| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Kneecapping Barack Obama at every opportunity. | ||
And Rightly So
A Briefing From Chris Simcox, Minuteman Civil Defense Corps Co-founder
Chez Diva
Claim: The UN Finds Close To Or Beyond Weapons Grade Uranium In Iran (Is It Time To Bomb Them?)
Conservative Blog Therapy
DANEgerus Weblog
GOPbloggers
Hot Air
Human Events
Libel in the Blogosphere: Some Preliminary Thoughts
Poliblog
Pursuing Holiness
The Senate Will Be Debating Illegal Immigration Next Week. Email Your Senators This Week-End And Let Them Know What You Think
Sixers
TVNEWSER
Victor Davis Hanson: Imagine If We’d Reported And Opined On WWII The Way We Do Now
On Monday at 8 PM EST, President Bush is scheduled to give a major address on illegal immigration, undoubtedly because he's hoping to stop the alarming drop in his approval rating that his soft stance on "undocumented workers" has led to over the past few weeks.
The rumor is that he's planning to put the National Guard on the border, which would make sense given that he's looking for a move that will show that he's serious about immigration enforcement.
However, if that's the only new thing he has to offer, it doesn't merit a prime time speech because it'll be viewed as nothing but a gimmick. People will figure that Bush, who has made no effort to secure the borders throughout his entire presidency, is just trying to give the appearance of being tough on illegal immigration to help get the soft on illegals bill he favors through the Senate.
If Bush really wants to stem the bleeding on illegal immigration, what he needs to do is announce that he changed his mind and believes that the immigration bill needs to be split up into two parts.
The first part, would be a bill that deals solely with border security and immigration enforcement. In other words, the Senate should put together a bill similar to one in the House. Then, Bush could announce that in the interim, while we're waiting for that bill to be passed, he intends to order the National Guard to aid the Border Patrol.
Then, Bush could add that he still believes we need a guest worker program and a way to deal with the illegals who are already here, but that he wants the Senate and the House to work on a separate bill, later, because securing our borders is the top priority.
This would be an elegant way of handling the problem. It would satisfy the majority of Americans who want the border secured, it would take the unpopular guest worker program off the table until after the election (and even then it would be very difficult to get it passed), and it would force the Democrats to choose between opposing border security or going along with Bush to get a bill passed. Yet technically, Bush wouldn't even be changing his position. He could still say, truthfully I might add, that he was in favor of a guest worker program and "earned" legalization of illegals who are already here.
So, can we expect Bush to do say something like this on Monday? Although we can hope to be happily surprised, I expect that he'll say that he's ordering the National Guard to the border and then he'll start talking about "jobs Americans won't do" and how he's "against amnesty" as he tries to figure out a way to give 12-20 million illegals American citizenship as a prize for breaking our laws.
Sigh.
Still, cross your fingers and let's hope against hope that W. has seen the light on this issue.
Over at The Huffington Post, Cenk Uygur had this to say:
"Okay (Michael) Smerconish, show me how tough you are. I challenge you to a fight - verbal or physical. I promise to kick the living sh*t out of you, either way. I'll stand in for all the people you call sissies and you stand in for all the tough guys - and let's see what happens.I'm not trying to be clever. I'm being literal. I look forward to kicking your *ss. Al Franken once pulled a maneuver like this, so it's not like I think that I've come up with some new gimmick. I'm being serious. You choose - either a debate on foreign policy or a fight (UFC rules are fine with me). Show me how tough you are.
You see, I don't think you're tough at all. I think you're a little coward who is ready to give up all your rights at the first sign of trouble. You're so scared of big bad Al Qaeda, you're willing to cede your liberties to George Bush because he promises to protect your sorry *ss. Millions of men have died protecting our freedoms, but you're so frightened by a bunch of guys in a cave in Afghanistan, you're willing to give up many of those freedoms they died for. I am repulsed by your weakness.
Smerconish (the only name in America that might be more ridiculous than mine), you half man, half pussy -- come out, come out wherever you are.
Violence is seldom the answer. But it is in this case. An organized, controlled, consensual beat down. You agree to fight me, and I agree to crush you. Of course, I don't want anyone getting the wrong message. I am not advocating vigilante justice against idiotic conservative talk show hosts. I don't want anyone else to kick Smerconish's *ss. Just me.
I will give you any length of time you would like to train. In the meanwhile I will continue to drink beer and eat fried chicken. I will let you pick any city you like. And I will simply show up and deliver the *ss kicking of your life to you in that city."
After reading that, the first thing you're probably thinking is: "Who or what is a Cenk Uygur?" Apparently, he's one of the most successful liberal radio hosts in America, which is why 99% of the general public has never heard of him.
But, on to Mr. "I'm copying Al Franken" (And is that really ever a good idea?). This sort of fake, tough guy crap is always an embarrassment, but usually it's left to third graders and 135 pound weaklings in the comments sections of blogs, who like to claim that they're black belts who were thrown out of the Marines for enjoying killing too much.
Challenging someone to get into a fistfight over the internet is particularly lame because no one is going to drive cross country just to throw hands. Especially, when they'd only be fighting Cenk Uygur. I mean, if Smerconish beat up Cenk Uygur and told people about it, their only reaction would be: "Who's Cenk Uygur?"
In any case, challenging people to fight because you disagree with them over politics, whether you're liberal or conservative, is really lame and it's actually beneath the dignity of even the Huffington Post to run this garbage.
Link #1
Link #2
Link #3
Link #4
Link #5
Link #6
Link #7
Link #8
Link #9RWN now has one banner ad slot available. You can purchase a 468x60 banner ad on RWN for $60 a month. The banners appear on every page of RWN. If you're interested, send $60 to my Paypal account (which is also located in the support section -- please mention what the money is for in the comments section) and email me your 20kb or smaller banner ad at johnhawkins-at-rightwingnews.com. I will sell a maximum of 4 of these ads per month.
Brian Anderson Alex Ross: The Rest Is Noise, Ankle Biting Pundits, Arts & Letters Daily, Barone Blog, Best Of The Web Today, BrothersJudd Blog, Captain's Quarters, The Corner, Daniel Drezner, Ed Driscoll, Drudge Report, Frontpagemag, Hugh Hewitt, Instapundit, Jihad Watch, Steven Berlin Johnson, Kausfiles, Libertas, Little Green Footballs, Michelle Malkin, Media Blog, Normblog, PoliPundit, Power Line, Professor Bainbridge, Real Clear Politics, RedState, Right Wing News, Andrew Sullivan, Terry Teachout, TPMCafe, The Volokh Conspiracy
Bruce Bartlett Brad DeLong's Semi-Daily Journal, Andrew Sullivan, Tapped, Washington Monthly
House Majority Leader John Boehner Human Events, Mike Pence's Blog, The Republican Study Committee Blog
Senator Jim DeMint The Club For Growth, Hugh Hewitt, Hotline On Call, Instapundit, The National Review Blogs, Power Line, Real Clear Politics, RedState, The Truth Laid Bear
Mike Gallagher Captain's Quarters, The Corner, Daily Kos, Horsefeathers, Hugh Hewitt, The Huffington Post, Instapundit, Little Green Footballs, Michelle Malkin, Power Line, Real Clear Politics, Wonkette
Lucianne Goldberg The American Thinker, Arts & Letters Daily, The Belmont Club, Captain's Quarters, The Corner, Drudge Report, Gawker, Hog On Ice, Hot Air, The Huffington Post, Instapundit, Kitty Litter, Mark Steyn, Michelle Malkin, The Note, Power Line, Poynter Online, Real Clear Politics, Sweetness & Light, TVNEWSER
David Limbaugh The American Thinker, Ankle Biting Pundits, La Shawn Barber's Corner, Bench Memos, Byrd Droppings, The Corner, Hugh Hewitt, Human Events, The Mark Levin Blog, Michelle Malkin, Nealz Nuze, NewsBusters, PoliPundit, Power Line, Scrappleface, TownHall, TKS, Wizbang!
Congressman Patrick McHenry Ankle Biting Pundits, RedState, Right Wing News
Congressman Tom Tancredo The Corner, RedState
If you want to see how these pro-illegal immigrant politicians in Washington are hurting ordinary Americans, take a look at this story about an Arizona rancher named Ron White:
Ron White sees two kinds of illegal immigrants on his ranch south of town. There are the dozens each day who simply pass through. They are a nuisance. But others, White says, are a threat - like the group that tried to order him off his horse, or the smugglers who cut his fences every full moon....White, 60, who has been confronted by large groups of immigrants, is convinced people are smuggling drugs across his land and has started wearing a pistol on his hip and carrying a rifle in a saddle scabbard when he rides his ranch, repairing the eight miles of fence cut at least monthly by someone he suspects is a drug smuggler.
White feels no animosity for most of those who enter the United States looking for work, though they litter his ranch with discarded clothing, backpacks and empty water jugs. White moved to the ranch about 10 years ago.
"When I moved out here we'd get five to 10 (immigrants) a month," White said. "When they started talking about amnesty prior to the 2004 election it jumped to 50 to 100 a day."
Now, White said, "My wife and my grandchildren can't even leave the house and go out for a walk in the country and I can't even ride the fence line on my ranch without an arsenal."
White said he started packing weapons after being confronted several times by large groups over the past two years, and that some of them tried to order him off his horse. He refused, and rode away.
Before that, "I never carried a gun in my life," he said."I've never hurt anybody in my life, but, my God, we're scared to death."
White said every month, about the time of a full moon, someone leads a string of pack horses across his land, cutting fences on the north and south sides of the ranch.
White said he suspects the trespasser is a drug smuggler and that the cut fences cost him $15,000 to $20,000 a year in lost cattle.
Ron White's wife and grandchildren can't even leave the house and White needs an "arsenal" just to defend himself on his own property? Why is that? So that some crooked business owner at a meat packing plant can get cheap labor? Because Democrats like Harry Reid and Ted Kennedy want to import a bunch of uneducated socialists into America whom they can turn into potential voters one day? Because Republican politicians have such a low opinion of Hispanic voters that they think the only way they can appeal to them is by rewarding illegals from Mexico for breaking our laws?
Well, while all this is going on, who's looking out for Americans like Ron White? Certainly not President Bush. Certainly not members of Bush's administration who bear responsibility for securing the border -- like Michael Chertoff, Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, or Julie Myers over at ICE. Certainly not Republican Senators like John McCain, Bill Frist, Arlen Specter, Sam Brownback, Mike DeWine, Mel Martinez, Chuck Hagel, or Lindsey Graham. Certainly not the Democratic Party in Washington which overwhelmingly supports flooding our country with illegals.
What we need are more politicians who put Americans first when it comes to illegal immigration. Unfortunately, outside of Republicans in the House and a few Republicans in the Senate, that message doesn't seem to be getting through. Instead, most of our elected leaders seem obsessed with catering to illegal aliens who are uninvited and unwanted in this country by the vast majority of the American people. What they need to do is stop worrying about the illegals and start worrying about Americans like Ron White and his family.
Update #1: One of RWN's readers, Sic_Semper_Tyrannis, has posted the Constitution Party's position on immigration in the comments section. I could post it for you here, but there's really no point. If only about 8 people are going to end up voting for the Constitution Party at the ballot box, does it really matter what their platform says about it?
You might as well be reading a platform written by a pimply faced 18-year-old working the late shift as Wendy's because he has about as good a chance as anyone from the Constitution Party of getting elected.
Is that harsh? Yes. Is it also true? You bet. So, Sic_Semper_Tyrannis, think of this reply as "tough love." The Bush/McCain/Kennedy/Reid approach may not be the answer to the problem, but neither is an utterly hopeless third party.
The Boston Globe did a man on the street piece about the NSA data mining that they undoubtedly hoped would be full of comments like this one:
But Daniel Senie, a Verizon customer in Bolton, was outraged that companies would cooperate with the government.''The corporations involved have long since made it clear customers are numbers, assets to be traded and exploited," he said. ''Our president and his administration operate above the law. I, for one, am ashamed to be an American and embarrassed by our leaders in Washington."
But, it wasn't to be.
"Those interviewed yesterday overwhelmingly said the possibility of phone companies handing over records to the government didn't alarm them and wouldn't make them walk away from any of the companies. Telecommunications giants Verizon Communications, AT&T Corp., and BellSouth Corp., according to a story first published in USA Today, agreed to share customer information with the NSA. One company, Qwest Corp., however, refused to cooperate."
You see, the American people don't view terrorism the same that most liberal bloggers, journalists, and politicians do.
When the average American thinks about a potential terrorist attack, it goes something like this: "That would be terrible! What can the government do to prevent that from happening?"
On the other hand, when most of the aforementioned liberals think about a potential terrorist attack, it goes something like this: "Terrorism isn't that serious of a threat and even if something does happen, we can probably find a way to blame it on Bush!"
That's why I believe most Americans, upon hearing about this program will be relieved, not angry, that the Bush administration has been taking these steps to protect our country from terrorism.
Personally? I think this data mining project was an excellent idea, I'm glad they did it, I hope they continue to do it, and I applaud George Bush for having the foresight and the courage to do what it takes to keep this country safe from terrorist attacks, even though the Democrats have fought to undermine him at every turn for politics' sake.
Update #1: Via Drudge, there is now polling data that shows strong support for the data mining program:
"A majority of Americans initially support a controversial National Security Agency program to collect information on telephone calls made in the United States in an effort to identify and investigate potential terrorist threats, according to a Washington Post-ABC News poll.The new survey found that 63 percent of Americans said they found the NSA program to be an acceptable way to investigate terrorism, including 44 percent who strongly endorsed the effort. Another 35 percent said the program was unacceptable, which included 24 percent who strongly objected to it.
A slightly larger majority--66 percent--said they would not be bothered if NSA collected records of personal calls they had made, the poll found.
Underlying those views is the belief that the need to investigate terrorism outweighs privacy concerns. According to the poll, 65 percent of those interviewed said it was more important to investigate potential terrorist threats "even if it intrudes on privacy." Three in 10--31 percent--said it was more important for the federal government not to intrude on personal privacy, even if that limits its ability to investigate possible terrorist threats.
Half--51 percent--approved of the way President Bush was handling privacy matters."
Since it's sort of a lazy Friday, I thought I'd post my favorite Hindu story (Can you tell I took a course on Eastern religions when I was in college?). Via Khandro.net, here's the much retold story of Yudhishthira's entry into heaven.
Do keep in mind that a lot of the details of this story seem to change depending on who's telling it and that I selected this particular telling as much as anything because it reads well.
On to the story...
The ending of the Mahabharata centers on a dog. When the Pandava brothers hear of the destruction of their cousins and of Krishna, having experienced the cruel devastation of the war they retire to the Himalayas to be contemplatives. They throw their weapons into the river, and go along with their wife Draupadi to begin the ascent to Swarga, Indra's heaven on Mount Meru, but a dog begins to tag along.As they near the summit, first the woman is left behind because of her attachment to Arjuna, and then one after another (because of each person's pride, hunger, love or other kind of attachment) four of her husbands fall dead. The only survivors now are Yudhishthira and the dog.
Now Shakra [Indra's private name] appeared in his gleaming chariot. "Embark in my chariot and come with me to Swarga." But when Yudhishtira went to take his seat in the vehicle, the dog hopped in.
When they reach the heavenly gates of Swarga, Shakra invites the pious, truthful Yudhishtira in, but the man says he does not want to be there alone. Shakra assures him that he will see his brothers and Draupadi, already there.
Yudhishtira then says, "Lord of Past and Present, this dog who is so devoted to me should also enter."
Indra replies, "You have acquired immortality and all the joys of heaven today; leave the dog behind."
The man says, "Lord of a Thousand Eyes, what is the use of bliss if to attain it I have to reject one who is so devoted to me?"
"There is no place for people with dogs in heaven. The apsaras will deprive you of their blessings; think of that. Now will you give up the dog?"
"Even for such bliss, I could never leave one who is terrified, devoted to me, needs my help, is weak or begs for his life. I could never abandon such a one."
Shakra informed him, "Whatever blessings or benefits a dog can observe, the heavenly daughters will take way. So renounce the dog, and attain the joys of heaven. You went on without your own brothers, why won't you give up the dog?"
But Yudhishtira said, "As long as they were still alive, I did not renounce them. To abandon the dog would be like injuring a friend or like frightening someone under my protection."
Then Indra relented, and praised the man for the mercy he demonstrated towards the animal. He admitted them together to Swarga as an example to others.
Just then, Dharma "with his golden hair" emerged from the dog's form and blessed the man.
Some say that this Dharma is the one who is the man's father, and that he had come to test Yudishtira's loyalty and was pleased with his son's conduct. Others say that it is the Dharma-rajah who is Yama, Lord of Death but still others, that Dharma stands for the dharma that is the law of the universe itself.
Questions And Answers About The NSA Phone Record Collection Program
President Bush Makes Remarks on NSA Data Mining Program
Senator John Kyl On The Data Mining Program: "This Is Nuts. We're In A War And We Got To Collect Intelligence On The Enemy, And You Can't Tell The Enemy In Advance How You're Going To Do It, And Discussing All Of This Stuff In Public Leads To That."
Dems Oppose Terrorist Surveillance
Lacrosse Defense Witness Arrested. Cabbie Questioned In 2003 Incident (This Smells)
Sources: DNA Ties Third Player to Alleged Rape; Defense Says Evidence Is Misleading (Once You Get Into The Details Of The Article, The DNA Evidence Is Very Flimsy)
Democrats Signal Filibuster On Brett Kavanaugh (Let's Hope So)
Dean Slams Gay Marriage On '700 Club'. Liberal Gay Groups Not Happy
Democratic Chairman Howard Dean Mischaracterized His Party's Platform On Gay Rights In An Interview Courting Evangelicals, Then Set The Record Straight Thursday When A Gay Advocacy Group Called Him On It
Harris Polling: Bush Approval 29%
Bush, GOP Congress Losing Core Supporters Conservatives Point To Spending, Immigration (Free WAPO Reg Req)
Rancher Says Securing Border Everyone's Job
John McIntyre: Connecting-the-Dots, Data Mining and the Loss of Real Civil Liberties
Kate O’Beirne & Richard Lowry: If The GOP Majority Doesn’t Wake Up, It Will Lose, And Might Even Deserve To
Michael Rubin: Believe Me, Secretary Rice, You Don’t Want To Go Soft On The International Criminal Court
Daniel Henninger: Leakers Lack the Purpose of Cold Warriors
Mike Franc: Immigration And The Welfare State
Give Addicts Contraception In Methadone
An Egyptian Blogger Arrested For Promoting Freedom, Blogs From Jail
Radio DJ Fired After Sex Threat Vs. Rival's Kid
Website Of The Day: Basil's Blog
What is the common thread in these stories?
-- (A) Duke woman drinks all afternoon, then attends frat party where she inhales marijuana smoke from a vaporizer. She then files rape charges after waking the next morning with the feeling "something had happened".
Police had no trouble tracking down the "perpetrator". The accused rapist helpfully left his contact information on her computer after walking her home.
-- Rich Gorman is currently serving 5 years for sexual battery::
For the past six months, I've been staring at a 30-pound box filled with court documents and what's left of a young man's life following one college night and a 5- to 15-second disputed sex act.That is, 5 to 15 seconds into the act of sexual intercourse, she said, "Stop."
He stopped immediately.
She claimed rape.
The "victim," whom we'll call Chastity, contradicted herself and changed her story several times ... She was drinking and making out with Gorman earlier in the evening.
She also went willingly into his apartment on the night in question, and this is key. She initially told police that she was pulled struggling from the car and dragged into his apartment, where she was raped. When she was told that parking lot cameras might have captured her going into the apartment, she changed her story, admitted that she wasn't forced, and that she walked voluntarily into the apartment.
My suspension of skepticism ends right there, but there's much more, including a prior rape claim by the "victim" at another college a few years earlier. Same victim, same scenario, except that she recanted in that case, saying she wasn't sure it was a rape because she was drunk. All the preceding was ruled inadmissible during Gorman's trial thanks to rape shield laws.
-- 21 year-old "victim" of exploitation is suing Best Buy, Anheuser-Busch, Playboy, and Deslin Hotels:
Monica, 16 at the time, went to Daytona Beach for spring break. She decided to go watch a wet t-shirt contest one night. The next night she decided to participate in a wet t-shirt contest. She admits that she lied to promoters about her age in order to participate. She even paid them $5 in order to participate in the wet t-shirt contest. She voluntarily got up on stage in bikini bottoms and a cut off tshirt and allowed men to pour water all over her body. She even admits that she made a conscious decision to allow men to rub against her and do whatever it took to win the contest. She performed for the cameras she saw in the audience. She even won $100 for her voluntary performance that required her to lie to join."Now she’s upset that those materials are being distributed as part of a Playboy video because she didn’t realize her voluntary participation in the filmed wet t-shirt contest that she both lied and paid to enter would end up on tv and be seen by her neighbor who would call and tell her parents.
"Poor little Monica later says, ’I think it makes me look like some kind of prostitute or porn movie star, almost like I am trying to show my body to the camera, which I was not.’ Considering she’s already confessed that a) she voluntarily participated after attending the night before, b) she paid to show off her nearly naked body to strangers for money, c) she lied to show off her nearly naked body to strangers for money and d) she was willing to do anything to win the money reserved for the girl who showed her nearly naked body on stage in front of strangers and cameras in the most exciting manner, I would like to believe she doesn’t actually have a case. However, stupid people who can’t take responsibility for their actions always seem to get something by abusing the court system."
I'm just curious: if willingly becoming intoxicated constitutes an excuse, why can't any of the men in these incidents claim that as a defense?
Oh. Because that excuse only works for thoroughly modern women who demand complete equality and freedom while reserving the right to claim victim status later on when they are confronted with the consequences of their actions.
This content was used with the permission of Villainous Company.
Right Wing News emailed more than 225 right-of-center bloggers and asked them to send us a list of whom they considered to be their "favorite columnists." Representatives from the following 44 blogs responded...
Aaron's CC, Ankle Biting Pundits, AtlanticBlog, Atlas Shrugs, Backcountry Conservative, Being American in T.O., Betsy's Page, La Shawn Barber, Blackfive, Blue Crab Boulevard, Brainster's Blog, Damian Penny, dcthornton.com, Dodgeblogium, Ed Driscoll, Drumwaster's Rants, Eckernet, GayPatriot, Guardian Watchblog, The House of Wheels, Isaac Schrödinger, JunkYardBlog, Mountaneer Musings, Musings, Newmark's Door, Newsbeat1, The Nose On Your Face, Outside The Beltway, Patio Pundit, Peaktalk, Red-State, Right Thinking From The Left Coast, Right Thinking Girl, Right Wing News, Shrink Wrapped, Sister Toldjah, Slobokan's Site Of Schtuff, Small Dead Animals, Solomonia, Toys in the Attic, Vox Popoli, Whacking Day, WILLisms, Wizbang!
All bloggers were allowed to make anywhere from 1-15 ranked selections. The selections were scored based on a weighted scale. A rank of 1-5 was worth (3) points, 6-10 was worth (2) points, & 11-15 was worth (1) point.
So for example, a 1st (3) & 13th (1) place selection would be worth 4 points wheras having three bloggers rank a columnist at 11th (1), 12th (1), and 15th (1) place would be worth 3 points total. Got it? Good.
Also, as an added bonus, I included the number of first place selections each columnist had. The columnists who were picked first on someone's list have the number of #1 votes they received following a "--." Note that some of the columnists who received a #1 vote did not get enough other votes to qualify.
Without further ado, the "favorite columnists" of right-of-center bloggers are as follows:
Honorable Mentions: David Warren (8), John Podhoretz (8) -- 1, Jack Kelly (8), Fred Barnes (8), Amir Taheri (9), Ralph Peters (9), Jay Nordlinger (9), Robert Novak (9), John Fund (9) -- 1
16) John Stossel (10)
16) Cathy Seipp (10)
16) Glenn Reynolds (10)
16) Caroline Glick (10)
16) David Frum (10)
16) Mike Adams (10)
15) Jeff Jacoby (15)
14) Rich Lowry (16)
13) James Lileks (18)
12) Christopher Hitchens (24)
11) Walter Williams (27)
10) Peggy Noonan (30) -- 1
9) Michael Barone (32) -- 1
8) Ann Coulter (34) -- 4
7) George Will (36) -- 2
6) Michelle Malkin (45) -- 2
5) Victor Davis Hanson (49) -- 3
4) Jonah Goldberg (55)
3) Thomas Sowell (67) -- 3
2) Charles Krauthammer (91) -- 7
1) Mark Steyn (100) -- 15
Also see:
Right-Of-Center Bloggers Select Their Favorite Columnists (2005 Edition)
Right-Of-Center Bloggers Select Their Favorite Columnists (2003 Edition)
*** Update #1: *** The honorable mentions have now been added in.
*** Update #2: *** After going back through the data, I inexplicably ran across a name that had been accidentally left off of the honorable mentions. John Fund has now been added in.
USA Today has revealed that the NSA has a massive collection of phone records. Here are the key details (Emphasis mine)
"The National Security Agency has been secretly collecting the phone call records of tens of millions of Americans, using data provided by AT&T, Verizon and BellSouth, people with direct knowledge of the arrangement told USA TODAY.The NSA program reaches into homes and businesses across the nation by amassing information about the calls of ordinary Americans — most of whom aren't suspected of any crime. This program does not involve the NSA listening to or recording conversations. But the spy agency is using the data to analyze calling patterns in an effort to detect terrorist activity, sources said in separate interviews.
...Customers' names, street addresses and other personal information are not being handed over as part of NSA's domestic program, the sources said. But the phone numbers the NSA collects can easily be cross-checked with other databases to obtain that information.
...This kind of data collection from phone companies is not uncommon; it's been done before, though never on this large a scale, the official said. The data are used for "social network analysis," the official said, meaning to study how terrorist networks contact each other and how they are tied together.
...Among the big telecommunications companies, only Qwest has refused to (voluntarily) help the NSA, the sources said. According to multiple sources, Qwest declined to participate because it was uneasy about the legal implications of handing over customer information to the government without warrants.
...Over the years, NSA code-cracking techniques have continued to improve along with technology. The agency today is considered expert in the practice of "data mining" — sifting through reams of information in search of patterns. Data mining is just one of many tools NSA analysts and mathematicians use to crack codes and track international communications.
Paul Butler, a former U.S. prosecutor who specialized in terrorism crimes, said FISA approval generally isn't necessary for government data-mining operations. "FISA does not prohibit the government from doing data mining," said Butler, now a partner with the law firm Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld in Washington, D.C.."
First of all, let me note that this is a classified program and I hope that they track down the people who leaked this info to the press, fire them, and then prosecute them. These national security leaks are absolutely out of control.
Now that's out of the way, so let's talk about the program. The phone companies, other than Qwest, are voluntarily providing phone numbers to the government. What they provide probably looks something like...
555-555-5555 called 666-666-6666 for 5 minutes at 11:23 AM on May 10, 2006
Then NSA is then probably putting that info in a database and using it to create a spiderweb of connections between terrorist suspects. For example, if a call from an Al-Qaeda cell phone comes into 555-555-5555, they're then probably looking at the numbers 555-555-5555 is calling, and then checking to see which numbers those people are calling, and looking for repeating numbers. If they find a number of interest, then they can use other databases to gather more information and try to put names and other info with those numbers.
Would that be useful in order to help uncover sleeper cells and Al-Qaeda agents in the US? You bet.
Is it legal?
Well, as USA Today mentioned, "FISA does not prohibit the government from doing data mining."
Furthermore, Heather Mac Donald has previously noted that,
"Privacy advocates say that giving the government access to data held by commercial third parties violates constitutional privacy rights. They are wrong. The Supreme Court has repeatedly said that the government may obtain business and other records held by third parties without warrant or probable cause, because those records are no longer private. Law enforcement officials may subpoena records, or request that they be provided voluntarily, or may simply purchase data repositories on the market like any other player in the digital economy."
So yes, it does appear to be legal.
Which brings us to the final question? Even if it's legal, is this something that the government should be doing?
The program sounds as if it's legal and very useful. Is there a privacy trade-off here? Perhaps a small one, but that's it. I can tell you from working at an ISP wholesaler that worked with a lot of small phone companies that this information is only semi-private. Keep in mind that the phone companies have multiple people who can look at this information (and much, much more) any time they want and they can provide this info to law enforcement officials without a subpoena if they so choose.
Also, they can -- and sometimes do -- provide a lot of personal information about you to other companies. Just as an example, when I worked for the ISP wholesaler, at one point, our database was designed to allow us to look up the phone number, address, user name, and password for customers at the companies that worked with us. With the user/pass, I could even go in and tell you all the dates and times a customer logged onto the internet. But, people are freaking out because the government is using phone records identified by nothing but phone numbers to help track down terrorists? Please.
In my opinion, this program sounds like a great idea and I'm glad that they're doing it. In fact, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if this program may be part of the reason we haven't had another 9/11.
What an arrogant "priss" VANITY FAIR contributing editor James Wolcott is -- just take a look at the opening to a post on his blog"
To infiltrate myself among the people and impersonate a commoner (the better to understand the culture we're in), I made one of my secret incursions into Macdonald's for breakfast this morning, where I perused the New York Post over a nutritious meal and a premium coffee.
Oooh, did you dress to make yourself look like a "commoner," James? Did you take off your top hat and monocle? Can't you just picture him taking in a little baggy full of vegetarian quiche with him into McDonald's? I bet he was puzzled when he noticed there wasn't an attendant in the bathroom handing out towels. Maybe he figured the guy hadn't gotten there yet.
What a snob Wolcott is...
*** Update #1 ***: Space Monkey does his Wolcott impression in the comments section (with slight editing from JH):
"I wore a cheap $700 suit and Gucci silk tie leftover from last spring to blend in. I decided not to call for reservations or make use of my name for preferential seating. Upon arrival, I couldn't find the maitre d', but noticed a queue of these people forming in front of a utilitarian shelf made apparently of stainless steel, very industrial and very 2003. I took my place in the queue hoping against hope none of the commoners would touch me."
Over at Forbes, Paul Johnson is talking down the whole party system:
"What we in the West should be considering is to what extent we can get along without highly organized and all-powerful political parties or, at the least, how we can reduce their influence. Why shouldn't we encourage more independent individuals to run for election? What role do independents have to play in parliaments and congresses in the 21st century? For the last two centuries political parties have increasingly dominated our legislatures, formed our governments and shaped our societies. But if they are such successful and indispensable institutions, why are they so corrupt? Is it wise to seek to export this party tradition to the fledgling democracies we're trying to set up in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere? After all, in Israel--which is a genuine democracy--the overfragmented party system is an obstacle to good and stable government.These and related questions ought to be taken up and debated in the media, think tanks and university political science departments. We should not take the defeatist line that we're stuck with the old party system for all eternity."
Of course, "we're stuck with the old party system for all eternity," because except in very rare cases, independent candidates just can't be competitive.
The two big parties have loyal blocks of voters, the ability to generate massive amounts of cash and publicity, and they've proven over and over again that they can compete. It's almost impossible for independents to have any sort of chance unless they're rich enough to self-finance their own campaigns and have also somehow acquired huge name recognition.
Once they get beyond those problems, which would probably screen out 99.9% of the independent candidates, then they have to be able to tell the voters where they stand on a vast array of issues while simultaneously explaining why their stances make more sense than those of the Democratic and Republican candidates. That would be no easy feat, since the voters they'd have the best chance at bringing on board en masse, independents, tend be all over the map with their political views.
That's why the same thing would happen with independent candidates that has happened with third party candidates. If the candidates make an impact at all, what they end up doing is drawing off support from one side or the other, which leads to the candidate who has the least in common with them winning the election. In short, their candidacies almost always end up either being completely irrelevant or counterproductive.
So, unless some major changes are made to the way we conduct elections in this country, very, very, few independent candidates will have a chance to be viable...and that's probably a good thing.
The party system may not be perfect, but it's not bad. It's like that old Winston Churchill quote about democracy:
"Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except all those others that have been tried from time to time."
Same goes for the party system. It probably is the worst way of coming up with candidates for office, except for all the others.
GOP Reaches Deal on Tax Cuts (Free WAPO Reg Req)
April Tax Revenue 2nd-Highest in History (Thank You Tax Cuts)
Senate Plan Devised To Deal With Illegal Immigrant Hiring
Claim: U.S. Border Patrol Officials Provided Office Space Inside Their Headquarters To Mexican Consulate Officials, Allowed The Consulate To Dictate The Agents' Activities, And Gave The Consulate Information On Ongoing Investigations.
House Panel Supports Bilingual Voting (Boo)
Ariz. Posse To Round Up Illegal Immigrants
Logs Show Abramoff Only Made Two White House Visits
Democrats' Own Ethics Trouble 'Dulls The Message'
Transcript Suggests Alleged Rape Victim ID'd Four Duke Lacrosse Players
Michael Luttig Resigns To Work For Boeing
6 Dead In Bombing Of Pakistan Police Academy
British Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith, Has Called For The Closure Of The US Detention Camp At Guantanamo Bay
Iran Leader Calls Israel An 'Evil' Regime
Mexicans Paid $ 1.8 B In Bribes
Shia Ringtone Sparks Scuffle In Iraqi Parliament
Amir Taheri: Calling For Talks With Iran Is Just Cheap Talk
John Gibson: Iran's President's Letter Could Be Mistaken For Dem Talking Points
Byron York: Inside The President's Terrible Poll Numbers
Ann Coulter: Conservatives Need 12-Step Program To Manhood
Lorie Byrd: All Investigations, All The Time
Michelle Malkin: Hurray For Illegal Aliens With TB!
A Blog Interview With Juan Williams
New York: A 34-Year-Old Woman Has Been Accused Of Raping A 13-Year-Old Boy At Knifepoint
Infant Mortality: The Statistical Scam Continues
Hungary: 150 Pound Catfish Drags Man To Death
Yay For Wifebeating In Jordan And Egypt?
Website Of The Day: Phillip Pidot For New York Senate (A Blogger Running For Office)
Ms. Deborah J. Spero, Acting Commissioner
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
Department of Homeland Security
1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C. 20229
Dear Ms. Spero,
According to recent reports, the United States Border Patrol has provided the Mexican government with surveillance information about the location of the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps. If true, these allegations are troubling as its only result could be to aid illegal immigration and put at risk law-abiding American citizens.
The Minuteman Project has peacefully contributed to the mutual goal of controlling our borders to prevent illegal immigration and criminal activity.
What troubles us is that the Mexican government itself has very strict laws against illegal immigration. In fact, Article 16 of the Mexican Constitution gives Mexican citizens the right to make citizen's arrests stating, "In cases of flagrante delicto, any person may arrest the offender and his accomplices, turning them over without delay to the nearest authorities." In other words, Mexico grants its citizens the right to arrest illegal aliens and hand them over to police for prosecution.
We are familiar with the U.S. Customs and Border Protection's statement (05/09/2006) responding to this allegation. However, it is our opinion that this press release falls short of clarifying this situation fully which could put American lives at risk.
In order to better understand the U.S. Border Patrol's role in this issue, we respectfully ask that your agency fully investigate the allegation and report your findings back to us.
Thank you for your immediate consideration to this important matter.
Sincerely,
Jack Kingston
Member of Congress
John Doolittle
Member of Congress
Marsha Blackburn
Member of Congress
Ric Keller
Member of Congress
As we learned from prominent liberal blogger Atrios, the left wants to make it easier to get an abortion, raise taxes, promote gay marriage -- and he believes we should be a little nicer to captured terrorists, darn it!
As we also know, the left is just dying to cut and run in Iraq, they want to stand aside and allow Iran to acquire nukes, and oooh....they just shiver with pleasure at the thought of spending the next two years trying to impeach President Bush for...it really doesn't matter, anything will do.
But, there's one more key piece of the agenda we can't forget about: reparations for slavery. It seems that John Conyers is just chomping at the bit to start taking away tax dollars from people who never owned slaves so that it can be given to people who were never slaves in order to make up for how slaves were treated 140 years ago. That makes perfect sense, right?
Anyway, via Newsmax, here's Conyers' wacky plan:
"The left wing Democrat who will become chairman of the House Judiciary Committee if his party wins back Congress in November wants to hold full blown congressional hearings on whether the government should pay African Americans reparations for slavery.Michigan Rep. John Conyers has attracted attention in recent months for his House resolution calling for an impeachment investigation against President Bush.
But another Conyers cause-celeb is reparations, which he's been advocating since 1989, when he first introduced legislation to establish what he calls, "The Commission to Study Reparations Proposals for African American Act." ( H.R. 40)"
Reparations, gay marriage, open borders, impeachment, higher taxes, running a kinder and gentler war police action against terrorists militants...gee, why do so many people think that having the Democrats in power would be a disaster for America?
Israel has a bold new plan and I think it's a great idea:
Israel will give the Palestinians until the end of the year to prove they are willing to negotiate a final peace deal, and will unilaterally set its final borders by 2008 if they don't, Israel's justice minister said Wednesday.The statement by Justice Minister Haim Ramon, a close associate of Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's, was the first by an Israeli official to set a deadline for the Hamas-led Palestinian government to disarm and recognize the Jewish state.
The Palestinians' moderate president, Mahmoud Abbas, of the rival Fatah party, has tried to persuade Israel to bypass Hamas and resume peace talks with him, but Olmert has said he wouldn't negotiate with Abbas if Hamas didn't change its violent ways.
...Olmert originally had set a 2010 deadline for the pullback deadline, but a top aide said last month that Israel planned to conclude the process before the end of
President Bush's term in 2008.Ramon said it wouldn't take more than 18 to 24 months.
"I would like to believe that by the end of 2008 we will be deployed on a line that will signify Israel's final borders and guarantee our existence here as a Jewish democratic state," he said.
The borders, he said, "will first and foremost include the settlement blocs and the regions that are necessary for our security."
Things have really started to swing Israel's way over the last few years.
First of all, the wall has greatly reduced the number of Palestinian suicide attacks.
Then, the Israelis willingness to give up some of the settlements proved to be a good PR move that greatly reduced the strain on their military and has the potential to help alleviate tensions over the long-term.
Furthermore, as predicted, the Hamas ascent to power has been "good news for Israel." No reasonable and informed person can believe that the Israelis can actually negotiate peace with Hamas right now, so that has undercut sympathy for the Palestinians. Even though there wasn't much of a practical change in their government (they just traded one terrorist group for another), political pressure on the Palestinians has increased greatly, they're fighting each other, and their funds are drying up.
Next, in couple of years, the Israelis will set down a "final" border. That will help guarantee their security and it'll take something that has been endlessly negotiated in these "peace talks" off the table, hopefully for good.
Does that mean a real "peace" between the Israelis and Palestinians could be right around the corner? That seems highly doubtful, but if the Israelis can at least significantly lessen the effectiveness of Palestinian terrorism while simultaneously making them pay a bigger price for their refusal to make peace, that would at least be a step forward.
Also see,
The Israeli Wall And The Settlers On The Other Side
This is despicable:
Parents of students at an Albany Park charter school are demanding the dismissal of a teacher who they say made slurs against Mexicans during a seventh-grade art class. Students in the class said the teacher, angry because she believed students had gotten paint on her jacket, said that "all Mexicans are criminals" and that Mexicans "were only born to clean floors."...About 35 parents met Monday with one of the principals of the school, who promised an investigation, but declined to immediately fire the teacher.
"I understand that they're upset and I would be upset too, but no one makes a good decision in the heat of the moment," said Principal Jose Velazquez. "We have to step back a little bit, listen to both sides and then hopefully get enough clarity so we can make a proper decision."
Velazquez told parents he would meet with them again in two days to update them. He added that he was meeting with his "personnel department" to see what, if any, immediate measures could be taken."
Whether kids are here illegally, the children of legal immigrants, or American citizens they should not be insulted in that fashion. Launching those sort of slurs at anyone is ignorant, but aiming them at 12 and 13 year old kids is absolutely unforgivable, particularly for a teacher. If those allegations are true, not only should the teacher be fired, she should never be hired to work with kids again.
Mexico may be a mess, but there are a lot of fine people who have come from that country, some of whom are now Americans, and they should not be stereotyped as criminals or as being "born to clean floors."
Editor and Publisher did a survey of 527 randomly chosen newspaper journalists at 218 daily papers across the country.
The results? They weren't so pretty and this particular statistic really stood out:
"More than half of the surveyed journalists reported working with "a peer involved in fabrication, plagiarism or other deliberate misconduct," the survey stated."
More than half? Geeze, there sure are a lot of Jayson Blairs and Joe Bidens working in the mainstream media.
"A look inside the latest numbers suggests several reasons, but it appears the president's stand on immigration is the biggest drag on his support among Republicans—even more damaging than the disapproval caused by rising gas prices.Of several issues specifically covered by the Gallup poll—the economy, foreign affairs, the situation in Iraq, terrorism, immigration, and energy policy—immigration is the only area in which more Republicans disapprove of the president's policy than approve. And they disapprove by a significant margin: 52 percent of Republicans in the survey disapprove of Bush's immigration policy, versus 40 percent who approve." -- Byron York
U.S. Customs and Border Protection Denies They Have Reported The Location Of The Minutemen To The Mexican Government (Their Spokesman Confirmed It In The Original Article)
Tancredo Rips Government’s Spying On Minutemen
CBS News/New York Times Poll: Bush Approval 31%. Congress Approval At 21%
John Conyers: U.S. Owes Slavery Reparations
Disorganization Worries Al-Qaida In Iraq
Hamas Wary As West Opens Aid Tap
Hamas, Fatah Ban Carrying Of Guns
Europeans Work On New Anti-Nuclear Deal For Iran (Free WAPO Reg Req)
The Caliphate: One Nation, Under Allah, With 1.5 Billion Muslims
Looking Inside Hamas: Search For Martyrdom, Hatred Of Israel
Mike Adams: The Top Conspiracy Theories
John Leo: Sentiment Against Illegals Is Powerful And Growing
Jonah Goldberg: The Crazy Denunciations And Demands Of Populist Forces Must Be Put Down By Conservatives
Michael Socolow: Proposed Rule Changes Would Tangle The Web
Victor Davis Hanson: The Prison Of The Present
Stones Deny Keith Richards Suffered Brain Damage
Britney Spears Pregnant With Baby No. 2
Advisory: Hungary Rum Barrel Story Withdrawn
The 20 Scariest Movies Of All Time
Website Of The Day: Wizbang!
This is absolutely unbelievable! The Border Patrol is actually teaming up with the Mexican government to try to prevent the Minutemen from stopping illegals:
While Minuteman civilian patrols are keeping an eye out for illegal border crossers, the U.S. Border Patrol is keeping an eye out for Minutemen -- and telling the Mexican government where they are.According to three documents on the Mexican Secretary of Foreign Relations Web site, the U.S. Border Patrol is to notify the Mexican government as to the location of Minutemen and other civilian border patrol groups when they participate in apprehending illegal immigrants -- and if and when violence is used against border crossers.
A U.S. Customs and Border Protection spokesman confirmed the notification process, describing it as a standard procedure meant to reassure the Mexican government that migrants' rights are being observed.
"It's not a secret where the Minuteman volunteers are going to be," Mario Martinez said Monday.
"This ... simply makes two basic statements -- that we will not allow any lawlessness of any type, and that if an alien is encountered by a Minuteman or arrested by the Minuteman, then we will allow that government to interview the person."
Minuteman members were not so sanguine about the arrangement, however, saying that reporting their location to Mexican officials nullifies their effectiveness along the border and could endanger their lives.
"Now we know why it seemed like Mexican officials knew where we were all the time," said Chris Simcox, founder of the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps. "It's unbelievable that our own government agency is sending intelligence to another country. They are sending intelligence to a nation where corruption runs rampant, and that could be getting into the hands of criminal cartels.
"They just basically endangered the lives of American people."
...Border Patrol agents interviewed by the Daily Bulletin said they have been asked to report to sector headquarters the location of all civilian volunteer groups, but to not file the groups' names in reports if they spot illegal immigrants.
"Last year an internal memo notified all agents not to give credit to Minuteman volunteers or others who call in sightings of illegal aliens," said one agent, who spoke on the condition he not be identified. "We were told to list it as a citizen call and leave it at that. Many times, we were told not to go out to Minuteman calls."
This is nothing less than a deliberate attempt on the part of the federal government to undermine our nation's immigration laws and leave our border unsecured. For all we know, a terrorist carrying a suitcase nuke may have been allowed to walk into our country because our own government doesn't want the Minutemen to interfere with the free flow of illegal aliens into this country.
Not only should Congress demand that the Border Patrol stop working with the Mexican government to circumvent our laws, they should launch an investigation in order to find out who signed off on this unconscionable outrage.
Hat tip to the The Corner for the story.
*** Update #1 ***: The U.S. Customs And Border Patrol is denying the allegations made in the article:
"Today’s report by the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin, “U.S. tipping Mexico to Minuteman patrols,” is inaccurate. Border Patrol does not report activity by civilian, non-law enforcement groups to the Government of Mexico. During a detention of a legal or illegal immigrant that produces an allegation of improper treatment, Border Patrol reports the allegation and allows the appropriate consulate to interview the individual in custody.This is consistent with the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations of 1963 that provides consular access to foreign nationals being detained by a foreign government. This is the same agreement that protects United States citizens when they travel to foreign countries.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s Border Patrol continues to appreciate the efforts of civilians who contact law enforcement authorities regarding suspicious activity."
Of course, that's hard to square with this part of the original article:
"A U.S. Customs and Border Protection spokesman confirmed the notification process, describing it as a standard procedure meant to reassure the Mexican government that migrants' rights are being observed."It's not a secret where the Minuteman volunteers are going to be," Mario Martinez said Monday."
Also, the newspaper is standing by their story.
Hopefully, we'll get to the bottom of this over the next couple of days. Let's hope this turns out to be an erroneous report.
The Tennessean has broken a shocking new story!
"Vaccine industry officials helped shape legislation behind the scenes that Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist secretly amended into a bill to shield them from lawsuits, according to e-mails obtained by a public advocacy group.E-mails and documents written by a trade group for the vaccine-makers show the organization met privately with Frist's staff and the White House about measures that would give the industry protection from lawsuits filed by people hurt by the vaccines.
...In another e-mail, Boyer described a meeting in which a deputy of Bush strategist Karl Rove said it was "important to the President that a bill move this year," and said "they had invited industry to discuss what they understood to be a few key remaining points" of contention.
"The intimacy of this, we think, is quite unusual," said Joan Claybrook, president of Public Citizen, about the relationship between the organization's lobbyists, Frist and the Bush administration. "We think it is an interesting case study of how the inside operation works in Washington.""
Gasp! You mean that Bill Frist actually met with someone in an industry that was affected by lawsuits and asked them for their opinion, before working on legislation designed to shield them from those lawsuits?
It's outrageous! Why, the next thing you know we'll have Democrats meeting with environmentalist groups before they craft legislation designed to deal with the environment! We could even have liberals consulting teacher's unions about education related bills! No wonder the libs over at Think Progress & Just A Bumb In The Beltway are so incensed by this article!
Can our Democracy continue to survive if we actually have lawmakers actually consulting with the people who are effected by their legislation? Only time will tell!
We conservatives often flog the left for not having the guts to tell people what they really want to do. So, when a prominent liberal blogger, like Atrios, gives you an idea of what liberals would like to do when they get into power, it's worth examining.
Here's the agenda that Atrios says the "liberal netroots" has achieved a "fairly clear consensus on":
* Undo the bankruptcy bill enacted by this administration
* Repeal the estate tax repeal
* Increase the minimum wage and index it to the CPI
* Universal health care (obviously the devil is in the details on this one)
* Increase CAFE standards. Some other environment-related regulation
* Pro-reproductive rights, getting rid of abstinence-only education, improving education about and access to contraception including the morning after pill, and supporting choice. On the last one there's probably some disagreement around the edges (parental notification, for example), but otherwise.
* Simplify and increase the progressivity of the tax code
* Kill faith-based funding. Certainly kill federal funding of anything that engages in religious discrimination.
* Reduce corporate giveaways
* Have Medicare run the Medicare drug plan
* Force companies to stop underfunding their pensions. Change corporate bankruptcy law to put workers and retirees at the head of the line with respect to their pensions.
* Leave the states alone on issues like medical marijuana. Generally move towards "more decriminalization" of drugs, though the details complicated there too.
* Imprison Jeff Goldstein for crimes against humanity for his neverending stupidity
* Paper ballots
* Improve access to daycare and other pro-family policies. Obiously details matter.
* Raise the cap on wages covered by FICA taxes.I'm sure I could think of a few more things. I left off foreign policy because I find that most people who write about it imagine they're playing the game of Risk. It's nice to have nice bumpersticker doctrines which are ultimately meaningless, but basically "put grownups in charge" is my prescription. Kick the petulant children out.
...adding a few more things which would be obvious if we weren't living in the Grand and Glorious Age of Bush:
* Torture is bad
* Imprisoning citizens without charges is bad
* Playing Calvinball with the Geneva Conventions and treaties generally is bad
* Imprisoning anyone indefinitely without charges is bad
* Stating that the president can break any law he wants any time "just because" is bad...oh, and I meant to include:
* Marriage rights for all, which includes "gay marriage" and quicker transition to citizenship for the foreign spouses of citizens.
So, let's see what we have here. Atrios wants to increase taxes in a variety of different ways. Big surprise there. He wants to massively expand the power and cost of the Federal government with socialized medicine. Again, right out of the standard Democratic playbook. Increasing the number of abortions? Check. Forcing gay marriage on the country over the desires of the voters? Check. They want "more decriminalization" of drugs? Does that include crack? What about meth? How about heroin? Don't worry, because they'll let you know after they get back into power!
Also, he doesn't have the guts to come right out and say it, but it's pretty clear from his "Grand and Glorious Age of Bush" comments that Atrios spends his nights crying into his pillow because he's all upset that we're not being nice enough to the Al-Qaeda terrorists we've captured. Maybe if all the Islamo-Fascists at Gitmo get fancy lawyers and trials in front of liberal American judges, just like we did with the Nazis during WW2....say, we didn't do that with the Nazis we captured while the war was going on, did we?
It's also worth noting that there's nothing in there about illegal immigration, deficit spending, the Kyoto Protocol, or the International Criminal Court. Furthermore, Atrios skips all the tough foreign policy issues. Could that be because Democrats become completely paralyzed when they have to deal with serious national security issues? Could it be because it's more important to liberals to have the French and Kofi Annan happy with us than to protect America? Indeed, it could!
But, don't get me wrong: I applaud Atrios for having the courage to put forth even this partial agenda. If only the Democrats running for office would be this straightforward and honest about what they believe, the country would be better off....mainly because there would be a lot less Democrats who'd be elected.
John Podhoretz is looking at the strength of the economy and noting that things are taking a turn for the better in Iraq. So, why is Bush losing conservative support?
"(T)he president is losing support from conservatives and Republicans. There are all sorts of theories about why this is true, like how they don't like his spending plans and don't like his immigration policies. Fine, but he had the same immigration plan in 2004 and spent like a sailor in his first term and still had over 90 percent support during that election year.So here's a theory: Republicans and conservatives have grown weary of defending Bush. They've been fighting and fighting and fighting for years, and they see no letup in the hostility toward him or in the energy and determination of his critics. Faced with that implacable opposition, they've grown not disaffected but disheartened.
They thought they were on a winning team. Now they're not so sure, and they're feeling let down, the way passionate sports fans do when their guys stumble and fall in the second half of the season. In this case, though, the economic data and other markers of progress suggest that the second half isn't actually going badly at all."
I think there's something to the idea that "Republicans and conservatives have grown weary of defending Bush." I mean, at a certain point, you've got to ask why in the world you're ripping your guts out to stick up for an administration that won't even defend itself?
For whatever reason, in his second term, it has seemed like Bush has just been going through the motions. Maybe he has gotten complacent after winning reelection, maybe he's just tired, but you get the impression his heart just isn't in it. He makes the most boneheaded political moves (See Harriet Miers and the Port Deal), the Democrats call him every name in the book and he doesn't fight back, he doesn't seem to pay attention to political reality or what his base wants -- he's just moping along. It's like watching a heavyweight boxing match when the guy you're rooting for hasn't done anything for 5 rounds but kept his hands up and held the other guy. At some point you stop cheering until he starts punching back!
That being said, that's just one problem for Bush. The other problem is issue related. Yes, he's probably lost a few conservatives because of Harriet Miers, the Katrina response, the Dubai Port Deal, gas prices and how the war in Iraq has gone. But, to tell you the truth, I think immigration and deficit spending have been the two biggest sucking chest wounds with the base.
Of course, Jpod correctly noted that Bush had the same immigration and spending positions in his first term, but the war on terrorism was the big issue then. Now, illegal immigration and deficit spending are front and center and Bush is paying an enormous price for his stubbornness.
Any other politician would have changed course by now, but Bush would rather see his approval rating drop down into the low thirties rather than bend an inch on these big issues that are near and dear to the heart of his base. Yet, even though Bush is rapidly losing Republican support, he doesn't appear to be fazed by it all. He's not making any big effort to convince conservatives who disagree with him that's he right. He's also not changing his positions in an attempt to placate unhappy conservatives. It's just "like it or lump it" and that's not good enough anymore.
Unless Bush figures that out, I hate to say it, but he's may get to see what life is like with approval numbers in the twenties. That's not something any Republican should want to see, but it's up to Bush at this point. The ball's in his court and either he's going to have to make some substantial changes in the way he's doing business or the next three years are going to be miserable for him and the rest of the GOP.
"(A) wall on our border, by itself, will fail...One reason is simple and incontrovertible: around 40% of the illegal aliens in America -- 4.5 million immigration criminals -- never had to sneak across any border. We let them in. They came legally on “temporary” visas, claiming to be tourists or students or businessmen who would enter America for just a short time to go to Disneyland or flight school or a big conference and would then leave. But they never left. They never intended to; they lied to get in and then just disappeared." -- Mac Johnson
*** Update #1 ***: By the way, Mac Johnson isn't suggesting that we DON'T need a wall. The point he's trying to make is that we need to beef up interior enforcement and be more willing to deport illegals. A wall is a big part of the solution, but there are a lot of illegals who are going to get past it and we need to be able to deal with them effectively as well.
Here's a little more from his column:
"Our current reluctance to deport those who steal residency is self-defeating. It would be like making car theft illegal, but never requiring that stolen cars be returned. Why not come to America this way? All you have to gain is amnesty....Our current illegal immigration fiasco is a direct result of the 1986 amnesty of three million immigration criminals. That one act sent out a message to all the world: get here -- sneak in, lie your way in, or break in -- but just get here, and we will let you stay. The result has been as predictable as it has been costly. The 1986 amnesty did not solve our illegal immigration problem. It made it four times worse. Even today, just the talk of a second amnesty has caused a huge increase in illegal immigration -- as people hear the message loud and clear: we’re not serious about our laws, so why should you be?
We must undo that damage. We must get serious about deporting those who are not here legally. No other action will send the correct message. And no other action will deter other aspiring illegal aliens from trying to sneak in.
When illegal aliens are deported from the interior United States in even moderate numbers -- and they begin returning to their cities and villages throughout the world to tell their self-inflicted sob stories -- a new message will go out with them: we’re serious now. Wait your turn, fill out your applications, undergo your background checks and behave -- because we are not going to tolerate this crap anymore."
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s private letter to U.S. President George Bush proposing ‘new solutions‘ was also inadvertently emailed to Mr. Ahmadinejad’s ‘buddy list’, and so reached several major American news organizations yesterday.
It’s the first time since the 1979 revolution, that an Iranian leader has initiated direct contact with the President of the United States.
Below is a translation of the letter:
To: George Bush, president of the Great Satan, puppet of Zionists
Fr: Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, President of peaceful Islamic Republic of Iran
Re: Recent tensions
Sorry it’s been so long. It hardly seems like 26 years since we held 52 Americans hostage for 444 days. Well, enough nostalgia.
Listen, I have some new ideas for how to end the tensions over our little nuclear energy project, and your crusade to let the Zionists take over the Muslim world.
I had a brainstorming session with the Guardian Council, and we came up with a lot of great solutions. But I know you’re busy putting down a Republican rebellion and trying to pull your approval rating out of the toilet (LOL), so I’ll just give you our top five ‘new solutions’.
5) Wipe Israel off the face of the map. Replace with goat ranch.
4) U.S. buys Iranian oil. I make threatening statements causing uncertainty in petroleum markets. We use the windfall profits to pay Russia to help us make nuclear devices, and to pay China to stop U.N. sanctions. U.S. continues to buy Iranian oil.
3) Get U.N. to adopt ‘Don’t ask, don’t tell’ policy regarding uranium enrichment.
2) Put Zionists in boxcars. Send back to Europe. Replace Israel with goat ranch.
1) U.S. joins global Muslim Caliphate, ensuring peace and bountiful supplies of enriched uranium for all of Allah’s people.
Feel free to choose more than one solution.
I know you have a lot on your plate — what with the threat of Nancy Pelosi becoming Speaker of the House — but try to get back to me quickly so we can get implementation on a fast track.
Yours in Peace,
Mahmoud
This satire was used with the permission of Scrappleface.
Bush Nominates Hayden As CIA Chief
CIA Director Porter Goss' No. 3 Man At The Agency, Facing Investigation As Part Of A Congressional Bribe Probe
Moussaoui Asks to Withdraw Guilty Plea (Ha Ha! Sorry Charlie!)
Claim: Accuser In Duke Rase Case Initially Told Police She Was Raped By 20 White Men, Then Said She Was Attacked By Three
President Bush's Approval Rating Has Slumped To 31% In A New USA TODAY/Gallup Poll
Jeb Bush Doubts Harris Can Win Sen. Seat (He's Right)
Newspaper Circulation Declines 2.6 Percent
Rove Prepares 20 Judges
Senate Defeats Medical Malpractice Bills
US Prosecutors Seek Harsher Charges In Chinese Military 'Plot'
Rupert Murdoch To Host Fundraiser For Hillary Clinton
Israel: Vice Premier Shimon Peres Said Monday That "The President Of Iran Should Remember That Iran Can Also Be Wiped Off The Map." (Free Jerusalem Post Reg Req)
Blair: Nuking Iran Would Be Absurd
Officials: Iran's President Writes To Bush
Tony Blair: I'll Quit Next Year - Trust Me
White House: Iran's Letter Not A Nuclear Fix
Captured Al Qaeda Documents: "Every Year Is Worse Than The Previous Year"
Nine Hurt In New Palestinian Gunbattle Between Fatah And Hamas
US Officials Told The UN's Anti-Torture Body That The United States Had Held 103 Court Martials For Mistreatment Of Detainees In Iraq And Afghanistan
John Fund: Democrats May Not Be Able To Win The House, But Republicans Could Lose It
John McIntyre: How '06 Will Affect the '08 Electoral Map
Mark Levin: Patrick Kennedy & Double Standards
Mac Johnson: Immigration Reform Will Fail Without Deportation
Victor Davis Hanson: The Prison Of The Present
Reagan Bust To Be Displayed At Northport McDonald's Where He Ate
Every Adult, Child In Boulder City Colorado May Become Millionaires
Idiot Who Hit Power Lines With Metal Poll Doesn't Get Workers Comp
Whirlwind Lifts Girl 25 Feet
Website Of The Day: Newsbusters
"(T)he president of Iran should remember that Iran can also be wiped off the map." -- Israel's Vice Premier Shimon Peres
From Nancy Pelosi:
Democrats will launch a series of investigations of the Bush administration if they take control of Congress in November but are not out to impeach President George W. Bush, a top Democrat said on Sunday.House of Representatives Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi said Democrats would hold hearings on the use of intelligence in the lead-up to the Iraq war and investigate the high price of energy and prescription drugs if they win the extra 15 seats they need for a House majority in the mid-term elections.
But Pelosi denied Republican claims that her party would move quickly to impeach Bush.
"I said we'd be having hearings on the war, we'd have hearings. But I don't see us going to a place of impeachment," Pelosi said in an interview on NBC's Meet the Press. "Investigation does not equate to impeachment. Investigation is the requirement of Congress. It is about checks and balances."
Translation: Our wacko left-wing base is demanding that we impeach Bush for something, anything. It can be for being from Texas, if necessary; they really don't care, they just want him impeached.
However, our polling data shows that the American public is about as anxious to endure two years of politically motivated impeachment trials as a cat is to stroll the middle of a football field full of pitbulls. In fact, our polling data was so bad that there was actually a category called, "Percentage of people who threw up on the pollster's shoes when he mentioned impeachment."
So, we're going to promise investigations, which will keep our base happy, while we deny that we're planning to impeach Bush, which would turn off the general public. Then, once we get in power we'll try to impeach Bush for anything and everything we can think of...oh, and raise taxes! We can't forget about raising taxes! Then there's cutting and running in Iraq. Can't forget that either..or better yet, do forget that.
In fact, I'm waving my hand in front of your face, like in Star Wars. It's the Jedi Mind Trick. You never heard me say that Democrats plan to impeach Bush, raise taxes, or cut and run in Iraq. Also, since I'm in your head -- take political advice from Hollywood stars, believe that corporations are really evil, and you will find yourself strangely compelled to want to free Mumia Abu-Jamal, free Mumia Abu-Jamal, free Mumia Abu-Jamal....
In an effort to "appear" tough on illegal immigration, ICE has been talking big and doing some catch and release raids that feature big sweep ups of illegals, most of whom are quietly released instead of being deported.
Well, even though ICE is a big joke, these splashy raids have, happily, managed to frighten illegal aliens who are now afraid to play soccer or go to work because they are worried about being swept up in an ICE dragnet:
"Rumors are rampant in the city's immigrant communities that federal agents are swooping down into neighborhoods and plucking undocumented workers from restaurants, car washes and even soccer fields."My employees are nervous to come to work now," said Ana, a Woodhaven, Queens, hair salon owner who called the Daily News to report an unsubstantiated raid of a Latino food restaurant on Jamaica Ave. and 104th St. "I really don't know what to tell them."
The stories are not true, advocates and immigration officials say.
...The false rumors seem to have started after the federal Department of Homeland Security announced last month that it was stepping up efforts targeting employers who hire undocumented workers.
...Marc Raimondi, a spokesman for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, said the stories are all false and he stressed that the agency is not haphazardly targeting undocumented immigrants.
"We don't do random sweeps - we do targeted enforcement actions," he said. "We've said all along our enforcement actions are intelligence driven. They are not random."
If ICE doesn't do random sweeps, it's time to start. Start hitting those soccer games, car washes, and restaurants. Let's see some illegal aliens and the businessmen who hired them frogmarched in front of the cameras.
Why should they do that? Because when people who are breaking the law are afraid of being caught, it's a good thing. When illegals are terrified to go to work or even go play soccer, it's a good thing. Anything that makes life here harder for illegal aliens is a good thing because it encourages them to leave.
That's why we should crack down on employers, empower cops to arrest illegals, get rid of the water stations in the desert, not allow their (non-American) kids to go to school here, refuse to give them driver's licenses, stop illegals with American kids from collecting welfare on their behalf, prevent illegals caught in the United States from ever becoming citizens or working as guest workers, etc., etc., etc.
We need to make life for illegals here in American one of inconvenience, fear, and grinding poverty. Every day in America for an illegal should be absolutely miserable -- because if that's the case, they will go home and tell all their friends how unbearable it is in America for illegal aliens and that will discourage them from coming here.
Other than emergency medical care, which we shouldn't deny to any human being, illegals should get nothing in America but a one-way ticket back to wherever it is that they came from. That's it.
"In the latest Vatican broadside against "The Da Vinci Code", a leading cardinal says Christians should respond to the book and film with legal action because both offend Christ and the Church he founded.Cardinal Francis Arinze, a Nigerian who was considered a candidate for pope last year, made his strong comments in a documentary called "The Da Vinci Code-A Masterful Deception."
...The novel is an international murder mystery centered on attempts to uncover a secret about the life of Christ that a clandestine society has tried to protect for centuries.
The central tenet of the book is that Jesus married Mary Magdalene and had children.
"Those who blaspheme Christ and get away with it are exploiting the Christian readiness to forgive and to love even those who insult us. There are some other religions which if you insult their founder they will not be just talking. They will make it painfully clear to you," Arinze said.
This appeared to be a reference to protests by Muslims around the world over cartoons of the Prophet Mohammad."
You know, the whole forgiveness and love thing is a feature, not a bug. It's one thing to stand up against liberal groups like the ACLU that regularly target Christians for harassment, but we don't need to start trying to sue people just for offending us.
Moreover, those cartoon riots may have intimidated some people, but for every person they intimidated, they probably made a thousand more distrustful of Muslims as a whole. The last thing Christians need to do is start borrowing ideas from people who are screaming about "infidels" in the streets and making threats because of a cartoon.
You don't like The Da Vinci Code? Then boycott it, speak out against it, and explain why it's bunk. But, launching lawsuits? Let's not go down that path.
The GOP's polling numbers are hideous and still getting worse. In particular, these numbers from AP-Ipsos really jump out at you:
"Forty-five percent of self-described conservatives now disapprove of the president....Even 31 percent of conservatives want Republicans out of power....Six of 10 conservatives say America is headed in the wrong direction."
We've had high gas prices, Katrina woes, the port deal, corruption charges, and the President hasn't aggressively been defending the war in Iraq or firing back at the Democrats. Add to that, the fact conservatives have been screaming their lungs out about deficit spending and illegal immigration while the President and the Senate have absolutely gone out of their way to let the base know that they could give a hoot in hell about what conservatives think about those issues. Put it all together and it's easy to see why a lot of conservatives are angry at the GOP, but to be fair, everyone seems to loathe the Democrats as well, although perhaps marginally less than they despise Republicans.
You know what the really surprising thing is at this point? That we're less than 6 months from the election and the President and the Senate just don't seem to be getting the message. The Senate just pushed through a pork laden emergency spending bill. Moreover, both Bush and the Senate are backing an unpopular illegal-friendly immigration bill despite the fact that the American people, in almost every different way you can slice 'em up, prefer the House approach.
So, when do their political survival instincts start kicking in? Even though President Bush isn't up for reelection again, he has to realize that he can't push an agenda through with his approval in the thirties. The RINOS in the Senate have also got to understand that if the Democrats regain control, the next couple of years are going to be absolutely miserable. Yet, they're still acting like they couldn't care less if the GOP wins in November.
Time is running out, guys, and you've got to wake up! The GOP needs to start representing their constituents instead of treading water and pandering to special interests or it's going to be one ugly election day in November. As a matter of fact, a lot of damage has already been done and it's going to take a real attitude adjustment just to minimize the damage.
When, if ever, are they going to figure that out? It's anybody's guess at this point.
*** Update #1 ***: Just about the only thing the GOP in the Senate and Bush have going for them is that the American people don't like the Democrats either:
"Polls of generic support for the major parties are notoriously unreliable as a predictor.. In 1996, Democrats enjoyed a 14-point advantage over Republicans in congressional races only two months before the election. In the end, they gained only nine seats, and that was before sophisticated gerrymandering dramatically shrank the number of competitive districts and after Republicans won some heavily Democratic districts in 1994. Jonathan Last, a columnist for the Philadelphia Inquirer, also reminds us that "Democrats have shown time and again that they can blow a lead like nobody's business."The other problem Democrats still face is that the public thinks almost as badly about them as they do the Republicans. The latest Wall Street Journal/NBC poll finds just 33% have a positive view of the Democratic Party, with 39% having a negative view. Republican numbers are worse, but just barely: 35% positive, 43% negative."
So, if the GOP doesn't get its act together soon, should our campaign slogan for 2006 be, "Better the devil you know," or, "We're the lesser of two evils?" I'm kind of leaning towards the, "lesser of two evils," one. It sounds catchier...
Sadly, Andrea Clark has passed away. Her sister Melanie Childers posted this message at the Democratic Underground a couple of hours ago:
"Andrea passed away peacefully a little before 3pm today, with her family and her friends at her bedside. We love her so very much and we are going to miss her terribly. We hope that the battle that we fought for our sister will bring to light and bear witness to the horrible acts committed in the name of ethics in hospitals across the state of Texas.The fact that we had to fight this battle is both frightening and a sad commentary on the so-called "ethics" now being practiced in medical facilities in this state. The battle for life is a difficult one, in the best of situations, but when a family is put through what we had to go through at such a time, it is especially agonizing.
We wish so much that we could have spent more time at our sister's side, when she was living and fighting for her life, rather than having to visit our attorney's office, give interviews to radio and television stations to let the public know of the atrocity about to befall Andrea, and literally stand outside the hospital and beg them not to kill our sister. In attempting to deprive Andrea of the most basic of her human rights--life--St. Luke's Hospital managed to deprive her family and her of that which is most dear to us all, when we are faced with the death of a loved one: a proper goodbye.
How, in the name of God, anyone can call putting someone to death when they are at their most helpless and begging for their lives "ethical," we cannot imagine."
I didn't hear about Andrea's death until after 12 PM EST, so I've had no opportunity to find out any details about what her cause of death turned out to be. As I find out more, I'll let you know. In any case, I'd like to send my sincere condolences to Andrea's friends and family in this difficult time. I know it has to be tough for them right now, but at least they can take some comfort in the fact that because they fought the good fight, Andrea had a fighting chance in the end, instead of having her life support cut off.
Also see,
-- An Andrea Clark Update: Out Of The Danger Zone?
-- Once Again, Time Is Running Out For Andrea Clark
-- St Luke's Reneges: Andrea Clark's Life Is Still In Jeopardy
-- Andrea Clark's Life Has Been Spared
-- Some Good News On The Andrea Clark Front
-- Time Is Running Out For Andrea Clark
-- An Andrea Clarke Update
-- The Sad Case Of Andrea Clarke
*** Update #1 ***: According to the Houston Chronicle,
Andrea Clark, a Friendswood woman whose case attracted national attention, succumbed to complications from heart disease Sunday at 3 p.m. Two sisters, her brother and her son were at her side....Clark, 54, was unable to fight off a severe infection Sunday. She had been in multi-organ failure.
Also, Andrea's sister Lanore Dixon asked me to post this:
John,
Our sister, Andrea Clark, passed away at 3 pm yesterday, May 7, 2006.
We will miss our sister, but we are grateful that she was allowed to pass from this world in the way that she wanted.
We will be forever grateful for all the prayers and help offered on behalf of our sister.
Graveside services will be at 10:30 am. Wednesday, May 10, 2006 at the old Seabrook Cemetery, in Seabrook, TX Services are being handled by Hays Funeral Home of Hitchcock, TX.
Bush Says He Would Like To Close Guantanamo (WHAT???)
Exit Of C.I.A. Chief Viewed As Move To Recast Agency (Free New York Times Reg Req)
Some Lawmakers Wary Of General Running The CIA
Democrats Plan Probes Of Bush Administration If It Wins The House (Free WAPO Reg Req)
Republican Right Abandoning Bush -- 45 Percent Of Self-Described Conservatives Disapprove Of President
Poll: Fox Most Trusted News Source In U.S.
Bush Names First Black Judge to Tenth Circuit
Girl, 13, Admits Sex With 7 Wasn't Forced
Claim: Israel Foils Plot To Kill Palestinian President
42 Killed Or Found Dead In Iraq Violence
Iraqis Cheer British 'Copter Crash
Chavez Wants Vote on Governing Until '31 (Big Surprise He's Looking For Cover To Hide A Dictatorship Behind)
French Watergate Threatens Chirac
Poisoned Mossad Chocolate Killed PFLP Leader In 1977, Says Book
Egypt Arrests A Prominent Blogger
Robert Novak: Mehlman's Warning
Rich Lowry: Civilian Courts The Wrong Place To Deal With Terrorists
Amr Hamzawy: Al-Qaeda Faces An Ideological Crisis
Mark Steyn: Moussaoui Gets Life, The Terrorists Win
Charlie Cook: Circling The White House (Free WAPO Reg Req)
Hala Jaber: Part Of Me Died When I Saw This Cruel Killing
Bush's Best Moment In Office? Reeling In Big Perch
Titanic's Last American Survivor, 99, Dies
Tim Blair Fisks Kos
Eating Mud Pies In Haiti
Website Of The Day: Protein Wisdom
|
|||||
|
|
| |||
