Target: London

As many have read today, London citizens almost fell victim to 2 vehicles loaded with gasoline canisters, nails and high explosives. Although the devices were primitive, they would have caused tremendous carnage in London's West End. Had it not been for simple awareness and a brave police officer who diffused the 1st bomb, many may have been killed today.

This incident raises questions of what is coming next. Many believe these devices to be the first of many to come across the world, citing the video of a supposed al Qaeda Terror Camp "graduation" of some 300 individuals who majored in suicide bombings (Suicide Bomb Teams sent to the West).

Point blank: Terrorism is still a serious problem. I know some of you will think that statement sounds a little melodramatic or obvious, but when Michael Moore state that terrorism isn't a threat, when MSNBC releases a report that says bird flu is more dangerous, and when a .5 degree C rise in temperature over the last century has become a global catastrophe, we need to be reminded of the seriousness of active terrorism. It has been easy for people to become complacent within the past 5 and a half years since 9/11, which is sad because we are getting to the point as a nation where we'll need to endure another attack and thousands more dead before we step up, take the action and actually support what is needed. Its time to put the target back on the enemy.

Also today, some (including "notable" media affiliates) have even gone as far as saying that today's incident (and all others) are our own fault...a result of our sinful actions in the Middle East. This mindset further proving that those on the left simply don't get it and won't quit. Lack of common sense? They place the target on us, how much more suicidal can you get? Well, besides becoming a suicide bomber...

By the way, what ever happened to the Bird Flu?

The New Immigration Legislation Fails

Defeated 53 to 46, fourteen votes shy of the 60 needed to move onto the next stage. "The only victory here is for the American people,'' stated South Carolina Republican Jim DeMint following the vote. "People responded to this issue in a very emotional and engaged way, which changed the minds of many people here in the Senate.''

This vote today (and the vote last week) truly shows that the people of this country still have say when it comes to what is right and what is wrong.

Right: Upholding the laws we have accepted as a nation and punishing those who violate them.

Wrong: Granting law violators "amnesty" simply because some believe it is just impossible to catch and deport them all. With that mindset, why not abandon the war on drugs, war on terrorism...or crime in general.

With this vote, it is unlikely that we will return to this issue before the next administration hits office in 2009. What this means is that we need to be heard. Support law enforcement agencies who arrest, detain and/or deport illegals found in this country. Denounce all those who believe it is a "civil right" for law breakers to enter as they see fit. Think about the thousands upon thousands of legal immigrants in this country or waiting in line who must suffer because of illegal actions and liberal "amnesty."

This isn't racism (beat you to it), its Common Sense. Enforce the laws by punishing violators and rewarding those who obey. The next step is beginning the push for the secured border, including full support of the Border Patrol and the building of the wall (digital and physical). We need to bottle the ends, then take care of the issues who stick around on our soil. Lets get it done.

By the way, if we did build a wall of epic proportions along our southern border, don't you think it would make quite the tourist attraction? I'd go buy a t-shirt.

The Talk Radio "Fairness" Debate

First off, welcome to my 100th post on Common Sense.

I want to jump right into this issue because it is something that poses a threat to our freedoms. I speak of the infamous Media Fairness Doctrine.

For those who do not know, the Fairness Doctrine was instituted in the late 1960's as a measure requiring broadcast licensees to present "controversial issues of public importance in an honest, equal and balanced manner." It was repealed by the FCC in 1987 as many aspects of it were questioned by the courts. Although the court system never got the chance to declare the doctrine unconstitutional before it was pulled, they did state in Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo that it "inescapably dampens the vigor and limits the variety of public debate."

Now the doctrine is being reconsidered because of a slant in the radio media to the right. A new study does show proof (ratings and programming lineups) that conservative talk radio dominates liberal talk in most major cities and areas nationwide. Feel free to check out all the statistics and the full report here. With this report, liberals now claim that they are not getting a "fair shake" when it comes to their point of view being heard.

With that, let me rewind to March 31, 2004. Air America, new national radio network of "progressive" (liberal) talk radio shows, has just launched. They hold liberal hosts such as comedian Al Franken, Randi Rhodes and many others as they hit the airwaves with talk radio from the liberal POV. Fast forward just 2 and a half years later to October 13, 2006. Air America files for chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in order to remain on air while resolving their financial failures. Within a couple months, Air America is sold and revampted, then relaunched with a "new and improved" lineup at the end of May 2007 as Air America 2.0. They retain only 1 of their initial hosts and continue their struggle to find a market of people who will listen.

Bottom line: The liberal point of view isn't being listen to by the American audience. As such, they have not made money. On the other side of the spectrum, conservative talk is being listened to by millions upon millions everyday. Liberals (of course) see this as a major issue in "fairness" and now believe the answer is to once again silence the conservative voice in media and return to the liberal monopoly of pre-1987. This type of forced political suppression in the media can be seen today on the global level (check out Hugo).

My point is that many Democrats today are beginning to take the fight to the source of their opposition: The voice of conservative opinion itself. Apparently they really think we the people are that stupid and naive. With this line of thinking, they assume that Americans will listen and subscribe to whatever point of view is forced onto us via the "free" airwaves.

Fairness is allowing the people to present, subscribe and/or reject different points of view. Simply because one side produces a greater following than the other does not mean we need to silence voices and opinion in exchange for a kind of "political balance."

It would make for some intense political gain before 2008 in the Dem's favor, don't you think?

By the way, if you really want to know whose being "fair" in their reporting, go ahead and research the high and mighty media.

**UPDATE** Sen James Inhofe stated on 6/23 that Senators Clinton and Boxer wanted a "fix" for conservative talk radio 3 years ago. "They were outraged by something Rush Limbaugh or somebody said that upset them. They said, 'We have got to do something about this, these are nothing but far-right wing extremists. We’ve got to have a balance, there’s got to be a legislative fix to this.'"

Liberal Politicians Still Don't Get It

“Gas consumers can expect to pay between $3.16 and $3.79 a gallon for gas in 2008 after adding in the estimated impact of the Senate energy bill. By 2016, all states can expect gas prices in excess of $6. As a result of S. 1419, consumers would spend an average of $1445 more per year on gasoline in 2016 than in 2008.”

This statement comes from the Heritage Foundations study concerning new legislation being introduced in the Senate, falsely carrying the title of "The Renewable Fuels, Consumer Protection and Energy Efficiency Act of 2007" (S. 1419). This bill, like many they put forward, is being described by some of its supporters as “far from perfect” but “a good start.” Sound similar to the immigration bill? We don't need "starts", we need solutions.

This is just a "start" to higher oil and food prices, new taxes and forcing consumers to pay for high cost “renewable” energy sources. These measures "are to energy independence what bicycle trails are to traffic-congestion relief." On top of that, the bill is to include legislation that prohibits price gouging (who is defining that crime?). With oil companies only making 6 to 8 cents per gallon in profits compared to the governments 50 to 60 cents from imposed taxes, maybe the federal and state governments should be held accountable for "price gouging." Now they want to add additional taxes and branch out from just oil.

Imagine what it would be like if gasoline was 50-60 cents cheaper per gallon. It would be used more, the price would drop further. Oil companies would be able to make more money, invest in alternate fuel sources. Thats the beauty of capitalism: Business revolves around the consumers needs, and we need alternate fuel sources. We don't need (or want) the government to "help" out by reaching into our pockets. Let us pay for it by using the money we earn on the services we want and need.

I've said it numerous times before, those who know best how to spend our money and drive our economy is "we the people."

Read the report on this bill.

Every vehicle company and oil company has made extensive headway on alternative fuel sources (without the government) because they recognize the need to advance in order to survive as a business.

2008 Update: Bloomberg Finally Comes Out

The controversial mayor of New York City, Michael Bloomberg, has finally decided to show his true colors with a statement made yesterday: "I have filed papers with the New York City Board of Elections to change my status as a voter [from Republican] and register as unaffiliated with any political party. Although my plans for the future haven't changed, I believe this brings my affiliation into alignment with how I have led and will continue to lead our City." That last part is very true.

The now former Republican who followed Guiliani as the mayor of New York has been anything but conservative. Bloomberg is not only a supporter of extreme gun control legislation, but has also initiated gun control legislation in NYC that he attempted to enforce outside the city itself (and got into a lot of trouble for it...where was the media on that one?). He also advocates and has pushed for increases in public health care at the taxpayer expense and is a supporter for the legalization of marijuana. The list goes on:

In his 2001 run, he made education the centerpiece of his campaign, pledging "to do for education what Giuliani did for public safety." Over the last five years, despite $4 billion in additional spending and three harrowing reorganizations of the original "reform," the student performance has been basically flat. The public safety progress under Guiliani has remained stagnant under Bloomberg.

He is a standard liberal when it comes to social policy: Throw money at the issue until it goes away. That may be a bit generalized, but its true. He does not look for comprehensive solutions that improve life for everyone, he sees the problem and spends as much money as possible to try and wean the consequences off those who are most effected. All this does is institute the idea of handouts and freebies supported by the government and we see the same problems emerge that come out of give-away welfare systems. Guiliani had social policy done right: Reform and institute programs that work towards self-elimination via work and opportunity.

Now the first mayor of New York to also be the city's wealthiest man is now speculating a run for the White House, although he stated yesterday that there will be no such run. This is contrary to past statements where he said he would be willing to invest over $500 million of his own money into a potential campaign. If you look at it politically, it would be a smart move to try and enter the race from his (self-proclaimed) moderate stance since both major political parties are currently carrying large amounts of negative baggage.

Best case scenario for us: He stays in New York and fades away once his terms are up in 2009. Even if he chooses to run in '08, his weak plans and policies simply won't get him elected.

Quick Note: The above photo is an actual advertisement from the National Organization to Reform Marijuana Laws (NORML). See the campaign here.

Fred Thompson at the Top

Rasmussen has just released their latest polls for the 2008 Presidential nominations. While Hillary Clinton continues to gain points on Obama, the interesting story today is that Fred Thompson has passed Rudy Guiliani, 28% to 27%. This has become an expected phenomenon as Thompson has been gaining in the polls ever since the possibility of his run came into focus. The interesting thing here is this: He still has not committed to running.

This shows tremendous support for a candidate that seems to fit the mold for what America needs right now. July 4th will be the official announcement day for Thompson if he chooses to run. After reading the stances, listening to the platforms and tuning into his ideology, I can safely say that I am with Fred Thompson.

Side note: I hope Hillary continues forward and wins the Dem nomination, simply because America will not vote for her. Can anyone tell me what has she done for any of us in policy, ever? I look forward to hearing that argument...just keep it clean guys.

Rasmussen Report
Fred Thompson Official Site

Suicide Bomber Teams sent to the West

A new videotape shows an apparent graduation ceremony held at an al-Qaeda/Taliban training camp where hundreds of new "soldiers" have recently completed "training." Teams designated to carry out attacks in the United States, Canada, Great Britain and Germany were announced during the ceremony, which was held on June 9th. Apparently they offer a major in Suicide Bombing.

A Pakistani journalist was invited to attend and take pictures as some 300 recruits, including boys as young as 12, were supposedly sent off on their suicide missions. A tape of the ceremony was also recorded and picked up by ABC News. You can watch it here.

"These Americans, Canadians, British and Germans come here to Afghanistan from faraway places," stated Taliban military commander Mansoor Dadullah. "Why shouldn't we go after them?

Leader of the team heading to England spoke to his followers: "So let me say something about why we are going, along with my team, for a suicide attack in Britain. Whether my colleagues, companions and Muslim brothers die today or tonight, every drop of our blood will invigorate the Muslim (unintelligible)."

Some U.S. officials say this is simply part of a propaganda campaign, while others see this (as well as other ceremonies) as a serious, imminent threat. With people constantly attempting to enter our nation and commit acts of mass violence, national security is something that should be at the forefront of our priority list in Washington.

Bottom line: Build the wall, crack down on our entry points, track and investigate the suspects...hell, go listen in to some phone calls and find these "team members." Thanks.

Graduate Segregation

At UCLA, graduation was difficult to schedule this spring. Whats interesting about this school is their extensive amount of separate "identity-group" graduation ceremonies, the challenge able being to schedule them all at non-conflicting times with one another.

"The women’s studies graduation and the Chicana/Chicano studies graduation are both set for 10 AM Saturday. The broader Hispanic graduation, “Raza,” is in near-conflict with the black graduation, which starts just an hour later...Students of Asian heritage were once content with the Asian–Pacific Islanders ceremony. But now there are separate Filipino and Vietnamese commencements, and some talk of a Cambodian one in the future." -City Journal

And the list goes on.

What I don't understand is this idea of self-segregation, as if it makes a difference what the color the person is next to you...or for that matter, what their sexual orientation might be. UCLA also has the Lavender Graduation Ceremony for students who are gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgendered. The event warrants a rainbow-colored tassel. Many students actually qualify for multiple graduations, and get to choose which aspect of themselves they wish to celebrate.

Yes, at a school of this size the main graduation ceremony can become quite large and impersonal. The answer, however, is not separating our students into groups based on birth-given characteristics. All we can see at UCLA is that segregation is still a growing force, only now it is self motivated. We all have one common identity through education, and it should be that identity that is prevalent at commencement.

Denver's New "Green" Plan

This story has been in the news for a little over a week now, but is starting to calm down a bit. In order to fight global warming, Mayor John Hickenlooper is working to reduce CO2 emissions by 4.4 million metric tons by the year 2020, the equivalent to eliminating about a half a million cars.

How?

First off, they plan to "encourage" the people of Denver to take on a more environmentally friendly lifestyle by penalizing them for "excessive" use of electricity or gas. They would also begin to charge people for "extraordinary" trash collecting as well as base auto insurance premiums on miles traveled.

After intense blowback from the people of Denver and abroad over this plan, which is nothing short of radical, the Mayor issued the following statement: "There are a lot of aspects that are worthy of conversation. But many of the ideas didn't come from my office...And frankly, at some point you have to put certain ideas back in the too-complicated drawer." Hickenlooper also emphasized the point that there must be "balance."

This is where the Global Warming hysteria is taking us. Just be glad that the mayor out there has felt the pressure and is backing off a little. The reason why I placed a number of the above words in quotes is because these words are said to be in the proposed legislation, but need to be defined. How much is "excessive" or "extraordinary?" Will it be based on the number of people in the home? Size of the home? Miles driven? Gas used? Its a bureaucratic nightmare...and one that isn't needed. Beyond all that, I do not believe that penalizing people for their legal choice of lifestyle is the right way to go about this. You know who they'll be going after.

By the way: According to the city inventory of "planet-warming gases," residents of Denver do not contribute any more greenhouse gases today than they did 15 years ago. On top of that, 9 of the warmest 12 years (since we've been keeping track) in Denver's history came before 1950, a full 25 years before the current warming trend.

Massachusetts Bans Vote on Gay Marriage

Massachusetts lawmakers voted today NOT to allow their citizens to vote on an amendment that would prohibit gay marriage. It died just 5 votes short of the 50 needed for it to make the ballot in the 2008 elections.

"We're proud of our state today, and we applaud the Legislature for showing that Massachusetts is strongly behind fairness," stated Lee Swislow, the executive director of the Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders. Now, that statement doesn't make much sense, does it? She is proud that her state is strong on "fairness" by not allowing the citizens to vote on the measure.

For those of you who don't remember or never heard, Massachusetts is currently the ONLY state in the union where homosexual marriage is allowed. On the other end of the spectrum, 25 states have turned the issue over to the people for a vote and had it banned...7 states in the last election alone.

How did Massachusetts become the first and only then? Why, the ACLU stepped in back in 2004 and sued the state, claiming they HAD to allow gay marriages because the state Constitution did not specify that marriage was between a man and a women (using that reasoning, then technically marriage in MA could be between a man and a lamp if they wanted). Back when the Massachusetts Constitution was written, it was simply assumed. As a result, states began allowing their people to decide how to specify it...the results seen in the previous paragraph.

So why are legislators in "The Bay State" so against allowing the people to choose? Isn't that the way it is supposed to be? Legislation was not intended to be forced down our throats by lawyers and their technicalities (thank you ACLU), but to be decided by the people.

Whether your are for or against gay marriage, isn't allowing the people of Massachusetts to vote on it rather than have it forced upon them just the right thing to do? If they want to keep it legal, then they will vote for it.

County to Canel Hurricane Warning Program with Local Radio Station Because...

...they air Rush Limbaugh.

Can you believe it? 610 AM WIOD Radio in Broward County, FL is on the brink of loosing their contract with the local county government due to their programming alignment with Fox News Radio and Limbaugh's EIB Network. For the past year, the station has been the official broadcaster of emergency information to the local area due to their excessive audience.

County Commissioner Stacy Ritter said she did not want to support a station that's out of step with area politics. This commission is comprised entirely of Democrats, I might add.

Limbaugh added his two cents on the issue today on his program. He stated that the county's qualms are "a sign of out-of-control partisanship in the nation." He added that if the county really wanted him off the air, the officials would just need to schedule an emergency press conference during his broadcast from noon to 3 p.m.

"They are politicizing the delivery of emergency news, which is non-partisan," said Limbaugh, who lives in Palm Beach. "They are making weather a partisan issue."

I just think its ridiculous that a legitimate government body is planning to end a business/safety contract with the largest, most listened to radio provider in the area (which is attributed to its programming) for political reasons. Just another example of liberals attempting to silence the opposition any little way they can.

Quick note: WIOD's lineup has been the same for years, becoming a staple in the area. However, there was no opposition to the contract a year ago when it was signed between the county and the station.

UPDATE: Haven for Illegals

In response to New Haven's new legislation issuing legal identification to illegal immigrants (see story below or here) the federal government has begun running sting operations within the city, arresting 29 on Wednesday. New Haven officials say its a retaliation, the federal government says it is not...I say, why does it matter? Law enforcement agencies like ICE are attempting to do their job in a city handing out incentives to law breakers.

Mayor John DeStefano has claimed this move by the feds is not only wrong, but illegal. "They pushed into homes without warrants," he stated. "This was just very aggressive intervention." He went on to say, "I just can't see how you can't view them as frightening in terms of respecting the rights of people, whether they're documented or undocumented." DeStefano also pointed that the operation raised concerns of racial profiling since most of those arrested were Hispanic.

Here's my issue with Mr. DeStefano:

1. He is advocating a program that issues LEGAL identification to ILLEGAL immigrants.
2. He seems to believe that if you are for enforcing the law and removing the 15,000 illegals from New Haven, then you have no respect for the rights of people.
3. He now believes that somehow federal authorities are racially profiling since most of those arrested are Hispanic...are they supposed to take note of what color the law violator is and ignore the violation if it isn't politically correct? Law enforcement officers have the right to arrest you if you are breaking the law, regardless of what color you are.
4. He is a moron.

DeStefano and his followers are now trying to force federal law enforcement out of "his" city. I hope and pray something is done about this. We cannot allow the endorsement of law violating activity within any level of government. Bottom line, let the law enforcement agencies do their job.

By the way, don't you think the easiest sting operation would be to nab them when they show up for their "legal" identification? Maybe its just me...

New Haven, CT: Haven for Illegals

Believe it or not, New Haven has become the first city in the nation to issue legal identification cards to illegal immigrants. The ID cards would give illegals access to city services and permit them to open bank accounts! City officials say that will allow the area's 15,000 illegals to avoid carrying cash around and becoming robbery victims. Mayor John DeStefano stated that "the city's not trying to set its own foreign policy here. What's happening is we're dealing with a failing national immigration policy."

I will agree with Mayor DeStefano on one thing: We do have a problem with our current immigration policy. However, this is by no means a way to fix problems.

Look, if you want to stop robberies, then increase police presence or enact legislation that gives law enforcement additional tools for fighting crime. DO NOT encourage law violators by issuing ILLEGAL residents LEGAL United States identifications. Am I missing something here?

Legal residents of New Haven and abroad, fight this.

Iran Caught Red-Handed

As if we didn't know what they were doing...

NATO officials stated today that they have caught Iran shipping heavy arms, C4 explosives and advanced roadside bombs to the Taliban for use against NATO and US forces. This, the officials say, is a "dramatic escalation of Iran's proxy war against the United States and Great Britain."

Now, what will be done about this?

Knowing our congress, our anti-war/anti-action stance, our public complacency and our media, probably nothing. Isn't it sad when we've reached a point in our nation where we do not respond to flagrant, physical support for our enemies and attacks on our soldiers? Over 2/3's of the casualties our soldiers have seen in the Middle East have been from roadside bombs and other explosives. Where are the insurgencies getting these advanced weapons? I think we now know...now lets do something about it.

Iran's mission is to create failure for the U.S. and our coalition support in the Middle East. Doing so would essentially hand over the entire region to Iran and its dictator, Mahmoud Ahmadinejhad. Instead of pretending there is nothing wrong, maybe we should look to the source of continued violence towards our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, and do something to stop it.

That would be the common sense thing to do, right?

**Quick thought...where is the high and mighty media on this story?**

NASA Chief Backs Off...

Chief NASA administrator Michael Griffin said in a meeting Monday at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, CA that “unfortunately, this is an issue which has become far more political than technical, and it would have been well for me to have stayed out of it.”

These remarks come a week after a statement he issued to a National Public Radio interviewer:

“I have no doubt that...a trend of 'global warming exists,'” Griffin said on NPR. “I am not sure that it is fair to say that it is a problem we must wrestle with.” The overall interview has been denounced by Man-Made Global Warming theorists, stating his comments were "ignorant."

He reiterated that NASA’s job is to provide scientific data on global warming and leave it up to policy makers to decide what to do with it. With that, he made a statement based on the findings at NASA and has caught a tremendous amount of friction from environmentalists, global warming fanatics and others on the left.

It is my opinion that he should have never backed down. His words above really ring true...This is a political debate now. Those who are advocates of man-made global warming theories will no longer accept any technical opposition.

According to them (environmentalists), the debate is over. There is no need for additional science or investigation...anyone who suggests so or opposes the idea that we are causing global warming is a heretic. Looking back, I think its funny that in Al Gore's movie he talks about how those in the scientific community have been forced to disagree with the theory of man-made global warming by higher-ups, essentially stating that it was the poor advocates of this theory who were being oppressed...Seems to be the other way around Al.

To all you fellow "heretics" out there, stick to your guns and show support for the scientists, climatologists, oceanographers, etc out there trying to get the science back into the debate (AKA, actually get a debate going). Give it a few years, this whole global warming hysteria will become a big joke.

Props to Al Gore for making money out of it though.

Charges Dropped Against Terror Detainees

"It is not just a technicality; it's the latest demonstration that this newest system just does not work," Marine Col. Dwight Sullivan told journalists over the weekend, "It is a system of justice that does not comport with American values."

Military judges dismissed charges today against two Guantanamo Bay detainees, a member of Al Qaeda who also chauffeured Osama bin Laden (Salim Ahmed Hamdan), and another who killed a U.S. Soldier with the Taliban in Afghanistan (Omar Khadr). Of the approximate 380 detainees at Guantanamo, these two were the only ones charged with a crime, and these rulings only stand as milestones to complicate future efforts to try Al Qaeda, Taliban, and other terror suspects in military courts.

Recent legislation (Military Commissions Act) apparently states that only "unlawful enemy combatants" can be tried by the military trials, known as commissions. But Khadr and Hamdan had previously been identified by military panels only as "enemy combatants," lacking the critical word "unlawful."

I think its a SPECTACULAR display of our justice system and civil rights when a technicality such as this breaks down the integrity of our entire national security system.

Now, do not blame the judges on this one, they are bound to the legislation. My question is: Why is such legislation on the books? Why is it so flawed? Why aren't operatives of Al Qaeda and the Taliban considered "unlawful?" Either fix the Military Commissions Act, or simply add a line that states if you are a member of a terrorist organization, then you are engaging in "unlawful" action...or would that be a violation of the civil rights of the terrorists?

I'm over it.