Wednesday, January 10, 2007


Pelosi's Cut & Run Reds passed a bill yesterday which is comprised of cherry-picked items from the 9/11 Commission recommendations.

ONE ITEM: 100% inspection of all shipping containers heading into the USA. Currently every manifest is triple-checked to the point of origin. And there have been ZERO problems. But if 100% of the containers have to go though physical inspection, this will GREATLY SLOW SHIPPING AND HURT TRADE. 100% is ridiculous and unnecessary - like 100% inspection of all airline passengers. Both 100% inspection processes ignore the fact that SOME containers (like some passengers) are more risky than others.

Pelosi's Cut & Run Reds in the House KNOW THIS, and they passed the bill this way anyhow. WHY?!? For the SYMBOLIC effect: They know that the Senate will probably not pass a bill with this provision, and that it will fall out during conference. But passing it in the House makes them seem tough on the war on terror. Seeming trough is more important to the CUT & RUN REDS than actually BEING tough.

Cut & Run Reds love this tactic; it's a tactic most often called going for "SYMBOLIC VICTORY" - they're this using this tactic on the TROOP SURGE TOO! Instead of voting to prevent funding of any troop surge their just going to vote a non-binding resolution.

Too bad for us: the world, reality, and the the GWOT are MORE than merely symbolic. And the REALL EFFECTS of these Leftist anti-trade and anti-victory moves in the REAL are all bad.

FACT: if these two Leftist policies both became law -- if 100% container inspection were to pass the Senate - along with the increase in the minimum wage - (which WILL PASS) - then they would together lead to an increase in unemployment and a slow-down on the economy - by increasing costs for businesses.This will also lead to HIGHER INFLATION. The fact that Leftist policies hurt the economy is no surprise; ALL LEFTIST POLICIES - like those announced by Sheehan's "lover" Chavez - ALWAYS HURT THE ECONOMY.


PoliTek said...

Do you know what else would "GREATLY SLOW ANd HURT TRADE"? A nuclear detonation in a port city.

I'd rather PREVENT NUCLEAR TERRORISM than save walmart a few bucks, thanks.

Your choice of economics over security is pathetic. Not to mention the fact that the economic consequences are highly speculative (a lot of jobs will be created and money spent on equipment, etc... so this could actually provide a small BOOST to the economy). Hong Kong already does it (their economy is in tatters, huh?).

They are proposing the one thing that could stop nuclear terrorism, and you bitch and moan about how leftist policies hurt the economy. Well, rightist policies sacrifice everything from national security to basic human deceny in the service of the economy.

Thanks you democrats, for finally showing us that washington can have the right priorities (as long as the Republicans aren't driving the agenda, that is).

PoliTek said...


Like bringing up a vote on a gay marriage ammendment that has no chance of passing?

Or abortion restrictions that have no chance of passing?

Or flag-burning ammendments that have no chance of passing?

Yes, the pot calls the kettle black, because the pot either has no memory or is just dishonest.

Minor Ripper said...

Not sure if everyone has seen these videos of the US military in Iraq or not, but they are pretty amazing: Hopefully our 'surge' will not include too many of these types...

reliapundit said...

politek 2

none on your list of conservative bills would have raised the costs of anything in the economy.
abortion has been successfully limited more each year - something most Americans want.
gay marriage has been limited every time the voters have a say - which is something w used to call DEMOCRACY.
flag burning amendments are bullshit. but has nothing to do with the GWOT or the econo0my.

the lefties in the house are PASSING bills that if passed by the senate will definitely fuck up the economy and hurt our efforts TO WIN the GWOT. and they have made these bills part of the 10 hours bullshit.

i have been a registered dem since 1974, but crap like this is why i have been voting gop.
leftist economic policies have always failed wherever they have been tried. remember the USSR!?
hayek and reagan and thatcher were right. marx was wrong.

cutting and running and appeasing has also always failed. yet the dems in the house are proposing BOTH.

in a phony way too. that's why i think if i was a dove-leftie i'd be pissed off at them, too.

so... what are they actually achieving with all this BULLSH*T!? if they can't appease the daily-kos/sheehan crowd and they are't making us safer (cause the bill as passed by the cut&run reds of the house won't ever become law), then they are accomplishing absofuckinglutley NOTHING.

Michael Grant said...

Right, and so putting your hair gel in a Ziploc bag isn’t at all a pointless symbolic gesture to make it look as though the Homeland Security people don’t have their 20/20 hindsight heads planted directly inside their bums?

Do you even live near a port? Or are you safely tucked away in redneck America and wouldn’t mind a bit if we East Coast elites were bombed to hell where we can pay for our sins?

JAW said...


You have sparked my curiosity. Pleases elaborate on how inspections of cargo coming into our country "hurt(s) our efforts TO WIN the GWOT"? Because it seems to me that the exact opposite is true, but I am just a dumb leftie.

PoliTek said...

"none on your list of conservative bills would have raised the costs of anything in the economy."

Right, they are just examples of Republicans pushing symbolic legislation that has no chance of becoming law.

"remember the USSR!?"

WTF? That's your reason why leftist policies always hurt the economy?

Raising the minimum wage in Arizona and Florida demonstrably helped the economies in those states. Is raising minimum wage a right-wing policy?

Securing out ports is long everdue. Whether it hurts our economy or not isn't even the point.

And since when does congress have to make sure that all legislation helps the ecomony? Sorry, but that isn't congress' job. Their job is to do what's necessary, and in most people's minds, securing the ports is necessary.

As for the bill not making it through the Senate... that's the Senate's problem. At least the house dems are demonstrating an attempt to implement real security.

The Frito Pundito said...

Let's see, when was the last time the minimum wage was raised. Oh yeah, 1997...yes, that REALLY slowed down the economy then. As for calling the containment bill leftist - so something to provide greater security is suddenly leftist? I don't seem to recall you howling about the increased airport surveillance, which did cost a lot of money as well (a lot of it syphoned off into GOP cronies' pockets)

reliapundit said...

everywhere that leftist policies have been beaten back prosperuty and living stabdards have gone up.

reliapundit said...

the ports are secure

reliapundit said...

the mexican illegals here in ny make 15/hour. cash no taxes - or just soc sec.

better than min wage.

poverty in america is the result of not working.

and illegals,

announcerguy said...

"Cut and run Reds in the House.."

What the hell era are you living in, tough guy?

Name a "Red" in the House of Representatives, and I'll forward your comments to them.

"All leftist policies hurt the economy?" Like establishing the SEC, for example? That was called "socialist" when it was enacted...no doubt by people like you. But we haven't had a true depression since then. Coincidence?

When will you Ayn Rand quoting, Milton Friedman-loving simpletons realize that government has a purpose, and that is to promote the common good. Laissez-faire capitalism eventually eats itself.

The Bush administration has done everything it could to shift taxes from capital to labor. Corporate taxes are lower than ever in the post WW2 era - while wages remain stagnant. Yet people like you say the burden is still too great.

If you could employ ten year-olds for ten cents an hour, ten hours a day, seven days a week, that might be "good for the economy." But it would destroy the lives of the people you subject to your Neanderthal-like “Capitalism GOOD regulation BAD” philosophy. I'd like to see you make your argument in front of, say, a group of coal miners.

Here are three questions for you.

Have you ever truly worked a day in your life? Or do you exist off of investments you’ve inherited?

And if an unexamined container goes off in New York harbor, with your family nearby, will you console yourself by saying "at least we didn't harm the economy?"

Even in the fantasy world of right-wing nuttery, your post is among the most idiotic I've ever seen.

reliapundit said...

annuncer guy - u r a scumbag.

i am working POOR and an artrist and a registered dem who was raised by cardcarrying commies. i am 51.

i live 1 mile from the wtc, and lost a relative in the pentagon attack on 9/11.

i had family in the military iraq.

so fuck off.

when it comes to the left i know it all - as i said, i was raised in it.

leftism is the second biggest evil in the world. to kiahdosm. and it is allied to jihadism - since both hate traditional judeo-christian culutre and wezstern civilization.

announcerguy said...


Thanks for replying in such a coherent way. Now the world can clearly see the well-
reasoned, thoughtful man behind the original post.

I guess that last comment was an effort to establish your bona fides. Let me respond in kind.

I grew up working-class; not far from you, in Park Slope, Brooklyn.

I went west and got through college on my own. I’m a media professional and artist too, and I’m doing fairly well.

I hope you can do the same.

I had three relatives in Iraq, including a Lt. Colonel. One of them is going back.

I also had a relative in WTC 2 on 9/11…she was one of the last people out before it came down.

Here’s what I think are the two biggest evils in our world: ignorance and greed.

Everything stems from those roots. Address those, educate yourself and others, throw more light than heat at people, and you’ll be on the way to solving problems.

Some refuse to learn and must be dealt with…jihadists, et al.

I like to think there is hope for most of humanity. Maybe that’s where you and I differ most.

As for the “fuck off;” I’ll be in NY next week. I should be at Juniors in downtown Brooklyn Monday, at about 4 pm. Do you know where that is? Stop by, and tell me that to my face. Or sit down and have a slice of cheesecake.

The choice is yours.

reliapundit said...

fuck off, announcer guy -
btw : i have a ba and an ma.
and nothing ion your cv or mine proves anyhting except the FACT that your estimation that i was a trust fund baby wqas deadfucking wrong.

u r an ass.

PoliTek said...

"poverty in america is the result of not working."

And there we have it.... the basic fallacy that forms the foundation of right-wing philosophy:

If you are poor, it's because you are lazy or stupid and therefore deserve to be poor.

This fallacy is also closely related to another closely held right-wing belief:

Everyone wants to, and should be trying to, get rich.

Because right-wingers don't generally understand that there are altruistic people who are more interested in helping other people than making money, they assume that anyone who doesn't make a lot is stupid or lazy.

Also, for some reason, they tend to think that the government has a responsibility to make poverty as hellish as possible, so that people can be "motivated to work harder".

And it all stems from the inability to feel empathy and put oneself in another's shoes. To see the great advantages that one has, in comparison to others, and to recognize that those advantages have made life easier, are the first steps to recognizing the fallacies listed above.

"i am working POOR"

So are you lazy? Or did the immigrants steal your job?

"Leftism... hates traditional judeo-christian culutre and wezstern civilization"

What!?!? As far as I remember, the elightenment was born in the west out of judeo-christian values, and form the basis for leftism today.

As far as Christian values goes...Jesus said:

"It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a neddle than for a rich man to get into heaven." ... and "the meek shall inherit the earth." ... and "blessed are the poor". What kind of values are you espousing here exactly? What would Jesus do? Secure the ports, or make sure the economy doesn't ever take any hit whatsoever?

announcerguy said...

You’re a sad little man, “Reliapundit.”

I’m pretty much done with you, but before I go, I need to know: How did you get on a site named “Astute Blogger??” You can’t argue a point coherently to save your life. But you are good at throwing F-bombs and other grade school taunts at people.

That’s how you defend your arguments? That’s all you’ve got?

This is what passes for commentary on many of these right-wing blogs now. Illogical tribalists who wouldn’t recognize an empirical fact if it hit them upside their tiny noggins. Just pseudo-intellectual punks, performing a drive-by posting, only to scramble back to the darkness when called on it.

You wouldn’t last long in my old neighborhood, pal.

And I’m glad you have a “ba and an ma.” Tell me the names of the schools, and I’ll make sure my kid doesn’t apply there.


Flanders Fields said...

Some of the idiocy that some of your previous commenters have sprewed is understandable. The leftist demogogues gain ignorant disciples from segments of the population who are unable to think for themselves and rely on television soundbites to explain their "thought". Leftist democrats and their partners, the media, are effective at this.

It is not in the interests of security to legislate impractical securtiy requirements which will not be effective. It will make our system operate inefficiently and cause security problems while terrorists come into our country and receive assistance from such groups as CAIR or other friends of the democrats.

There is no one thing which will stop nuclear terrorism. It is a multiplicity of effective programs and effective leadership. We have neither with the democrats, nor I'm afraid, with republicans. The republicans had already passed thirty something of the terrorist measures recommended, but you didn't hear much about that until the press' democratic-leftist freinds pass three. THEN, you hear about it!

reliapundit said...

tulane and nyu.
credit 4 ba in 3 years; ma in 1.5.

as 4 the vitriol/eff words: i respoind in kind - to nice comments/criticisms i respond nicely.

reliapundit said...

i want to put down my bottom line of the imnportant criticsim leveled by polite/announser guys et al:

100% inspection will not make us more secure.

we need to PORFILE containers and PROFILE passengers.

i assert that the lefties are DEMAGOGING the ports issue the ay the demagogue medicare and privatizing social security.

privatizing soc sec would be best for poor people - rich people don;t need to.

but the dem left demogogs it as if it would be a takeaway from the poor.

and i feel that national security should NEVER be demogoged.

it's categorically doifferemnt than abortion and flagburing.

reliapundit said...


Reliapundit criticized the Democratic leadership in the House of Representatives for pushing legislation to require 100% inspection of all shipping containers destined for American ports (and for legislation to raise the minimum wage).

His post has attracted, in the comments, some impassioned attacks from leftists who accuse him of hating the poor, and of wanting to see New York destoyed by ship-borne Al Qaeda bomb, and the "East Coast elites were bombed to hell where we can pay for our sins." (They also supported a higher minimum wage.)

Let's take another look at the idea of inspecting every cargo brought into an American port.

First of all, let me note that it is in the first place odd for leftists to worry about another Al Qaeda mass murder attack, since leftists are usually quick to deny that terrorism is much of a threat, and to assert that the risk of terrorism has been wildly exaggerated by the Bush Administration.

As Reliapundit correctly pointed out, requiring that every container be inspected would create a drastic bottleneck in world trade, and would effectively slow down or even temporarily shut down the US economy, as well as the economies of many nations that depend on trade with the US in order to feed themselves.

It would also attempt to solve the worldwide problem of terrorism with an isolationist remedy, shoring up a fortress America without addressing the root cause of terrorism.

It's also odd that leftists would advocate creating such a barrier around America, since they usually promote open borders and granting quasi-citizenship rights to illegal aliens. They do, however, tend to support protectionist tarriffs. Tarriffs are very useful for destroying economies, the way the Smoot-Hawley Tarriff did, and destroying economies is the first step in the leftist program for taking over economies and countries. In general, leftists have only been able to come to power in ravaged economies. In the case of Chile, for example, the Allende regime deliberately sabotaged the Chilean economy so that it could more cheaply expropriate private industries.

Creating a force-field barrier around the United States would not solve the problem of terrorism, and the problem of terrorism can not be solved by having police investigators try to determine who is responsible for the latest episode of terrorist mass-murder so that taxpayer-supported leftist ideologues in the ACLU and National Lawyers' Guild can turn the subjsequent trials into showpieces of anti-American agit-prop.

The struggle against terrorism is a war.

It is a world war.

Some of the active fronts in the the world war against terrorism include the Philippines, the Indonesian archipelago (especially Sulawesi, Java, Bali, and Timor), Thailand, China, Bangladesh, Pakistan, India, Russia, Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Israel, Lebanon, Syria, Turkey, Germany, Italy, France, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, the Netherlands, Great Britain, Spain, Egypt, Tunisia, Algeria, Nigeria, Sudan, Ethiopia, Somalia, Kenya, Canada, the United States, and Australia. (I may have left out a few).

The United States can not be free of terrorism by isolationism.

The United States must lead the freedom-loving, peace-loving, and life-loving peoples of the world in their struggle against the war declared on the rest of the world by the jihadist terrorists.

The root cause of terrorism is the jihadist ideology. That ideology will not be defeated by inspecting every container addressed to an American port.

Moreover, the Democratic leaders in the House of Representatives know that the Senate would never pass such a foolish measure. Thus, they reveal that their support of such a supposedly draconian security program is just a fig-leaf to provide cover for their plans to surrender to the terrorist enemy as soon as they can.

A serious measure that would in fact lead to enhanced security for Americans, and at the same time make it easier for Americans to travel, such as passenger screening based on the known profiles of terrorist murderers, the Democrats would never support.

The leftist commenters are very proud of their working-class backgrounds and their "altruism." They say they are willing to sacrifice the American economy, because they care about the people.

Those poor people who would become unemployed and starving habitues of the breadlines and soup kitchens would be very comforted by these compassionate thoughts from the leftists who had destroyed the economy upon which their prior jobs depended.

As our erudite and astute co-blogger JR has repeatedly shown, leftists are however not compassionate, but haters.

Rather than impose a phony security program that would only weaken the economy without addressing the root cause of terrorism, the legislative leaders of the United States should support a program to take the war to the enemy and defeat him in his lair. The United States must lead the freedom-loving and peace-loving peoples of the world in a struggle that must be at the same time military, economic, and ideological. We have made much military progress against the enemy because of our professional and results-oriented armed forces.

But we are lagging in the softer fronts of this world war.

Luckily for us, our armed forces are made of up patriotic and freedom-loving Americans.

Unfortunately, that can not be said for those parts of our society that must wage the ideological and philosophical war against the ideology of jihadism.

In World War II, the courageous efforts of the 16 million Americans in uniform were matched by the enthusiastic participation of Hollywood, the Press, and the Universities. These institutions provided the necessary philosophical and ideological effort to undermine the ideologies of German National Socialism, Italian Fascism, and Japanese Militarism.

But Hollywood only supported that war because America had the good fortune to be temporarily allied with Hollywood's hero, "Uncle" Joseph Stalin.

In the war against jihadist terrorism, we can not count on Hollywood, the Press, or the Universities -- or those civilian branches of our government, like the State Department and the C.I.A. that have been heavily influenced by the soft bolshevism of American so-called "liberalism."

Jihadism has proven itself to be curiously attractive to those who believe in the leftist world view, and not only because their first instinct is to blame America and hate America for every problem in the world. Leftism actually shares a lot with jihadism.

Leftism is at its most basic level the practical expression of the belief that all of human life, and all human lives, should be directed by a supposedly benevolent State. You could also call it Statism. From Plato's Republic, to St. Thomas More's Utopia, to the phalansteries of Charles Fourier and Robert Owen, to the revolutionary socialism of Babeuf and Blanqui, the scientific socialism of Marx & Engels, the national socialism of Hitler, the fascism of Mussolini, the communism of Lenin, Stalin, Mao, and Ho, and to the pathetically impoverished nightmare states of Fidel Castro, Pol Pot, Kim Il-sung, and Robert Mugabe --- the story is always the same: expropriation of private property, elimination of all economic freedom, and the inevitable results of tyranny, oppression, war, poverty, and environmental degradation. Socialism has never worked, and the more thoroughly socialist a program is instituted, the worse are the results that follow.

Jihadism also promises one people, one world, one State, and one ruler. It provides an unambiguous authority and an anti-capitalist ideology which are very much in harmony with the totalitarian programs of the left.

I have given one example, in an earlier post, of the keen emotional energy and joy that leftists experience when they contemplate taking away the private property that other people have created and earned. The prospect of controlling other people, and forcing other people to conform to what they are certain is the only right way to be is of course another very powerful underlying emotional drive in leftist movements.