Thursday, March 31, 2005


These are a few of the links posted at My Newz 'N Ideas, with a huge "tip of the hat" to Rosemary. She has posted extensively on the atrocious ongoing genocide, alerting me to a rally in NYC that I was unable to make. I'm posting links to some of the stories, but I recommend you read her site (linked HERE and above) for the full scope and context of what's going on there. She posts about 9 links, including a great Washington Post piece, and reports from the BBC and Reuters. These, and the others, are dismaying stories, but well worth reading. We in the U.S. need to know more about what's going on in the rest of the world, and remember our pledge at the end of WW II:


We have not followed through on that pledge for not only the Sudanese, but many peoples under the worst oppression seen since Hitler around the world. Hopefully the Bush Doctorine will change the course of history all over the world. It's a race of time to save the people of Darfur; they are far from the front in the new fight for freedom in the Middle East, but are intimately involved in that battle.

LaShawn Barber: Takin' the Heat! (republished from NEXTLEAV)

I recently posted a comment on La Shawn Barber's blog, in response to a post about her being called an "uncle tom" and worse by some commenters. When I returned home and checked the comments, I got a taste of what she puts up with. Notice how the commenter (someone calling themselves HiRez) equates the shunning of a Black Republican (for more than his position on reparations) with the ACTUAL KILLING going on in the Palestinian areas. As for Israelis being killed for supporting the Palestinians, it doesn't happen. Israel has Arab legislators who openly support the Palestinians. The assasination of the Prime Minister was a rare attack by an Israeli terrorist, not a daily occurence."HiRez" also takes issue with my use of the term "race baiting", but what is calling someone an "uncle tom", if not race baiting? For the record, calling anyone who justly criticizes a Black person a racist, without addressing the criticism, is also "race baiting." Read on at the original NEXTLEAV post.

PS: I've decided that I will put ALL of my political posts on this blog, which is why I am re-posting the opening of the LaShawn Barber post here. In the past, I have put some posts about controversial things over at NEXTLEAV. That blog will now be more personal stuff, though I still may write the occasional "free thoughts" type rant (late at night, after a few too many beers-YIKES!). In the above example, I didn't want this guy HiRez' comments about me on LEAVWORLD, but wanted to show how stupid they were. In the future, even if it's racial politics, I won't be afraid to put it here, where it belongs. This one was recent enough to merit republishing. I am starting to get these blogs organized into a loose system, and if you can't post comments on the blogs themselves, you can email me at with any suggestions or comments.


I've posted 3 pieces of my "political art" over at LEAVART. One is a rough political cartoon about Sen. Kerry from the election season. The second is more of a political statement: I'm a Republican, not a racist!" -with a trippy space background. The third is a combination of the Cross, Crescent, and Star of David all filled in by the U.S. flag. It still needs work, but the idea was strong enough to put out there. I've recieved a comment already criticizing my inclusion of the Crescent, and I'm sure the Star of David being in the back will bother some. My thoughts are to overlap them in a surreal way, but I don't know when I'll get the time to work on it. It's not easy to force this stuff. That's why I'm not a political cartoonist, though I enjoy both writing about politics and drawing. It's never too late to start, though, so I'll keep posting whatever I come up with; writing, drawing, or a combination!

PS: I posted the links to these drawings here because they are political. Also, the LEAVART page is getting huge(long download time), and mostly filled with comic art and personal images. I have started grouping the comic art into "galleries" of links at NEXTLEAV, which I will update as I post new art.

Tuesday, March 29, 2005

JO HURT remembered on NEXTLEAV

On the personal side:

See artwork (from before I was born) of my mother (Jo Hurt 1924 - 1997) and listen to a clip of her singing at this NEXTLEAV post. She was great, and many people miss her.

Monday, March 28, 2005


I oppose the Federal Elections Commission's proposed regulation of blogs. To paraphrase Charleton Heston:

"If the FEC wants to take away my blog, they'll have to pry the computer from my cold, dead hands!"

'Nuff Said!

Saturday, March 26, 2005


Read JJ Monicelli's commment, and my original NEXTLEAV post HERE. My response, which was emailed to him, follows:

Dear JJ,
I am glad to appear as devoted to my beliefs as hopefully you are. I must question your point about "the ideology surrounding this administration and the political Right." If I am a devoted "Right Winger," why is it that I care about the air, earth and water around me just as much as you do? I believe that Pres. Bush is balancing the demands of the economy with progress far in excess of anything that the Left has come up with, especially unrealistic overregulation.

Pres. Bush's trip to Europe, and Condi's worldwide diplomatic offensive have actually been great successes! Far from "jamming our politics and religion down other people's faces," apparently Europe now thinks that Pres. Bush was right in liberating Iraq, and is willing to halt the proposed arms sales to China as well. This doesn't sound like "divisiveness" to me.

The Right is the new Progressive movement, and you're missing it. Pres. Bush is on the wrong side of several issues; campaign finance, border control/illegal immigration, among others. We "neocons," or "new conservatives" are mostly former Liberals who have been open to other points of view, and are used to disagreeing with some policies of the leadership.

The reason we claim superiority to your ideology is that we've lived it, learned it, and have seen it's fundamental flaws. What is dangerous is the manner in which left-wing ideas have corrupted our society, allowing children to assault teachers and others in schools with no penalty, among other things. The liberal judiciary is another easy target for the origins of ass-backwards policies/rulings that no representative government ever legislated.

"Fanatical" and "Zealous" can describe people of either political persuasion, as well as most sports fans.

About being neutral: Don't you think that Pres. Clinton was neutral all through the 1990's? Wasn't that the time that we were repeatedly attacked, culminating in 9/11? This is where neutrality got us. In the Left's eyes, this country deserves to be attacked, and can never make up for any injustice done in it's name over it's entire history. There is no "being neutral."

Isolationism is now preached by the Left, as evidenced by their opposition to NAFTA, GATT, and other free trade agreements. Protectionism is the province of political plunder by the Left primarily, playing to dying sectors of the economy. This has happened many times before, with the parties switched at times.

I don't want to see the end of Liberal ideology; otherwise, where would the next progressive wave come from? We need each other, though one ideology might be dominant at any given period of history. I was a loud and radical Leftie, and I now fight for the same goals from the Right! You guys are just losing political market share, and it must hurt! Remember, pain and hunger make for the best opinions, so you have something to draw on. We have an open society, and you could have a revolution a la Ukraine, or something! Oh, wait! We Righties supported that one!

COOL COMMENTS, thanks for contributing!

Suspicions Confirmed, but Some Bright Spots

It looks as if my suspicions were correct. While I have seen some wider reporting on the successful attack on the terrorists, it has already been eclipsed by the latest terrorist bombing in Iraq, which claimed 19 lives. I even caught the end of a report that said the veracity of the numbers killed last week is in question. It seems that only 7 Iraqi soldiers died, and somehow this ratio is unbelievable. Again, I only caught the end of the report from (I think?) BBC, and don't know who is "investigating" this. BBC doesn't mention this at all on the website, but reports about 70 MORE terrorists arrested separately in Mosul. I could have been watching Le Journal, or some other foreign news outlet.

Regarding the attack in which the majority of the terrorists were killed, Fox News reported that the local people tipped off the Iraqi army to the terrorist camp (though it's not in the partial transcript linked above). It looks to me like a situation where we caught these bastards with their pants down. Hopefully this story was more widely reported in Iraq, where it can inspire the people to emulate the example set by these Iraqis. Remember, the average people in Iraq outnumber the terrorists by a huge amount.. When they take a stand, and start to fight back, this result (85 terrorists vs. 7 Iraqi soldiers killed) will be as common as the suicide bombings are now. You heard it here first.

Links to the stories highlighted in green.

Wednesday, March 23, 2005

111 Terrorists Bite the Dust This Week

With the awful saga of Terri Schiavo unfolding, I thought I'd write about some deaths that we CAN celebrate. This, from the AP:

"BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) - U.S. and Iraqi forces raided a suspected guerrilla training camp and killed 85 fighters, the single biggest one-day death toll for militants in months and the latest in a series of blows to the insurgency, Iraqi officials said Wednesday.
The U.S. military announced late Tuesday that its air and ground forces backed Iraqi commandos during a noontime raid on the suspected training camp near Lake Tharthar in central Iraq. Seven commandos died in fighting, the U.S. military said. It did not give a death toll for the militants.
Iraqi officials said Wednesday 85 insurgents died in the clash _ the largest number killed in a single battle since the U.S. Marine-led November attack on the former militant stronghold of Fallujah left more than 1,000 dead. On Sunday, U.S. forces killed 26 attackers after an ambush south of Baghdad."

While I pray for a miracle to save Ms. Schiavo's life, I thank God for the deaths of so many who would kill innocents in Iraq. It's just a shame that the same government that is protecting innocent lives in Iraq is taking an innocet's life here at home.

PS: If over a hundred Iraqis or US troops were killed this week, it would've knocked the Schiavo story off the MSM's radar screen for a few days, at least. I have to see how widely the good news is reported before I go blaming it on media bias, but I have my suspicions.

Tuesday, March 22, 2005

Star Parker: Dems Want "Plantation Society"

Star Parker has a brilliant piece on Townhall today. She contrasts Pres. Bush's vision of an "ownership society" with what she calls the Democrats "plantation society... characterized by a wealthy class of owners who want to limit the choices, opportunities and freedom of working-class Americans. " I agree with her entirely, and am glad that she's put it out there in such blunt language. She makes several good points in support of this view, so please read the piece. It's linked above, as is her bio.

Monday, March 21, 2005


An interesting post on the Blogger Alliance wesite notes that the NY TIMES worries about the 15 percent of people who will not "maximize" their returns on their investments. I'm willing to bet that the lowest returns will be larger than what they would have gotten under Social Security. Further, our society will not let any senior starve if they don't build the same nest egg as their neighbor. Means testing is the solution that no-one wants to talk about yet. Anyway, here's the whole post, which I assume I can republish as a member of the "Alliance":

NY Times to Workers: “You’re Just Too Stupid to Manage Your Own Money!”

Did you see that the know-it-alls at the NY Times ran an article this morning headlined, “When It Comes to Managing Retirement, Many People Simply Can’t”?

While Ed Porter’s article actually does point out that most people who have invested in 401(k)’s or IRAs have done very well for themselves, the focus is on the fact that some people — 15 percent by the Times’ estimation — have not exactly maximized their returns or made the correct investment decisions 100% of the time.

The clear implication in the Times’ headline is that personal accounts are too “risky” because not everybody’s got a Harvard MBA. That we must protect the unwashed masses from themselves before they ruin their lives — or — perish the thought — prove that free markets operate more efficiently than huge government bureaucracies!


The NY Times and the liberal establishment just love to talk about how much they CARE about the little guy… but how much do they really TRUST the little guy?

--from CHRIS:
I hope you already know to believe the opposite of whatever the NY TIMES' editorial page says, if not everything in the damn rag. I have seen friends of mine espouse this same absurd theory verbatim. The fact is that the whole mainstream media (MSM) is fighting against the idea of private accounts, when they are the best way to secure our children's future. The plan is also a good deal for seniors if the President's promise to lock in the benefits for the over 55 crowd is adopted. The difference will add to the deficit, but in the long run it will save the econmy. This could be a model for future reforms of the medical system, oriented around the consumer instead of the bureaucracy, but that's another argument!


Friday, March 18, 2005


Regarding the so-called Nuclear Option coming to the US Senate, where the Republicans will be able to stop a filibuster of Pres. Bush's judicial nominees with 51 votes instead of the current number of 60, I had asked my buddy Rosemary from My Newz 'n Ideas if I could use this excerpt from a piece she posted:

"I also learned that it used to be 67 votes needed to break a filibuster. Apparently, one of our Democrat Senators was getting very frustrated because he couldn't get his bills passed, so he threatened to change the rules! He would settle for 60 votes if the Republicans agreed. Otherwise, he would change it to 50+1. Who was this, you ask? None other than Sen. Robert Byrd. This happened in the 70's."

As usual, her info was right on the money! Byrd was not alone among Dems when it came to threatening the same rule change they are now calling a "nuclear option." I received this from, written by Jeff Mazzella of the Center for Individual Freedom:

"The often hypocritical Senator Ted Kennedy recently issued an intense call defending the Democrats’ obstruction of President Bush's judicial nominees.

But what Senator Kennedy neglected to mention is that he voted in 1995 and in 1975 IN FAVOR of a Nuclear Option and called the filibuster, 'the shame of the Senate and the last resort of special interest groups.'

Senator Robert Byrd also railed against the Nuclear Option on the Senate Floor.

But -- just like Kennedy -- Byrd failed to mention that he led the charge in the Senate to stop filibuster tactics in 1977, 1979, 1980 and 1987.

You thing that is not really being mentioned in this debate is that the Nuclear Option is NOT A NEW IDEA.

In fact, Senate Democrats tried for years to implement the Nuclear Option REPEATEDLY, especially when they held the majority.


Truer words could not be said.

I wrote a post about the Dems' tactic of calling these judges extreme, and while they're still trying that, it's not flying. Now they've taken to calling this rules change the "nuclear" option. Could anyone come up with a more negative term for what is actually the "constitutional" option? Personally, I've been rooting for this since Pres. Bush's first term, knowing well that congressional Republicans didn't have the backbone for it. Now that it looks like they will do it, watch the Dems fall back to smearing these fine judicial nominees as racially insensitive homophobes that are against the environment. Rush Limbaugh pointed out those three smears are already being used today. That goes beyond the generic "extremist" label that I wrote about. The problem with doing this is that by making specific, absurd claims about people almost always backfires these days. The new media always get in the way by pointing out the facts. For instance: One of these nominees didn't want to bring his kids to Disneyland on "gay day." How many average Americans would? Or if they would, how many of them would hold against him the fact that he wouldn't? That's not homophobia, that's sheltering your children from things you don't want them to learn about yet. (I don't see gun owners railing about parents that don't teach their kids how to use a gun, calling them "ammophobes" or something.) Further, what does it have to do with his views on gays' civil rights? Do they think he will use his power to end "gay days" at Disneyland? Look at the man's record on the bench, or in other public policy positions if you want, but his parenting choices? I'll read up on these nominees as they go through the congressional grilling process, and will keep posting about it.

PS:A tip of the hat to My Newz 'n Ideas (thanks Rosemary), and to and Mr. Mazzella, though I admit that I rarely read anything but the columnists in Townhall's emails. Most of all, to Maha-Rushie, that well of conservative inspiration!

Wednesday, March 16, 2005

More Funny Stuff on PBS' NEWSHOUR

So I'm watching the NEWSHOUR on PBS again, and they're debating the new mercury regulations: a 70 percent reduction over the next 12 years of airborn emissions. One industry guy, one environmentalist. The enviro guy opens with how many babies will be at risk of "severe brain damage" if we don't do it sooner. The industry guy responds that while the companies that sell the "environmental" technology claim to be able to meet the goal now, they won't guarantee it on paper. He points out that if the technology isn't ready, as is his belief, that industry will have to cut production to meet the standards if enforced sooner. Here's what cracked me up: the enviro guy accuses the industry guy of using "scare tactics", then goes on about how a kid born today might not be able to develop a normal brain by the time the proposed standards take effect! To be fair to the NEWSHOUR, their moderator poked some holes in the enviro guy's logic, such as the fact that the mercury problem in fish won't be fixed by this, because most fish we eat are caught outside of the US. I believe that mercury contamination is a problem, but I see knowledge as the answer, not scare tactics. From what I understand, fish is the major source of mercury poisoning, and the fish industry is resisting labeling mercury content. A smart person would just cut down, or stop eating fish until the mercury content is available, whether done voluntarily by the industry or forced by law. I hope it doesn't end up in a class action suit against the "big fish" industry, but nothing would surprise me after hearing this enviro wacko on the NEWSHOUR. If half of what he alleged was true, we'd be a nation of idiots, which is what he seems to take us for!

MS 13: A National and Local Threat

This week's round-up of 130 members of the gang MS 13 is encouraging, but it only scratches the surface of the problem. This gang has infiltrated communities throughtout the country, often ignored by law enforcement. As Bill O'Reilly points out, many cities have rules against even asking a suspect if he is an illegal immigrant, though this contravenes federal law. Here on Long Island, 15 members were caught in Suffolk county, and they needed a joint task force with the feds to do that much. I didn't hear of any arrests in Nassau, where I live. Ask any local school teacher if MS 13 is active in this county, and you will hear the truth: this gang, and other "wannabe's" are experiencing a resurgence greater than anything seen before. A man who lives two blocks from me was shot dead in an MS 13 gang initiation while walking home from the train station. It turned out that they had assaulted several others that same night, but ended up shooting this man in front of his own house when he fought back too hard. Now it's reported that these same thugs that are recruiting kids from all over the country are involved in major arms smuggling, as well as smuggling non-Hispanic aliens into this country. The national security aspect of this should not be overlooked or underestimated. It's always some idiot who's just punching the clock while the bad guys conspire that lead to the worst events (see the Atlanta courthouse fiasco). I have faith in law enforcement, but am losing faith in the law, and the judicial system in general. The laws can be changed through the electoral process, eventually. Law enforcement can't have it's hands tied by laws that are passed to give criminals unconstitutional rights at the expense of the rest of society's right to safe streets. Let's hope that they continue to go after the MS 13 gang, and stop them not only from shooting people in our streets, but from bringing the next terrorist attackers into our country.

Monday, March 14, 2005

Tuesday, March 08, 2005


Dr. Walter E. Williams, guest hosting on the Rush Limbaugh show, made his usual great impact on me today with some comments on slavery as it exists today, in Niger, Sudan and other countries of North Africa. What sinks in the most is that I have to listen to the "right wing media" to hear about this abomination. The MSM has the occasional story about it, but this latest, the aborted "release" of 7,000 slaves, hasn't been out there. Luckily he links to the story on Mr. Limbaugh's website. Here are the relevant quotes:

"Timidria, a local human rights group, blamed government threats against local leaders for the absence of any slaves for liberation." ; "The government denied the charge. 'We're a state of rights, the government hasn't threatened anyone,' said Mallam Ari Boukar, an interior ministry official. A spokesman for the government's human rights commission, which had helped to organise the event, said the cancellation was because slavery did not exist."

Dr. Williams and his guest, Dr. Thomas Sowell, mentioned that slavery has been occurring in this reigon before Europe colonized America, and that US Marines went "to the shores of Tripoli" (from the USMC Hymn) to free Americans taken as slaves in the early 1800's. I think there were other motivations involved, but the point is that while slavery has been stamped out in much of the world, IT STILL EXISTS! Why don't the liberal groups that look for "reparations" for past slavery say ANYTHING about the heart of this institution as it exists TODAY!

I think this should be a "cause celebre" for the left, if they really cared about this violation of human rights. They should push for action from their friends in the "international community," though the UN and African response has been negligible so far. They might have trouble doing anything about any nation that is considered "equal" to all others under the UN Charter, even if it violates all the basic human rights of it's citizens. Especially when many African nations, and a large number of UN members are just as corrupt, repressive, and even tolerant of slavery as Mauritania, Niger and Sudan, the worst offenders mentioned in the article (linked in the title).

NY PRESS: HATE SPEECH against the POPE is OK, Parody of the NY POST is not

Editor & Publisher reports on the departure of the NY PRESS editor Jeff Koyen. He apparently quit after not accepting a two week suspension "in the aftermath of the paper’s controversial '52 Funniest Things About the Upcoming Death of the Pope' cover story." The piece, by the "E&P Staff," continues: "A comment from the publisher of New York Press, Chris Rohland, is included in a separate story on E&P Online. In it, he says that he vetted the Pope story before publication, and that the actual reason for the suspension stemmed from Koyen, against orders, running a parody of a New York Post cover (on the death of the Pope) on an inside page."
So let's get this straight: This guy Koyen got in trouble for running a parody of the NY Post, but NOT for allowing something that can only be described as "hate speech" dircted at the Pope. This is almost too easy a target, but the fact that he faced a suspension at all shows that some heat was coming down on the publisher. The demonizing of religion continues in the left wing press, but even those marginal outfits like the NY Press are feeling the shift in tolerance of their tired old hateful rhetoric.

Friday, March 04, 2005


The following is a letter I wrote to my elected representative, a Democrat:

Dear Connresswoman McCarthy,
Living on L.I, you must know how hard it is for young adults to start a family here compared to a generation ago. I am one of those caught in the crunch. Both of my parents are deceased, and I lost what money they left when my small business went under in 1992. I make around 30-40K a year now, but still can't put a dime away for retirement. When I look at the paltry amount contributed over my working years on my Social Security statement, I can only wish that it had been put into an interest generating account over those years. Can you understand how I can think of this as a crisis? Will you help me? Please allow me to have something more than what I have now, and let me reduce the future burden I would put on the government. I'm talking about private accounts. I know this is a hard sell to a Democrat representative, but I truly think this is the most progressive idea to help fix this problem. It's a complicated issue, and I have told my Democrat fiance that I would even support private accounts on top of SS. My only objection is that raising the SS tax may still be on the table, on top of the (voluntary) private account increase. If the SS surplus is just loaned to the general fund, all increasing the tax does in increase future debt to SS recipients. If I have a private account, I would also allow means testing to determine how much, if anything, I get from SS upon my retirement (though probably not too happy about it.) Please try to compromise with the Republicans, and help the people, including this constituent of yours.
Chris Leavitt
Lynbrook, N.Y.
PS; I am posting this on my blog, Please feel free to check it out, and again, please help.

Look, I know I might get some crap from people who think I "went soft" in allowing means testing and the whole idea of the "on top" (voluntary) tax for private accounts. Let's just say I offered those with consideration to "compromise", which is what I was asking more of from her side. Hopefully Democrat legislators around the country are getting large numbers of emails like this, and will start breaking to our side. I respect Rep. McCarthy, and hope that she reads my blog and reverts to her Republican roots. Hey, a NY Republican is practically a Democrat anyway! (Gov. Pa-TAX-i)!

Thursday, March 03, 2005

Blog Alliance for Social Security Reform

I don't like to jump on too many bandwagons, but I joined the Blog Alliance for Social Security Reform. This is a heated battle, and the Main Stream Media is pounding away daily against the idea of private accounts. You can hear people try to call it "giving money to Wall street fat cats" and other total rubbish. Another thing to watch is the call for increased Soc Sec taxes. If the current SS tax surplus gets spent on other things already, how will a tax increase save any money for the future debts we know are coming? The extra revenue will just be "loaned" to the government, mounting the debt even further. I pledge to keep posting about this until it either flies or dies. Meanwhile, go to the Blogger Alliance website and see some other good info on Social Security reform, and why we need it.

PS: I found them through Amy Ridenour's National Center Blog, a helluva blog! Check it out at

Wednesday, March 02, 2005


If the Dems keep painting some of Pres. Bush's judicial appointees as "extremist", the response ought to be "yeah, so?" Enough Americans know that the Judicial branch is already extremist, and needs some radical change. It's time for Republicans to stand up not only for the beliefs of the majority of their own party, but for the protection all Americans against judicial overreaching. Why can't we come out and say that yes, we want judges that think radically different than the majority of the current judiciary does? We have allowed the Dems to portray these judges as "extremist conservative activists," when the real judicial activism has come totally from the liberal side. I would go so far as to impeach any judge that cites any foreign law in their decision other than the British laws that preceded the Constitution as the law of this land. I also like Mark Levin's suggestion that a supermajority (2/3) vote of Congress should be able to overturn a Supreme Court decision. In the meantime, the judges that support limiting the power and purview of the judiciary are the kind of "extremists" we need more than ever.

Tuesday, March 01, 2005


The rise of the Wahhabi sect of Islam over the last decades is proving to be the largest threat facing the world today. It resembles both the Nazi and Communist threats in some ways, but differs signifigantly because it is a religious sect. This has disarmed traditional countermeasures in a society with religious protections such as ours. has just published a piece by Kamal Nawash called "Wake up call for my fellow Muslims," which shines a ray of hope toward this end. Most US citizens don't speak Arabic, and how many media outlets actually pay people to translate sermons themselves, or are too scared to look "anti-Muslim" to report what they find? Mr. Nawash makes a compelling argument for Muslims throughout the world to reject the Wahhabi teachings and other "extremist" beliefs. I've linked to the story in the title, and his Free Muslim Coalition website ( is excellent. This is a different conflict than anything the world has seen, and Muslims are the key players on both sides. It's good to see such high profile help from Muslims against terror attacks against the West. I look for world Muslim sentiment to flow towards support for the US if the recent reforms sweeping the Middle East take root, but I the piece!