The M. Sheldon Show

Hillarious, simply hillarious!

2007-04-01T18:15:00.000-07:00

Duncan Hunter's Speech at CPAC

2007-03-07T05:06:00.000-08:00

Congressman Duncan Hunter (R-CA)
Conservative Political Action Conference
Washington, DC
March 2, 2007

Ladies and gentlemen, thank you very much. Good morning. You know, I woke up to the commentary-that one of the commentators was saying that the only reason that Hunter beat all of those guys in South Carolina is because his Marine son has been there for a week. Well, I looked down at that army of consultants-everybody who is vertical in South Carolina was hired by the other guys -and I said, "You know, that's a pretty good match up. One Marine versus 550 consultants. We did have the advantage."

And Dunc, if you're listening to me right now, you know, there's a couple of boxes still out. We've got about five more votes to get and we may even win this thing and pull just ahead of Mr. Giuliani.

You know, this is a great place to start because we're just a couple of miles away from Arlington Cemetery right now. And about an hour ago, the first rays of sunlight hit the stars of David and crosses in Arlington Cemetery and started to illuminate this great country.
And when they did, they illuminated what I call the arsenal of democracy. And that's our plants and facilities and manufacturers, who make things in this country and who helped to carry us to victory three times in the last century in winning this war, the war for freedom, for not only the United States, but for the world.

That's our ability to make things, our ability to produce.
You know, in World War II, we made a 100,000-plus tanks. We made 41,000 pieces of artillery. We made 36 billion yards of textiles. Ford Motor Company turned out a bomber every 60 minutes in their plant in Michigan.

Well, let me tell you, the arsenal of democracy is being fractured and sent across the world.
And as chairman of the Armed Services Committee a couple of years ago, when the roadside bombs started to hurt our troops in Iraq, and I sent our teams out to find some high-grade armor steel to protect our troops on our Humvees, I found one company left in this country that could still make high-grade armor steel.

And when a company in Switzerland cut off the guidance devices for maybe our most important weapon system, that's our smart bombs, we found one company left in America that could still make that tiny guidance system for smart bombs.

So the arsenal of democracy can largely be found today in places like Beijing and Paris and Korea and Japan, but that great arsenal that carried our troops to victory, that carried Eisenhower's forces to victory in Berlin. and carried our forces across the Pacific and drove the Japanese back to the mainland, World War II, and, yes, carried us to victory in the Cold War-it was the strength, the industrial strength, behind Ronald Reagan's peace through strength policy that helped win the Cold War-that arsenal is being fractured.

And let me tell you one reason we're losing it: We're losing it largely because China is cheating on trade. And they're buying ships and planes and missiles with billions of American trade dollars.

And let me tell you how they're doing it.

If this podium was made in China and exported to us here in the United States, and it was $100 when it goes down to the water's edge to be exported to us, the government of China walks over and gives its exporter all their taxes back; something we can't do under the trade law we signed, incidentally. They give them back, $17, all their VAT taxes. So the cost of this is now down to $83.

When we send the same product over to them, they give us a bill for $17, thereby making us noncompetitive.

And just to make sure that the Americans never win in a competition, they devalue their currency by 40 percent. And that means that if this product is sitting in a showroom floor somewhere around the world, and sitting next to it is a product made in China, it's the equivalent, and they're both tagged at $100 and somebody's trying to decide which one to buy, the Chinese government in effect walks by and says, "We just has a markdown in aisle 5. Our product now is $60. Won't you buy it over the American product?"

HUNTER: And billions of consumers around the world, because of this cheating, are doing just that.
Well, let me tell you, there's a couple things that presidents do that are very important. One thing is to make arms control deals. Another thing is to make trade deals. And trade deals are business deals between nations.

And I can tell you that as president of the United States, I will junk the bad trade deal that we currently have with China. More importantly, I'll stop their cheating on the one that we have right now. We're going to have a new policy with respect to trade deals. (Applause)
And when we look across the table at China-China will come to the table, incidentally, because we have something that will pull them to the table. It's called the American market.
But we're going to have a new policy in dealing with China on trade deals. I borrowed it from a guy named Ronald Reagan: trust, but verify. (Applause)

Now, ladies and gentlemen, as that morning son goes across the United States this morning, right about now it's shining on a little town called Kingston, Texas. And that's where Audie Murphy grew up, our most decorated hero in World War II.

And a couple hundred miles away is Cuero, Texas, where Sergeant Roy Benavidez, a special forces sergeant who helped to rescue a special operations team with nothing more than a Bowie knife-where he grew up.

And abut 1,600 miles away is a little town called Scio, New York, where Corporal Jason Dunham grew up; a young Marine who gave his life for his buddies in a place called Fallujah.

Now, all three of those guys are tied together and they're tied to us with something that is very strong: the American interest. The American interest in expanding freedom.

And, of course, in World War II, in Audie Murphy's war, we freed hundreds of millions of people. And, of course, in Vietnam we failed to free people. And in Iraq, Jason Dunham's war, victory hangs in the balance.

But there can be no debate about the fact that it's in our interest to expand freedom around the world. And that really was a trademark of Ronald Reagan.

And, you know, as we watched the debate this last week, in which the liberals were trying to cut off reinforcements, and will continue to do that, I thought, "I've been here before."
HUNTER: Because I was here in the 1980s, when Ronald Reagan stood up to the Russians in Western Europe as they started to ring France and Germany with those SS-20 missiles, and President Reagan started to send in ground-launch cruise missiles and Pershing IIs to stand up to the Russians. And you had liberal pundits saying, "There he goes, we're going to have World War III; he needs to appease the Russians."

In fact, while I was campaigning in Iowa, one person told me their newspaper actually had an editorial at that time against the president, saying-and it was entitled "Better Red Than Dead."
But, you know, because we had a policy of peace through strength, at some point the Russians picked up the phone, and they said, "Can we talk?" And when we talked, we didn't talk about a standoff or about a negotiated treaty. We talked about dissembling the Russian empire.

And I remember also, in those 1980s, when we had the wars in Central America. And we provided that shield for that little country called El Salvador. And we provided the shield while we stood up a fragile democracy.

And liberals across this nation said, "This is going to be America's Vietnam." Do you remember that? In fact, I think there's a lot of liberals who have died of old age waiting for the next Vietnam, very anxiously.

But it wasn't. And today Salvadoreans are standing side by side with us in Iraq.
Now we're trying to expand freedom in a very difficult, tough part of the world right now. And it's tough work and it's difficult work and it's dangerous work. But it's worthwhile.
I saw the secretary of defense two days ago, and I gave him a plan that I've worked up that I'm going to try to develop here over the next several weeks. It's a plan for the right way to rotate out of Iraq-to rotate American troops out as we rotate Iraqi troops into security positions.
HUNTER: It's based on operations. And that's the right way to hand off the security burden in Iraq.

But what the Democrats tried to do this last week, and what they're going to try to do-and you've seen the talk about cutting off supplemental appropriations. And you've seen the talk about how the troops won't be able to go; they won't have- and I'm quoting them, "They won't have the training. They won't have the equipment."

Ladies and gentlemen, if the Democrat leadership of the United States House of Representatives tries to cut off reinforcements or cut off supplies for our troops who are engaged on the battlefield, our troops will never forgive them, and the American people will never forgive them. (Applause)

Now, ladies and gentlemen, as that morning sun continues-floods the Southwest, it reflects on what I call that thin green line of Border Patrol men who secure that 2,000-mile border to the best of their ability every day. And they're trying to secure a border that, right now, is wide open.
And through that border in 2005, along with the hundreds of thousands of people who came across the border from Mexico, who were citizens of Mexico, we interdicted, we arrested 155,000 people who came across from Mexico who weren't citizens of Mexico.

They came from virtually every country in the world; 1,100 of them came from communist China. Some came from Iran. Some from North Korea. And the reason they came is because everybody in the world now has a television set and they know that the southern border of the U.S. is open.
Well, let me tell you. I built the border fence in San Diego, and I built it against a lot of complaint. It's a double-fence.

And when we built that fence, the border between San Diego and Tijuana, Mexico, was a no-man's land. It was a land that was roamed by armed gangs that robbed and raped and murdered. It was so bad that Joseph Wambaugh wrote the best-selling book "Lines and Shadows" about that difficult piece of territory that was owned by nobody.

Well, we built the double-fence in San Diego. And we knocked back the smuggling of people and narcotics by more than 90 percent. And we reduced the crime rate in the city of San Diego-after we'd built the border fence, by FBI statistics, the crime rate in the city of San Diego fell by more than 50 percent. (Applause)

HUNTER: Well, ladies and gentlemen, I wrote the law that was signed by the president which extends that San Diego border fence for 854 miles across Arizona, New Mexico and Texas, all the smugglers' routes. We're going to build that border fence.

And we've got, contrary to popular opinion as emanated from The Washington Post, we have $1.2 billion cash on hand at the Department of Homeland Security to build that fence.
Now, some people will say, "Well, the fence is going to be very expensive. It costs 3 million bucks a mile. That means if you build 1,000 miles of fence, that's $3 billion."

Ladies and gentlemen, we have today incarcerated in federal, state and local penitentiaries and jails 250,000 criminal aliens. Some of them are so bad that their countries won't take them back, like the MS-13 gang members.

We pay $3 billion a year to incarcerate them. We could save enough money in one year in incarceration costs to build a thousand miles of border fence.
Let's build this fence. (Applause)

And, ladies and gentlemen, at one small, one remote place on that Rio Grande, as almost everybody here knows, two American Border Patrol agents saw a van come across with some 750 pounds of narcotics. And at some point during that apprehension, the drug dealer was winged. He wasn't winged badly. I understand he didn't even collect workman's comp...(Laughter)

... before he was back on the job. But for that, these two American Border Patrol agents, Ramos and Compean, were given 11 and 12 years of hard time in the federal penitentiary.

HUNTER: That is a greater punishment than the average convicted murderer in this country, who does about eight and a half years.

Now, ladies and gentlemen, I've read the transcript. I've talked with the families. And I've met with Mrs. Compean and Mrs. Ramos. And I've read the transcript of the trial. And I would say this.
I've been in the Armed Services Committee for 26 years. I've been chairman for four. I have never seen a Marine or a soldier treated in such an unjust way as Ramos and Compean.

And as president of the United States, I will pardon Ramos and Compean. (Applause)
And, ladies and gentlemen, it takes more than simply walking across the border - and I'll shut up here shortly and take questions. But it takes more than walking across the border to be an American.

You've got to have a heart for people. You've got to have the willingness to serve your country when called. You've got to be charitable. You've got to have a sense for your fellow citizens.
You've got to be a guy like my chief of staff, Wendell Cutting, who, when he had terminal cancer last year, last January, and I called him up to see how he was doing because I thought he had two weeks to live-that's what the doctor had told me-I heard that Wendell wasn't there.
And a lot of folks here know Wendell, or knew Wendell. And I said, "Where is he?"
And they said, "He's gone to help the people in the tsunami." And he'd gotten up, with his chemotherapy equipment, and gotten on the airplane and flew over with his beloved rescue task force to help the tsunami victims.

That's the heart of this country. And the great aspect of that is that Wendell wasn't alone. He came with thousands and thousands of Americans who spread out around the world. Some of them come under government action, like our fleet that came in to help those folks. But a lot of them just come because of the goodness of their heart.

And, you know, to America's critics, I would say this. When you were hungry, we brought you food; the Americans came. When you were sick, the Americans brought medicine. When you were attacked, we left the safety of our own homes to come and defend you.

America is a great nation because America is a good nation. (Applause)
HUNTER: And our goodness - and our goodness comes from our belief in God and a corresponding belief in the value of human life. (Applause)

Now, presidents appoint judges. And I can tell you, if any judicial candidate comes before me who can look at a sonogram of an unborn child and not see a valuable human life, then I will not appoint that candidate to the federal bench. (Applause)

Now, ladies and gentlemen, if we walked all the way across this great country in this great, wonderful morning, in just a short period of time the sun's going to be coming up 3,000 miles away at another cemetery - another national cemetery, and that's Rosecrans National Cemetery in my home town of San Diego. And Rosecrans stands guard over that great harbor where so many people have come back from America's wars.

And in 1945, a young Marine returning home from the South Pacific to San Diego wrote these works: "I think that just to be able to live with your wife and family, to be able to take care of them every day is the great privilege a person can enjoy."

Well, 61 years later another Marine returned to San Diego from a place called Fallujah, and he wrote: "At some point in a dangerous environment you forget about your own safety and you try to keep your men safe and place your own life in the hands of God. But your family, your wife and kids never leave your mind. Families lift our country up. They support us with fidelity, morality, faith in God, and raising the next generation of Americans."

Ladies and gentlemen, the first gentleman that I mentioned, the first Marine, was my father, to whom I owe everything I am or ever will be. And the second was my son, Duncan Hunter. (Applause)
Those letters, 60 years apart, reflect the truth of America. God still loves this nation. We are still a people of character and strength and kindness.

And so with faith in God, with confidence in the goodness of the American people, let's win this race for the United States presidency.

Thank you, and God bless you. (Applause)

So far, the only candidate to openly discuss the problems we are having with China. More to come.

Stop the ACLU Blogburst

2007-01-12T09:35:00.000-08:00

crossposted from Stop the ACLU
I just finished reading Indefensible: 10 Ways The ACLU Is Destroying America by Sam Kastensmidt. I highly recommend it for everyone.

The book covers most of our own top ten reasons to stop the ACLU, however much more extensively. It covers everything the ACLU stands for. From the agenda of silencing the churches and abortion to the sexualization of children...the book covers it in excellent detail.

There have been many great books written on the ACLU. Most focus on the social and religious issues that are under attack. Alan Sears' book, ACLU Vs. America, focused on mainly on these issues, however it did touch upon how the ACLU attacks our soverignty. This book, Indefensible, also focuses on the social issues, but I was happy to see that it devoted an entire chapter on how the ACLU is Impeding America's War On Terror. I'm going to share a few excerpts from sections within that particular chapter.

ACLU Fights Measure To Halt Terrorists' Funding

Only weeks after the tragedy (911), Congress acted to dismantle the financial infrastructure supporting known terrorist organizations. On October 3, 2001, U.S. Rep. Michael Oxley (OH) introduced the "Financial Anti-Terrorism Act of 2001," seeking to freeze all accounts directly linked to the "financing of terrorism."

The need for such legislation was deemed so vital to national security that it passed the U.S. House on a vote of 421-1. Almost the entire Congress recognized that this legislation's passage was imperative. Still, on the day before the vote was scheduled, the ACLU delivered letters of opposition to all members of Congress.

"We urge you to oppose the 'Financial Anti-Terrorism Act of 2001,'" the letter began. Why? One portion of the bill made it a federal crime to conceal large amounts of "illegally obtained" cash (over $10,000) while traveling. In a desperate and shameful attempt to justify its stance, the ACLU played the race card. The letter argued, "This provision may impact, disproportionately, people of color and immigrants....[because] these groups of people often have a more difficult time getting access to sources of credit and bank accounts and so use cash transactions more frequently than others do."

Under the ACLU's reasoning, impoverished people would be discriminated against by this bill. The likelyhood of impoverished minorities carrying around more than $10,000 in cash and concealing it was supposedly a grave concern for the ACLU. Thankfully the ACLU's efforts to stop this were unsuccessful.

A little more from the book:

Later in the war, the ACLU actually volunteered its legal services to represent suspected terrorists!

In 2001, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments from several alleged "illegal combatants," including two cases involving U.S. citizens and one case involving 14 foreign "illegal enemy combatants." The ACLU filed amicus briefs on behalf of the suspected terrorists in each case, arguing that ll "enemy combatants" cpatured during a time of war should have access to American courtrooms-regardless of their citizenship.

The Pentagon contended that "enemy combatants" should face military tribunals-the standard procedure in all previous international wars. U.S. Solictor General Theodore Olson, whose wife, Barbara Olson, was killed on September 11, when Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon, reminded the Supreme Court Justices that the plaintiffs were requesting a "jurisdiction that is not authorized by Congress, does not arise from the Constitution, and has never been exercised by this Court."

Though the U.S. Constitution does not extend rights to non-citizen enemy combatants, judicial restraint did not prevent the moder Court from creating this new right out of thin air.

Thankfully this decision was made moot by the passing of the Military Commission Act. However, the ACLU's war on National Security continues, and giving habeous corpus to non-American citizens is on their New Year Resolution list. It is actually number one on the list, followed by destroying the NSA terrorist surveillance program, and destroying our ability to keep secrets.

Overall the book was well put together and very informative. I highly suggest checking it out.

This was a production of Stop The ACLU Blogburst. If you would like to join us, please email Jay at Jay@stoptheaclu.com or Gribbit at GribbitR@gmail.com. You will be added to our mailing list and blogroll. Over 200 blogs already on-board.

Jobs Americans Won't Do.

2006-12-21T20:54:00.000-08:00

We've heard from anti immigration enforcement politicians and pundits, as well as bleeding heart liberals from all areas of American life that "we "need" to grant amnesty to illegal immigrants because they do jobs that we as Americans won't do."

Even our own quasi-conservative President G.W.Bush wants us to set up a "guest worker program" for this very reason. I've called bull all along on this one. Now the folks of Greely CO. are proving me right and all of the anti enforcement crowd wrong.
There is a piece in the Dec. 15 2006 issue of the Rocky Mountain News entitled "Applicants line up to fill jobs left empty by Swift plant raid".

Apparently when Immigration officials finally did their job and busted an "unknown number" of Swift Meat Packing employees for hijacking American's id's to work illegally, actual honest to goodness real-live American Citizens lined up to take these jobs.

If you read the article, however, not a word is mentioned about this. In fact, in all of the articles that I've seen to date, the focus is on the "mixed feelings" and "solemn nature" of those hundreds of Americans lining up to fill the jobs illegal immigrants were holding.

Fact is, there are plenty of people who are American citizens, or are here legally who will fill these jobs.
To me, the phrase "Americans won't do them" is highly offensive. So, if you're looking for a new job, just turn in your local harborer of illegals, then line up with a hundred others just like you to do the jobs that Americans won't do.

Rep. Virgil Goode and Islamophobia.

2006-12-21T20:31:00.000-08:00

Over at Newsmax, there's a story circulating about Republican Rep. Virgil Goode and a letter that he sent to some of his constituency about Islam and Immigration.
excerpt:

In the letter, Goode wrote, "The Muslim representative from Minnesota was elected by the voters of that district and if American citizens don't wake up and adopt the Virgil Goode position on immigration there will likely be many more Muslims elected to office and demanding the use of the Koran."

Goode said the U.S. needs to stop illegal immigration "totally" and reduce legal immigration.

Goode added: "I fear that in the next century we will have many more Muslims in the United States if we do not adopt the strict immigration policies that I believe are necessary to preserve the values and beliefs traditional to the United States of America and to prevent our resources from being swamped."

Of course this drew some attention from the people at CAIR (the Council on American Islamic Relations) again, I'll quote the story:

The Council on American-Islamic Relations called on Goode to apologize.

"Representative Goode's Islamophobic remarks send a message of intolerance that is unworthy of anyone elected to public office," CAIR's national legislative director, Corey Saylor, said Tuesday night. "There can be no reasonable defense for such bigotry."

Bigotry? Intolerance? Listen, Corey Saylor of CAIR...people around these parts (being the Earth)have reason to be "Islamophobic". Kind of like being "Serial Killer-phobic". Sure, there are plenty of good muslim people in the world...Just like there are plenty of good bears in the woods. It just so happens that the only bears you ever hear about are those who like to kill people.
How about the fine people at CAIR denounce the muslim sects and organizations which carry out some of the most horrendous acts of violence against mankind ever seen on the planet, and help come up with a pro-active manner in which to deal with them, then we'll talk of tolerance.

By the way, as far as solutions to terrorism go, I hear Machiavelli had some good plans.

M. Sheldon

STACLU Blogburst

2006-12-21T20:25:00.001-08:00

There is no doubt that a certain amount of transparency is essential for a modern democracy to function honestly. However, taken to the extreme, complete transparency would effectively make our National Security impotent and threaten the ability of the democracy to secure its very existence. There is a line that must be carefully walked. We must maintain common sense, especially in times that enemies threaten our very existence. We can not be so transparent that our enemies can see through us, and know our techniques and plans to fight them and protect ourselves against them. We should never cede our security to exist over to a utopian ideological dream of a completely transparent government. It is also important to have government watchdogs keeping an eye on government from abusing and overclassifying information that the public has a right to know. The danger lies in allowing too much liberty, especially to absolutist organizations like the ACLU, in that decision making process.

The Investor's Business Daily bring up some very good points in reference to the recent backing down of the government in trying to obtain a classified document from the ACLU.

"The government blinked," gloated ACLU executive director Anthony Romero.

Judge Rakoff is notoriously liberal, having declared the death penalty unconstitutional in 2002 (a ruling quickly overturned), and earlier this year forcing the Pentagon to make public thousands of pages of information on suspected terrorist detainees at Guantanamo Bay. So it's understandable for prosecutors to not want to fight an unwinnable battle.

Are we nearing the day, however, when the ACLU has our legal system so wrapped around its finger that government secrets can no longer be kept from terrorists? Consider these points:

• The ACLU's Romero called the subpoena battle "a fight not over a document but over the principle that the government cannot and should not be allowed to intimidate and impede the work of human rights advocates like the ACLU who seek to expose government wrongdoing."

But if leftist activist groups or journalists, rather than the freely-elected U.S. government, decide what is legitimately secret and what is "intimidation," there's little that will remain secret.

Indeed, the government did blink. However, they caved in because they had a losing legal argument, not because they have no right to supress secret information from activist groups and the public at large. Before we hand the decision making process of what should or shouldn't be secret or in the public interest to extreme partisan organizations like the ACLU, we should really take a look at just how reckless they have been with such information in the past. Indeed, if we leave it to groups like the ACLU we might as well write the suicide note of our nation on the back of the Constitution.

There is probably no other issue as fragile to the preservation of our liberties than a careful balance between civil liberties and our national security. To its credit, the ACLU recognizes the danger if the scales are tipped too far to the side of national security, however it doesn’t seem to acknowledge the danger if the scales are reversed. So, let us take a look at some of the extreme examples where the ACLU's absolutist views actually endanger our national security.

In particular let us look at their attitude towards the intelligence community and secret information in general.

When it comes to drawing the line between classified information and national security the ACLU's record has never leaned toward the side of caution or national security. They consistently defend leakers as brave "whistleblowers." Even after the NY Times leaked details about the vital NSA program, the ACLU wanted more to come out in the open. They have even defended leaks on vital programs like SWIFT, in which we track terror finances, where there was absolutely nothing that even suggested government wrongdoing. They have even fought for accused enemy prisoners to be allowed to see classified evidence against them. The fact that our enemies learn and adjust from such traitorous leaks never seems to phase them.

More Points from the Investor's Business Daily:

The ACLU boasts that its legal efforts have made public "more than 100,000 pages of government documents" regarding the interrogation of suspected terrorists. It has posted many of these documents on its Web site in an effort to shut down the program.

But President Bush's policy of tough interrogation has secured information that has foiled numerous terrorist plots, saving thousands of lives. They include jetliner hijacking schemes targeting buildings on both the East and West coasts, another targeting Heathrow Airport in London, plus plots to destroy ships in both the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz, and Jose Padilla's plan to blow up high-rise apartment buildings in the U.S.

Intelligence information key to preventing terrorist acts has also come from the president's other homeland security policies, like the National Security Agency's wiretapping program. But ACLU lawyers are aggressively trying to shut those efforts down in several jurisdictions.

So, let us take a look at the ACLU's real attitude towards the intelligence community.

To the ACLU, CIA means "Controlling the Intelligence Agencies." That's the title they gave to Policy #117. But even that is an understatement of what this particular policy calls for. "Completely undermining the Intelligence Agencies" would be a more appropriate title. It starts out badly and then gets worse.

"Control of our government's intelligence agencies demands an end to tolerance of "national security" as grounds for the slightest departure from the constitutional boundaries which limit government conduct in other areas."

Of course, its been obvious for nearly 70 years that protecting America's national security is certainly not something the ACLU favors.

Here are some of the specific controls called for in Policy #117:

Limit the CIA, under the new name of the Foreign Intelligence Agency, to collecting and evaluatiing foreign intelligence information. Abolish all covert operations.

Limit the FBI to criminal investigations by elimimnating all COINTEL-PRO-type activity and all foreign and domestic intelligence investigations of groups or individuals unrelated to a specific criminal offense.

Prohibit entirely wiretaps, tapping of telecommunications and burglaries.

Restrict mail openings, mail covers, inspection of bank records, and inspection of telephone records by requiring a warrant issued on probable cause to believe a crime has been committed.

Prohibit all domestic intelligence and political information-gathering. Only investigations of crimes which have been, are being, or are about to be committed may be conducted.Twilight of Liberty

Two former members of the ACLU, Richard and Susan Vigilante, conducted a thorough analysis of the ACLU spelled out by the Union's Center for National Security Studies.

They wrote:

The ACLU opposes, and has fought in either Congress or the courts, virtually all "covert action," most "clandestine intelligence" gathering (i.e. spying), and in one case aid to an important U.S. ally with a poor human rights record. The net effect of these efforts has been to hinder U.S. opposition to Communist expansion. The ACLU may, at some point, have undertaken some major initiative that advanced U.S. interests and hindered Communist expansion, but our research never turned one up and no ACLU leader ever mentioned one to us.

In other words, strip the intelligence agencies useless.

One of the most revealing occurances towards the ACLU’s absolutist position on national security and its recent evolution can be seen in the action the board of directors took at its Oct 1989 meeting: It dropped section (a) from its policy, “Wartime Sedition Act.” Before, the ACLU held that it “would not participate (save for fundamental due process violations) in defense of any person believed to be “cooperating” with or acting on behalf of the enemy.” This policy was based on the recognition that “our own military enemies are now using techniques of propaganda which may involve an attempt to prevent the Bill of Rights to serve the enemy rather than the people of the United States.” In making its determination as to whether someone were cooperating with the enemy, “the Union will consider such matters as past activities and associations, sources of financial support, relations with enemy agents, the particular words and conduct involved, and all other relevant factors for informed judgement.”Twilight of Liberty

All of this is now omitted from the Official ACLU policy! This is not the kind of organization one should trust when it comes to secrets that need to be kept from enemy eyes.

The ACLU's extremist position towards classified information can be seen in the very case they have been citing recently, the Petagon Papers.

The Pentagon Papers case shows how extremist the ACLU can be. In that suit, the Supreme Court ruled against the efforts of the Nixon Administration to suppress documents that were a veritable history of U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War. The ACLU, which filed an amicus, was happy with the immediate outcome-the newspapers could run copies of the Pentagon Papers-but was less than pleased with the high court's reasoning. The Union was disturbed that the Supreme Court gave life to the idea that the president and the Congress had a right to restrain the press in bona fide instances of national security. It wanted nothing less than an absolute ban on prior restraint. Alexander Bickel, the brilliant constitutional scholar who argued the case against the government, criticized the unreasonableness of the ACLU stand. He accused the Union of being too ideological, labeling the absolutist position "foolish to the point of being almost unprofessional." Like most students of the Constitution, Bickel was generally opposed to prior restraint but nonetheless conceded that there may be times when not to invoke prior restraint may be disastrous to the well-being of the republic. This is something the ACLU has not acknowledged and will not acknowledge.

In the recent case where the government folded in their attempt to get 'secret' documents back from the ACLU their first mistake was in their approach. Their big mistake that they continue to make is in not aggressively investigating, prosecuting, and punishing the traitors that leak and publish the secret matters of national security for all, including our enemies, to know.

As the lawyers at Powerline have pointed out, in the case of the NSA leak, federal law is 18 U.S.C. § 798, a law that precisely prohibits leaks of the type of classified information disclosed in the story. Subsection (a) of the statute provides:

Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information—
(1) concerning the nature, preparation, or use of any code, cipher, or cryptographic system of the United States or any foreign government; or
(2) concerning the design, construction, use, maintenance, or repair of any device, apparatus, or appliance used or prepared or planned for use by the United States or any foreign government for cryptographic or communication intelligence purposes; or
(3) concerning the communication intelligence activities of the United States or any foreign government; or
(4) obtained by the processes of communication intelligence from the communications of any foreign government, knowing the same to have been obtained by such processes—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

Powerline further points out that in cases like that of the NSA leak, the Pentagon Paper case the ACLU loves to cite so much, only applies to prior restraint and not to punishment after the crime of publishing has been committed.

Indeed, in their concurring opinions, Justices Douglas and White cited and discussed 18 U.S.C. § 798 as the prototype of a law that could be enforced against a newspaper following publication of information falling within the ambit of the statute. Justice White noted, for example:

The Criminal Code contains numerous provisions potentially relevant to these cases. Section 797 makes it a crime to publish certain photographs or drawings of military installations. Section 798, also in precise language, proscribes knowing and willful publication of any classified information concerning the cryptographic systems or communication intelligence activities of the United States as well as any information obtained from communication intelligence operations. If any of the material here at issue is of this nature, the newspapers are presumably now on full notice of the position of the United States and must face the consequences if they publish. I would have no difficulty in sustaining convictions under these sections on facts that would not justify the intervention of equity and the imposition of a prior restraint.

Make sure to read the entire analysis.

When it comes to national security and classified information the ACLU has a long record of recklessness. When it comes to keeping our government from wrongdoing there are many suggestions that could be pursued to alleviate the problem. Allowing the press and the ACLU unfettered liberty to make the call on what can and can not be classified is a death wish. The government needs to step up and aggressively investigate and prosecute those that act, participate, aid and protect in the unlawful disclosure of our national security secrets.

The Investor's Business Daily sums it all up well:

The civilized world simply can't win against the forces of Islamo-fascism if we are deprived of the vital weapon of secrecy. Letting the ACLU force us to operate according to its radical ideology of "open government" would be like telegramming Hitler that we plan to invade Normandy.

Withdrawal

2006-12-16T17:29:00.000-08:00

Man alive, has it been a while. Not by choice mind you. The computer refused to operate due to the fact that its mother board, sound card, etc. were primarily nothing more than a rubbery goo covering a small piece of wafered silicon.
Money, as all good conservatives know, doesn't grow on trees, so it has taken a while to get things rolling again.
I look forward to updating frequently, as I've become quite pissed recently with Washington.

Do It In My Name.

2006-03-24T22:41:00.000-08:00

I have to admit, I'm as guilty as anyone about getting caught up in my own little world. I get caught up in the rigors of day-to-day life, American politics, my own insignificant problems...the general stuff that we all seem obsessed with.
Admittedly, I have isolated myself from a lot of the world and focused my attention on anti-liberalism, the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the GWOT in general. That is, until I read this series of posts at Atlas Shrugs
I must say, I was ashamed that I had not personally taken up this fight. More than
2.4 million Sudanese have been slaughtered by the Muslims in the north of that country. The Tribesmen of Manute Bol (former NBA standout) are soon to be extinct.
What is being done about this ongoing atrocity? Apparently, a whole lot of windbagging. NATO, the US, UN, and company are apparently as complacent as I have been.
However, I shall now attempt to at least partially rectify my own guilt in this matter. You will notice at the right a small graphic (thanks to Jay Adkins of Reverent Media). This graphic is pretty self explanatory, and I implore you to copy it, use it on your own blogs. If you want, you can follow my lead and link the image to this post, where people can find their way to the moving stories that Pamela has written about the situation at Atlas Shrugs. Or, perhaps you would like to link it directly to her site, or a post of your own.
I would like to get at least a small coalition of New Media folks to try to increase public outrage over these barbaric atrocities occurring daily, nay hourly in the Sudan.
Below are two copies of the image, one small, one large. They're yours, I'd just like for you to keep them as they are, and keep Jay's Copyright intact, as he's done this as a favor to me.

It's Been A While.

2006-03-17T20:58:00.000-08:00

Wow, I've been neglecting this site for a few weeks. Truth is, I've been really busy campaigning for Jailer. It takes up copious ammounts of time, but that's no excuse. I should be here.
I should be blogging about...
Operation Swarmer,
Tennessee's Choose Life License Plates,
and our complete innaction in the Sudan.

All of these stories, and many more are deserving of my attention. I will do better.

'Til next time,
M. Sheldon

Gratuitus Journalistic Ineptitude.

2006-02-16T14:41:00.000-08:00

Big worded title, but we've lost power three times today, hence I've lost this post three times.
To translate the title into my usual verbage: Big-time MSM suckitude.
Now for the meat of this piece. This past week in news has pushed beyond the levels of expected journalistic malfeasience. To illustrate, I will proceed to post two stories (yes, you get a two-fer!) and ask you to consider the following question:
What is most important to you, the media's general distain and contempt for all things Bush, or when "one of our own" seemingly does all that he can to hurt the United States of America thus hendering our national security.
Story one, you all know:
From ABC

CORPUS CHRISTI, Texas Feb 12, 2006 (AP)— Vice President Dick Cheney accidentally shot and wounded a companion during a weekend quail hunting trip in Texas, spraying the fellow hunter in the face and chest with shotgun pellets...
The accident occurred Saturday at a ranch in south Texas where the vice president and several companions were hunting quail. It was not reported publicly by the vice president's office for nearly 24 hours, and then only after it was reported locally by the Corpus Christi Caller-Times on its Web site Sunday...

I'll spare you the rest, click on the link if you want. The thing is that this has became the sole priority for a large chunk of the world of journalism. They (the journalists) are even highlighting their own ineptitude by complaining that this story wasn't handed to them earlier. (read: if they must have the White House or some other "source" to give them info...why are they there? The gov't could just run the media themselves.)
Now for story number two. This one really sticks in my crawl for reasons that will be obvious to you, the most intelligent readers in the bloggosphere.
*warning* If you have a patriotic bone in your body, you'll find the following sickening. Ditto if you voted Gore in 2000.
From:NY Sun

JIDDAH, Saudi Arabia - Vice President Gore told a mainly Saudi audience on Sunday that the American government committed "terrible abuses" against Arabs after the September 11, 2001, attacks, and that most Americans did not support such treatment.

Mr. Gore said Arabs had been "indiscriminately rounded up" and held in "unforgivable" conditions. The former vice president said the Bush administration was playing into Al Qaeda's hands by routinely blocking Saudi visa applications.

"The thoughtless way in which visas are now handled, that is a mistake," Mr. Gore said during the Jiddah Economic Forum. "The worst thing we can possibly do is to cut off the channels of friendship and mutual understanding between Saudi Arabia and the United States."

Mr. Gore told the largely Saudi audience, many of them educated at American universities, that Arabs in America had been "indiscriminately rounded up, often on minor charges of overstaying a visa or not having a green card in proper order, and held in conditions that were just unforgivable."

"Unfortunately there have been terrible abuses and it's wrong," Mr. Gore said. "I do want you to know that it does not represent the desires or wishes or feelings of the majority of the citizens of my country."

All of this, Mr Gore stated without any proof. Not one single instance can he cite.
Calls to his press office reveal...nothing.
Mr. Gore, former VP (and if the left had it's way President of the USA), is taking large sums of money from the Bin Laden family to go to Jidah to speak out against American "attrocities" within our own borders that only he knows about. This from the same man who was "cheated" out of an election, and invented the internet.
Who in the main stream press is picking up on this? By comparison, almost nobody. Google it yourself. Well over a hundred pages in the past day alone on Cheney's hunting accident, less than twenty for Gore's near treasonous statements against America. (Google News)
So, what's more important to the American public? If, like me, our national security is tantamount in your mind, contact Mr. Gore's office in Nashville. Politely let him know how you feel about these latest comments.
The Office of the Honorable Al Gore
2100 West End Avenue
Nashville, TN 37203
Phone: (615) 327-2227
Fax: (615) 327-1323

Aclu vs. Boy Scouts round...like 20 or something.

2006-02-16T07:17:00.000-08:00

c/p from
Gribbit's Word

I know it's beating a dead horse for me to continue to make the same argument, but the Boy Scouts have been an honorable organization since their founding.

In 1908, the Boy Scouts were founded in Great Britain by Lord Robert Baden-Powell. It didn't take long for Scouting to make its way to the United States when an American was exposed to the helpful nature of the British Scouts.

In 1909 in London, England, An American Visitor, William D. Boyce, lost his way in a dense fog. He stopped under a street lamp and tried to figure out where he was.

A boy approached him and asked if he could be of help.

"You certainly can," said Boyce. He told the boy that he wanted to find a certain business office in the center of the city.

"I'll take you there," said the boy.

When they got to the destination, Mr. Boyce reached into his pocket for a tip.

But, the boy stopped him. "No thank you, sir. I am a Scout. I won't take anything for helping."

"A Scout? And what might that be?" asked Boyce.

The boy told the American about himself and about his brother scouts. Boyce became very interested.

After finishing his errand, he had the boy take him to the British Scouting office.

At the office, Boyce met Lord Robert Baden-Powell, the famous British general who had founded the Scouting movement in Great Britain.

Boyce was so impressed with what he learned that he decided to bring Scouting home with him.

On February 8, 1910, Boyce and a group of outstanding leaders founded the Boy Scouts of America. From that day forth, Scouts have celebrated February 8 as the birthday of Scouting in the United States.

All of our lives we have heard of the cliche' of a Boy Scout helping an old lady to cross the street. This is just one of the principles that Scouting was founded upon. During World War II when the availability of soldiers to conduct military honors at grave sites was depleted, the Boy Scout stepped up and assisted in rendering the heroes of our nation the honors that they so richly deserved. And this tradition has continued to modern day.

Each day, somewhere in this nation, a veteran who has died receives an honor guard provided by the VFW, the American Legion, and the Boy Scouts. A Scout more often then not, sounds Taps over the grave of the fallen hero. This is a service that those of us who have served find comfort in knowing. We know that there is an organization which honors our service. We know, that there is an organization which teaches the ideals that we have fought for. Whether in actual combat, or in my case Cold War Veterans who were part of the massive build up which led to the collapse of our most threatening adversary. We know that the ideals that we've committed to protect are still being taught.

But now the most honorable of organizations for boys, who we can all agree are at greatest threat of going astray without the direction taught by Scouting, is in danger of being forced into becoming extinct through court decisions prostituted by the ACLU and other liberal groups who seek to remove some of the most valued principles.

Because Scouting does not admit women or homosexuals, they are a target who wish to make homosexuality main stream. Because Scouting teaches a belief in GOD and reverence to the teachings of faith, the ACLU and other groups have successfully had them labeled a religious organization. And because of this labeling, Scouting is being systematically removed from public lands under the ignorant assumption that if a local government permits a Scout Troop to use public land that constitutes a violation of the Establishment Clause. I'd like to know when Congress became involved in the decision to allow Scouts to camp in a local park.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Here is the latest attack on Scouting:

PASADENA – A three-judge appellate court panel yesterday gave lawyers a rapid-fire grilling over whether parkland leases San Diego granted the Boy Scouts violated the Constitution.

The hour-long session visited a host of issues surrounding a ruling in 2003 by U.S. District Judge Napoleon Jones. He found that leases for 18 acres of Balboa Park and a half-acre of Fiesta Island were unconstitutional because they violated the separation of church and state. The Boy Scouts, which require members to take an oath “to do my duty to God,” are a religious organization, Jones ruled.

The Boy Scouts appealed his decision to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, contending that the Scouts are not religious and that their constitutional rights will be violated if they are evicted. The Scouts' lawyers have been joined by the U.S. Justice Department's civil rights division.

The case began in 2000, when an atheist family and a lesbian couple, each with children, sued the city and the Scouts. They alleged that the deals between the city and the Scouts violated the establishment clause of the First Amendment, which prohibits government promotion of religion. The American Civil Liberties Union is handling their case.

The city settled with the ACLU and is no longer involved. The settlement provided that the Scouts could use the properties until the court case was resolved.

The appellate judges did not say when they would issue a ruling. The panel typically announces a decision three to six months after hearing arguments.

During yesterday's arguments, Judge Andrew Kleinfeld, who acknowledged that he was a Scout, focused largely on whether the Scouts allowed anyone access to Camp Balboa in Balboa Park and the San Diego Youth Aquatic Center on Fiesta Island.

Boy Scouts lawyer George Davidson told the panel that everyone can reserve access to the property on a first-come, first-served basis.

But Judge Martha Berzon said that was unclear and noted some popular weeks in the summer are “blacked out.” She also noted that the park property is gated and wanted to know if people were only granted access if they had a reservation. MORE

Our heritage is slowly being stripped away. Scouting is an embedded institution in this nation. It contributes to society by keeping good boys good and allows them to develop into good men. Why would anyone want to destroy that? Because they don't like our way of life.

Remember the ACLU was founded by socialists with an agenda to end war, to end poverty, and to make everyone in America the same. In the perfect Utopia envision by Karl Marx. But that is not attainable. It didn't work in the former Soviet Union, it isn't working in China, it isn't working in Cuba, and it definately isn't working in N. Korea. It is their goal to force the fates of those fail Communist states upon the United States. They, like most Crack addicts, believe that they can handle the addiction of absolute power.

But they have no control. As Lord Acton said:

Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

The Boy Scouts are a threat to their teachings. The Boy Scouts teach morality and family values which are a threat to the power grab of the leftists. So the left is using the Boy Scouts as a stepping stone to accomplish the goal that they have been striving for 85 years.

Keep in mind what Hitler did. One of the first things that Hitler did was to ban Scouting and formed the Hitler Youth. What would Romero want once Scouting is banned? Probably make membership in NAMBLA manditory for all male children under 18.

This was a production of Stop The ACLU Blogburst. If you would like to join us, please email Jay or Gribbit. You will be added to our mailing list and blogroll. Over 150 blogs already on-board.

A special message from Zaphriel

2006-02-14T16:38:00.000-08:00

Hello Friends,

I write you today to ask for a little help. As many of you know I am
involved in a Political Bloggers Conference called Blogging Man
(http://www.bloggingman.org). We have hit a bit of a snag...

It's one of those business things, the big sponsor doesn't want to sponsor a
non-event, so they request that we get at least one Big name signed on
before they will commit to giving us money...

The big name we have lined up, won't sign up until we give him the
deposit...

And so on, but the good news here is the gap for all of this to come
together is very small, about $1000...

But we really could use your help... If everyone could post this BlogBurst
and / or buy a "Wall of Blogs" Blogger Sponsorship, we could meet our goal,
and put Blogging Man on the map. So here goes...

------------
Blogging Man 2007 is THE Political Blogger's Conference!
Blogging Man 2007will be the FIRST national conference for Political Bloggers EVER.
Scheduled for three days in Reno, Nevada, Blogging Man 2007 will set the standard for Political Blogging Conferences to come.

A Conference BY Bloggers JUST Like YOU.
The developers and speakers for Blogging Man 2007 are bloggers, first and foremost. They come from all over the country, and all have a passion for politics, and blogging.

A Conference FOR Bloggers JUST Like YOU.
Blogging Man 2007 is for YOU, if you love blogging, and love politics.

DON'T Get Left Out Of The First BIG Blogging Event of the Century.

There are opportunities for YOU to participate in BM 2007.

You can promote YOUR BLOG on our Wall of Blogs, EVEN if you can't attend the conference yourself!
The Wall of Blogs will be a MAIN Display at the Conference.
Space for the Wall of Blogs is ONLY $20.

But Wall ofBlogs is Filling FAST!
Don't Wait to get YOUR BLOG seen at Blogging Man 2007 for ONLY $20!

Also, for a limited time, Early Registration for Blogging Man 2007 is ONLY $75.
AND, EarlyRegistrants get a copy of Hugh Hewitt's groundbreaking book BLOG while
they last.
GET YOUR COPY TODAY, ALONG WITH THE DISCOUNTED REGISTRATION!!

Blogging Man 2007 also has a very limited number of Bronze Sponsorships
available for $500.

The BronzeSponsorships includes the benefits of the Blogger Sponsorship, PLUS:
YOUR Logo and Ad in the Event Program,
YOUR logo and ad space on the Event Website,
AND One FREE Registration to BloggingMan 2007.

Get Your Blog on The Wall of
Blogs!
Get YOUR copy of Blog! By Hugh Hewitt with Your Early Registration.
Get Your Logo in the Event Program with Your Bronze Sponsorships!
Don't Get Left Out of Blogging Man
2007!

------------

Sincerely,
Matthew (Zaphriel) Comprix
Director of Blogger Relations
Blogging Man 2007
http://www.bloggingman.org

Be part of the Wall of Blogs. (http://www.bloggingman.org/wall-of-blogs.html)
It's the most affordable way to be part of Blogging Man 2007.

Happy Valentines Day

2006-02-14T10:55:00.000-08:00

Happy Valentines day to all of my friends, readers, "blog buddies", and anyone else who drops by.
To the guys: try not to irritate your ladies too much.
Ladies: please try to excuse us guys. We, as a sex, are ignorant to what makes you guys happy. It's genetic.

Now, for my love. In case you didn't know, I'm living out every man's dream. I married a model. If you could look beyond those mesmirizing eyes, that infectious smile, and that flawless beauty you'd see the most wonderful wife and mother God ever created. She's far too intelligent, loving, insightful, and beautiful for me, but she chose me anyway. That makes me the luckiest man on the face of the planet.
I love you Faith.

Harry Reid Practices His Backstroke

2006-02-12T16:25:00.000-08:00

HA! The good Senator Reid, the Moral Backbone of the Democratic Party. He who points out the Republican "culture of corruption". Sorry, can't help but laugh at this. In fact, my side is still hurting from when I first read this at Gribbit's Word.
From Fox News: (yeah, I'm sourcing Fox...you can find the same thing at the AP, San Jose Mercury News, WAPO, etc.)

WASHINGTON — Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid wrote at least four letters helpful to Indian tribes represented by Jack Abramoff, and the senator's staff regularly had contact with the disgraced lobbyist's team about legislation affecting other clients.

The activities — detailed in billing records and correspondence obtained by The Associated Press — are far more extensive than previously disclosed. They occurred over three years as Reid collected nearly $68,000 in donations from Abramoff's firm, lobbying partners and clients.

OOooooh, gotta love that Harry Reid. Of course you can't make Olberman talk about this, so I will...actually let me let Harry Reid speak for me.

It's time that America's government lived by the same values as America's families. It's time we invested in America's future and made sure our people have the skills to compete and thrive in a 21st century economy. That's what Democrats believe.

Yup, those Democratic values. *still laughing*

Harry Reid has been playing a fine game of cover-up (the left's favorite game):

While Abramoff never directly donated to Reid, the lobbyist did instruct one tribe, the Coushattas, to send $5,000 to Reid's tax-exempt political group, the Searchlight Leadership Fund, in 2002. About the same time, Reid sent a letter to the Interior Department helpful to the tribe, records show.

Abramoff sent a list to the tribe entitled "Coushatta Requests" recommending donations to campaigns or groups for 50 lawmakers he claimed were helpful to the tribe. Alongside Reid's name, Abramoff wrote, "5,000 (Searchlight Leadership Fund) Senate Majority Whip."

Following a pattern seen with Abramoff and Republicans, Abramoff's Democratic team members often delivered donations to Reid close to key events.

Reid himself, along his Senate counsel Jim Ryan, met with Abramoff deputy Ronald Platt on June 5, 2001, "to discuss timing on minimum wage bill" that affected the Marianas, according to a bill that Greenberg Traurig, Abramoff's firm, sent the Marianas.

Three weeks before the meeting, Greenberg Traurig's political action committee donated $1,000 to Reid's Senate re-election committee. Three weeks after the meeting, Platt himself donated $1,000 to Reid.

Manley said Reid's official calendar doesn't list a meeting on June 5, 2001, with Platt, but he also said he couldn't say for sure the contact didn't occur. Manley confirmed Platt had regular contacts with Reid's office, calling them part of the "routine checking in" by lobbyists who work Capitol Hill.

As for the timing of donations, Manley said, "There is no connection. This is just a typical part of lawful fundraising."

The Marianas, U.S. territorial islands in the Pacific Ocean, were one of Abramoff's highest-paying clients and were trying to keep their textile industry exempt from most U.S. laws on immigration, labor and pay, including the minimum wage. Many Democrats have long accused the islands of running garment sweatshops.

The islands in 2001 had their own minimum wage of $3.05 an hour, and were exempt from the U.S. minimum of $5.15.

Republicans were intent on protecting the Marianas' exemption. Democrats, led by Sen. Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts and Rep. George Miller of California, wanted the Marianas to be covered by the U.S. minimum and crafted a compromise.

In February 2001, Kennedy introduced a bill that would have raised the U.S. hourly minimum to $6.65 and would have covered the Marianas. The legislation, which eventually failed, would have given the islands an initial break by setting its minimum at just $3.55 — nearly $3 lower than any other territory or state — and then gradually increasing it.

Within a month, Platt began billing for routine contacts and meetings with Reid's staff, starting with a March 26, 2001, contact with Reid chief of staff Susan McCue to "discuss timing and status of minimum wage legislation," the billing records say.

In all, Platt and a fellow lobbyist reported 21 contacts in 2001 with Reid's office, mostly with McCue and Ryan.

One of the Marianas contacts, listed for May 30, 2001, was with Edward Ayoob, Reid's legislative counsel. Within a year, Ayoob had left Reid's office to work for Abramoff's firm, registering specifically to lobby for the islands as well as several tribes. Manley confirmed Ayoob had subsequent lobbying contacts with Reid's office.

Manley cast doubt on some of the contacts recorded in the billing records, saying McCue was out of Washington for a couple of the dates. But he acknowledged the contacts could have occurred by cell phone.

In January 2002, McCue took a free trip, valued at $7,000, to Malaysia with several other congressional aides. The trip, cleared by Senate ethics officials, was underwritten by the U.S. Malaysia Exchange Association, a group trying to foster better relations between the United States and Malaysia.

The trips were part of a broader lobbying strategy by Malaysia, which consulted with Abramoff and paid $300,000 to a company connected to him, according to documents released by Senate investigators. The arrangements included a trip by then-House Majority Leader Tom DeLay and his wife to Malaysia in October 2001.

While Abramoff worked behind the scenes, the Alexander Strategy Group run by two former DeLay aides, Ed Buckham and Tony Rudy, publicly registered to lobby for the U.S. Malaysia Exchange Association.

Rudy, who was cited in Abramoff's court case, had worked temporarily for Abramoff before joining Buckham at Alexander Strategy, and the three men were friendly. In January 2002, Alexander Strategy arranged two congressional trips to Malaysia underwritten by the association.

One trip took a delegation of Republican congressmen. A Democratic consultant hired by Alexander Strategy, former Clinton White House aide Joel Johnson, invited McCue and went on the second trip with congressional staffers.

Johnson said he invited McCue on behalf of Alexander Strategy and went on the trip with her but said he knew of no connections to Abramoff. "My interest was in getting Democrats to travel to the country and to learn more about Malaysia," Johnson said.

There are a few matters that simply cannot be attributed to coincidence:

On March 5, 2002, he sent a letter to the Interior Department pressing the agency to reject a proposed casino by the Jena band of Choctaw Indians in Louisiana. Fellow Nevada Sen. John Ensign, a Republican, also signed.

The Jena's proposed casino would have rivaled one already in operation in Louisiana run by the Coushattas, and Abramoff was lobbying to block the Jena. The day after Reid's letter, the Coushattas wrote a $5,000 check to Reid's Searchlight group at Abramoff's suggestion.

Reid and Ensign recently wrote the Senate Ethics Committee to say their letter had nothing to do with Abramoff or the donation and instead reflected their interest in protecting Las Vegas' gambling establishments.

"As senators for the state with the largest nontribal gaming industry in the nation, we have long opposed the growth of off-reservation tribal gaming throughout the United States," Ensign and Reid wrote. Reid authored the law legalizing casinos on reservations, and has long argued it does not allow tribal gambling off reservations.

On Nov. 8, 2002, the Nevada Democrat signed a letter with California Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein urging Interior Secretary Gale Norton to reject a proposal by the Cuyapaipe Band of Mission Indians to convert land for a health clinic into a casino in southern California.

The casino would have competed with the Palm Springs gambling establishment run by the Agua Caliente, one of Abramoff's tribes.

Two weeks later, Reid went to the Senate floor to oppose fellow Democratic Sen. Debbie Stabenow's effort to win congressional approval for a Michigan casino for the Bay Mills Indians, which would have rivaled one already operating by the Saginaw Chippewa represented by Abramoff.

"The legislation is fundamentally flawed," Reid argued, successfully leading the opposition to Stabenow's proposal.

The next month, Reid joined six other Democratic senators in asking President Bush in mid-December 2002 to spend an additional $30 million for Indian school construction. Several Abramoff tribes, including the Saginaw and the Mississippi Choctaw, were seeking federal money for school building.

Six weeks after that letter, three Abramoff partners — including Platt and Ayoob — donated a total of $4,000 to Reid's Senate re-election campaign. Later in 2003, the Agua Caliente contributed $13,500 to Reid's political groups while the Saginaw chipped in $9,000.

Reid sent a fourth letter on April 30, 2003, joining Ensign a second time to urge Interior to reject the Jena casino.

Two months later, Abramoff's firm threw a fundraiser for Reid at its Washington office that netted the Nevada senator several more donations from Greenberg Traurig lobbyists and their spouses. Ayoob was instrumental in staging the event, Reid's office said.

I have said time and time again that Reid and the rest of the Dems on the Hill would keep letting out rope with this "culture of corruption" jargon until they hung themselves.
Here's to you, leftist blowhards...the best asset that the Republican Party and the Conservative movement have.

image found at JunkYardBlog

For your consideration...

2006-02-12T15:52:00.000-08:00

Aoccdrnig to rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoatnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer be in the rghit pclae The rset can be a taotl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit a porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe.

Cool, huh?

Get Ready...

2006-02-12T13:22:00.000-08:00

h/t Jay Stephenson
From Brittain's Sunday Telegraph:

Strategists at the Pentagon are drawing up plans for devastating bombing raids backed by submarine-launched ballistic missile attacks against Iran's nuclear sites as a "last resort" to block Teheran's efforts to develop an atomic bomb.

Central Command and Strategic Command planners are identifying targets, assessing weapon-loads and working on logistics for an operation, the Sunday Telegraph has learnt.

It's about time. I would, however like to see a little more secrecy involved with the planning though. Of course Iran isn't exactly known for their Naval forces, so there isn't that much to worry about.
In my oppinion, Ahminijad and Al Quaeda have been planning something large-scale for some time now. The protests in France were a practice run, and the latest "cartoon violence" from the religion of peace just furthers their suspicions that the liberals of the world can't stand any type of confrontation and will cave at the first sight of it. If not for them underestimating the might of American Conservatism, they could likely control global policies within a few years.
If Israel had caved like the rest of the world has to Islamofacism, they wouldn't have lasted more than a month. They, however see the value of freedom. The worth of keeping something that you hold dear, and the willingness to fight evil tooth and claw in order to do so.
Me, I think we should disengage from any UN treaties that we have signed and go back to fighting wars the way they were meant to be faught. As things stand now, there's no feasible way to win a war.
What we should do is bomb Tehran into oblivion, take out N. Korea, and make the world remember that we are the mightiest nation that God has ever allowed to exist. If not for the rules that require America to not ever win a war, we'd still be at the top.
Global Government be Damned.

-M. Sheldon

Cheney shoots a guy.

2006-02-12T13:14:00.000-08:00

via Brietbart
h/t Stop the ACLU

Vice President Dick Cheney accidentally shot and injured a man during a weekend quail hunting trip in Texas, his spokeswoman said Sunday.

Harry Whittington, 78, was "alert and doing fine" after Cheney sprayed Whittington with shotgun pellets on Saturday at the Armstrong Ranch in south Texas, said property owner Katharine Armstrong.

Armstrong said Cheney turned to shoot a bird and accidentally hit Whittington. She said Whittington was taken to Corpus Christi Memorial Hospital by ambulance.

Cheney's spokeswoman, Lea Anne McBride, said the vice president was with Whittington, a lawyer from Austin, Texas, and his wife at the hospital on Sunday afternoon.

Well, I really feel bad for Mr. Whittington, and the Vice President for that matter.
I have to admit that this has happened to me on a few occasions, though while rabbit hunting. With rabbits they move so darned quick that if you hunt with competitive old people you are likely to get peppered with small game load. The response you will normally get is "I've been shot a hundr'd times...you'll live. That is why I now refuse to hunt rabbits with anyone much older than I.

Happy Birthday, Jayster!

2006-02-09T07:29:00.000-08:00

Happy 29th to Jay Stephenson!
Jay's the founder of Stop the ACLU.com, and the creator of the STACLU Blogburst and Blogroll.
Cheers, Brah!
Stop on over and wish him a happy b-day.
Oh, and Stop the ACLU is officially one year old today.
I may have those ages bass-ackwards...

2006-02-09T07:21:00.000-08:00

cross-posted, originally by: Gribbit

Stop The ACLU BlogBurst 02.09.06

In 1787, the Congress of the newly formed United States met to discuss changes in the Articles of Confederation. What resulted was a complete redrafting of the Constitution under a Federalist system. The new document contained 7 Articles outlining the duties and responsibilities of the federal government. It was written very specific on certain issues to clearly define the duties and restrictions of the federal government. It was written vague on other issues as to leave enough uncertainty that the matter should be defined by the individual states.

Some of the original signers of the Constitution actually refused to sign it. When a guarantee was made that if they would sign the document to be referred to the people for ratification, the first order of business would be to write a "Bill of Rights" defining individual rights of the people.

It then it became a responsibility of those who were stressing the federalist government to sell the American people on the idea. From this came the Federalist Papers which were written in order to be reassurances to the people that they would have specific rights and the government would be limited in scope.

Then as promised, the first Congress took up the matter of adopting a "Bill of Rights". Ten Amendments were written into our founding document which outlined specific rights and limitations on the government. The catch all of these rights as defined by our first Congress was the 9th and 10th Amendments.

Amendment IX.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

In opposition to this new "Bill of Rights" was our first Secretary of the Treasury, author of several of the Federalist Papers, and member of the Constitutional Convention, Alexander Hamilton. He said in Federalist 84,

I...affirm that bills of rights...are not only unnecessary...but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers, which are not granted; and on this very account, would afford colourable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do?

I doubt that Hamilton would fully understand exactly how prophetic this actually was.

And everything was fine until the Civil War. In the wake of the war, while it was still being fought as a matter of fact, several more Amendments were added outlawing slavery within the Union and conferring the full rights and benefits of citizenship to the newly freed slaves. The most prominent of which was the 14th.

Amendment XIV.

Section 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2.

Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age,4 and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Section 3.

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Section 4.

The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
Section 5.

The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Fast forward to the twentieth century and Justice Hugo Black and other liberal activists on the court under the spell of the newly formed American Civil Liberties Union. It then became fashionable to attempt to apply the restrictions and requirements that the Bill of Rights holds the federal government to on the states.

Robert S. Sargent, Jr wrote in his essay about Hugo Black the following:

In 1868, in order to protect ex-slaves, the 14th Amendment did apply certain rights that the states couldn't intrude upon: "Nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Somehow Hugo Black, in his dissent in Adamson v. California (1947) found this to mean that all the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights applied to the states: "My study of the historical events that culminated in the Fourteenth Amendment...persuades me that one of the chief objects that the provisions of the Amendment's first section were intended to accomplish was to make the Bill of Rights applicable to the states." One must ask, if this was one of the "chief objects," why didn't they put it in the text? (For a scholarly, devastating refutation of this interpretation of "the original purpose," see Raoul Berger's book on the 14th Amendment, "Government by Judiciary.")

This concept of "Incorporation Theory" goes against the idea of federalism envisioned in the Constitution. Now that Justice Black's dissent is accepted jurisprudence, state laws can be reviewed in federal court, which means that the Supreme Court now decides what our rights are. The 9th Amendment in its original sense is now irrelevant.

And the culmination of this happens in 1973. In the Roe v Wade decision, the court decided that a medical procedure regulated or banned under state law was not valid because it did not protect a woman's right to privacy in what happens to her body. In other words, the Warren court decided that a state law, in a state matter, was invalid because it did not protect the privacy of the individual.

Privacy - I can't find it in the Constitution anywhere. The ACLU claims that it's there. Some liberal Senators would have you believe that it is there, but I can't find it. The words right to privacy do not exist in any of the 7 Articles or 26 Amendments of the Constitution. Neither is federal regulation of medical procedures. But under the Hugo Black mentality and approach to applying the restrictions and powers of the federal government to the states and making state laws subject to federal review, has now greatly expanded the reach of the federal government.

And if we can expand the federal government to so that states laws are reviewable in the federal judiciary, why not expand the reach of the Establishment Clause. And as such, the ACLU in its arguments have consistently tried to apply the restriction on the Congress of the United States to the individual states and local governments.

Hamilton was right.

This was a production of Stop The ACLU Blogburst. If you would like to join us, please email Jay at Jay@stoptheaclu.com or Gribbit at GribbitR@gmail.com. You will be added to our mailing list and blogroll. Over 150 blogs already on-board.

Stop By Stop the ACLU and Wish Jay a Happy 29th Birthday and Stop The ACLU a Happy 1 year Anniversary

Do We Have Them on the Run Yet?

2006-02-02T06:49:00.000-08:00

crossposted from: Stop the ACLU

This has been a very disappointing period of time for the ACLU. Two strict constructionists appointed to the Supreme Court of the United States. One of which reviews Supreme Court appeals from the 9th Circus, Justice Alito. I have a feeling that there will be a lot of cases from the 9th making it to the Supreme Court as well as an increase in the number of reversals nation wide.

Just yesterday, the ACLU released 8 press releases in between their meals of sour grapes and Koolaid. They can't get their politicians elected at the ballot box. Some of those which they have gotten elected are proving impotent due to their lack of any real power in Congress. But now, the federal judiciary has been taken back by those who actually read what the Constitution says and not trying to look for some hidden meaning. I don't believe in the Davinci Code nor do I believe the Constitution says anything other that what is printed in it.

http://www.aclu.org/safefree/general/24023prs20060201.html
http://www.aclu.org/lgbt/discrim/24032prs20060201.html
http://www.aclu.org/safefree/spying/24037prs20060201.html
http://www.aclu.org/safefree/general/24040prs20060201.html
http://www.aclu.org/safefree/spying/24029prs20060201.html
http://www.aclu.org/safefree/spying/24028prs20060201.html
http://www.aclu.org/safefree/spying/24009prs20060201.html
http://www.aclu.org/safefree/spying/24036prs20060201.html

The ACLU usually prefers to stay in the shadows. They lurk there like criminals waiting to roll some drunk for what little money that he may have. They send out "advisory letters" which advises that the city or town either comply with their wishes, or they will tie them up in very costly legal proceedings. And it isn't so much the fight for what's right that is important to the ACLU. No, it's that big payoff of legal fees reimbursements that will be ordered by the judge. Taxpayers money going into the hands of this Anti American institution.

I received a letter from my Congressman a few months back in which he tried to assure me that the ACLU does not receive taxpayers money. Well, my Congressman is wrong.

There exists a little law where the option of requiring the losing party to reimburse the legal fees of the winning party in civil rights cases. So if the respondent in a civil rights case is the federal government and the government loses, who's paying the ACLU? We are, John/Jane Q. Taxpayer is footing that bill. The same is true on the state and local level.

So the ACLU uses this as a tool to intimidate cash-strapped cities and states to advance their agenda. For instance, the debate over public celebrations of Christmas. Every time it's been actually challenged in court, the ACLU loses. But yet, if your town puts up a nativity scene in your local park, the ACLU will send an "advisory letter." So your town will take it down and bow to the will of the mighty ACLU.

The ACLU is a terrorist organization. They are more powerful than Al Qaeda. Why do I say that? Because they use our own laws against us. They are destroying us from within. And this is why they are concerned about the NSA eavesdropping program. Because they know, if we can listen in on Al Qaeda, we can listen in on anyone who is a threat to our way of life. And that means them too. That is using their twisted logic anyway.

This is why they are pushing the domestic spying falsehood. If the NSA were listening in on your conversation with Aunt Mildred getting her cookie recipe, that would be domestic spying. In this program, on end of the conversation must be either known or suspected Al Qaeda. And at least one of the parties has to be outside of the United States. This being true, it cannot be labeled domestic can it?

This was a production of Stop The ACLU Blogburst.

The ACLU’s Hypocritical Legacy

2006-01-26T05:27:00.000-08:00

Crossposted from Stop The ACLU

Convincing liberals that the ACLU is leading us down a dangerous path is about as productive as talking to a rock. Perhaps this is because I mostly deal with far left liberals who share the same insane views and have the same radical agenda as the ACLU. Anyone who believes that the ACLU is there to purely defend the Constitution is naive at best. Surely there are some moderate liberals out there that can concede that the organization is in need of reform.

A balanced society can not survive resting in the fringe. A Nation only concerned with security will drift toward a police state, and one that follows the absolutist views of liberty like the ACLU will drift toward anarchy.

The ACLU proudly display a banner that states, Keep America Safe and Free, but any honest person will admit that the ACLU have done nothing for the safety of America. As a matter of fact, all evidence leads to quite the opposite. The ACLU are always ready to put the security of America at risk in the pursuit of its absolutist views of liberty.

Many of the ACLU's former leaders have noticed the irresponsible shifting of the ACLU away from true civil liberty protection into a much more dangerous agenda. For example take the words of this former Executive Director of the ACLU

The right to express unpopular opinions, advocate despised ideas and display graphic images is something the ACLU has steadfastly defended for all of its nearly 80-year history.

But the ACLU, a group for which I proudly worked as executive director of the Florida and Utah affiliates for more than 10 years, has developed a blind spot when it comes to defending anti-abortion protesters. The organization that once defended the right of a neo-Nazi group to demonstrate in heavily Jewish Skokie, Ill., now cheers a Portland, Ore., jury that charged a group of anti-abortion activists with $107 million in damages for expressing their views. Gushed the ACLU's press release: "We view the jury's verdict as a clarion call to remove violence and the threat of violence from the political debate over abortion."

Were the anti-abortion activists on trial accused of violence? No. Did they threaten violence? Not as the ACLU or Supreme Court usually defines it, when in the context of a call for social change.

The activists posted a Web site dripping with animated blood and titled "The Nuremberg Files," after the German city where the Nazis were tried for their crimes. Comparing abortion to Nazi atrocities, the site collected dossiers on abortion doctors, whom they called "baby butchers." ...

This is ugly, scary stuff. But it is no worse than neo-Nazi calls for the annihilation of the Jewish people, or a college student posting his rape fantasies about a fellow coed on the Web, both of which the ACLU has defended in the past.

None of the anti-abortion group's intimidating writings explicitly threatened violence. Still, the ACLU of Oregon refused to support the defendants' First Amendment claims. Instead, it submitted a friend-of-the-court brief taking no one's side but arguing that speech constitutes a physical threat only when the speaker intends his statement to be taken as one.

...Before anti-abortion zealots started getting sued, the ACLU had much more tolerance for menacing speech. Few of the 20th century's great social movements were entirely peaceable. The labor, civil-rights, antiwar, environmental and black-power movements were an amalgam of violence, civil disobedience and highly charged rhetoric. But to gag fiery speakers who call for harm to the establishment because others in the movement pursue their political goals with fists, guns or bombs would do terrible damage to strong, emotive pleas tot social change. It is something neither the ACLU nor, thankfully, the courts have countenanced in the past.

That's why in 1969 the ACLU helped defend a Ku Klux Klan member who had called for violence against the president, Congress and the Supreme Court. At the ACLU's urging, the Supreme Court ruled that speech advocating violence was constitutionally protected unless it incited imminent lawless action and was likely to produce such action. This case was later used to defend the speech of black militants.

The ACLU also applauded a 1982 Supreme Court decision that found that speeches promising violent reprisals were protected by the First Amendment. During the civil-rights movement, a leader of the NAACP called for "breaking the necks" of blacks who violated a boycott of white-owned businesses in Mississippi, and published a list of those who did. Some of the boycott violators were beaten. The court ruled that despite the atmosphere of fear, all the speeches and lists were part of a debate on a public issue that needed to be "uninhibited, robust, and wide-open."

I would argue that the Constitution doesn't protect all of these extreme positions of the ACLU, but that isn't the point he is trying to make. The issue is the ACLU's curious commitment to "uninhibited, robust, and wide-open" free speech when it involves things such as virtual child pornography, but not when it involves a something like a boss making racially offensive statements.

Unfortunately, there are some people who are so hypnotized by the ACLU's absolutist views and of the ACLU's campaign for pedophilia and child pornography that they are prepared to defend an organization that has become a shadow of its former self--a group that lets its idealistic and skewed understanding of the establishment clause trump freedom of religion and freedom of speech.

Stop the ACLU had the opportunity last year of interviewing a former ACLU lawyer. He was concerned with much of the same things.

The ACLU played a helpful role in the civil rights movement defending these people, and I can't turn my back on that. I have to give credit where credit is due." "But….that being said, what they have done in the past is completely eviscerated by what they do in the present. The ACLU has become a fanatical anti-faith Taliban of American religious secularism."

"The ACLU is involved in the secular cleansing of our history. This is not just a fight about free exercise, but about the protection of our American history. The ACLU want to deny America the knowledge of their Christian heritage."

It seems that the many of the ACLU's greatest critics came from their very ranks. The division within the ACLU will continue as long as the ACLU continues on the irresponsible, hypocritical path it is on. America needs a civil liberties union, sadly the ACLU isn't doing that job. If the ACLU succeeds in the dangerous direction it is steering America, they will ironically be putting in jeapordy the very liberty they claim to protect.

This was a production of Stop The ACLU Blogburst. If you would like to join us, please email Jay at Jay@stoptheaclu.com or Gribbit at GribbitR@gmail.com. You will be added to our mailing list and blogroll. Over 115 blogs already on-board.

Congrats are in order.

2006-01-23T21:24:00.000-08:00

As I sit watching C-SPAN's airing of the CBC, I am filled with pride for the Canadian people. A Conservative minority-led government must feel like a breath of fresh air to those in the "Great White North" who are sick and tired of the endless corruption of the Liberal party.
Head on over to see Wonder Woman and congratulate her.
To quote my favorite Canadian blogger (mentioned above)

.It's nice to win, but the narrow margin just proves my old friend right...Liberals could murder babies in their beds, and still get elected in this country!

Perhaps you are right, dear...but don't forget the many words of my mentor Reagan that teach us to never, ever give up hope for a brighter tomorrow.
For the people of the *Formerly Communist Cannuckistan, tomorrow is here.

God Bless You All, God Bless America, and God Bless the People of Canada.

*no offence is intended by this remark...I'll leave you to draw the parallels between the ideals of Canadian Liberal Martin and the Communist Party of the US platform.
Sorry, and please allow yourselves a sense of humor, even I can laugh at a good "W" joke.

Michael Moore Thinks He's Important.

2006-01-23T06:51:00.000-08:00

I predict a victory for Canada's Conservative party today. Why?? Because Michael Moore is involved. The man who doesn't realize that he's the grandest thing that has happened to the Conservative movement in the US since Reagan (God rest his soul) is now so full of self appreciation that he is trying to belittle the Canadians into seeing things his way.
So, Mr. Moore, the Conservative party of Canada thanks you. America thanks you. Now, go take a shower...Please.

Kerry Vows to Vote Against Alito.

2006-01-23T06:36:00.000-08:00

h/t to Stop the ACLU

via Blogs for Bush

Sen. John Kerry said Sunday he will vote against Supreme Court nominee Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr. because he fears Alito would take the country “backwards.”

Kerry, the failed Democratic nominee for president in 2004, also voted against now-Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts. But Alito, Kerry said Sunday, goes even farther than Roberts in undermining established legal precedents.

A flash point during Alito’s confirmation hearings was a 1985 memo he wrote saying that the “Constitution does not protect a right to an abortion” despite the Supreme Court’s 1973 Row v. Wade decision.

“I think he will shut the door of court access to the average person in America … ,” Kerry said Sunday on ABC’s “This Week with George Stephanopoulos.” “I will vote against him because I think he will take the court backwards.” (Source)

Also,

Kerry, the failed Democratic nominee for president in 2004, also voted against now-Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts. But Alito, Kerry said Sunday, goes even farther than Roberts in undermining established legal precedents.

As Matt at Blogs for Bush points out, slavery and seggregation were also beloved legal precedents.

IMnHO, if Kerry had his way women would not have the right to vote, either.

So, YAY for John F. Kerry...A loser in '04; a loser for life.

God Bless,
M. Sheldon

My appologies

2006-01-18T09:12:00.000-08:00

In case you haven't noticed, I've been away for a few days.

My son has picked up some sort of seemingly endless stomach virus, and thus is occupying much of my time.

So, the innane ramblings for the past week in brief:
1-I love it when Hillary Clinton, Ray Nagin, or Al Bore speak. Republican approval ratings go through the roof.
2-Sheddag, Sheddag, Sheddag. Why???
Here's Why
3-Stossel's right, we're spending way too much on beurocracy in public schools.

That's not all, but that's all I have time for for now.

God Bless,
M. Sheldon