Ring of Conservative Sites Ring of Conservative Sites

[ Prev | Skip Prev | Prev 5 | List |
Rand | Next 5 | Skip Next | Next ]

Friday, December 16, 2005

Whose Side Are You On?

I must relate 2 anecdotes from Jeff Jacoby's column from yesterday. I'll ask the question now: Whose side are you on?

"One anecdote from Mosul," said General Peter Pace, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, when he spoke at the National Defense University earlier this month. "There was a police recruiting station. Forty young men lined up to sign up to become Iraqi policemen. A vehicle-borne IED explodes -- kills or badly injures 12 of them. The next day, the 28 remaining return to the same spot to sign up to be policemen."

And the second one:

From a story reported last year in the Daily Star of Beirut:

"They called all the prisoners out to the courtyard for what they called a 'celebration.' " The speaker is Ibrahim al-Idrissi, head of the Association for Free Prisoners, an organization that documents the deaths of Iraqi political prisoners under the former regime. He is recalling a day in 1982 at a prison in Baghdad.

"We all knew what they meant by 'celebration.' All the prisoners were chained to a pipe that ran the length of the courtyard wall. One prisoner, Amer al-Tikriti, was called out. They said if he didn't tell them everything they wanted to know, they would show him torture like he had never seen. He merely told them he would show them patience like they had never seen.

"This is when they brought out his wife, who was five months pregnant. One of the guards said that if he refused to talk he would get 12 guards to rape his wife until she lost the baby. Amer said nothing. So they did. We were forced to watch. Whenever one of us cast down his eyes, they would beat us."

"Amer's wife didn't lose the baby. So the guard took a knife, cut her belly open and took the baby out with his hands. The woman and child died minutes later. Then the guard used the same knife to cut Amer's throat."

I know...you support the troops and you are against tyranny. Right.

Glenn Reynolds reports:

THE ARAB NEWS editorializes:

It was the voice of the Iraqi people that was being heard yesterday, not the bomb blasts of the terrorists. What little violence there was as millions crowded toward their local polling stations only served to demonstrate how incoherent and pointless are the efforts of the men of violence to change the country through further bloodshed.

Still no NYT editorial extolling the Iraqis for voting under extreme duress. That indicates their side. No?

Per Mark Steyn on PajamasMedia:

Turnout was spectacular. 80% turnout in Saddam Hussein's hometown of Tikrit. The Sunnis are voting in large numbers. They've figured out that Iraq is a success story, and they want to cut themselves a piece of that success. The only people who don't get it now are Zarqawi, and the spokespersons for the Democratic Party.

Thursday, December 15, 2005

Regulations: Making It Harder Without A Benefit

NYC is losing business to London allegedly due to the imposing regulatory burden of the regulations of Sarbanes-Oxley. CNN Money reports:

Non-U.S. IPOs on the main London Stock Exchange raised over $16 billion this year, compared to $3.4 billion on the NYSE, according to Thomson Financial. That's an abrupt shift from 2004 and 2003, when New York outranked London.

New companies from Russia and Eastern Europe are raising capital at 2 London exchanges and not even considering NY due to regulations.

Passed after the Enron/Worldcom financial fiascoes, the idea of the law is to force the public disclosure of a company as well as th assurances by executives that the disclosures are accurate. This has led to massive compliance costs and personal exposure of CEOs.

As Cato economist Alan Reynolds explained, we have another law that focuses on the acts of businessmen without examining the effect of existing regulation by government upon business activities. Besides being unnecessary and harmful, Reynolds wrote:

Finally, it is inadequate because it failed to encourage the development of institutions and incentives (including an excessive incentive to retain earnings before the individual tax on dividends was reduced) to improve corporate governance over the long haul.

Other problems, per Reynolds, that is caused by the law:

1. Sarbanes-Oxley makes it harder to attract and retain qualified directors, particularly the required financial expert.

2. Sarbanes-Oxley reduces the availability of liability insurance for directors and officers, and greatly increases the cost of such insurance for those who can get it.

3. Sarbanes-Oxley makes it harder (particularly for smaller firms) to attract and retain qualified CEOs and CFOs.

4. Sarbanes-Oxley appears likely to make executives overly timid, afraid to take make bold investments in risky new technologies or products.

So in an era of global competition, we have tied the hands of executives while doing what Congress always does- pass laws that grant more power to government while existing governmental oversight originally failed. It is the New Deal comedy of errors all over again.

But then doesn't Professor Thomas Sowell always lecture us that everything has a cost?

Stocks are not sold with warranties, express or implied. They are always sold "as is." Risk is the very reason stocks exist in the first place -- and nobody is forced to buy them...Politicians are forever coming up with "solutions" to virtually every imaginable imperfection in life. But, if we give them more power and more of our money, we are very unlikely to end up better off on net balance.

The history of 20th century despotism is a history of leaders claiming to solve their people's problems for them -- and then creating tragedies worse than any of the problems that they were supposedly going to solve. Eternal vigilance is only part of the price of freedom. The maturity to live with imperfections is another crucial part of the price of freedom.

We have millions of Americans afraid of freedom. They are destined to look to the government for safety. They should just grow up.

Thanks to Bill Suda for the original article from CNN Money.

Remember this from a few years ago: "Arabs Don't Want Democracy"

From Mike Taylor on the WRONG (and I contend racist) comments from leading lights of the liberal side of the debate:

“You cannot force democracy on (the Iraq) people…”

Google tells me there was:
One Nobel Laureate (Shirin Ebadi, the first female judge in Iran),

An Australian commentator (Gary Brown),

The Jordanian Foreign Minister (Muasher… who’s he?),

Some Labour party members in the UK,

The brilliant Teddy Kennedy (although he was criticizing linking the Iraq democracy timetable to the US election timetable),

US Representative Ron Paul (again, who?) claimed that over 1,000 years of despotic regimes in Iraq made democracy impossible,

Paul Craig Roberts said “Bush's Iraq policy is based on lies, and force based on lies cannot bring democracy to Iraq or to any other country.” (And he said this in June of 2005… to quote Bugs Bunny “what a maroon!”),

Howard Dean (‘nuff said… you can achieve the correct position on anything by listening to Howard Dean and then doing the exact opposite),

Democracyrising.us… a moonbat web site that’s certain we’re creating an imperialist state in Iraq (By allowing Iraqis to vote for other Iraqis? Man, we must be the most clueless imperialists in the history of the planet! You’d think we’d have learned from our mistakes in failing to establish our empire in Japan, Germany, France, Korea, Italy and Puerto Rico… but I guess we’re just hopeless as imperialists! At least we have Hawaii and Alaska. )

George Galloway says that the elections in Iraq are “… a farce. They’re rigged”. (See comments attached to Howard Dean.)

Jonathan Schell (again, who?) wrote in The Nation: “The more the United States tries to force what it insists on calling democracy on Iraq, the more the people of Iraq will hate the United States.”

There must be more… and they were all wrong all the time. Someday cook up a lot of crows for these idiots to feast on.

-- MTT

And regarding their grasp of science, is the globe warming or freezing? Or is that irrelevant so long as we do not get too wealthy as compared to the command economies of the world?

Iraq Is Moving Along

The Iraqis have begun to vote today as reported on the ground by Pajamas Media. Omar writes:

Early in the morning the Iraqis flocked toward the polling centers not caring about some mortars that went down here and there, the kids kept on playing soccer in the empty streets, the mosques-Sunni and Shii-were calling and urging people to vote. There was a little difference in the two calls; while the Sunni were calling the people to vote for the sake of Arab Nationalism the Shia mosques were calling to vote under the Fatwa of Sistani whom being fiercely attacked by al-Jazeera news channel and this made his Fatwa gain more voters.

The carping from the Bush-lied crowd continues. From Mark Steyn's MEANWHILE, BACK IN THE REAL WORLD...:

As I’ve said on many occasions, when it comes to toppling dictators, there’s no such thing as an “illegitimate” rationale. In his obstruction of UN weapons inspectors, Saddam certainly acted as if he had WMD and, in his “trade” missions to Niger (principal exports: uranium, goats, cowpeas and onions), as if he were eager to acquire more. There’s something to be said for taking a chap at his word.

I will repeat that America can be "the cops of the world" if we want to be. This Iraq clean-up will take fewer and fewer men as the government is created today. Then we should take a short break and look around for the next regime to topple. My choice is Syria. It will take very little if we even have to go there. With the Iraqi democracy next door, many of the Muslim regimes may implode before we fill up the battleships.

As Murtha said, 80% of the Iraqis want us out of Iraq. Their vote today is a big step in sending us packing. Congratulations, People Of The Year!

Now, who do we vote for as the Losers of the Year?

Skip March states:

Thank you for forwarding this. The Iraqi's are the example to the world of what courage really is and how important freedom from tyranny is to everyone. Truly remarkable.

From Bill Suda: Hallelujah! i'm truly excited about this. the intensity--but on the positive side--is that same level as my disgust for kelo decision. the extremes of 2005.

Bill is a man of few words. But they are packed with meaning (though very few capital letters).

Wednesday, December 14, 2005

Does Anyone Realize That Government Should Be Limited?

I will provide the quote from Christopher DeMuth of The American Enterprise Online (that Jonah Goldberg used in his article "Time For A Republican Reformation"):

Thomas Jefferson played the pivotal role in choosing the site for our national capital, and selected what was essentially a malarial swamp. He had been in Paris when the Constitution was drafted, and he was not much impressed by its parchment provisions for limited government. So—anticipating the old dictum that “no man’s life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session”—Jefferson added a climatologic backstop. Long, miserable summers were to serve as a natural deterrent to the growth of our national apparatus.

The "pigs at the trough", as Joe Kenner referred to both parties in Congress, have been pursuing increased powers outside of those delineated in the Constitution for over a century.

Goldberg admits that it is not just Congress at fault. Look at GW regarding his never vetoing a bill in front of him. Writes Goldberg:

Presidents have been just as bad, including George W. Bush. He campaigned against the proposed McCain-Feingold campaign finance "reform" in the 2000 election. At the time Bush argued, rightly, that the legislation violated numerous constitutional principles. When the bill wound up his desk, however, in a more egregious form than the earlier versions, Bush signed it. If his erstwhile "serious constitutional concerns" had been justified, the president explained, then, heck, "the courts will resolve these legitimate legal questions." But when the law went before the Supreme Court, Bush's Justice Department defended it and the justices in turn upheld it, out of deference to the "government." It's all so tawdry.

Yes, though in reading A Patriot's Histroy Of The United States last night, I learned how principled Grover Cleveland was. Grover Cleveland is the last small government Democrat. He vetoed any bill that exceeded the powers granted the federal government. Writes authors Larry Schweikart and Michael Allen:

When Grover Cleveland vetoed an insignificant seed corn bill, he knew it would hurt him politically, and that he would only win condemnation from the press and the people—but the Constitution did not permit it, and he refused.

Cleveland felt this was more for charities to handle than the federal government. What happened? The charities provided seeds that exceeded anything the Congress had authorized in their vetoed bill.

This is how it is supposed to work.

NYT Disputed on Border Siezure

The report by the NYT below is disputed by a Reuters article where an Iraq border guard claimed that all is quiet.

"This is all a lie," said Lieutenant General Ahmed al-Khafaji, the chief of the U.S.-trained force which has responsibility for all Iraq's borders.

"I heard this yesterday and I checked all the border crossings right away. The borders are all closed anyway," he told Reuters.

But I read the NYT "and swear by every word".

Speaking of quiet, Drudge reports:

Streets in Baghdad were eerily quiet on the eve of Thursday's parliamentary election.

Though Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has not been very quiet. Reuters reports:

"They have fabricated a legend under the name 'Massacre of the Jews', and they hold it higher than God himself, religion itself and the prophets themselves," he told a crowd in the southeastern city of Zahedan on Wednesday.

Pop goes the weasel....

Iranian Votes For Dean Stopped At The Border

Our Leftists are joined by friends from Iran in hoping for failure in our democratic naion-building. The NYT reports:

Iraqi border police seized a tanker on Tuesday that had just crossed from Iran filled with thousands of forged ballots.

I wonder how many votes were for Howard Dean.

Security is way up in Iraq.

To protect against insurgent attacks, some 225,000 Iraqi police and soldiers have begun taking up positions around the country, about 90,000 more than during the January election. The Iraqi forces are being backed up by more than 150,000 American troops.

Other security measures began going into effect around the country on Tuesday, including an extended curfew, a prohibition against carrying weapons and a ban on almost all driving.
In other violence, a Sunni Arab parliamentary candidate, Mizhar al-Dulaimi, was killed in Ramadi by gunmen on his way to visit relatives, officials said, and a friend accompanying him was wounded. Jihadist groups have threatened to kill Iraqis who take part in the political process, either as candidates, poll workers or voters.

I guess if they were not voting in these matters of self-government, there would be more "order". The orderly torture and executions under Saddam's regime. Is that what 80% of Iraqis want. We will see with the vote.

Those who want this brave country to fail (see my correspondent below- he is one of millions) are going to have a hard time when this is completed. Time Magazine's Man of the Year? The Iraqis!!!

Iraqis Begin Voting!

From Mike Taylor:

Iraqis the world over have started voting. Fox News sent a camera crew to suburban Detroit (I believe) to show a bunch of happy Iraqis putting ballots into boxes, high-fiving eachother, smiling... really overjoyed. There was one Iraqi man who had made a poncho of the Iraq flag... reminded me of what some fans do at foorball games.

But the highlght of the piece is this Iraqi woman, she summed up the debate over the war in Iraqin one succinct sentence.

(This is a 16 second video clip, takes awhile to download but she's worth the wait! Take THAT Howard Dean!)
-- Mike

Tuesday, December 13, 2005

Dem Senator Says Dean Should Go To Iraq

Drudge has this headlined "Del. Senator: Dean Should Go To Iraq". The article says:

Sen. Tom Carper wishes politicians from both parties would visit Iraq before making pronouncements about U.S. policy in Iraq.

Then the article claims this Democrat senator said any visitor:

is not going to come back thinking this thing is going to be won militarily. It's not.

Okay. But, then he says:

[H]e backs a policy of gradual withdrawal of U.S. forces as Iraqis take over military and political operations in their country.

Is that counter to what President Bush has said about withdrawal or even the likelihood that military acts alone will change the Iraqi's world? The military acts have overthrown a dictator, defended against terrorists and helped Iraqis to mold their own choice of government form. No one is saying we should remain there at this level of military presence in perpetuity. Any suggestion to that end is nonsense.

Maybe Dean should go to Iraq and negotiate with Zarqawi directly. Now that would be a real scream.

Conversation With A Liberal- Iraq

More conversation with a Liberal:

Liberal (this is a lawyer in his mid-50's):

the beacon of freedom effort has resulted in at least 30,000 Iraqi citizens killed- President Murtha had it right when he said we've got to pull back to slow down the killing-- your pal Howard Stern wants to bring back Saddam so order can be restored amidst the chaos created by our "occupation."
Yugoslavia as I recall had a democratic socialist system for awhile (workers running the factory sharing the profits) that was quite successful- no need to go back to the stone age-we're developing hybrids and willie nelson has that ethanol stuff

My reply:

The "order" that you readily trade for freedom is fortunately not appreciated by a large majority of Iraqis. The order you approved of that existed behind the Iron Curtain was not appreciated by the millions who had to live under totalitarian "order" for 70 years.

As a Jew, I wish I could have traded in 1 million Jewish lives (now that is a big number to throw at someone) to have saved the remaining 5 million who died in the ravages of "order" that you uphold. And I am thankful for the disorder wrought on Europe by the Allies who saved the remaining Jews and others from the order of socialism. Yes, it was a military intervention that stopped the extermination machine. Yes, it was military intervention that stopped slavery in America. Maybe the order of the slavery culture could have remained for another century. I am glad it was ended by the Northern white military venture that cost the most American lives in history.

As you tend to view economic issues, so are you flawed in your view of this military action. This is not zero-sum. The number of Iraqis who vote in the election in the next few days (and some of them will be killed by the terrorists you treat as freedom fighters) attests to the will of people to overcome the order you so fervently support. The "occupation" will cease in a few years most likely. The resulting order of democracy will be something Iraqis will honor.

The Liberal responds:

80 percent of the Iraqis want us out now- my biggest beef aside from the "inaccuracies about weapons of mass destruction, nuclear weapons and the smears of wilson and his wife is the Pres's assurances we would be treated as heroes and that everything would be hunky dory once Saddam was toppled- a fantasy that has led to the deaths of over 2,000 servicemen and over 30,000 Iraqi citizens-- plus our "torture" track record (including deaths of prisoners) has made recruiting for terrorists easier not harder-- also the shiiite majority in Iraq is tight with Iran, where the Iranian Pres there once again said the holocaust never happened-- I'm having trouble seeing "victory" now or in the future-- I believer Murtha's view is there is a civil war between sunni's and shiites, being fueled by our presence-- of course the american people are way ahead of most of the republican and democratic supporters of "stay the course" as evidenced by the polls-- I'm still betting we will reduce our presence their prior to the 2006 elections- if some sort of semi-stable democracy is established there, fine- the shiite majority wants an Islamic democracy, which has the potential to spell more trouble for the US and Israel.

No More McCarthys

Christopher Hitchens, in a piece honoring Eugene McCarthy, writes how his presidential campaign began with an issue and a candidate and no money rather than a candidate with money looking for an issue. Then he writes in an aside:

(When one says "shoestring," by the way, one is forced to recall that the whole operation was essentially underwritten by a few ill-sorted but well-off individuals including, notably, Max Palevsky, Blair Clark, and Martin Peretz. Today's campaign-finance laws—or "reforms" as they are always described—make a similar undertaking extremely difficult, if not impossible.)

The progressives wanted the campaign finance law and John McCain provided one that does little to avoid corruption, makes people like George Soros de facto party leader and hinders the opening of elections to all comers. Anybody ever mention the terms stage-one thinking and unintended consequences?

Monday, December 12, 2005

I Am Really Friggin Moral Dammit!

Stealing from Chicagoboyz:

"Moral indignation is a technique to endow the idiot with dignity."

Marshall McLuhan

It's the Spending Stupid.

From Econpundit:

[S]ince the mid-1970's combined federal+state+local spending has regularly cycled around 33% of GNP, suggesting to me this is roughly (if not exactly) what the American public want.

Socialism Is Not Peaceful Sharing

Socialists pin the blame of everything on that terrible profit motive and control of productivity by people uninterested in public good. The socialists see sharing as the desired method of fair distribution of wealth while ignoring the unlikelihood of anyone being motivated to produce any wealth to begin with. The Soviet 70 year experiment proved that scarcity of everything was the norm except for those in the the ruling class. Meanwhile here in America wealth abounds for the overwhelming majority (in 2004 Germany just edged out Arkansas in per capita wealth).

My self-avowed Leftist friend sent me this comment to an e-mail I sent favoring a free market approach to the environment and liberty in general. The message can withdrawn if one adds in the glossary of 1960's cliches :

my model is woodstock--- abbie hoffmann-everything for free (or alternatively democratic socialism, downsizing the output of pollutants we are killing the world with-now there's a major drought in Brazil-cause? some experts say global warming)- I wouldn't sneeze at the cost of the Iraq war (is it now over $200 billion?)- also the cost of allowing torture, staying in Iraq and the creation of more terrorists-those guys are costing us alot of $--
bottom line, my generation needs to figure out dealing with old age and its infirmities- answer, continue to rock-n-roll- power to the people

The global politics and environmental statement aside (and we could certainly analyze those in depth), his economic credo is stated as "democratic socialism". It stands for some sort of support for a sharing akin to "woodstock". He must recognize that the capitalists actually pulled off the concert and saved some lives while the "socialists" did what they always do best---steal. Subsequent the few woodstocks that followed proves that the profit motive was not enhanced by his friends' theft of services. Live long enough and someone will have forgotten what a fiasco that event was for the producers and will host another one in 20-30 years.

George Reisman in the Von Mises website provides an in-depth look at the necessary totalitarianism of socialism-the government assumption of production. Through a review of all true socialist governments, Reisman shows that the control of production by government rather than by a free market leads to scarcity of goods. Additionally, there must be price and wage controls put into place. This leads to black markets. Since black markets breach the government structure, such is deemed subversive.

Because of the privacy and secrecy in which many black-market transactions can be conducted, the government must also make anyone contemplating a black-market transaction fearful that the other party might turn out to be a police agent trying to entrap him. The government must make people fearful even of their long-time associates, even of their friends and relatives, lest even they turn out to be informers.

Control of the all citizen thought is needed to avoid the natural human drive to improve their lots. This leads to control of associations of people since they may be conspiring to breach the government system. When products are not available due to the inevitable scarcity, purges and other exterminations must follow. Scapegoats are created to shelter the government from public scorn.

Under de facto socialism, the production and sale of goods in the black market entails the defiance of the government's regulations concerning production and distribution, as well as the defiance of its price controls. For example, the goods themselves that are sold in the black market are intended by the government to be distributed in accordance with its plan, and not in the black market. The factors of production used to produce those goods are likewise intended by the government to be used in accordance with its plan, and not for the purpose of supplying the black market.

Reisman anticipates the peaceful socialism of Sweden and other Scandinavian countries. He writes:

In such cases, it is necessary to realize that along with these countries not being totalitarian, they are also not socialist. Their governing parties may espouse socialism as their philosophy and their ultimate goal, but socialism is not what they have implemented as their economic system. Their actual economic system is that of a hampered market economy, as Mises termed it. While more hampered than our own in important respects, their economic system is essentially similar to our own, in that the characteristic driving force of production and economic activity is not government decree but the initiative of private owners motivated by the prospect of private profit.

The reason that Social Democrats do not establish socialism when they come to power, is that they are unwilling to do what would be required. The establishment of socialism as an economic system requires a massive act of theft — the means of production must be seized from their owners and turned over to the state. Such seizure is virtually certain to provoke substantial resistance on the part of the owners, resistance which can be overcome only by use of massive force.

The Communists were and are willing to apply such force, as evidenced in Soviet Russia. Their character is that of armed robbers prepared to commit murder if that is what is necessary to carry out their robbery. The character of the Social Democrats in contrast is more like that of pickpockets, who may talk of pulling the big job someday, but who in fact are unwilling to do the killing that would be required, and so give up at the slightest sign of serious resistance.

So the socialist fantasy always becomes totalitarianism.

Socialism cannot be ruled for very long except by terror. As soon as the terror is relaxed, resentment and hostility logically begin to well up against the rulers. The stage is thus set for a revolution or civil war.

Of course, that is violence which my hippie friend is against.

My answer to my Leftist friend was:

In essence your socialism would result in only acoustic guitars being made by hand. Poverty would be widespread and the technological solutions to environmental problems would be nil. How would you heat your house? Burning down forests was not good for the environment throughout history.

This post borrows heavily from a more intelligent economist than I could ever hope to be.

Sunday, December 11, 2005

That Old Liberal Arrogance

I was asked the following by a member of our Think Tank who receives articles from me in my daily surf of the policy wonk internet.

He asked:

Why is it that the liberals assume as a matter of course that President Bush wants to keep American troops in Iraq one day more than they need to be there? I must have missed something. Seriously this just mystifies me. Actually it doesn't mystify me, it is that old liberal arrogance rearing its head.

My response:

I think there is this irrational belief that the motivation for entering Iraq was sinister. I have been unable to understand the explanation that is was for oil. I did not then believe it at the start and I pay enough for gas now to know that was not the reason.

There are other reasons floated by liberals about the Iraq invasion such as neo-con Jews helping Israel against the interests of America, revenging Saddam's attempted assassination attempt of his father or Bush just being this bloodthirsty conservative (conservative= bloodthirsty in their open-minede view of politics---ever hear Howard Dean talk?). All are irrational and go beyond a disagreement on policy.

The liberal's moral view has been breached by a person and party that is evil in their minds. But where is their moral outrage against the terrorists who murder innocents wantonly, keep women in bondage and overwhelm all non-believers throughout their realm? Bush has just breached their holy principles.

Your point is excellent.

Bush will pull the troops after the Iraqis can stand on their feet. Their heroics continue to amaze me. American have not been like that since 1776.

Another Murder In Chicago

It happens again and again and the stories blend into one another.

This time, an NBA player, Knicks' guard Quentin Richardson has lost a second sibling to street violence in Chicago. Quentin's 31-year old brother Lee Jr., described as "jolly, kind, loving and protective" tried to thwart an armed robbery of himself and his 62-year old father last Monday. Recognizing the likelihood of their execution after giving the criminals their money, Lee Jr. tried ti wrest the gun from them. He died after being shot several times.

His sister, Rochelle, said:

"We have to stop this insanity, this violence in our neighborhoods. We have to stop it now. Please. And we can stop it. It doesn't have to be this way. We can't just turn our heads when we see our young people acting delinquent. We have to plant a seed. It's up to us to stop this cycle of tragedy and death. I don't want my brother to be just another statistic."

Echoes of the maligned Bill Cosby's message. This incident is not the fault of anyone but the perps. Yet, so it goes.

Ring of Conservative Sites Ring of Conservative Sites

[ Prev | Skip Prev | Prev 5 | List |
Rand | Next 5 | Skip Next | Next ]