I came across this NYTimes op-ed today. It is stunning in oh so many ways. Rather than try to describe it, I'll just dive in with the quotes.
"Whether or not we can regard Sept. 11 as history, I would like to raise two historical questions about the terrorist attacks of that horrific day. My goal is not to offer definitive answers but rather to invite a serious debate about whether Sept. 11 deserves the historical significance it has achieved."
WTF?!?!?! Whether or not we can regard 9/11 as history???? As opposed to what? Fantasy? A really bad dream maybe? Or Pearl Harbor deja vu????? Just what ARE the choices here?
"My first question: where does Sept. 11 rank in the grand sweep of American history as a threat to national security? By my calculations it does not make the top tier of the list, which requires the threat to pose a serious challenge to the survival of the American republic.
Here is my version of the top tier: the War for Independence, where defeat meant no United States of America; the War of 1812, when the national capital was burned to the ground; the Civil War, which threatened the survival of the Union; World War II, which represented a totalitarian threat to democracy and capitalism; the cold war, most specifically the Cuban missile crisis of 1962, which made nuclear annihilation a distinct possibility."
First question Professor, just what do you think radical Islam is if not a totalitarian threat to democracy and capitalism? Daniel Pipes, in his book "Radical Islam Reaches America", lays out in plain language just how the radical Islamist threat is equal (if not greater) to the totalitarian threat of Nazism and Fascism. We loose this war and again, no United States of America. The War of 1812 was not just about one city being burned, we were warding off a bully that wanted to strip this country of it's sovereignty, JUST LIKE TODAY ..only THEN there were a lot less casualties. In the War of 1812, there were a total of 2,260 Americans killed in action. We lost more American lives on 9/11 alone! As far as property damage goes, comparing like dollars for like, it will cost more to rebuild the World Trade Center property alone than it cost to rebuild all of Washington DC after the War of 1812. Now let's look at WWII - specifically the attacks on Pearl Harbor (again comparing like for like). When the Japanese attacked the Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard, 3,581 military personnel and 108 civilians were either killed or injured. Again, this pales in comparison to the number of civilians killed or injured during the 9/11 attacks.
My list of precedents for the Patriot Act and government wiretapping of American citizens would include the Alien and Sedition Acts in 1798, which allowed the federal government to close newspapers and deport foreigners during the "quasi-war" with France; the denial of habeas corpus during the Civil War, which permitted the pre-emptive arrest of suspected Southern sympathizers; the Red Scare of 1919, which emboldened the attorney general to round up leftist critics in the wake of the Russian Revolution; the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II, which was justified on the grounds that their ancestry made them potential threats to national security; the McCarthy scare of the early 1950's, which used cold war anxieties to pursue a witch hunt against putative Communists in government, universities and the film industry.
In retrospect, none of these domestic responses to perceived national security threats looks justifiable. Every history textbook I know describes them as lamentable, excessive, even embarrassing. Some very distinguished American presidents, including John Adams, Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt, succumbed to quite genuine and widespread popular fears.
Lamentable, yes. Excessive, maybe. Embarassing....would you really consider protecting the lives of innocent civilians to be embarassing?
There is an old saying, perhaps Professor Ellis has heard it once or twice before....he who refuses to learn from history is doomed to repeat it. While the good Professor may think that we should "evolve" from the past, once thing is certain. There are those who are always going to try to subjugate others. Negotiations will not work with these people. They do not play by the rules so we have to "stoop" to their level. It is a matter of survival for us and our children.
Saturday, January 28, 2006
Veto Alito
Thus saith the inmates running the Democratic asylum. John Kerry makes a call for a filibuster from the slopes of Davos (and they say Alito is out of touch with Mainstreet America?) and then posts about it in his Daily KOS Diary (H/T Residual Forces). Not to be outdone, Senator Ted Kennedy has started his own Kos Diary (HT Michelle Malkin ). Minnesota DFLers, posting on Democratic Underground (link not working) are urging Senator Dayton to support Senator Kerry's filibuster (H/T SD63 blog). Even Mother Sheehan has gotten into the act - threatening to run against Senator Diane Feinstein in the primaries if she does not support the filibuster drive (she did this while traveling in Venezuela with Hugo Chavez...how does she do it?).
Whether it is stepping away from the filibuster or Rep. John Murtha, Democrats who face the reality of running for re-election in a red or purple state are being hammered by the lefty blogs (who think that they are running the show just because "their man" is DNC Chair). However...
"The bloggers and online donors represent an important resource for the party, but they are not representative of the majority you need to win elections," said Steve Elmendorf, a Democratic lobbyist who advised Kerry's 2004 presidential campaign. "The trick will be to harness their energy and their money without looking like you are a captive of the activist left."
Good luck there Steve. The Kos Kidz are already lining up to take pot shots at you and anyone else in the DNC if you are not kow-towing to their demands.
Don't get complacent Republicans. Don't fall into the trap of running "against" the fever swamp on the left. You will never get elected (or re-elected) running against something (just ask John Kerry or Al Gore in a couple of years). You have to show the voters what you stand FOR! Just because the Dems are in turmoil is no reason for you to sit back and assume you will win. You still need to show the voters why you are a preferable alternative to whatever the fever swamp offers.
Whether it is stepping away from the filibuster or Rep. John Murtha, Democrats who face the reality of running for re-election in a red or purple state are being hammered by the lefty blogs (who think that they are running the show just because "their man" is DNC Chair). However...
"The bloggers and online donors represent an important resource for the party, but they are not representative of the majority you need to win elections," said Steve Elmendorf, a Democratic lobbyist who advised Kerry's 2004 presidential campaign. "The trick will be to harness their energy and their money without looking like you are a captive of the activist left."
Good luck there Steve. The Kos Kidz are already lining up to take pot shots at you and anyone else in the DNC if you are not kow-towing to their demands.
Don't get complacent Republicans. Don't fall into the trap of running "against" the fever swamp on the left. You will never get elected (or re-elected) running against something (just ask John Kerry or Al Gore in a couple of years). You have to show the voters what you stand FOR! Just because the Dems are in turmoil is no reason for you to sit back and assume you will win. You still need to show the voters why you are a preferable alternative to whatever the fever swamp offers.
Thursday, January 26, 2006
Ceding away our sovereignty - with the help of the left
I found this in today's "paper of record". The author was the US Ambassador (Clinton appointee) to France from 1997 to 2001. He feels that it would raise our stock with Europe if we were to completely do away with the death penalty.
"Outlawed by every member of the European Union, the death penalty was, and is, viewed in Europe as a throwback to the Middle Ages. When we require European support on security issues — Iran's nuclear program; the war in Iraq; North Korea's bomb; relations with China and Russia; the Middle East peace process — our job is made more difficult by the intensity of popular opposition in Europe to our policy."
Why is it when Europe wants us to bail them out of a jam (usually of their own making but I digress) they have to tie strings to our help? They wanted us to stay out of the negotiations with Iran and we did and now that Iran has gone nuclear it is all of a sudden our problem? I fully realize that, like it or not, we live in a "global community" but the global community will not guarantee our rights and as soon as we start running our country based on what "Europe wants" our sovereignty is gone!
"Outlawed by every member of the European Union, the death penalty was, and is, viewed in Europe as a throwback to the Middle Ages. When we require European support on security issues — Iran's nuclear program; the war in Iraq; North Korea's bomb; relations with China and Russia; the Middle East peace process — our job is made more difficult by the intensity of popular opposition in Europe to our policy."
Why is it when Europe wants us to bail them out of a jam (usually of their own making but I digress) they have to tie strings to our help? They wanted us to stay out of the negotiations with Iran and we did and now that Iran has gone nuclear it is all of a sudden our problem? I fully realize that, like it or not, we live in a "global community" but the global community will not guarantee our rights and as soon as we start running our country based on what "Europe wants" our sovereignty is gone!
The market, GM and Viagra
Seems President Bush is reluctant to bail out the ailing US auto industry. Good. He says that he wants the markets to work. Good again. Both speak well to limited government and the Constitutional limits placed on the Presidency (the vaunted Article 2 you hear about concerns the President and the limitations of his office). It also re-enforces the 10th Amendment (Amendment X for all you who wish to know).
I just would like to know where this bail out concern was when he proposed and signed the horrendous Medicare Prescription Drug Act. No market forces there. And only about 2MM seniors may ever have need of it as nearly 80% of all seniors are covered by a private insurance that they are also happy with.
And yet , Bush says that he is willing to re-train the auto workers- despite mountains of evidence that government training programs don't work and never have. Never mind that they are also illegal under that same pesky 10th Amendment.
I just would like to know where this bail out concern was when he proposed and signed the horrendous Medicare Prescription Drug Act. No market forces there. And only about 2MM seniors may ever have need of it as nearly 80% of all seniors are covered by a private insurance that they are also happy with.
And yet , Bush says that he is willing to re-train the auto workers- despite mountains of evidence that government training programs don't work and never have. Never mind that they are also illegal under that same pesky 10th Amendment.
Just WHO is for the "little guy"?
All during the Alito hearings, we kept hearing (and are still hearing today in the open Senate remarks), how Judge Alito is not acceptable as a Supreme Court Justice because he consistently rules “against the little guy” or that he only rules “for the administration”. However, 2 stories today seem to show that these accusations are being thrown at the “wrong side”.
First story is from my hometown of Chicago. The Democratic Mayor and City Council decided that it was best for the “little guy” to ban Wal-Mart from building in the economically struggling Chatham neighborhood. Alderman Howard Brookins was pushing to get the project built in his neighborhood, where the estimated $3m in annual sales taxes (at this one store) could do mountains of good for his ward.
“"I always tell people I'm not for Wal-Mart, but I am for that project coming into the city and to my ward. We can't beat them,"
Eighteen months ago, Ald. Brookins negotiated with Wal-Mart to get them to build on the abandoned Ryerson Steel Plant. However, because the City turned down Wal-Mart’s application, they built in Evergreen Park, one block outside of the city of Chicago. Now Evergreen Park is getting the tax dollars, the 325 jobs (a vast majority of the 25,000 job applicants had City of Chicago addresses) and $35,000 in corporate donations to the local hospital, library and other village entities.
The second was this WSJ story which recounts Wal-Mart’s reaction to the new Maryland law that requires all businesses that employ over 10,000 people to spend 8% of their total profits on health care.
“Unfortunately, in Somerset, the new law looks more like a body blow than a "swipe." The rural county is Maryland's poorest, with per capita personal income 46% below the state average and a poverty rate 130% above it. Somerset's enduring problem is weak labor demand that greatly limits its 25,250 residents' economic opportunities.”
Somerset County Maryland was going to get 800 jobs from a planned Wal-Mart distribution center. Since the “Fair Share Health Care Act” went into effect, Wal-Mary has pulled back from the proposal to build that distribution center. The possible effects of the distribution center on the local Somerset economy are staggering:
“• The center's 800 employees would have created an additional 282 jobs among "upstream" suppliers and "downstream" retailers and service establishments; all told, the center would have boosted county employment by 14% and private-sector employment by 20%.
• Total annual employee compensation in Somerset would have risen by $46.5 million, or 19%.
• Annual output (or "gross county product") would have risen by $128.3 million, or 19%.
• State and local tax receipts would have increased by $19.2 million annually; this would include $8.5 million in property taxes, $5.6 million in sales taxes, and $1.4 million in personal income taxes.”
So you tell me…..just who is “for the little guy”? Judging by the stories above, it is certainly not the big city Democrats. The only ones these folks are looking out for are themselves and their big union friends.
First story is from my hometown of Chicago. The Democratic Mayor and City Council decided that it was best for the “little guy” to ban Wal-Mart from building in the economically struggling Chatham neighborhood. Alderman Howard Brookins was pushing to get the project built in his neighborhood, where the estimated $3m in annual sales taxes (at this one store) could do mountains of good for his ward.
“"I always tell people I'm not for Wal-Mart, but I am for that project coming into the city and to my ward. We can't beat them,"
Eighteen months ago, Ald. Brookins negotiated with Wal-Mart to get them to build on the abandoned Ryerson Steel Plant. However, because the City turned down Wal-Mart’s application, they built in Evergreen Park, one block outside of the city of Chicago. Now Evergreen Park is getting the tax dollars, the 325 jobs (a vast majority of the 25,000 job applicants had City of Chicago addresses) and $35,000 in corporate donations to the local hospital, library and other village entities.
The second was this WSJ story which recounts Wal-Mart’s reaction to the new Maryland law that requires all businesses that employ over 10,000 people to spend 8% of their total profits on health care.
“Unfortunately, in Somerset, the new law looks more like a body blow than a "swipe." The rural county is Maryland's poorest, with per capita personal income 46% below the state average and a poverty rate 130% above it. Somerset's enduring problem is weak labor demand that greatly limits its 25,250 residents' economic opportunities.”
Somerset County Maryland was going to get 800 jobs from a planned Wal-Mart distribution center. Since the “Fair Share Health Care Act” went into effect, Wal-Mary has pulled back from the proposal to build that distribution center. The possible effects of the distribution center on the local Somerset economy are staggering:
“• The center's 800 employees would have created an additional 282 jobs among "upstream" suppliers and "downstream" retailers and service establishments; all told, the center would have boosted county employment by 14% and private-sector employment by 20%.
• Total annual employee compensation in Somerset would have risen by $46.5 million, or 19%.
• Annual output (or "gross county product") would have risen by $128.3 million, or 19%.
• State and local tax receipts would have increased by $19.2 million annually; this would include $8.5 million in property taxes, $5.6 million in sales taxes, and $1.4 million in personal income taxes.”
So you tell me…..just who is “for the little guy”? Judging by the stories above, it is certainly not the big city Democrats. The only ones these folks are looking out for are themselves and their big union friends.
The problem with exit polling
In 2000, exit polls showed that Al Gore won Florida. When the counting was done, George Bush won. Last night, when we went to bed, the stories were "Exit polls show Fatah winning, but Hamas picking up seats" and yet when the counting was done, Hamas had won resoundingly!
When is the legacy media going to give up it's reliance on "exit polling"? That kind of polling is unreliable AT BEST! The more that the legacy media relies on exit polling, the more people are going to quit paying attention to the legacy media. It's really that simple.
When is the legacy media going to give up it's reliance on "exit polling"? That kind of polling is unreliable AT BEST! The more that the legacy media relies on exit polling, the more people are going to quit paying attention to the legacy media. It's really that simple.
Wednesday, January 25, 2006
What ever happened to "Free Speech"?
Three things happened in the last week that makes me realize that free speech is history. The first is this out of California. Now much has been said about this story, including this entry over at Shot In The Dark. The fact that McCarthyistic professors can, with a straight face, accuse someone else of McCarthyism (especially when said professors have a history of flunking students who dare to question the professors leftists views) is the highest of high irony. The fact that the furor that they have raised has caused the alumni organization to withdraw their offer and the non-chalance of the reporting of this leads one to realize that not only is free speech dead on our college campus' but that it is accepted as normal.
Secondly, was this editorial out of the NY Times. There is great wailing and gnashing of teeth over the fact that the Supreme Court, in a rare moment of clarity, ruled that portions of the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform law was wrong.
If the courts create a big "grass-roots lobbying" loophole, it will free corporations and special interests to run phony "issue ads" that are actually a form of unregulated campaign contribution. That is not what Congress wanted when it passed McCain-Feingold, and it is not what the public wants today.
"Phony issue ads"??? Oh you mean like those dastardly Swift Boat Vets that banded together with their own time and money to make ads that were critical of John Kerry's leadership abilities????? Make no bones about it people, the only people that the NY Times wants free speech for (especially in the last 60 days before an election) is themselves! They certainly do not want "we the people" to have it! The Wall Street Journal hit the nail on the head in this editorial today when it spoke of McCain Feingold's "unprecedented restrictions" being an assault on the free exchange of ideas!
Then there is this. Google announces, with great fanfare, that they are going to be offering censored services in Communist China. The same communist China that recently closed down a newspaper that was "critical" of the current regime. The same Communist China that sent a reporter to jail for over reporting an outbreak of dengue fever in a remote province!
"Li Changqing reported for U.S.-based news portal Boxun, which is blocked in China, that more than 100 people were infected with the mosquito-borne disease. Authorities in the provincial capital Fuzhou kept silent for one month before announcing 94 cases."
That's worthy of jail time????? Well then look out NY Times and Strib staffs. The Bush Administration is coming for you next. What's that you say? We have rights in this country???? Not according to the fever swamp. According to the Democratic Party, President Bush is the second coming of Hitler and Stalin and "you KNOW what I'm talking about....."
There is a serious point to all of this. Goggle is "self-censoring" in order to get into China and yet they are refusing to work with the US goverment in it's search for terrorists using their sites. I have nothing wrong with them choosing to self-censor in order to gain 4 billion customers mind you (it's the market after all) but if they are going to willingly work with one government, the time is going to come when that cooperation with the governments is not going to be expected, it will be mandated! And that is going to be the day when people will finally realize that they squandered away their rights to free speech!
Secondly, was this editorial out of the NY Times. There is great wailing and gnashing of teeth over the fact that the Supreme Court, in a rare moment of clarity, ruled that portions of the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform law was wrong.
If the courts create a big "grass-roots lobbying" loophole, it will free corporations and special interests to run phony "issue ads" that are actually a form of unregulated campaign contribution. That is not what Congress wanted when it passed McCain-Feingold, and it is not what the public wants today.
"Phony issue ads"??? Oh you mean like those dastardly Swift Boat Vets that banded together with their own time and money to make ads that were critical of John Kerry's leadership abilities????? Make no bones about it people, the only people that the NY Times wants free speech for (especially in the last 60 days before an election) is themselves! They certainly do not want "we the people" to have it! The Wall Street Journal hit the nail on the head in this editorial today when it spoke of McCain Feingold's "unprecedented restrictions" being an assault on the free exchange of ideas!
Then there is this. Google announces, with great fanfare, that they are going to be offering censored services in Communist China. The same communist China that recently closed down a newspaper that was "critical" of the current regime. The same Communist China that sent a reporter to jail for over reporting an outbreak of dengue fever in a remote province!
"Li Changqing reported for U.S.-based news portal Boxun, which is blocked in China, that more than 100 people were infected with the mosquito-borne disease. Authorities in the provincial capital Fuzhou kept silent for one month before announcing 94 cases."
That's worthy of jail time????? Well then look out NY Times and Strib staffs. The Bush Administration is coming for you next. What's that you say? We have rights in this country???? Not according to the fever swamp. According to the Democratic Party, President Bush is the second coming of Hitler and Stalin and "you KNOW what I'm talking about....."
There is a serious point to all of this. Goggle is "self-censoring" in order to get into China and yet they are refusing to work with the US goverment in it's search for terrorists using their sites. I have nothing wrong with them choosing to self-censor in order to gain 4 billion customers mind you (it's the market after all) but if they are going to willingly work with one government, the time is going to come when that cooperation with the governments is not going to be expected, it will be mandated! And that is going to be the day when people will finally realize that they squandered away their rights to free speech!
1+1=uh, depends
I remember a quote some years ago from Tom Bernard on KQRS when he said "I'd like to once see an editorial in the Star Tribune that I couldn't have predicted." I find that all I need to do is peruse the first line in the online edition of Prairie Pravda and know what the entire editorial is about. And soon to be former Senator Mark Dayton isn't about to disappoint me either with his recent submission that shows that we don't waste enough money on one of Karl Marx's points from his Communist Manifesto, the complete control by government of education-Hail the Young Pioneers!
I always find that the left wingers and their acolytes believe and take as gospel two erroneous assumptions: 1. That government education will be or is effective 2. That the only reason that government education is not effective is because we don't spend enough money on government education (see my three points below).
Lefties in their arguments always go from point A to point J to point Z with no stops in between. And call that a cohesive logical argument.
In constant dollars we spend twice what we were spending 20 years ago. Government schools are way behind private schools and home schools in results. And spend multiple times more money for those failed results. And yet, we as a nation are woefully behind many smaller industrialized nations. (The table below shows math rankings from a study highlighted in an article a year ago in USA Today . The article correctly points out that math is a critical component of education and critical comparative indicator in education):
But, as Dr. Thomas Sowell points out in his book "The Anointed" that lefties (The Anointed) will persist in failed or even disastrously tragic programs despite moutains of evidence of the disaster and failures. An excellent review of the book is found here. (I'll write on this review in a subsequent entry).
And how do the proletariat feel about government education? Read one man's musings .
Remember, for a lefty, any tax cut or any spending cut or even cut in the rate of spending is too much. And any tax increase or spending increase is never enough.
And also remember, the ONLY reasons put forth for the failures of any and all government programs:
1. Not enough time has been allowed for the program(s) to work.
2. Not enough money has been spent.
3. The right people either haven't been in charge, and/or been allowed to fine tune the program.
And the cry of the left? "Ego sentio ergo rectus" (I feel therefore I'm right.)
I always find that the left wingers and their acolytes believe and take as gospel two erroneous assumptions: 1. That government education will be or is effective 2. That the only reason that government education is not effective is because we don't spend enough money on government education (see my three points below).
Lefties in their arguments always go from point A to point J to point Z with no stops in between. And call that a cohesive logical argument.
In constant dollars we spend twice what we were spending 20 years ago. Government schools are way behind private schools and home schools in results. And spend multiple times more money for those failed results. And yet, we as a nation are woefully behind many smaller industrialized nations. (The table below shows math rankings from a study highlighted in an article a year ago in USA Today . The article correctly points out that math is a critical component of education and critical comparative indicator in education):
Slovak Republic . 498
Unit
But, as Dr. Thomas Sowell points out in his book "The Anointed" that lefties (The Anointed) will persist in failed or even disastrously tragic programs despite moutains of evidence of the disaster and failures. An excellent review of the book is found here. (I'll write on this review in a subsequent entry).
And how do the proletariat feel about government education? Read one man's musings .
Remember, for a lefty, any tax cut or any spending cut or even cut in the rate of spending is too much. And any tax increase or spending increase is never enough.
And also remember, the ONLY reasons put forth for the failures of any and all government programs:
1. Not enough time has been allowed for the program(s) to work.
2. Not enough money has been spent.
3. The right people either haven't been in charge, and/or been allowed to fine tune the program.
And the cry of the left? "Ego sentio ergo rectus" (I feel therefore I'm right.)
Tuesday, January 24, 2006
The Star Tribune, to it's great credit, printed a letter to the editor that just spanked the Dems and their race-baiting of the last two weeks.
CLINTON'S COMMENT
History says differently
I find laughable Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's comment that she feels the Republican-controlled Congress is run like a plantation (Star Tribune, Jan. 17).
The Republican Party was established a few years before the Civil War with one purpose -- to end slavery. Many Democrats who strongly opposed slavery joined this new party.
When Abraham Lincoln, the first Republican president, was elected, Southern Democrats realized that this was the beginning of the end of slavery and seceded from the Union so they could continue enslaving African-Americans. The Civil War followed.
Now fast-forward to today. While more than 90 percent of African-Americans vote Democratic, they have little to show for it. They are being tossed bones.
It seems to me that slavery is still alive and well. The new plantation is the federal government, and the plantation owners are the Democratic Party.
Pxx Dxxxxxxx, Pxxxx Lxxxx
WOW - what more can I say - other than "well said neighbor...well said!"
CLINTON'S COMMENT
History says differently
I find laughable Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's comment that she feels the Republican-controlled Congress is run like a plantation (Star Tribune, Jan. 17).
The Republican Party was established a few years before the Civil War with one purpose -- to end slavery. Many Democrats who strongly opposed slavery joined this new party.
When Abraham Lincoln, the first Republican president, was elected, Southern Democrats realized that this was the beginning of the end of slavery and seceded from the Union so they could continue enslaving African-Americans. The Civil War followed.
Now fast-forward to today. While more than 90 percent of African-Americans vote Democratic, they have little to show for it. They are being tossed bones.
It seems to me that slavery is still alive and well. The new plantation is the federal government, and the plantation owners are the Democratic Party.
Pxx Dxxxxxxx, Pxxxx Lxxxx
WOW - what more can I say - other than "well said neighbor...well said!"
An Honest Leftist speaks up!
This op-ed from the LA Times has many folks up in arms today. Hugh Hewitt, specifically, is apoplectic over it, but then again, it doesn't take much out of the Times to set Hugh off. Many people in my political groups are expressing their "outrage".
"I DON'T SUPPORT our troops. This is a particularly difficult opinion to have, especially if you are the kind of person who likes to put bumper stickers on his car. Supporting the troops is a position that even Calvin is unwilling to urinate on.I'm sure I'd like the troops. They seem gutsy, young and up for anything. If you're wandering into a recruiter's office and signing up for eight years of unknown danger, I want to hang with you in Vegas. "
That is the part that has fueled the outrage. However, hidden a couple of paragraphs later there is a refreshing bit of intellectual honesty that should not be ignored:
"But I'm not for the war. And being against the war and saying you support the troops is one of the wussiest positions the pacifists have ever taken — and they're wussy by definition. It's as if the one lesson they took away from Vietnam wasn't to avoid foreign conflicts with no pressing national interest but to remember to throw a parade afterward."
OH HAPPY DAY!!!! An honest leftist! Many soldiers, sailors and marines have said the same. Eagan's own Col. Joe Repya was on one of the KTLK programs this morning and he repeated "the troops will tell you that if you do not support the mission, they do not feel that you are supporting those of us carrying OUT the mission!" Friends of mine who have returned from "the big sandbox" have said the same thing, time and time again!
"I do sympathize with people who joined up to protect our country, especially after 9/11, and were tricked into fighting in Iraq. I get mad when I'm tricked into clicking on a pop-up ad, so I can only imagine how they feel. (ED - I have no idea what the heck he was thinking with this analogy - it makes no sense!)
But when you volunteer for the U.S. military, you pretty much know you're not going to be fending off invasions from Mexico and Canada. So you're willingly signing up to be a fighting tool of American imperialism, for better or worse. Sometimes you get lucky and get to fight ethnic genocide in Kosovo, but other times it's Vietnam. (ED - Well someone finally figured this out)
And sometimes, for reasons I don't understand, you get to just hang out in Germany. (ED here's a hint bucco.....it's because they are NEEDED there...) "
Give Mr. Stein credit - he faced the lion, by going on Hewitt's program this evening (transcript here). Realize though that you are talking about a 30 something who has never interacted with anyone serving in Iraq. He does not know the military mindset, he does not appreciate the military mindset. If you must send your protests to the LA Times, you should at least thank Mr. Stein for being honest and pressure him to get more honesty out of his fellow leftists. Maybe once they finally start being honest about their supposed "support" of the troops, then this will be a much redder country!
"I DON'T SUPPORT our troops. This is a particularly difficult opinion to have, especially if you are the kind of person who likes to put bumper stickers on his car. Supporting the troops is a position that even Calvin is unwilling to urinate on.I'm sure I'd like the troops. They seem gutsy, young and up for anything. If you're wandering into a recruiter's office and signing up for eight years of unknown danger, I want to hang with you in Vegas. "
That is the part that has fueled the outrage. However, hidden a couple of paragraphs later there is a refreshing bit of intellectual honesty that should not be ignored:
"But I'm not for the war. And being against the war and saying you support the troops is one of the wussiest positions the pacifists have ever taken — and they're wussy by definition. It's as if the one lesson they took away from Vietnam wasn't to avoid foreign conflicts with no pressing national interest but to remember to throw a parade afterward."
OH HAPPY DAY!!!! An honest leftist! Many soldiers, sailors and marines have said the same. Eagan's own Col. Joe Repya was on one of the KTLK programs this morning and he repeated "the troops will tell you that if you do not support the mission, they do not feel that you are supporting those of us carrying OUT the mission!" Friends of mine who have returned from "the big sandbox" have said the same thing, time and time again!
"I do sympathize with people who joined up to protect our country, especially after 9/11, and were tricked into fighting in Iraq. I get mad when I'm tricked into clicking on a pop-up ad, so I can only imagine how they feel. (ED - I have no idea what the heck he was thinking with this analogy - it makes no sense!)
But when you volunteer for the U.S. military, you pretty much know you're not going to be fending off invasions from Mexico and Canada. So you're willingly signing up to be a fighting tool of American imperialism, for better or worse. Sometimes you get lucky and get to fight ethnic genocide in Kosovo, but other times it's Vietnam. (ED - Well someone finally figured this out)
And sometimes, for reasons I don't understand, you get to just hang out in Germany. (ED here's a hint bucco.....it's because they are NEEDED there...) "
Give Mr. Stein credit - he faced the lion, by going on Hewitt's program this evening (transcript here). Realize though that you are talking about a 30 something who has never interacted with anyone serving in Iraq. He does not know the military mindset, he does not appreciate the military mindset. If you must send your protests to the LA Times, you should at least thank Mr. Stein for being honest and pressure him to get more honesty out of his fellow leftists. Maybe once they finally start being honest about their supposed "support" of the troops, then this will be a much redder country!
Heroes, giants, common men
On Sunday I met with Captain Ed and his wife for lunch. I had invited Ed and Marcia to meet with Herb Suerth. Mr. Suerth is the President of E Company, (of 2nd Battalion, 506th PIR (Parachute Infantry Regiment) 101st Airborne (The Screaming Eagles)). E Company is also known as "The Band of Brothers" from the Steven Ambrose book and HBO mini-series.
Mr. Suerth joined E Company just before they were dispatched to Bastogne in the Ardennes Offensive (called the Battle of the Bulge)-as Mr. Suerth said "sort of a bad place to come in." And Mr. Suerth was badly wounded in Bastogne when an 88 shell exploded nearby, with a piece of shrapnel penetrating and shattering both femurs. Mr. Suerth was subsequently hospitalized for 18 months.
What prompted this Sunday lunch was an idea I had almost two years ago. I had read "Band of Brothers" and was looking forward to seeing the mini-series on the History Channel for the 60th Anniversary of D-Day. After the series I was doing an internet search on Major Winters and came across a site that was dedicated to getting Maj. Winters the Medal of Honor that he was cited for. On D-Day he led a critically important mission to take out what were thought to be a few German 88mm cannons. It turned out that there were four 105mm howitzers raining down deadly accurate fire on Utah beach. Major (then Lieutenant) Winters lead 17 men (basically a large squad) against the heavily fortified position (at least company strength of 90 crack German troops and at least two of the most feared guns in the German arsenal, the MG42) and took out all four of these deadly accurate howitzers.
Unfortunately,in the citation for the MOH, Col. Sink (regiment commander who wrote the citation for Lt. Winter's MOH) ran into a top level decision that has military bureaucracy written all over it: the decision to ration the MOH to only one per division for the Normandy Campaign,
Well, this site had letters from Stephen Ambrose and C.Carwood Lipton supporting the correction of this injustice to Maj. Winters. I found and called the number for Mr. Lipton and talked to his widow. Mrs. Lipton gave me Mr. Suerth's name. And so I started talking to Mr. Suerth. I found that the effort in 2003 was ultimately unsuccessful. But, being quarter Swede I'm persistent (read stubborn). And it occurred to me that there may be a better way.
I asked my friend John Hunt at AM1280 The Patriot what we might be able to do. He suggested that I start with the bloggers.
I had met Captain Ed and the First Mate at a Patriot function and so contacted him about the possibility of a project to honor a WWII veteran. As a blogger of the first rank, Ed had and has the reach that I didn't. We met for lunch a few months back. I explained the project and much to his credit Captain Ed was on board immediately. And this lead to Mr. Suerth, Captain Ed, the First Mate and I meeting for lunch.
Captain Ed recorded the interview and wrote a wonderful review of it here. And he's done a much better job than I have in capturing Mr. Suerth's personality, his humor, his kind directness and his humility.
Captain Ed and I will be updating you all as we progress with the campaign to get Major Winter's his MOH. And we'll also be asking all of you to become involved with the effort
Mr. Suerth joined E Company just before they were dispatched to Bastogne in the Ardennes Offensive (called the Battle of the Bulge)-as Mr. Suerth said "sort of a bad place to come in." And Mr. Suerth was badly wounded in Bastogne when an 88 shell exploded nearby, with a piece of shrapnel penetrating and shattering both femurs. Mr. Suerth was subsequently hospitalized for 18 months.
What prompted this Sunday lunch was an idea I had almost two years ago. I had read "Band of Brothers" and was looking forward to seeing the mini-series on the History Channel for the 60th Anniversary of D-Day. After the series I was doing an internet search on Major Winters and came across a site that was dedicated to getting Maj. Winters the Medal of Honor that he was cited for. On D-Day he led a critically important mission to take out what were thought to be a few German 88mm cannons. It turned out that there were four 105mm howitzers raining down deadly accurate fire on Utah beach. Major (then Lieutenant) Winters lead 17 men (basically a large squad) against the heavily fortified position (at least company strength of 90 crack German troops and at least two of the most feared guns in the German arsenal, the MG42) and took out all four of these deadly accurate howitzers.
Unfortunately,in the citation for the MOH, Col. Sink (regiment commander who wrote the citation for Lt. Winter's MOH) ran into a top level decision that has military bureaucracy written all over it: the decision to ration the MOH to only one per division for the Normandy Campaign,
Well, this site had letters from Stephen Ambrose and C.Carwood Lipton supporting the correction of this injustice to Maj. Winters. I found and called the number for Mr. Lipton and talked to his widow. Mrs. Lipton gave me Mr. Suerth's name. And so I started talking to Mr. Suerth. I found that the effort in 2003 was ultimately unsuccessful. But, being quarter Swede I'm persistent (read stubborn). And it occurred to me that there may be a better way.
I asked my friend John Hunt at AM1280 The Patriot what we might be able to do. He suggested that I start with the bloggers.
I had met Captain Ed and the First Mate at a Patriot function and so contacted him about the possibility of a project to honor a WWII veteran. As a blogger of the first rank, Ed had and has the reach that I didn't. We met for lunch a few months back. I explained the project and much to his credit Captain Ed was on board immediately. And this lead to Mr. Suerth, Captain Ed, the First Mate and I meeting for lunch.
Captain Ed recorded the interview and wrote a wonderful review of it here. And he's done a much better job than I have in capturing Mr. Suerth's personality, his humor, his kind directness and his humility.
Captain Ed and I will be updating you all as we progress with the campaign to get Major Winter's his MOH. And we'll also be asking all of you to become involved with the effort
Saturday, January 21, 2006
Even the uber liberal Wisconsin State Journal gets, what the Star Tribune refuses to admit. That Judge Sam Alito deserves to become Justice Alito.
"...we are impressed that the American Bar Association gave you its highest rating for integrity, professional competence and temperament. We are equally impressed that judges of both Republican and Democratic political views at last week's Senate Judiciary Committee hearing described you as "even-handed," "open- minded," and "intellectually honest."
The State Journal is intellectually honest enough to admit it. Judge Alito is qualified to sit on the Supreme Court. Oh to be certain, they discuss the issues where the disagree with Judge Alito but that is to be expected. What is not to be expected or accepted is a "independent" press that parrots either party line. The editors of the Star Tribune would be wise to follow in the steps of the Wisconsin State Journal.
"...we are impressed that the American Bar Association gave you its highest rating for integrity, professional competence and temperament. We are equally impressed that judges of both Republican and Democratic political views at last week's Senate Judiciary Committee hearing described you as "even-handed," "open- minded," and "intellectually honest."
The State Journal is intellectually honest enough to admit it. Judge Alito is qualified to sit on the Supreme Court. Oh to be certain, they discuss the issues where the disagree with Judge Alito but that is to be expected. What is not to be expected or accepted is a "independent" press that parrots either party line. The editors of the Star Tribune would be wise to follow in the steps of the Wisconsin State Journal.
Thursday, January 19, 2006
I love you because I hate you
Seems that there is someone who doesn't take as long as John Kerry to flip flop AND have it both ways. Seems that the Ex First Lady can do it in the same day, same speech.
She stresses that "We cannot and should not — must not — permit Iran to build or acquire nuclear weapons," And then says the reason that we've arrived at this point is that we've "outsourced" negotiations. Her solution? Outsource negotiations by involving China and Russia.
She seems to believe that Russia and especially China aren't involved in the nuclearization of Iran in the first place.
But, then again why would she disparage her political homelands?
She stresses that "We cannot and should not — must not — permit Iran to build or acquire nuclear weapons," And then says the reason that we've arrived at this point is that we've "outsourced" negotiations. Her solution? Outsource negotiations by involving China and Russia.
She seems to believe that Russia and especially China aren't involved in the nuclearization of Iran in the first place.
But, then again why would she disparage her political homelands?
I need help understanding this.
This is one of those things that has been buzzing around in my brain for some time. It is something that I just do not understand. Maybe someone who understands the liberal mindset better than I do can help me understand it.
Much has been said, over the last few weeks and months about alleged transgressions of our military (John Kerry) and our President (Al Gore) vis a vis al Qaeda. Al Gore recently said that there is no difference between the 9/11 attacks and the Pearl Harbor attack and that confuses me. The Japanese attacked the Pearl Harbor Naval Air Station and the 9/11 hijackers attacked the World Trade Center. One is a military target, the other a civilian target. Where is the similarity?
Many of the MoveOn crowd have said that President Bush is no different than Saddam. Where are the American rape rooms? Since President Bush was elected, how many US citizens have disappeared out of their homes? How many US citizens were tortured and killed for simply speaking out against the current "regime"? How many neighboring countries has we invaded in order to take natural resources?
Others have said that our soldiers, who are helping to rebuild Iraq and Afghanistan, are just like the terrorists they are fighting. How many female foreign journalists have our soldiers held captive? How many of our soldiers have detonated IEDs in markplaces full of civilians? How many of our soldiers are beheading other people?
I guess what I am getting at here is that I don't understand how anyone can take a look at the evil that we are fighting and say that we are the same. I admit that our system is not perfect, but then again, neither is mankind. Why is it that some feel obligated to tear the country down? It seems that we are in a cycle where it is deemed "cool" to deride anything and everything. Especially if it something that the majority holds to be special.
Much has been said, over the last few weeks and months about alleged transgressions of our military (John Kerry) and our President (Al Gore) vis a vis al Qaeda. Al Gore recently said that there is no difference between the 9/11 attacks and the Pearl Harbor attack and that confuses me. The Japanese attacked the Pearl Harbor Naval Air Station and the 9/11 hijackers attacked the World Trade Center. One is a military target, the other a civilian target. Where is the similarity?
Many of the MoveOn crowd have said that President Bush is no different than Saddam. Where are the American rape rooms? Since President Bush was elected, how many US citizens have disappeared out of their homes? How many US citizens were tortured and killed for simply speaking out against the current "regime"? How many neighboring countries has we invaded in order to take natural resources?
Others have said that our soldiers, who are helping to rebuild Iraq and Afghanistan, are just like the terrorists they are fighting. How many female foreign journalists have our soldiers held captive? How many of our soldiers have detonated IEDs in markplaces full of civilians? How many of our soldiers are beheading other people?
I guess what I am getting at here is that I don't understand how anyone can take a look at the evil that we are fighting and say that we are the same. I admit that our system is not perfect, but then again, neither is mankind. Why is it that some feel obligated to tear the country down? It seems that we are in a cycle where it is deemed "cool" to deride anything and everything. Especially if it something that the majority holds to be special.
How do you spell "hypocrisy"?
How about DFL? For weeks we have been hearing about the so-called Republican "culture of corruption". Well now we know just where the corruption truly lies....within the DFL.
Pat Kessler over at WCCO TV does a regular report called "Reality Check". Pat uses this spot to point out irregularities or inconsistencies in advertisements or announcements out of the Minnesota political parties. Last nights "Reality Check" was on the Abramoff scandal. We have heard Ember Reichcott Junge tell us (on At Issue with Tom Hauser - KSTP) how the DFL "never" took money from Abramoff - only his clients and that is different. She was basically parroting the party line as expressed by Howard Dean (which I wrote about here).
Kesslers report (found here) tells the whole story:
Of the $19,000 given to Minnesota politicians by Abramoff clients, $15,000 went to DFLers. And while many politicians are donating the questionable cash to charity, Democrats are not. It's TRUE. The Minnesota DFL Party accepted $9,000 from a non-Minnesota Indian tribe and Abramoff client in 2002.
$9,000 to run the 5 day campaign for Senate that Walter Mondale took up after the death of Senator Paul Wellstone - for a non-Minnesota tribe and St Paul took money from the SAME tribe during the campaign!
What makes this "Reality Check" all the more ironic is that just yesterday morning, Brian Melendez, DFL Chairman, issued this press release in which he talks about ending the "Republican culture of corruption". Mr. Melendez, if you are going to throw stones, you should not live in a glass house. You need to give back all of your "tainted" money (like Senator Colemand and Congressman Kennedy) otherwise your credibility is non-existent.
Pat Kessler over at WCCO TV does a regular report called "Reality Check". Pat uses this spot to point out irregularities or inconsistencies in advertisements or announcements out of the Minnesota political parties. Last nights "Reality Check" was on the Abramoff scandal. We have heard Ember Reichcott Junge tell us (on At Issue with Tom Hauser - KSTP) how the DFL "never" took money from Abramoff - only his clients and that is different. She was basically parroting the party line as expressed by Howard Dean (which I wrote about here).
Kesslers report (found here) tells the whole story:
Of the $19,000 given to Minnesota politicians by Abramoff clients, $15,000 went to DFLers. And while many politicians are donating the questionable cash to charity, Democrats are not. It's TRUE. The Minnesota DFL Party accepted $9,000 from a non-Minnesota Indian tribe and Abramoff client in 2002.
$9,000 to run the 5 day campaign for Senate that Walter Mondale took up after the death of Senator Paul Wellstone - for a non-Minnesota tribe and St Paul took money from the SAME tribe during the campaign!
What makes this "Reality Check" all the more ironic is that just yesterday morning, Brian Melendez, DFL Chairman, issued this press release in which he talks about ending the "Republican culture of corruption". Mr. Melendez, if you are going to throw stones, you should not live in a glass house. You need to give back all of your "tainted" money (like Senator Colemand and Congressman Kennedy) otherwise your credibility is non-existent.
Wednesday, January 18, 2006
This just in: Big Government Untenable, Inefficient! Hearings Demanded!
Trust me, I was not, repeat NOT surprised at all at the headlines that screamed that the ineffective, counter productive badly mismanaged and grossly unconstitutional Medicare program,specifically part D, was and is a disaster. Duh! Next they'll tell me that the sun rises in the east and expect me to be surprised at that also. And the same useful idiots will complain that, well, that is evidence of directionism. And that the western horizon needs to experience sunrise also.
And these people believe that the same people who brought this on us are the very same people who will be able to get it right...maybe...eventually...they hope.
Yup. And we all hope that Charley Brown will be able to kick that ball...
And these people believe that the same people who brought this on us are the very same people who will be able to get it right...maybe...eventually...they hope.
Yup. And we all hope that Charley Brown will be able to kick that ball...
Define "Racism"
During the course of the Alito hearing, the word "racism" was brought up many times - usually in reference to the Concerned Alumni of Princeton (an organization that Judge Alito belonged to). Most of the accusations against CAP were based on a satirical article that appeared in its monthly magazine.
I bring this up because of certain things that were said during events that were supposedly "honoring" the memory of Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King. After hearing these comments (on top of the brouhaha during the Alito hearings) it is obvious that a refresher is in order.
Racism (according to Merriam-Webster) is define as "a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race". With that in mind I will ask you which of the comments below is racist...
"I do not believe that anyone should be given preferential treatment based on their race or heritage"
Is that a racist comment? How about this one?
"I believe that everyone has the God given ability to succeed if they try."
Is that a racist statement? Now, compare those to statements that were made on Monday:
"It's time for us to come together. It's time for us to rebuild New Orleans — the one that should be a chocolate New Orleans. This city will be a majority African American city. It's the way God wants it to be. " (Ray Nagin in remarks on Monday - emphasis added)
AND
"When you look at the way the House of Representatives has been run - it has been run like a plantation...You know what I'm talking about." (that from the presumptive leader in the Democratic race for President in 2008).
Now these are the people that support a system that tacitly implies that it's recepients are incable of providing for themselves and thus they must rely on Big Government to "take care of them". These are people that support systems that tacitly imply that "there's no way you can get that job on your own merit - we will make sure that you get 'special' consideration" or "you can't get into that college without our help". Match those implications with the definatioin of racism above and you tell me, who are the real racists?? The ones that encourage people to succeed on their own, or those that tell them "you can't do it without our help"?
If the Democrats were truly concerned about the plight of minorities in America, they would not be so quick to politicize race in America.
I bring this up because of certain things that were said during events that were supposedly "honoring" the memory of Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King. After hearing these comments (on top of the brouhaha during the Alito hearings) it is obvious that a refresher is in order.
Racism (according to Merriam-Webster) is define as "a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race". With that in mind I will ask you which of the comments below is racist...
"I do not believe that anyone should be given preferential treatment based on their race or heritage"
Is that a racist comment? How about this one?
"I believe that everyone has the God given ability to succeed if they try."
Is that a racist statement? Now, compare those to statements that were made on Monday:
"It's time for us to come together. It's time for us to rebuild New Orleans — the one that should be a chocolate New Orleans. This city will be a majority African American city. It's the way God wants it to be. " (Ray Nagin in remarks on Monday - emphasis added)
AND
"When you look at the way the House of Representatives has been run - it has been run like a plantation...You know what I'm talking about." (that from the presumptive leader in the Democratic race for President in 2008).
Now these are the people that support a system that tacitly implies that it's recepients are incable of providing for themselves and thus they must rely on Big Government to "take care of them". These are people that support systems that tacitly imply that "there's no way you can get that job on your own merit - we will make sure that you get 'special' consideration" or "you can't get into that college without our help". Match those implications with the definatioin of racism above and you tell me, who are the real racists?? The ones that encourage people to succeed on their own, or those that tell them "you can't do it without our help"?
If the Democrats were truly concerned about the plight of minorities in America, they would not be so quick to politicize race in America.
Tuesday, January 17, 2006
First they came for.....
A couple of my fellow MOBsters have written about this, from yesterdays Star Tribune. Both Dementee at KAR and Mitch at Shot in the Dark are talking about how alcohol is "next". Well the Logical Husband and I are of a sufficient age where we remember advertising for "hard" liquor on television (mostly sporting events). We remember the debate, in the late '60s and early '70s over whether it was "appropriate" for young people to be seeing that kind of advertising. We also remember tobacco advertising on television and the ensuing debate over whether that was "appropriate" for young people to see, so the call from the Strib editorial staff for a ban on advertising of beer and wine comes as no surprise at all. These health nazis have been around for a long, long time and they have been slowly, but surely chipping away at our rights, "for the sake of the children". For years we have slowly been abdicating our rights to choose what to eat or drink. We should not be surprised to see this. We have been allowed it to happen. When are we going to stand up and say no?
In Germany, they first came for the communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Catholic. Then they came for me -- and by that time there was nobody left to speak up.
-Martin Niemoller
You say that I am "over-reacting" that bans on smoking and alcohol advertising are hardly the same as what Niemoller wrote about. Which of your rights are you willing to be on this?
In Germany, they first came for the communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Catholic. Then they came for me -- and by that time there was nobody left to speak up.
-Martin Niemoller
You say that I am "over-reacting" that bans on smoking and alcohol advertising are hardly the same as what Niemoller wrote about. Which of your rights are you willing to be on this?
I am a Republican because
A friend sent me this. I thought I would share because it pretty much sums me up in a nutshell.
I AM A REPUBLICAN BECAUSE I BELIEVE ...The proper function of government is to do for the people those things that have to be done but cannot be done, or cannot be done as well, by individuals, and that the most effecive government is government closest to the people.
I BELIEVE ...Good government is based upon the individual and that each person's ability, dignity, freedom, and responsibility msut be honored and recognized.
I BELIEVE ...That free enterprise and the encouragement of individual initiative and incentive have given this nation an economic system second to none.
I BELIEVE ...Sound money management should be our goal.
I BELIEVE ...In equal rights, equal justice and equal opportunity for all, regardless of race, creed, age, sex or national origin.
I BELIEVE ...We must retain those principles of the past worth retaining, yet always be receptive to new ideas with an outlok broad enough to accomodate thoughtful change and varying points of view.
I BELIEVE ...That Americans value and should preserve their feeing of national strength and pride, and at the same time share with people everywhere a desire for peace and freedom and the extension of human rights throughout the world.
FINALLY, I BELIEVE ...The Republican Party is the best vehicle for translating these ideals into positive and sussessful principles of government.
I AM A REPUBLICAN BECAUSE I BELIEVE ...The proper function of government is to do for the people those things that have to be done but cannot be done, or cannot be done as well, by individuals, and that the most effecive government is government closest to the people.
I BELIEVE ...Good government is based upon the individual and that each person's ability, dignity, freedom, and responsibility msut be honored and recognized.
I BELIEVE ...That free enterprise and the encouragement of individual initiative and incentive have given this nation an economic system second to none.
I BELIEVE ...Sound money management should be our goal.
I BELIEVE ...In equal rights, equal justice and equal opportunity for all, regardless of race, creed, age, sex or national origin.
I BELIEVE ...We must retain those principles of the past worth retaining, yet always be receptive to new ideas with an outlok broad enough to accomodate thoughtful change and varying points of view.
I BELIEVE ...That Americans value and should preserve their feeing of national strength and pride, and at the same time share with people everywhere a desire for peace and freedom and the extension of human rights throughout the world.
FINALLY, I BELIEVE ...The Republican Party is the best vehicle for translating these ideals into positive and sussessful principles of government.
No room for punishment?
The Star Tribune printed an article yesterday that has me both puzzled and worried. In it the Trib seems to be concerned about the prospect that "non-sex offenders" are going to be locked up long past their sentences. The problem (according to the Strib) is the Minnesota Sex Offender program, a program that was instituted as a result of (among other things) the Dru Sjodin murder. Dru Sjodin, for those who don't know, was a college student who was kidnapped and murdered by a level 3 sex offender who had recently been released from prison!
Here is the poor soul that the Strib's writers are so concerned about.
(Dwane) Peterson, 25, of Mankato, Minn., has never been convicted of a sex offense or even charged with one.
HOWEVER.....
A petition filed by Blue Earth County Attorney Ross Arneson on Dec. 13 cites Peterson's own accounts of sexual activity with "unknown young male victims" as well as with two other boys, one of whom denies sexual contact with Peterson, the other now dead. ..The petition also details Peterson's troubled life, including sex abuse as a child, foster homes, reform schools, suicide attempts, fire-setting, bed-wetting mental disorders and what Betters called "a long past of dumb crime" such as theft and misdemeanor assaults. Peterson also wrote sexually explicit letters to and otherwise tried to contact several boys he became obsessed with, including one in Connecticut whom he saw on TV.
So a man who is "obsessed" with young boys, who writes sexually explicit letters to these young boys is ok to be on the streets? Is that what the Strib is trying to say here? I certainly hope not.
Sexual predators need to be kept away from children. We have seen, time and time again, where sexual predators will do whatever they can to get at their prey like this one did just this last week! The state is obligated to protect our children from people that show a propensity for stalking them in this manner. Everything else (light/commuter rail for example) is fluff and we don't need the fluff!
Here is the poor soul that the Strib's writers are so concerned about.
(Dwane) Peterson, 25, of Mankato, Minn., has never been convicted of a sex offense or even charged with one.
HOWEVER.....
A petition filed by Blue Earth County Attorney Ross Arneson on Dec. 13 cites Peterson's own accounts of sexual activity with "unknown young male victims" as well as with two other boys, one of whom denies sexual contact with Peterson, the other now dead. ..The petition also details Peterson's troubled life, including sex abuse as a child, foster homes, reform schools, suicide attempts, fire-setting, bed-wetting mental disorders and what Betters called "a long past of dumb crime" such as theft and misdemeanor assaults. Peterson also wrote sexually explicit letters to and otherwise tried to contact several boys he became obsessed with, including one in Connecticut whom he saw on TV.
So a man who is "obsessed" with young boys, who writes sexually explicit letters to these young boys is ok to be on the streets? Is that what the Strib is trying to say here? I certainly hope not.
Sexual predators need to be kept away from children. We have seen, time and time again, where sexual predators will do whatever they can to get at their prey like this one did just this last week! The state is obligated to protect our children from people that show a propensity for stalking them in this manner. Everything else (light/commuter rail for example) is fluff and we don't need the fluff!
Monday, January 16, 2006
Rememberances
Everyone and their brother has been doing their obligatory tributes to Reverand Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. However, this one (from todays Pioneer Press written by William Chafe) hit it home for me. So many people, when talking about Dr. King totally forget the driving force behind his actions and reactions. Not so Mr. Chafe (emphasis added):
That legacy begins with the power of King's faith, which became searingly personal when, soon after agreeing to become the spokesman for the Montgomery bus boycott, he began receiving nightly phone calls from people threatening to kill his family. Unable to sleep and tormented by visions of his little girl suffering, King broke down one night in his kitchen. As David Garrow writes in his biography of King, at that moment King heard an inner voice saying: "Stand up for justice, stand up for truth… [It was] the voice of Jesus saying still to fight on. He promised never to leave me, never to leave me alone." From that moment forward, the voice in the kitchen was King's personal anchor.
That's right, all of you secular humanists, the Reverend Dr. King was a man of God and it was his great faith and reliance on Christ's strength that got him through the hardest of trials! As a Christian, the Rev. Dr. King knew that there were 2 things that he had to stand on in this fight...love and justice!
The second point to recognize is the tension King insisted upon between his embrace of the New Testament's gospel of unconditional love and the Old Testament's prophetic insistence on righteous justice. Latter-day King celebrants focus on his support for reconciliation without acknowledging his prophetic anger. "It is not enough for us to talk about love," he told his followers. "There is another side called justice … Standing beside love is always justice. Not only are we using the tools of persuasion — we've got to use the tools of coercion."
This "tension" is something that Christians must deal with daily. We all know that we are to forgive those who trespass against us (love), but we forget the "do not tresspass" part (justice). We forget that the first half of the Bible story is a story of righteousness and (when necessary) anger! I heard an interview with Jonathon Starkey (the self professed vampire that is running for Governor of Minnesota) this morning. He was saying that he could not understand how God could punish the innocents of Soddom and Gomorrah. HELLO......justice. The only innocents in those 2 cities were Lot and his family! Abraham interceeded with God (in Genesis 18:23) asking "will you destroy the righteous with the wicked?" to which God answered "find me one righteous man and I will spare the city!" (Gen 18:24-33). The same thing happened in Noah's time where Noah (while building the Ark) pleaded with his neighbors to repent! The whole time God was planning the earths destruction, he was also trying to save it. However, mans choice was to turn away from God and his offers of salvation.
Every generation, God sends us a Noah or an Abraham or a Dr. King who is supposed to show us how to walk that fine line between love and justice. I am truely honored and humbled to have been able to see the fine example that Dr. King provided to mankind. I struggle daily to try to be one to help realize his dream - when our children are indeed judged by the content of their hearts and not the color of their skin! Hopefully, my contributions will help us (in the words of the Mr. Chafe) "... remember the birthday of Martin Luther King Jr., let us recognize the full depth of his faith and vision — not just the antiseptic version that has now become part of our official culture."
That legacy begins with the power of King's faith, which became searingly personal when, soon after agreeing to become the spokesman for the Montgomery bus boycott, he began receiving nightly phone calls from people threatening to kill his family. Unable to sleep and tormented by visions of his little girl suffering, King broke down one night in his kitchen. As David Garrow writes in his biography of King, at that moment King heard an inner voice saying: "Stand up for justice, stand up for truth… [It was] the voice of Jesus saying still to fight on. He promised never to leave me, never to leave me alone." From that moment forward, the voice in the kitchen was King's personal anchor.
That's right, all of you secular humanists, the Reverend Dr. King was a man of God and it was his great faith and reliance on Christ's strength that got him through the hardest of trials! As a Christian, the Rev. Dr. King knew that there were 2 things that he had to stand on in this fight...love and justice!
The second point to recognize is the tension King insisted upon between his embrace of the New Testament's gospel of unconditional love and the Old Testament's prophetic insistence on righteous justice. Latter-day King celebrants focus on his support for reconciliation without acknowledging his prophetic anger. "It is not enough for us to talk about love," he told his followers. "There is another side called justice … Standing beside love is always justice. Not only are we using the tools of persuasion — we've got to use the tools of coercion."
This "tension" is something that Christians must deal with daily. We all know that we are to forgive those who trespass against us (love), but we forget the "do not tresspass" part (justice). We forget that the first half of the Bible story is a story of righteousness and (when necessary) anger! I heard an interview with Jonathon Starkey (the self professed vampire that is running for Governor of Minnesota) this morning. He was saying that he could not understand how God could punish the innocents of Soddom and Gomorrah. HELLO......justice. The only innocents in those 2 cities were Lot and his family! Abraham interceeded with God (in Genesis 18:23) asking "will you destroy the righteous with the wicked?" to which God answered "find me one righteous man and I will spare the city!" (Gen 18:24-33). The same thing happened in Noah's time where Noah (while building the Ark) pleaded with his neighbors to repent! The whole time God was planning the earths destruction, he was also trying to save it. However, mans choice was to turn away from God and his offers of salvation.
Every generation, God sends us a Noah or an Abraham or a Dr. King who is supposed to show us how to walk that fine line between love and justice. I am truely honored and humbled to have been able to see the fine example that Dr. King provided to mankind. I struggle daily to try to be one to help realize his dream - when our children are indeed judged by the content of their hearts and not the color of their skin! Hopefully, my contributions will help us (in the words of the Mr. Chafe) "... remember the birthday of Martin Luther King Jr., let us recognize the full depth of his faith and vision — not just the antiseptic version that has now become part of our official culture."
Sunday, January 15, 2006
Who would qualify?
MDE pointed us to this over at the Real Clear Politics blog. Based on the criteria that the Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee have set for President Bush's judicial nominees (such as Judge Sam Alito) the RCP staff wondered just how many of said Judiciary Committee members would qualify for the Supreme Court.
The answer, just off the top of my head and without resorting to extensive research or digging through trash, is not very many:
Not Ted Kennedy: for obvious reasons.
Not Joe Biden: he has a plagiarism problem.
Not Dianne Feinstein: she's had a Guatemalan houskeeper issue, was fined $190,000 in 1992 for failing to properly report $3.5 million in campaign expenditures, and her husband runs a company that scored a $600 million Iraq war contract in 2003. Imagine what the Dems would do with this last one.
Not Charles Schumer: two of the people under his employ at the DSCC are currently being investigated for illegally obtaining Michael Steele's credit report last year. In 1983, Schumer narrowly escaped indictment for misusing state funds in his 1980 Congressional race. The U.S. Attorney in the case, Raymond J. Dearie, actually recommended that Schumer be indicted, but the Reagan Justice Department turned down the request citing "lack of jurisdiction."
Not Dick Durbin: he would never get around his pro-life past. Durbin is on the record in the 1980's saying that he "believed that Roe v. Wade was incorrectly decided" and that "the right to an abortion is not guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution."
That leaves Pat Leahy, Herb Kohl, and Russ Feingold as the only Democrats on the Judiciary Committee who - at least at first glance - might possibly be able to survive one of their own confirmation hearings. Three out of eight. That's it.
It makes what the Democrats are trying to do to Samuel Alito all that much more distasteful and highlights how partisan and out of control the whole process has become.
UPDATE: We're down to two. I missed Pat Leahy's 1987 resignation as Vice Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee for leaking classified information to a reporter.
So, going by the criteria that was set by the Democrats in the Judiciary committee, only 2 - Russ Feingold and Herb Kohl - both of Wisconsin. Pretty pathetic, don't you think?
The answer, just off the top of my head and without resorting to extensive research or digging through trash, is not very many:
Not Ted Kennedy: for obvious reasons.
Not Joe Biden: he has a plagiarism problem.
Not Dianne Feinstein: she's had a Guatemalan houskeeper issue, was fined $190,000 in 1992 for failing to properly report $3.5 million in campaign expenditures, and her husband runs a company that scored a $600 million Iraq war contract in 2003. Imagine what the Dems would do with this last one.
Not Charles Schumer: two of the people under his employ at the DSCC are currently being investigated for illegally obtaining Michael Steele's credit report last year. In 1983, Schumer narrowly escaped indictment for misusing state funds in his 1980 Congressional race. The U.S. Attorney in the case, Raymond J. Dearie, actually recommended that Schumer be indicted, but the Reagan Justice Department turned down the request citing "lack of jurisdiction."
Not Dick Durbin: he would never get around his pro-life past. Durbin is on the record in the 1980's saying that he "believed that Roe v. Wade was incorrectly decided" and that "the right to an abortion is not guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution."
That leaves Pat Leahy, Herb Kohl, and Russ Feingold as the only Democrats on the Judiciary Committee who - at least at first glance - might possibly be able to survive one of their own confirmation hearings. Three out of eight. That's it.
It makes what the Democrats are trying to do to Samuel Alito all that much more distasteful and highlights how partisan and out of control the whole process has become.
UPDATE: We're down to two. I missed Pat Leahy's 1987 resignation as Vice Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee for leaking classified information to a reporter.
So, going by the criteria that was set by the Democrats in the Judiciary committee, only 2 - Russ Feingold and Herb Kohl - both of Wisconsin. Pretty pathetic, don't you think?
WAKE UP Parents!!!!!
It is time for parents to wake up to what their children are being taught! Our children are our most precious resource and yet we have schools who are teaching children how to download pornography (HT:Tracy at Anti-Strib) and asking our 1st and 2nd graders about their sexual fantasies among other things. You think I am exaggerating? Take a look at this list of credit courses from some of our more "prestigious" universities:
- Princeton University's The Cultural Production of Early Modern Women examines “prostitutes,” “cross-dressing,” and “same-sex eroticism” in 16th - and 17th - century England, France, Italy and Spain
- At The Johns Hopkins University, students in the Sex, Drugs, and Rock ‘n’ Roll in Ancient Egypt class view slideshows of women in ancient Egypt “vomiting on each other,” “having intercourse,” and “fixing their hair.”
- Swarthmore College in Pennsylvania offers the class Lesbian Novels Since World War II.
- Alfred University's Nip, Tuck, Perm, Pierce, and Tattoo: Adventures with Embodied Culture, mostly made up of women, encourages students to think about the meaning behind “teeth whitening, tanning, shaving, and hair dyeing.” Special projects include visiting a tattoo-and-piercing studio and watching Arnold Schwarzenegger’s bodybuilding film, Pumping Iron.
- Harvard University's Marxist Concepts of Racism examines “the role of capitalist development and expansion in creating racial inequality” Although Karl Marx didn't say much on race, leftist professors in this course extrapolate information on “racial oppression” and “racial antagonism."
- Occidental College has 2 —one a course in Stupidity, which compares the American presidency to Beavis and Butthead and the other The Unbearable Whiteness of Barbie: Race and Popular Culture in the United States which explores ways “which scientific racism has been put to use in the making of Barbie [and] to an interpretation of the film The Matrix as a Marxist critique of capitalism.” .
- University of California, Los Angeles offers The Psychology of the Lesbian Experience reviews “various aspects of lesbian experience” including the “impact of heterosexism/stigma, gender role socialization, minority status of women and lesbians, identity development within a multicultural society, changes in psychological theories about lesbians in sociohistorical context.”
- Duke University's American Dreams/American Realities course supposedly unearths “such myths as ‘rags to riches,’ ‘beacon to the world,’ and the ‘frontier,’ in defining the American character".
- Amherst College in Massachusetts offers the class Taking Marx Seriously: “Should Marx be given another chance?” Students in this course are asked to question if Marxism still has any “credibility” remaining, while also inquiring if societies can gain new insights by “returning to [Marx’s] texts.” Coming to Marx’s rescue, this course also states that Lenin, Stalin, and Pol Pot misapplied the concepts of Marxism.
- Brown University's Black Lavender: A Study of Black Gay & Lesbian Plays “address[es] the identities and issues of Black gay men and lesbians, and offer[s] various points of view from within and without the Black gay and lesbian artistic communities.”
- Students enrolled in the University of Michigan's Topics in Literary Studies: Ancient Greek/Modern Gay Sexuality have the pleasure of reading a “wide selection of ancient Greek (and a few Roman) texts that deal with same-sex love, desire, gender dissidence, and sexual behavior.”
(Course descriptions courtesy of YAF).
What can a parent do? Discuss your child's course work with your child and with your childs teachers. For universities, with hold donations if you are an alumni. Attend school board meetings and run for the board if you feel the board is not listening to the concerned parents! Find teachers who are willing to stand up to the NEA/MEA and encourage them. Help the teachers take back their unions. In other words, get involved. Write letters to your local paper. You have the power to take back your community if you are willing to get up and work for it.
Now is the time - GET INVOLVED!
- Princeton University's The Cultural Production of Early Modern Women examines “prostitutes,” “cross-dressing,” and “same-sex eroticism” in 16th - and 17th - century England, France, Italy and Spain
- At The Johns Hopkins University, students in the Sex, Drugs, and Rock ‘n’ Roll in Ancient Egypt class view slideshows of women in ancient Egypt “vomiting on each other,” “having intercourse,” and “fixing their hair.”
- Swarthmore College in Pennsylvania offers the class Lesbian Novels Since World War II.
- Alfred University's Nip, Tuck, Perm, Pierce, and Tattoo: Adventures with Embodied Culture, mostly made up of women, encourages students to think about the meaning behind “teeth whitening, tanning, shaving, and hair dyeing.” Special projects include visiting a tattoo-and-piercing studio and watching Arnold Schwarzenegger’s bodybuilding film, Pumping Iron.
- Harvard University's Marxist Concepts of Racism examines “the role of capitalist development and expansion in creating racial inequality” Although Karl Marx didn't say much on race, leftist professors in this course extrapolate information on “racial oppression” and “racial antagonism."
- Occidental College has 2 —one a course in Stupidity, which compares the American presidency to Beavis and Butthead and the other The Unbearable Whiteness of Barbie: Race and Popular Culture in the United States which explores ways “which scientific racism has been put to use in the making of Barbie [and] to an interpretation of the film The Matrix as a Marxist critique of capitalism.” .
- University of California, Los Angeles offers The Psychology of the Lesbian Experience reviews “various aspects of lesbian experience” including the “impact of heterosexism/stigma, gender role socialization, minority status of women and lesbians, identity development within a multicultural society, changes in psychological theories about lesbians in sociohistorical context.”
- Duke University's American Dreams/American Realities course supposedly unearths “such myths as ‘rags to riches,’ ‘beacon to the world,’ and the ‘frontier,’ in defining the American character".
- Amherst College in Massachusetts offers the class Taking Marx Seriously: “Should Marx be given another chance?” Students in this course are asked to question if Marxism still has any “credibility” remaining, while also inquiring if societies can gain new insights by “returning to [Marx’s] texts.” Coming to Marx’s rescue, this course also states that Lenin, Stalin, and Pol Pot misapplied the concepts of Marxism.
- Brown University's Black Lavender: A Study of Black Gay & Lesbian Plays “address[es] the identities and issues of Black gay men and lesbians, and offer[s] various points of view from within and without the Black gay and lesbian artistic communities.”
- Students enrolled in the University of Michigan's Topics in Literary Studies: Ancient Greek/Modern Gay Sexuality have the pleasure of reading a “wide selection of ancient Greek (and a few Roman) texts that deal with same-sex love, desire, gender dissidence, and sexual behavior.”
(Course descriptions courtesy of YAF).
What can a parent do? Discuss your child's course work with your child and with your childs teachers. For universities, with hold donations if you are an alumni. Attend school board meetings and run for the board if you feel the board is not listening to the concerned parents! Find teachers who are willing to stand up to the NEA/MEA and encourage them. Help the teachers take back their unions. In other words, get involved. Write letters to your local paper. You have the power to take back your community if you are willing to get up and work for it.
Now is the time - GET INVOLVED!
Hatch abused office's power
So says (among others) the Annandale Advocate in this op-ed from January 10. The article recounts the AG's failed attempt to get former GOP chair Ron Eibensteiner on campaign finance violations.
So let’s review the facts: Attorney General Hatch takes a thank you letter from a friend – claiming it’s evidence of a crime – then leaks it to a metropolitan newspaper. The former Republican Party chairman who signed a poorly worded form letter is forced to spend thousands of dollars to clear his name because the top Democrat in the state wants to use it as leverage in order to become your new governor. And finally, once it’s discovered that the corporate contributions were made legally to both the National Democratic and Republican Committees, the assault by the Attorney General’s Office against the Republicans continues, while no similar investigation is made into the Democratic donation.
It is nice to see that the Advocate is saying something that a lot of Republican activists have been saying for months! But wait...there's more.
Clearly, this is different than normal political partisanship. What you have here is a constitutional officer abusing his office by wasting taxpayer dollars to promote his gubernatorial run. Hatch orchestrated all of this, intending to use it in his run for governor. If the prosecution had been successful, he would have used it in his race against Gov. Pawlenty. However, the Eibensteiner case is one where a jury, not politicians, heard the facts and made a decision. The jury did not believe Hatch’s version of the events.
But the fun doesn’t end here. Hatch is now going after current Republican Party Chair Ron Carey for alleged wrongdoings. Carey, who is also vice-chairman of the Minnesota Autism Center board of directors, has an autistic son who receives treatment through the center. The organization receives funding from public sources. Hatch now has the idea that the center may have misspent state money, and is conducting an investigation. Attorney General Hatch is again abusing the power of the attorney general’s office and its investigative authority for personal political purposes! This has Witch Hunt, Round 2, written all over it.
With this course of conduct in mind, why would anyone – regardless of political affiliation – want Mike Hatch as their chief executive officer of the state of Minnesota?
The thing is, Mike Hatch has a history of doing this. We should not be surprised that he is doing this. What we (the people of Minnesota) need to do is figure out if we want a person with a history of Nixonian persecution of his perceived enemies in the Governor's mansion?
So let’s review the facts: Attorney General Hatch takes a thank you letter from a friend – claiming it’s evidence of a crime – then leaks it to a metropolitan newspaper. The former Republican Party chairman who signed a poorly worded form letter is forced to spend thousands of dollars to clear his name because the top Democrat in the state wants to use it as leverage in order to become your new governor. And finally, once it’s discovered that the corporate contributions were made legally to both the National Democratic and Republican Committees, the assault by the Attorney General’s Office against the Republicans continues, while no similar investigation is made into the Democratic donation.
It is nice to see that the Advocate is saying something that a lot of Republican activists have been saying for months! But wait...there's more.
Clearly, this is different than normal political partisanship. What you have here is a constitutional officer abusing his office by wasting taxpayer dollars to promote his gubernatorial run. Hatch orchestrated all of this, intending to use it in his run for governor. If the prosecution had been successful, he would have used it in his race against Gov. Pawlenty. However, the Eibensteiner case is one where a jury, not politicians, heard the facts and made a decision. The jury did not believe Hatch’s version of the events.
But the fun doesn’t end here. Hatch is now going after current Republican Party Chair Ron Carey for alleged wrongdoings. Carey, who is also vice-chairman of the Minnesota Autism Center board of directors, has an autistic son who receives treatment through the center. The organization receives funding from public sources. Hatch now has the idea that the center may have misspent state money, and is conducting an investigation. Attorney General Hatch is again abusing the power of the attorney general’s office and its investigative authority for personal political purposes! This has Witch Hunt, Round 2, written all over it.
With this course of conduct in mind, why would anyone – regardless of political affiliation – want Mike Hatch as their chief executive officer of the state of Minnesota?
The thing is, Mike Hatch has a history of doing this. We should not be surprised that he is doing this. What we (the people of Minnesota) need to do is figure out if we want a person with a history of Nixonian persecution of his perceived enemies in the Governor's mansion?
Saturday, January 14, 2006
Senatorial Glass Houses
A friend pointed me to this information over at the National Rebublican Senatorial Committee website. It indicates that 40 out of 45 sitting Democratic Senators have taken money from Jack Abramoff or his clients. Now the NRSC is stating that they retrieved the information from the Campaign Finance Analysis Project Website, (access is for members only), Political Money Line and the IRS website.
I found some of the numbers listed to be troubling, and that is putting it mildly. Here are a few notable examples and how much (according to the NRSC website):
Byron Dorgan(D-ND) Received At Least $79,300
Dick Durbin (D-IL) Received At Least $14,000
Chuck Schumer (D-NY) Received At Least $29,550
Joe Lieberman (D-CT) Received At Least $29,830 and
John Kerry (D-MA) Received At Least $98,550
Notably absent from this list is our soon to be former Senior Senator, Mark Dayton.
Now I am not naive enough to think that there are no Republican senators on this list, however a visit to the DSCC website did not reveal any similarly detailed information. It simply listed 5 Republican Senators....Senators that we already knew about.
What we know now, via public records, is that a lot of people on both sides of the aisle took money from either Jack Abramoff or his clients. By now, we have all seen the list (in pink and blue) that shows a supposed "vast" number of Republicans who took Abramoff money. As I said here the smart party is going to propose some real campaign finance and lobbying reform. The party that is not serious about it is going to go to on Wolf Blitzer's program and say "we never took money from Abramoff, only his clients" as if there is a difference! Whatever!!!!!!
In discussing this issue a wise woman asked "My question is, "Which of them sold their votes for favors, and who merely accepted the donations without performing favors and selling out?" Two different animals in my book." and she is absolutely correct. That is where the difference lies.....who took the money and sold out and who didn't!
Here is my challenge to any Democrats that are reading this blog. Find me a source that says that 90% of the sitting Republican Senators took money from Abramoff or his clients. You can send it to me at the address LadyLogician at hope4america (dot) net.
But know this readers , contrary to the protestations of the DNC Chairman, taking money from Jack Abramoff clients who are giving money to you at Abramoff's direction, is the same as taking money from the man directly! So Ms. Pelosi......bring on the investigation! But make sure your house is in order or you could end up being taken down by your own myopia!
I found some of the numbers listed to be troubling, and that is putting it mildly. Here are a few notable examples and how much (according to the NRSC website):
Byron Dorgan(D-ND) Received At Least $79,300
Dick Durbin (D-IL) Received At Least $14,000
Chuck Schumer (D-NY) Received At Least $29,550
Joe Lieberman (D-CT) Received At Least $29,830 and
John Kerry (D-MA) Received At Least $98,550
Notably absent from this list is our soon to be former Senior Senator, Mark Dayton.
Now I am not naive enough to think that there are no Republican senators on this list, however a visit to the DSCC website did not reveal any similarly detailed information. It simply listed 5 Republican Senators....Senators that we already knew about.
What we know now, via public records, is that a lot of people on both sides of the aisle took money from either Jack Abramoff or his clients. By now, we have all seen the list (in pink and blue) that shows a supposed "vast" number of Republicans who took Abramoff money. As I said here the smart party is going to propose some real campaign finance and lobbying reform. The party that is not serious about it is going to go to on Wolf Blitzer's program and say "we never took money from Abramoff, only his clients" as if there is a difference! Whatever!!!!!!
In discussing this issue a wise woman asked "My question is, "Which of them sold their votes for favors, and who merely accepted the donations without performing favors and selling out?" Two different animals in my book." and she is absolutely correct. That is where the difference lies.....who took the money and sold out and who didn't!
Here is my challenge to any Democrats that are reading this blog. Find me a source that says that 90% of the sitting Republican Senators took money from Abramoff or his clients. You can send it to me at the address LadyLogician at hope4america (dot) net.
But know this readers , contrary to the protestations of the DNC Chairman, taking money from Jack Abramoff clients who are giving money to you at Abramoff's direction, is the same as taking money from the man directly! So Ms. Pelosi......bring on the investigation! But make sure your house is in order or you could end up being taken down by your own myopia!
Friday, January 13, 2006
Good intentions, Abramoff and the Republican leadership
I had a conversation today with Captain Ed from Captains Quarters Blog . We talked about a number of things including a very worthwhile project regarding a WWII veteran and trying to correct a 62 year injustice that he has suffered. More on that in a few weeks. We also briefly talked about the Abramoff scandal. And I related the sum and substance of my blog entry and repeated to him that the only reason that influence is bought is that there is influence to buy. Enforce the 10th Amendment, keep those cretins in Congress true to their oath of office (and by the way kids, a Congressman is either a Representative OR a Senator...Congress includes BOTH houses- Senate and the House of Representatives), keep the chief resident at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave true to his oath of office and all that influence buying goes away.
So, when I see the Blogosphere calling for reform of the lobbyists (see Captain Ed's top entry), I say don't go halfway. Don't amputate half of a gangrene arm. Don't expect that what you've proposed will really work. To use Thoreau, don't cut at the leaves, chop at the roots!
So, when I see the Blogosphere calling for reform of the lobbyists (see Captain Ed's top entry), I say don't go halfway. Don't amputate half of a gangrene arm. Don't expect that what you've proposed will really work. To use Thoreau, don't cut at the leaves, chop at the roots!
Wednesday, January 11, 2006
Abramoff fall-out starting
Many opined (in the days following the Abramoff plea agreement) that we were going to see affirmation of the "culture of corruption" charges that the Democratic leadership has leveled at the Republican Party. Well, according to this article in todays Washington Times (free registration required) that charge may have been greatly exaggerated.
" Law-enforcement authorities and others said the investigation's opening phase is scrutinizing Sens. Conrad Burns, Montana Republican; Byron L. Dorgan, North Dakota Democrat; and Minority Leader Harry Reid, Nevada Democrat, along with Reps. J.D. Hayworth, Arizona Republican, and Bob Ney, Ohio Republican. "
Now I fully grasp that this is the "opening phase" of the investigation, but I find it telling that the ranking member that is implicated is none other that Nevada's Harry Reid! Not Tom DeLay, not Bill Frist, but Harry Reid the Senate Minority Leader.
Much hay has been made about the so-called Republican "culture of corruption". I think that the most correct assessment is the culture of corruption that permeates Washington DC. The country has reached a cross-roads. It is imperative that one party take the lead in reforming the way business is done in DC. If the Republicans are smart, they will be the ones to take the lead. That will pave the way to success in November. Will it happen? It will if the American people demand that it happen. Are you up to the challenge dear readers?
" Law-enforcement authorities and others said the investigation's opening phase is scrutinizing Sens. Conrad Burns, Montana Republican; Byron L. Dorgan, North Dakota Democrat; and Minority Leader Harry Reid, Nevada Democrat, along with Reps. J.D. Hayworth, Arizona Republican, and Bob Ney, Ohio Republican. "
Now I fully grasp that this is the "opening phase" of the investigation, but I find it telling that the ranking member that is implicated is none other that Nevada's Harry Reid! Not Tom DeLay, not Bill Frist, but Harry Reid the Senate Minority Leader.
Much hay has been made about the so-called Republican "culture of corruption". I think that the most correct assessment is the culture of corruption that permeates Washington DC. The country has reached a cross-roads. It is imperative that one party take the lead in reforming the way business is done in DC. If the Republicans are smart, they will be the ones to take the lead. That will pave the way to success in November. Will it happen? It will if the American people demand that it happen. Are you up to the challenge dear readers?
The Alito Hearings
I have been trying (as best as I can given a work schedule) to follow the Alito hearings over the last three days. Thanks to the Internet, I can catch up on a lot that I have missed. For those who, like me, have to work during the hearings, this website has been a godsend. I plan to write about some of these transcripts as time allows, but following the transcripts is a great way to see what is going on.
You know things are bad (for the Dems) when even your most stalwart supporter, the New York Times, is admitting that you’re not getting the job done.
“Judge Alito's default impulse frequently seemed to be to try to give a direct response to the senators' often rambling questions.”
Rambling is an understatement. For the most part, when the Democratic Senators had their 30 minutes to “ask questions” they spent the majority of that time bloviating! Senator Leahy spent 18 of his 30 minutes talking, Senator Kennedy spent 24 of his 30 minutes speaking (he ended up needing an extension of his time because he was rambling so much) – as did Senator Biden,. All of which made Senator Leahy’s comments (at the beginning of his time) even more ironic;
“So glad you survived yesterday listening to us. Now we have a chance to hear you.”
While the Senators asked a number of questions that were based on actual decisions (they mentioned Doe v. Groody and Baker v. Monroe Township) but when they realized that they could not get him on the issues, the attacks turned personal! During the questioning this afternoon, Mrs. Alito left the chamber in tears after listening to Senator Graham gallantly apologize to the nominee for his compatriots horrible behavior!
Prior to that, Senator Kennedy (momentarily forgetting that he was not even the ranking DEMOCRAT much less the ranking member of the committee) threatened to hijack the committee in order to hold up the meetings in order to get yet MORE documentation. Senator Kyl (speaking on Hugh Hewitt’s program moments ago) seemed to think that this breach of decorum was mostly to play to the TV camera’s and have his recorded moment for the base at People for the American Way.
I used to think (naively) that when it came to doing “the people’s business” that partisan politics would somehow get put aside….that the “world’s greatest deliberative body” would not stoop to such lows (as personal attacks on nominees) but as I saw today, I was sadly mistaken. Senator Schumer, in his haranguing remarks late this afternoon, made it decided clear that the Democratic partisans have no interests in doing what is best for this country. While I am sad that my naïve views of the Senate have been so brutally crushed, I am glad to see that it happened now, in the build up to the 2006 elections. The people of the country have got to be horrified at this turn of developments in DC. Hopefully they will do the right thing come next November!
You know things are bad (for the Dems) when even your most stalwart supporter, the New York Times, is admitting that you’re not getting the job done.
“Judge Alito's default impulse frequently seemed to be to try to give a direct response to the senators' often rambling questions.”
Rambling is an understatement. For the most part, when the Democratic Senators had their 30 minutes to “ask questions” they spent the majority of that time bloviating! Senator Leahy spent 18 of his 30 minutes talking, Senator Kennedy spent 24 of his 30 minutes speaking (he ended up needing an extension of his time because he was rambling so much) – as did Senator Biden,. All of which made Senator Leahy’s comments (at the beginning of his time) even more ironic;
“So glad you survived yesterday listening to us. Now we have a chance to hear you.”
While the Senators asked a number of questions that were based on actual decisions (they mentioned Doe v. Groody and Baker v. Monroe Township) but when they realized that they could not get him on the issues, the attacks turned personal! During the questioning this afternoon, Mrs. Alito left the chamber in tears after listening to Senator Graham gallantly apologize to the nominee for his compatriots horrible behavior!
Prior to that, Senator Kennedy (momentarily forgetting that he was not even the ranking DEMOCRAT much less the ranking member of the committee) threatened to hijack the committee in order to hold up the meetings in order to get yet MORE documentation. Senator Kyl (speaking on Hugh Hewitt’s program moments ago) seemed to think that this breach of decorum was mostly to play to the TV camera’s and have his recorded moment for the base at People for the American Way.
I used to think (naively) that when it came to doing “the people’s business” that partisan politics would somehow get put aside….that the “world’s greatest deliberative body” would not stoop to such lows (as personal attacks on nominees) but as I saw today, I was sadly mistaken. Senator Schumer, in his haranguing remarks late this afternoon, made it decided clear that the Democratic partisans have no interests in doing what is best for this country. While I am sad that my naïve views of the Senate have been so brutally crushed, I am glad to see that it happened now, in the build up to the 2006 elections. The people of the country have got to be horrified at this turn of developments in DC. Hopefully they will do the right thing come next November!
UPDATE: Captain Ed has a great post today about the McCarthyesque tone that Senator Kennedy's line of questioning took. It is a must read!
McCain/Feingold Too Lax! Federal Prison, Here I Come!
Reviewing my post below, I now find out that I am now open to spending two years in a federal prison plus face a heavy fine .
It is now a federal crime to "annoy" someone either on the web or in an email without disclosing your, or my, true identity ( article here ). Not libel. Not threaten. Annoy.
This prohibition is buried in the "Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act" (always glad to see that Violence Against Men is OK as far as the Senate is concerned. And what did ever did happen to "equal protection under the law"? Obviously an outmoded concept...along with federalism).
Yup. Annoy someone and not use your name, off to Leavenworth you go!!
And if you want to see how this piece of Senate sausage is made, go here ,click on either item 5 or 6 and just read the section titles and see how your money is spent, and see the reach of the Imperial Congress and agreed to by GWB.
Had enough yet?
It is now a federal crime to "annoy" someone either on the web or in an email without disclosing your, or my, true identity ( article here ). Not libel. Not threaten. Annoy.
This prohibition is buried in the "Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act" (always glad to see that Violence Against Men is OK as far as the Senate is concerned. And what did ever did happen to "equal protection under the law"? Obviously an outmoded concept...along with federalism).
Yup. Annoy someone and not use your name, off to Leavenworth you go!!
And if you want to see how this piece of Senate sausage is made, go here ,click on either item 5 or 6 and just read the section titles and see how your money is spent, and see the reach of the Imperial Congress and agreed to by GWB.
Had enough yet?
30,000 Terrorist Weapons Seized! Community Thankful for Feds Alertness!
The ever vigilant Federal Government took possession of 30,000 weapons in Minneapolis yesterday in a sweep through our little community that certainly found us napping, but not the always alert Feds and the FDA!
These nasty little instruments of terror, disguised as loaves of bread, were improperly labeled according to a small and recent change in the labeling commandments from the front line defense from terror, the Food and Drug Administration.
I can't tell you how relieved I am knowing that taxpayers money is so well spent as this action evidences. This brave engagement proves that all the issues I thought were pressing are now obviously well under control.
I also noticed that another potential local perpetrator of terror has ONLY SIX people who do nothing but check label compliance. My lands, what is this capitalist thinking? I would hope that the FDA immediately demand that ALL employees be trained in spotting label non-compliance. Immediately I say!!!
We all know that label non-compliance and gluten intolerance is eroding the Republic. And I am saddened to find that this insidious activity and threat has been found here in the heartland. But, I'm quite encouraged, even elated to see that our brave federal officials are on the ball and not to be trifled with!
Now that label non-compliance and gluten intolerance have been firmly addressed and the bakery community put on HARD notice, I can only hope and wish that shoelace length discrepancies will now be in the Federal crosshairs!
(Information in this article found here in Prairie Pravda).
These nasty little instruments of terror, disguised as loaves of bread, were improperly labeled according to a small and recent change in the labeling commandments from the front line defense from terror, the Food and Drug Administration.
I can't tell you how relieved I am knowing that taxpayers money is so well spent as this action evidences. This brave engagement proves that all the issues I thought were pressing are now obviously well under control.
I also noticed that another potential local perpetrator of terror has ONLY SIX people who do nothing but check label compliance. My lands, what is this capitalist thinking? I would hope that the FDA immediately demand that ALL employees be trained in spotting label non-compliance. Immediately I say!!!
We all know that label non-compliance and gluten intolerance is eroding the Republic. And I am saddened to find that this insidious activity and threat has been found here in the heartland. But, I'm quite encouraged, even elated to see that our brave federal officials are on the ball and not to be trifled with!
Now that label non-compliance and gluten intolerance have been firmly addressed and the bakery community put on HARD notice, I can only hope and wish that shoelace length discrepancies will now be in the Federal crosshairs!
(Information in this article found here in Prairie Pravda).
Monday, January 09, 2006
Saw this at The Corner this morning.
PREDICTION [Jonah Goldberg]
This exchange from CNN yesterday will come back to haunt Howard Dean:
BLITZER: Should Democrats who took money from Jack Abramoff, who has now pleaded guilty to bribery charges, among other charges, a Republican lobbyist in Washington, should the Democrat who took money from him give that money to charity or give it back?
DEAN: There are no Democrats who took money from Jack Abramoff, not one, not one single Democrat. Every person named in this scandal is a Republican. Every person under investigation is a Republican. Every person indicted is a Republican. This is a Republican finance scandal. There is no evidence that Jack Abramoff ever gave any Democrat any money. And we've looked through all of those FEC reports to make sure that's true.
BLITZER: But through various Abramoff-related organizations and outfits, a bunch of Democrats did take money that presumably originated with Jack Abramoff.
DEAN: That's not true either. There's no evidence for that either. There is no evidence...
BLITZER: What about Senator Byron Dorgan?
DEAN: Senator Byron Dorgan and some others took money from Indian tribes. They're not agents of Jack Abramoff. There's no evidence that I've seen that Jack Abramoff directed any contributions to Democrats. I know the Republican National Committee would like to get the Democrats involved in this. They're scared. They should be scared. They haven't told the truth. They have misled the American people. And now it appears they're stealing from Indian tribes. The Democrats are not involved in this.
I would laugh, except that I heard Ember Reichgott Junge (former DFL State Senator) spout the same talking points yesterday on "At Issue with Tom Hauser" (a local political talk show). Unfortunately it was not the last time I hear that yesterday either. They think that they can spin this, but it is not going to work. The American people are not that stupid! They can see through the spin and the distortions.
PREDICTION [Jonah Goldberg]
This exchange from CNN yesterday will come back to haunt Howard Dean:
BLITZER: Should Democrats who took money from Jack Abramoff, who has now pleaded guilty to bribery charges, among other charges, a Republican lobbyist in Washington, should the Democrat who took money from him give that money to charity or give it back?
DEAN: There are no Democrats who took money from Jack Abramoff, not one, not one single Democrat. Every person named in this scandal is a Republican. Every person under investigation is a Republican. Every person indicted is a Republican. This is a Republican finance scandal. There is no evidence that Jack Abramoff ever gave any Democrat any money. And we've looked through all of those FEC reports to make sure that's true.
BLITZER: But through various Abramoff-related organizations and outfits, a bunch of Democrats did take money that presumably originated with Jack Abramoff.
DEAN: That's not true either. There's no evidence for that either. There is no evidence...
BLITZER: What about Senator Byron Dorgan?
DEAN: Senator Byron Dorgan and some others took money from Indian tribes. They're not agents of Jack Abramoff. There's no evidence that I've seen that Jack Abramoff directed any contributions to Democrats. I know the Republican National Committee would like to get the Democrats involved in this. They're scared. They should be scared. They haven't told the truth. They have misled the American people. And now it appears they're stealing from Indian tribes. The Democrats are not involved in this.
I would laugh, except that I heard Ember Reichgott Junge (former DFL State Senator) spout the same talking points yesterday on "At Issue with Tom Hauser" (a local political talk show). Unfortunately it was not the last time I hear that yesterday either. They think that they can spin this, but it is not going to work. The American people are not that stupid! They can see through the spin and the distortions.
What media bias????
An email was forwarded to me today. The email was from the Media Research Council and it was decrying the "bias" in reporting on Samuel Alito's nomination to the Supreme Court. Media bias, you say???? NOOOOOOOO it can't be so.
Oh wait a minute. I missed this screed in Boston Globe.
"IN THE 1998 movie ''Pleasantville," Tobey Maguire and Reese Witherspoon play typical '90s kids who are inadvertently transported into the unreal reality of a 1950s sitcom. They use their '90s values to teach the sitcom world some lessons about diversity and tolerance.
Today many people have a stylized, ''Pleasantville" vision of the pre-Roe era in which I grew up. They imagine fondly that almost all families had a Daddy at the office and a Mommy in the kitchen; that almost all family relations were well-ordered and unthreatening; in short, that life looked like ''Leave It to Beaver" -- and that, with a few legal adjustments, it could do so again."
OHMIGOSH!!!! We have a WHAT???????? Here are a couple of those stylized "Pleasantville" visions....
Short Term Physical Dangers: An abortion is an unnatural, invasive act on the female body. The cervix is not meant to be forced open. The uterus is not meant to be scraped and vacuumed empty. Women can experience immediate physical problems related to their abortions.
Infection: Infection is the most common abortion complication. It can easily occur if any placental or fetal material is left in the uterus. Lacerations or other injuries to the uterine wall can also lead to infection. Women who have an abortion while infected with chlamydia have an especially high risk of getting pelvic inflamatory disease, which can lead to infertility.
Perforations : Common abortion procedures involve inserting sharp tools into the uterus. Women can suffer cuts or perforations of the uterus or bowel, which can lead to blood poisoning and even death. (And a hospital may report the cause of death as blood poisoning, and not as a botched abortion.)
Cervical Damage: During normal childbirth, the cervix - the lowest muscle in the uterus - softens and slowly stretches open to allow the baby to be born. The cervix is not prepared to be forced open earlier in the pregnancy. Stretching the stiff cervix muscle to insert tools or remove fetal parts can tear and weaken the cervical muscle, especially in a first pregnancy.
Others: Other side-effects of an abortion can include excessive bleeding, hemorrhaging, endotoxic shock, fever, and vomiting.
And those are just the some of the short term damages.....
Meanwhile, a vast majority of the country feels that there are certain reasonable restrictions. If a child/teen-ager wants to have an abortion, the parents should be notified that their daughter was undergoing a surgical proceedure (anything invasise like this is technically a surgical proceedure). After all, if a child needs a parent's permission to get her ears pierced, it is only reasonable that a child should need parental involvement for an abortion. If a woman seeking an abortion is married, that her husband be told that she is having the proceedure. No permission is being sought! Simple notification. No abortions should be committed in the final trimester of a pregnancy unless finishing the pregnancy would severely harm the mother's health. There is some debate on this. Thanks to medical technology, a baby that is 8-10 weeks premature can live, but it will require intensive care. If that is the case, should the baby be delivered and if they are, who will pay for the expensive care that this child will require?
No one wants to return to the days of unsafe back alley abortions Ms. Michelman. Neither is Judge Alito out of step with "mainstream America". That honor belongs to people like you who insist on supporting abortion on demand.
Oh wait a minute. I missed this screed in Boston Globe.
"IN THE 1998 movie ''Pleasantville," Tobey Maguire and Reese Witherspoon play typical '90s kids who are inadvertently transported into the unreal reality of a 1950s sitcom. They use their '90s values to teach the sitcom world some lessons about diversity and tolerance.
Today many people have a stylized, ''Pleasantville" vision of the pre-Roe era in which I grew up. They imagine fondly that almost all families had a Daddy at the office and a Mommy in the kitchen; that almost all family relations were well-ordered and unthreatening; in short, that life looked like ''Leave It to Beaver" -- and that, with a few legal adjustments, it could do so again."
OHMIGOSH!!!! We have a WHAT???????? Here are a couple of those stylized "Pleasantville" visions....
Short Term Physical Dangers: An abortion is an unnatural, invasive act on the female body. The cervix is not meant to be forced open. The uterus is not meant to be scraped and vacuumed empty. Women can experience immediate physical problems related to their abortions.
Infection: Infection is the most common abortion complication. It can easily occur if any placental or fetal material is left in the uterus. Lacerations or other injuries to the uterine wall can also lead to infection. Women who have an abortion while infected with chlamydia have an especially high risk of getting pelvic inflamatory disease, which can lead to infertility.
Perforations : Common abortion procedures involve inserting sharp tools into the uterus. Women can suffer cuts or perforations of the uterus or bowel, which can lead to blood poisoning and even death. (And a hospital may report the cause of death as blood poisoning, and not as a botched abortion.)
Cervical Damage: During normal childbirth, the cervix - the lowest muscle in the uterus - softens and slowly stretches open to allow the baby to be born. The cervix is not prepared to be forced open earlier in the pregnancy. Stretching the stiff cervix muscle to insert tools or remove fetal parts can tear and weaken the cervical muscle, especially in a first pregnancy.
Others: Other side-effects of an abortion can include excessive bleeding, hemorrhaging, endotoxic shock, fever, and vomiting.
And those are just the some of the short term damages.....
Meanwhile, a vast majority of the country feels that there are certain reasonable restrictions. If a child/teen-ager wants to have an abortion, the parents should be notified that their daughter was undergoing a surgical proceedure (anything invasise like this is technically a surgical proceedure). After all, if a child needs a parent's permission to get her ears pierced, it is only reasonable that a child should need parental involvement for an abortion. If a woman seeking an abortion is married, that her husband be told that she is having the proceedure. No permission is being sought! Simple notification. No abortions should be committed in the final trimester of a pregnancy unless finishing the pregnancy would severely harm the mother's health. There is some debate on this. Thanks to medical technology, a baby that is 8-10 weeks premature can live, but it will require intensive care. If that is the case, should the baby be delivered and if they are, who will pay for the expensive care that this child will require?
No one wants to return to the days of unsafe back alley abortions Ms. Michelman. Neither is Judge Alito out of step with "mainstream America". That honor belongs to people like you who insist on supporting abortion on demand.
Calling all Constitutional Law Professors!!!!!
There is a dire lack of Constitutional knowledge in the Senate and that needs to be corrected. How can I say this? I say this based on the build up to the beginning of today's confirmation hearings for Judge Alito.
Think I am exhaggerating? This is from Senator Leahey's (the ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary committee) opening remarks today:
"No President should be allowed to pack the courts, and especially the Supreme Court, with nominees selected to enshrine presidential claims of Government power. "
The Constitution says flat out that the President was ABLE to appoint judges as openings came available. When Bill Clinton was President, he was able to put a former ACLU lawyer (Ginsberg) and a former staffer to Senator Ted Kennedy (Breyer) on the Supreme Court. Both are distinguished jurists, however, everyone knew going in exactly what their political temperment was and how it matched up with President Clinton. Why were there no concerns then about "packing the court"?
Speaking of the distinguised Senior Senator from Massachuesttes, what did Senator Kennedy have to say in his opening remarks?
"When he was before this committee in 1990, applying for a job to the circuit court, he promised under oath that he would recuse himself from cases involving Vanguard, the mutual fund company in which he had most of his investments. But as a judge, he participated in a Vanguard case anyway, and has offered many conflicting reasons to explain why he broke his word."
There is nothing in the Constitution that says one must recuse themselves from a case that involves your mutual funds, and there is even precedent to the contrary where a lower court judge ruled in a case against a different mutual fund company that the judge owned shares in (I have to look up details on the case as I just heard it on the radio).
This is what Senator Joe Biden had to say (in his opening remarks) on the Roe debate:
"The fundamental question here (ed talking about abortion rights) is will you continue to support that consensus – or will you seek to reverse it as at least two, and possibly as many as four of our sitting Justices would like to do? "
Senator Diane Feinstein said (I am looking for a link to this quote as well) that unless Judge Alito would guarantee her that he would "never touch Roe" that she would not vote for him. Excuse me Senator, you know better than that. A judicial nominee is expressly unable (the Ginsburg precident) to comment on specifics on ANY case that may come before him or her in the court!
It is depressing. These people are supposed to "know better".
Think I am exhaggerating? This is from Senator Leahey's (the ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary committee) opening remarks today:
"No President should be allowed to pack the courts, and especially the Supreme Court, with nominees selected to enshrine presidential claims of Government power. "
The Constitution says flat out that the President was ABLE to appoint judges as openings came available. When Bill Clinton was President, he was able to put a former ACLU lawyer (Ginsberg) and a former staffer to Senator Ted Kennedy (Breyer) on the Supreme Court. Both are distinguished jurists, however, everyone knew going in exactly what their political temperment was and how it matched up with President Clinton. Why were there no concerns then about "packing the court"?
Speaking of the distinguised Senior Senator from Massachuesttes, what did Senator Kennedy have to say in his opening remarks?
"When he was before this committee in 1990, applying for a job to the circuit court, he promised under oath that he would recuse himself from cases involving Vanguard, the mutual fund company in which he had most of his investments. But as a judge, he participated in a Vanguard case anyway, and has offered many conflicting reasons to explain why he broke his word."
There is nothing in the Constitution that says one must recuse themselves from a case that involves your mutual funds, and there is even precedent to the contrary where a lower court judge ruled in a case against a different mutual fund company that the judge owned shares in (I have to look up details on the case as I just heard it on the radio).
This is what Senator Joe Biden had to say (in his opening remarks) on the Roe debate:
"The fundamental question here (ed talking about abortion rights) is will you continue to support that consensus – or will you seek to reverse it as at least two, and possibly as many as four of our sitting Justices would like to do? "
Senator Diane Feinstein said (I am looking for a link to this quote as well) that unless Judge Alito would guarantee her that he would "never touch Roe" that she would not vote for him. Excuse me Senator, you know better than that. A judicial nominee is expressly unable (the Ginsburg precident) to comment on specifics on ANY case that may come before him or her in the court!
It is depressing. These people are supposed to "know better".
Judge Alito, to his credit, promised that he had no agenda and that he would not prejudge any case coming before him. Too bad we can not say the same thing about the Democrats in the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Sunday, January 08, 2006
Every now and then...
Every now and then, Pravda on the Mississippi surprises me. This was one of those times. This story was in the Faith & Values section of yesterdays paper.
"What's in a name? U.S. military chaplains and Christians offering public prayers are being forced to consider that question as they are discouraged, and in some cases prohibited, from praying in the name of Jesus."
The author is speaking about Navy Chaplain Lt. Gordon J. Klingenschmitt who was on hunger strike after being transferred off of his ship because he refused to follow an order to quit praying "in Jesus name". To the commanding officer who made that order, I have one little question...What part of the First Amendment are you unclear on?
The establishment clause of the First Amendment states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
There is another case that was mentioned in the article. Apparently a US District judge has ruled that it is illegal for Christian prayers to be offered in the Indiana House of Representatives. I like how the author of the article put it...
The establishment clause of the First Amendment states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Yet the above-mentioned cases do establish a preference for non-Christian faiths and non-religion over Christianity, and most certainly prohibit free exercise...
...Why? Because praying in the name of Jesus is not form or fashion, but essence. It is a fundamental function of the faith itself that transcends religion and rests on relationship. Just one of many scriptures on the topic illuminates why: "There is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved" (Acts 4:12).
While I normally do not feel that this kind of thing is something government should do, it is obviously something that is long overdue. Then, after the President signs the executive order (protecting the rights of military chaplains to pray in Jesus name) I think it is time for someone to look into ways to remove Judge Hamilton from his seat. If this judge can't understand what establishment is (and is not) then obviously he needs to go back to Con Law. Maybe Hugh Hewitt will let him audit one of his classes...
I will let the Strib have the final word on this...
"Leave Jesus out of my prayer and deny the person on whom the faith is founded? Absolutely not. The name and person of Jesus -- his life, crucifixion and resurrection -- is the essence of Christianity, the how of my prayer. "
Amen and AMEN!!!!!
"What's in a name? U.S. military chaplains and Christians offering public prayers are being forced to consider that question as they are discouraged, and in some cases prohibited, from praying in the name of Jesus."
The author is speaking about Navy Chaplain Lt. Gordon J. Klingenschmitt who was on hunger strike after being transferred off of his ship because he refused to follow an order to quit praying "in Jesus name". To the commanding officer who made that order, I have one little question...What part of the First Amendment are you unclear on?
The establishment clause of the First Amendment states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
There is another case that was mentioned in the article. Apparently a US District judge has ruled that it is illegal for Christian prayers to be offered in the Indiana House of Representatives. I like how the author of the article put it...
The establishment clause of the First Amendment states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Yet the above-mentioned cases do establish a preference for non-Christian faiths and non-religion over Christianity, and most certainly prohibit free exercise...
...Why? Because praying in the name of Jesus is not form or fashion, but essence. It is a fundamental function of the faith itself that transcends religion and rests on relationship. Just one of many scriptures on the topic illuminates why: "There is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved" (Acts 4:12).
While I normally do not feel that this kind of thing is something government should do, it is obviously something that is long overdue. Then, after the President signs the executive order (protecting the rights of military chaplains to pray in Jesus name) I think it is time for someone to look into ways to remove Judge Hamilton from his seat. If this judge can't understand what establishment is (and is not) then obviously he needs to go back to Con Law. Maybe Hugh Hewitt will let him audit one of his classes...
I will let the Strib have the final word on this...
"Leave Jesus out of my prayer and deny the person on whom the faith is founded? Absolutely not. The name and person of Jesus -- his life, crucifixion and resurrection -- is the essence of Christianity, the how of my prayer. "
Amen and AMEN!!!!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)