1/31/2006
State of the Union — Live Blog
7:00 — The first lady has come into the gallery. She is beautiful and gracious as usual.
7:05 — Probably the biggest achievement of the last couple of years, newly sworn in Justice Sam Alito and the rest of the justices enter the chamber.
7:07 — Cindy Moonbat mom Sheehan was detained while trying to unfurl a banner in the gallery. Who’s guest was she?
7:08 — President enters, many left wing Dems (Shiela Jackson Lee) trying to get a photo - op with the President. Why?
7:10 — I hope he talks about securing the border, that seems to me to be the biggest issue we face right now.
7:11 — Great tribute to Coretta Scott King. Makes reference to a joyful reunion with MLK.
7:13 — Takes a stab at Dem anger. State of union is strong.
7:14 — Road to isolationism looks broad and inviting, but it won’t work.
7:14 — Reminds us of 9/11 and what we must do to win GWOT. Can’t back away.
7:16 — We’ve done a lot to spread freedom, but the job isn’t done yet.
7:17 — Calls Islam a noble faith. Hmmm, not in my opinion. More on that later.
7:18 — we love our freedom and we will fight to keep it. Cannot win by retreating. The attackers will not leave us alone. There is no peace in retreat, no honor in retreat. We will not retreat, will not surrender to evil.
7:19 — America rejects false comfort of isolationism.
7:20 — “killed and captured many of their leaders and for the rest their day will come”. Yes!!!
7:22 — Notes progress in Afghanistan and Iraq. In less than three years Iraq has gone from a brutal dictatorship to a sovereign nation.
7:23 — decision to bring troops home will be made by military leaders not by politicians in Washington. Dems sitting on their hands on this one.
7:25 — Ssg Dan Clay’s family gets a well deserved standing O. [ tried to find text of letter to family but couldn’t, I’ll try to post it later]
Here’s the text of the part of the letter referenced by the President:
Marine Staff Sergeant Dan Clay was killed last month fighting the enemy in Fallujah. He left behind a letter to his family, but his words could just as well be addressed to every American. Here is what Dan wrote: “I know what honor is. It has been an honor to protect and serve all of you. I faced death with the secure knowledge that you would not have to…. Never falter! Don’t hesitate to honor and support those of us who have the honor of protecting that which is worth protecting.”
Our soldiers get it, why can’t the Democrats get it?
7:28 — Hamas must reject terrorism, disarm, and work for a lasting peace.
7:30 — World must not permit Iran to get nuclear weapons. America hopes to one day be friends with a free and democratic Iran.
7:33 — reauthorize the Patriot Act, Hits on terrorist surveillance program. Covers his authority to do this. We will not sit back and wait to be hit again. Dems sitting no reaction other than Hillary who is shaking her head no. What an idiot [yeah, I know it’s strong language].
7:36 — Hillary looks like she’s swallowed a …. used cigar.
7:38 — America has created 4.6 million new jobs, more than Japan and EU combined.
7:40 — Immigrants not bad for exonomy… what? yes they are. No taxes, living off of our health system etc. President did not get this one right.
7:40 — Make tax cuts permanent. Good I hope they do although they will face stiff opposition from left.
7:41 — Pass line item veto. Good, but once again will face stiff opposition from left.
7:42 — Dems giving standing O to congress not working on social security. President says problem won’t go away. Create commission to examine effects of baby boomer retirement. Put aside partisan politics and work on it. Here’s the text:
Congress did not act last year on my proposal to save Social Security, yet the rising cost of entitlements is a problem that is not going away — and with every year we fail to act, the situation gets worse. So tonight, I ask you to join me in creating a commission to examine the full impact of Baby Boom retirements on Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. This commission should include Members of Congress of both parties, and offer bipartisan answers. We need to put aside partisan politics, work together, and get this problem solved.
7:45 — Need secure borders. Humane guest worker program.
7:46 — Calls for end of addiction to foreign oil.
7:50 — Gotta stop — hands are hurting bad. sorry. I’ll finish and catch up after the speech.
President Bush gave a big hello to Justice Sam Alito and Chief Justice Roberts. Like I said before, I think this is quite possibly the biggest accomplishments of the last couple of years.
A hopeful society depends on courts that deliver equal justice under law. The Supreme Court now has two superb new members, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Sam Alito. I thank the Senate for confirming both of them. And I will continue to nominate men and women who understand that judges must be servants of the law, and not legislate from the bench.
Over all a very good speech. I think he could have come out stronger on border security though.
The LA Times Eytan Gilboa makes the case that elections don’t make democracy. He uses the Palestinian elections as an example. He makes some good points, but over all he is wrong. Free elections do make up part of a democracy, but deeper core values of freedom for all people are the heart of a democracy.
My main point of contention with Professor Gilboa’s column is this; both the fledgling democracies in the middle east and the left in this country must learn that elections have consequences. Whether it be the ending of aid for the Palestinians or the appointment of Sam Alito to the Supreme Court. This is something that the left in our own country have struggled with for six years. Will the people of the middle east learn any quicker? we’ll see.
I thought that Justice O’Connor’s opinion on the Hamdi case might be useful in explaining the rights and powers of the President in wartime. I am not a lawyer, nor a constitutional scholar, but it seems clear that O’Connor’s opinion clearly confers upon the President the right to use any appropriate measures he see’s fit against the terrorists in the GWOT. Here is the relevant passage from the opinion.
The AUMF authorizes the President to use “all necessary and appropriate force” against “nations, organizations, or persons” associated with the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. 115 Stat. 224. There can be no doubt that individuals who fought against the United States in Afghanistan as part of the Taliban, an organization known to have supported the al Qaeda terrorist network responsible for those attacks, are individuals Congress sought to target in passing the AUMF.We conclude that detention of individuals falling into the limited category we are considering, for the duration of the particular conflict in which they were captured, is so fundamental and accepted an incident to war as to be an exercise of the “necessary and appropriate force” Congress has authorized the President to use.
The capture and detention of lawful combatants and the capture, detention, and trial of unlawful combatants, by “universal agreement and practice,” are “important incident[s] of war.” Ex parte Quirin, 317 U. S., at 28. The purpose of detention is to prevent captured individuals from returning to the field of battle and taking up arms once again. Naqvi, Doubtful Prisoner-of-War Status, 84 Int’l Rev. Red Cross 571, 572 (2002) (”[C]aptivity in war is ‘neither revenge, nor punishment, but solely protective custody, the only purpose of which is to prevent the prisoners of war from further participation in the war’ ” (quoting decision of Nuremberg Military Tribunal, reprinted in 41 Am. J. Int’l L. 172, 229 (1947)); W. Winthrop, Military Law and Precedents 788 (rev. 2d ed. 1920) (”The time has long passed when ‘no quarter’ was the rule on the battlefield … . It is now recognized that ‘Captivity is neither a punishment nor an act of vengeance,’ but ‘merely a temporary detention which is devoid of all penal character.’ … ‘A prisoner of war is no convict; his imprisonment is a simple war measure.’ ” (citations omitted); cf. In re Territo, 156 F. 2d 142, 145 (CA9 1946) (”The object of capture is to prevent the captured individual from serving the enemy. He is disarmed and from then on must be removed as completely as practicable from the front, treated humanely, and in time exchanged, repatriated, or otherwise released” (footnotes omitted)).
There is no bar to this Nation’s holding one of its own citizens as an enemy combatant. In Quirin, one of the detainees, Haupt, alleged that he was a naturalized United States citizen. 317 U. S., at 20. We held that “[c]itizens who associate themselves with the military arm of the enemy government, and with its aid, guidance and direction enter this country bent on hostile acts, are enemy belligerents within the meaning of … the law of war.” Id., at 37-38. While Haupt was tried for violations of the law of war, nothing in Quirin suggests that his citizenship would have precluded his mere detention for the duration of the relevant hostilities. See id., at 30-31. See also Lieber Code, ;153, Instructions for the Government of Armies of the United States in the Field, Gen. Order No. 100 (1863), reprinted in 2 Lieber, Miscellaneous Writings, p. 273 (contemplating, in code binding the Union Army during the Civil War, that “captured rebels” would be treated “as prisoners of war”). Nor can we see any reason for drawing such a line here. A citizen, no less than an alien, can be “part of or supporting forces hostile to the United States or coalition partners” and “engaged in an armed conflict against the United States,” Brief for Respondents 3; such a citizen, if released, would pose the same threat of returning to the front during the ongoing conflict.
In light of these principles, it is of no moment that the AUMF does not use specific language of detention. Because detention to prevent a combatant’s return to the battlefield is a fundamental incident of waging war, in permitting the use of “necessary and appropriate force,” Congress has clearly and unmistakably authorized detention in the narrow circumstances considered here.
But, as Hugh says; it doesn’t matter, the left has their script and they will keep reading from it.
Holtzman — Spradley, It’s Official
Well, it’s official. The Holtzman team has signed Lola Spradley for Lt. Governor.
DENVER - Former state Speaker of the House Lola Spradley will be Marc Holtzman’s running mate in his bid to be Colorado’s next governor.
Holtzman, who made the announcement Monday at the Colorado Legislature, said he wanted someone who could add character and energy to the ticket, and having Spradley as lieutenant governor would do just that.
“This is a partnership,” Holtzman said. “When we are elected, this is going to be the Colorado version of the Bush-Cheney partnership in every respect. That’s how we’re going to govern, that’s how we’re going to lead, and that’s the example we’re going to set.”
What a great choice! Holtzman and Spradley will make a great team to lead Colordo into the future.
1/27/2006
Let’s see what our “centrist” Democratic Senator is up to these days. From today’s Rocky Mountain News:
“There are members of the U.S. Supreme Court that I very much disagree with. Clarence Thomas, for example, I think is an abomination when you contrast him to the leadership and principles of someone like Thurgood Marshall. I’ve been in front of the court and I know the justices.”
Gee, with centrists like that, who needs left wing ideologues?
Hat Tip: Mount Virtus
1/25/2006
These “innocent” Iraqi’s were caught messing with a bunch of our troops. Gunships overhead took care of the payback. CAUTION — this video is graphic.
1/23/2006
Got a new game the other day to play on the PC. I’ve never been much of a gamer, but I must say this is cool:
2K Games’ turn-based strategy game based on hypothetical Second US Civil War now under way on Xbox, PC.
As polarized as political discourse in this country has grown in recent years, things could still be worse. Just look at the scenario at play in 2K Games’ Shattered Union for the PC and Xbox, which is now available at retail.
The Shattered Union plot begins in 2008 with a virtually tied US presidential election. The man who makes it in to the White House, by virtue of a Congressional decision, goes on to polarize the nation. Public protests lead to riots, which grow in to domestic terrorism. The president then declares martial law and establishes the Homeland Security Act; a Supreme Court ruling hands the unpopular incumbent the 2012 elections; and the 2013 inauguration party is certifiably pooped by a nuclear bomb detonating in Washington, DC. With the president and most of Congress dead, the country sinks in to chaos, and Texas and California secede. European peacekeepers sent to DC become embroiled in the fiasco, and the next thing you know, seven different factions are fighting for control of the United States.
Shattered Union comes from the strategy game developers at PopTop Software, veterans of the Railroad Tycoon series, as well as Tropico. PopTop took cues from the turn-based, hex-based gameplay of past strategy games and added in nonlinear missions, destructible environments, and multiplayer support both online and offline.
Shattered Union is rated T for Teen and retails for $29.99 on the PC and for $39.99 on the Xbox. For more on the game, check out GameSpot’s latest preview.
1/20/2006
Dems Neck Deep In Abramoff Scandal
One thing that the Democrats are oh so reluctant to admit is that they are neck deep in the Abramoff scandal as well. As a matter of fact, the Democrats darling senator Hillary Clinton has paid 35,000 in fines. From Yahoo news:
Campaign Finance: Nearly all Senate Democrats took money steered their way by Jack Abramoff, and Hillary Clinton’s fund raising committee has agreed to a $35,000 fine. Republicans aren’t the problem. The system is.
It’s absurdly hypocritical for Democrats to try to use the Abramoff scandal against Republicans. Any recent instance of Republicans playing fast and loose with campaign laws can be topped by a similar case on the part of prominent Democrats.
Sen. Clinton, for instance, was under investigation by the Federal Election Commission starting in 2001 for understating in-kind donations. Last week, The New York Sun reported that her “New York Senate 2000″ fund raising organization conceded the falsity of its campaign filings and agreed to pay a penalty of tens of thousands of dollars for underreporting donations.
But the scandal doesn’t end there either, Schumer (D), NY, failed presidential contender John Kerry, and Reid (D), NV are involved as well. From the same Yahoo News article:
Then there’s Sen. Charles Schumer (news, bio, voting record), head of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) no less, who in 2003 quietly paid a $130,000 FEC fine, plus $120,000 in refunds to 77 donors, for violations by his 1998 campaign. But with a $26 million war chest and facing an unknown, cash-strapped GOP challenger, it was hardly a bump on the road in Schumer’s 2004 re-election. He got 72% of New Yorkers’ votes.
The DSCC and Hillary’s campaign jointly set up the New York Senate 2000 committee for the express purpose of bypassing the $2,000 limit on contributions from individuals. It’s that phony limit that empowers the likes of Abramoff, whose clients and associates gave Sen. John Kerry close to $100,000, according to the National Republican Senatorial Committee.
Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid apparently got nearly $70,000 from Abramoff sources, and Schumer himself benefited to the tune of nearly $30,000. All but five Democratic senators have taken Abramoff cash, says the NRSC.
In fact, the Abramoff scandal reaches even the fringes of the Democratic party by including it’s most strident member Charley Rangel. So it’s not just a Republican culture of corruption. The entire system is broken, and the only way I know of to fix it is to put people in office that are willing to do the work of the people instead of the work of the lobbyists. In the meantime, a word of advice to Democrats who want to make a partisan issue of this: physician, heal thyself!
1/19/2006
He said when he was running that he wasn’t going to play partisan games. He said that he would do what’s in the best interest of the country and Colorado. I guess that’s another broken campaign promise. Here’s a statement from Mike Norton about Salazar’s vote on Alito:
“While I am disappointed in Senator Salazar’s decision to vote “no†on Judge Samuel Alito’s nomination to the United States Supreme Court, I am gratified that, at least, Senator Salazar is willing to give Judge Alito an “up or down†vote in the Senate. It is no surprise, however, that Sen. Salazar has surrendered to the pressure of the extreme left wing of the Democratic Party, including Howard Dean and a host of liberal special interest groups who have put petty partisan politics over the best interests of the Nation..
We had hoped he would have sided with reasonable Democrats, like Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska, and apolitical legal organizations, like the American Bar Association. Sadly, he has again proven that he is incapable of ignoring partisan pressures and of supporting a clearly well-qualified judicial nominee, even when his home state newspapers, including the Denver Post, Pueblo Chieftain, Rocky Mountain News and the Grand Junction Sentinel have endorsed Judge Alito’s nomination.
It is disappointing that Senator Salazar has made this partisan political statement by his vote. Our Nation’s Judiciary and the people of Colorado deserve better.â€
Of course anyone who knows Colorado knows that the Rocky is hardly a conservative paper. So, when they endorse Alito it tells me that Salazar’s the one out on a limb.
Speeking of Colorado politics, Bob Beauprez has given up his seat in congress as well as his position on the influential Ways and Means committee to run for the Governor of Colorado. This is truly a disappointment. This seat has long been in jeopardy of going to a Democrat and now as the Rocky editorial says; “poof, now it’s gone”. One question for Mr. Beauprez; if another better political opportunity comes up will you abandon Colorado and it’s Republican voters again to better your position?
Now, I don’t agree with the rocky editorial on everything. As a matter of fact I’m adamantly against C & D. I think it was a horrible mistake for any republican to endorse a plan that was contrived by tax and spend liberals. But, what the heck, a lot of our Republican leadership has seemed to have lost their way in the wake of the post 9-11 spending spree. Holtzman seems to have stayed constant in his stand against reckless spending.
1/17/2006
Put That On My Never Again List
This last June, while I was in the hospital I watched Silence of the Lambs. Actually, I didn’t watch it. One of the nurses turned on the TV for me to have something to stare at ( I was still heavily medicated and coming out of a drug induced coma). This is a freaky movie under the best of circumstances. So, here’s the never again part; during the month of May and the first part of June, I was under anesthesia. When Silence of the Lambs came on I was just coming out of the anesthesia (drug induced coma) and was still heavily medicated and in that realm where everything is real, but yet nothing is real. This made the movie particularly frightening, I am still having nightmares (wich explains this late — for me anyway — post). The moral of the story; if you ever find yourself in the hospital heavily medicated stay away from horror films!
1/16/2006
The NYT published this photo on it’s front page (on the website) claiming that it was a rocket fired by a US UAV earlier this week in an attempt to take out AQ’s #2 man. After much reviewing by the new media (not the Times editors) it turns out there’s no way that it could have been a rocket. It’s an artillary shell fired by who knows, could be the Soviets, Brits, or even us at the beggining of OEF. The article, of course, tries it’s best to make the reader feel sorry for the Pakistanis who have to deal with the incompetent Americans. Nice try though, next time you stage a photo at least try to use the right ordinance. Here’s American Thinker’s take on the fake:
Is a fake staged photo fit to print? What if it staged in a way that makes the US forces fighting the War on Terror look cruel and ineffective? The evidence argues that yes, it can run, and in a prominent position - at least in the case of the New York Times website.
It appears that the Times, once-upon-a-time regarded as the last word in reliability when it comes to checking before publishing (which makes them so much better than blogs, of course), has run a fake photo on the home page of its website. The photo has since been removed from the home page, but still can be seen here.
The picture shows a sad little boy, with a turbaned man next to him, a little bit further from the camera, amid the ruins of a house. Other men and boys peer in from the background. The photo is captioned
“Pakistani men with the remains of a missile fired at a house in the Bajur tribal zone near the Afghan border.â€
The story it accompanies is about the apparently failed attempt to take out al Qaeda’s #2 man al Zawahiri, with a missile attack from a Predator drone.
“How sad!†readers are encouraged to think. “These poor people are on the receiving end of awful weapons used by the clumsy minions of Bush. And all to no avail. Isn’t it terrible? Why must America do such horrible misdeeds? Bush must go!â€
The only problem is that the long cylindrical item with a conical tip pictured with the boy and the man is not a missile at all. It is an old artillery shell. Not something that would have been fired from a Predator. Indeed, something that must have been found elsewhere and posed with the ruins and the little boy as a means at pulling of the heartstrings of the gullible readers of the New York Times.
Later in the article military technology expert Ned Barnett takes the photo and story apart:
“Based on my extensive experience in researching military technology, I can verify that this is a 152mm or 155mm artillery shell – unfired – and by the looks of it, fairly old. It also looks like it has a fuse in it, suggesting that the guys in the photo are either ditch-water dumb or have a death-wish.
“At a glance, it’s hard to tell the exact caliber – 152mm or 155mm (they’re so close) but the Soviets tended to favor 152 (going back to WW-II) while we and the Brits, the French and most of the rest of the non-Soviet world (including, oddly, the PRC) preferred the 155. For all intents and purposes, they were functionally identical (but were not interchangeable). In caliber, this is also virtually identical to Naval 6†rounds (routinely used by the Brits, the Imperial Japanese Navy and the USN), but of course, it’s unlikely that the Pakistanis would unearth a Naval round not widely used since Vietnam (much more common in WW-I and WW-II) hundreds of miles from the nearest salt water.
“These shells could fire high explosive (HP), chemical white smoke (white phosphorous – aka “Willie Pete†– a smoke-producing shell that’s also hideous if you get the WP on you, as it burns on contact with air and nothing much will put it out), armor-piercing and semi-armor piercing – even poison gas (there’s much evidence that Saddam used French 155 shells for poison gas purposes against the Kurds, and possibly the Iranians). They are very common, and have been so since WW-I. They remain common throughout the world as one of the “standard†artillery sizes. To me, this looks like a HP shell, but the proof would come in interpreting the markings (that yellow band, plus stenciling).
“Small-caliber artillery comes in a casing with the propellant and shell in the same package – like a very large rifle bullet – but larger artillery has the shell (seen in the photo) packed separately from the propellant charge (which is generally in silk bags or other combustible containers). Rockets of all calibers also have integral propellant. The pictured shell does not have integral propellant, so it couldn’t possibly be a rocket (by the way, the standard ex-Soviet rocket caliber was 122mm – noticeably smaller than this puppy).
“Just as this one does, all artillery shells have markings (usually colored bands) which show the cannon-cockers at a glance what kind of shell they’re loading (blue for practice, other colors for different types of “live†shells). Somewhere I have an old standard reference on Soviet markings (and another on standard US markings), but they’re buried in my library, so I can’t immediately ID who made this shell.
“The make, however, is immaterial. The 152/155mm artillery shell has been in common, world-wide distribution since at least 1918. While it doesn’t look old enough to be of even WW-II vintage, that’s no guarantee. When it comes to artillery shells, most countries are pack-rats. At the time of their fall, the Soviets still had stockpiles of WW-II era shells, and they worked. (In Vietnam, most of the bombs we dropped from airplanes had been manufactured in ‘41-’45.) They don’t wear out, and as long as the fuses are live, most of the shells will be, too.
“Bottom line: the “provenance†of this shell, given it’s location in the world, could be Soviet (or ex-Soviet), [PRC] Chinese, British, French, American, NATO, Yugoslavian, Warsaw Pact (Czech, most likely, if WarPac), or as a long shot, potentially (though unlikely) even Imperial Japanese. In short, absent a manual on color-bands and a close look at stenciling, there’s no way to tell who made the damned thing. Nor is it important.
“The New York Times claim that it was the remains of a rocket is nonsense. Rockets are frail, light-weight, flimsy things (for obvious reasons). Artillery shells are robust, mostly cast steel (the explosive weight is really rather small considering the overall weight of the shell), again for obvious reasons. Take a look yourself. In addition, artillery shells have bands that grab onto the rifling of the cannon barrel – this is obvious (the lower segmented brass-over-white-paint band) on the shell in this photo. Rockets do not have this, as they use fins or directional exhaust nozzles to spin-stabilize themselves.â€
The Times used to be the paper of record. But, because of their constant spinning of the news, the damaging of our national security (James Risen), and their left wing extremist editorial page (MoDo, Paul Krugman, Bob Herbert), their credibility is lost. The paper of record has indeed become the left’s propaganda machine. Now, with the NYT, the LAT, and others suffering subscription losses and the loss of credibility who will step in and take their place? What will they need to do to win the public’s trust?
1/14/2006
The weekly standard’s William Tucker has a great piece on the Doe v. Groody case that the Democrats made such a big deal out of last week. Doe v. Groody was the case involving the search of a ten year old girl. Here’s the key graph from Tucker’s article:
What Doe v. Groody proves is that, despite the Supreme Court’s intentions, there are still lots of federal judges out there eager to use hair-splitting technicalities to achieve the results they desire. In this case, the majority was obviously repelled by the idea of a full-body search of a minor–a perfectly understandable response. What it didn’t seem to mind was that, because of its decision, a small Pennsylvania town was forced to pay a six-figure damage settlement to its local speed freak. Alito, for his part, was also displeased with the search. As he said in last week’s hearings, “I wasn’t happy that a 10-year-old was searched. Now, there wasn’t any claim in this case that the search was carried out in any sort of abusive fashion. . . . I don’t think there should be a Fourth Amendment rule . . . that minors can never be searched. Because if we had a rule like that, then where would drug dealers hide their drugs?” In the end, though, Alito correctly understood the Supreme Court precedent that applied in the case.
It will be nice to have another justice on the Supreme Court who can put aside personal predilections and stick to interpreting the law.
Go read the whole thing.
Robertson a Right Wing Ayatollah?
Austin bay makes a good point about how heated rhetoric without reflection can cause problems. Although, I believe calling Pat Robertson a right wing ayatollah makes Bay just as guilty of heated rhetoric without reflection. Don’t misunderstand me, what Robertson said was horrible and inexcusable, but the man is hardly comparable to the islamofacist ayatollahs of the Muslim world.
Take the Rev. Pat Robertson as a recent example of “failure to reflect.” When Robertson said that Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon’s tragic stroke might be a divine rebuke for “dividing God’s land,” a wave of deserved scorn and ridicule swamped the silly man. The White House and The New York Times blasted Robertson, a right-left political condemnation of a right-wing ayatollah.
1/13/2006
The American Thinker reminds us that the Times and Democrats are guilty of selective amnesia in the NSA wiretapping issue. During the Clinton years the administration and the NSA used a program codenamed Echelon to spy on virtually everyone, especially political enemies and US businesses. Why then are the Times and the crusty old Democrat windbags on the hill making such noise about the select wiretapping of people intent on perpetrating another 9/11 on our country or it’s intrests? Simply put — for political gain. I have said many times that the Democrats both on the hill and the media — most notably the traitors on west 47th — are so intent on bringing down the Bush administration that they are willing to jeopardize as many of our countrymen as neccessary to do the job. Here’s a couple of relavant quotes from the American Thinker article:
The controversy following revelations that U.S. intelligence agencies have monitored suspected terrorist related communications since 9/11 reflects a severe case of selective amnesia by the New York Times and other media opponents of President Bush. They certainly didn’t show the same outrage when a much more invasive and indiscriminate domestic surveillance program came to light during the Clinton administration in the 1990’s. At that time, the Times called the surveillance “a necessity.â€
“If you made a phone call today or sent an e-mail to a friend, there’s a good chance what you said or wrote was captured and screened by the country’s largest intelligence agency.†(Steve Kroft, CBS’ 60 Minutes)
Those words were aired on February 27, 2000 to describe the National Security Agency and an electronic surveillance program called Echelon whose mission, according to Kroft,
“is to eavesdrop on enemies of the state: foreign countries, terrorist groups and drug cartels. But in the process, Echelon’s computers capture virtually every electronic conversation around the world.â€
Echelon was, or is (its existence has been under-reported in the American media), an electronic eavesdropping program conducted by the United States and a few select allies such as the United Kingdom.
Tellingly, the existence of the program was confirmed not by the New York Times or the Washington Post or by any other American media outlet – these were the Clinton years, after all, and the American media generally treats Democrat administrations far more gently than Republican administrations – but by an Australian government official in a statement made to an Australian television news show.
The Times actually defended the existence of Echelon when it reported on the program following the Australians’ revelations.
“Few dispute the necessity of a system like Echelon to apprehend foreign spies, drug traffickers and terrorists….â€
And the Times article quoted an N.S.A. official in assuring readers
“…that all Agency activities are conducted in accordance with the highest constitutional, legal and ethical standards.â€
Of course, that was on May 27, 1999 and Bill Clinton, not George W. Bush, was president.
Later in the article:
Despite the Times’ reluctance to emphasize those concerns, one of the sources used in that same article, Patrick Poole, a lecturer in government and economics at Bannock Burn College in Franklin, Tenn., had already concluded in a study cited by the Times story that the program had been abused in both ways.
“ECHELON is also being used for purposes well outside its original mission. The regular discovery of domestic surveillance targeted at American civilians for reasons of ‘unpopular’ political affiliation or for no probable cause at all… What was once designed to target a select list of communist countries and terrorist states is now indiscriminately directed against virtually every citizen in the world,†Poole concluded.
The Times article also referenced a European Union report on Echelon. The report was conducted after E.U. members became concerned that their citizens’ rights may have been violated. One of the revelations of that study was that the N.S.A. used partner countries’ intelligence agencies to routinely circumvent legal restrictions against domestic spying.
“For example, [author Nicky] Hager has described how New Zealand officials were instructed to remove the names of identifiable UKUSA citizens or companies from their reports, inserting instead words such as ‘a Canadian citizen’ or ‘a US company’. British Comint [Communications intelligence] staff have described following similar procedures in respect of US citizens following the introduction of legislation to limit NSA’s domestic intelligence activities in 1978.â€
Further, the E.U. report concluded that intelligence agencies did not feel particularly constrained by legal restrictions requiring search warrants.
“Comint agencies conduct broad international communications ‘trawling’ activities, and operate under general warrants. Such operations do not require or even suppose that the parties they intercept are criminals.â€
I can abide many things, but endangering our country for petty political motives is one thing I will not tolerate. I am committing to do everything in my power to shed light on the shenanigans of the idiotic left and the complicint MSM.
1/12/2006
Kennedy Belongs to Sexist and Elitist Club
According to information revealed in the Washington Times, Ted Kennedy — most recently famous for making women cry — belongs to a Harvard University club known for being sexist and elitist. I wonder when he’ll be called before a panel of rabid Democrats to be questioned about his membership.
Sen. Edward M. Kennedy belongs to a social club for Harvard students and alumni that was evicted from campus nearly 20 years ago after refusing to allow female members.
According to the online membership directory of the Owl Club, the Massachusetts Democrat updated his personal information — including the address of his home that is in his wife’s name — on Sept. 7.
The club has long been reviled on campus as “sexist” and “elitist” and, in 1984, was booted from the university for violating federal anti-discrimination laws, authored by Mr. Kennedy.
Oh sweet irony!
1/11/2006
Of course, Kos and Atrios are making a lot of noise about this poll. What they don’t tell you though is that the sample broke down like this; Dem:32% Repub:28%. I would hardly consider that representative of the breakdown of Americans, especially after the results of the last election where Bush won with the largest margin in recent Presidential election history — an advantage of 3.3 million votes.
Also, Some of the questions were very misleading in the way they were asked. For instance, here’s how they asked the question relating to the NSA wiretapping story that’s been in the news:
Do you think it is generally right or generally wrong for the government to monitor telephone and e-mail communications of Americans suspected of having terrorist ties without first obtaining permission from the courts?
Like I said, extremely misleading. They fail to give the whole story of what’s gone on. First of all, the NSA is only listening to overseas phone calls. Secondly, from what I understand it’s not suspected ties we’re talking about, we’re talking about definite ties. They also don’t bother to tell the person they’re asking this question of that it’s debatable whether or not they even needed a FISA warrant. In addition to that, the Bush administration did go to the FISA court and the court threw up roadblock after roadblock.
Someone should really tell the Kos kids and Atrios to not get so excited about a poll that’s so slanted in their favor.
Disgusting School Yard Bully Behavior
Thanks to the Democrats school yard bully behavior — Ted Kennedy being the chief instigator — Martha Alito left the hearing room in tears today. I don’t even know Alito and I’ve had enough of their disgusting behavior.
ALITO WIFE LEAVES HEARING IN TEARS AFTER DEM ATTACK
Wed Jan 11 2006 17:22:11 ET**Exclusive**
Judge Samuel A. Alito’s wife Martha left the confirmation hearing room in tears this evening, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned.
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) apologized to the Judge’s family for the behavior of his fellow committee members during the course of the last three days.
Sen. Graham said: “Judge Alito, I am sorry that you’ve had to go through this. I am sorry that your family has had to sit here and listen to this.â€
Democrats on the Judiciary Committee have attacked Judge Samuel A. Alito over his membership in Concerned Alumni of Princeton and his involvement in the Vanguard case.
One senior Republican in the hearing room said of the situation: “After three full days of attacks against her husband’s character, Mrs. Alito had enough. Democrat behavior during this hearing has not only been wrong, it’s been embarrassing. Ted Kennedy is nothing but a bully.â€
All of this because they don’t like George Bush.
Massachusets Should Be Ashamed
People of Massachusetts, how can you justify sending someone like this back to Washington time and time again. I mean, really, he is an embarrassment not only to your state, but to our country as well. Holding a nominee responsible for statements made in magazines that he may or may not have read? Smearing a good man for doing nothing other than devoting his life to public service? Please!
Do all of us all a favor; recall him from Washington, and put him away somewhere where no one will have to listen to his mindless bloviating ever again.
KENNEDY: So, I want to ask a few things that I hope can clear this up. You have no memory of being a member. You graduated from Princeton in 1972, the same year CAP was founded.
KENNEDY: You called CAP a conservative alumni group. It also published a publication called Prospect, which includes articles by CAP members about the policies that the organization promoted. You’re familiar with that?
ALITO: I don’t recall seeing the magazine. I might have seen…
KENNEDY: Did you know that they had a magazine?
ALITO: I’ve learned of that in recent weeks.
KENNEDY: So a 1983 Prospect essay titled In Defense of Elitism, stated, quote, People nowadays just don’t seem to know their place. Everywhere one turns, blacks and Hispanics are demanding jobs simply because they’re black and Hispanic. The physically handicapped are trying to gain equal representation in professional sports. And homosexuals are demanding the government vouchsafe them the right to bear children.
Did you read that article?
FEINSTEIN: Finish the last line.
KENNEDY: Finish the last line — is, and homosexuals are…
FEINSTEIN: No, And now here come women.
KENNEDY: If the senator will let me just…
FEINSTEIN: Yes, I will…
(LAUGHTER)
KENNEDY: Can I get two more minutes from my friend from…
(LAUGHTER)
Just to continue along. I apologize, Judge. Did you read this article?
ALITO: I feel confident that I didn’t. I’m not familiar with the article, and I don’t know the context in which those things were said. But they are antithetical…
KENNEDY: Well, could you think of any context that they could be…
ALITO: Hard to imagine. If that’s what anybody was endorsing, I disagree with all of that. I would never endorse it. I never have endorsed it. Had I thought that that’s what this organization stood for I would never associate myself with it in any way.
KENNEDY: The June ‘84 edition of Prospect magazine contains a short article on AIDS. I know that we’ve come a long way since then in our understanding of the disease, but even for that time the insensitivity of statements in this article are breathtaking. It announces that a team of doctors has found the AIDS virus in the rhesus monkeys was similar to the virus occurring in human beings.
KENNEDY: And the article then goes on with this terrible statement: Now that the scientists must find humans, or rather homosexuals, to submit themselves to experimental treatment. Perhaps Princeton’s Gay Alliance may want to hold an election.
You didn’t read that article?
ALITO: I feel confident that I didn’t, Senator, because I would not have anything to do with statements of that nature.
KENNEDY: In 1973, a year after you graduated, and during your first year at Yale Law School, former Senator Bill Bradley very publicly disassociated himself with CAP because of its right-wing views and unsupported allegations about the university. His letter of resignation was published in The Prospect; garnered much attention on campus and among the alumni. Were you aware of that at the time that you listed the organization in your application?
ALITO: I don’t think I was aware of that until recent weeks when I was informed of it.
KENNEDY: And in 1974, an alumni panel including now-Senator Frist unanimously concluded that CAP had presented a distorted, narrow, hostile view of the university. Were you aware of that at the time of the job application?
ALITO: I was not aware of that until very recently.
KENNEDY: In 1980, the New York Times article about the coeducation of Princeton, CAP is described as an organization against the admittance of women. In 1980, you were working as an assistant U.S. attorney in Trenton, New Jersey.
KENNEDY: Did you read the New York Times? Did you see this article?
ALITO: I don’t believe that I saw the article.
KENNEDY: And did you read a letter from CAP mailed in 1984 — this is the year before you put CAP on your application — to every living alumni — to every living alumni, so I assume you received it — which declared: Princeton is no longer the university you knew it to be.
As evidence, among other reasons, it cited the fact that admission rates for African-Americans and Hispanics were on the rise, while those of alumni children were failing and Princeton’s president at a time urged that the then all-male eating clubs to admit females.
And in December 1984, President William Bowen responded by sending his own letter. This is the president of Princeton responded by sending his own letter to all of the alumni in which he called CAP’s letter callous and outrageous.
This letter was the subject of a January 1985 Wall Street Journal editorial congratulating President Bowen for engaging his critics in a free and open debate.
This would be right about the time that you told Senator Kyl you probably joined the organization.
Did you receive the Bowen letter or did you read the Wall Street Journal, which was pretty familiar reading for certainly a lot of people that were in the Reagan administration?
ALITO: Senator, I’ve testified to everything that I can recall relating to this, and I do not recall knowing any of these things about the organization. And many of the things that you’ve mentioned are things that I have always stood against. In your description of the letter that prompted President Bowen’s letter, there’s talk about returning the Princeton that used to be. There’s talk about eating clubs, about all-male eating clubs. There’s talk about the admission of alumni children. There’s opposition to opening up the admissions process. None of that is something that I would identify with.
I was not the son of an alumnus. I was not a member of an eating club. I was not a member of an eating facility that was selective. I was not a member of an all-male eating facility. And I would not have identified with any of that.
If I had received any information at any point regarding any of the matters that you have referred to in relation to this organization, I would never have had anything to do with it.
KENNEDY: You think these are conservative views?
ALITO: Senator, whatever I knew about this organization in 1985, I identified as conservative. I don’t identify those views as conservative.
What I do recall as an issue that bothered me in relation to the Princeton administration as an undergraduate and continuing into the 1980s was their treatment of the ROTC unit and their general attitude toward the military, which they did not treat with the respect that I thought was deserving. The idea of that it was beneath Princeton to have an ROTC unit on campus was an offensive idea to me.
KENNEDY: Just moving on, you mentioned — and I only have a few minutes left — you joined CAP because of your concern about keeping ROTC on campus. ROTC was a fairly contentious issue on Princeton campus in the early 1970s. The program was slated to be terminated in 1970, when you were an undergraduate. By 1973, one year after you graduated, ROTC had returned to campus and was no longer a source of debate.
And from what I can tell, by 1985, it was basically a dead issue. In fact, my staff reviewed the editions of Prospects from 1983 to 1985 and can only find one mention of ROTC. And it appears in a 1985 issue released for homecoming that year that says: ROTC is popular once again. Here’s the Prospect, 1985: ROTC is popular again. This is just about the time that you were submitting this organization in your job application.
ALITO: Senator, if I…
KENNEDY: So…
ALITO: I’m sorry.
KENNEDY: But the — briefly, please.
ALITO: It’s my recollection that this was a continuing source of controversy. There were people on the campus — members of the faculty, as I recall — who wanted the unit removed from the campus. There was certainly controversy about whether students could get credit for courses, which I believe was a military requirement for the maintenance of the unit.
There was controversy, as I recall, about the status of the instructors; whether they could be given any kind of a status in relation to the faculty. I don’t know the exact dates, but it’s my recollection that this was a continuing source of controversy.
KENNEDY: Well, Mr. Chairman, my time is running out. I had wanted to just wind up on a few more brief questions on this. But I have to say that Judge Alito — that his explanations about the membership in this, sort of, radical group, and why you listed it on your job application, are extremely troubling. And, in fact, I don’t think that they add up.
Transcript from Captain’s Quarters
1/10/2006
One of the joys of driving a tractor trailer over the road was all of the great places I got to visit and all the great sights I’ve gotten to see. Thanks to our own Richie D. I get to show you every where I’ve been. I never got to Alaska or Vermont. Vermont had some really ridiculous rules for getting a truck into the state. You had to stop at the weigh station and buy a permit. Of course, I never got to Hawaii either because — you know — those things just don’t float very well.
create your own personalized map of the USA
or check out ourCalifornia travel guide
In eight years I visited big cities like New York city and small towns like Dumas Texas. What a job, I got paid to be a tourist. The only bad part about it was sometimes the schedule was really tight and I was just as likely to be working at 2 am as I was to be working at two in the afternoon. That, in fact, was what got me so worn down that I got sick. I’ve learned an important lesson though — never let work rule your life. I failed to get my priorities right. I let work get to the point where it was all important. I gave up family (I would come home for Christmas — get home on Dec. 24th in the afternoon and I would go back out Christmas evening). I gave up church, I didn’t have time for it, I had to stay on the road. I gave up my own health and safety, I would wake up early in the morning and get right on the road. I would drive, unload and reload then drive some more — many times until very late at night… maybe even into the early morning. It wasn’t unusual to have twenty to twenty two hour days. I realized while laying in bed in the hospital having a machine breath for me that I had really screwed up my life. I had let work, achievement, and money become my god. I realize now that there can only be one God, and that’s Jesus Christ.
Oh yeah, I’ve been here too.
create your own personalized map of Canada
or check out ourVancouver travel guide
Joe Biden: Sexist and Homophobic?
Ok, a little over a year ago Joe Biden showed up at Princeton to give a speech. He repeatedly praised Princeton and said he wished that he had gone there. On top of that, he maid some really creepy remarks about a young woman he and his son met while 0n a tour. One remark was about how attractive she was, the other was a weird reference about how he would be worried if his son wasn’t attracted to her. Senator Biden, if you are so pro-homosexual why on earth would you be worried if your son wasn’t attracted to her? Here is a partial transcript of the speech he gave at Princeton.
JB: It’s an honor to be here. It would have even been a greater honor to have gone here. I have three children who have mercifully have all finally completed undergraduate and graduate school, and I tried to get all three of them to apply here…I committed a serious mistake, Dean. I’ve learned now, any advice I give…when you become parents, whatever school you want your child to go to, don’t mention it. And so I had been pushing Princeton, and this magnificently attractive, intellectually and physically, beautiful young girl, was a sophomore, was showing us around, and I figured we’ve got a lock now. My son is going to really be interested, and I know Senators aren’t supposed to say things like that, but if he hadn’t been interested, I would have been worried…
Today — like his Presidential wanna be John Kerry — he flip-flopped and was very clear that he didn’t like Princeton. Here’s the text:
JB: This is just by way of…you know, why some of us are puzzled, because if I was aware of it, and I didn’t even like Princeton…No, I mean I really didn’t like Princeton (laughing). Yeah, I was an Irish-Catholic kid who thought it hadn’t changed like you concluded it had. I mean, I admit. I have little…you know, one of my real dilemmas is I have two kids who went to Ivy League schools. I’m not sure my grandfather, Finnegan, will ever forgive me for allowing that to happen. But all kidding aside, I wasn’t a big Princeton fan.
Joe Biden was a Princeton fan before he wasn’t… Heh. Oh, by the way, courtesy of Radio Blogger here’s the Joe Biden Princeton waffle compilation.
Much has been said today about a case that Judge Alito ruled on; Doe v. Groody. In this case the parents were suing the local police force for strip searching their ten year old daughter and the mother of the ten year old. I am not a lawyer, however it looks to me that no matter how detestable the search might have been the police were well within their rights to search the young girl. Factcheck.org has the background on the case.
Police filed a warrant for the search of all occupants of the residence on the basis of information from an informant that said that the couple often hid the drugs in an area on the body that would necessitate a strip search (use your imagination). According to Alito and other attorneys the basis for the decision was that when deciding whether or not this was a legal search the judge must consider the common sense meaning of the text in the warrant. In other words; cops aren’t attorneys and they are often under time constraints in order to act on the tips given to them by informants therefore warrants are written in common sense language and do not contain the tortured legal language so often used by attorneys.
One important fact that the Democrats and the liberal coalition IndependentCourt.org left out of their criticism of Alito’s decision in this case was that both the girl and the mother were searched by female police officers in a professional manner.
I expect liberal groups such as planned parenthood, Moveon.org, and Independentcourt.org to use whatever tactics they have to to shoot down Alito and the Bush administration. They don’t want to have a discussion of the facts or a reasonable debate on the direction the judiciary should take in the next fifty years. If they did, they would include all of the information regarding the case. However, it’s depressing that their hatred of George Bush would drive them to be so intellectually dishonest. With half truths like this we’ll never have an honest debate of the future of not only the judiciary, and the GWOT, but the future of our country.
1/6/2006
I’ve posted on these people before. But, now they’ve decided to protest the funerals of the twelve miners that died in West Virginia. I want to make one thing very clear; these people do not represent Christianity. Their brand of hatred is evil and should be shunned.
1/5/2006
In the NYT today under a section called “Editors’ note” Katharine Seelye tries to stop the bleeding. In a story called “A night for ‘Stop the presses!’ Katharine tries to explain what went wrong the night before last when many papers published headlines exclaiming that twelve of the thirteen miners were alive. Of course, as we all know, that wasn’t true.
From New York to Los Angeles, anxious editors on Wednesday morning uttered one of the most legendary but rarely used phrases in the news business: Stop the presses!
Most papers across the country were reporting in their Wednesday editions that the miners trapped in a West Virginia coal mine had been found alive. When they learned the truth around 3 a.m. Eastern time, that all of the miners except one were in fact dead, many papers in the east had finished their press runs, and those westward were nearing their close.
Yesterday, the reality of the miners’ deaths forced a round of self-reflection in newsrooms about how they got the story so wrong. And many editors said they planned to write explanations in their Thursday papers.
Now, if the MSM is so concerned about getting the story wrong the other night why haven’t they made a concerted effort to right the record of what went on during Katrina (many of the news reports coming out of New Orleans about deaths and people shooting at helicopters were false)? Why weren’t they concerned enough to make sure that classified information wasn’t leaked about the NSA program? I think a little skepticism is in order.
Furthermore, I believe that this mass mea culpa is nothing more than an effort to stop the bleeding that began months ago when the general public decided they don’t want opinion classified as news force fed to them. The MSM has been bleeding out for quite some time, and a mass mea culpa won’t stop the bleeding. As the old saying goes; ‘actions speak louder than words’.
In another show of their commitment to using technology, and pulling the technology generation under their wing the Holtzman campaign sent out a press release indicating that they will use a website called facebook to reach out to students. Facebook will allow the campaign to identify and reach out to potential supporters and energetic volunteers.
HOLTZMAN CAMPAIGN IS FIRST TO USE FACEBOOK TO RECRUIT SUPPORTERS ON COLLEGE CAMPUSES Candidate is pioneering the use of technology for young voter outreach
ENGLEWOO