed. If anyone doesn't want to bother with it and you just want to get into the info, just skip whatever the heck it is that " "liberal "american" " is saying and what I'm saying back. Just scroll down to the more important links and references. Enjoy.

-Cristobal (sirc)

I. GO >>

"'Liberal' 'American'": You are clueless because:

A) you believe there are ties between 9-11 and Al Qaeda and even Cheney admitted there are NONE. Get it?


Sirc_Valence: I don't know if the VP has changed his mind, but I think that you're referring to when the VP answered Tim Russert with "We don't know" after Mr. Russert asked if Saddam was involved in 911. That broadcast was two years ago, you might want to read the stuff on Iraq and al Qaeda here. There's a bit of an elaboration below the "Q & A"./ BTW, I can guess what your next question is gonna be: "get it?"


"'Liberal' 'American'": Get it? SADDAM HAD NO LINKS TO AL QAEDA.


Sirc_Valence: See, I knew it!

I recall that three years before September 11 the Clinton administration issued an indictment against al Qaeda and bin Laden, charging that "al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular PROJECTS, specifically including WEAPONS DEVELOPMENT, AL QAEDA WOULD WORK COOPERATIVELY WITH THE GOVERNMENT OF IRAQ"

Did President Bush travel back in time to before he was President and force the Department of Justice, the Clinton administration and U.S. Intelligence to attack the poor "freedom fighters" who like to cut people's heads off and blow people up this way?

This is not a very ancient history. If you want to make peace you should know what's going on in the world.


"'Liberal' 'American'": Furthermore - why didn't we go after Saudia Arabia? Where the BULK OF THE ACTUAL TERRORISTS CAME FROM? Because Bush and his family have DEEP PERSONAL TIES to Saudi Arabia and oil interests there. Get it?


Sirc_Valence: Wow, you're quite a little warmonger there aren't you?

You have no idea how ridiculous your arguments are to anyone with even a slight bit of knowledge about the history of recent conflicts in the Mideast.

Apparently we should have allowed bin Laden to cause a new rift between Saudi Arabia and the United States, and further destabilize the world, because after all, most of the hijackers were Saudi. It was so obvious that that was bin Laden's bait. But our country has been deliberate and persistent in fighting back. They knocked down two towers and we took down two dictatorships. I say that's 2 USA - .00whatever Al Qaeda.

The point in a war is to win, not just to destroy for nothing. Remember, both Saddam Hussein and bin Laden held a grudge against the "infidels" who launched Operation Desert Storm from Saudi territory to repel Hussein's invasion of Kuwait. That's where al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein's strategic interests met. The U.S. has worked with Saudi Arabia since at least the end of WWII which served as a powerful reminder of what can happen when nations collide and when countries align themselves against you.

You would have attacked Saudi Arabia because of how many Saudi hijackers there were? You must either be clueless or think that I am if you think I'm going to take your suggestion seriously that had President Bush wanted to carry out a regime change in Saudi Arabia militarily you would have supported it. This argument of yours (and others) is analogous to a child's "naa, you can't catch me" game where you don't really have to stand by something that might appear sound at particular instances.


"'Liberal' 'American'": Saddam was a bad dude, so the ___ what? There are MANY bad dudes out there (see north Korea for example) we don't go after them, and why? There's no oil there, stupid!


Sirc_Valence: You can't do everything at once. and each case is unique, because the real world is not filled with identical and static situations. If people used that as an excuse not to do anything they would never get anything done.

In the real world, humanitarianish outrage is dead in the stormy waters. The truth is, energy is an important issue - it would be irresponsible to pretend that it isn't. New Orleans shows what can happen in some places if they don't have any for just a few days. But there are more important things than things, and that's doing what is right.


"'Liberal' 'American'": B) Read my post again cause you don't get it. I didn't say Bush was responsible for orchestrating 9-11."


Sirc_Valence: Let me help you. This is what I said:

"It takes a serious moral lapse and sickness to suggest that the President of the United States was 'behind' 9/11 OR that he, rather than Saddam Hussein, would kill innocent Americans for his own selfish benefit."

Morally, the difference between the two things is merely incidental, and libs have accused him of both. One of those accusations is yours. And for the record, they're both wrong.


"'Liberal' 'American'": C) before you get on your high horse about "massive corruption at the UN" give me a break. You need look no further than a multi-BILLION dollar contract to Halliburton for your corruption.


Sirc_Valence: Envy is unhealthy. Money in and of itself is not unhealthy. And you can't escape human nature even if you try to ignore it. Over here I pointed out that It's easy to see the prosperity and material progress that accompanies capitalism and overlook an even more fundamental force at work: the work of a community of free and rational individuals. The irony is that socialism, not capitalism, is based on materialism. It is what defines "social justice" in monetary and material terms and measurements. The impulse to socialistically make people fit this (wanna-be) "social justice" template combined with moral relativism produces people who have no problem with playing fast and loose with the truth. And that's why you're so confused. At least in terms of what's going on in the world. But I can help you. Don't worry.


"'Liberal' 'American'": What you said is the equivalent of saying "the fact that the US FOUND NOTHING THAT WAS THE PRINCIPLE REASON THEY SAID THEY WERE GOING TO WAR should let you know that going to war was really really necessary."


Sirc_Valence: Not only is that not what I said, or close to its equivalent, it is crazy. I'm gonna prove it to you. Just warming up here. If you felt like quoting someone you should have quoted the President. Then you would know what's up.

What you don't understand is that it was time to take Saddam Hussein down. We let him mess around enough. That's what I'm going to help you see here.

Saddam and his vicious spawn, were an intolerable threat and an obstacle to progress in the War on Terror. To move foreward we needed to deal with it. After 9/11 the rules had changed regarding what America will do to defend herself. A very crucial aspect of President Bush's national security strategy has been that "We will defend the peace against the threats from terrorists and tyrants... we will extend the peace by encouraging free and open societies on every continent."

Chris Hitchens recently highlighted a few pretty noticeable changes in the world since we moved to topple the dictatorship of Iraq - paraphrasing:

- The subsequent capitulation of Qaddafi's Libya in point of weapons of mass destruction--a capitulation that was offered not to Kofi Annan or the E.U. but to Blair and Bush AND The consequent unmasking of the A.Q. Khan network for the illicit transfer of nuclear technology to Libya, Iran, and North Korea.

-The agreement by the United Nations that its own reform is necessary and overdue, and the unmasking of a quasi-criminal network within its elite. (And as much as libs have tried, they can't say the same about Halliburton. It's interesting, though, to see libs say that they support the troops, but not their mission or those on the ground helping them achieve it.)

-The related encouragement of democratic and civil society movements in Egypt, Syria, and most notably Lebanon, which has regained a version of its autonomy.

-The ability to certify Saddam as actually disarmed and neutralized




II. Iraq-al Qaeda
>A Body of Coincidence, or Evidence?

Saddam's willingness to help bin Laden plot against Americans began in 1990, shortly before the first Gulf War, and continued through last March, the eve of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, says the Oct. 27 memo sent by Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas Feith.

-, Intelligence Report Links Saddam, Usama

I don't know how many people heard the reports about the Prague connection between Iraqi Intelligence and al Qaeda, a few days after 911, but I think it's a good place to start. Fred Barnes wrote about this in August, 2003 after talking with some officials.

Mohammed Atta was spotted with Iraqi Intelligence officer Ahmed Khalil Ibrahim Samir al-Ani by the Czech Security Information Service (BIS) which passed on the information to the U.S. after finding out what Atta had done, 5 months after leaving their country. Fred Barnes points out that the Czech prime minister, interior minister, and ambassador to the U.S. support the account of the BIS. Its not something to easily dismiss. At least not after considering alot of the ties to terror that Iraq maintained and employed.

I just have one problem here, and that's with the media trying to push people in one direction or another. Its difficult enough to find out what's going on without people making a mess out of everything.

Quoting the New York Times (via Edward J. Epstein): “A senior Bush administration official Friday night indicated the Czech decision to go public with the information about the meeting took Washington by surprise." The NY Times's James Risen stupidly then claimed that Czech President Vaclav Havel called President Bush to retract. Havel's spokesman REFUTED Risen's incredible FABRICATION. As I mentioned before, the Czech Republic's Minister of Interior stands by the report of the Security Information Service .

This kind of nonsense happens over and over and over with the media.

No wonder people can't connect the dots right in front of their faces. It all turns into static noise in the mind and is forgotten or never even registered, leaving only the tone of senseless noise.

George Orwell was very right in pointing out that "During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act."

Check this out.

In January 2000, Ahmed Hikmat Shakir was hanging around the mastermind of the attack on the USS Cole, Tawfiz al Atash, and with Khalid al Midhar and Nawaz al Hamzi, two of the 9-11 hijackers.

This relates to Saddam Hussein because Ahmed Hikmat Shakir (AHS) was working at Malaysian Airlines but was taking orders from the Iraqi embassy and he stopped working there after the 4-day Al Qaeda retreat in Malaysia.. 2 days after the party was over he was done at that job. Fast forward to six days after al Hamzi and al Midhar slam Flight 77 into the Pentagon, AHS gets arrested in Qatar. As Stephen Hayes reported, his connection to 9-11 wasn't the only reason that he was of interest. He received a phone call from the headquarters in New Jersey of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. More here.

This also might grab your attention:

"Al-Watan al-Arabi (Paris) reports that two Iraqis were arrested in Germany, charged with spying for Baghdad. The arrests came in the wake of reports that Iraq was reorganizing the external branches of its intelligence service and that it had drawn up a plan to strike at US interests around the world through a network of alliances with extremist fundamentalist parties.

"The most serious report contained information that Iraq and Osama bin Ladin were working together. German authorities were surprised by the arrest of the two Iraqi agents and the discovery of Iraqi intelligence activities in several German cities. German authorities, acting on CIA recommendations, had been focused on monitoring the activities of Islamic groups linked to bin Ladin. They discovered the two Iraqi agents by chance and uncovered what they considered to be SERIOUS INDICATIONS BETWEEN IRAQ AND BIN LADIN. The matter was considered so important that a special team of CIA and FBI agents was sent to Germany to interrogate the two Iraqi spies."

--published seven months before September 11, 2001 in the French Arabic newspaper, al-Watan al-Arabi. Edward Morrissey has more on this at The Weekly Standard

Even apart from the al-Watan al-Arabi reporting, the strange coincidence of discovering Iraqi intelligence operations in such close conjunction to known al Qaeda operations should have raised some eyebrows.

-especially in light of that 1998 indictment against al-Qaeda that is mentioned up at the "Q&A" here. Here's the link. It's #4, but I'll post the relevant text here:

...In addition, al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq.

>How Quickly We Forget

RUSH posted up some past reporting on his site a while back, I'll put some of it up here:

-"-The new indictment ... accuses Mr. bin Laden of leading a vast terrorist conspiracy from 1989 to the present, in which he is said to have been working in concert with governments, including those of Sudan, Iraq and Iran, and terrorist groups to build weapons and attack American military installations ... Both indictments offer new information about Mr. bin Laden's operations, including one deal he is said to have struck with Iraq to cooperate in the development of weapons in return for Mr. bin Laden's agreeing not to work against that country." - New York Times, Nov. 5 1998

-"Saddam Hussein's regime has opened talks with Osama bin Laden, bringing closer the threat of a terrorist attack using chemical, biological or nuclear weapons, according to U.S. intelligence sources and Iraqi opposition officials. The key meeting took place in the Afghan mountains near Kandahar in late December [1998]. The Iraqi delegation was led by Farouk Hijazi, Baghdad's ambassador in Turkey and one of Saddam's most powerful secret policemen, who is thought to have offered bin Laden asylum in Iraq ... News of the negotiations emerged [as] the U.S. attorney general, Janet Reno, warned the Senate that a terrorist attack involving weapons of mass destruction was a growing concern. 'There's a threat, and it's real,' Ms Reno said..." - The Guardian, Feb. 6, 1999

-"The Iraqis, who for several years paid smaller groups to do their dirty work, were quick to discover the advantages of al Qaeda ... Israeli sources claim that for the past two years Iraqi intelligence officers were shuttling between Baghdad and Afghanistan, meeting with Ayman al Zawahiri. According to the sources, one of the Iraqi intelligence officers, Salah Suleiman, was captured last October [2000] by the Pakistanis near the border with Afghanistan." - Jane's Intelligence Foreign Report, Sept. 19, 2001

-"The Iraqis were cued to make their approach to Mr. bin Laden in 1994 after a Sudanese official visited Uday Hussein ... as well as the director of Iraqi intelligence, and indicated that Mr. bin Laden was willing to meet in Sudan." - NYT, June 25, 2004

I recall that after Saddam Hussein tried to assassinate a former American President (Bush I), President Clinton targeted a pharmaceutical plant in Sudan that his administration viewed as an Iraq-Al Qaeda joint effort to develop precursors for WMD. This man was definitely a threat if he could lose a war to someone and then try to kill them while supposedly being under a conditional cease-fire! A man that would butcher "his" own people en-masse would definitely not hesitate to enable and support a fellow enemy of the United States to attack America if he thought that he could get away with it! Saddam may have really believed that he could fight wars without personally paying a price; he must have thought that he was going to out-last this President and a few after him, even. But Bush 43 apparently thought that the world had seen enough of Saddam and his beastly sons.


Ok this find is not only an Iraq-alQaeda find, it's also an Iran-alQaeda find.

Edward Morrissey very helpfully pointed out that on pgs 7-9 of Kenneth Timmerman's book, "Countdown To Crisis: The Coming Nuclear Showdown With Iran", an Iranian intelligence agent walked into the American embassy of Azerbaijan on July 2001 and told the CIA that the United States would be attacked on September 11.

In that same month, in Iraq, Saddam Hussein's propaganda press published an article supportive of bin Laden, referring to the September 11 terrorism targets in July 2001! QUOTE:

America says, admitting JUST LIKE A BIRD in the midst of a tornado, that Bin Ladin is behind the bombing of its destroyer in Aden. The fearful series of events continues for America and the terror within America gets to the point that the Governor of Texas increases the amount of the award, just as the stubbornness of the other man and his challenge increases.

This challenge makes it such that one of his grandchildren comes from Jeddah traveling on the official Saudi Arabia airlines and celebrates with him the marriage of one of the daughters of his companions. [???]

Bin Ladin has become A PUZZLE and a proof also, of the inability of the American federalism and the C.I.A. to uncover the man and uncover his nest.

The most advanced organizations of the world cannot find the man and continues to go in cycles in illusion and presuppositions. They still hope that he could come out from his nest one day, they hope that he would come out from his hiding hole and one day they will point at him their missiles and he will join Guevara, Hassan Abu Salama, Kamal Nasser, Kanafani and others. The man responds with a thin smile and replies to the correspondent from Al Jazeera that he will continue to be the obsession and worry of America and the Jews, and that even that night he will practice and work on an exercise called ``How Do You Bomb the White House.'' And because they know that he can get there, they have started to go through their nightmares on their beds and the leaders have had to wear their bulletproof vests.

Meanwhile America has started to pressure the Taliban movement so that it would hand them Bin Ladin, while he continues to smile and still thinks seriously, with the seriousness of the Bedouin of the desert about the way he will try to bomb THE PENTAGON after he destroys THE WHITE HOUSE..

It seems that they will be going away because the revolutionary Bin Ladin is insisting very convincingly that he will strike America on THE ARM THAT IS ALREADY HURTING. [???]

That the man will not be swayed by the plant leaves of Whitman nor by the "Adventures of Indiana Jones" and will curse the memory of Frank Sinatra every time he hears his songs.

This, two months before 9/11. This in al-Nasiriyah, one of Saddam Hussein's propaganda papers. The year after 09/11/01, in 2002, Senator Fritz Hollings decided to enter it into the congressional record. Captain Ed helpfully (again) posted the following links on his own site so that other people can see for themselves.

I'm posting them on this blog (don't leave yet), just scroll down (by about one-third) to where it says "[[Page S8525]]" at this link to the Coast Guard's website where you can find it.

You can also view that creepy column in PDF, here (1) and here (2) without as much scrolling, over at the U.S. Government Printing Office Website. The first one starts in the middle of the center column. PDFs tend to be sloppy like that at first sight.

The only problem is that Hollings made the mistake of following up the al-Nasiriyah editorial by taking sides with Sandy Bergerler over Condoleezza Rice in a very pathetic attempt to attempt to compare the two now formal National Security Advisors. But I don't think its necessary to go over that in this post since much has come to light regarding that, since then. Well, maybe it's really not "much"; just a former NSC member stealing classified information and destroying it...

moving right along

More Shock & Awe, this on Mr. Stephen Hayes' part (don't blame me!):

We know from these [Iraqi Intelligence Service] documents [discovered at their bombed out headquarters] that beginning in 1992 the former Iraqi regime regarded bin Laden as an Iraqi Intelligence asset. We know from IIS documents that the former Iraqi regime provided safe haven and financial support to an Iraqi who has admitted to mixing the chemicals for the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center. We know from IIS documents that Saddam Hussein agreed to Osama bin Laden's request to broadcast anti-Saudi propaganda on Iraqi state-run television. We know from IIS documents that a "trusted confidante" of bin Laden stayed for more than two weeks at a posh Baghdad hotel as the guest of the Iraqi Intelligence Service.


First, "I" should say a little bit about why we don't want Saddam (the terrormasters) or Al-Qaeda (suicidal fascists) to be having WMD:

Let's go with former Secretary of State Colin Powell's Feb. 2003 testimony at the United Nothings, before the war that "LESS THAN A PINCH of ricin" causes "shock followed by circulatory failure. Death comes within 72 hours and there is no antidote, there is no cure. It is fatal."

Get the idea? Good.

I'm going to go out on a limb and call THIS a Mobile Biological Agent Production Plant. They say its "probably" one, but I say it is one. End of debate.

Why? Because "Legitimate Uses [Are] Unlikely.":

Coalition experts on fermentation and systems engineering examined the trailer found in late April and have been unable to identify any legitimate industrial use—such as water purification, mobile medical laboratory, vaccine or pharmaceutical production—that would justify the effort and expense of a mobile production capability.


In an interview with General Michael DeLong, Ed Moltzen for -The Command Post- covered some good ground. Here I just want to show how just because something is difficult or near impossible to find, that doesn't mean it isn't or wasn't there.

Two days before March 19, 2003, we saw quite a number of vehicles going into Syria. We could not go after them because we said we'd give Saddam 48 hours. A lot of (Iraqi) leaders went into Syria, and a lot of WMD went into Syria. We've gotten indications some went into Lebanon, and probably some went into Iran.

The size of Iraq is roughly, in square miles, the same size as California. Seven-eighths of the country is arid desert land. We've done calculations that you could probably bury 16 Eiffel Towers or Empire State Buildings and never find them in the desert.

Just four months ago, they were digging for something out in the middle of the desert and they hit something. It was a MIG-25 Foxbat that the Iraqis buried in the sand. We never would have found this thing. Biological Weapons, you could put almost your whole program in a suitcase. You could probably put your whole chemical weapons industry inside a van. Yes, they did have it and right today they can't find it.

Why were Saddam's MiGs and SU-25s buried? If you're not going to use them anyway, why not leave them on the tarmac? He must have had the idea that the U.S. would just give up and go home if there was enough pressure. Who knows. But the secrecy level for a bunch of jets had to be lower in the priority scale than for WMD.

Randall Hoven at The American Thinker:
It was no secret that the U.S. and the rest of the world really wanted to find those WMD. For over a decade the UN passed 16 resolutions to get at them and sent inspectors to look for them. The United States built up an armed force of about 150,000 surrounding Iraq to support those inspectors. Our Secretary of State testified in public on what we knew about Iraq’s WMD and concealment methods. Even at the end, President Bush gave Saddam 48 hours notice before invading.
Is it any surprise that no WMD were found in the usual places like munitions depots? Eliot Ness also had a problem finding anything illegal in Al Capone’s hotel room. Could it be that neither Al Capone nor Saddam Hussein was as dumb as a post?

Someone being a smart-mouth: "I'm sure that Saddam was aware that arky grad students are interchangeable and expendable, and wouldn't waste his time leaving little presents for them. . ."

Kay, again:

We need to recall that in the 1991-2003 period the intelligence community and the UN/IAEA inspectors had to draw conclusions as to the status of Iraq's WMD program in the face of incomplete, and often false, data supplied by Iraq or data collected either by UN/IAEA inspectors operating within the severe constraints that Iraqi security and deception actions imposed or by national intelligence collection systems with their own inherent limitations.

Jim Woolsey has also weighed in with regards to the puzzle of Saddam's unaccounted-for WMD:

"Look at anthrax, for example, which is the principal biological agent that Iraq, after Hussein Kamal [a son-in-law of Saddam Hussein and head of the military industry in Iraq] defected in 1995, admitted to having produced. The Iraqis admitted they had a biological weapons program. The range of the stockpile of agents was from 8,500 liters, which they admitted, up to Colin Powell's [February 5, 2003] speech [at the United Nations Security Council], drawing on CIA assessments, that it might have been up to 25,000 liters. Now, that sounds like a lot, but that's only the difference between approximately 8.5 tons and 25 tons, or approximately a third of a tractor trailer load or a tractor trailer load and a bit. And if you reduce it to powder, which Powell suggests the Iraqis were perfectly capable of doing to weaponize anthrax, that's the difference between approximately four suitcases full of anthrax powder or twelve suitcases.

You might not know this if all you had been listening to up until this point was the cacophony of the "Bush lied" crowd. I don't think that everyone that thinks that the President lied or has doubts about his decision to go into Iraq is bad. I just think they're wrong and sometimes people get carried away by the way the wind blows or where the crowd goes.

Saddam Hussein and America's strategic and political opponents were, and still are, betting that the WMD might not be found. I'll remind people that when the wanna-be president, John Kerry, heard about that report of VX nerve agent in the hands of some "freedom fighters", he contradicted the "Bush lied" chorus (which included himself) by telling MSNBC's Chris Matthews, over a year after the U.S. went into Iraq, quote: "Who knows if a month from now, you find some weapons. You may." For someone like that, it depends on where the wind blows.

There's no way around it, Saddam Insane was, in fact, in material breach of a conditional ceasefire with the United States- he was never converted into a Mahatma Ghandi who ran a kite-flying playground, over there: "We have discovered DOZENS of WMD-related program activities and significant equipment that Iraq CONCEALED from the U.N."

A President doesn't have that much time to do what he believes he needs to do. Presidents only get 4 years, and 8 if they are re-hired. A dictator can pretty much carry on until the end of his life or power. "American Liberal" complained that the destruction in 9/11 was carried out in the first 9 months of the President's administration. But the perpetrators of such horrendous acts don't go by America's rules or timetables, they in fact try to exploit them. How much time did Clinton have to deal with bin Laden? 8 years. One would think that 9/11 was a painful lesson in what can result FROM UNDERESTIMATING the threats and enemies of civilization.

7 years ago there was another underestimation. The CIA was fooled by India which surprised the world by arming itself with nuclear weapons. A successful nuclear bomb project slipped under the radar. Luckily, there's no Saddam in India.

I wonder if anyone remembers the 2004 report about the 380 tons (38 truck loads worth) of explosives that were, as Kerry put, it, "stolen from the ammo dumps that this president didn't think were important enough to guard!" (To see the outcome go here and here) I'll quote PowerLine's Deacon here as a reminder of what many people pointed out with regard to this hysterical episode of the 2004 election. He said that if this story holds up, the DP and media left "will have (a) jumped to a conclusion that wasn't supported by the facts, (b) assumed the incompetence of our troops, (c) confirmed President Bush's position that Iraq had weapons worth worrying about, and (d) unleashed evidence that, as Rocket Man notes, suggests that chemical and biological weapons could easily have been moved out of Iraq just before we invaded."

In other words, the "Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction" meme that the President lied could vanish at any moment. Its not probable, but its possible. The leaders of the left have irresponsibly exploited that uncertainty in order to continue their propaganda campaign which includes their using the term "freedom fighters" for Al Qaeda in Iraq. For a long time people have tried to explain what leads and what lead to this sort of madness.

It is fair to have doubts, America should be able to do better, but with a large hyperpartisan chunk of the country working against it, its not very easy. Even if you're the President, your words can be distorted and taken out of context.


The President never called Iraq under Saddam Hussein an "imminent threat", the closest he came to that was to call it "a grave and gathering danger." Imminent means "whether or not you act it's about to happen" its too late for warnings - "gathering danger" means that you see something bad up ahead and you are warning people about it. Big difference.

This was the president's main argument for the war, which the election proves most Americans agreed with: "Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans...It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known....Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent."

The joint congressional resolution (SEE H.J. RES. 114) authorizing Operation Iraqi Freedom has 23 "whereas" clauses articulating the rationale for the use of force. If you go and read it you will see that only one of those 23 focuses on Saddam's actual stockpiles. Yet the left has repeated the lie that the "only" reason was to find WMD. Of course finding out what Saddam did with his WMD is very important, but if the President was as bad and tricky as people say, to be able to mobilize the Congress, the military, and the Intelligence Community with his lies, he could have easily "planted" something and saved himself 2 years of being called a liar, by actually becoming one.

David Horiwitz, re-stating the case for Operation Iraqi Freedom:

"Twelve of the clauses refer to Saddam's violation of 16 UN resolutions – resolutions which constituted the terms of the truce in the 1991 Gulf War, and which most commentators on the war seem to have forgotten. Thus, it was Saddam Hussein's violation of these 16 resolutions and a 17th – Resolution 1441, a final ultimatum – that caused us to go to war. The presentation to the UN by Colin Powell about laboratories for producing weapons of mass destruction, which was the only significant White House presentation of such a case – took place after the decision to go to war was made.

"We went to war against Saddam Hussein in the spring of 2003, because to withdraw the 200,000 troops without a war and without Saddam’s capitulation to the UN demands would be a catastrophic defeat for the forces of freedom and peace. It would mean with absolute certainty that Saddam would reactivate the weapons programs he had launched and spent more than 40 billion dollars to implement before the United States obstructed them. Saddam was in the process of negotiating an off-the-shelf purchase of nuclear weapons from North Korea, in fact, when the United States entered Iraq to remove him."


Despite restrictions, Saddam Hussein paid North Korea $10 million for Nodong missile technology, that's the purchase that David referred to, incorrectly, just above. You're welcome to review the rest of his two paragraphs, here.


(Under Construction) Regime Change in Iraq - and Why


Sorry about the delay

-the management

Thursday, September 15, 2005

Comments for Youngmammy and Thepatriotgirl >>

The streets and villages of Iraq are still filled with danger. The initial euphoria of the liberation of 25 to 26 million people has tapered off, making way for the anxiety that comes when you wonder what may come tomorrow every time a fascistic butcher kidnaps an Iraqi official or civilian, or uses the tactics that Saddam Hussein used in order to maintain their domination over others: terrorism. This is like when people get excited that someone is going to help fix up a broken down home in a bad neighborhood and then realize that its time to start the fixing. Naturally, the attitude is affected by "what is going on right now."

In this time it is good to remember that compared to Saddam Hussein, these mini-Saddams and bin Ladens are just pests in comparison. Their poison, like that of a Black Widow's can kill you or your brothers and sisters. And so the work of cleaning out the spiders and their nests goes on. Although these monsters continue to threaten, maim and kill - they can't do it to as many as the Butcher of Baghdad has.

That's what I'de like to say, Y.M. and The Patriot.

My view is that things are improving. Iraq is becoming stronger verifying that that which doesn't kill you only makes you stronger - unless you allow it to break you down. Just remember: Don't.

Iraq is a country that has survived 30 years of a terroristic dictatorship - and there are terrorists and terrorist dictatorships that are working together to keep the people of Iraq from moving forward. The master does not like to lose his ability to whip his slave, so he fights that. I believe that there is alot of potential in Iraq and around the world that has been locked away by the forces of darkness. To look at all the innovations in medicine and science that a small portion of the world's population produces forces one to consider what more can be and would have been achieved if we were more faithful to our values, especially in education and really understood that The principles of wealth creation transcend time, people, and place. Governments which deliberately subvert them by denouncing God, smothering faith, destroying freedom, and confiscating wealth have impoverished their people.(-Reagan)

In the United States 500,000 Americans perished in the American Civil War in which the fate of slavery in my nation was sealed. To borrow a phrase that has special meaning to our President, we have "A Charge To Keep."

As well as the picture above, I'm also borrowing a quote of President Lincoln from The Presidential Prayer Team that I saw today:

Without the assistance of the Divine Being who ever attended him, I cannot succeed. With that assistance I cannot fail. Trusting in Him who can go with me, and remain with you, and be everywhere for good, let us confidently hope that all will yet be well.

-Abraham Lincoln, Springfield, IL, February 11, 1861

Wednesday, September 14, 2005

More to say about Operation Iraqi Freedom

The follow up to Fortitude will be posted on Friday.

Pt. II (Regime Change In Iraq, and Why) should be more formal than the first part.

Just click on one of these two links to go to Pt. I in the meantime.

  • Tuesday, September 13, 2005

    Hasta Luego

    There goes another one of my favorite blogspots.

    Goodbye Chrenkoff. It was definitely a blog worthy of 3 million visits.

    Monday, September 12, 2005

    Coming Soon...

    Liberty Film Festival 2005.

    Many people ask themselves why Hollywood consistently churns out entertainment films laced with anti-Christian and anti-Capitalist undertones and messages. Messages, which feed people in other parts of the world bad ideas about America. Based on the technically well packaged garbage that is usually produced by the film industry, people in other countries are likely to have very bad impressions about the United States.

    The stars and characters in movies tend to be depressed losers or criminals which most plot-lines demand sympathy or support for. I understand that this is a good dramatic area to explore artistically, but it is definitely being overdone to the point where we are being flooded by negativity and trash. Also in these movies, big business, rather than big government, tends to be the threat to freedom and progress, unless the screenplay is too busy focusing on the celebration of villainy and moral insouciance to spend much time on the writer's or producer's economic ignorance and misconceptions.

    As Gigi Grazer put it, speaking of individuals in certain regional and elitist closed enclaves and gated communities: "they keep pushing these movies."

    We have made a mistake by not taking this conspicuous anomaly seriously enough. If you doubt what an impact it can have, just recall Governor Schwarzenneger's speech at the 2004 Republican Convention:

    In school, when the teacher would talk about America, I would daydream about coming here. I would sit for hours watching American movies transfixed by my heroes like John Wayne. Everything about America seemed so big to me so open, so possible.

    Contrast that to what people around the world and people growing might see today. Instead of "share the glory and responsibility of freedom" the message tends to be "share the misery of freedom." If life is just one big meaningless accident then what is left for a person to believe in? To be? Here I have to recall something that George MacDonald wrote.

    So long as we have nothing to say to God, nothing to do with Him, save in the sunshine of the mind when we feel Him near us, we are poor creatures, willed upon, not willing. . . And how in such a condition do we generally act? Do we sit mourning the loss of feeling? Or worse, make frantic efforts to try to rouse them?

    The spirituality of leftist thinkers (as opposed to just their followers and well intentioned accomplices) makes them think of things such as useless non-commercial television and government programs as "holy" things. This impulse is what lies behind their irrational opposition to capitalism aka free-market economics.

    In The Law, Classical-Liberal Friederick Bastiat wrote,

    "Each of us has a natural right--from God--to defend his person, his liberty, and his property. These are the three basic requirements of life, and the preservation of any one of them is completely dependent upon the preservation of the other two. [...] Under such an administration, everyone would understand that he possessed all the privileges as well as all the responsibilities of his existence."

    It's easy to see the prosperity and material progress that accompanies capitalism and overlook an even more fundamental force at work: the work of a community of free and rational individuals. The irony is that socialism, not capitalism, is based on materialism. It is what defines "social justice" in monetary and material terms and measurements. The impulse to socialistically make people fit this "social justice" template combined with moral relativism produces people who have no problem with playing fast and loose with the truth. This explains the behavior of certain professors and the products of their brand of "progressivism" and "liberalism."

    Robert Tracinski, in An Unnatural Disaster, fundamentally supports Bastiat's statement:

    There were many decent, innocent people trapped in New Orleans when the deluge hit—but they were trapped alongside large numbers of people from two groups: criminals—and wards of the welfare state, people selected, over decades, for their lack of initiative and self-induced helplessness. The welfare wards were a mass of sheep—on whom the incompetent administration of New Orleans unleashed a pack of wolves.

    In a city corrupted by the welfare state, the job of city officials is to ensure the flow of handouts to welfare recipients and patronage to political supporters—not to ensure a lawful, orderly evacuation in case of emergency.

    That which conflicts with reality is more likely to cause misery than that which is in harmony with it. Therefore, misery in a capitalist society has to be caused by psychological complexes, not by the economics per se. So what we're seeing in the media is basically the left vomiting its pathologies all over the screen into people's homes and heads. This, too, is a disaster at a palpable enough level.

    Basically that's what I wanted to say after reading Liberty Film Festival's blog where I found out about a movie that centers around an Army Ranger turned criminal -!- (see "Post-9-11 Cinema at the Toronto Film Fest") and other disturbing things, including a review of The Constant Propagandizer (see NRO on The Constant Gardener).

    A response to this stuff is definitely called for. Not censorship, but competition. The market for an alternative to the limo-lib slush is out there and it is big.

    Next month, on the 21st, the second Liberty Film Festival will launch down here in Los Angeles. I missed the first one, but I plan on attending this time.

    Sunday, September 11, 2005


    "Even in the deepest darkness, we can see the light of hope, and the light shows us the way forward." -- President George W. Bush. Today.

    Wednesday, September 07, 2005

    If you're reading this "Dissenter":

    I hope that you read my reply to you on FPM about your conclusion that the Saudi or the Hugo Chavez model is preferable to the free-market model because "multinationals rape the land and reward only a few." I didn't see a reply, but you know about this blog. Professor George Reisman has answered the proposition, posed by socialists and neo-socialists, that capitalism is bad for the environment. His "Toxicity" essay is a must read for anyone that wants to see the response to that particular argument.

    Be warned, it is comprehensively obliterated.

    As I told you before: misery in a free-market economy is psychologically caused, not economic.

    Take, for instance, your complaint about America's national security preference for the Shah rather than the Ayatollah or the democratically elected opponent to our interests (for one: winning the Cold War). We had alliances, we assisted people, and we didn't assist others. Yes. Its hard to help other people when you yourself are under attack, sometimes you have to make difficult decisions under those circumstances. You are right that the problems that we have today (eg. bin Laden's inspiration and encouragement by the Iranian "revolution" for his Saudi and global Wahhabi dream) are associated by choices made in the past. But notice the way that you have been taught to shrugg off the Soviet role and the Islamo-fascist role, in order to maintain the grudge against the American model.

    There is a similar analysis on FPM today, by Chuck Morse, regarding leftwing terrorism and dictatorship:

    No doubt there were examples of governmental over-reach in the 1919-1920 crackdown, as the FBI labored to protect our nation from suspected alien terrorists. The same could be said of the FBI’s crackdown on the Ku Klux Klan and organized crime. But no one would conclude from this that the effort to deal with the Klan should be called “The Klan Scare” or the tracking of the Mafia “The Crime Scare.” That is because the academics who keep the historical record, and the intellectuals who write about the history of Klansmen and criminals, have no sympathy for those segments of society or their causes. But apparently they do for anti-American radicals with a violent agenda.

    I believe that he was referring to those same people who Yale Law School professor Alexander Bickel, was talking about when he said that "to be a revolutionary in a society like ours, is to be totalitarian, or not to know what one is doing."

    Hopefully you finished reading A DiaLog on "Participatory Economics." Regarding intellectual property rights law and corporate law, it would help if you could be a bit more specific in terms of exactly what changes you would like to see made.

    I'll go back to one of yesterday's FPM threads, in which we did go off topic, to see if you reply to my conclusion

    Chompsky, Soros, Marx, et al; these are not economists, they are social-engineers light who ignore economic science when it contradicts them. These are all anti-capitalists, they all are opponents of the free-market, and the dominant influences in the subject of economics. Only our Constitutionally protected liberty protects us from that which the anti-capitalists support and have supported in other parts of the world. Your arguments are the pieces of show-trial "evidence" that the economic dimension of liberty has been sentenced guilty by.

    Tuesday, September 06, 2005

    Finding vs Looting. My opinion.

    If there was time for me to do it, if there was a Wal-Mart or something like that that I came across while trying to find people that might need help, or find my way out of the disaster, I would take a few goodies with me since alot of the things there may not be salvaged by their owners, the store.

    Getting food and water from a supermarket is not stealing or looting if it has become part of the hazardous environment that you are trying to survive in.

    Once the market has been -effectively- destroyed, taken out of commission, along with the city, and taken out of THE market-
    it will be bulldozed or simply rot.

    Therefore, when you go into that store or market where the stuff will go to waste anyway, you are not really stealing, if the word means anything. You really are finding.

    If you take what you need from the shops in order to help your family survive, then that act of taking is not wrong and it should not be called looting.

    Monday, September 05, 2005

    Stealing for salvation...

    "MSNBC. COUNTDOWN With Keith Olberman: #4 Stealing For Salvation"

    Click the link to see the police "looking for looters" inside some shoes, on aisle 3.

    [Maybe this is part of the local rescue effort.]


    Sunday, September 04, 2005


    Must follow the linkyz

    New Orlean's "Hurricane Plan". Scan it for about 10 minutes and you'll see it's a damning document insofar as city management there is concerned. Judging from recent comments by a few of the folks named as responsible in that plan they didn't know it existed - there's no other explanation for the absurdity of some recent statements and "demands"...

    Remember, the linkyz..

    Evidence of racism?

    I posted this up because of the comments thread linked here

    Saturday, September 03, 2005

    We Will Rebuild New Orleans

    I wasn't going to post about the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. But the disaster is bigger than I imagined. I think that Bloggers can help out, as well as pass the word. We need to encourage people to pitch in a little bit.

    Here is a list with tons of relief agencies and organizations that anyone can pick and choose at their discretion. Every little bit helps.

    As I understand it, in New Orleans, there was a mandatory evacuation process underway, but for whatever reason, reportedly 20% of the population stayed. Anarchy ensued to some extent. Some scumbags have taken advantage of the situation to loot people's homes and rape young girls. I've read that shots were fired at rescue helicopters.

    I posted a couple of clips of President Bush's radio address explaining what is being done at the Federal level to address this situation.

    this is an audio post - click to play

    The next 24 to 72 hours...

    this is an audio post - click to play

    A DiaLOG Focusing On "Participatory Economics"

    10,000 people are estimated to have felt the full effects in Cuba after Hurricanes Isidore and Lili hit. Over 7,300 Red Cross volunteers were mobilized there.

    I don't know that the number of people in need of emergency assistance in New Orleans and the rest of the devastated areas is, but it is definitely more than 10,000. As was reported today, "More than 50,000 people had been trapped for days at the two filthy, sweltering buildings [Superdome and Convention Center]..."

    This needs to be taken into account anyone claims that a government with the ability to force people to OBEY its commands preferable to a government that exists only to protect the freedom of its citizens from being violated. Recently, I read in a leftist spam blog that "the mobilization of 1.7 million people on short notice" by Cuba, in response to a disaster that affected 10,000 people was evidence of the apparent "efficiency" and "social capital" of the benign dictatorship which takes common cause with the tyrannical regimes such as that of Iran and that which was recently toppled in Iraq.

    For some reason, I'm not impressed when a dictator uses his fascistic antfarm-owner power to tell people what to do and what they are allowed to say and learn about. Even IF in SOME cases the result is immediately a good one i.e. a rescue effort.


    I like to give people that disagree with me one opportunity, at least, to demonstrate that they are either sincere or rational in doing so. Because I might learn something. When they turn out to be both, it is very encouraging.

    But sometimes, they are not.

    At that point you have to pick up your marbles and move on- after it becomes obvious that someone has lost theirs.


    I reproduced a debate that I joined in the comments thread of another blogger. See below.

    Here's the link, if anyone wants to compare.

    I've removed any typos that I may have made, and added links in some places. BTW, I wasn't interested in talking about the taste of American chocolates to some of those available in European or on any other continent. If Japanese seafood is better than Chinese seafood, or if Mexican food is better than Italian food, so what? The issue is not one about continental or regional "fashion" or "flavor." It is about the best way to "allow" people to discover the idiosyncracies of the world according to where their curiosity may lead, I think. Our disagreements regarding economic policy stem from the way that we define or understand the "participatory" nature of market-based and market-determined economics.

    So here's the thread on this story on Venezuela that hopefully will be of some use to whoever is reading this blog right now.

    I'll start at the 8th comment.


    SIRC_VALENCE:"Marivit Lopez, from the personnel department, explains that the workers are also drawing up a 'participatory budget' for 2006."

    Can someone explain to me HOW that works? I mean, nevermind exactly how many of the workers get a say about how much they are payed, how does the process work? Does worker 1 say, "our salary will be $15 per hour comrades!" after which worker 2 says, "Niet, you capitalist tool of oppression! It shall be $30!" ..and so on.

    The fact that no lefty can explain why worker 3 and the rest shouldn't agree on a $30,000 per hour wage rate is the proof that there is nothing "Modern" about what Chavez or Castro have been up to.

    Calculation is only possible with cardinal numbers and free-market economics is the economic manifestation of a free nation. Prices are determined by the participants in the market economy

    From what I've read, this "Modern socialism" or "participatory economics" is an offshoot and repackaging of what economists have called the "Zwangswirtschaft" type of Socialism. (

    Because socialism, a doctrine ensconsed in economic ignorance, is inefficient and wasteful, it cannot possibly produce the same standard of living that a truly modern society can. And how does socialism threaten liberty?

    No system of the social division of labor can do without a method that makes individuals responsible for their contributions to the joint productive effort. If this responsibility is not brought about by the price structure of the market and the inequality of wealth and income it begets, it must be enforced by the methods of direct compulsion as practiced by the police.

    -Ludwig von Mises

    If you are seriously interested in what is going on in Venezuela, you ought to read at least Pt III of Liberty and Property.


    In the spirit of dialogue,



    MONDO: Check out this clip of Chavez's speech where he addresses Robertson and Bush. It has English subtitles.


    JIM: An excellent system that started in the US in the 1930's is The Scanlon Plan. It has worked extremely well when labour and especially management have been willing to be open and honest. There is a ton of info on the net about it. Again it is about participation, responsibility and just compensation. Interestingly, the main opposition in companies converting to it comes from middle management who lose their power as gatekeepers because the shop floor workers demand they become facilitators rather than obstructors. As has been mentioned before on this blog? that the most accurate view of any organisation or society comes from below - the lower the better.


    SIRC_VALENCE: Mondo,

    thanks for showing people video of this Chavez guy in action and letting them see his self-centered ranting and preaching to everyone how important HE is to them, and how they NEED him.

    It was difficult for me not to laugh, watching this. But as comical as watching people act out a satire of themselves, that should not distract from the threat that they may pose.

    Watching a Chavez or a Castro is like being in a time machine and watching Mussolini rally his anti-captialist Blackshirts again - or perhaps more like the early stages of Hitler's Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (National Socialist German Workers Party)... Anti-capitalists speak a good game "for the worker", but actually deliver a few or all of the following: tyranny, poverty, misery. Mainly there are two reasons for this;] they don't understand economics or recognize that as the power of the state expands into the realm of private enterprise (the voluntary association or disassociation of the citizen conducting a vast array of economic decisions), it alters the nature of government, making it become a nanny-state.

    Regardless of how well-intentioned the uninformed dreamers are, reality catches up. Because men are no angels, as America's founders knew, the power that the socialists put into the hands of big brother to "make people good" naturally falls into the hands of devils, who having no restraints will say anything and do anything to be at the top. And when they get there, the law is no longer the guard of the oppressed, but the instrument of oppression. That's the way it works. America's founders were much wiser than they are portrayed to have been. The pee-ons who presume that they are the true revolutionaries, after taking for granted the gains made in the tradition of the founders, simply have no clue. Capitalism allows individuals to channel their energies in a positive way, whereas socialism, with it's blindness to many economic discoveries, creates the conditions for disaster and stagnation.

    (George Reisman, notes the limitations placed on the extremely selfish and wicked by a system of law that knows its place and contrasts it well to one that doesn't; "The Gestapo and the KGB, for example, make private criminal gangs like the Mafia or the Capone mob look not only tame by comparison, but almost kind and friendly—so utterly and massively vicious can governments be.")

    Mondo, are you sure that Venezuela needs a man which has passed a law censoring the citizens from insulting him? It seems like a bit much don't you think? Or is he following in the footsteps of "Dear Leader" Kim Jong Il, or Fidel? He is, but I pray that he doesn't follow them too far along that road.. because that path, unabated, would inevitably lead to a river of blood in South America. We have seen it before in other parts of the world.

    I do not see that the left is really producing "social justice" and "liberation." This Chavez is a guy who likes to visit Iran (a terrorist exporter) where the "government" will even ban women from entering a soccer stadium. For what purpose ?

    (Despite his repeated claims, the U.S. is not trying to assasinate that megalomaniac that calls the U.S. "the grand destroyer of the world, and the greatest threat". I can see no rational explanation for why Chavez has claimed a Bush conspiracy against his life except as agitprop so that the left can excuse this "Progressive" Venezuelan's support for a very brutal terrorist-supporting state with ambitions to develop a nuclear bomb.)


    ROWAN BERKELEY:Sirc_Valence (what kind of sophomoric name is that anyhoo), let me repeat, no gold, no Mises


    PARALLAX: Sometimes a little inefficiency is a good thing if it keeps people working....


    SIRC_VALENCE: That's the second shot that you've taken at the Gold Standard,


    So, are you eventually gonna get to saying something knowledgeable about it?

    And Parallax, in a free-market economy, nobody is unemployed that doesn't [choose] to be.


    SIRC_VALENCE [Again]: Do you want to argue that moving to a 100% Reserve Gold Standard would be a bad move? If so, you should be prepared to argue against the empirical data that has been gathered. Not everyone has been ignoring it. And I know that not everyone has been doing so on purpose.

    Let's move the argument foreward, since after seeing you bring up a pertinent matter twice, there was obviously more to say. OK. Since the argument has already been posed and answered, elsewhere, it would be a good time to go ahead and see what has been learned. Hopefully you will identify the answers even before you are able to come up with the questions.

    With the Supply and Demand Diagram that Prof. Joseph Salerno illustrates the dynamic between market directed prices and the the nature of the means of exchange (money), with, we can demonstrate what the basis of a sound economy is.

    Quote, "if you pay $10 dollars for a compact disc, then the value of money in terms of a compact disc is one-tenth of a compact disc. If a computer has a price of $1,000 dollars, then the value of a dollar in terms of personal computers is one-one thousandth of a personal computer... The purchasing power of money is an array of alternative quantities of goods that can be purchased by a unit of money; our case, the dollar.

    "So let's say the amount of gold at a given quantity is fixed, so we draw a verticle line (MS) representing the Money Supply, and we have a certain Demand for Money, there's a certain amount that people wish to hold, and wish to purchase with their labor and other goods that they're selling. And let's say that the money supply, in billions of dollars, is $100-billion dollars.

    "Now what would happen if we suddenly have a 10% increase in the supplies of goods and services produced in this economy? In effect, the sellers of those goods would want to sell those goods at going prices. That would mean you would need 10% more money for the economy to be able to absorb those goods.

    "..So now the quantity of money demanded, at the given purchasing power of money, (PPM1) would be at $110-billion dollars. But there's no Fed to create this additional $10-billion dollars that we need. So how does the Gold Standard handle that?

    "Very simply.

    "Let's direct our attention to the high-tech industry for the last 20-30 years. How did they handle the fact that the supply of PCs, and software and so on, was increasing so rapidly that it was outstripping even the inflationary rate of growth of the money supply caused by the Fed in the 80s and 80s? How did those additional computers get sold?

    "The point is that because of the technological advances and the increase in investment in those industries, costs fell. So that when the supplies of computers increased on the market, their prices fell.

    "To get an idea of the magnitude of this fall, we can go back to recent history and see that a mainframe computer sold for $4.7-million dollars in 1970 while today one can purchase a personal computer that is 20-times faster for less than $1,000 dollars.

    "So we had substantial price deflation in high-tech industries, and that did not impair the growth in those industries because it corresponded to falling costs due to technological advances. We could point out that there was an enormous expansion of profits, productivity and output in these industries. This is reflecting the fact that in 1980, computer firms shipped a total of just about one-half million PCs, while in 1999 their shipments exceeded 43 million units to an increased 86-times. And that's despite the fact that quality-adjusted prices had fallen by over 90%

    " prices begin to fall, each dollar will be able to purchase more of that particular good than it did before... What happens is that as the value of each dollar increases, we move up along the Demand Curve to this point so that at the end of the process, prices are roughly, 10% lower and the purchasing power of money is, roughly, 10% higher.... if we have a situation where the good was originally $10 dollars, and not it's $9 dollars, the dollar could purchase approximately 10% more.

    "So if we take this particular good; initially we had a money supply of $100-billion dollars, and we had a price of $10. So the number of units that could be purchased by that money supply was 10 billion. But as the price falls to $9, the same $100-billion dollars of gold which hasn't changed, THERE'S NO FED INCREASING THE MONEY SUPPLY, could now purchase over or around 11 billion units of the good.

    "So the market process will adjust the purchasing power of money so as to enable the additional goods and services to be sold on the market and they will be sold profitably on the market because costs are also falling. That is the reason for ecnomic growth [and the economic dimension of innovation and progress]."

    I believe that this is a great little lesson on the dynamic of how the free-market adjusts the purchasing power of money. Of course there is so much more that can be addressed, but if you want to learn more, I hope that you do. I would recommend Murray N. Rothbard's The Great Depression, it had some real eye-openers for me when I opened that book up.

    I'm going to be gone for some time, so I stayed up to do this post in order that I don't later regret that I didn't. I'm throwing this link in, hoping that people here will read about the best way that civilization should proceed from post-colonialism:'s in there, just dig a bit)


    ERLENDA: I guess that Mises guy was a false prophet or America would not live of the rest of the world right now with debts sky high.

    The computer industry is the only profitable one and its getting more outsourced, for of course the workers have no say in the matter.

    Bill Gates thinks the Chinese are better educated than the Americans, watch him to outsource Microsoft to China.
    I think you are so blind by your ideolgy, you cannot even see it, when it stares in your eyes, that American capitalism is a failed system, profiting nobody in the end, but a tiny oligarchy who more or less might even outsource their places of residence to the Barmudas or such places pretty soon.


    SIRC_VALENCE: erlenda: I guess you didn't read the Reason interview that I linked at the bottom of my post. If you didn't do that you definitely are beyond your league in talking about what "that Mises guy" accurately predicted would happen and why. Almost as if to demonstrate his economic findings, people made the mistakes that he warned them not to. And here you are demonstrating for all what I'm talking about when I speak of people continuing to ignore the truth and choosing instead worn out slogans.

    The say in the matter that "the workers" have, regarding outsourced jobs in the computer industry, is, the say that they have as consumers, which is "we want cheaper products and services." And if some Indians can provide the same services that some Americans do, at a lower cost to the consumer, that is a win-win situation. And the reason that third world countries can usually provide cheaper labor and products is because their demand for work, and to better their own situation is much greater than ours. They want to compete in the global market so that their nations can catch up with the rest of the world. People don't like to go hungry, or depend on stone-age technologies for their well-being. Some countries are very much behind where they could be, they are "the developing world." We all are.

    It is ludicrous to refuse people in other countries the opportunity to try to compete in the modern economy until their countries catch up to those that are thriving in the marketplace.

    Capital flowing out of a nation, to other areas where its more productive, to the third world countries, enormously develops the productivity of labor in such countries while increasing the market for our goods (with the development of spending power that wasn't there before in the hands of those countries) while raising wages and profits in the export industry; Free-market economics gets resources going into their most value productive employments. I'm just describing the science of economics here. From that you should figure out that a few layed off employees or unemployed college grads will just have to learn to adjust to the situation when more needy people compete with them and win in the marketplace of the buying public (which coincidentally happens to include such employees and grads and their relatives). Look at it this way, there is less pain for us, overall, when a company that is started up ignores what the rest of the world is doing, or can offer, and is taken "by surprise" and outcompeted than there is for a country and people if they don't get the chance to participate in a modern economy because some ideologues are hanging on to old worn and disproven ideological concepts.



    PARALLAX: Sirc_Valence,

    So where is this free market economy?
    The USA you say?

    Think, before you reply.


    SIRC_VALENCE: The United States would serve as the best model, to answer your question.

    Now, the fact that it is possible to move away from it, or for that matter, to reenforce it, does not negate the proposition.

    I don't mean to criticize every single individual here, or pass judgement on their value as individuals, because people are more than what they know.

    BUT, the problem in the U.S., regarding betrayals to the American civilization, such as the recent Supreme Court ruling by its most left-leaning Justices in the Kilo case encroaching upon Americans' property rights- can be traced to the alien ideology of the left.

    In 1933, 3 years into the Great Depression (and that started out shortly following the creation of the Fed), "Progressive" President Franklin Roosevelt was sworn into office. Yet before and since, there hasn't been a longer depression (9 years) in the United States of America. At the time, one of FDR's economic advisors, a member of his "Brain Trust", asked whether or not we were going to continue on a capitalist basis! Massive human disasters such as Mao's "Great Leap Foreward" and "Cultural Revolution" are not without without their causes.

    An education in harmony with America's values would not have produced the Bureaus and officials that aligned themselves with the Communists in China's Civil War, leaving them the mainland; forcing those more likely to produce progress and freedom to retreat into the Island of Taiwan. And there, they may not be totally safe. The good news is that there have been reforms in China, in the direction of the free market. China is still ruled and dominated by Communist partisans, but the country is not so Communist anymore (though still a potential powderkeg). Then there's Kim Jong Il's whose father fought side by side with Mao's "Progressives."


    This is what I was talking about before when I pointed out that Mises accurately predicted what would happen, even before WWII, as the assault on free-market economics continued (1927):

    "The program of antiliberalism unleashed the forces that gave rise to the great World War and, by virtue of import and export quotas, tariffs, migration barriers, and similar measures, has brought the nations of the world to the point of mutual isolation. Within each nation it has led to socialist experiments whose result has been a reduction in the productivity of labor and a concomitant increase in want and misery. Whoever does not deliberately close his eyes to the facts must recognize everywhere the signs of an approaching catastrophe in world economy. Antiliberalism is heading toward a general collapse of civilization."

    The classical understanding of liberal civilization, incorporates free-market economics. And that's why, if we want to promote civilization in the world, as well as defend our own, we must also understand the economic manifestation of liberty, that which we call Capitalism.


    ROWAN BERKELEY: I don' wanna argue that moving back from fractional reserve banking to a 100% reserve system would be bad (though obviously the deflation would be ferocious and would require precisely central economic planning to manage it) - what I am telling you, o voluble and pretentious one of incomprehensible nickname, is that the USA HAS NO GOLD ANY MORE:


    It wasn't obvious to me that the Gold Standard caused ferocious deflation. I mean, throughout the 19th Century up until WWII there was a mild deflationary trend - even with the rapid growth caused by the general expansion of industry with a Gold Standard in place. There was both growth and falling prices, somehow.

    Maybe it would help me see how obvious these things were if you told me a little more. I do appreciate the link, though.

    Later alligator

    Friday, September 02, 2005


    Alright, I'm not going to wait just so that my next post is the follow up to my FORTITUDE essay; Although the deadline that I gave myself -a very generous one- has not changed. It is still Sept. 16.

    But like that mafia guy said in that mafia movie: "Just when you think you're out -- they pull you back in!" (paraphrasing)

    I got into some debates with a few people recently, and I'm getting the impulse to publish again. Gotta scratch the itch.

    Next: A DiaLOG focusing on "Participatory Economics" by Me (and a contentious little group of sometimes uncooperative assistants)