flyerhawk's blog
Posted at 4:56pm on Jan. 8, 2008 The final nail in the Ron Paul Coffin
By flyerhawk
TNR just released an expose about Ron Paul's various old newsletters.
Let's just say... It ain't pretty.
This "Special Issue on Racial Terrorism" was hardly the first time one of Paul's publications had raised these topics. As early as December 1989, a section of his Investment Letter, titled "What To Expect for the 1990s," predicted that "Racial Violence Will Fill Our Cities" because "mostly black welfare recipients will feel justified in stealing from mostly white 'haves.'" Two months later, a newsletter warned of "The Coming Race War," and, in November 1990, an item advised readers, "If you live in a major city, and can leave, do so. If not, but you can have a rural retreat, for investment and refuge, buy it." In June 1991, an entry on racial disturbances in Washington, DC's Adams Morgan neighborhood was titled, "Animals Take Over the D.C. Zoo." "This is only the first skirmish in the race war of the 1990s," the newsletter predicted. In an October 1992 item about urban crime, the newsletter's author--presumably Paul--wrote, "I've urged everyone in my family to know how to use a gun in self defense. For the animals are coming." That same year, a newsletter described the aftermath of a basketball game in which "blacks poured into the streets of Chicago in celebration. How to celebrate? How else? They broke the windows of stores to loot." The newsletter inveighed against liberals who "want to keep white America from taking action against black crime and welfare," adding, "Jury verdicts, basketball games, and even music are enough to set off black rage, it seems."
Posted in 2008 — Comments (33) / Email this page » / Read More »
Posted at 11:41am on Jan. 7, 2008 A blogger loses his life in Iraq
By flyerhawk
I don't know if this has been noted but the blogosphere lost one of their own last week.
Andrew Olmstead, also known as G'Kar was killed last week in Iraq by small arms fire.
The first link is a blog entry he gave to Hilzoy in the event of his death.
Posted in Foreign Affairs — Comments (4) / Email this page » / Read More »
Posted at 4:28pm on Sep. 28, 2007 Who in Islam speaks out against Bin Laden
By flyerhawk
It has been said many times here and across the blogosphere that the moderates of Islam must speak out against the violence and evil of terrorism.
Well it seems that there ARE voices speaking out against Bin Laden and his methods.
On his website Islam Today Sheik Salman_al-Ouda published a an Open Letter to Osama Bin Laden
Posted in Foreign Affairs — Comments (32) / Email this page » / Read More »
Posted at 3:40pm on Aug. 21, 2007 A really intesting tool
By flyerhawk
I was given a link to a very interesting presentation from TED by Dr. Hans Rosling
The presentation was about debunking myths regarding the world as it exists today. Dr. Rosling provides some fascinating data that really changes perceptions.
His presentation provides historical trends on mortality rates, life expectancy and wealth. Really intriguing stuff.
Posted in Technology — Comments (8) / Email this page » / Read More »
Posted at 2:35am on Jun. 4, 2007 What the Saudis are doing to combat Al Qaeda
By flyerhawk
The Atlantic Monthly has an interesting article regarding the methods Saudi Arabia is using the combat terrorism.
In the article Get out of Jihad Free
Read on....
Posted in Foreign Affairs — Comments (16) / Email this page » / Read More »
Posted at 8:27pm on May 27, 2007 Happy Anniversary to me
By flyerhawk
Believe it or not I hit the 2 year mark here at RedState today.
Can't imagine too many of the powers that be here ever thought they would see that happen.
Just wanted to give a thanks to Thomas, Streiff, Moe, Erick, Leon, and the rest of the cast for providing a good place for me to do battle with the Conservative dragons.
You guys drive me crazy at times but I feel that I understand some issues far better because of the great debates that can occur here.
Posted in Liberals — Comments (33) / Email this page » / Read More »
Posted at 12:17pm on Jan. 27, 2007 Is the true cause of our failure in Iraq…. Law enforcement?
By flyerhawk
In the most recent Atlantic Monthly, Bing West writes a fascinating article on what he believes is the true cause of our failures in Iraq. He doesn’t believe that it is a failure of our military. He doesn’t believe it is a failure of political resolve. He believes that the fundamental problem in Iraq right now is that the vast majority of operations are police actions and, due to political and technological limitations, we are currently unable to properly carry out this mission.
Read more
Comments (33) / Email this page » / Read More »
Posted at 1:26am on Jan. 4, 2007 A fascinating news program
By flyerhawk
I have been a DirecTV subscriber or many years. Great service and tons of channels to choose from. But I have to admit there are a lot of channels that I simply never even notice.
Due to some strange TV groupings I never noticed a channel called LinkTV until somewhat recently. Interesting channel. Lots of independent documentary stuff. I'd imagine most of it would not be the stuff that would warm the folks at RedState's hearts.
But I'm here to talk about a specific program they have on Link(Channel 375 on Directv). The name of the program is called Mosaic:World News From the Middle East.
Read On
Comments (6) / Email this page » / Read More »
Posted at 5:15pm on Dec. 25, 2006 Happy Holidays and Merry Christmas to all
By flyerhawk
It's been another fun year of discussion with many of you and I hope that we can have another year of worthy debate in 2007 as I try to vainly show you crazy Conservatives the light of Liberalism. :)
I just wanted to drop a quick note say Happy Holidays and Merry Christmas to all here(I am Switzerland when it comes to the War on Christmas). May you all have a wondrous holiday and a joyous New Year. And let us all hope that 2007 can bring us closer together as a nation rather than farther apart.
Comments (9) / Email this page » / Read More »
Posted at 2:26am on Dec. 20, 2005 The New York Times vs The Free Market
By flyerhawk
It seems that RedState has decided that the New York Times is against the war on terror and, by their actions, actually supports the terrorists.
That got me to thinking. What other companies out there are secretly supporting the terrorists?
Certainly Exxon-Mobile is supporting the terrorists. Seems pretty obvious to me that if they loved America they would be lowering gas prices so that we wouldn't be so dependent on Middle Eastern Oil.
Boeing certainly hates America cause if they loved America they would be offering some sort of terrorist-fighting discount to our government.
General Motors hates American cause if they loved America they would be giving the government free armored Hummers.
GE, Microsoft, IBM, Sun, Halliburton, and just about every other Fortun 500. Shame on you for putting profits over country.
Posted in User Blogs — Comments (15) / Email this page » / Read More »
Posted at 1:07pm on Sep. 28, 2005 Here's your chance to cut the deficit
By flyerhawk
Over at Chicago Boyz they just provided a a budget simulator that allows you to come up with a mechanism to cut our Federal budget by targeting specific budget items you would like to see cut.
Don't like Indian health? Well go right ahead and slash away.
But as the comments in the first link point out cutting pork ain't as easy as you might think. First off you need to find the cuts that will actually matter. Second you need to figure out how to make them politically feasible. While you may abhor the thought of providing money for Indian health, you also need to realize that there will be a significant and vocal group of pro-Indian health people that will label you as an evil racist bent on killing off Indians.
So go ahead and take a test drive on the budget simulator and see where you can cut the budget and what benefit you will see from. Try to be realisitc. Sure slashing Medicare may make you feel good but it is politically not terribly feasible.
Posted in User Blogs — Comments (19) / Email this page » / Read More »
Posted at 2:04pm on Aug. 25, 2005 Excerpts of proposed Iraqi Constitution
By flyerhawk
The Iraqi Constitution seems to be fairly large so I'm not going to repost the entire thing. But I am going to post some selected passages to comment upon.
1st -- Islam is the official religion of the state and is a basic source of legislation:
(a) No law can be passed that contradicts the undisputed rules of Islam.
(b) No law can be passed that contradicts the principles of democracy.
(c) No law can be passed that contradicts the rights and basic freedoms outlined in this constitution.
2nd -- This constitution guarantees the Islamic identity of the majority of the Iraqi people and the full religious rights for all individuals and the freedom of creed and religious practices.
Article (3): Iraq is a multiethnic, multi-religious and multi-sect country. It is part of the Islamic world and its Arab people are part of the Arab nation.
Well that certainly doesn't seem to bad. They are saying that while all laws must adhere to Islam they must ALSO adhere to Democratic principles. A little unclear as to what take primacy if Islam and democracy conflict with each other.
1st -- Entities or trends that advocate, instigate, justify or propagate racism, terrorism, "takfir" (declaring someone an infidel), sectarian cleansing, are banned, especially the Saddamist Baath Party in Iraq and its symbols, under any name. It will be not be allowed to be part of the multilateral political system in Iraq, which should be defined according to the law.,
I find this somewhat troubling. Outlawing political parties is always dangerous, especially a party that has a considerable constituency.
Article 19
1st -- The judiciary is independent, with no power above it other than the law.
2nd -- There is no crime and no punishment except by the text (of law). And there is no punishment except for an act that the law considers a crime at the time of its commission. No punishment can be enacted that is heavier than the punishment allowed at the time of the crime's commission.
3rd -- Trial by judiciary is a right protected and guaranteed to all.
4th -- The right to defense is holy and guaranteed in all stages of investigation and trial.
5th -- The accused is innocent until his guilt is proven in a just, legal court. The accused cannot be tried for the same accusation again after he has been freed unless new evidence appears.
6th -- Every individual has the right to be treated in a just manner in all judicial and administrative procedures.
7th -- Court sessions will be open unless the court decides to make them secret.
8th -- Punishment is for individuals.
9th -- Laws do not apply retroactively unless otherwise has been legislated, and this exception does not include laws of taxes and duties.
10th -- Punitive law shall not be applied retroactively unless it is best for the defendant.
11th -- The court shall appoint an attorney to defend defendants charged with a felony or a misdemeanor who don't have an attorney and it shall be at the state's expense.
12th --
Vytra Health Plans
(b) Arrest or imprisonment is not allowed in places other than those designated for that according to prison laws that are covered by health and social services and are under the control of the state.
13th -- Preliminary investigation papers shall be shown to the concerned judge no later than 24 hours from the time of the detention of the accused and cannot be extended except once and for same duration.
(a) (Arbitrary) detention shall not be allowed.
Seems pretty good to me. The language is a bit convuluted but most likely because of the translation.
4th -- Violence and abuse in the family, school and society shall be forbidden.
Very encouraging. Pretty clear statement.
1st -- Every Iraqi has the right to health service, and the state is in charge of public health and guarantees the means of protection and treatment by building different kinds of hospitals and health institutions.
Well I'm happy to see this. Advanced concepts such as socialized medicine could help the Iraqi society stabilize.
2nd -- The state is committed to protecting the individual from coercion in thought, religion or politics, and no one may be imprisoned on these bases.
Article (40)
1st -- The followers of every religion and sect are free in:
(a) the practice of their religious rites, including the (Shiite) Husseiniya Rites.
(b) the administration of religious endowments and their affairs and their religious institutions, and this will be organized by law.
2nd -- The state guarantees freedom of worship and the protection of its places.
Article (41) Every individual has freedom of thought and conscience.
Article (42)
1st -- The Iraqi citizen has freedom of movement and travel and residence within Iraq and outside it.
2nd -- No Iraqi can be exiled or forced out or forbidden to return to his nation.
Good to see this.
1st -- The Supreme Federal Court is an independent judicial body, financially and administratively, its work and its duties will be defined by law.
2nd -- The Supreme Federal Court will be made up of a number of judges and experts in Sharia (Islamic Law) and law, whose number and manner of selection will be defined by a law that should be passed by two-thirds of the parliament members.
Article (91): The Supreme Federal Court will have the following duties:
1st -- overseeing the constitutionality of federal laws before they are issued.
2nd -- overseeing the constitutionality of the laws and standing regulations.
3rd -- interpreting the text of the constitution.
4th -- ruling in cases that emerge from the implementation of federal laws.
5th -- ruling in disputes between the federal government and the governments of the regions and the provinces and local administrations.
6th -- ruling in disputes between the governments of the regions or provinces.
7th -- ruling in accusations against the president of the republic, the prime minister and the ministers.
8th -- endorsing the final results of parliamentary general elections.
Seems to me that the judiciary is generally secular, although to do mention Sharia Law there isn't much actual discussion of it. I really only skimmed over the text so I may have missed more mentions of religous law but they seem pretty scant.
Certainly there is reason to be optimistic based on what I read. Perhaps there is stuff I missed but this document seems about as secualar as we could have hoped.
Posted in User Blogs — Comments (22) / Email this page » / Read More »
Posted at 1:00pm on Aug. 2, 2005 The NRA and Oklahoma go a little nuts
By flyerhawk
I realize that many people here are NRA members and supporters of that group. I don't have any problem with that. But sometimes you have to look at these advocacy groups and question their thinking.
The National Rifle Association, one of the most powerful conservative U.S. political organizations, on Monday asked its 4 million members to boycott leading U.S. refiner ConocoPhillips (COP.N: Quote, Profile, Research) in retaliation for a ban on firearms on company property.
Conoco is among several companies challenging an Oklahoma law in federal court that allows workers to keep guns in their locked cars on company property.
First off where in the world does the Oklahoma legislature get off telling private businesses that they MUST allow employees the right to carry firearms onto their premises. On what grounds does the State have the authority to do that?
Secondly the NRA, in trying to make this a 2nd Amendment fight, is way off base. This is not a case of the government infringing on a person's right to bear arms. This is a case of a private company restricting POSSESSION of a firearm while on corporate property.
I think it's time someone told the NRA and the Oklahoma legislature that the Bill of Rights applies to GOVERNMENT action and NOT private action.
Posted in User Blogs — Comments (86) / Email this page » / Read More »
Posted at 7:58pm on Jul. 7, 2005 Is Roe V Wade irrelevant?
By flyerhawk
With the retirement of Sandra Day O'Connor the abortion issue has once again become a hot topic. Many Pro-Life people are hopeful that President Bush will appoint someone who will finally get the court to overturn the infamous Roe v Wade decision.
The standard arguments are being tossed about again regarding Roe v Wade. When does life begin? Why is the court legislating this issue? When is abortion an acceptable option. We've heard them all a thousand times.
However let's speculate for a moment. Let's assume that the President successfully appoints a hard core pro-lifer. Let's also assume that Ginsburg leaves the court, as some suspect she might. President Bush is able to fill her spot with an ardent pro-lifer as well. With the balance of power the SCOTUS takes the first Roe v Wade challenge it can and overturns that decision.
Let's further assume that some of the Redder States outlaw abortion. Texas, Oklahoma, and a bunch of the other flyover states outlaw it. Will this have any effect on abortions in this country.
The first problem the Pro-Life advocates will face is that they will never get the big Blue States to outlaw abortion. The Northeast will be completely pro-choice. West coast as well. It's unlikely that states such as Michigan, Illinois, Ohio, or Minnesota will outlaw it. Same is probably true of Reddish states like Colorado or Nevada.
So in reality abortion will be an available option to most women except the poor. Maybe their state will outlaw but it will be a car ride or plane ride away for nearly everyone but the poor. So perhaps the Pro-Life side can at least hang their hat on the fact that abortions are greatly reduced.
But what about RU-486? Wouldn't outlawing medical abortions simply create a large black market for medicinal abortions using RU-486? Not only would a black market exist but you can be almost CERTAIN that groups like Planned Parenthood or NARAL will aid in the distribution of such drugs to poor people in outlaw states?
Is it possible that the battle that pro-life advocates have been fighting for the last 30 years will ultimately end and do at best nothing to achieve their goal and at worst exacerbate the problem?
Posted in User Blogs — Comments (107) / Email this page » / Read More »
Posted at 11:40am on Jun. 29, 2005 Reasons to oppose the invasion of Iraq
By flyerhawk
I posted this in Trevino's The Helmsmen thread but felt I would repost this is here. This is my first diary so if there is anything I could do to improve things please let me know.
Let me start off by saying I am referring specifically to the invasion of Iraq. I am not referring to the current question of what to do now. I would be more than willing to explain the moral, practical, and political reasons for opposing the current policy but I think that requires a more nuanced look at matters. I will list out the 3 basic types of objections to this but I also would like to point out that I don't necessarily agree with all them. I am just stating them.
Moral objections - I think that most Americans feel that we are a just and moral country. While we may make mistakes at times I think most would agree that the American people and the American government are trying to do what's right. Our military actions of the last 70 years have generally been morally justifiable, at least our initial involvement. In Korea we were part of a peace-keeping mission of the United Nations and enjoyed UN support. In Vietnam we were asked by the existing powers that be, both Viet and French, to help stem the tide of Communist forces. Since the vast majority of Americans believe that Commnunism is inherently evil our decision to enter that melee was morally justifiable, even if our latter actions may not have been. In Somalia were trying to do something that has arguably never been done before, enter a conflict on purely humanitarian reasons. In the Balkans we got involved militarily only when oppression became so severe that no other recourse was possible.(Note:I'm skipping minor police actions such as Grenada and Panama because they were both small and more contentios)
In all of these situations there was a group of nationals asking for American assistance. I honestly believe we don't do this ENOUGH. If an oppressed people ask for our help we should do what we can to help them. In Iraq, however, there was no call for intervention outside of a few expats. We CREATED the moral crisis in Iraq. This is not to say that evil things were not occurring in Iraq. But does the United States have the moral perogative to determine whether a indigent government should be externally overthrown when no request from the people has been made. I do realize that the Iraqi people were not in a position to make such a request. However does that then give the US government the right to unilaterally determine that Country A is despotic and needs to be overthrown? If we allow our government this authority how do we prevent its misuse? If we are indifferent to misuse how can we reasonably stand up in front of the nation and say that we are a nation that stands for freedom when our government uses this argument to further national interest needs?
Political objections - The moral objections dovetail somewhat into the political objections. As the dominant power in the world our actions can oftentimes signal to other nations what we consider politically acceptable. If we decide that we have the right to unilaterally invade Iraq due primarily to security needs then what is to stop the Russians from invading Chechnya and clamping down sometimes brutally? What is to stop the Chinese from using military force to further national interests ? How can we stand up to any authoritarian government and say they cannot attack someone else when we have defined the standard for security needs to be so vague and low? Most people may despise the United Nationas but it is the only international diplomatic forum around. Our decision to use only the aspect of UN decisions we like and discard the aspects we don't also gives that same option to other countries. Let's also consider Iran for a moment. How did our invasion of Iraq affect Iran? Did it cause Iraq to soften its stances? No, it actually allowed the authoritarians to clamp down on reform. It has also embolden Iranian desires for nuclear weapons, as they know perceive themselves to be threatened by American force with good reason. These considerations lead to the practical objections.
Practical objections- These objections are what I personally feel are the most compelling. Taking out the moral considerations completely we need to ask ourselves "What is our objective in Iraq?". I think most would agree that our objective is to create a Western style democracy and generally secular legal system, at least ideally. However that really isn't the ultimate objective. The ultimate objective is to combat the forces that create terrorism by giving the peoples of the Middle East more freedom and personal power, which is what our system does. The belief is that by doing this in Iraq we could create a Domino Effect in the region. It is this belief that I find impractical and what makes me believe that the NET EFFECT of our invasion in Iraq is a negative factor in achieving that goal.
Currently popular opinion of the United States in Middle Eastern countries hovers in the single digits for the most part. In other words, 9 out of 10 Middle Easterners have a negative opinion of the US. Our military actions in Iraq are a continual reminder, to them at least, of American aggression against Muslims. This is a belief that many M.E. people have ingrained in their psyche. They view the US as hostile to Muslims, especially since 9/11. Even assuming that a functioning Democracy is achieved in Iraq that may not be enough to convince anyone in the region that the government in Iraq is anything more than a puppet regime. To many M.E. citizens democracy is just a euphemism for dictator. So unless we are able to create a real renaissance in Iraq, which seems unlikely, we are unlikely to affect popular opinion of the US in the region for the forseeable future. In the interim we have MOST LIKELY created MORE terrorists that are willing to kill Americans than would have occurred otherwise.
Finally I believe that there is one other objection that combines all of these factors. We can call it the Unified Objection. Many people believed that the US invaded Iraq because it was the path of least resistance and provided us the greatest national interest benefits. Many people believe that the administration chose Iraq, instead of focusing on Afghanistan, because it was weak militarily, had larger oil reserves, and because of its proximity to Israel and Saudi Arabia. Instead of focusing on Afghanistan, where the US had a clear moral imperative, we focused on a country that most knew was uninvolved in 9/11. This compromised our moral righteousness and the political highground we were able to take after 9/11. Had the administration chosen to instead focus on Afghanistan, a country that is also geopolitically crucial since it borders Iraq, Pakistan, and Uzbekistan, we could have done what we are TRYING to do in Iraq with far less opposition and very possibly far greater impact against terrorism.
Posted in User Blogs — Comments (36) / Email this page » / Read More »
