Iran Talks Fail

As expected the European Union has not been able to convince Iran to give up its uranium enrichment program. In an ABC News article I ran states, at the end of talks, that giving up the enrichment program is not an option.

I don’t know about you folks but a Nuclear Iran makes me very nervous. I knew trusting the EU, the great appeasers, to handle these negotiations was a mistake. From aljazeera.net

“There will be a further discussion within the next few weeks,” he said, adding that Iran did not want the talks to drag on forever. “Time is of the essence,” Sirus Nasiri said.

European diplomats, speaking ahead of the talks, had said this would be the best possible outcome of the talks – that Iran would agree to continue talking.

This is the best outcome? No France, Germany, and England this is not the best outcome. The best outcome is the purpose of the talks in the first place; that Iran agrees to not enrich Uranium! Although they stated they have temporarily stopped enriching Uranium how do we know?

The Guardian reports:

“There was a constructive and positive climate,” said French Foreign Ministry spokesman Jean-Baptiste Mattei, after the talks ended in Paris. The talks were to continue at a later date.

There was a positive climate? Iran stated it is not going to give up its enrichment program. They state will not consider it. How is that a positive and constructive climate?

Blogging and the FEC

This appeared in a Washington Post article:

“We are almost certainly going to move from an environment in which the Internet was per se not regulated to where it is going to be regulated in some part,” said FEC Commissioner David M. Mason, a Republican. “That shift has huge significance because it means that people who are conducting political activity on the Internet are suddenly going to have to worry about or at least be conscious of certain legal distinctions and lines they didn’t used to have to worry about.”

Which people, what activities and where those lines should be drawn, though, have yet to be determined. The rise of the Internet as a political tool, the variety of ways in which it can be used to promote a campaign and the fact that most federal election laws were written long before the Internet became a household word have combined to present the agency’s commissioners with plenty of knotty legal questions to consider.

Should bloggers who work for political campaigns, for example, be required to disclose that relationship? Should their writings include a disclaimer indicating that they were paid for by a campaign? What if a campaign supporter links his Web site to a candidate’s home page? Is that considered a campaign contribution subject to government regulation? What if an independent Blogger endorses a candidate? Or posts a campaign’s news release? Are those contributions?

I hope that the answer to all of the above will be no, except for those being paid by the campaign. I would of course rather they stay out of the internet, but that ship sailed.

Angel of Death Massacre In Minnesota

Jeff Weise hadn’t been to Red Lake High School for a while, banished to his home for a violation of school policy. What policy I do not know. When he returned to the building where he was teased as a loner and misfit, it was with guns and a plan.

It is being reported that this young Native American Indian took a .22 cal. pistol and shot his grandfather, 58-year-old Daryl Lussier, a well-liked tribal police officer. He then donned his grandfather’s bullet proof vest, took his service weapons, apparently a .40 cal handgun and a 12 gauge shot gun, took the patrol car and headed to school.

At the school he shot an unarmed security guard and entered the school. He then shot numerous individuals until finally turning the gun on himself, ending it.

It seems there were plenty of warning signs, including the fact he referred to himself online as Todesengel German for Angel of Death and NativeNazi.

They said his father committed suicide four years ago, and his mother was nursing home after suffering brain injuries in a car accident.

Relatives said Weise was a loner who usually wore black and was teased by other kids.

I guess I’ve always carried a natural admiration for Hitler and his ideals, and his courage to take on larger nations, Weise wrote on the website.

This Kid fit the profile of the Columbine shootings if you ask me!

This was the first tragedy of this story. The second is the fact that NPR immediately turned it into a gun control debate. The story was not even cold! In fact it was still hot! If they want that debate then I say fine.

I want to know why the security personnel where not armed. It seems relatively stupid to have unarmed personnel guarding our most precious natural resource! How about arming the teachers? The students were all trapped in a classroom with their teacher and gunned down. If people on the scene were armed and knew how to use their firearms, then at the very least the damage could have been limited. It seems the message, to the crazies out there, is if you make it to a school with a gun it is open season on our children!

When will the anti-gun crowd learn that disarming only empowers people to commit violent criminal acts!

News links to the story:
Scotsman news
Twincities.com
Associated Press

Buying Campaign-Finance Reform

Campaign finance reform was a fraud foisted on congress and the people by left wing organizations.

According to the New York Post article there is a tape of a conference held at USCâââs Annenberg School for communications, in March of 2004, that shows Sean Treglia speaking to a gathering of academics, experts, and journalists (none of whom, apparently, ever wrote about his remarks) on how Pew and other left wing foundations plotted to create a fake grassroots movement to fool Congress.

“Iâââm going to tell you a story I never told any reporter,ââ? Treglia says on the tape. ââÅNow that Iâââm several months away from Pew and we have campaign-finance reform, I can tell the story.ââ?

Here is a summary of that story:

Charged with promoting campaign-finance reform when joining Pew in the mid 1990s, Treglia came up with a three pronged strategy:

1) Pursue an expansive agenda through incremental reforms
2) Pay for a handful of ââÅexpertsââ? all over the country with foundation money
3) Create fake businesses, minority, and religious groups to pound the table for reform.

ââÅThe target group for all this activity was 535 people in Washington,ââ? Treglia says âââ 100 in the Senate, 435 in the House. “The idea was to create an impression that a mass movement was afoot âââ that everywhere they looked, in academic institutions, in the business community, in religious groups, in ethnic groups, everywhere, people were talking about reform.”

Of course Treglia is now trying to deny ever saying the above. I encourage you to read the whole article by following the link above.

The article goes on to list a host of Left wing groups that donated 123 million dollars towards this effort. What did they buy? For starters, a bunch of supposedly independent pro-reform groups, with names you may have heard in the press: the Center for Public Integrity, the William J. Brennan Center for Justice, Democracy 21 and so on.

But worse yet! Favorable press coverage! Yup! Just like they were screaming about the White House doing recently. Obviously journalists are used to being paid for positive coverage.

According to a piece in Opinion Journal

Mr. Treglia admits that campaign-finance supporters had to try to hoodwink Congress because “they had lost legitimacy inside Washington because they didn’t have a constituency that would punish Congress if they didn’t vote for reform.”

But the results were spectacular. Not only did the effort succeed in bulldozing Congress and President Bush, but it might have played a role in persuading the Supreme Court, which had previously ruled against broad restrictions on political speech, to declare McCain-Feingold constitutional in 2003 on a 5-4 vote. “You will see that almost half the footnotes relied on by the Supreme Court in upholding the law are research funded by the Pew Charitable Trusts,” Mr. Treglia boasted

The successful stealth campaign by the eight liberal foundations means we now have to live in the Brave New World of McCain-Feingold.

UN-VOLUNTEERING, NOT DESERTION??

Some things make me sicker than others; this is disgusting! I came across an article in the NY times about ââÅun-volunteeringââ?. You heard me, it is no longer called desertion. It is called un-volunteering!

Soldiers, their advocates and lawyers who specialize in military law say they have watched a few service members try ever more unlikely and desperate routes to get out of their duty: taking drugs in the hope that they will be kept home after positive urine tests, for example; or seeking psychological or medical reasons to be declared non deployable, including last-minute pregnancies. Specialist Marquise J. Roberts is accused of asking a relative in Philadelphia to shoot him in the leg so he would not have to return to war. Let us not leave out the ever popular run to Canada.

I cannot believe people who volunteered to join the military are allowing fear of combat to allow them to Desert. Just run away from their obligations and their fellow soldiers. Of course the left has come up with a PC name for desertion.

You can read the whole story here: Un-volunteering