Expertise's Politics and Sports Blog

Friday, August 13, 2004
Al-Sadr and Iraq agree to truce.


I am absolutely sick of this.  Why do we continue to accommodate this opportunistic peon?  I understand trying to appease the Iraqi people's sensitive emotions, but that doesn't mean we have to be subject to this man's every whim.

Al-Sadr has gone back on his truce before...In Aprilin May, and in June.  It is virtually guaranteed that he and his men will attack Iraqi police and U.S. forces again.

And while we're farting around with them:

In the southern city of Basra, gunmen seized a British journalist, identified as James Brandon, from a hotel where he was staying late Thursday night, police said Friday. The kidnappers, almost certainly Shiite, threatened to kill him in 24 hours unless coalition forces withdraw from Najaf, though it wasn't clear when that deadline would expire.

Is there anyone out there that really believes Muqtada Al-Sadr is really sincere in this latest "truce"?  Anyone?

Even in light of this, there are protests in five cities over the Najaf battles.  Of course, they aren't protesting about the true problem, which is Al-Sadr.  It is the U.S. who is the problem.  Why does that not surprise me?

Posted at 08:57 am by Expertise
Leave a message  


Moore refuses to apologize to the Pantagraph.

As I previously noted, Saddam apologist and terrorist cheerleader Michael Moore was busted for doctoring an editorial page of the Bloomington (Ill.) Pantagraph. 
Well Moore responded today, and he refuses to apologize.  Instead of actually showing a bit of integrity, the propagandist instead had his lawyers respond to the Pentagraph in a letter:

The Pantagraph of Bloomington, Ill., disclosed today that New York-based lawyer Devereux Chatillon of the law firm Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal sent a letter to the Bloomington attorney representing the newspaper, stating Moore was within his legal right to use one of the newspaper's headlines in the movie and that no "copyright infringement" occurred. He cited several precedents.

The problem was, it wasn't a headline.  In Fahrenheit 9/11, he made the page look like a headline by enlarging a title of an editorial letter, making it look like a front page.  He also changed the date of the letter, changing it to December 19th when the letter was printed December 5th:

Chatillon, who represents Westside Productions, which produced "Fahrenheit 9/11," did admit the date flashed in the movie "was unfortunately off by a couple weeks." But the mistake "did not make a difference to the editorial point ... and was in no way detrimental to (The Pantagraph)."

Mistake my ass.  How do you "mistakenly" alter the date of a newspaper column?  Both Chatillon and Moore are shady and dishonest. 

And then people wonder why I wouldn't give Michael Moore the benefit of the doubt that Fahrenheit was an accurate documentary.  It's because he's been doing stuff like this for years, ever since Roger And Me.  Therefore, why should anyone take anything he brings up seriously?

Posted at 12:46 am by Expertise
Leave a message  


Thursday, August 12, 2004
Well just damn.

McGreevey resigned today, calling himself a "Gay American"

If that's what he wants to call himself, then I guess.  I suppose that means he doesn't love his wife anymore, which otherwise would make him a "Bisexual American".  She was right by his side when he made the announcement.

But this comes on the heels of a sexual harrassment allegation was to be made by a former male aide:

The station identified the former aide as Golan Cipel, who resigned as McGreevey’s security adviser in 2002 after months of questioning about his credentials and job qualifications.

A former Israeli sailor and a published poet, Cipel, 33, was criticized because he did not have a security clearance or law enforcement background. He had worked in television news and public relations.
It's always the poets.  They'll get cha everytime.

And I thought today was gonna be so boring that I wouldn't have nothing to post about.  I've already posted 4 times today and it ain't even dark yet.

UPDATE:  Well it seems that McGreevey once opposed gay marriage as well:

Responding to media questions Friday, McGreevey said any court decision granting legal recognition to same-sex marriages would not be a good thing for New Jersey.

"New Jersey state statute has significant meaning not only rooted in common law but in application. Any attempt to change this would have a detrimental impact not only upon the statute but clearly to historic precedents in the state of New Jersey," the governor said.


He did, however, sign a domestic partnership bill into law in January.

I wonder if he's gonna change his stance between now and November?  If he does, will he make some midnight appointments, and try to push some stuff into law?  Will be interesting to see.

Posted at 05:03 pm by Expertise
Comments (2)  


Jim McGreevey to resign.

New Jersey Governor Jim McGreevey is expected to resign around 4:00 today, due to several accusations about scandal during his 2 years in office.

NEW YORK -- NewsChannel 4 has learned that New Jersey Gov. James McGreevey is planning on stepping down from office after more than 2 years of service.

McGreevey, a former prosecutor, came into office vowing to end corruption, but in recent months a number of his political aides and fundraisers have been accused of corruption ranging from alleged payoffs to hiring a prostitute.

McGreevey has not been accused of any wrongdoing, and has denied any wrongdoing in the past.

Should McGreevey indeed leave office, his successor under the state constitution would be Richard Codey, the current president of the state senate.
This is coming very unexpectedly, at least within the national scene.  It must have been some nasty stuff.

But folks...notice what's missing.  Look real hard.

What party is McGreevey?  That's right...he's a Democrat.

You see, when a Democratic politican is caught up in scandal, it's very hard to know that he's actually a Democrat from the mainstream media.  And when they do identify him as one, they try to separate them from the rest of the Democrats.  For example, Gary Condit was labelled a "conservative" Democrat.  Right.

But there's no leftist media bias...

Posted at 03:30 pm by Expertise
Comments (1)  


Newsome loses; gay unions voided.

In a blow to the gay marriage supporters, the California State Supreme Court ruled that Gavin Newsome and the City of San Francisco broke the law by issuing marriage licenses to gay couples and declared them null and void.

Whether or not you believe gay marriages should be recognized by the state, the fact is that they were correct in rebuking Newsome.  Some people have tried to label this as civil disobedience on the part of Newsome and compared it to the Civil Rights Movement.

They are dead wrong, and Thomas Sowell put it best:

As private citizens, neither Mrs. Parks nor Dr. King wielded the power of government. Their situation was very different from that of public officials who use the power delegated to them through the framework of law to betray that framework itself, which they swore to uphold as a condition of receiving their power.

The real analogy would be to Governor George Wallace, who defied the law by trying to prevent black students from being enrolled in the University of Alabama under a court order.

After Wallace was no longer governor, he was within his rights to argue for racial segregation, just as civil rights leaders argued against it. But, using the powers of his office as governor to defy the law was a violation of his oath.

If judges of the Massachusetts Supreme Court or the mayor of San Francisco want to resign their jobs and start advocating gay marriage, they have every right to do so. But that is wholly different from using the authority delegated to them under the law to subvert the law.

Ditto.  The law must be abided by public officials, whether you think it's right or not.

Posted at 01:14 pm by Expertise
Leave a message  


National Review gives black conservative blogs some shine

Dan LeRoy gave a heads up to several black conservative blogs out there.

I know of and have read of all of these blogs, particularly of Booker's, who tends to give me a lil love quite often when I start ranting. I check Barber's almost daily, and I've been to Tooley's once or twice (Why are people using Blogspot?  *shrugs*  I think my template on Blogdrive just looks alot better.).  The others I've seen a couple of times too.

But it's in my nature to start hatin.  Why cain't chall give love to the NEW kid, huh?!?!?!??

I mean, I ain't really NEW...I technically started this blog last November, but I got lazy with it, and restarted late June.  But as far as getting my name out there and becoming noticed in the blogosphere I'm relatively new.  Barber and Book got me on their blogrolls, and so does The National Debate (Thanks, Cox.  I ain't forgot about cha.). 

So I'm gettin there.  I ain't really worried about it.  Besides, they also forgot about King and Tigue.  Misery loves company. :)

But umm, as for the rest of yall, take that article as conservatives WILL become a force on the blogosphere.  And ask anyone at my other cybercrib.....I don't back down, and it doesn't take long for me to get noticed.

So let's have some fun, shall we?

Posted at 12:15 pm by Expertise
Comments (6)  


Wednesday, August 11, 2004
An Al-Qaeda update.

There has been alot of findings and breakthroughs in regards to Al-Qaeda arrests and plots over the last couple of days.

Drudge is posting on his site that the Washington Times is set to report new information regarding an Al-Qaeda plot to assassinate a major U.S. official.  It's supposed to be triggered by another Osama bin Laden public appearance on tape.  This information apparently comes from the arrest of Muhammad Khan in Pakistan last month.

According to the London Observer:

When American intelligence experts arrived in Pakistan and started trawling through the 25-year-old's computers and documents, they were astonished. Khan had been in touch with dozens of other activists all over the world, passing on messages given to him by more senior al-Qaeda figures.

It was a massive breakthrough. Laid out in front of them was information that could, if played right, lead them to the heart of al-Qaeda's current operations. Plans were hastily laid. Anti-terror specialists were mobilised. Some of Khan's associates were rapidly traced out. One was Khalfan Gailani, a Tanzanian wanted since 1998 for his part in the bombing of the US embassy in his homeland and one of the FBI's 22 most wanted criminals. Gailani was apprehended two weeks ago in Pakistan, after a 12-hour firefight.
According to the Observer, CIA and Pakistani officials were actually going after Mussad Aruchi, who is the nephew of Khalid Sheik Muhammad, the supposed mastermind of 9/11.  They only started focusing in on Khan when the two met regularly. 

Comes to find out, Khan was more important than Aruchi actually was.  He was a part of the electronic network of Al-Qaeda, relaying messages and orders to others around the world.  From the information on Khan's laptops and computers we found out about the terror threats against NY financial institutions:

Information from the two captives — a young militant familiar with computers and a man indicted for the U.S. embassy bombings in Africa in 1998 — had provided the bulk of the intelligence that led to Sunday's warnings.

The corroborating information did not specify targets in the United States or say when an attack might be planned, the official said. But it so closely tracked the other intelligence that U.S. financial buildings had already been under surveillance by Al Qaeda that it contributed to the decision to issue the public warnings.

The captives, of course, are Khan and Gailani, who was identified in the Observer article.

But Howard Dean, the New York Times, and other leftists call this "politically motivated".  Anyone with an inkling of common sense could see that this is a real threat, and the ones that are trying to call this politics have their heads in their asses.

According to The Smoking Gun, Charlotte-Mecklenburg police spotted him videotaping office buildings.  When he, Kamran Shaikh, spotted the officers coming towards him, he walked the other way.  When the officers caught up with him, he lied about going to the bus station, which was actually the other way.  They took him to the FBI office and they filed immigration violation charges on him.

The Smoking Gun states Shaikh had "allegedly took videotapes of skyscrapers in six U.S. cities, a Texas dam, and various public transportation systems."  It just goes to show that New York and Washington are not the only targets that Al-Qaeda won't mind hitting.

Where did he tape?

- Charlotte
- Atlanta
- Austin
- Houston
- Dallas
- New Orleans

Malkin, with her sharp eyes, noticed how Shaikh got into this country:  through the Mexico border.  Shaikh admitted in the affidavit at The Smoking Gun that he crossed the border in 1991.  But there is something shady about this:  Shaikh first told authorities that he went back to Pakistan in 1996, but then "admitted" that he hasn't gone back since he's been in this country. 

Just as she and others have said, until we get control of our borders, we will continue to have serious problems with terrorism.  Mexicans aren't the only ones who cross the borders.

Ridge did something halfway decent about it, as he gave the Border Patrol new powers to deport illegal aliens.

I say halfway because:

The new rule will apply to illegal aliens caught within 100 miles of the Mexican and Canadian borders who have spent 14 days or less within the United States. The border agents will focus on deporting third-country nationals, rather than Mexicans or Canadians, and they are expected to begin exercising their new powers on Aug. 24 in Tucson and Laredo, Tex.
Why are you going to ignore the main ones that are violating our laws?  I mean, third-country nationals are good, but it's just stupid to put the ones who are violating this law the most right in the immigration courts just to sit there, and allow them to be "voluntarily" sent back (like Shaikh).

*sighs*  We have a long way to go.

Posted at 02:59 am by Expertise
Leave a message  


Tuesday, August 10, 2004
Let the bombs fall where they may!

I told you...this might be a waste of time, but dammit, it's gonna be fun to watch.

Obama and Keyes are gonna have a knockdown-drag out...and Keyes threw the first punch:

Republican Alan Keyes ripped into Democratic rival Barack Obama's views on abortion Monday, calling them "the slaveholder's position," as the U.S. Senate race roared back to life in Illinois.

Up at dawn for a whirlwind round of broadcast interviews, the conservative former diplomat started his first full day of campaigning as the GOP candidate by saying Obama, a state senator from Chicago, had violated the principle that all men are created equal by voting against a bill that would have outlawed a form of late-term abortion.
Whoa.  Keyes wasted no time placing his shots in.

Now folks, there is no question why Keyes decided on the word "slaveholder".  He knows that the Democratic Party will try to make him seem "less black" and a puppet of the Republican Party.  Therefore, hit them before they hit you.  You bring up the slavery and blackness issue first.

Now that's not saying that Keyes is trying to say he's blacker than Obama.  It's more of a defensive position, as to say "I'm not going to let you use the same ole, "blacker than thou" card."  And that's precisely what Keyes is going to have to do if he wants to make this competitive.

Don't believe me?  Check out Obama's response:

Asked specifically about the phrase "slaveholder's position," Obama said Keyes "should look to members of his own party to see if that's appropriate if he's going to use that kind of language."
i.e. the "puppet" card. 

Folks, there is no doubt in my mind this card will be played and played often.  Keyes simply couldn't be speaking his mind, without having to "ask" people what to say.  He's doing the Republican's bidding.  He's controlled by the far right extremists. 

Of course, we (or at least I) know better than this; Keyes has always been his own man.  A puppet doesn't raise hell outside of a debate during the 96 primaries.  A puppet would have simply stepped aside and let the establishment candidate, George W. Bush, cruise on to the 2000 Republican nomination.

As I hear more from Obama, he's read the Clinton playbook well.  The only times we hear his positions on anything is when someone else brings them up.  For example:

"As I travel around this state, I don't get asked about gay marriage, I don't get asked about abortion," Obama said. "I get asked, 'How can I find a job that allows me to support my family.' I get asked, 'How can I pay those medical bills without going into bankruptcy."
Well that's good, Obama...but how are you going to do that?

How are you going to help find them jobs?  How are help them pay those medical bills without them going into bankruptcy?  It's easy to say people are asking you these things, but the solutions you give them have an impact that could tilt either way.  I'm sure you've had some time since becoming the Democratic U.S. Senate candidate to create a platform to devise these things.

Obama said Monday that there would be "a sufficient number of debates" between himself and Keyes-- both men are Harvard-educated, polished debaters-- but not the seven such clashes he had promised Ryan.

"That was the home-state special," Obama cracked. He declined to set a specific number, adding that staffers in the two campaigns would iron on the details later.
Heh.  Smart move by Obama.  He doesn't want seven rounds with Keyes.

He probably suspected Ryan was a lightweight on the mic, hence the seven debates.  Keyes is no lightweight.  Obama will probably make an excuse that there isn't enough time and attempt to cut it to around three.  Keyes should at least aim for 5, but accept 4.  You can get done just about what you need to get done with 4 debates.  I don't expect Obama to accept more than 4 debates.

Hey, you got an hour?  You want to see/remember what Obama will have to face?  Well check one of his debates from the 2000 Republican Primaries (Real Player required).

Obama doesn't want none of that.

The thing that gets to me, when looking at this Senate race, is how both are putting me between a rock and a hard place.  Lemme give you an example...

When the Bush Administration first started contemplating about a potential War in Iraq, I wasn't that adamant about it.  I felt Saddam had WMD's (and he did), but I didn't know if trying to rebuild that country was necessarily worth it.  However, look at the alternative.  European disdain for this country, insistence that the U.S. foreign policy become subordinate to the United Nations, and especially the disqusting anti-war movement that's threatening to send the United States into the far left.  I had no choice; I had to support this war when given THOSE alternatives.

I've never been that excited about Keyes.  Never have, and probably never will.  But dammit, look at the alternative.  This race pits a black leftist against a black conservative.  This race has the potential to define the black community and the role of black conservatives for years.  If Obama is allowed to define Keyes in any matter he wishes it could have dire consequences in the political outlook of black people for years to come.

No politican is the equivalent of one man on a deserted island.  There were people who supported him and placed him in that situation today.  As I said about John Kerry when we found out about the music concerts designed to defeat President Bush, Barack Obama is not walking into that Senate chamber alone if he wins.  He walks in there with the far left establishment, particularly the black establishment. 

I still don't think Keyes can win, but here's hoping he makes it one helluva good fight.

Posted at 02:34 am by Expertise
Comments (2)  


Sunday, August 08, 2004
Iraq strikes back II

The last time we were on this issue, Abu Al-Zarqawi was told to get out of Dodge or face the consequences.

Well now vigilantes are striking again, this time kidnapping an Iranian diplomat:

Militants in Iraq said Sunday they took a top Iranian diplomat hostage, according to a video shown on the Arab-language Al-Arabiya television station.

The video showed a bearded man identified as Faridoun Jihani 
speaking to the camera, though his voice was inaudible. The video also showed nine forms of Jihani's identification, as well as his passport and a business card identifying him as the "consul for the Islamic Republic of Iran in Karbala," a southern Iraqi city.

The kidnappers, calling themselves the "Islamic Army in Iraq
," accused Jihani of provoking sectarian war in Iraq and warned Iran not to interfere in Iraq's affairs, according to Al-Arabiya.

Gee, I wonder what got them in such a huff?  Maybe it's because Tehran's been meddling in Iraq and funding radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr.

Meanwhile, "America's best friend" Ahmed Chalabi has been indicted on counterfeit charges.  His nephew, Salem, has been indicted for murder as well.  This was the same Chalabi who has been accused by the U.S. of spying for Iran.  Coincidence?  Reynolds doesn't think so.

And if you like an ironic twist, guess where Chalabi is RIGHT NOW? 

.  Yeah.

But these are just two incidents in quite an eventful weekend in Iraq.  Earlier today, Allawi reinstated capital punishment in response to terrorist attacks.  Yesterday, Iraq shut down Al-Jazeera's local office for a month saying their biased reporting has drawn violence and hatered into the region.  Also, Allawi offered what looks to be a last-chance amnesty to terrorists for minor (non-death) crimes, and even had the guts to walk through the streets of battle-torn Najaf, um, with 100 of his boys, of course.

While this is going on, U.S. forces are swatting Sadr's militia down like fliesSadr's now playing the same ole game, claiming he wants a truce.  It's obvious that the Iraqi government likes being okey-doked.  Thank goodness U.S. forces aren't, and so far continues to call for Sadr to turn himself in.

I have a feeling that something real big is about to go down.  Sadr or Al-Zarqawi will end up in a pine box, or possibly both within the month. 

Posted at 08:37 pm by Expertise
Leave a message  


NOW they want to complain.

Did anyone noticed when the Swifties released their 60 second ad earlier this week THAT's when these special interest soft money groups became a problem?

When was placing ads in certain states and on CNN during the Super Bowl and the like, they weren't a problem.  You didn't hear a peep about it at all.  Now, John Kerry catches some heat, and it's a problem.

This is typical of the Democratic Party.  Nothing exists until it becomes a problem or serves as an opportunity for them.  That will be the ONLY reason you'll hear calls for more campaign finance reform to close the 527 loopholes next week.

But they made their bed.  Now they must lie in it.

Posted at 02:42 pm by Expertise
Leave a message  


Next Page


Contact Me

If you want to be updated on this weblog Enter your email here:

rss feed


Weblog Commenting and Trackback by