Tuesday, October 24, 2006



Teddy's War
By Ed Driscoll


October 20, 2006

In his 2002 book titled Reagan's War, Peter Schweizer wrote:

On repeated occasions, according to numerous Soviet accounts, [Jimmy] Carter encouraged Moscow to influence American politics for his benefit or for the detriment of his enemies. Soviet Ambassador Anatoly Dobrynin recounts in his memoirs how, in the waning days of the 1980 campaign, the Carter White House dispatched Armand Hammer to the Soviet embassy. Explaining to the Soviet Ambassador that Carter was "clearly alarmed" at the prospect of losing to Reagan, Hammer asked for help: Could the Kremlin expand Jewish emigration to bolster Carter's standing in the polls? "Carter won't forget that service if he is elected," Hammer told Dobrynin.

According to Georgii Kornienko, first deputy foreign minister at the time, something similar took place in 1976, when Carter sent Averell Harriman to Moscow. Harriman sought to assure the Soviets that Carter would be easier to deal with than Ford, clearly inviting Moscow to do what it could through public diplomacy to help his campaign.

Even when he was out of office, Carter still tried bitterly to encourage Moscow to do damage to his enemies during an election. As Dobrynin recounts, in January 1984 the former president dropped by his residence for a private meeting. Carter was concerned about Reagan's defense build-up and went on to explain that Moscow would be better off with someone else in the White House. If Reagan won, he warned, "There would not be a single agreement on arms control, especially on nuclear arms, as long as Reagan remained in power."


Did Ted Kennedy also try to throw a presidential election involving Reagan by going to the Soviets? Bryan of Hot Air writes:

There’s a new book on Ronald Reagan making the rounds, The Crusader: Ronald Reagan and the Fall of Communism. Its author, Paul Kengor, unearthed a sensational document from the Soviet archives. That document is a memo regarding an offer made by Sen. Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts via former Senator John Tunney, both Democrats, to the General Secretary of the Communist Party, USSR, Yuri Andropov, in 1983. The offer was to help the Soviet leadership, military and civilian, conduct a PR campaign in the United States as President Ronald Reagan sought re-election. The goal of the PR campaign would be to cast President Reagan as a warmonger, the Soviets as willing to peacefully co-exist, and thereby turn the electorate away from Reagan. It was a plan to enlist Soviet help, and use the American press, in unseating an American president.

Think about that.

It certainly rings a bell. (In addition to Carter, it's also reminiscent of his fellow senator from Massachusetts' Winter Soldier moment. But that shouldn't be too surprising.)


Blank Check from America?
Beyond hawks and doves.
By Thomas Sowell


Media pundits have just about given this year’s election to the Democrats — at least in the House of Representatives and perhaps in the Senate as well. They might even be right, for a change.

Some are saying that this could be like the 1994 midterm election shocker when the Republicans seized control of the House of Representatives for the first time in 40 years. If so, the Democrats will win by following the exact opposite strategy from that which brought the Congressional Republicans to power in 1994.

The Republican strategy, crafted by Newt Gingrich, was to spell out their stands on key issues and to promise to bring those issues to a vote in Congress. They called their agenda “The Contract with America.”

It is now clear to all that this year’s Democrats are deliberately avoiding spelling out any coherent policy program of their own.

Their strategy is to second-guess, denigrate, and undermine Republicans instead of offering an agenda of their own. Rather than having a contract with America, they are seeking a blank check from America. Moreover, they may get it.

How did the Republicans manage to bring themselves to this dire condition, just two years after winning both Houses of Congress, the White House, and most of the state governorships?

It wasn’t easy — and it wasn’t new. It was the same thing that caused the first President Bush to lose his bid for reelection in 1992, after having had sky-high approval ratings in 1991. It was betraying the trust of supporters.

Back then it was the betrayal of the “No new taxes” pledge. More recently, it was the even worse betrayal of trying to legislate amnesty for millions of illegal immigrants, combined with insulting our intelligence by saying that it was not amnesty.

Add to this the Republicans’ runaway spending and the fact that the war in Iraq has been going badly, and you have all the ingredients of a political debacle.

One of the ironies of this election is that it is the Republicans in the House of Representatives who seem most likely to pay the biggest price for the disaffection of Republican voters — when in fact it was the House Republicans who stopped both the Senate Republicans and the White House from making mass amnesty the law of the land.

Senate Republican leaders deserve whatever happens to them. If this election were about the fate of one political party rather than another, it would hardly be worth thinking about.

But elections are not about which politicians get to keep their jobs, though the media cover the news as if the political horse race is the issue. Elections are about the fate of 300 million Americans and the future of this nation.

That fate hangs grimly in the balance as two irresponsible regimes in North Korea and Iran seek to gain nuclear weapons. Neither leader of these regimes can be deterred by threats of nuclear retaliation, as the Soviet Union was deterred.

Both are like Hitler, who was willing to see his own people decimated and his own country reduced to rubble rather than quit when it was obvious to all that he could not win. If you can imagine Hitler with a few nuclear weapons to use to vent his all-consuming hatreds in a lost cause, you can see what a nuclear North Korea or a nuclear Iran would mean for America and the world.

It is obscene that our media should be obsessed with some jerk in Congress who wrote dirty e-mails to congressional pages — and was forced out of Congress for it — when this nation faces dangers of this magnitude.

It would be worse than obscene for some voters to cut off their nose to spite their face by either staying home on election day or actually voting a blank check from America for a party with a decades-long history of irresponsibility on national defense.

Even today, Democrats are arguing for more talks with North Korea and Iran, as if talk is going to stop such regimes from going nuclear, any more than talks with Hitler in the 1930s deterred him.

This is no longer about hawks and doves. It is about ostriches who bury their heads in the sand — and about those voters who are prepared to give a blank check to ostriches.

—Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University. www.tsowell.com.

Monday, October 23, 2006



Border Patrol Agents Travesty:
Bush Should Commute Sentences
By Debra Saunders

Oct 22, 2006

Someone ought to tell the Bush administration that prisons are for criminals, not law-enforcement personnel trying to do their jobs. On Thursday, a federal judge in Texas sentenced two former Border Patrol agents to 11 and 12 years in prison because they shot at a drug smuggler who was evading arrest.

In February 2005, Border Patrol agent Jose Alonso Compean got in a scuffle with smuggler Osvaldo Aldrete-Davila, who was driving a van that carried 743 pounds of marijuana. Compean and fellow agent Ignacio Ramos shot at Aldrete-Davila -- they say they thought he had a gun, which Aldrete-Davila denies. Ramos shot the smuggler in the butt, but because Aldrete-Davila kept running -- across the border -- they said they thought they did not hit him. The agents picked up their shells and failed to report the shooting. For that violation of agency policy, Ramos and Compean deserved an administrative review and some sort of job-related punishment.

Instead, due to a case of blind and bloodthirsty federal prosecutorial overkill, Ramos and Compean were sentenced to 11 years and 12 years, respectively. Oh, and the smuggler was granted immunity for the 743 pounds of pot and is suing the federal government for $5 million. Crime pays, while going after criminals can land you hard time in prison.

On the government's side, I should mention: A jury found the two agents guilty of assault with a dangerous weapon, discharge of a firearm during a violent crime, obstructing justice, lying about the incident and willfully violating the Fourth Amendment right of Aldrete-Davila -- who was in the United States illegally, not to be mention smuggling drugs -- to be free from illegal seizure. Now three jurors have signed statements saying they were pressured into a guilty verdict, for whatever -- read, not much at this late date -- that is worth.

U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton released a statement last month that explained that he prosecuted the two agents because, before the scuffle: "In fear of what the agents would do to him next, (the smuggler) ran away from the agents, who then fired at least 15 rounds at him, although they had seen his open hands and knew that he was not holding a weapon and had no reason to think he had a weapon, hitting him once and causing serious bodily injury."

As everyone knows, drug smugglers would never carry a concealed weapon and prosecutors should take a drug-ring lieutenant's word over that of Border Patrol agents with clean records -- because the smuggler would tell the truth even if he had a $5 million incentive to lie. (Yes, that was sarcasm.)

I should note that the feds had offered the agents one year in a plea bargain, the El Paso Times reported, but the agents preferred to go to trial.

"They were innocent, why should they take it?" noted T.J. Bonner, president of the agents' union, the National Border Patrol Council. "They trust in the system of justice, and it let them down."

Let me note that if these agents were gun-happy rogue enforcers, or if they were running a criminal operation, Sutton would be right to want to put them behind bars. But these are good guys with no other marks against them. Ramos was nominated for Border Patrol Agent of the year in 2005 -- before the drug smuggler got his deal.

Crooked Border Patrol agents face less time than Ramos and Compean for running criminal operations. In July, agent Oscar Antonio Ortiz received a five-year sentence in San Diego for smuggling 100 illegal immigrants into America -- sometimes in a Border Patrol truck. In that case, the judge increased his sentence beyond the three years recommended by the feds. Last week, the Texas federal judge issued a lighter sentence than the 20 years recommended by the U.S. Probation Office, although federal mandatory minimums forced her to sentence Ramos and Compean to more than 10 years.

The House Judiciary Committee has promised to hold hearings on this case after the November elections. U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., has asked for the Senate to hold hearings, as well.

Note to the Bush Department of Justice: Prison is for criminals. Follow-up note: If you want to save the taxpayers' money, just issue a memo that tells Border Patrol agents not to arrest smugglers. That would be cheaper than putting away Ramos and Compean for years in prisons filled with the type of guys they used to put away.

President Bush does not have to wait for congressional hearings. In order to spare the agents and their families from further anguish and legal bills, Bush should commute the agents' sentences now. If ever an act of compassionate conservatism was needed, this is it.


America 2050: A Nation of Turtles
by Patrick J. Buchanan


Does it matter who was the 300 millionth "American"?

Indeed, it does.

If it was a baby born to an American, that is wonderful news. If it was a baby born to an illegal alien, it means we have lost control of our borders. And as Ronald Reagan said, a country that can't control its borders isn't really a country anymore.

And if it was a Mexican who slipped over the Rio Grande in the early morning darkness of Oct. 17, it may be a harbinger of the end of America as we knew her.

If the people are not celebrating the 300 million along with the editorial writers, it is because there is a strong likelihood the individual added to our number is not an American at all, and because the extraordinary growth of the American family was not the free choice of the American people.

We have 300 million here today only because the government of the United States refuses to enforce our immigration laws and the people were misled or lied to when the Immigration Act of 1965 was passed.

Who was the chairman of the subcommittee that conducted the hearings? Edward M. Kennedy. And what did Sen. Kennedy promise? Here are his own words of four decades ago:

"(O)ur cities will not be flooded with a million immigrants annually. Under the proposed bill, the present level of immigration remains substantially the same. ... The ethnic mix of this country will not be upset. ... Contrary to the charges in some quarters, S. 500 will not inundate America with immigrants from any other country or area, or the most populated and economically deprived nations of Africa and Asia."

Only haters would make such assertions, Kennedy thundered. "The charges I have mentioned are highly emotional, irrational and with little foundation in fact. They are out of line with the obligations of responsible citizenship. They breed hate of our heritage."

How good were the senator's assurances?

Today, we have 36 million immigrants and their children here, some 90 percent from Third World nations whose peoples have never before been assimilated into a First World nation. A third, 12 million, are here in violation of our laws.

Most of those coming now are poor and uneducated, and are unable to speak our language. Some do not wish to become Americans. But they are sending our crime, poverty and disease rates skyward, and pulling U.S. academic scores down toward Third World levels.

But what is most significant about these deep and irreversible alterations in the character of the nation is that the American people never voted for it and do not want it. It is being imposed from above, anti-democratically, by a regime that refuses to enforce our laws and is now at virtual war with the American people.

Though immigration is the hottest domestic issue in 2006, and every candidate in a close race is taking a hard line on border security -- even Hillary Clinton voted for 700 miles of security fence -- the will of the people is ignored. According to a poll released Monday by The Center for Immigration Studies, 68 percent of Americans say immigration is too high. Only 2 percent believe it is too low. Yet the McCain-Kennedy-Bush bill would have granted amnesty to millions of illegal aliens and doubled the number of legal immigrants.

The failure to restrict immigration so the Melting Pot can work, the refusal to seal the border despite what America wants, suggests ours has ceased to be a democratic republic. "Here, sir, the people rule!" used to be a proud boast. Today, the line is laughable.

In my book "State of Emergency: The Third World Invasion and Conquest of America," I projected that by 2050, every city in America would look like Los Angeles, and Los Angeles and the cities of the Southwest would look like Mexico City.

And what is happening to Los Angeles? According to Robert Putnam, Harvard political scientist and author of "Bowling Alone," the trust among people in "this most diverse human habitation in human history" is now at rock bottom, the lowest anywhere he could find.

"In the presence of diversity," said Putnam, "we hunker down. We act like turtles. The effect of diversity is worse than had been imagined. And it's not just that we don't trust people who are not like us. In diverse communities we don't trust people who look like us."

The more people of different races that live in a community, the greater the loss of trust, said Putnam. "They don't trust the local mayor, they don't trust the local paper, they don't trust other people, and they don't trust institutions. ... The only thing there is more of is protest marches and TV watching."

Welcome to the Brave New World our elites are creating for our children, as they consign the America we grew up in to the compost heap of history.


From telegraph.co.uk:


Singing for grown-ups in 3D
Lloyd Cole tells Robert Sandall why 'cool' bores him,
and his favourite club is a putter


When Lloyd Cole says that a lot of the things he enjoys "don't sit very well with youth culture," you can see his point. Today's outfit of sweater, slacks and clumpy brown shoes look as if they have been borrowed from his dad.

We've met to discuss 45-year-old Cole's discreetly excellent new album, Antidepressant, a title that was chosen, he insists, "because some of my best friends in New York are constantly medicated, and also because people can take it in different ways, it's ambiguous".

That seems fair enough; but is it not also likely to put off the junior section of the pop audience, whose preferred drugs are not usually prescribed and whose dark moods tend to be treated with cider and suchlike?

"I'm just not interested in what 18-year-olds consider cool," Cole says firmly. "The quintessentially cool rock people I've met have always seemed so fragile, I feel sorry for them."

Into this category he places Joe Strummer and Mick Jones of the Clash, along with Pete Doherty. Arctic Monkeys he dismisses as "the most disappointing thing I've heard since the Stone Roses. Wit is the meat of their songwriting rather than the salt." He's glad his son likes them, he says, "but it would be wrong of me to listen to them".

It would be hard to imagine a better place to rubbish youth taste, and talk to Cole about his 14th collection of catchy-clever, grown-up songs, than Roehampton Golf Course. A regular player with a handicap of five, Cole has decided to commence a day of promotional activity with a swift nine holes.

As we drive off at the first, he explains that the sport he calls "my only hobby" has taught him a lot. The character needed to negotiate your way out of the rough is the same, he finds, as that required to improvise patter on stage when you're touring solo, as he has been, on and off, for most of the 21st century.

As he maintains a steady par through to the long and winding sixth hole, it turns out that Cole knows as much about the history of golf-course design – via an online discussion group – as he does about obscure krautrock bands.

These days, his social life revolves around fellow members of the local club at Easthampton, West Massachusetts, where he lives with his wife and two sons. His American buddies "have nothing to do with the arts. They're closer to blue collar than white collar and they couldn't give a shit what I do for a living." Disdaining the folderol of stardom, these are the sort of people Cole has hung out with ever since he moved to New York after the Commotions split up in 1988.

Golf has actually loomed large in his life for most of the past 45 years. Cole's parents managed golf clubs all over the UK. Buxton in Derbyshire was where he grew up before the family re-located to the Home Counties and then moved to Scotland. It was while Lloyd was studying English and Philosophy at nearby Glasgow University in the early 1980s that the band he had formed with a bunch of fellow students took off.

Around the time that he should have been finishing an honours degree, Cole released a modern classic with the Commotions – the album Rattlesnakes (1984) – and was being feted all over Europe as Scotland's answer to Lou Reed.

The new album tackles a range of middle-aged concerns from neo-con economics (Young Idealists) to how chat-up procedures alter as you get older (Woman in a Bar) and ends with a track called Rolodex Incident. The title track – a jokey number recounting the insecurities of a boy who works in Starbucks – was partly suggested by the death of his friend and sometime collaborator, the guitarist Robert Quine, who developed a lethal fondness for mixing anti-depressants and booze.

One of the few adult activities that Cole hasn't worked into any of his lyrics is now ending with a tricky putt on the ninth. "I never felt that golf was something that should be sung about," he says, sinking an impressive five-yarder.

Cole describes the theme of the new album as an attempt "to represent little lives, because little lives are often struggling nowadays". Cole's not so little life has been quite a struggle since 1996, when he was dropped by his label. Though he has continued to release albums of undiminished quality – 2003's Music in a Foreign Language being a prime example – he has mainly supported himself through live solo work, such as the tour of Germany he undertook earlier this year.

The one thing Cole says he always tries to avoid, in music as in life, is banner-waving. "I try not to deal with universals, I like to sing about microcosms. I don't like the idea that a song has to have a message or a purpose. If I have a point it is that the same people can do very good things and very bad things. But I'm not judgmental about that. We're all three-dimensional."

With this, a very 3D Lloyd Cole heads for the clubhouse.



From The London Sunday Times:

Still causing a commotion
Lloyd Cole is back - with attitude intact.
By Dan Cairns


::nobreak::He’s a rum chap, Lloyd Cole. He can come out with statements so arrogant, they make your jaw drop. But then he’ll conclude them with his strange, emphysematous, almost mirthless laugh, and crack a dry, self-deflating aside. If he’s prickly, he is also refreshingly non-fluent in the language of platitudes.

More than 20 years on from Rattlesnakes, his breakthrough hit with his former band, the Commotions, this avowedly literate songwriter is back with a lovely new album, Antidepressant. He’s not expecting it to set the charts alight. “I did a questionnaire once,” he says, “and one of the things they asked me was, ‘Are you cool?’ Well, I think the jury’s been out for 20 years on that one.”

Cole has paid a price for Rattlesnakes. It’s almost as if an angry little pack of malign taste pixies went out one night and fly-posted the sleeping songwriter with the words “pretentious, moi?” — all because he dared to mention Simone de Beauvoir and Norman Mailer in his songs. It’s our loss: his sales peak was in 1985, and eight excellent solo albums since then have barely registered. But it has also been his. When the band broke up, Cole moved to New York, investing in an expensive apartment and recording studio. But lack of record sales nipped at his heels financially, and he and his wife relocated to New England. That must have been hard, I suggest.

“Oh, terrifying,” he answers. “But we had to get some perspective on what my career might be — that it might be something very small. We couldn’t keep hoping the next album would have a hit on it.”

These days, when he’s not doing the school run or indulging in his other passion, golf, Cole works at a studio/office a few miles from his home. On the new song Travelling Light, he rails at first against this small-town domesticity — “If not for scheming constellations in the night... I would be travelling light” — before finding solace in it by the end. “I am the leader of this small ensemble,” he sings, “and we will pack this little station wagon tight.”

“You can imagine what my wife thought,” he laughs. “She said, ‘You’ve written another of those f***ing songs where you say, I’m so surprised to be happy.’ But, I mean, I’ve got a house in a small town in western Massachusetts. I do gardening. It’s not what I had in mind when I was 27.” He pauses, frowning. “But I’m a lot better at gardening. I wasn’t very good at being a rock’n’roll singer, let’s face it.”

As for his place in the musical scheme of things, he’s at once typically self-effacing and cocksure. “A few of them will be remembered,” he says. “The Beatles, Simon and Garfunkel, the Byrds, maybe. But anybody below that level is not going to be.”

Then, referring to a writer’s need always to carry a notebook, he drops Joan Didion’s name into the conversation. “Every now and then, I’m just astounded by how beautifully she has said something. You know, ‘I wish I could say things like that.’ But I look at some of my work and think, ‘I am saying things like that.’” Another pause. “And I’ll look at other songs and think, ‘Gosh, that’s a mess.’”

For all those with a lapsed Cole habit, Antidepressant is a fine reintroduction. The strings, the acoustic-guitar intricacy, the croaked vocals are all there. So, too, are those phrases that either stop you in your tracks or set you off on a trail: could there be a more Lloyd Cole line than “A pretty girl at the wheel of a German car”? He has his golf handicap, his secateurs, the traces, still, of chips on his shoulders. But what he also has, and has never lost, is the heart and soul (and notebook) of a true troubadour. Go on, buy the album — then he can pay someone to prune the roses. Judging by his new record, he’s got more important things to do.