| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Kneecapping Barack Obama at every opportunity. | ||
Tammy Bruce
Hot Anime Nerds
Interview With Henry Copeland Of Blogads
Knowledge Is Power
Little Miss Attila
Mitchieville
The Politburo Diktat
Jay Reding
Mark Steyn
Don Surber
Villainous Company
War Porn: Music Videos, Iraqi Soldiers Style
Security and freedom are flip sides of the same coin. To increase the amount of freedom we have, we have to give up some security and vice versa.
This is not always apparent, but it's always true.
For example, because we fear other people stealing our property, we have locks on our cars and homes. Because of that, we have to carry an extra key, we may have to go to extra expense to make more keys as back-ups, it takes an extra moment to get in and out of the car and the house; sometimes we may accidentally lock ourselves out of our property, etc., etc., etc.
Now, the point isn't that locks are bad, because they aren't. They secure our property and, quite frankly, the inconveniences mentioned in the previous paragraph are relatively minor. So what if you have to carry an extra key on your key ring? It only takes a few seconds to open a locked door with a key. Extra keys are very cheap and how often do we lock ourselves out of our homes or cars?
So, although putting locks on our cars and homes may be inconvenient and may curtail our freedom in very minor ways, it's certainly worth it. If we didn't have locks on our cars and homes and our property was stolen, we might lose the freedom to go where we please in our cars or use the property that we've acquired.
That's the reason the loss of freedom we experience by having locks on our homes is worth it, because it's a reasonable measure that prevents other significantly greater losses of freedom.
Now after reading that, you're probably thinking, "Come on, Hawkins, everyone knows that!"
But, as we've learned from watching the actions of many people during the war on terror, many people do not understand this simple lesson or either ignore it because they believe it's politically expedient to do so.
We have now come to a point in the war on terror where the most reasonable of protective measures, like listening in on the conversations of terrorists calling people in the United States, has become a source of great controversy.
This is despite the fact that the consequences of a terrorist attack, a nuclear bomb going off in New York, a biological weapon being unleashed in Dallas, planes being flown into buildings in Chicago are considerably greater than having your car or home broken into.
To look at these security measures we're taking, like listening in on terrorist conversations, no fly lists, aggressive interrogation measures, holding terrorists at Gitmo, etc., etc., etc., without seriously considering the aim we're trying to achieve -- stopping terrorist attacks on the United States -- is as foolish as trying to decide whether or not to lock your home without considering whether a burglar might break in.
Unfortunately, many of the very reasonable security measures the Bush administration has taken have been attacked as if they were pulled out of void, as if they were needless bits of red tape that could be cut with no consequences whatsoever.
This is a mistake.
Instead, people who attack the Bush administration for securing this country should be explicitly asked again and again whether getting rid of Gitmo, neutering our interrogation measures, stopping warrantless wiretaps of terrorist calls to the US, getting rid of the Patriot Act, etc., etc., is worth significantly increasing the chances of having another 9/11 style attack on the country.
Then, if they answer the affirmative, at least the voters will know where they stand and, as an added benefit, we'll perhaps be spared their shrill condemnations of President Bush for not protecting us from terrorists after an attack that they helped make possible occurs.
Jimmy Carter, who was one of the worst Presidents of the last century and one of the worst Presidents in American history, keeps reminding the American people that he is still out there working hard to make people say, "I can't believe that guy was ever President!"
Today, in a display of naivete befitting an 18 year old college drop out who has spent too much time listening to Noam Chomsky, Carter actually talked up Hamas on CNN:
"Carter told CNN in an interview that although Hamas were "so-called terrorists," so far "there have been no complaints of corruption against [their] elected officials."He conceded that "there is an element within Hamas who deny Israel's right to exist," but compared the current situation to negotiations with the PLO, which was still outlawed as a terrorist organization during his presidency."
Hamas is a group of "so-called terrorists??????" They deliberately target Israeli civilians all the time and then gleefully take credit for the murders. If that's not terrorism, there is no such thing.
Moreover, "There is an element within Hamas who deny Israel's right to exist?" That's like saying there is an element within the school's chess club that is interested in playing chess. The raison d'etre of Hamas is to destroy Israel and take their land.
Also, isn't it time for even ostriches like Carter to admit that Oslo and the negotiations with the PLO were a disaster, that they only made things worse? Arafat was a dictator who supported terrorism, helped shape the Palestinian culture of death, refused to make peace with Israel, and kicked off an Intifada. There wasn't a hill of beans worth of difference between Bin Laden and Arafat except that Arafat had world leaders at his beck and call.
Have I mentioned that I can't believe that guy was ever President yet?
The Wall Street Journal Online
Thank You Tony Blair
Stop the ACLU
PrimalHealth Weight Loss
PBS: John & Abigail Adams
Place A Bet On IraqPS: Banner ad sales have been a little slow, so I'm slashing prices. I sell a max of 4, 468x60, 20 kb or less banner ads at a time. For this week only, you can get one of those ads, which lasts for 30 days, for $50 each. Email me if you're interested.
From conservative Dick Cheney....
"On the tape, bin Laden warned that his fighters are preparing new attacks in the United States but offered the American people a "long-term truce" without specifying the conditions.Cheney, in a television interview, rejected that suggestion, saying "We don't negotiate with terrorists."
"I think you have to destroy them," he told Fox News Channel. "It's the only way to deal with them." -- Newsmax
From liberal Ezra Klein...
"Not to show myself a yellow coward who sleeps with a Koran tucked under my pillow, but allow me a thought experiment: what about negotiating with bin-Laden? I mean, this isn't a war of aggression, is it? We're fighting to ensure our safety. And a truce would ensure our safety. So shouldn't we find out what the guy wants?...Maybe "negotiate" is the wrong word. I don't want to have him over for tea, just find out what his demands are. But putting it out of the question is just ahistorical. Palestinians and Arabs have done far more to the state of Israel than al-Qaeda has to us, and not only do Israeli leaders negotiate with them, but American leaders tend to broker the talks. As Sharon and his policy of unilateral withdrawal have shown, there are ways of dampening outrage and fulfilling demands while simultaneously drawing lines and showing who's in charge. In any case, I'm not sure I fully buy the argument, but it's worth thinking about, and really shouldn't be so marginalized in public discourse." -- Ezra Klein
"Furthermore, you should never, never, never, forget about judges. Because liberalism is so unpopular, the Democrats count on getting activist liberal judges to implement their agenda over the protests of the voters (perfect example: gay marriage in Massachusetts). Because the Senate Republicans have wimped out, the Dems have managed to block a number of Bush's judges, but Bush has gotten 198 of them through and given that 7 of the 9 Supreme Court Justices will crack 70 by 2008, it's entirely possible that the winner of this election could significantly change the balance of the Supreme Court. Who would you rather see picking 3 or 4 new Supreme Court Justices over the next four years: George W. Bush, an imperfect conservative or John F. Kerry, one of the most liberal members of the Senate?" -- John Hawkins, July 20, 2004
Scary Thought: Had John Kerry been elected instead of George Bush, we would now be preparing to add the 2nd LIBERAL judge to the Supreme Court.
That means that with a Kerry presidency, we'd have likely had 6 liberal members of the SCOTUS, 1 moderate, and just 2 conservatives as of February, 2006.
Furthermore, you have to think that the chances of Stevens and/or Ginsburg retiring would have gone up considerably if there were a liberal in the White House who they knew would replace them with a likeminded justice.
So, if John Kerry had been able to defeat Bush, instead of being one judge away from perhaps being able to reverse liberal victories in the court that stretch back for decades, the court would have been a liberal bastion for the foreseeable future.
Although Bush hasn't been as conservative as we'd like in a lot of areas, his victory was incredibly important for the future of our country and the conservative movement in general, not just because of the war on terrorism and his tax policies, but because of his appointments to the Supreme Court.
It's bad enough that rapcious local officials have been using the Kelo decision to claw people's homes away from them and hand them to their developer buddies, but now, they're going after churches too:
"For seven years, Reverend Roosevelt Gildon has preached the gospel at the Centennial Baptist Church in Sand Springs, Oklahoma. His congregation, around 50 strong, is like a small family. The elderly members, and those without cars, often walk to Sunday services.“Rosey,” as his friends call him, figured he’d go on preaching in the tidy steel structure for years to come. That was, until the government told him they were taking his church away.
Since the Supreme Court's controversial Kelo decision last summer, eminent domain has entered a new frontier. It’s not just grandma’s house we have to worry about. Now it’s God’s house, too. “I guess saving souls isn’t as important,” says Reverend Gildon, his voice wry, “as raking in money for politicians to spend.” The town of Sand Springs, Oklahoma, has plans to take Centennial Baptist — along with two other churches, several businesses, dozens of small homes, and a school — and replace them with a new “super center,” rumored to include a Home Depot. It’s the kind of stuff that makes tax collectors salivate. It’s also the kind of project that brakes for no one, especially post-Kelo. “I had no idea this could happen in America,” says Reverend Gildon, after spending Monday morning marching in the Sand Springs Martin Luther King Day parade.
...It makes sense on one level. Churches don’t generate any tax revenue for the government to spend. They don’t “stimulate” the economy. They often, much to their peril, occupy prime, envied real estate. With the supercharged powers granted by Kelo, be very, very afraid.
What’s most egregious about this application of eminent domain is that there’s already plenty of room for development, even if the pesky church sticks around. Many community residents were happy to sell their property. Two other churches in the area decided to move to Tulsa. Other structures in the area were dilapidated and ready for the deal. The way things are now, Centennial Baptist Church could easily live side-by-side with new stores, houses, or businesses. Yet Centennial remains in the crosshairs — even though two nearby national chains, a taxpaying McDonald’s and a taxpaying O’Reilly’s muffler shop, have been left alone."
Thanks to the four liberals on the Supreme Court and Anthony Kennedy, all of whom deliberately distorted the plain meaning of the Constitution to grant local governments this new power, churches all over this country now have targets on them. Unless greedy and/or anti-Christian politicians are stopped, don't be surprised to see more and more churches confiscated by the government and replaced by businesses.
Oh yeah, this is really going to work:
"Hamas is paying a spin doctor $180,000 (£100,000) to persuade Europeans and Americans that it is not a group of religious fanatics who relish suicide bombings and hate Jews.The organisation, also known as the Islamic Resistance Movement, has hired a media consultant, Nashat Aqtash, to improve its image at home and abroad because it expects to emerge from next week's Palestinian general election as a major political force, and wants recognition and acceptance by the US and EU.
"Hamas has an image problem. The Israelis were able to create a very bad image of the Palestinians in general and particularly Muslims and Hamas. My contract is to project the right image," said Mr Aqtash, who also teaches media at Birzeit University in Ramallah.
"We don't need the international community to accept Hamas ideology, we need it to accept the facts on the ground. We are not killing people because we love to kill. People view Hamas as loving sending people to die. We don't love death, we like life."
Mr Aqtash, who describes himself as opposed to violence and "believing in the Gandhi route", has advised Hamas leaders to change their image by explaining that they do not hate Israelis because they are Jews. And he is attempting to persuade influential foreigners that Hamas is essentially a peaceful organisation that was forced to fight, but is now committed to pressing its cause through politics, not violence.
"Hamas does not believe in terrorism or killing civilians. But Ariel Sharon pressed buttons to make people angry. Sometimes we are innocent enough to react in a way that the Israelis use the reaction against us," he said.
Next week Mr Aqtash says he will address the former US president Jimmy Carter and former Swedish prime minister Carl Bildt, and other prominent foreigners monitoring the election. But he admits he and his small team working from an office in Ramallah have their work cut out. Hamas is responsible for scores of suicide bombings, killing and maiming hundreds of civilians (many of them children), although not for yesterday's attack in Tel Aviv.
Hamas's founding charter calls for the destruction of Israel and it wants to impose an Islamic state on all Palestinian territory.
...Mr Aqtash has also advised Hamas leaders to emphasise that they are not anti-semitic or against Israelis because they are Jews."
So Hamas is paying a PR guy to try to persuade people that they're "not a group of religious fanatics who relish suicide bombings and hate Jews?" Isn't that kind of like Shaquille O'Neal hiring someone to try to convince Americans that he's actually a short, white accountant? Who would believe it?
The problem Hamas has is that the International Community in general, and the United States in particular, has been encouraging the Palestinian government to crack down on the violent, genocidal terrorists that have free reign in the disputed territories.
Of course, that's never happened because the majority of the Palestinian people and the Palestinian government support terrorism against Israel. However, people who support the Palestinians have, up until this point, been engaging in a bit of polite fiction and pretending that this isn't the case.
Now that Hamas is about to assume a significant political role, the mask is being torn away and the terrorists everyone has been saying the Palestinian government needs to get in check are about to become the government.
That means, believe it or not, that things are about to take a turn for the worse.
For example, since Israel assassinates leaders of Hamas and Hamas is about to become part of the government, we may now have the Israelis regularly targeting Palestinian government officials in retaliation for attacks. Moreover, after Hamas becomes part of the government, wouldn't that mean that if the Palestinians got a state, it would officially be a terrorist state? How can anyone expect Israel to make peace with a government that includes large numbers of people who're part of a group that are openly calling for genocide and the destruction of their nation? And how do the US and EU justify giving aid to a government that will soon no longer even be using a figleaf to hide its terrorist activities?
But, there is one big positive that will come out of this situation: the truth about what the Palestinian people and government support and believe will finally be out in the open where even the biggest Palestinian apologists will have difficulty denying it.
Hat tip to Right-Thinking from the Left Coast for the story.
Full Text Of The Osama Bin Laden Tape
Bin Laden Warns Of Attacks, Offers Truce, Hits On Anti-War Liberal Themes
According To The Associated Press, Osama Is A Dissident?
France Defends Right To Nuclear Reply To Terrorism
Abbas Group Responsible For Tel Aviv Bombing. President's 'Military Wing' Coordinated Attack
Iran Lifts CNN Ban; Apology Over Mistranslation Accepted
Iranian-Americans Rallied In Front Of The White House Thursday To Urge U.S. Support For Efforts By Democratic Resistance Forces In Iran To Overthrow An Oppressive Regime In Tehran Intent On Acquiring Nuclear Weapons
Administration Lays Out Legal Case for Wiretapping Program (Free New York Times Reg Req)
Boehner, Shadegg Challenge Blunt To A Debate. Mike Pence Endorses Shadegg For Majority Leader
Connie Mack Backs Shadegg For Leader
Senate Minority Leader Reid Apologizes to GOP
Michael Fumento: How the Conservative Columnist Witch Hunt Burned Me
Mark Steyn on Canada, OBL's Truce Offer, John Kerry's Defeat From The Jaws Of Victory World Tour, Hillary's John Kerry Impersonation, And What's Wrong With CNN
Peggy Noonan: Not a Bad Time to Take Stock
Duncan Currie: Shadegg Is Gaining Steam, But It's Still Blunt's Race To Lose
Debra Saunders: Could Same-Sex Marriage Lead To Legalized Polygamy
Victor Davis Hanson: The Not-So-Mad Mind Of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (Free Chicago Tribune Reg Req)
Info On Intervening in the ACLU NSA Lawsuit
I Had Been Blind 25 Years. I Had A Heart Attack, Woke Up, And Could See. I Said To My Husband: 'You've Got Older'
Dead Whale Left Outside Of Japanese Embassy
Woman Sues Serial Killer Boss For Bias
Website Of The Day: IMAO
If you want to know why Israel has never been able to make peace with the Palestinians, you need look no further than Uncle Hazim, a government sanctioned television show for kids sponsored by Hamas. That's right, we're talking about a terrorist group whose goal is not the creation of a Palestinian state, but genocide and a complete takeover of Israel. And the Palestinian government is A-OK with them running a children's program.
Here are the details from the New York Times:
"Hazim Sharawi, whose stage name is Uncle Hazim, is a quiet, doe-eyed young man who has an easy way with children and will soon preside over a children's television show here on which he'll cavort with men in larger-than-life, fake-fur animal suits on the Gaza Strip's newest television station, Al Aksa TV.But Captain Kangaroo this is not. The station, named for Islam's third holiest site, is owned by Hamas, the people who helped make suicide bombing a household term.
"Our television show will have a message, but without getting into the tanks, the guns, the killing and the blood," said Mr. Sharawi, sitting in the broadcast studio where he will produce his show.
"I will show them our rights through the history," he said, "show them, 'This is Nablus, this is Gaza, this is Al Aksa mosque, which is with the Israelis and should be in our hands.'
...Mr. Sharawi, 27, wearing a long black leather coat with a hood over a green suit and tie, fixed with a pin, looks like a straight-and-narrow Sunday school teacher. In fact, he got his start working with children at his mosque while studying geology at Islamic University in Gaza. His hair is parted in the middle, his beard trimmed as neatly as a suburban lawn.
He said the head of Hamas's radio station spotted him leading children's games at his mosque and asked him to do a children's radio show two years ago. The show has become so popular, his appearances at occasional Hamas-sponsored festivals draw as many as 10,000 children at a time.
Mr. Sharawi will not take visitors to see him do his radio broadcast because the studio's location is a heavily guarded secret. In 2004, an Israeli Apache helicopter fired three rockets into the station's previous studio not long after Mr. Sharawi and his colleagues had fled.
Everybody involved in the television station is worried about another attack, but Mr. Sharawi said he is ready to die if it comes. "The messengers don't care if they lose their lives for the sake of revealing the message," he said.
As he describes it, his television show, which begins in a few weeks, will teach children the basics of militant Palestinian politics - the disputed status of Jerusalem, Palestinian prisoners in Israeli jails and the Palestinian refugees' demand for a right to return to the lands they lost to Israel in the 1948 war - without showing the violence that Hamas's pursuit of those goals entails."
At the same time the Palestinians are out there claiming to be innocent victims (instead of a country full of terrorist supporters who lost control of their land in a failed attempt at genocide), they've got Osama Bin Care Bear here openly indoctrinating their kids in the name of Hamas.
This is just beyond obscene.
Unless the Palestinians in the disputed territories become civilized and give up their culture of death or the Israelis simply decide that they can't live with them anymore and transfer them to the surrounding countries, there is no chance at peace.
*** Update #1 ***: From CoolCzech in the comments section, It's the Uncle Hazim Song!
"I Hate Jews, They Fear Me, We're a Nutty Family!With a Strapped on Bomb
And a Shot From Me to You,
I Know One Day
I'll Kill You TOO!"
*** Update #2 ***: More from the comments section:
"Hi there boys and girls. Can you say intfada? In Ti Fa Da. Sure you can. I like it when you say that." -- Kermit_H"Imagine Mr. Rogers strapping on an explosives vest instead of his sweater." -- mojoe
"Would you kill my... won't you kill my... neighbor!" -- CoolCzech
All 3 Republican Candidates for the Majority Leader spot in the House decided to do teleconferences with bloggers today. Here's a quick rundown of the calls:
10:30 EST: John Shadegg: My questions:
Question #1: Congressman, you've been endorsed by Human Events, National Review, Club for Growth and I have yet to see a blogger endorse anyone other than you, so there's no question that you're the people's choice. But, does that make a difference or is this whole thing really going to be decided by who offers whom what behind the scenes?
Answer: Essentially he said he was a dark horse and conceded he would lose if the election were held today. But, he did feel he kept the other candidates from going over the top and he thinks he has a shot over the long term.
Question #2: You gave up your leadership to run, but Congressman Blunt has not. Do you think other Congressmen are worried he might use his leadership slot to retaliate if he wins?
Answer: Absolutely. They're genuinely concerned about it and some of the people who are supporting him are keeping quiet for exactly that reason.
Congressman Shadegg also said, often in response to questions, that:
-- He favors applying the Freedom of Information Act to Congress.
-- Emphasized how tough he was on illegal immigration.
-- Opposes any form of amnesty for illegals.
-- Supports a guest worker program, but thinks illegals who are here should have to go home to apply.
-- Doesn't think all travel for Congressmen should be banned. He favors educational travel.
-- Blount abused power to help Phillip Morris.
-- Voted against the Medicare bill, would like to suspend it, and supports means testing for it.
-- Is disappointed with Bush's failure to restrain spending.
-- Supported the Dept Of Homeland Security originally, but doesn't now because he thinks it's a big bureaucracy.
-- He does support the President listening in on terrorists via the NSA and he believes it was legal.
Overall Grade: A. He hit all the right notes.
12:30 EST: John Boehner: My questions:
Question #1: You said you had a part in preparing the contract with America. Would you support term limits and a Balanced Budget amendment, two parts of the contract that were never implemented?
Answer: Yes on the Balanced Budget Amendment, no on Term Limits.
Question #2: Shadegg supports revising the Medicare bill to include means testing. Would you also favor doing that?
Answer: Yes.
Question #3: Shadegg supports a guest worker program, but thinks illegals should have to go home first to participate. Do you agree?
Answer: Yes, he does.
Congressman Boehner also said, often in response to questions:
-- That he voted against the border wall bill because there was an unfunded mandate that required employees to identify existing employers.
-- That he voted for the Medicare prescription drug bill and still supports it.
-- That he was a key player in creating the Contract with America.
-- That it's unclear whether the President had the legal authority to order Warrantless Surveillance through the NSA.
Overall Grade: D. Boehner was even less impressive than I thought he'd be. There were a lot of platitudes, he doesn't come across as tough on illegal immigration, and anyone who supports the Medicare Prescription Drug Bill has no credibility in my book when he talks about the need to cut spending.
3:00 EST: Roy Blunt: My question:
Question #1: John Shadegg, who gave up his leadership position for this race, said this morning that some members are worried you might use your status as majority whip to retaliate against them if they come out against you publicly and you lose. Your reaction to that? Also, are you going to give up the Majority Whip position? If so, why not, especially since you say you have the race locked up?
Answer: It would set a bad precedent for him to quit his leadership position and of course everyone could work together afterwards. (Pretty unconvincing, if you ask me).
Congressman Blunt cames across very cocky and sure that he will win. He also tossed in what I perceived as a subtle threat to the bloggers there. I'm paraphrasing here, but he basically said that, "You shouldn't do and I shouldn't do anything to minimize our ability to work together after this call."
The translation: Go light on me, buddy, or else I'll cut you out of the loop when I'm Majority Leader!
Maybe it worked. On the whole, the questions were certainly less challenging than they were at either of the other two press conferences, although some people were complaining in emails afterwards that they weren't allowed to ask questions despite being told they could do so beforehand.
Congressman Blunt also said, often in response to questions, that:
-- I'm going to win because I know the congressmen really well.
-- I know you guys are rooting for the other candidates.
-- He emphasized that he has gotten things done since DeLay left -- like border security and stopping lawsuit abuse.
-- We need to reform 527's and take a new look at how we do tribal contributions.
-- Last year was one of the most successful years in memory in getting things to the President.
Two Quotes From Blunt (Added in at 10:30 PM EST)
"I think I understand the optics of some people thinking gee, we really need a visual change here. I also understand why the members don't necessarily think that, because the members, unlike the people on this call, know that at the end of the day, we'll also be judged for whether we get our work done or not."
"...(I)t's important that we don't do anything, I don't do anything, hopefully, you don't do anything that minimizes our ability to work together when this leadership race is over."
Overall Grade: F. I know, I'll probably never get another conference call with Blunt again for saying this, but he really didn't come across well at all. He struck me as a hubristic, status quo candidate who really isn't very interested in reform because, for the most part, he likes things as they are and doesn't think he needs to promise anything to win.
Final Thoughts: All 3 candidates are real conservatives, not RINOS, so it's not as if we're in danger of having a Susan Collins or an Arlen Specter takeover.
However, if you're unhappy with the performance of the House -- and most conservatives seem to be -- there is a pretty clear pecking order here. Shadegg is the guy who wants to make big changes, Boehner is more of a middle-of-the road guy, and Blunt is the guy for people who want to give lip service to reform and leave things essentially the way they are.
Before these conference calls, my preference was Shadegg, Boehner, and then Blunt, way in the rear. Today's calls just reinforced my perceptions.
Other blogger reactions:
La Shawn Barber
Captain's Quarters
Hugh Hewitt
GOP Bloggers
Michelle Malkin
Outside the Beltway
Polipundit
The QandO Blog
Radio Blogger
RedState
Suitably Flip
Townhall's Capitol Report
The Truth Laid Bear
Wizbang
It looks like a few members of the Tennessee Highway Patrol have started playing by the same set of rules that Congress does with lobbyists:
"State troopers who fix tickets as favors — even for someone who gives them gifts — are not breaking the law, the Knox County prosecutor has determined for Gov. Phil Bredesen.District Attorney General Randy Nichols informed Bredesen by letter yesterday that the “atmosphere” in which meat company employees in Knoxville may have given gifts to troopers, and then asked for favors from those troopers, would not have led to criminal charges.
Bredesen asked for a Tennessee Bureau of Investigation review of the case of Trooper Jerry Dean Watson after The Tennessean raised questions in late November. Investigative files suggested a wider pattern of troopers accepting ham from the company, possibly in trade for favors such as fixing tickets.
“This may well have created an atmosphere where Lay Packing Company employees felt comfortable in asking for ‘favors’; however, that would not be in and of itself a criminal offense,” Nichols wrote to Bredesen, in transmitting the TBI’s findings.
“In fact it is not a criminal offense if a trooper requests a prosecutor or a judge to dismiss the case as a ‘favor’ unless that request is in return for some direct benefit to the trooper.”
...In the interview, Nichols said no troopers or employees could be found to corroborate the gift-giving claims.“There’s nobody that will own up that they had any clout with the Highway Patrol,” he said.
“This Bright fellow said, ‘I really don’t know, that’s what everybody said.’ I think that’s what happened — it was more legend than fact. To say somebody got a ham or a turkey, nobody owned up to doing that.”
Brandon Bright of Knoxville, who worked at the now-closed Lay Packing Co., was given a ticket by Watson in 2000. The trooper later fixed the ticket by forging the signature of the judge.
In his letter to the governor, Nichols said that even if fixing other tickets had been illegal, the statute of limitations has run out.
He said giving meat to troopers may have created an atmosphere where Lay employees felt they could ask troopers for favors. But that wouldn’t “in and of itself” be a criminal offense, Nichols wrote.
Bright told The Tennessean last month that he told the TBI in 2001 that it was “common knowledge” that people at Lay Packing got tickets fixed. “People around Lay’s knew about it,” and because everyone else was doing it, he thought he would give it a try, he said."
In essence, what they're saying here is that because there was no quid pro quo, because no one handed over any goodies and then specifically said, "Now take care of that ticket for me in return," no crime was committed.
That seems wrong, doesn't it? But, you realize that members of Congress do this every day of the week, right? Somebody sends them some money, tells them what they would like done, but doesn't demand a straightforward tit for tat exchange.
In a way, that's what makes the Abramoff scandal so ridiculous: because legalized "bribery" goes on 24x7 in Washington, 7 days a week, so it's a wonder that anyone would feel the need to go above and beyond what's already legal.
In any case, it's always a shame when there's a "for sale" sign over a government official, whether it's a cop or a Congressman.
Last night was the first time I've ever heard of Boomershoot, but wow does it sound like fun:
"Boomershoot is an annual pyrotechnic event held in North Central Idaho, where precision rifle shooters aim at exploding targets. When a target is hit, the result is a big, satisfying “Kaboom!...From all over the continent people come to shoot at targets containing half a ton of explosives. They feel the earth move when their bullet hits its mark 700 yards away. At the end of the day they move in close for the bone jarring, teeth rattling clean up."
Take a look at a pic from a previous event:
Firing guns at targets that explode? Add in some chips, dips, a half dozen different flavors of chicken wings, and some attractive women wearing bikinis who do backrubs on the people waiting to shoot and I'm not sure it could get much better than that for guys...
"Imagine the kerfuffle (if Jesus came back today). He comes back, and He goes on TV and says, "Okay, homosexuality is wrong. Sex outside of marriage is wrong. Stop watching porn. Quit smoking dope. And by the way, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, and all the other non-Christian religions are wrong, so stop practicing them." Every fat lesbian activist in San Francisco would be out in the street, running around topless and waving a sign reading, "Kill Jesus NOW!" Jesse Jackson would condemn Him. Cindy Sheehan would demand a meeting. Liberals would start calling him JesusHitler." -- Hog On Ice
I know, I know... Jesus would have a lot to say to everyone, liberals and conservatives. Still, it's funny because it's so spot-on...
Explosive Devices Found On Bus Cameras No Help, They Didn't Work
Bill Clinton Can Re-Apply For His Lawyer License. 5-Year Arkansas Suspension Related To Lewinsky Scandal Ends Thursday
A Special Prosecutor's Long-Delayed Report Charges That A Coverup At Senior Levels Of The Clinton Administration Killed A Tax Fraud Case Against Ex-Cabinet Member Henry Cisneros
Obama Backs Clinton's Claim That House Of Representatives Is A Plantation (Free WAPO Reg Req)
More Belafonte: Bush Has 'Driven Fear And Terror Into The Hearts Of The American People'
Ex-FEMA director Michael Brown now takes blame for Katrina failures
Democrats Unveil Their Own Plan for Rules on Lobbying (Free New York Times Reg Req)
Boston Court OK's Pulling Plug On Comatose 11-Year-Old
Judge: No Prison Time For 'Gay' Rapist Teacher. On Heels Of Vermont Outrage, Predator Gets Only Probation
U.S., France Reject Iran Request For Talk
Abu Khabab Al-Masri Killed In Pakistan Strike. Al-Masri Was Al-Qaeda Chief Bomb Maker And Head Of Its WMD program
IAEA To Hold Emergency Iran Meeting On Feb 2
Ted K’s Secret Love Child A Secret No More
Ann Coulter: 'Chocolate City' Sprinkled With Nuts
Tony Blankley: Open Borders, Closed Minds
Larry SabatoL The Presidential Prizefight '08
Larry Sabato: The Presidential Prizefight '08 Part 2
The 50 Most Influential Christians In America
Human Numbers Through Time
MSM Lies Of 2005
Humor: Sean Penn Demands To Know What *sshole Took SeanPenn@ gmail.com
Website Of The Day: The Truth Laid Bear
"Sam Alito marks the final purging of the Bork experience.All the Democrats could do was scream about his inactive membership – back in the '70s – in CAP, Concerned Alumni of Princeton, which had a magazine called Prospect, which once ran an article, apparently satirical, complaining about Princeton admitting co-eds. In my mind, the only potentially disqualifying aspect of Alito's record was that he wasn't a more active member of CAP, a group opposed to quotas, set-asides and the lowering of academic standards at Princeton.
Then this week, we found out Sen. Teddy Kennedy still belongs to an organization that doesn't admit women. Oh – also, he killed a girl.
I'm fairly certain I've mentioned that before – I don't recall, Mr. Chairman – but I don't understand why everyone doesn't mention it every time Senator Drunkennedy has the audacity to talk about how "troubled" and "concerned" he is about this or that nominee. I bet Mary Jo was "troubled" and "concerned" about the senator leaving her trapped in a car under water while he went back to the hotel to create an alibi.
It's not as if Democrats can say: OK, OK! The man paid a price! Let it go! He didn't pay a price. The Kopechne family paid a price. Kennedy weaved away scot-free.
But the Democrats are "troubled" about Sam Alito's membership in Concerned Alumni of Princeton 30 years ago. If they're "concerned" about lifetime appointments for people with memberships in "troubling" organizations, wait until they hear about Bob Byrd! (Former Kleagle, Ku Klux Klan.)" -- Ann Coulter
Bleurters News Service, (WASHINGTON)
The D.C. Islamic Eternal Justice Endeavor against War and Stereotyping (DIEJEWS) yesterday issued a strongly worded statement condemning a rising backlash against Muslims following next month's nuclear bombing of Tel Aviv, Israel by Iran. The press release warned against an increase in anti-Muslim discrimination, hate crimes, and government harassment following the destruction of the unofficial Israeli capital city next month, as announced by the Iranian government.
"We call on all Americans of goodwill to hold fast to our traditional American values of tolerance and diversity," the statement said in part. "No justification is possible for the heightened tensions and increased suspicions against innocent Muslims following next month's tragic events. The chilling of Islamic-American relations will overshadow the great strides made since 9/11 in rolling back jingoism." The statement stopped short of calling the nuclear bombing of Tel Aviv by the Islamic Republic of Iran a terrorist act, but called for "restraint by both sides" in future crises.
"Next month's nuking of Tel Aviv and the subsequent dancing in the streets by Muslims worldwide have nothing to do with Islam," DIEJEWS spokesperson Marysuellen al-Shahid said in a telephone interview. "We condemn what's going to happen. People claim they are doing it for Islam, but it's really in spite of Islam. The first people to suffer, after the victims, are the Muslim community. There is no justification for such a horrible crime in Islam, any other divine faith or even the court of human conscience, no matter how many sermons have been preached in mosques calling for exactly this. People have to remember that even though the Revolutionary Council of the Islam Republic of Iran has nuclear weapons and will use them, they are only a tiny minority of Muslims, who are peace-loving. In fact, the Arabic word for "peace" means the exact same thing as the English word for peace--but do the news media ever report that? And can you speak up a little? I can't hear the phone so good through this burka."
In a related development, Nevergreen University announced that, in advance of next month's attack and backlash, all students will be required to attend a "sensitivity workshop" on various aspects of Islamic life, beliefs, and customs. Students will "graduate" by coming before a panel from the university's Islamic Studies department and apologizing for the battles of Tours, Malta, Lepanto, Khartoum, and the Gates of Vienna. The panel will grade them on the sincerity of their regret, and grant extra credit for not being able to name the victorious Christian commanders.
"Obviously no one approves of vaporizing a whole city of Jews, no matter how much they deserve it," said university vice-president Batson D. Belfry. "But you never know when the reactionary upbringing of many of our students may impose a simplistic, black and white judgmentalism on quite complex matters. Next month's anti-Muslim backlash is extremely hurtful to our Muslim students, and to all members of the university family. So, we want to get a headstart and try to challenge the students' preconceptions about 'right' and 'wrong', and yes I am making those air quote thingies with my fingers. Minds are like ICBM re-entry vehicles--they function best when properly aimed and programmed."
This satire was used with the permission of Atlanta Rofters.
The idea for this post is cribbed from commenter Angus Jung over at Scott Burgess' place. (Thanks to Tim Blair for identifying him.) The post itself is a pallid imitation of the kind of news satire that Rand Simberg and Victor Davis Hanson are geniuses at. Steal from the best, I always say...
Hey look, it's Maureen Dowd's knife rack!
Just kidding -- sort of. I mean, would you really be surprised if she had one of these?
Actually, believe it or not, this is a real product called the "All Men Are B*stards Knife Block."
Can you imagine all the complaints if they sold a knife block like this with a woman being used as a pincushion? The nagging would never stop.
But, as long as it's a guy being stabbed, "Oh, it's hilarious!" Of course, I do have to admit it is pretty creative and cool looking.
On the other hand, if you went out on a first date with a woman and noticed that she had one of these things in her kitchen, wouldn't that be basically enough to make you think twice about going on a second date?
Isn't it like a red neon sign flashing, "She has issues with men! She has issues with men! She has issues with men! Danger Will Robinson! Danger!"
Of course, maybe that's just the psych major in me over thinking things...
Hat tip to the Drunk Report for pointing this one knife block out.
Black Sheep News
BlogsNow
The Drudge Report
Drunk Report
Fark
Instapundit
Jewish World Review
Lucianne
Memorandum
Men's News Daily
Nealenews
Orbusmax
RealClearPolitics
TownHall
WorldNetDaily
Remember Paul Hackett? He was the big mouthed, liberal Iraqi vet who was the darling of the Kos set because they were oh so sure that he was going to win a congressional seat in a Republican district of Ohio. Unfortunately, a funny thing happened on the way to the victory party: Hackett lost to Jean Schmidt of, "Cowards cut and run, but marines never do," fame.
Well, fortunately for Republicans, Paul Hackett is now duking it out with Sherrod Brown for the right to run against Mike DeWine, who is currently the 2nd most vulnerable Republican incumbent in the Senate. I say, "fortunately," because Hackett has the same foot-in-mouth disease as people like Howard Dean and Pat Robertson. Ever so often, he just opens up wide, rams his foot right in, and then out pops something appalling. His latest remarks are a perfect example:
"Ohio's Republican leader wants Democratic U.S. Senate candidate Paul Hackett to apologize for calling some conservative Republicans religious fanatics and comparing them to terrorist mastermind Osama bin Laden.Hackett was unapologetic Tuesday for the comments in a newspaper story, saying religious fanatics of any flavor should be ashamed.
"I said it. I meant it. I stand behind it," he said.
Hackett said in a Sunday column in The Columbus Dispatch: "The Republican Party has been hijacked by the religious fanatics that, in my opinion, aren't a whole lot different than Osama bin Laden and a lot of the other religious nuts around the world."
Hackett, an Iraq war veteran from the Cincinnati suburb of Indian Hill, is running for the Democratic nomination for U.S. Senate against Rep. Sherrod Brown of Lorain. They are vying to run against two-term Republican Sen. Mike DeWine.
Hackett also said the practice of denying homosexuals equal rights is un-American. The newspaper asked Hackett if that meant the 62 percent of Ohioans who voted to ban gay marriage were un-American.
"If what they believe is that we're going to have a scale on judging which Americans have equal rights, yeah, that's un-American," Hackett said.
Ohio Republican Party Chairman Bob Bennett said Hackett should apologize, saying his comments applied to any "people of faith" and, therefore, most Ohioans."
The liberal blogosphere loves these combative guys like Hackett and for some reason, they never quite seem to grasp how badly they hurt them with the public. In Hackett's case, he just compared devout, Christian Republicans to Osama Bin Laden and called 62% of Ohio's population "un-American" for voting to ban gay marriage.
Let's see which negative Democratic stereotypes he hit here: is he hostile to religion? Check! Doesn't take terrorism seriously? If you think Osama Bin Laden is no worse than Pat Robertson, that seems to be a fair assumption. Does he want to shove gay marriage down the public's throat whether they want it or not? Bingo!
Yet, this guy is like a lefty blogger dream candidate. And they wonder why they lose elections.
"Not enough money for education? It's a myth.The truth is, public schools are rolling in money. If you divide the U.S. Department of Education's figure for total spending on K-12 education by the department's count of K-12 students, it works out to about $10,000 per student.
Think about that! For a class of 25 kids, that's $250,000 per classroom. This doesn't include capital costs. Couldn't you do much better than government schools with $250,000? You could hire several good teachers; I doubt you'd hire many bureaucrats. Government schools, like most monopolies, squander money.
America spends more on schooling than the vast majority of countries that outscore us on the international tests. But the bureaucrats still blame school failure on lack of funds, and demand more money.
...A study by two professors at the Hoover Institution a few years ago compared public and Catholic schools in three of New York City's five boroughs. Parochial education outperformed the nation's largest school system "in every instance," they found -- and it did it at less than half the cost per student." -- John Stossel
AG: No Special Counsel For 'Spygate'
White House Accuses Gore of Hypocrisy
White House Calls Clinton's Attack ``Out Of Bounds''
Nagin Apologizes For 'Chocolate' Remarks. Vowed New Orleans Would Remain African-American Majority
Ted Kennedy To Quit Club That Bans Women
Ben Nelson Of Nebraska On Tuesday Became The First Senate Democrat To Announce His Support Of Supreme Court Nominee Samuel Alito
FCC Probes Selling Of Cell Phone Records
Tom Daschle Considers Bid For President (Snicker)
CNN's Headline News Has Signed Conservative Radio Host Glenn Beck For An Hourlong Talkshow
Alleged Plot To Kidnap Tony Blair's Son
Colin Powell Yesterday Warned That Iran Was Heading Down The Same Path As Iraq Had Done Before The 2003 Invasion
US Refuses New Talks With Iran
Pakistan: 4 Or 5 Terrorists Died In Strike
Iraqi Captors Threaten Death Of Hostage Journalis
3.5 Million Kenyans Face Starvation As Grain Surplus Sold Abroad
Jeff Jacoby: Mass Exodus
Walter Williams: Attacking Lobbyists Wrong Battle
John Shadegg: The Spirit Of 1994. Republicans Need To Look Again To The Examples Of Goldwater And Reagan
Charles Krauthammer: The Iran Charade, Part II
Bad News At Captain's Quarters
Audio: Laura Ingraham On The Many Faces Of Al Gore
Shatner Sells Kidney Stone for Charity
Website Of The Day: Random Thoughts Of Yet Another Military Member
"Prior to 9/11/01 there were at least 19 al-Qaeda members in the United States. They had committed no acts of terrorism. But they planned to. Members of our intelligence community evidently did not listen to the phone calls they made to, and received from, their employers abroad. Nor were their communications with one another monitored.Most Americans probably believe that should have been done -- that had it been done 3,000 American might not have been murdered. But the CCR, the ACLU and others are essentially saying that 9/11 was a fair price to pay to guarantee their idea of privacy rights. And if we have to pay that price again, so be it.
Also: It seem ludicrous on the face of it to argue that the President has the power to fire a missile at a terrorist leader such as Ayman al-Zawahri -- but not to listen in when he phones friends and family in America." -- Cliff May
Former Vice President Al Gore, who won the popular vote in the 2000 presidential election, yesterday made another in a series of speeches condemning the man he beat, President George Bush, and made a surprise announcement that he would add movie acting to his already diverse resume.
Mr. Gore told a tri-partisan gathering of political activists that he’s been cast in the lead role of Ang Lee’s sequel to ‘Brokeback Mountain’, the Golden Globe-winning cowboy adultery story.
An unnamed spokesman for Mr. Lee said the film, ‘Brokerecord Mountain’, “will tell the heartbreaking story of a man’s love for the sound of his own voice, and his futile crusade to convince others to love it as well.”
So far, no one else has been cast for the movie, according to the source, adding that “perhaps we shouldn’t have announced the deal with Al Gore until we got the rest of the actors under contract.”
This satire was used with the permission of Scrappleface.
It's too bad that the White House kept mum for most of 2005 while the Democrats were throwing around outrageous accusation after outrageous accusation, because when the Bushies fight back, they make the Democrats look like complete buffoons. As proof, just witness what they've done to Al Gore:
"Gore, in a speech Monday, called for an independent investigation of the administration program that he says broke the law by listening in without warrants on Americans suspected of talking with terrorists abroad.Gore called the program, authorized by President Bush, "a threat to the very structure of our government" and charged that the administration acted without congressional authority and made a "direct assault" on a federal court set up to authorize requests to eavesdrop on Americans.
...McClellan said the Clinton-Gore administration had engaged in warrantless physical searches, and he cited an FBI search of the home of CIA turncoat Aldrich Ames without permission from a judge. He said Clinton's deputy attorney general, Jamie Gorelick, had testified before Congress that the president had the inherent authority to engage in physical searches without warrants.
"I think his hypocrisy knows no bounds," McClellan said of Gore.
...Gonzales, who has agreed to testify publicly at a Senate hearing on the program, defended the surveillance on cable news talk shows Monday night.
"This program has been reviewed carefully by lawyers at the Department of Justice and other agencies," Gonzales said on Fox News Channel's "Hannity & Colmes." "We firmly believe that this program is perfectly lawful. The president has the legal authority to authorize these kinds of programs."
On CNN's "Larry King Live," Gonzales said Gore's comments were inconsistent with Clinton administration policy.
"It's my understanding that during the Clinton administration there was activity regarding physical searches without warrants," Gonzales said. "I can also say it's my understanding that the deputy attorney general testified before Congress that the president does have the inherent authority under the Constitution to engage in physical searches without a warrant. And so, those would certainly seem to be inconsistent with what the former vice president was saying today."
See what happens when the White House stands up for themselves instead of letting the Democrats serve up this sort of swill unchallenged?
Basil's Blog
Brainster's Blog
Debbie Schlussel
Dr. Helen
Euphoric Reality
GOPINION
Hog On Ice
JunkYardBlog
The Hotline's Blogometer
Ravenwood's Universe
Relapsed Catholic
Early this morning, about 6:35 AM, I made a 2nd appearance on the The Breakfast Club, which is supposedly the hottest talk radio show in Jamaica. According to my statistics page, I've had one visitor from Jamaica today, so either they're not so hot, I didn't do so well, or maybe Jamaica is just a liberal country =D.
Anyways, I was on for 25 minutes with some guy from Chuck Schumer's staff talking about the 2008 elections. We spent most of the time talking about Hillary (although we also had a healthy dose of Condi discussion) and the host spent a lot of time buttering up the Schumer staffer while he tossed out the standard, boring lines about Republicans (Oh, they hate blacks and poor people).
It was especially ironic to hear the guy try to claim Republicans would never warm up to Condi because she's black, when, if she runs, it'll be Democrats throwing Oreo cookies at her and calling her a race traitor. I also made sure to point out that Democrats will be falling all over themselves to insinuate that she's a lesbian if she runs.
The appearance was a little odd because of some of the questions they asked. They spent a lot of time focusing on whether Hillary could actually win the Democratic primaries, which is a bit odd since she's almost universally thought to be the heavy favorite.
But, all in all, it was fun. I've been planning to try to do a little more radio this year, so it was nice to get in the air time...
The folks over at Fark have been photoshopping covers for Ted Kennedy's new children's book. There are a lot of top notch entries, but here's my fave by a nose:
Make sure to check them all out.
Hat tip to Chuckless for creating this one.
Olmert: We Can't Let A Foe Like Iran Hold WMDs
U.S. Wins Support In Iran Dispute. China, Russia Join Call To Suspend Nuclear Program (Free WAPO Reg)
The Iranian Ambassador In Moscow Praised A Proposal To Move Tehran's Uranium Enrichment Programme To Russia
Iranian President Asks End To CNN Ban
Britain: Echo Calls For Ban On Samurai Swords After Death Of Local Man
Gore Blasts Bush For 'Dangerous Breach' (Yawn)
GOP Hits Back at Gore on Wiretapping
Two Liberal Groups Planning To Sue Over Federal Eavesdropping (Free NYT Reg Req)
New Orleans Mayor Says God Mad At U.S.
Controversial Words At Sharpton's MLK Event
Democrats Abort Deal On Alito Vote
Former President Gerald Ford Hospitalized
Photo Fakery At The New York Times
Mark Steyn: Let's Give Iran Some Of Its Own Medicine
John Fund: Today It's Liberal Democrats Who Stand In The Schoolhouse Door
Hugh Hewitt Interviews Leadership Candidate John Shadegg
Robert Novak: K Street Candidates
El Paso Worker Killed, Sucked Into Jet Engine
Girlfriend Of 'Vampyre' Gubernatorial Candidate Is Fired
A Woman Who Hired A Hitman To Kill Her Has Been Awarded £2,000 Because She Is Still Alive
The Top 10 Wackiest Conspiracy Theories
An Indian Man Believed Dead By His Family And Fellow Villagers Caused Panic When He Returned Over Fears He Had Come Back As A Ghost
Website Of The Day: Link Mecca
This is an interesting way of looking at it...
hwmnbn: Democrats are now America's Sunnis. They were in power, now they are out. The new repug masters are making sure they stay on top, even if it means dismantling our Constitution and remaking our country into a fascist state.The Sunnis in Iraq are at least putting up a fight as they go down. Dems seem to be content to "hold hearings" to determine why we're going down.
Our leaders should be screaming bloody murder. Filibuster, boycott, close down congress, stop this train no matter what it takes! F*ck, I'm frustrated.
My apologies to Conyers, Murtha, and the too few others who've consistently fought hard. They ALL have to fight, fight hard, and fight NOW!
Although this political analysis of the gang-of-14 deal by Tigerhawk is absolutely terrible, I'd normally be content to let it slide, especially since he's a fine blogger. But, for reasons I cannot fathom, this argument seems to be getting a lot of play around the blogosphere and so someone needs to step up and counter it. Luckily, like Underdog, I'm going to swoop in and save the day. But first, here's the gist of Tigerhawk's reasoning:
"Looking back, I think we can say that the Republican leadership in the Senate handled the filibuster controversy last April and May better than a lot of conservative bloggers thought they had. Majority Leader Frist and others pushed the "nuclear option," which would have by simple majority vote changed the rules to ban filibusters in connection with judicial nominations. That threat created a crisis in the Senate, which only resolved itself when seven Republicans and seven Democrats joined in a "Gang of 14" to agree to reject any rules change, confirm three specific appellate judges without a filibuster, and refrain from the filibuster in the future other than under "extraordinary circumstances."...On the results, at least, the host of conservatives who opposed the filibuster compromise in May were wrong, and are undoubtedly delighted that this is the case.
Of course, many conservatives will still say that the filibuster should have been abolished when we had the chance. Long time readers know that back in May I disagreed, with qualifications, and I still think I was right. Yes, the Republicans would have had an easier procedural job of it had they abolished the filibuster outright in the spring. However, by signing up for the principle that the filibuster would only be deployed against candidates with some fundamental defect, the Gang of 14 essentially renounced ideology alone as the basis for a filibuster and required that the Democrats find something of substance to object to. When Bush picked smart, experienced, moral nominees, the Democrats could not lay a glove on them without resorting to scurrilous attacks that made them look like such idiots that even Joseph Biden had to throw in the towel."
Oh yeah, leaving the filibuster alive hasn't caused any problems whatsoever -- if you forget about a woman by the name of Harriet Miers! Undoubtedly, the filibuster threat helped intimidate Bush into selecting Miers and if not for an almost unprecedented revolt by the base, she'd have been the one on the Supreme Court instead of Alito.
Moreover, of course the Democrats haven't filibustered Alito. It's because they know the GOP has the votes for the nuclear option and they'd rather just keep their powder dry rather than waste it on a futile attempt to stop Alito. But, what if the GOP loses 2 or 3 seats in the 2006 elections and no longer can muster the votes for the nuclear option? Well, then expect Harry Reid and Company to use the filibuster again if another justice on the SCOTUS retires in Bush's term.
And in return for leaving this powerful weapon in the Democrat's hands, the Republicans got what out of the deal exactly? Nothing at all! The Democrats were just threatening to be even more obstructionist than usual in the Senate for a few months, something that would have made them look like spoiled brats and hurt them at the polls.
There was no upside to the Gang-of-14 deal for Republicans, it almost produced a disaster by the name of Harriet Miers and it could still produce one later in Bush's term. At this point, why anyone other than the Senators who signed on to it -- and their mothers -- could still think it was a good deal for Republicans completely baffles me...
*** Update #1 ***: Kudos to Tigerhawk for posting in the comments section here. Among other things, he had this to say about the Miers nomination:
"I don't think the Miers debacle (and we agree on that) was the result of the May deal, and if I did I might think differently. I think Miers got the nod because (i) she was a woman, (ii) had no paper trail, (iii) was manifestly pro-business, as was O'Connor, and (iv) was close enough to Bush that he probably was confident on her stand on abortion notwithstanding the lack of exogenous evidence. He was weak in September, and did not realize that Miers would irritate his base so much (perhaps because Rove was distracted). He learned otherwise....I admit, I think it was a good deal because I think that there would have been considerable costs to removing the filibuster, notwithstanding the procedural benefits. I also do not think for a minute that the Miers nomination was the result of the May deal. If you take the other side of those two key points, then I certainly would expect you to come out the way you do."
The Filibuster threat had EVERYTHING to do with Miers being selected.
Before Bush made his selection, people thought that the Democrats were just itching to unleash a filibuster. From a Mid-September 2005 Novak column:
"Republican Senate strategists believe Attorney General Alberto Gonzales is the only possible Bush nominee to replace O'Connor who would not face a filibuster."
As I noted back on September 23, 2005 -- it was entirely possible that could effect the nominee selected:
"Yes, there are PROBABLY enough GOP votes to block the Dems from doing a filibuster on the next Supreme Court Justice. But, you can never really count on butter spined, rubber kneed Republicans like John McCain, Lindsey Graham, Mike DeWine, & John Warner. Because of that, it's more likely that Bush will make the mistake of selecting a less attractive nominee to conservatives in order to placate the Democrats. Had the GOP pulled the trigger nuclear option, Bush could have nominated anyone he so desired, from William Pryor to Janice Rogers Brown, while being absolutely confident that there was nothing of consequence the Democrats could do about it other than sputter with rage."
Also, while the White House surely didn't realize how big and ugly the Miers debacle would get, they must have known that selection would infuriate the base. Certainly, if I knew that, Karl Rove did too. From a column on September 28, 2005:
"First of all, although John Roberts was supported by most conservatives, there were more than a few complaints that his track record wasn't long enough. Because of that, there's this nagging doubt in a lot of people's minds about whether Roberts will turn out to have more in common with his mentor William Rehnquist or enormous disappointment Anthony Kennedy. So if anything, the base is looking for a sure thing this time around and the level of discontent on the right will certainly rise if they don't get it....Up to this point in his 2nd term, for whatever reason, George Bush's political instincts seem to have largely failed him. But, this is one area where Bush cannot afford to make a mistake. Nominating Alberto Gonzales or for that matter any of the other nominees with questionable conservative credentials -- like Edith Brown Clement, Larry Thompson, J. Harvie Wilkinson, or Harriet Miers -- would be a calamitous error."
So, what did we have in Harriet Miers? A 4th tier, underqualified crony, who was taken over dozens of more deserving candidates despite the fact that Bush's base would be furious -- and you don't think the filibuster had anything to do with it? Come on, other than being Bush's pal, the fact that she had been recommended by Harry Reid and was therefore unlikely to be filibustered was the biggest thing she had going for her. Without the filibuster threat hanging over his head, there is no way Bush would have taken a candidate as mediocre as Miers over someone like Alito...
From Harry Reid in a column entitled "Democrats will clean up Washington, focus on Americans" on January 14, 2005
"This New Year, Democrats resolve to clean up Washington, so America's government can once again focus on the priorities
of America's people. We have a plan to put an end to business as usual in the nation's capitol. Democrats want to shine a bright light on the relationship between lobbyists and lawmakers, and clean up the system of quid pro quo and pay-to-play politics that gave rise to Jack Abramoff and Tom DeLay."
From the Washington Times on January 16, 2005
"Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid, during a tour of Republican red states last week, was peppered with questions about campaign contributions he took from Indian tribes connected with disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff.The five-state tour through the West and Midwest to raise money for Democratic candidates was one of a series of campaign forays the Nevada Democrat plans this year to make political inroads in Republican-held territory. But Mr. Reid also faced often sharply critical questions from reporters about the money he has received from Indian tribes and their connections to Abramoff, who lobbied for them.
"If Senator Reid's mission was to travel to red states to get beaten like a pinata by the media about his hypocrisy on ethics and Abramoff-related funds, then he was quite successful, and we applaud his efforts," said Brian Nick, chief spokesman for the National Republican Senatorial Committee."
The level of political incompetence here is just staggering. The Democrats have been telling everyone who'll listen that they're going to try to make Republican corruption a major theme of the 2006 campaigns and that Jack Abramoff is going to be Exhibit A in their presentation to the American people.
So, who's leading their campaign? Why, it's Harry Reid who has taken "$61,000 between 2001 and 2004 from clients represented by Abramoff." Despite the fact that a lot of lawmakers on both sides of the aisle are clearing similar monies they received out of their coffers to avoid any appearance of ethical conflict, Reid is keeping the money he received and angrily trying to refute charges that he did anything wrong while he is simultaneously publicly complaining about the "relationship between lobbyists and lawmakers".
Even by Washington's standards, this is staggeringly hypocritical, so much so that even the liberal press is having trouble giving him a free pass. Up until this point, I haven't liked Harry Reid, but I've at least given him credit for being a tough, smart leader of the opposition. After watching his embarrassingly inept handling of this whole issue, I'm still willing to concede that he's tough...
Liberals got all upset that the President authorized warrantless wiretaps on Americans who were chatting with Al-Qaeda members overseas. Meanwhile, in Boston, a lib wants to put GPS devices on the guns of loyal citizens so Big Brother will always know where their guns are:
"Saying gun manufacturers should take steps to track guns, a Boston city councilor is proposing that global positioning technology be installed in firearms.Councilor Rob Consalvo wants to put a tracking device into newly manufactured guns and have legal gun owners retrofit their firearms so owners and police can locate and retrieve stolen guns the same way police use a computer chip to locate stolen cars.
''Let's use that same technology to track weapons so we know where they are when they're stolen or bought illegally," he said. ''I think it's a common-sense idea."
Consalvo has asked Springfield-based Smith & Wesson, one of the world's largest gun manufacturers, to meet with him to discuss the proposal.
...Gun-related arrests have gone up 37 percent in the last year, and gun violence has risen 77 percent in the last three years, Consalvo said. Many guns, he added, are stolen from legal owners or smuggled into Massachusetts from surrounding states and sold illegally at flea markets and gun shows.
Consalvo acknowledged that the cost of manufacturing guns with such a device could be high, but that it would be worth it.
Let's see: it's an invasion of privacy, expensive, and oh yeah, it won't work.
Now, I'm not an electronics wiz, but isn't a GPS device going to require a power source? If so, why wouldn't the criminal just immediately remove it after stealing the gun? Moreover, if they're having a problem with guns being bought illegally from surrounding states, how will this law help? Do they think people are going to steal guns, sneak them into Massachusetts, and then attach a GPS device to them before they sell them under the table?
Even by liberal standards, this is a terrible idea...
Hat tip to Ravenwood's Universe for the story.
America is home to millions of people who love animals. I love animals. On the floor of the luxury apartment complex where I live, there are at least two dog owners and one cat owner. They actually pay a premium to have these companion pets. On any given day you see the dog owners dutifully picking up their poop out of respect for their neighbors.
In December of last year, some residents of my home state of New Jersey shelled out money for the privilege of bagging 297 black bears in an effort to thin out the population which was beginning to rival that of a stadium full of Giants' fans in the Meadowlands.
Over the next ten years, New Jersey, having received special dispensation from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife agency will begin to shoot and trap scads of Canadian Geese, as well as trample on their nests and destroy their eggs. The reason for this is that New Jersey has more Canadian Geese per square mile than any other state in the nation. Having migrated here, they refuse to go home to Canada, but who can blame them?
These programs, sanctified and authorized after much scientific fact gathering, are perfectly sensible responses to the problem of too many animals of a given species.
So far, nothing seems to work on the deer population whose bodies litter the sides of every major highway in New Jersey due to a failure to understand that cars traveling well beyond the stated speed limit cannot avoid them as they amble in a leisurely pace across the asphalt.
New Jersey, of course, is currently enjoying fame as a state that cannot make up its mind about a new slogan. I suggest "New Jersey, Up to its Asterisk in Animals."
There are animal lovers and there are animal freaks. The latter group are a varied and colorful cast of characters who run the gamut from terrorists to police wannabes. In late December, the president of the New Jersey Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals resigned in protest, saying, "We're supposed to be investigating animal cruelty. Instead, they're buying more vehicles and getting more involved in a police culture."
His resignation came at a time when the state legislature is contemplating reinstating the NJSPCA as the lead animal cruelty law enforcement agency. A 2000 Commission of Investigation found that the group was badly mismanaged and largely ineffective. Internal reforms, we're told, ensued, but the resignation casts doubt on that.
In January, the NJSPCA sued Huntingdon Life Sciences of Somerset County to challenge the use of animals in its laboratory research programs. This British-based company has been under attack for years by animal rights "activists." Its employees have been attacked and the company has been endlessly harassed because it uses lots of laboratory rats and mice (specially bred for such use), and other animals to test new pharmaceutical and comparable products that ultimately enhance and save human lives.
The suit is based on decades-old charges made by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals and it comes just weeks before six animal rights activists, members of Stop Huntington Animal Cruelty, go on trial in New Jersey for allegedly waging a terror campaign against the company. Coincidence? We think not. And neither does the U.S. Attorney's office in Newark.
The trial should draw nationwide news coverage. It involves Kevin Jones, the president of SHAC at the time of his indictment, and five other animal rights "activists." Together they face an aggregate of 23 years in prison and fines of up to $250,000, if convicted. Their defense attorneys will claim that this is an effort by the federal government to deprive them of their First Amendment rights of free speech. There's free speech and there's deliberate terrorist tactics and this trial is likely to describe them in detail.
Meanwhile, in December, a 23-year-old animal rights "activist" named Chris McIntosh was sentenced in Seattle for the 2004 torching of a McDonald's restaurant. He got eight years and his response to the sentence was to tell the judge that "The earth is being destroyed (and) animals are being led to mechanized slaughter. I don't consider myself a terrorist, but the earth is being terrorized by corporate greed." He was, he said, proud of his crime which he deemed necessary "to protect the public."
Earlier in December, the FBI and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms announced the arrest of six other "activists" in connection with four separate arsons and the destruction of an energy facility in the northwest, dating back to 1998. All of them are alleged to have ties to the Earth Liberation Front and Animal Liberation Front.
We are not dealing with some relatively harmless "animal lovers." These are full-fledged terrorists. The groups that encourage their war on research, fast-food chains, new housing developments, and university laboratories, include People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals who raised $28,072,597 last year in donations and earnings. Its front group calling itself the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine took in $10,180,969. The Humane Society of the United States raised and earned $74,015,068. Other comparable groups raised millions as well.
Such groups are not just passionate advocates for the proper treatment and care of animals. They exist to mislead a public that already loves animals, but understands that, with all other aspects of life, there has to be limits when wildlife conflicts with humans and there has to be respect for private property and the right to conduct a legitimate business.
The dog and cat owners where I live genuinely love their pets. Who else would pick up their poop to keep the peace?
Alan Caruba writes a weekly column, "Warning Signs", posted on the Internet site of The National Anxiety Center, www.anxietycenter.com.
Can bribery be evidence of a "culture of corruption" if Republicans aren't involved?:
The man Pfeffer bribed is referred to only as "Representative A" in court papers. But law enforcement sources and documents make clear the politician is the defendant's former employer, Jefferson, who has not been charged in the case.Pfeffer recounted in court how his former Capitol Hill boss, in exchange for using his congressional influence in Africa, demanded a 5 to 7 percent stake in one of two new companies Pfeffer's firm was investing in. The companies were to provide high-speed Internet and cable TV service in Ghana and Nigeria.
Pfeffer said the congressman also demanded that two relatives be put on the businesses' payrolls.
Pfeffer told his boss at the investment firm, a 41-year-old woman referred to as "CW" in court papers, that such was the cost of doing business with the congressman, a court document said.
That's from this past Thursday. It was published on page 5.
This content was used with the permission of Ace of Spades HQ.
Ted Kennedy and some of his colleagues have come under fire for their behavior during the recent Senate Judiciary Committee hearings on Judge Samuel Alito. Insiders tell us that some of Senator Kennedy's statements were so over the top that at one point, Mrs. Alito burst into tears.
This caused us to wonder, what manner of comment is so strong, so offensive that it would drive someone to tears?
In Senator Kennedy's case we believe the following statements could do just that:
9. "NBC news is reporting tonight that there has been a major spill at the Dewar's bottling plant."
8. "I have some unbelievable news dear! Splash has developed the ability to speak! Now he can talk to us about all of those adventures you two have gone on. Isn't this wonderful?"
7. "Senator, I know that you don't normally take visitors this late in the evening, but there are several associates of Judge Alito here and they are quite enthusiastic about speaking with you."
6. "A four-way? Yeah, keep dreaming 'little' brother. Bobby, Jack you fellas ready to go?"- Marilyn Monroe
5. "And in other news, Massachusetts has passed a law making it a dry state."
4. "Honey, remember how concerned you were about the horrendous treatment minorities were receivng after Katrina? Well, I've invited a few hundred real live negro families to stay with us for awhile. You know, just til they get on their feet."
3. "I'm sorry Mr. Kennedy, but this particular strain is resistant to pennicillin."
2. "Last call!"
1. "Senator, there's a woman claiming to be the ghost of a Mary Jo something or other here to see you."
This satire was used with the permission of The Nose On Your Face.
Bush: Iran Intends to Nuke Israel
Iran 'Could Go Nuclear Within Three Years'
US Senators Say Military Strike On Iran Must Be Option
Iran Issues Stark Warning On Oil Price
Saudis Warn Iran That Its Nuclear Plan Risks Disaster
Americans Save British Hostage No One Knew Was Missing
A Dinner Invitation To Al Qaeda's Second-In-Command Triggered A U.S. Airstrike In Pakistan But Ayman Al-Zawahri Failed To Show Up
Doctors Perform Tracheotomy On Sharon Who Is Still In Corner
'Divine Mission' Driving Iran's New Leader
U.S.-North Korea Ties All But Severed
George Galloway Pretends To Be A Cat Licking Milk From The Hands Of An Actress On TV (Lol)
Video Of Galloway Making A Fool Of Himself
In Shadegg's Race, A Nod To The '94 Revolution (Free WAPO Reg Req)
Rep. Ney To Temporarily Cede Panel Chair
Capsule Carrying Comet Dust Lands in Utah
More Affiliates Drop 'Book Of Daniel' -- 'Anti-Christian' Show Down To Just 1 National Advertiser
Victor Davis Hanson: The Multilateral Moment In Iran
Andrew Exum: All Dressed Up With No Way To Fight (Free New York Reg Req)
Dr. Helen: The Jails Are Just Today's Asylums
William Kristol: And Now Iran. We Can't Rule Out The Use Of Military Force
Mark Steyn: Ham-Handed Dems Didn't Lay A Glove On Alito
87 Year Old Grandmother Gets Recruitment Letter And Rushes To Apply
Police Face Sack For Jibe Over 'Pondlife'
Clooney: I Ruined Kerry's Presidential Race
Website Of The Day: Rightblogger
|
|||||
|
|
| |||
