More on the Miss Piggy of the ATL

A Lawmaker Confronts the Long Arm of the Law

By Amy Argetsinger and Roxanne Roberts
Thursday, March 30, 2006; Page C03

Not being recognized is apparently something of an issue for Rep. Cynthia McKinney , as a Capitol Police officer discovered yesterday.

In 1998, the outspoken Georgia Democrat wrote a scathing letter to President Bill Clinton accusing White House guards of racism after they failed to recognize her when she arrived for an event. For years, the Hill newspaper reported in 2002, Capitol Police kept a photo of her posted in a basement office to warn security officers against committing any other such embarrassment.

Maybe it's time to change the photo. The police department is investigating a bizarre scuffle yesterday morning between McKinney and an officer who tried to stop her at a congressional office building checkpoint after apparently failing to realize she was a member of Congress.

McKinney allegedly "stabbed" the officer with her cellphone when he grabbed her, said a police source who requested anonymity because the investigation had just begun; the officer, whom the source did not identify, is considering whether to file criminal charges. The source said the officer was not seriously injured.

In a statement issued last night, McKinney said she regretted the "unfortunate confrontation."

"I know that Capitol Hill Police are securing our safety, that of thousands of others, and I appreciate the work that they do. I deeply regret that the incident occurred," McKinney said.

Having commented on this yesterday, I can't resist just calling Ms. McKinney the ATL's own Miss Piggy. Her behavior has been so reminiscent of H-town's Miss Piggy. Sheila Jackson Lee's behavior and Cynthia McKinney's behavior so closely parallel that it becomes stereo-typical. They are both prima donnas of the worst sort. They purport to be advocates for the common people and the poor people, yet they behave like the elitist of elites. Demanding special treatment and privilages that none of their contstituents could even dream of. They are the most disgusting kind of hypocrites.

Oh well, enough McKinney bashing for today (she certainly rates it for all of her anti-American rhetoric) at least she has apologized. She probably got wind of all the laughter at her expense. WWOW (wicked witch of the west) Pelosi probably got wind of the mass e-mail Sean Spicer (a spokesman for the House GOP leadership) sent out chortling over the irony of the incident happening on the same day the Democrats unveiled their national security agenda. "Not exactly a show of support for law enforcement," he wrote.

Full Story: Miss Piggy of the ATL Apologizes

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Inappropriate Action By School's Principal

Opinions split over red, white and green
Mexican flags divisive topic as principal shows his support for student protests

By JENNIFER RADCLIFFE
Copyright 2006 Houston Chronicle

Reagan High School Principal Robert Pambello was ordered to remove a Mexican flag Wednesday morning that he had hoisted below the U.S. and Texas flags that typically fly in front of his school — a symbol he agreed to fly to show support for his predominantly Hispanic student body.

At nearby Hamilton Middle School, a child was asked to wipe off Mexican and U.S. flags painted on his face. Hundreds of other students carried Mexican flags during walkouts Wednesday — acts of protest that they vow to continue until Congress rejects legislation that would further restrict immigration.

"There's no other way to be heard ... It's not the best way or the right way, but it's our way," Reagan freshman Jose Lopez, 14, said of the effort.

The Mexican flag has become a lightning rod in the immigration debate that's consumed the city and the nation this week. Students say the flag represents their pride in the contributions Mexicans make to this country. Critics, though, said watching young Hispanics in the streets with the red, green and white flags is more than they can stand. These youngsters are in the United States and should — at the least — carry the U.S. flag, they argue.

"The whole thing just makes my blood boil," said Bruce R. Wing, a 52-year-old Missouri City resident. "I want them all out of here."

Wing said the Houston Independent School District should fire Pambello.

HISD leaders said no decision has been made about possible discipline against the principal, who declined interview requests Wednesday.

"It is appropriate to fly the flags of the United States and Texas over schools in the Houston Independent School District, since we are a public entity of the state," HISD spokesman Terry Abbott said. "It would not be appropriate for the school district to advocate allegiance to a country other than the United States. Therefore, it is not appropriate to permit use of school district flagpoles for the purpose of flying flags representing other countries."

Raul Ramos, a professor of Texas history at the University of Houston, said most Mexican-Americans see no contradiction in flying the Mexican flag alongside those of Texas and the United States.

"Most students at Reagan High School have relatives or ancestors from Mexico," said Ramos. "The flag represents Mexican heritage as much if not more than citizenship."

Historical research

Ramos noted that there is a long Texas history of both flags flying. He has found Mexican and Texas flags interwined during Mexican Independence Day parades in such cities as Laredo, El Paso and San Antonio dating to 1910.

Calling HISD's decision a reaction to cultural anxiety, he said, "it's important for the school to make efforts to identify with the student body," not vice versa. "The school, after all, reflects the ethnic identity of the students sitting in its classrooms."

No Mr. Ramos, it is important for students to identify with the country in which they reside and from who's generosity they benefit. If Mexico is such a great nation and deserved of celebration, why then are there 12 million illegal immigrants in America. I have relatives in Scotland and Sweden, is it then appropriate for me to demand the school fly those two flags? I, too, am proud of my heritage, but it in no way grants me permission to flaunt it in spite of my American heritage and citizenship.

If Mexico was capable of supporting these people, then they would be there. As it cannot, and they are not, they owe their allegience to America, not Mexico.

The principal of this school should be severly sanctioned for his totally inappropriate actions and apparent encouragement of the student walkout. My understanding of the duties of a principal is that he is to promote education not social policy. His Hispanic student are already suffering severely in their bid to be educated. This principal's actions do nothing to ameliorate the situation.

Full Story: Disrespect and Ingratitude By Students/Principal

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

I Guess Georgia Has Its Own Miss Piggy

Report: McKinney Punches Cop

Web Editor: Michael King
Last Modified: 3/30/2006 9:18:03 AM

According to sources on Capitol Hill, U.S. Representative Cynthia McKinney (D-GA) punched a Capitol police officer on Wednesday afternoon after he mistakenly pursued her for failing to pass through a metal detector.

Members of Congress are not required to pass through metal detectors.

Sources say that the officer was at a position in the Longworth House Office Building, and neither recognized McKinney, nor saw her credentials as she went around the metal detector.

The officer called out, “Ma’am, Ma’am,” and walked after her in an attempt to stop her. When he caught McKinney, he grabbed her by the arm.

Witnesses say McKinney pulled her arm away, and with her cell phone in hand, punched the officer in the chest.

McKinney’s office has not responded to requests for comment.

According to the Drudge Report, the entire incident is on tape.

Drudge continues, "The cop is pressing charges, and the USCP (United States Capitol Police) are waiting until Congress adjourns to arrest her, a source claims."

No charges have been filed. Capitol Police spokeswoman Sgt. Kimberly Schneider says that senior officials have been made aware of the incident and are investigating.

Another prima donna Democrat...who'da thunkit? It would appear that Houston is not the only city with a Miss Piggy. Is it my imagingation or do these African-American woman, Congressmembers, actually believe that they are royalty? Rather than understanding a guard's desire to conscientiously execute his duties to provide security for the very body in which Ms. McKinney works, instead of being greatful that there are people working to provide for her safety, she behaves like a spoiled brat. I guess that's not entirely fair, all members of Congress seem at time to act like a privillaged class rather than employees of the American people.

A quick look at the picture tells me the guard was well within his rights to stop Ms McKinney. I too failed to recognize her with her new hairstyle. Ingratitude seems to be a standard trait in these prima donna Congresswomen.

Same person? 5 seconds at a quick walk, you tell me.

Seems Miss Piggy is alive and well in the A-T just as much as in H-Town.

Full Story: Yes Virginia, There Is A Miss Piggy

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Once More, For Liberals Opinion Is Fact

Bush Wanted War

By Richard Cohen
Thursday, March 30, 2006; 12:00 AM

It is my firm belief that if, say, a few dozen people simultaneously did an Internet search for the words "Bush lied," computers all over the country would crash and the energy grid would buckle, producing a rolling blackout that would begin somewhere around Terre Haute, Ind., and end in Barnstable, Mass. So common is the statement "Bush lied" that it seems sometimes that I am the only blue-state person who does not think it is true. Then, last week, the indomitable Helen Thomas changed all that with a single question. She asked George Bush why he wanted "to go to war" from the moment he "stepped into the White House," and the president said, "You know, I didn't want war." With that, the last blue-state skeptic folded.

I would not go so far as to say that Bush wanted war from Day One in the White House, but there was plenty of evidence he had Saddam on his mind and in his sights from the very moment he got the news of the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. We have it from Richard Clarke, formerly the White House's chief anti-terrorism official, that within a day of the attacks Bush was inquiring if Saddam might have had a hand in them. When told no -- "But, Mr. President, al-Qaeda did this," Clarke told him -- it became instantly clear that this was not the answer Bush wanted. "'Look into Iraq, Saddam,' the president said testily," Clarke writes in his book, "Against All Enemies."

Similarly, Bob Woodward says in his book, "Plan of Attack," that not only was Bush fixated on Iraq, but by Thanksgiving of 2001, he already had told Don Rumsfeld to prepare a plan for the invasion of that country. "Let's get started on this," the president said, cautioning the defense secretary not to tell anyone. Rumsfeld said that eventually he would have to take CIA Director George Tenet into his confidence. "'Fine."' Woodward quotes Bush as saying -- "but not now."

As for myself, I was told by a European intelligence official that after flying to Washington right after the 9/11 attacks, he was stunned to discover that talk had already turned to Iraq. This was particularly true at the Pentagon, where Paul Wolfowitz was obsessed with Iraq, and that seems to have been true of the White House as well. And now we know from various British accounts that close aides to Prime Minister Tony Blair recognized early on that Bush was going to go to war -- and that Blair, his poodle at obedient heel, would follow along. More recently we learned -- again from British sources -- that even though Bush went back to the United Nations for yet another resolution condemning Iraq, he was determined to make war almost no matter what.

Sorry Richard, I don't believe you. As a constant and unrelenting critic of the White House and President Bush, excuse me if I doubt your claim that you were the only dissenting voice among your Leftist peers. It just doesn't have the ring of truth. You lack credibility.

You have no proof and very little evidence, other that anecdotal (Clarke is hardly an unbiased unimpeachable source, nor are aides to the Prime Minister that would call Blair a "poodle at obedient heel." If those are your words, it is even worse for your case.) to support your claim. For you, as is true for most Liberals, what you want to be true becomes truth. As Dennis Miller puts it you believe your guesswork to be fact.

The fact remains, that President Bush has a great deal more credibility than do those on the Left who so often mistake opinion for fact. Further as a member of the MSM your credibility suffers even further questioning.

Full Story: Only A Liberal Would Be Willing To Believe Bush Wanted War

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Details? Details? Don't Need No Stinkin' Details

Democrats Detail Security Policy
Bin Laden, Iraq and Domestic Safety Identified as Midterm Issues

By Chris Cillizza and Dan Balz
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, March 30, 2006; Page A12

Emboldened by President Bush's declining approval ratings, Democrats unveiled a national security platform yesterday for the midterm elections that stresses renewed focus on capturing Osama bin Laden, reducing the U.S. presence in Iraq and stepped up protection at home.

The new strategy, which comes after months of deliberations and several false starts, aims to neutralize the advantage Republicans have held on national security and terrorism issues, that Democrats acknowledge were critical in the GOP's midterm gains in 2002 and in Bush's reelection victory over Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) in 2004.

Flanked by former secretary of state Madeleine K. Albright and retired Army Gen. Wesley K. Clark, Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi vowed that Democrats could do a better job of defending the country than the administration has done since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

Declaring that the administration's "dangerous incompetence has made America less safe," Reid said, "We are uniting behind a national security agenda that is tough and smart, an agenda that will provide the real security President Bush has promised, but failed to deliver."

Republicans immediately attacked the Democratic plan, with Vice President Cheney arguing that Democrats' "behavior has been totally inconsistent with what they're now promising they're going to do."

Many of the items in the Democratic statement echo themes Kerry advanced in the 2004 presidential campaign, but party strategists believe that they are now in position to capitalize on public disenchantment with the war in Iraq and with declining confidence in Bush as a wartime leader.

Among the proposals in the "Real Security" plan: eliminate bin Laden and his al-Qaeda terrorist network, implement in full the recommendations of the Sept. 11 commission, and work to make 2006 a year of "significant transition" in Iraq.

On terrorism, the Democrats call for doubling the size of U.S. Special Forces and eliminating terrorist breeding grounds by "combating the economic, social and political conditions that allow extremism to thrive."

Democrats have been badly divided over Iraq. The new strategy urges Iraqis to assume responsibility for their own security, recommends "responsible redeployment" of U.S. forces without specifying a timetable and blames the administration for poor planning and manipulating prewar intelligence.

The statement contains language -- voiced by Pelosi, Reid and others yesterday -- that the Democrats' security agenda will be both "tough and smart" in contrast to the "dangerous incompetence" the Bush administration has shown -- language that has been tested by the Democrats in anticipation of the fall campaign.

Albright decried the Bush administration's "rank incompetence" on such issues as the Iraq war and the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. Albright called for a security plan based on "facts not fantasy."

Ummm...this is the same Madeleine Albright who was primarily responsible for the UN's failure to act in Rwanda, who actively prevented peacekeepers from moving in to stop the mass killing of about 800,000 Rwandans in 1994, and who played the key role in blocking any strong action by the UN, adamantly refusing to accept publicly that a full-fledged, Convention-defined genocide was in fact taking place,isn't it? The same Madeleine Albright who led us into the war in Yugoslavia in response to non-existent massacres and mass rapes, on the side of the Muslims? The same Muslims we are now fighting?

Ya wanna talk about "dangerous incompetence?" I give you eight years of the Clinton Administration. Because of the neglect of the Clinton Administration, Osama bin Laden (the same bin Laden they say "We are now going to eliminate, trust us, honest.") was allowed to flee to Afghanistan from Somalia. The same Administration that was offered Osama bin Laden (the same bin Laden they say "Honest, this time we're going to get him.") on a silver platter and refused to act.

Democrats have honed the art of showering the public with "Glowing Ambiguities" to a fine art. All of their proposals are long on words and short on facts and methods.

Telling the American people "Trust us, we're going to thus and so, but we'll tell you how after you elect us (and after we figure out how), especially when you have been actively working against American security and interests for the past five years is not going to carry much weight with the American voters.

What possible evidence can the Democrats offer that this is the time to trust them with national security. They have worked against national security for the past 40 years. They have worked against the military for the past 40 years. They would have had us surrender to the Soviet Union had the American people not had the wisdom to elect Ronald Reagan. Their neglect during the Clinton years was directly responsible for the 9/11 attacks, but now they ask for our trust.

NOT BLOODY LIKELY!

Full Story: Democrats, Hawks-In Their Imaginations

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Sorry George, Not So Easy An Answer

Guard the Borders -- And Face Facts, Too

By George F. Will
Thursday, March 30, 2006; Page A23

America, the only developed nation that shares a long -- 2,000-mile -- border with a Third World nation, could seal that border. East Germany showed how: walls, barbed wire, machine gun-toting border guards in towers, mine fields, large, irritable dogs. And we have modern technologies that East Germany never had: sophisticated sensors, unmanned surveillance drones, etc.

It is a melancholy fact that many of these may have to be employed along the U.S.-Mexican border. The alternatives are dangerous and disagreeable conditions for Americans residing near the border, and vigilantism. It is, however, important that Americans feel melancholy about taking such measures to frustrate immigration that usually is an entrepreneurial act: taking risks to get to America to do work most Americans spurn. As the debate about immigration policy boils, augmented border control must not be the entire agenda, lest other thorny problems be ignored, and lest America turn a scowling face to the south and, to some extent, to many immigrants already here.

To control belongs at the top of the agenda, for four reasons. First, control of borders is an essential attribute of sovereignty. Second, conditions along the border mock the rule of law. Third, large rallies by immigrants, many of them here illegally, protesting more stringent control of immigration reveal that many immigrants have, alas, assimilated: They have acquired the entitlement mentality created by America's welfare state, asserting an entitlement to exemption from the laws of the society they invited themselves into. Fourth, giving Americans a sense that borders are controlled is a prerequisite for calm consideration of what policy that control should serve.

Of the nation's illegal immigrants -- estimated to be at least 11 million, a cohort larger than the combined populations of 12 states -- 60 percent have been here at least five years. Most have roots in their communities. Their children born here are U.S. citizens. We are not going to take the draconian police measures necessary to deport 11 million people. They would fill 200,000 buses in a caravan stretching bumper-to-bumper from San Diego to Alaska -- where, by the way, 26,000 Latinos live. And there are no plausible incentives to get the 11 million to board the buses.

Facts, a conservative (John Adams) said, are stubborn things, and regarding immigration, true conservatives take their bearings from facts such as those in the preceding paragraph. Conservatives should want, as the president proposes, a guest worker program to supply what the U.S. economy demands -- immigrant labor for entry-level jobs. Conservatives should favor a policy of encouraging unlimited immigration by educated people with math, engineering, technology or science skills that America's education system is not sufficiently supplying.

As you Say Mr. Will, facts are stubborn things. The most glaring fact is that these illegals have shown little if any inclination to follow the current laws. The real dilemma is what do you do if these immigrants refuse to educate themselves in the English language? What do you do if they refuse to pursue American citizenship? Are you then going to ship them out? We haven't done this in the past, are we now going to change with this new law? I seriously doubt it.

This is a problem with no easy solution. The American economy is greatly dependent on foreign labor. Anyone who tries to deny this is whistling in the dark. I don't know what the solution is, but I suspect that merely passing a new law which, in essence, says "This time were really, really serious. No really, we mean it this time. We were only joking last time but this time we really, really mean it, no kidding," is not going to solve the problem.

If you can't or won't enforce the current laws, then your new laws have no credibility with lawbreakers.

Full Story: Difficult Problem, Hard Answers

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Missing the Point Part II

Judges Back Court Review of Eavesdropping

By PETE YOST
The Associated Press
Wednesday, March 29, 2006; 9:46 AM

WASHINGTON -- Five federal judges gave a boost Tuesday to legislation that would bring court scrutiny to the Bush administration's domestic spying program.

At a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing chaired by Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., the judges reacted favorably to his proposal that would require the secretive Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to conduct regular reviews of the four-year-old program.

The existence of the warrantless surveillance by the National Security Agency was revealed by The New York Times three months ago.

The judges stressed that they were not offering their views on the NSA operation, which they said they knew nothing about.

But they said the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court has operated capably for 28 years and is fully able to protect civil liberties and give the administration all the speed and flexibility it needs to execute the war on terror.

The administration contends the president has inherent war powers under the Constitution to order eavesdropping without warrants.

"I am very wary of inherent authority" claimed by presidents, testified U.S. Magistrate Judge Allan Kornblum. "It sounds very much like King George."

Before word of the warrantless surveillance leaked publicly, the Bush administration revealed it to just eight members of Congress and to the presiding judge on the surveillance court.

The hearing Tuesday focused on Specter's bill. A rival approach, drafted by Senate Judiciary Committee member Mike DeWine of Ohio and three other Republicans, would allow the government to conduct warrantless surveillance for up to 45 days before seeking court or congressional approval.

I wonder if Mr. Yost of the Pest..uh,,Post or Mr. Lichtblau of the New York Lies...er Times even attended the committee meeting yesterday.

Pete, just for your edification, since you apparently didn't hear Judge Kornblum entire statement, he went on to state:

"If a court refuses a FISA application and there is not sufficient time for the president to go to the court of review, the president can under executive order act unilaterally, which he is doing now. "I think that the president would be remiss exercising his constitutional authority by giving all of that power over to a statute."

Hmmm. Kind of puts a different light on the matter doesn't it Pete? Especially because the other four judges concurred with his opinion.

See what happens when you don't pay close attention Pete? If you want to be a good reporter, you must remember to tell the whole story, not just the part that you agree with. If you do that, it is called an "E-d-i-t-o-r-i-a-l." Editorials are where you put your opinion, not news stories.

I highly recommend that you and your twin Mr. Lichtblau attend a remedial journalism school so that you can learn to report the whole truth, not just portions of it.

Full Story: Failing Journalism Class

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Talk About Missing the Point

Judges on Secretive Panel Speak Out on Spy Program

By ERIC LICHTBLAU
Published: March 29, 2006

WASHINGTON, March 28 — Five former judges on the nation's most secretive court, including one who resigned in apparent protest over President Bush's domestic eavesdropping, urged Congress on Tuesday to give the court a formal role in overseeing the surveillance program.

In a rare glimpse into the inner workings of the secretive court, known as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, several former judges who served on the panel also voiced skepticism at a Senate hearing about the president's constitutional authority to order wiretapping on Americans without a court order. They also suggested that the program could imperil criminal prosecutions that grew out of the wiretaps.

Judge Harold A. Baker, a sitting federal judge in Illinois who served on the intelligence court until last year, said the president was bound by the law "like everyone else." If a law like the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act is duly enacted by Congress and considered constitutional, Judge Baker said, "the president ignores it at the president's peril."

Judge Baker and three other judges who served on the intelligence court testified at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing in support of a proposal by Senator Arlen Specter, Republican of Pennsylvania, to give the court formal oversight of the National Security Agency's eavesdropping program. Committee members also heard parts of a letter in support of the proposal from a fifth judge, James Robertson, who left the court last December, days after the eavesdropping program was disclosed.

The intelligence court, created by Congress in 1978, meets in a tightly guarded, windowless office at the Justice Department. The court produces no public findings except for a single tally to Congress each year on the number of warrants it has issued — more than 1,600 in 2004. Even its roster of judges serving seven-year terms was, for a time, considered secret.

But Mr. Bush's decision effectively to bypass the court in permitting eavesdropping without warrants has raised the court's profile. That was underscored by the appearance on Tuesday of the four former FISA judges: Judge Baker; Judge Stanley S. Brotman, who left the panel in 2004; Judge John F. Keenan, who left in 2001; and Judge William H. Stafford Jr., who left in 2003. All four sit on the federal judiciary.

At a hearing lasting more than three hours, the former FISA judges discussed in detail their views on the standards of proof required by the court, its relations with the Justice Department, and the constitutional, balance-of-power issues at the heart of the debate over the N.S.A. program. The agency monitored the international communications of people inside the United States believed to be linked to Al Qaeda.

Seems Mr. Lichtblau missed the most important portion of the panel of judges testimony. Really Eric, you need to wait to write your article until the whole hearing is over. Truly a shoddy piece of work on your part, or perhaps you have an agenda in mind.

The fact is that the five judge panel unequivocally stated that the President was within his rights to authorize unwarranted monitoring. Judge Allan Kornblum said:

"If a court refuses a FISA application and there is not sufficient time for the president to go to the court of review, the president can under executive order act unilaterally, which he is doing now. "I think that the president would be remiss exercising his constitutional authority by giving all of that power over to a statute."

A statement with which all five judges agreed. The only caveat they offered to that statement was that the President would ignore established law on domestic/international spying "at his own peril" should such action prove to be not in the interest of national security.

Seems Mr. Lichtblau needs a lesson in listening with an unbiased ear.

Full Story: More Slanted Coverage From New York Lies...Times

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

No Recusal for Scalia

Scalia's Recusal Sought in Key Detainee Case
Retired Officers Say Justice's Impartiality Is in Question After Remarks on Combatants

By Charles Lane
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, March 28, 2006; Page A06

On the eve of oral argument in a key Supreme Court case on the rights of alleged terrorists, a group of retired U.S. generals and admirals has asked Justice Antonin Scalia to recuse himself, arguing that his recent public comments on the subject make it impossible for him to appear impartial.

In a letter delivered to the court late yesterday, a lawyer for the retired officers cited news reports of Scalia's March 8 remarks to an audience at the University of Freiburg in Switzerland. Scalia reportedly said it was "crazy" to suggest that combatants captured fighting the United States should receive a "full jury trial," and dismissed suggestions that the Geneva Conventions might apply to detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Scalia's remarks "give rise to the unfortunate appearance that, even before briefing was complete, he had already made up his mind" about issues in the case, the lawyer, David H. Remes, wrote. Noting that Scalia reportedly had discussed the rights of accused terrorists in the context of his son Matthew's recent tour as an Army officer in Iraq, Remes wrote that this creates an appearance of "personal bias arising from his son's military service."

The case to be heard today -- Hamdan v. Rumsfeld , No. 05-184 -- is one of the most important terrorism-related cases to reach the court. It is a challenge by Osama bin Laden's former chauffeur, now being held at Guantanamo Bay, to the legality of the military commission that seeks to try him for war crimes. Military trials for terrorist suspects are a centerpiece of the Bush administration's anti-terrorism policy, but they have been criticized by human rights activists, especially in Europe.

The retired officers are Brig. Gen. David M. Brahms, Brig Gen. James P. Cullen, Vice Adm. Lee F. Gunn, Rear Adm. John D. Hutson and Rear Adm. Donald J. Guter. They have filed a friend of the court brief in the case opposing the military commissions, on the grounds that denying Geneva Conventions protections to detainees at Guantanamo Bay could result in their denial to U.S. troops by their captors abroad. Scalia's speech was first reported by Newsweek's Web site on Sunday.

Newsweek quoted Scalia as describing European reaction to Guantanamo Bay as "hypocritical."

Talk about a red-herring...There is absolutely no reason for Scalia to recuse himself, this is just wishful thinking by those on the pro-al Qaeda Left to get Scalia off the case because they believe that his doing so will help their allies in the terrorist organizations. Scalia's opinion was well know prior to his speech from his dissents on the prior Rasul and Hamdi court cases. Even more absurd is the argument put forward by the officers listed above that U.S. troops might not receive the protections of the Geneva Conventions. When and by whom have American POW's ever been accorded those protections? Not one of Americas enemies have ever abided by those conventions, NOT ONE.

Now we are to believe that if only we treat the prisoners in Gitmo according to the Geneva Conventions, American POW's will suddenly be treated properly. These officers are either lying through their teeth, or are suffering from brain damage and alzheimer's disease.

Full Story: A Ludicrous Claim

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Good News for Political Bloggers

FEC Rules Exempt Blogs From Internet Political Limits

By Thomas B. Edsall
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, March 28, 2006; Page A03

In a unanimous vote yesterday, the Federal Election Commission left unregulated almost all political activity on the Internet except for paid political advertisements. Campaigns buying such ads will have to use money raised under the limits of current federal campaign law.

Perhaps most important, the commission effectively granted media exemptions to bloggers and other activists using the Web to allow them to praise and criticize politicians, just as newspapers can, without fear of federal interference.

The rules "totally exempt individuals who engage in political activity on the Internet from the restrictions of the campaign finance laws. The exemption for individual Internet activity in the final rules is categorical and unqualified," said FEC Chairman Michael E. Toner. The regulation "protects Internet activities by individuals in all forms, including e-mailing, linking, blogging, or hosting a Web site," he said.

The 6 to 0 vote was widely expected after the FEC released the proposed rules last week. That followed months of discussions and widespread concern -- which turned out to be unfounded -- among many political activists that the commission would impose significant restrictions on Internet campaign activity. The vote drew praise from most ideological quarters, as well as from several watchdog groups.

Conservative blogger Mike Krempasky wrote: "This is a tremendous win for speech." Liberal blogger Duncan Black, writing under the pseudonym Artios, said: "This could have been an utter disaster, but it appears to have all worked out in the end."

This is a victory for America...and for me! It is only reasonable that bloggers should have the protection accorded those in the MSM. Most of us write better and do better research than reporters in the corporate media.

If a hack operation like the New York Lies...err...Times, with all the errors and misinformation they spew can be protected, then surely bloggers rate the same protections.

Full Story: EQUAL PROTECTION Under the Law

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Andrew Card Resigns?!

C-span has just reported that Andrew Card has resigned as White House Chief of Staff. If this is true, it is a good thing. I have never been a big supporter of Mr. Card. The American Spectator reports that Harriet Miers was Cards pick, not Karl Rove's or Laura Bush's. Further they say that he "shouted down" all oppostition to her. Not a sterling recommendation. I have never believed him to be a very bright bulb.

Josh Bolten former deputy chief of staff and current head of OMB is the heir apparent..developing...

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

An Unacceptable Excuse for Expedience

Tougher Enforcement May Jeopardize Support
GOP, Democrats Both Stand to Lose

By Michael A. Fletcher and Shailagh Murray
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, March 28, 2006; Page A04

Both Republicans and Democrats risk alienating coveted supporters as they attempt to find the right balance between toughening enforcement and expanding legal opportunities for millions of low-skill foreign workers to take jobs in the United States.

As the Senate begins debate on revamping the nation's immigration laws, the issue poses multiple challenges for both political parties, while offering no clearly expedient solution. Two huge electoral prizes, the Southwest and Florida, are potentially up for grabs, as are millions of Hispanic votes elsewhere. But also in play are the votes of angry residents in border states and beyond who feel overwhelmed by the rising tide of illegal immigration.

"In some ways, the rhetoric of this debate is as important politically as the policy that eventually emerges," said Roberto Suro, director of the Pew Hispanic Center, a Washington research organization. "If there is an impression that the leadership of one party or another is really harsh and punitive, you open up possibilities."

A sudden spate of rallies on the streets of Phoenix, Los Angeles, Detroit and elsewhere -- all in protest of a possible federal crackdown on illegal workers -- suggests that immigration may be an issue that galvanizes this increasingly vital, but difficult to reach voting bloc.

Immigration has mobilized Hispanic voters in the past, most notably in California after the 1994 passage of Proposition 187, a voter initiative to cut off public services for illegal immigrants. Enactment of the law was blocked by the courts, but the fact that then-Republican Gov. Pete Wilson supported the measure swung California's huge Hispanic vote firmly into the Democratic camp for years.

At the same time, however, lawmakers face the potential ire of voters who want more done to crack down on the estimated 11 million illegal immigrants now in the country. The problem led Democratic governors in both Arizona and New Mexico to declare states of emergency in counties along the border with Mexico to combat illegal immigration. Talking points circulating among Democrats on Capitol Hill stress, "if you do not seem credible on enforcement, you may lose credibility which will jeopardize other components of immigration reform."

Tougher enforcement is an idea that resonates among frustrated voters, particularly in parts of the country where public services including schools and hospitals are strained by the influx of new residents. In 2004, Arizona voters ratified a ballot initiative similar to 187, despite the opposition of Gov. Janet Napolitano, a popular Democrat, and Sen. John McCain, a popular Republican.

Views on immigration break into two camps. At one end are law-and-order types, mostly conservative Republicans, who want to tighten border security and step up enforcement against illegal workers. The business community, the Roman Catholic Church, many Republicans and most Democrats occupy the other camp -- joined, notably, by President Bush. Although they generally support tougher enforcement, they also want to change federal law to allow illegal workers to gain legal status so they can continue to fill many low-skill jobs that they believe would otherwise go vacant. Moreover, they say, welcoming outsiders is a core American ideal.

"Each generation of immigrants brings a renewal to our national character and adds vitality to our culture," Bush said in a speech yesterday. "Newcomers have a special way of appreciating the opportunities of America, and when they seize those opportunities, our whole nation benefits."

But Bush's position has split Republicans. Former White House aide David Frum, writing on the Web site of the National Review, said of the president's proposal: "His version of immigration reform can only pass Congress with Democratic votes, and there is zero possibility that the Democrats will help him -- but every likelihood that they will egg him on to incite a Republican civil war on the issue that most bitterly divides the president's party."

The competing camps on overhauling immigration laws do not break down along the usual ideological or regional lines. In Arizona, for instance, the two Republican senators -- Jon Kyl and McCain -- both consider themselves conservatives. But McCain champions a bill that includes the guest-worker program Bush has outlined, which would allow participants to apply for legal residency without returning to their home countries. The bill also would substantially increase the number of green cards, granting permanent U.S. residency to low-skill workers.

Kyl, meanwhile, supports a guest-worker program but would provide no avenue for citizenship and would force workers to go home for a year before reapplying. He also wants to build fences in urban areas, hire more border control agents and crack down on employers who hire illegal immigrants, to get a handle on illegal immigration.

Kyl's view is that the current economic pressures for immigrant labor could subside in the future, costing legal American workers jobs. "Get ready for a real tough time when American workers come to your office and say, 'How did you let this happen?' " he admonished colleagues on the Judiciary Committee as they debated the bill yesterday.

Many advocates believe that any successful legislation would have to bridge both camps. "I don't believe this is a zero-sum issue for us," said Ken Mehlman, chairman of the Republican National Committee. "It is absolutely possible for us to be pro-immigrant and pro-law enforcement."

Brent A. Wilkes, national executive director of the League of United Latin American Citizens, an advocacy group, said a balanced approach is the only one that would be accepted by much of the Hispanic community.

"The average Latino immigrant cannot understand why if they work hard and play by the rules, they can't be treated like previous immigrants and be given a legal avenue to come here." Members of both parties believe that at the root of the immigration debate is a fear among voters that illegal immigration is a piece of a bigger, more threatening force: a loss of control over national security as a result of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. What "motivates most Americans is the border insecurity problem that we have," said Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.), who is trying to thread the needle between the two camps.

Are these people kidding? "The average Latino immigrant cannot understand why if they work hard and play by the rules" where in the "rules" is entering the country illegally? If the very act which brought you here was a violation of the laws, every subsequent action you take is "ILLEGAL." That means against the law. If they cannot see this, then how can we trust them to understand and obey our other laws?

One of the favorite statements of those like La Raza and LULAC is that somehow we should be sympathetic to illegal aliens because they have risked their lives to get here. Excuse me, am I also supposed to be sympathetic to a burglar because he has risked his life to break into my house and steal from me? Am I supposed to be sympathetic to a murderer because he has risked his life to kill someone? Forgive me if I do not find this to be a compelling argument.

If we legalize crime, our national crime rate drops to zero, this does not solve the problem.

Full Story: Illegals Are Here ILLEGALLY

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Once Again, Life As the Left Would Have It

St. Paul City Office Boots Easter Bunny

Associated Press
Last update: March 24, 2006 – 3:43 AM

ST. PAUL, Minn. (AP) - A small Easter display was removed from the City Hall lobby on Wednesday out of concern that it would offend non-Christians.

The display - a cloth Easter bunny, pastel-colored eggs and a sign with the words "Happy Easter'' - was put up by a City Council secretary. They were not purchased with city money.

Tyrone Terrill, the city's human rights director, asked that the decorations be removed. Terrill said no citizen had complained to him.

Council Member Dave Thune called it a shame.

"This has just gone too far," he said. "We can't celebrate spring with bunnies and fake grass?''

The council president, Kathy Lantry, said the removal wasn't about political correctness.

"As government, we have a different responsibility about advancing the cause of religion, which we are not going to do,'' she said.

Life as the Left would allow you to live it: Godless, Joyless, Fearladen, Hateful. No thanks! Don't have any fun, don't celebrate holidays, don't dare be caught offending anyone's sensibilities. Once more I am moved to ask how these lifeless people continue to get up and face the day every morning. Sounds like a horrible existance to me.

Full Story: Liberals Hating Freedom

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Inmates In Control of the Asylum Story

Teen-repellent shop siren silenced by human rights fears

AFP
Mar 24 12:56 PM US/Eastern

A high-tech alarm audible only to youngsters which has dramatically cut loutish behaviour outside a British shop must be switched off over fears it infringes human rights, police said.

The Mosquito emits an irritating high-pitched pulse that most people aged under 20 can hear but almost nobody over 30 can.

The Spar grocery shop on Caerlon Road in Newport, South Wales said anti-social behaviour had plunged by 84 percent outside the premises since it was installed earlier this year.

However, human rights concerns have swatted The Mosquito -- and stung the shop's furious managers in the process.

"It's absolutely disgusting," a spokesman for the shop said.

"These louts can infringe on our rights to run a profitable shop for the community yet we can't dare infringe on their right to loiter and make life a misery for our shoppers," the BBC quoted him as saying.

Once more we see the wonders of living in a society in which the Left is allowed to run rampant. Anywhere Liberals are allowed to rule, freedom is gradually constricted. The rights of those who contribute to the growth and prosperity of the country are secondary to the imagined rights of loiterers and trouble makers. In Leftist-land whiners, in the guise as "human rights" advocates, will always advocate against the capitalists. Remember they are socialists.

Full Story: Liberals Once More Tearing Society Down

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Advice From Clinton's Foreign Policy Doyenne

Good versus evil isn't a strategy
Bush's worldview fails to see that in the Middle East, power politics is the key.

By Madeleine Albright
March 24, 2006
LA Times

THE BUSH administration's newly unveiled National Security Strategy might well be subtitled "The Irony of Iran." Three years after the invasion of Iraq and the invention of the phrase "axis of evil," the administration now highlights the threat posed by Iran — whose radical government has been vastly strengthened by the invasion of Iraq. This is more tragedy than strategy, and it reflects the Manichean approach this administration has taken to the world.

It is sometimes convenient, for purposes of rhetorical effect, for national leaders to talk of a globe neatly divided into good and bad. It is quite another, however, to base the policies of the world's most powerful nation upon that fiction. The administration's penchant for painting its perceived adversaries with the same sweeping brush has led to a series of unintended consequences.

For years, the president has acted as if Al Qaeda, Saddam Hussein's followers and Iran's mullahs were parts of the same problem. Yet, in the 1980s, Hussein's Iraq and Iran fought a brutal war. In the 1990s, Al Qaeda's allies murdered a group of Iranian diplomats. For years, Osama bin Laden ridiculed Hussein, who persecuted Sunni and Shiite religious leaders alike. When Al Qaeda struck the U.S. on 9/11, Iran condemned the attacks and later participated constructively in talks on Afghanistan. The top leaders in the new Iraq — chosen in elections that George W. Bush called "a magic moment in the history of liberty" — are friends of Iran. When the U.S. invaded Iraq, Bush may have thought he was striking a blow for good over evil, but the forces unleashed were considerably more complex.

The administration is now divided between those who understand this complexity and those who do not. On one side, there are ideologues, such as the vice president, who apparently see Iraq as a useful precedent for Iran. Meanwhile, officials on the front lines in Iraq know they cannot succeed in assembling a workable government in that country without the tacit blessing of Iran; hence, last week's long-overdue announcement of plans for a U.S.-Iranian dialogue on Iraq — a dialogue that if properly executed might also lead to progress on other issues.

Although this is not an administration known for taking advice, I offer three suggestions. The first is to understand that although we all want to "end tyranny in this world," that is a fantasy unless we begin to solve hard problems. Iraq is increasingly a gang war that can be solved in one of two ways: by one side imposing its will or by all the legitimate players having a piece of the power. The U.S. is no longer able to control events in Iraq, but it can be useful as a referee.

Second, the Bush administration should disavow any plan for regime change in Iran — not because the regime should not be changed but because U.S. endorsement of that goal only makes it less likely. In today's warped political environment, nothing strengthens a radical government more than Washington's overt antagonism. It also is common sense to presume that Iran will be less willing to cooperate in Iraq and to compromise on nuclear issues if it is being threatened with destruction. As for Iran's choleric and anti-Semitic new president, he will be swallowed up by internal rivals if he is not unwittingly propped up by external foes.

Third, the administration must stop playing solitaire while Middle East and Persian Gulf leaders play poker. Bush's "march of freedom" is not the big story in the Muslim world, where Shiite Muslims suddenly have more power than they have had in 1,000 years; it is not the big story in Lebanon, where Iran is filling the vacuum left by Syria; it is not the story among Palestinians, who voted — in Western eyes — freely, and wrongly; it is not even the big story in Iraq, where the top three factions in the recent elections were all supported by decidedly undemocratic militias.

Just what President Bush needs, advice from Madeleine Half-bright, whose genius gave us a North Korea with a full blown nuclear weapons program.

By all means, we should listen to her.

This is the same woman who gave us the ill-considered and unwarranted interference in Yugoslavia, including the "humanitarian" bombings. Nevermind that all of the propaganda concerning mass killings and rapes turned out to be untrue.

By all means, we should listen to her.

Through her brilliance, USA, France, and Belgium knew what was happening in Rwanda but actively prevented peacekeepers from moving in to stop the mass killing of about 800,000 Rwandans in 1994. She played the key role in blocking any strong action by the UN, adamantly refusing to accept publicly that a full-fledged, Convention-defined genocide was in fact taking place.

By all means, we should listen to her.

Such a brilliant leader on foreign policy, her opinions should be carefully listened to, and the President should carefully do the exact opposite.

Full Story: Madeleine Albright's Halfbright Advice

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Three Rescued Peace Activists-Complete Ingrates

Three Abducted Peace Activists Rescued in Iraq

By John Ward Anderson
Washington Post Foreign Service
Friday, March 24, 2006; Page A01

BAGHDAD, March 23 -- British and U.S. troops rescued three kidnapped Christian peace activists early Thursday in a military operation that was based on information provided by two men detained only three hours earlier by U.S. forces, according to a U.S. military official.

The freed captives -- Norman Kember, 74, of London, and James Loney, 41, and Harmeet Singh Sooden, 32, both of Canada -- were members of Christian Peacemaker Teams, a Chicago- and Toronto-based group that advocates nonviolence and is opposed to the war in Iraq. They were kidnapped in Baghdad on Nov. 26 along with a fourth member of their group, Tom Fox of Clear Brook, Va.

Concern about the well-being of the three abductees intensified after Fox's body was discovered on a trash-strewn street in Baghdad two weeks ago, shot multiple times with his hands bound.

The freeing of the hostages came during a day in which at least 44 people were killed and scores wounded in a rash of car bombings, suicide bombings and roadside explosions, many of which targeted Iraqi police units in and around Baghdad.

Circumstances of the rescue operation, which was spearheaded by the British, were being closely held.

Doug Pritchard, co-director of Christian Peacemaker Teams, said in a televised news conference in Toronto that no shots were fired and no captors were present at the time of the rescue. He declined to divulge the source of his information. British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw later confirmed the absence of gunfire.

Maj. Gen. Rick Lynch, the chief U.S. military spokesman in Iraq, said at a regular briefing in Baghdad that the men had been abducted by a "kidnapping cell" and were in a house in western Baghdad. That information came from two men detained about three hours before the operation who provided "actionable intelligence about the location" of the house, he said.

The captives "were bound, they were together, there were no kidnappers in the area," Lynch told reporters.

British Defense Secretary John Reid said the 5 a.m. operation had been "several" weeks in the planning. A statement by the British Embassy in Baghdad said the raid was the culmination "of work over the last few months by the U.K., Canadian and U.S. embassies and special police teams, in coordination with Iraqi security forces."

The statements left many questions unanswered. It was unclear whether the kidnappers -- who claimed to belong to a little-known group called the Swords of Righteousness Brigade -- had been tipped off about the raid, had been paid to leave or simply left the men unguarded. The group had accused the men of being Western spies and had threatened to kill them unless all Iraqi prisoners were released.

British officials refused to answer questions about the raid. It could not be learned whether any of the abductors was arrested or whether a ransom was paid.

Pritchard said he did not know whether the freeing of the men came after any negotiations.

"We are convinced the reason they've been alive so long is because of their commitment to bring peace and justice to Iraq," he said.

All four of the men were "motivated by a passion for justice and peace, to live out a nonviolent alternative in a nation racked by armed conflict."

News for you Liberals, these men were not "freed," they were rescued by the heroic actions of the very troops they so hate. Only the arrogance of the Left can lead to such ingratitude. Apparently in their minds, they were owed this rescue and it was not even worthy of a simple "thanks."

This is so typical of the Leftist Mental-ity. These losers, who placed themselves in danger by their own ego-centric actions and were kidnapped by terrorists, didn't even have the class to thank their rescuers. Instead they blasted America, the effort to free the Iraqi people, and praised the very people who violated their rights.

These jerks are not motivated by "a passion for justice and peace," if they were, they would be supporting this war rather than providing fodder for our terrorist enemies. President Bush and this military action is what has been motivated by a passion for justice and peace.

Full Story: Military Hating Activists Rescued by Military

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Troops Risk Lives to Save Anti-war Protestors

Canadian, British Aid Workers Freed in Iraq

By John Ward Anderson and Debbi Wilgoren
Washington Post Staff WritersThursday
March 23, 2006; 6:15 AM

BAGHDAD, March 23 -- Three Christian peace activists kidnapped last year in Iraq were freed Thursday in an early morning military operation, the British Embassy in Iraq announced.

The announcement came two weeks after their colleague and fellow hostage, Tom Fox of Virginia, was shot to death and left on a Baghdad street.

The three men rescued Thursday -- two Canadians and a Briton -- were freed in a planned rescue operation by multi-national forces, a British Embassy spokesman said.

The spokesman said there were no immediate indications that any of the hostages had been injured during their liberation. All underwent a medical check-up afterwards "only as a precaution," he said.

The three men -- Norman Kember, 74, of London; and James Loney, 41, and Harmeet Singh Sooden, 32, both of Canada -- were kidnapped along with Fox on Nov. 26. They were members of the Christian Peacemakers Teams, a group that is opposed to the war in Iraq and which has criticized the treatment of detainees in U.S. and Iraqi jails.

The hostages were last seen in a silent, 25-second video that aired March 7 on the al-Jazeera satellite network. A message delivered with the video, from the group that claimed to have kidnapped them -- the previously unknown Swords of Righteousness Brigades -- threatened that they would be killed unless all Iraqi prisoners were released from Iraqi and U.S. prisons.

Fox, 54, of Clear Brook Virginia, was not pictured in the video, raising an alarm about his well-being. His body, shot several times and bound at the hands, was found two days later on a trash-strewn Baghdad street.

Few details were immediately available about how the men were released, or whether anyone, including the captors, was injured during the raid. The Associated Press quoted Iraqi police Lt. Col. Falah al-Mohammedawi saying it was believed the operation took place in Mishahda, 20 miles north of Baghdad. Other news reports claimed the operation occurred in Baghdad.

The trio "have been released as a result of a multinational force operation which took place earlier today," British foreign secretary Jack Straw said in a televised statement. "It followed weeks and weeks of very careful work by our military and coalition personnel in Iraq, and many civilians as well.

Imagine that, soldiers willing to risk their lives to rescue people who were in Iraq to protest what those soldier were doing. What is really bad is that these people were in Iraq, uninvited, working against our military and the efforts of coalition forces and instead of allowing them to pay the price for their actions, actions which they took with full knowledge of the risk, our troop were forced to risk their lives attempting to rescue these idiots.

This is typical of Liberals. They are not willing to pay the price for their actions. They do not believe in people being responsible for their own actions. So the military was forced to risk soldier's lives to save these jerks. I am really tired of these whiney Liberals expecting other people to carry their water. It's time for these people to suffer the consequences of their action, up to and including death.

It is not the proper use of the military to save the bacon of a group of irresponsible morons who have arrogated the right to work against Western Interest and the interests of the Iraqi people to themselves. Let 'em burn next time.

Full Story: Irresponsible Protestors Rescued by Protested

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

SOUPY SALES AND RUSS FEINGOLD SEPARATED AT BIRTH?

Were Russ Feingold and Soupy Sales twins separated at birth or is Russ the first successful cloning using Soupy's DNA?

YOU DECIDE:

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Iraq, More Good Than Bad

Bush Still Upbeat on Outcome In Iraq
On Third Anniversary Of Invasion, President Foresees 'Victory'

By Michael A. Fletcher
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, March 20, 2006; Page A01

President Bush and Vice President Cheney hailed the progress being made by Iraqi leaders to form a unity government yesterday, as the administration tried to dispel a growing perception that a continuing wave of sectarian violence has pushed Iraq into a full-fledged civil war.

Bush, speaking on the third anniversary of the U.S.-led invasion that toppled Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, assured Americans that his administration is pursuing a strategy "that will lead to victory in Iraq," an outcome about which polls show the public is increasingly skeptical.

Cheney, meanwhile, dismissed assertions made by former Iraqi prime minister Ayad Allawi that the nation is in the throes of civil war. He said Iraq is holding together as a new constitutional democracy even as terrorists are desperately trying to cause its dissolution.

"What we've seen is a serious effort by them to foment civil war, but I don't think they've been successful," Cheney said on CBS's "Face the Nation."

The upbeat appraisals by Bush and Cheney came as other voices struck a more ominous note. Allawi contradicted Bush's progress report, saying the country is edging toward "the point of no return."

"We are losing a day as an average 50 to 60 people throughout the country, if not more," Allawi said on BBC's "Sunday AM" program. "If this is not civil war, then God knows what civil war is."

Three years after U.S.-led forces quickly swept through Iraq, the country remains in the grips of a bloody insurgency. The war and its aftermath have left dead more than 2,300 U.S. troops and at least 30,000 Iraqis. Negotiations to form a unity government to lead Iraq have been deadlocked since parliamentary elections in December.

The anniversary was marked by protests around the country and around the world, as thousands of antiwar demonstrators gathered in cities from London to Tokyo. In New York, a crowd of about 200 people marched down Fifth Avenue to protest the war. Demonstrators also marched through storm-ravaged New Orleans, saying the slow pace of recovery there illustrates the cost of the war in Iraq.

Meanwhile, a growing majority of Americans believe the effort is not worth the cost, both financially and in lives lost. A Washington Post-ABC News pollthis month found that two-thirds of Americans questioned whether the United States has a clear plan for handling the situation in Iraq.

As the administration offered optimistic appraisals of the war's progress, Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.), a frequent administration critic who is weighing a run for president in 2008, echoed Allawi's assessment, saying that Iraq is already in the midst of a "low-grade civil war."

"I think it's important that we stop this talk about we're not going to leave until we achieve victory," Hagel said on ABC's "This Week." "Well, what is victory? We achieved victory: Saddam's gone, the Iraqis have a constitution, they had an election, it's now up to them."

Hagel said a precipitous U.S. withdrawal from Iraq would be a mistake. But he added that the Bush administration should work harder to achieve a political settlement in Iraq by engaging other Middle Eastern countries in a negotiated solution.

Despite Americans' growing pessimism, the Bush administration is continuing to press ahead with its strategy, saying that it is steadily moving toward success. Bush is scheduled to deliver a speech in Cleveland today, which is part of a continuing administration effort to rebuild the eroding public support for the war by having the president speak regularly to specific elements of the war strategy.

Bush, who spoke on the White House South Lawn after returning from a weekend at Camp David, said that he is encouraged by Iraq's continuing steps toward democracy, and that he is urging Iraqi leaders "to work hard to get this government up and running." Bush said he spoke by phone yesterday to Zalmay Khalilzad, the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, who he said remains encouraged by the political progress being made in Iraq.

Sectarian violence intensified after last month's bombing of the Golden Mosque, a revered Shiite religious site in Samarra. Hundreds of Iraqis have been killed in brutal attacks, counterattacks and kidnappings since the mosque bombing.

Although a growing majority of Americans have come to believe that the U.S. invasion was an error and that the nation is headed toward civil war, Gen. George W. Casey Jr., the U.S. military commander in Iraq, brushed aside the idea on "Fox News Sunday." "I personally don't believe one, that we're there now; two, that civil war is imminent; and three, that it is inevitable and it will happen," he said.

Meanwhile, Cheney said that Iraq is progressing toward establishing a functioning democracy. He pointed out that Iraq has gone from the brutal rule of Hussein to negotiations to form a government in three years. In addition, he said, the United States is making substantial progress in training Iraqi security forces, who he said are leading about half the missions in Iraq.

Cheney also dismissed a statement by Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.), who said the war in Iraq should never have been fought: "I would not look to Ted Kennedy for guidance and leadership on how we ought to manage national security. . . . I think what Senator Kennedy reflects is sort of the pre-9/11 mentality about how we ought to deal with the world and that part of the world."

As usual the Washington Post, as well as most of the rest of the MSM, is myopic in viewing the current polls.

The latest Fox News Opinion Dynamics Poll demonstrates why historic perspective is so important, and why Democrats and Liberals don't want Americans to remember history. While the President's approval numbers are quite low (39%), Congress' numbers are even lower (29%). Even more interesting are the results pertaining to how Americans perceive the world post Saddam, and the hisorical poll numbers to the same questions in January of 2005.

Do you agree or disagree with the following statement: The Iraqi people are better off today because of the military action taken in Iraq by the U.S.-led coalition. Is that strongly or just somewhat (agree/disagree)?

SCALE: 1. Strongly agree 2. Somewhat agree 3. Somewhat disagree
4. Strongly disagree 5. (Don’t know)

On March 14-15 of this year, 59% of Americans either strongly agreed (39%) or agreed (20%). While this is down from July of last year (64%, 43%, 21%, respectively), in January of 2005 the numbers were virtually identical at (59%, 40%, 19%, respectively). Very Interesting.

On another question: Do you agree or disagree with the following statement: The United States and the world are safer today without Saddam Hussein in power. Is that strongly or just somewhat (agree/disagree)?

The results have barely wavered over the past 2 years with 74% in agreement (56% strongly agree, 18% agree). Even the number of those who are willing to state that they strongly agree have not been at a higher level since February of 2004.

The American citizens may have differences and doubts about the President and Congress, they may disagree on who should be in charge, but they overwhelmingly agree that what has been done in Iraq is good for us and good for the world.

As for Chuck Hagel, he is an opportunistic coward, his medals not withstanding, who believes that his political career and his presidential ambitions will be better served by pandering to the press and the RINO (Republican in name only) faction. The very idea that we should tell our enemies in Iraq that they don't need to worry, we'll be leaving shortly, should frighten the American people to no end. For us to essentially throw our hands up in defeat would be to invite no end of terrorist attacks. Clearly Hagel is not qualified to be Commander in Chief.

That Dick Cheney took issue with Ted "the Lady Killer" Kennedy should surprise no one. Why would anyone look to a man who fled the scene of an accident in panic to lead us in a time of crisis. Ted "the Lady Killer" has as much credibility in securing America as Alger Hiss (or Pat "Leaky" Leahy) does in keeping our national secrets.

Full Story: No Time To Throw In the Towel

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Is This A Religion Worth Americans Dying For?

Man faces death over Christianity

By Sayed Salahuddin in Kabul
Herald Sun
19mar06

A MAN detained by police for converting from Islam to Christianity could face the death penalty if he refused to become a Muslim again, an Afghani judge said today.

Islamic sharia law proposes the death sentence for Muslims who abandon the religion. Afghanistan's new constitution says "no law can be contrary to the sacred religion of Islam".
Supreme Court judge Ansarullah Mawlavizada said the suspect, Abdur Rahman, was arrested after members of his family informed police of his conversion.

He would be charged with abandoning Islam, Mr Mawlavizada said.

"The prosecutor says he should be executed on the basis of the constitution," Mr Mawlavizada said, who added that Mr Rahman could come back to Islam.

"If he does not ... he will be punished," he said.

It is news such as this which makes it very difficult for me to accept Islam as "the Religion of Peace." From what I have observed so far, Islam is a bigoted, homicidal religion bent on world domination. Wherever Islam in it fundamentalist form arises, there is no acceptance and little tolerance for Judaism, Christianity, Buddhism, or any other form of worship other than radical Islam.

Perhaps it is time for the Western world to re-evaluate our assessment of Islam. We have seen a plethora of examples of its intolerance to criticism in the riot-riddled response to the Danish press' publication of a few cartoons about Islam. We have seen the general level of intolerance aimed at Israel, by the surrounding Islamist states.

Today in Saudi Arabia (our so-called ally) there is zero tolerance of any discussions about Christianity, and even carrying a copy of the Bible into Saudi Arabia can be an exceptionally dangerous and frightening experience.

Why should we in the West open our arms to a faith which preaches hatred and intolerance rather than the love and acceptance which Christ taught. Christ admonished us to "turn the other cheek" if someone struck us, Mohammed would put them to death.

"Convert or die" may sound like a nifty choice to the Arabs, but I don't think it'll fly around these parts. Christians believe in everyone's freedom to choose their own path, even if that path leads to their eventual damnation.

I choose freedom, not subjegation.

Full Story: Afghanistan's Convert Or Die Decision

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

A Doubtful Quest for Senator Mary

Budget Vote Revives Bid for Arctic Oil Drilling

By Jonathan Weisman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, March 18, 2006; Page A05

A last-minute deal to secure the vote of Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.) on a $2.8 trillion budget plan has given new life to the Republican drive to open Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling.

The budget blueprint for fiscal 2007, which will begin in October, includes a $10 billion Gulf Coast restoration fund that would be financed from the leasing of arctic refuge drilling rights, revenue from new drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf of the Gulf of Mexico and further sales of the broadcast spectrum. With that provision in hand, Landrieu cast the only Democratic vote for the budget resolution, which squeaked through Thursday night, 51 to 49.

"It's not easy being alone on anything. I don't relish this position," Landrieu said. "But, at times, it's necessary."

Republicans, who have been trying to open up the refuge for well over a decade, hope that by explicitly linking oil drilling to Gulf Coast restoration, they can prompt some Democrats to drop their opposition. Under the Senate plan, the funds from oil leases could be used for coastal restoration projects in Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama that have long been sought by environmentalists. The fund could also be tapped to rebuild levees damaged last year by hurricanes Katrina and Rita.

But it is not clear whether the political equation has shifted at all since December, when moderate Republicans -- led by Rep. Charles Bass (R-N.H.) -- forced their leaders to take arctic drilling out of a 2006 budget-cutting measure to secure their votes. Bass has warned House budget writers that nothing has changed.

"We are all aware of last year's effort and outcome, and I don't see any reason why this year would be different," Bass told the House Budget Committee last month. Using the budget process to pass drilling "is a gimmick that must be resisted," he said.

Come on Senator Mary, you of all people (caught as you are in the middle of the party which is the hotbed of Liberalism) should know that Liberals don't care about doing that which is right, only that which they believe will give them political advantage.

Drilling in ANWAR is terribly unpopular with the moonbats on the Left-in both parties-and they will sacrifice your great state (my home state too) if they believe they can gain some political capital with their extreme left constituency.

The only thing Liberals care about is gaining control of the government, and to that end, they will sacrifice anything, including your state, or even their souls to achieve that end.

Senator Mary, turn away from the dark side and embrace the light of Conservatism.

Full Story: Northeast Liberalism Doesn't Care About the Gulf Coast

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Bad Teacher With Dangerous Philosophy

'Teach to the Test'? What Test?

By Colman McCarthy
Saturday, March 18, 2006; Page A21

From the academic sidelines, where calls to Leave No Child Untested are routinely sounded by quick-fix school reformers, Jay Mathews joins in with his Feb. 20 op-ed column, "Let's Teach to the Test." In well-crafted prose, he reports that "in 23 years of visiting classrooms I have yet to see any teacher preparing kids for exams in ways that were not careful, sensible and likely to produce more learning."

On Mathews's visit to my classroom four years ago -- at School Without Walls, where I have been volunteering since 1982 -- he must not have noticed that not only was I not preparing my 28 students for tests but that I regard tests as educational insults. At School Without Walls and two other high schools where I am a guest teacher -- Wilson High School in the District and Bethesda-Chevy Chase High School in lower Montgomery County -- I have never given a test. I respect my students too much to demean them with exercises in fake knowledge.

Tests represent fear-based learning, the opposite of learning based on desire. Frightened and fretting with pre-test jitters, students stuff their minds with information they disgorge on exam sheets and sweat out the results. I know of no meaningful evidence that acing tests has anything to do with students' character development or whether their natural instincts for idealism or altruism are nurtured.

I have large amounts of evidence that tests promote the opposite: character defects. After having two of my high school classes read Mathews's column, I asked the students: If during a test the opportunity came to cheat, with no fear of being caught, would you? A majority of hands went up. A few students dismissed the question as naive. Not cheat if you could get away with it? Get real. When speaking at high school assemblies, I ask students how many can raise their hands and say with total honesty that they never cheated in school. Few hands go up. If some brave souls do confess to honesty, they are greeted with jeers or calls of "yeah, right."

Standardized tests measure braininess and memory skills. American society has plenty of people who were academic whizzes in high school but were so driven by the lure of a high grade-point average that their spiritual lives remained stunted. I worry about students who make too many A's. What parts of their inner lives are they sacrificing to conform to someone else's notion that doing well in tests means doing well in life? Is any time left over from mastering theoretical knowledge for gaining the kind of experiential knowledge found in community service or volunteering in programs such as Special Olympics or DC Reads?

Desire-based learning happens when teachers deal in combustibles, when fires are lit and students burn to explore ideas that have nothing to do with what testocrats require. Quality teachers who are fire-lighters often find themselves trapped in schools that have been seduced by the Advanced Placement fad. Teachers whose students can't hack the AP final are regarded as failures.

School principals get hammerlocked also. They watch teachers' performance the way teachers watch students' performance. A hierarchy results. Most everyone is fearful of someone in power right above. Students worry about teachers, teachers worry about principals, principals worry about school boards, school boards worry about politicians and politicians worry about the voters.

Coleman McCarthy is an idiot. Not just an idiot, but a dangerous idiot. McCarthy is the same type of idiot that has given America outcome based education, the kind of idiot that has given America a sub standard, failed education system.

Students cheat, or feel the need to cheat if they feel unprepared for an exam. They cheat because idiots (I refuse to use the honorific teacher for this fool) like Coleman fail in their job to impart a sense of honor and morality so that their students reject the concept entirely. They are also failing to teach the students that by cheating, they are not beating the system, they are penalizing themselves.

Students need to be taught that just because you can get away with something is not a sufficient reason to do it. For too long now we've listened to idiots just like McCarthy who have apparently imparted to their students the morality of if you get away with it then you haven't done anything wrong.

McCarthy's philosophy is the kind of liberal psycho-babble which creates an unreal expectation of life in his students. Fear is part of life. Learning to deal with various forms of anxiety is part of growning up. McCarthy's technique of not testing protects him from ever having to worry if he is achieving anything at all. Testing is the only means of determing how well and how much students are learning, or if they are learning anything at all.

I suspect the primary thing McCarthy's students are learning is how to avoid responsibility. Having read McCarthy's bio, I realize that to say more would be senseless. Any parent who would send their child to learn non-violence from the director of The Center For Teaching Peace, and any "school" that would offer such drivel in lieu of real subject matter is so far out in Left field that reason and logic serve very little, if any, purpose at all.

Americans complain about the severe decline in our education system since the fifties, I give you Coleman McCarthy, exhibit one.

Full Story: Teacher: Failing Students

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Heading for Another "Bumpy" Hurricane Season

Warmer Seas Creating Stronger Hurricanes, Study Confirms

By Ker Than
LiveScience Staff Writer
posted: 16 March 2006
02:00 pm ET

A rise in the world's sea surface temperatures was the primary contributor to the formation of stronger hurricanes since 1970, a new study reports.

While the question of what role, if any, humans have had in all this is still a matter of intense debate, most scientists agree that stronger storms are likely to be the norm in future hurricane seasons.

The study is detailed in the March 17 issue of the journal Science.

An alarming trend

In the 1970s, the average number of intense Category 4 and 5 hurricanes occurring globally was about 10 per year. Since 1990, that number has nearly doubled, averaging about 18 a year.

Category 4 hurricanes have sustained winds from 131 to 155 mph. Category 5 systems, such as Hurricane Katrina at its peak, feature winds of 156 mph or more. Wilma last year set a record as the most intense hurricane on record with winds of 175 mph.

While some scientists believe this trend is just part of natural ocean and atmospheric cycles, others argue that rising sea surface temperatures as a side effect of global warming is the primary culprit.

According to this scenario, warming temperatures heat up the surface of the oceans, increasing evaporation and putting more water vapor into the atmosphere. This in turn provides added fuel for storms as they travel over open oceans.

Other factors less important

The researchers used statistical models and techniques from a field of mathematics called information theory to determine factors contributing to hurricane strength from 1970 to 2004 in six of the world's ocean basins, including the North Atlantic, Pacific and Indian oceans.

They looked at four factors that are known to affect hurricane intensity:

• Humidity in the troposphere—the part of the atmosphere stretching from surface of the Earth to about 6 miles up
• Wind shear that can throttle storm formation
• Rising sea-surface temperatures
• Large-scale air circulation patterns known as "zonal stretching deformations"

Of these factors, only rising sea surface temperatures was found to influence hurricane intensity in a statistically significant way over a long-term basis. The other factors affected hurricane activity on short time scales only.

"We found no long-term trend in things like wind shear," said study team member Judith Curry of the Georgia Institute of Technology. "There's a lot of year to year variability but there's no global trend. In any given year, it's different for each ocean."

The continuing (and all too familiar) refrains of the "Environmentalist Boogie." Those who look at the data see a recurring pattern in climatological history, those who build their little computer models see "Man-made Global Warming." Talk about "not seeing the forest, for the trees"... That's a perfect description of the "Mankind is evil and destroying the Earth" faction in the environmentalist movement (note how even the word should be a warning, environ-MENTAL).

Let me repeat it for those of you who still don't get it. Our written history is about 4-5000 years at most, our recorded weather observation, considerably less. The Earth, by contrast is what, 5-7 billion (that's billion with a "B") years old. Folks, there are patterns of weather that have existed for tens of thousands of years, millions of years if you include the ice-ages. We are currently in an "inter-glacial" period that means that we have been in an ice-age in the (recent, geologically speaking) past and will, presumably, return to that state sometime in the future. In between ice-ages, the planet heats up, just as we are currently witnessing.

This is a natural process over which mankind has little if any control and on which has little if any effect. I'm sorry if this offends your ego, but that is just the way it is, and it is the utmost in hubris for any scientist to presume to know to any degree of certitude what is going to happen in the next several decades. Heck we can't even predict tomorrow's weather with any consistency.

Are we going to experience an unusual number of category four and five hurricanes again this year? Very likely so, but there is nothing-repeat nothing-that we can do about it, except prepare ourselves.

"Gray skies are gonna clear up..."

Full Story: Scientists Discover Heat Causes Hurricanes...DUH!

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Sometimes A Dog Is Just A Dog-Woof!

Bomb dog's alert delays NCAA game

Thu Mar 16, 2006 3:27 PM ET
LOS ANGELES
Reuters

A San Diego arena was evacuated for about two hours on Thursday, delaying a first-round game in the hugely popular national college basketball championship, after a hot dog cart attracted the attention of a bomb-sniffing dog.

Thousands of fans arriving for a game between Marquette University and the University of Alabama were kept outside Cox Arena at San Diego State University until police determined that there was no bomb at the cart.

Authorities cordoned off part of the building to further investigate, college spokesman Jack Beresford said.

"They had a robot go in and disassemble the hot dog cart and look for suspicious substances and at this point we have determined that there is no threat and it's safe to enter the arena," Beresford said.

The dog "hit" on the cart at about 9:30 a.m. PST (12:30 p.m. EST), during a security sweep some two hours before the Marquette-Alabama game, Beresford said.

This was just too good to let pass without comment. We have become so used to having highly trained and specialized dogs doing vital work such as bomb detection, that we sometimes forget that they are really...well just dogs. It appears that this dog wanted a dog of his own. Well who can blame him, afterall who doesn't like a good hot dog every now and then?

Could you put mustard on that, please?

Full Story: Woofing Down a Weiner

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Ginsburg, Lobbing Fear from Abroad

Ginsburg Faults GOP Critics, Cites a Threat From 'Fringe'

By Charles Lane
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, March 17, 2006; Page A03

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg assailed the court's congressional critics in a recent speech overseas, saying their efforts "fuel" an "irrational fringe" that threatened her life and that of a colleague, former justice Sandra Day O'Connor.

Addressing an audience at the Constitutional Court of South Africa on Feb. 7, the 73-year-old justice, known as one of the court's more liberal members, criticized various Republican-proposed House and Senate measures that either decry or would bar the citation of foreign law in the Supreme Court's constitutional rulings. Conservatives often see the citing of foreign laws in court rulings as an affront to American sovereignty, adding to a list of grievances they have against judges that include rulings supporting abortion rights or gay rights.

Though the proposals do not seem headed for passage, Ginsburg said, "it is disquieting that they have attracted sizeable support. And one not-so-small concern -- they fuel the irrational fringe."

She then quoted from what she said was a "personal example" of this: a Feb. 28, 2005, posting in an Internet chat room that called on unnamed "commandoes" to ensure that she and O'Connor "will not live another week."

Ginsburg's counterattack on GOP critics, posted on the court's Web site in early March but little noticed until now, comes at a time when tensions are already high between the federal judiciary and the Republican-led Congress. The rift stems in part from conservatives' unhappiness over the Supreme Court's use of foreign laws in decisions striking down the juvenile death penalty and laws against sodomy.

Some conservatives are still fuming over the federal courts' refusal to intervene in the Terri Schiavo case last year.

Rep. Tom Feeney (R-Fla.), author of one of the resolutions to which Ginsburg alluded, said yesterday that "no one in Congress wants to compromise the safety of any public official."

But Feeney noted that some of Ginsburg's own colleagues on the court disagree with her. He said "there are some justices that get awful thin skins when they get their black robes on, and when they talk about judicial independence, they sometimes mean no one should be able to criticize them."

Reflecting the tension between the two branches, O'Connor used a speech at Georgetown University Law Center last week to repeat her own past warnings about the threat to judicial independence posed by Republican criticisms of the court's rulings. She referred to comments by former House majority leader Tom DeLay (Tex.) and Sen. John Cornyn (Tex.) but did not name either man.

Ah, our Liberal masters, ever the champions of free speech-provided they approve of it.

What is it about Liberals and their overseas proclamations? Liberals seem to relish bashing the American people or attacking their rights when they're in other countries. Could it be that they figure the American people won't hear them if they are in countries like South Africa? I mean, I can easily believe they are that traitorous, but are the also that naive? Do they truly believe that what they are saying about our citizens will go unnoticed?

"Darth Vader" Ginsburg, America has more to fear form you than you will ever have to fear from any "irrational fringe." Funny, they (Liberals) never seem to be concerned about inflammatory rhetoric from the Left, only from the Right. Of course it is usually those on the left who are attempting to shout down or stifle comments from the right. If you doubt me, just ask Ann Coulter, Pat Buchannan, or Michelle Malkin.

Those of us on the right are routinely verbally (and sometimes physically) assaulted by the "enlightened, peace-loving, open-minded, diversity promoting, members of the Left. All you have to do to hear their verbal love-taps is read some of the commentary they leave on our websites, or on their own websites such as democraticunderground.com or dailykos.com. Terms like "Hitler" and "Nazi" are routinely used (along side four-letter obscenities) to describe our President and conservatives in Congress or in the media.

The call to hatred is far more prevalent from the Left, than the Right, but Liberals like old "Darth" happily ignore such minor inconveniences as the truth in their rants against the Right.

Full Story: Ignoring the Real Threat to Freedom

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Congressional Republicans Mincing Toward Presidential Veto

Bill Would Allow Warrantless Spying
GOP Plan Would Bring Surveillance Under Review of Congress, FISA Court

By Charles Babington
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, March 17, 2006; Page A05

The Bush administration could continue its policy of spying on targeted Americans without obtaining warrants, but only if it justifies the action to a small group of lawmakers, under legislation introduced yesterday by key Republican senators.

The four senators hope to settle the debate over National Security Agency eavesdropping on international communications involving Americans when one of the parties is suspected of terrorist ties. President Bush prompted a months-long uproar when he said that constitutional powers absolve him of the need to seek warrants in such cases, even though the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act requires warrants for domestic wiretaps.

The program, begun in 2001, was first publicized late last year.

The bill would allow the NSA to eavesdrop, without a warrant, for up to 45 days per case, at which point the Justice Department would have three options. It could drop the surveillance, seek a warrant from FISA's court, or convince a handful of House and Senate members that although there is insufficient evidence for a warrant, continued surveillance "is necessary to protect the United States," according to a summary the four sponsors provided yesterday. They are Mike DeWine (Ohio), Lindsey O. Graham (S.C.), Chuck Hagel (Neb.) and Olympia J. Snowe (Maine).

All but Graham are members of the sharply divided intelligence committee, whose Democratic members have unsuccessfully sought an investigation into the NSA program. Hagel and Snowe threatened last month to join the Democrats' request unless the administration and Congress agreed on a way to bring the wiretap program under the review of FISA's court and Congress.

It is far from clear whether the bill can win passage. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) -- whose panel plays a major role in the surveillance matter -- pointed his thumb down yesterday when asked about the measure. He said he particularly objects to letting the government "do whatever the hell it wants" for 45 days without seeking judicial or congressional approval.

"A plague on all your houses [with apologies, William]." This is a bill which the President should and hopefully will veto if it ever makes it to his desk. It is a blatant move by Congress to garner to itself powers which are not in it's purview.

The President is not doing anything that has not been done by his predecessors, nor is he doing anything beyond the scope of his office. FISA was a clear over-reach by a Democrat Congress frustrated with the activities of President Nixon and their inability to reign him in during his Presidency. This bill is a knee-jerk reaction by a Congress with a painfully myopic view of history and Republicans who are running in fear of what the mainstream media (MSM) might say about them through the upcoming elections.

It is as if there have been no elections in the past by which they can judge the MSM's previous behavior toward them. Hint for the clueless...No matter what you do, you will not get a fair shake from the propaganda wing of the DNC. Are you too dumb to figure that out? These Republican mice need to squeak their way back into being men.

The American do not respect wimpy wannabe Liberals. If they lean that way, they have enough of the real thing. What they respect, and will always respect, are men and women of principle who stand up and fight for that which they know to be right.

Full Story: "Damn the MSM, full speed ahead!" [With apologies]

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Bulls Run Wild

Stocks rise on lower bond yields, Goldman profit

Reuters
Tue Mar 14, 2006 4:41 PM ET
By Caroline Valetkevitch

NEW YORK (Reuters) - U.S. stocks rose sharply on Tuesday, with the Dow and S&P 500 indexes hitting their highest in nearly five years as U.S. Treasury yields fell and record profit from Goldman Sachs Group Inc. boosted shares of financial companies.

A decline in U.S. Treasury 10-year note yields, following an unexpected drop in February retail sales, helped ease interest-rate worries for stock investors who fear that higher rates will hurt corporate profits.

"The market just wants to know that these rate increases are done," said Marc Pado, U.S. market strategist at Cantor Fitzgerald & Co.

The Dow Jones industrial average rose 75.32 points, or 0.68 percent, to end at 11,151.34. The Standard & Poor's 500 Index was up 13.35 points, or 1.04 percent, at 1,297.48. The Nasdaq Composite Index was up 28.87 points, or 1.27 percent, at 2,295.90.

The S&P 500 index registered its biggest one-day percentage gain since January 3.

A rally in U.S. crude oil futures drove shares of energy companies higher. Exxon Mobil Corp. rose 2 percent, or $1.17, to $60.81 and provided the biggest boost to the S&P 500.

Yep, those Democrats are right, the economy is in the tank, no doubt about it. Democrats know less about sound economic policy than they do about national defense. I thank God everyday that neither Al Gore nor John Kerry-Heinz are in the presidency. Had either of those two idiots won, we would be deep in a depression comparable to the "Great Depression." They would have raised taxes to pay for more state-run programs and driven a stake through the heart of our economy. Rather than creating 4 million new jobs over the past five years, we would have lost an additional 4 million jobs, over and above normal attrition.

Full Story: VOTE SMART, VOTE REPUBLICAN

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Perhaps It Is Time To Reinstate the Draft

Gang Activity In The Military

ONLY ON KFOX:

The El Paso FBI office has renewed its focus on gang activity after discovering some U.S. soldiers are affiliated with one of the most violent gangs in country. El Paso FBI agents are now focusing on identifying soldiers they believe are affiliated with the Folk Nation gang.

Agents told KFOX there is an increase in gang activity across the city, including Ft. Bliss.

"We have identified in excess of 800 members that claim allegiance to a gang under Folk Nation. In that we've identified approximately 80 personnel both civilian and military ...who have participated in violent criminal activity," said Jeremy Francis, a special agent with the El Paso FBI.

"There are some cases that the El Paso Police Department is aware of and that the military officials are aware of," said Cesar Cortez, FBI supervisor with the Criminal Enterprise Division.

The FBI said the leadership in these types of gangs will look for people who are young and interested in joining the organization and then encourage them to join the military.

"They will hand pick them, ask them to keep their record clear so that they can enlist in the military and then once they're in the military, they want them to try and gain access to weapons and explosives and basically try to filter that back to the street level," said Francis.

Now this is really frightening. America cannot afford to have its all-professional military to have gang factions within. The hazards of having an all volunteer, standing professional army become readily apparent when this type of thing occurs. Our forefathers were highly skeptical of the government having a standing professional military, for good reason. With a professional army comes a number of hazards to our freedom. This is the reason militias are so protected in the constitution. It is also the reason that the unrestricted right to keep and bear arms is so vital to the American citizen. It must be the unrestricted right in order to provide the citizens a viable recourse against an over-aggressive private (or professional) military under the control of government bureaucrats. It would be very easy for these gang members in the military to strike out individually as rogue armies, was this allowed to fester. Call me paranoid, but I prefer that our citizens always have an alternative to total reliance on the benevolence of an unresponsive government.

Full Story: Gangland Army

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Some of History's Lessons Never Learned

Port Deal's Political Fallout Not Over
House GOP Drafting Bill to Require Hill Oversight of Foreign Acquisitions

By Jonathan Weisman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, March 11, 2006; Page A03

House Republican leaders will unveil legislation as soon as next week demanding a congressional role in reviewing the acquisition of U.S. businesses by foreign buyers, suggesting that the controversy over a now-abandoned Dubai port deal will continue to roil congressional relations with the Bush administration.

House Majority Whip Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) is drafting a bill to require congressional oversight as the administration reviews such foreign acquisitions, a role Congress has not played since the Committee on Foreign Investments in the United States (CFIUS) was created three decades ago.

A day after United Arab Emirates-based Dubai Ports World abandoned its bid to control terminal operations at six major U.S. seaports, lawmakers and President Bush made it clear that the issue was not going away. In remarks to newspaper editors, Bush said he is "concerned about a broader message this issue could send to our friends and allies around the world, particularly in the Middle East."

"In order to win the war on terror, we have got to strengthen our relationships and friendships with moderate Arab countries in the Middle East," Bush said. "UAE is a committed ally in the war on terror. They are a key partner for our military in a critical region."

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, speaking to reporters while flying to Chile, said: "Of course I think you have to be concerned about the perception and the message that this might send. It means that we are going to have to work and double our efforts to send a strong message that we value our allies, our moderate allies, in the Middle East."

U.S. Trade Representative Rob Portman announced that trade talks between the United States and the UAE, set to begin Monday, will be postponed. Spokeswoman Neena Moorjani said both sides need more time to prepare.

Flush from what they see as a victory, members of Congress appear determined to insert themselves into matters of national security that they had previously left exclusively to the president. But their aggressive response has left administration officials -- and even some colleagues -- concerned that the longer the controversy drags out, the more likely it will alienate foreign allies, dampen investment in the United States and even slow the economy.

On Capitol Hill, lawmakers from both parties pledged to revise the review process for business acquisitions by foreigners while moving swiftly on legislation to bolster port security.

Critics of the congressional attack on the port deal said DP World's withdrawal will not make the six U.S. ports any safer from terrorist attacks. But lawmakers say the controversy will spark action on measures to tighten security that have languished in Congress. Both the Senate and House homeland security committees said they will draft legislation in a matter of weeks.

House leaders have decided to push ahead next week with a full House vote on legislation to kill the port deal. The House Appropriations Committee had approved the measure 62 to 2 on Wednesday, but rank-and-file members outside the committee have asked to go on record with their opposition.

Democrats demanded that the White House release all documents related to DP World's acquisition of London-based Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co., including the administration's review of the deal and documents pertaining to a Coast Guard memo that said investigators could not say whether the transaction would heighten terrorist threats.

Despite the assurances of congressional Republicans and the president, some Democrats also questioned whether DP World really committed to shedding its U.S. port assets Thursday when it pledged to "transfer" them to a U.S. entity. Bush himself said the Dubai-owned firm has "made the difficult decision to hand over port operations that they had purchased from another company."

"The hits just keep on coming." It just amazes me how narrowly our Congress looks (or doesn't look) at our history. America has been down this isolationist route once before. The result of that narrow view, a view apparently advocated by both Democrats and some Republicans, was a minor dust-up we euphemistically have labeled World War II. Just a minor hiccup in our nation's and our world's history. Certainly that minor conflagration is not worthy of recall. I mean, really! Just because tens of millions of people were killed and maimed is no reason for us to worry about a repetition.

How is it possible that less than a hundred years after the near destruction of the entire world he fail to remember the lesson that war taught us? We cannot afford to live in this nation with our heads in the sand (or some anatomical location). When Americans directs our attention inward, we run the risk of losing our impact on the world stage. If we withdraw from the world stage, we run the risk of finding ourselves trapped in a difficult political situation in which our options have been severely limited by those beyond our control. For those of you with a somewhat shorter attention span, I give you 9-11. Had the Clinton Administration been more actively involved in conducting affairs in the Middle East than in conducting affairs in the Oval Office Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda might have been stopped before they were able to strike.

Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.
George Santayana (1863 - 1952), The Life of Reason, Volume 1, 1905

In denying this port deal and in restricting foreign investment as this Congress proposes to do, we are headed back down that same path.

Full Story: The New American Isolationism

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

This Is Amazing Stuff

Record set for hottest temperature on Earth
Scientists produce gas more than 100 times hotter than the sun

By Ker Than
MSNBC
Updated: 7:59 p.m. ET March 8, 2006

Scientists have produced superheated gas exceeding temperatures of 2 billion degrees Kelvin, or 3.6 billion degrees Fahrenheit.

This is hotter than the interior of our sun, which is about 15 million degrees Kelvin, and also hotter than any previous temperature ever achieved on Earth, they say.

They don't know how they did it.
The feat was accomplished in the Z machine at Sandia National Laboratories.

"At first, we were disbelieving," said project leader Chris Deeney. "We repeated the experiment many times to make sure we had a true result."

Thermonuclear explosions are estimated to reach only tens to hundreds of millions of degrees Kelvin; other nuclear fusion experiments have achieved temperatures of about 500 million degrees Kelvin, said a spokesperson at the lab.

The achievement was detailed in the Feb. 24 issue of the journal Physical Review Letters.

The Z machine is the largest X-ray generator in the world. It’s designed to test materials under extreme temperatures and pressures. It works by releasing 20 million amps of electricity into a vertical array of very fine tungsten wires. The wires dissolve into a cloud of charged particles, a superheated gas called plasma.

A very strong magnetic field compresses the plasma into the thickness of a pencil lead. This causes the plasma to release energy in the form of X-rays, but the X-rays are usually only several million degrees.

Sandia researchers still aren’t sure how the machine achieved the new record. Part of it is probably due to the replacement of the tungsten steel wires with slightly thicker steel wires, which allow the plasma ions to travel faster and thus achieve higher temperatures.

The really scary thing is that these guys don't even know why this occurred. Oh well, most great discoveries in science happen by accident. This holds great promise for advancing nuclear fusion reactors. One of the constraining factors has always been achieving the extreme temperatures necessary to sustain a reaction. If we ever manage to reign in the power of a fusion reactor then we will have solved the majority of our energy problems.

Folks this is really big.

Scandia labs, "You go guys!"

Full Story: Fusion in the Offing?

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Now Mayor White, Fire Alvarado As Well

Employees fired in pro tem scandalInvestigation into other bonuses continues

By MATT STILES
Copyright 2006 Houston Chronicle

As expected, the four employees involved in the City Hall payroll-padding investigation were fired this morning, a top city official said.

Mayor Bill White's chief administrative officer, Anthony Hall, said the employees who received more than $143,000 in bonuses had been fired and would be notified by letter of the decision.

"The letters were signed this morning advising them that they had been indefinitely suspended from employment with the city of Houston,'' Hall said. That suspension is the equivalent of a termination.

Hall, a former city attorney and councilman, presided over termination hearing Tuesday in which the four employees tried to save their jobs.

The employees - Rosita Hernandez, Florence Watkins, Christopher Mays and Theresa Orta - have the right to a public appeal hearing before the civil service commission for municipal employees.

They couldn't immediately be reached for comment this morning.

The attorney for Hernandez, Walter Boyd III, said Tuesday evening his client denies any wrongdoing and planned to appeal if terminated.

"The other side of the story is going to come out," said Boyd. "What you've been hearing up to this point has been merely an elected official posturing to make sure that their underlings, if you will, are the ones who ultimately are held responsible."

Also Tuesday, two top city finance officials said more could have been done to amplify concerns raised in their offices about excessive pro tem payroll spending before the revelation of the scandal.

Mayor Bill White and Alvarado, who on Monday stepped down temporarily as mayor pro tem, continued to face questions about a scandal that has distracted City Hall for three weeks.

Well, this is a good start, but Alvarado needs to go as well. She has a history of being abusive during hearings of the City Council and now she has this scandal to add to her resume. It seems to me that the city would be much better served by her dismissal and replacement. The Houston taxpayers deserve better than her.

I would be really impressed with Mayor White if he was to continue to clean house. We finally have a chance for good city government. It is time for Mayor White to clean house while he has the momentum.

Full Story: Four Bad Apples Down...

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

For Republicans, It's the Political Thing To Do

Congress Prepares for Port Showdown
Lawmakers Take First Steps Toward Ending Bush Deal

By Jonathan Weisman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, March 9, 2006; Page A04

The shot of the gritty Baltimore waterfront pulls back to reveal a youthful, serious Senate candidate intoning: "President Bush wants to sell this port -- and five others -- to the United Arab Emirates, a country that had diplomatic ties with the Taliban, the home of two 9/11 hijackers, whose banks wired money to the terrorists."

"I'm running for the Senate," Rep. Harold E. Ford Jr. (D-Tenn.) had been saying all week on televisions throughout his home state, "because we shouldn't outsource our national security to anyone."

The message may be simple, but it mirrors the views of the vast majority of Americans whose visceral sentiments on the port issue are driving Congress toward a confrontation with the White House. For Republicans -- even those reluctant to cross the president -- the only viable response to Ford's conclusion is "I agree," said Carl Forti, spokesman for the National Republican Congressional Committee.

"Every day, we get hundreds and hundreds of phone calls, e-mails, letters objecting to this," House Republican Conference Chairman Deborah Pryce (Ohio) said yesterday on CNBC. "And you just can't buck that when there's that much public [sentiment] and objection to it. Whether it's right or wrong, this is sort of a lose-lose now."

Lawmakers took their first formal steps yesterday toward killing Dubai Ports World's acquisition of management operations at six major U.S. ports when the House Appropriations Committee added a measure to a must-pass war-funding bill that would block the deal. The vote was 62 to 2, with only Reps. Jim Kolbe (R-Ariz.) and James P. Moran Jr. (D-Va.) opposing it. A full House vote on the bill is expected to pass overwhelmingly next week.

The Senate saw its first skirmish on the issue when Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) moved to amend a lobbying reform bill with a measure that would also scuttle the acquisition. That brought Senate progress on the lobbying bill to a halt, as Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) objected to what he described as a blatant violation of Senate rules on the Democrats' part. Frist vowed to use parliamentary tactics to block a vote on Schumer's proposal, but Democrats made it clear they would not let the matter go away.

Yep, like the fine gutless politicians they are, the GOP Congressmen seem unable to withstand the withering fire of Democrat lies about the DPW Port Deal. I haven't seen so much yellow since I visited the local chapter of Cowards Anonymous. I am reminded of a statement from the great British political parody "Yes Minister." When the Right Honorable Jim Hacker proudly and loudly stated "the people have spoken, I am their leader, I must follow them." He too was faced with choosing between doing that which was right for the nation and its economy, or doing what was politically expedient. He, like our esteemed Republican members of Congress chose to do the politically expedient path.

I guess it was senseless of me to have expected more from a bunch of politicians who are incapable of looking beyond their next election. This decision is truly disgusting, and unworthy of our Congress. Jefferson and Franklin must be spinning in their graves.

Full Story: Cry for Principles Lost

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

More Lies From Editors of Washington Pest

Editorial
Caught on Tape

Washington Post
Saturday, March 4, 2006; Page A16

ON THE DAY before Hurricane Katrina hit the Gulf Coast, federal emergency officials warned President Bush that the hurricane could be "the big one," the storm the region had long feared; that the Superdome, the shelter of last resort in New Orleans, was below sea level and might well lose its roof; that medical and mortuary teams might not be prepared; and that the levees might not hold back the floodwaters. Mr. Bush, speaking during a videoconference, a tape of which was obtained by the Associated Press, responded by reassuring state officials that "we are fully prepared."

Without a doubt, the tape provides evidence that the White House received ample warning of the catastrophe. Yet within days of thatvideoconference, Mr. Bush would excuse the federal government's extraordinarily poor performance by telling an interviewer that "I don't think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees." Moreover, at the time of the conference the White House had no idea whether federal emergency services were truly prepared. On the tape, the president doesn't ask any questions about preparedness, and there is no evidence in documents since released that he was any more engaged before or after the conference. Had anyone called the Defense Department? Was the National Guard en route? Were local Army bases prepared to help? Were emergency food and water supplies in place? The president, like everyone around him, appears to have assumed that everything would run like clockwork, just as it was supposed to on paper.

Once more the Washington Pest has its facts wrong...are you surprised? Maybe they've hired N.Y.Lies reporter Jayson Blair. The facts are available to any who care to pay attention. The fear as expressed by Max Mayfield was that the levees would be "overtopped," not breeched. The NISAC paper warned of possible breeching, but was not received until the day Katrina hit...too little too late. NISAC also warned initial response and rescue operations would be hampered by disruption of telecommunications networks and the loss of power to fire, police and emergency workers, all of which happened. All of this effort by Democrat propagandists to point the finger at President Bush is pitiful and laughable. Their entire argument and philosophy is based on a lie, that a large government run operation can function quickly and efficiently. Any casual observer of our nation and, in fact, all governments throughout history, no bureaucracy has ever been efficient or very capable. When government steps in chaos ensues.

The fact of the matter is that this disaster was so huge that no one could have possibly been sufficiently prepared no matter what the "experts" warned. People are not capable of perceiving such an extensive disaster until they have experienced it for themselves. I suspect that should this happen again, and we've every reason to expect it to, the response to it, regardless of who is in power, will be far better.

Full Story: Pest's Anti-Bush Agenda Continues

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

David Gregory Drunk on Imus?

GREGORY'S GIGGLES: NBCNEWS WHITE HOUSE REPORTER CALLS SHOW WHILE 'DRUNK'?

From the Drudge Report
Thu Mar 02 2006 08:52:09

ETNBC White House correspondent David Gregory, who apologized last week for calling White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan a "jerk," called into MSNBC's IMUS Thursday morning -- apparently drunk!
[CLICK FOR AUDIO SNIP]

Gregory is traveling with the president in India.

IMUS: Let's go to the White House correspondent David Gregory.

DAVID GREGORY: I'm OK. IMUS: You can calls us later if you want.

GREGORY: [Laughter] [Laughter] [Laughter] [Laughter]

IMUS: Are you drunk? GREGORY: [Laughter] [Laughter]

IMUS: Are you all right David?

GREGORY: India is a wonderful language and i've been learning, where's my little sheet here. I've been learning some new phrases to come home. But any way, that being one of them and i just think it's nice.

IMUS: It is.

GREGORY: Thank you.

IMUS: Having a lot of fun there. What's wrong with you?

GREGORY: I just think it's funny. [Laughter] [Laughter] [Laughter]

CHARLES: He's drunk.

IMUS: He is drunk!

CHARLES: Oh god.

IMUS: Why don't you compose yourself and get back to us. You want to?

GREGORY: [Laughter] [Laughter] [Laughter]

IMUS: What are you in some harrem?

IMUS: What? David?

GREGORY: No, i'm fine.

IMUS: We need a camera. Oh my lord.

IMUS: Somebody's got --

GREGORY: i was -- remember that movie "Arthur" with Dudley Moore where he just thinks funny things and that's what was going on. If i could find this sheet, actually i just found it. Anyway.

IMUS: You have any news? [Laughter]

IMUS: we got to go, we'll get back to you.

GREGORY: I'm sorry.

IMUS: That's all right.

IMUS: Well, call us back will you?[Continues]

Perhaps this explains Gregory's recent unprofessional behavior at the recent press conference. Alcoholics can get pretty testy when they have to go without booze for any length of time, just watch Ted "the Lady Killer" Kennedy on the Senate floor. This is pretty bad, and again unprofessional of David Gregory. Looks to me like this guy needs some help. I hope NBC will intervene and send him on a little vacation to Betty Ford or somewhere. Sure sounds like he's in trouble.

Full Story: David Gregory Reporting From India

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Bennet's Selective Discrimination

Cancel This Deal, Diplomatically
The Dubai Ports World deal can’t work.

By William J. Bennett & Seth Leibsohn
National Review
March 01, 2006, 9:35 a.m.

"America's belief in human dignity will guide our policies, yet rights must be more than the grudging concessions of dictators; they are secured by free dissent and the participation of the governed. In the long run, there is no justice without freedom, and there can be no human rights without human liberty." — President George W. Bush, Second Inaugural Address, 2005.

Dubai Ports World, the subsidiary of the United Arab Emirates, has now asked for a 45-day review from the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) to investigate security concerns over the control of six U.S. ports. This is to the good, calming calls for congressional action as well as subsequent threats of a presidential veto. Many lobbyists have been hired, charges alleged, fact-sheets disseminated, and polls put in the field. Still, questions remain to be asked, questions that none of the above D.C. responses have addressed. Perhaps these questions can be asked by CFIUS over the course of the 45-day review; perhaps they will begin to explain why so many are so riven over this issue. But better than asking questions, a back-channel message should be sent to the UAE to withdraw this deal, much as China withdrew its UNOCAL bid last year. This deal will not stand public deliberation; it confuses things.

At the end of the day, we should not risk being perceived as forgiving or rewarding the people who played a role in the slaughter of 3,000 of our countrymen. This deal has confused the war's message and objectives and handed the opposition a club with which to beat the president on his strongest issue: trust with national security and moral clarity on the war. Never has the president been further from the base on these issues than now. But, by having the UAE withdraw its offer, the issue will be taken off the table — it can be corrected and ended; otherwise it will live and bleed for at least another 45 days.

Some have argued that the more one looks into the security issues at play, the more one becomes satisfied that security concerns were addressed by the original CFIUS review and that further commitments by Dubai Ports World were promised. Nevertheless, many remain unconvinced. Our ports remain one of our most vulnerable points for attack — and the cargo in some of these ports is to be managed by a company from the UAE. No matter how many assurances we are given that our government will remain in charge of this security, the cargo will be managed and coordinated by a foreign-owned company whose country has anything but a strong record in preventing terrorism. In short, when all the smoke is cleared, the UAE is not a country of tried and true reliability like, say, Great Britain. There is a difference between Great Britain and the UAE, many differences in fact, and we should not be instructed otherwise.

But it is the larger political concerns of policy and consistency that remain most troubling and will not subside, concerns that go to the very heart of our Global War on Terrorism and the ideas by which the administration has rallied support for it. And the more one looks not into the singular issue of security concerns but into the more specifics of what kind of country the UAE is, the more one becomes dissatisfied.

This is not the stuff of "nativism" or "isolationism" or "Islamophobia" — labels that have been thrown around too casually over the past two weeks. Many of us so labeled were among the first to call for the liberation of Iraqi Arabs and Muslims, and enthusiastically defended and supported the liberation of the Muslims in Afghanistan — indeed, many of us supported the liberation of Muslims elsewhere, and continue to support liberation for Iranians. The labels may apply to those who have finally woken up to the threats posed by other nations, but not to us, and not to long-time supporters of the president's call for democracy in the Arab world — a call that we believe is stifled by countenancing the UAE deal.

Excuse me Bill, but everything you have said in this article could doubly be said about Saudi Arabia, but I notice no complaint about the billions of dollars we send them for oil every year. I understand the expedience of dealing with them, we need the oil, but if you are truly going to remain consistent, than you have to advocate boycotting all Arab oil, and while we're at it, Venzuelan crude as well. Hmmm. A bit of a sticky wicket, no?

You see, we either are part of this global economy or we aren't. In the past we have dealt with far more repressive regiems than these. We finance a tremendous amount of the Chinese economy, that includes their defense budget, and their political prisons, by trading with them. Do we then cease all trade with the Chinese? It is a slippery slope when you begin to insert principle into your trade policies. I have no problem with doing so, but you better be consistent and stop all such commerce.

Perhaps we need to tell the Chinese that they can no longer run the COSCO facilities at the Port of Los Angelos, what do you think about that? I mean sure we might put a third of our population out of work and cause inflation rates of Carterian proportions, but at least our consciences would be clear. All of this Hoo Hah about the Dubai Ports Deal is an absurdity.

Oh, I fully understand the politics of the situation, and I agree on that with you, but I believe the proper reponse is to fully inform the public. Government policy set on political expedience is bad policy...always.

William Penn said: "Right is right, even when everyone is against it; and wrong is wrong, even when everyone is for it."

Full Story: Politically Driven Governmental Policy is BAD Policy

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Simple Economics, Still Offensive in the Extreme

March 2, 2006, 2:38AM
TEXAS INDEPENDENCE DAY
1836: The battle then and now
Date in history is more memorable after uproar about MLS club's name

By LORI RODRIGUEZ
Copyright 2006 Houston Chronicle

The number 1836 is key in Texas history.

It's the year Texas gained its independence, the year that Houston was founded and the year a Mexican army suffered bitter defeat at the battle of San Jacinto.

Today, 170 years after the signing of Texas' declaration of independence up the road at Washington-on-the-Brazos, most Texans are going through the routines of a normal workday. Schools, businesses and government offices are open and running. Most Houstonians would hardly notice the March 2 holiday except for a recent controversy that put 1836 back in the spotlight.

It's a controversy that shows just how much the city and sensibilities have changed, and just how much they haven't.

Civic leaders were caught off-guard by the reaction to the new Major League Soccer team's name, Houston 1836, which commemorates the date the city was founded. The name is being dropped after descendants of the people who lost Texas in 1836 asserted their growing political and economic clout, insisting the name be changed because of its negative connotation for them.

Hispanics, most of them of Mexican descent, surpassed Anglos as the largest ethnic group in the city in the 2000 census and are about 42 percent of the population. One of every three Texans is Hispanic, and they want a review of the Anglo-centric history the state has long celebrated.

Simmering resentments also surfaced as local Hispanics recalled a once deeply segregated state where Mexican-Americans were routinely rejected at restaurants, rebuked for speaking Spanish in classrooms and denied such basic civil rights as serving on juries.

"As the commissioner whose precinct includes the sacred battleground of San Jacinto, and a native Texan, I am proud of our history. We can celebrate our independence on Thursday, recognizing that we went to war for freedom, not against a people. After all, many Mexicans fought alongside Sam Houston," says Harris County Commissioner Sylvia Garcia.

"However, I can understand that this was also a sad time for the people of Mexico and their descendants ... in a conflict which sometimes pitted families against their own people."

I am deeply offended by this decision because if these "Mexican-Americans" are going to live here, then they need to celebrate Texan and American occasions. Note to you "Mexican-Americans:" If you don't like the fact that we defeated you in 1836, tough. If you want to live in Mexico, go home. We celebrate the Fourth of July, not "Cinco de Mayo." We celebrate the victory of Sam Houston's Texican Army over the Demon Santa Anna.

It's time for the "Mexican-American" community to be more concerned with the plague of crime in and from their community rather than what the name of the new Houston soccer team is. "Mexican-America" community leaders need to be more concerned with the illegitimacy rate and the illiteracy rate in their community than what we call the Houston Soccer team.

Oh, I understand that this is a simple matter of economics. It is the Hispanic community that will support the team far more than the "White" community. They will be attending these games more, and buying from the concessionaires more. BUT...

In Texas we celebrate the Alamo and Texas Independence from the tyrant Santa Anna and Mexico, Get Used to It!

Full Story: This is Texas, Not Mexico. Got it?

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Houston City Council: Government In Auction

White may tighten City Hall payroll rules
Mayor pro tem scandal prompts plan for changes

By MATT STILES
Copyright 2006 Houston Chronicle

Mayor Bill White said Wednesday that he soon will recommend procedural changes to prevent unauthorized bonuses like those that sparked the recent City Hall investigation.

Prompted by the $143,000 in payments given to employees in the Office of Mayor Pro Tem, White said his suggestions might include new regulations on City Council payroll.

Employees in other city departments, for example, must follow established rules and use specific forms for pay adjustments. Bonuses require "a whole bunch of hoops," he said.

"Some of those procedures have not been applied to council in deference to the individual elected officials who oversee their own budgets," he said. "I think a lot of council members would like to see that changed."

In the case of the scandal in the Office of Mayor Pro Tem, four employees received a series of bonus payments authorized by simple memos bearing the initials of Mayor Pro Tem Carol Alvarado, who says the initials were forged.

The employees also received base-pay raises — some as high as 64 percent — using their own signatures, records show.

"It looks like you have some people who stole: bad apples," White said, adding that he didn't know all the details of the ongoing investigation by the Houston Police Office of Inspector General.

The four mayor pro tem employees are suspended with pay pending that probe. They haven't been charged with crimes, and they have either declined to comment or been unreachable.

Asked whether deference to the council members and their budgets contributed to the failure of his administration's payroll officials to notice the extraordinary monthly bonuses sooner, White said, "I have no idea why somebody didn't catch some stuff. Even if there was some deference, obviously something like that was out of line."

Alvarado has said the pro tem employees betrayed her trust. She took personal responsibility for the situation Wednesday, in a column in the Houston Chronicle and a letter to constituents.

She said she supports tightening the council payroll procedures. "There needs to be some consistency in the paperwork right now," she said.

Ah yes, our local government at its most corrupt. This is truly obscene. The violators should have to repay the money the stole and they should also be fired without recourse. This is what you get from a bloated local bureaucracy. This is the danger big government poses, higher taxes for more greedy bureaucrats and politicians. White has shown great promise, but he needs to strike our strongly against these people and he needs to do it in public using his bully pulpit. It is intolerable that these thieves were able to do this. This is not the first display of incompetence by the Mayor Pro tem's office. She has been inexcusably rude in Council meetings and she is incompetent.

Full Story: Time For a Clean Sweep: Alvarado Needs to Go

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Texas Districts: Gerrymandering Bad Regardless of Party Advantage

The Justices Look at Some Shapely . . . Congressional Districts

By Dana Milbank
Thursday, March 2, 2006; Page A02

The Supreme Court hosted its own performance of "Beauty and the Beast" this week. On Tuesday, it heard the plea of Anna Nicole Smith, the former stripper and Playboy Playmate seeking a share of her deceased husband's fortune. Yesterday, the justices debated the aesthetics of three congressional districts in Texas.

"Particularly grotesque shapes," judged Justice John Paul Stevens. "Much less compact" than before.

Justice Stephen Breyer offered a partially concurring opinion. "A long walking stick is what it looks like . . . It's not a circle . . . It's not absolutely terrible."

Lawyer Ted Cruz, defending the state of Texas, found the map much more pleasing than the old one, which he said had "fingers" coming out of it. "It's not like they snake around," Cruz argued, rattling off what he called the districts' "perimeter to area score" and using fancy words like "equipopulosity."

Breyer demanded a more precise description of the shapes. "Either it is reasonably compact or it isn't," he said.

The maps of Districts 23, 24 and 25 were indeed odd: an 800-mile swath zigzagging along the Mexican border, a two-headed cat in between Fort Worth and Dallas, and a disfigured candy cane dangling from Austin.

But the geometric discussion evidently did not interest Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. At first, she appeared to be reading something in her lap. But after a while, it became clear: Ginsburg was napping on the bench. By Bloomberg News's reckoning -- not denied by a court spokeswoman -- Ginsburg's snooze lasted a quarter of an hour.

It's lucky for Ginsburg that the Supreme Court has so far refused to allow television in the courtroom, for her visit to the land of nod would have found its way onto late-night shows. It's perhaps also lucky for Chief Justice John Roberts, who hectored Nina Perales, a lawyer for a Mexican American group, as if she were an unprepared law student: "Your argument is at cross-purposes. . . . What relevance does that have?"

But most everybody else could have benefited from a glimpse of the high court's proceedings. Yesterday's case on Texas redistricting was about crucial matters: the fate of minority voting rights; the principle of one man, one vote; the balance of power in the House of Representatives; and political gerrymandering that protects 98 percent of incumbents in both parties from challengers.

I am against Gerrymandering. I am also against any provision which distorts the shapes of Congressional districts other than simple population numbers. I do not believe that race is anymore a legitimate excuse for reshaping districts than party affiliation or incumbency. Communities should be entact and numbers should be equal. other than that there is no legitimate reason to reshape districts. I hope, but seriously doubt, that the Supremes redraw by judicial fiat, all Congressional district by population alone. Think of the mad scramble if every member of Congress actually had to campaign in their districts, and half of their voters didn't even know them. Imagine politicians who would have to concentrate on performance rather than pandering to special interests. Yikes we might get to see democracy in action for a change. I'm for it, but it ain't gonna happen sad to say.

Having said the above, I don't see that the new districts are any worse than the previous ones. They're all lousy.

Full Story: Throw the Bums Out!

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Legislation By Paranoia a Bad Thing

U.S. Reviewing 2nd Dubai Firm
Israeli Deal Also Faces Security Check

By Jonathan Weisman and Susan Schmidt
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, March 2, 2006; Page A01

The Bush administration, stung by the public outcry over the Dubai port deal, has launched a national security investigation of another Dubai-owned company set to take over plants in Georgia and Connecticut that make precision components used in engines for military aircraft and tanks.

The administration notified congressional committees this week that its secretive Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) is investigating the security implications of Dubai International Capital's $1.2 billion acquisition of London-based Doncasters Group Ltd., which has subsidiaries in the United States. It is also investigating an Israeli company's plans to buy the Maryland software security firm Sourcefire, which does business with Defense Department agencies.

Administration officials are privately briefing leaders of half a dozen House and Senate committees this week about the two planned transactions, concerned that both deals could stir controversy in a political climate that remains supercharged over the Dubai port deal.

Republican and Democratic lawmakers angrily protested after learning late last month that the administration had approved a $6.8 billion deal to allow a maritime company based in the United Arab Emirates to take over significant operations at six U.S. ports without a thorough investigation and without consulting members of Congress. Last weekend, the Dubai maritime company agreed to a 45-day investigation to stem the protest and allay concerns of a possible breach of U.S. port security.

In the past, the foreign investment committee rarely told Congress of such inquiries. Wary of another misstep, administration officials decided to inform lawmakers of the two other pending transactions with national security implications for the United States.

There have been suggestions in the trade press that the publicly traded Israeli firm, Check Point Software Technologies, has been subjected to more scrutiny than Dubai Ports World, the state-owned Arab company that was initially cleared to take over operations at the six major U.S. ports with no security investigation. That inquiry was initiated only after an outcry about turning over port security to a country that has been cited for ties to terrorism. Sources familiar with the Israeli investigation said cybersecurity officials at the departments of Defense, Justice and Homeland Security all raised serious concerns about the purchase before the port controversy erupted.

Dubai International Capital's acquisition of Doncasters could present some of the same political problems created by Dubai Ports World's purchase of London-based Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co. Once again, a state-controlled Dubai company with deep pockets is purchasing a British firm with U.S. holdings. Doncasters has operations in nine U.S. locations and manufactures precision parts for defense contractors such as Boeing, Honeywell, Pratt & Whitney and General Electric.[Emphasis added]

This business of extreme paranoia taking over our government is really disturbing, especially when it is as crassly political as it is in the Democrats. Since when have the Democrats shown any interest at all in the security of the American people. They have fought the administration tooth and nail on every measure the White House has put forward in furtherance of our security. For them to now posit that they are "concerned for our nation's security" is the crudest form of political opportunism. It is a despicable display of hubris and so transparent that anyone who buys the Democrat's performance in this makes Pollyanna appear a cynical skeptic.

Full Story: Congress Acting in Panic a Frightening Specter

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Profiling Saudi Charities Not a Problem for Me

Saudi Group Alleges Wiretapping by U.S.
Defunct Charity's Suit Details Eavesdropping

By Carol D. Leonnig and Mary Beth Sheridan
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, March 2, 2006; Page A01

Documents cited in federal court by a defunct Islamic charity may provide the first detailed evidence of U.S. residents being spied upon by President Bush's secret eavesdropping program, according to the organization's lawsuit and a source familiar with the case.

The al-Haramain Islamic Foundation, a Saudi organization that once operated in Portland, Ore., filed a description of classified government records in a lawsuit Tuesday and immediately asked a judge for a private review.

According to a source familiar with the case, the records indicate that the National Security Agency intercepted several conversations in March and April 2004 between al-Haramain's director, who was in Saudi Arabia, and two U.S. citizens in Washington who were working as lawyers for the organization.

The government intercepted the conversations without court permission and in violation of the law, al-Haramain asserts in its lawsuit. It contends that eavesdropping on the conversations bypassed the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, the 1978 law that requires the government to show probable cause that a U.S. resident is an agent of a terrorist group or foreign government and to obtain a warrant from the secret FISA court before monitoring that person's calls.

Experts on FISA, while emphasizing that they are unfamiliar with the specifics of the al-Haramain case, said they question whether a FISA judge would agree to allow surveillance of conversations between U.S. lawyers and their client under the general circumstances described in the lawsuit.

In October 2001, Bush ordered the NSA to begin monitoring some telephone calls and e-mails of U.S. residents and contacts abroad if one party was suspected to have links to terrorism. The government has said that FISA did not allow it to move quickly enough to track suspected terrorists after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

Several targets of government terrorism prosecutions have challenged the warrantless eavesdropping in courts nationwide since news reports in December revealed the existence of the secret surveillance program. Most of those challenges have centered on suspicion that prosecutors used information from warrantless wiretaps to build cases in terrorism investigations.

This lawsuit appears to be the first to cite the government's own documents of intercepted conversations and e-mails as the reason to suspect NSA surveillance. The government has acknowledged that it targeted Iyman Faris, who pleaded guilty in 2003 to plotting to blow up the Brooklyn Bridge, for surveillance under the NSA program. Several convicted members of a group described by prosecutors as Virginia jihad network have said they believe they were targets of surveillance. The government has said it either has no evidence to support the allegation or is still investigating.

Yesterday, Justice Department spokesman Brian Roehrkasse said authorities will review al-Haramain's filing. He declined to comment further.

The lawsuit says that a director of al-Haramain, Suliman al-Buthe, once operated the nonprofit group in Ashland, Ore., but relocated to Saudi Arabia because of U.S. government pressure.

Good, I hope the NSA was monitoring this guy. I have no problem with the NSA monitoring these Saudi "charities," we know that a number of them were used as fronts for funnelling money to al Qaeda I want the NSA monitoring potential terrorists or their sympathizers. I would be disturbed if this guy was an American citizen, did not come from Saudi Arabia, and was not making those calls from Saudi Arabia. I am not disturbed when reason prevails over political correctness. At the risk of beating a very dead horse, eleven of the hijackers on 9/11 were from Saudi Arabia. I am not shocked or upset that a Saudi citizen running an Arab charity is being scrutinized. I do not apologize for this view, I believe in profiling, I believe it to be simple good police work.

I am long passed worrying about someone calling me a racist when I support investigative and crime fighting techniques which make sense. I applaud this. Secondly, how are those monitoring overseas phone calls to know that the call is to a lawyer until they "tune in?"

Full Story: Prudent Policy to Monitor Saudis

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Patriot Act Requires Delicate Balance

Patriot Act renewal clears final hurdle on path to Senate passage

By LAURIE KELLMAN
Associated Press

WASHINGTON -- The USA Patriot Act renewal is heading for Senate approval even as lawmakers continue to squabble over whether it has enough curbs on government power in terror investigations.

Senate Democrats say Republicans have allowed the Bush administration to dictate the finished product.

"No one has the right to turn this body into a rubber stamp," said Sen. Russell Feingold, D-Wis., the act's chief opponent. "The White House played hardball and the decision was made by some to capitulate."

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist is not allowing amendments to be considered, pointing out that the renewal is months overdue already. The original law, passed in the weeks after the Sept. 11 attacks, was set to expire Dec. 31 if not renewed by Congress.

Unable to strike reach agreement between civil libertarians and Bush's tough-on-terror allies, Congress has extended the deadline — twice. Now, the act will expire March 10 if not passed by Congress and signed into law by Bush.

The war on terror can't wait for more debate, Republicans said.

"Civil liberties do not mean much when you are dead," Sen. Jim Bunning, R-Ky., told the Senate.

The Senate voted 69-30 Tuesday — 60 votes were needed — to limit debate and bring the legislation to a final vote. The Senate is expected to pass the measure as early as Wednesday, barring Democratic procedural maneuvers. The House then is expected to approve it and send the bill to Bush's desk next week.

Despite the bill's progress, deep misgivings remain even among its chief supporters.

One of them, Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pa., was in the odd position Tuesday of urging his colleagues to pass a bill so flawed that he planned new legislation and hearings to fix it.

"The issue is not concluded," said Specter, R-Pa. He said he plans more legislation and hearings on restoring House-rejected curbs on government power.

His bill would make the government satisfy a higher threshold for warrantless wiretaps and would set a four-year expiration date for the use of National Security Letters in terrorism investigations.

It would be wonderful if the terrorists had not attacked America and we did not need this highly suspect law, but unfortunately they did, and we do. I have never been a big fan of the Patriot Act, even though most of what it does is a simple extrapolation of what was already codified to combat the illegle drug trade to the war on terror. I sympathize with Spector in his skepticism, but I just think we need to swallow this bitter pill and move on, for now.

This just requires greater vigilence on our part and that of our elected representatives to make sure that when the need is gone, so are these laws. Freedom requires eternal vigilence. It is up to the citizenry to provide that, we cannot afford to sit on our sofas and recliners and ignore our government until they do something so heinous that we are outraged but powerless to do anything about it. I will continue to do my part. As a Conservative, I would love to take the time here to take a shot at Russ Feingold just on general principles, but we need his skepticism, whether it is heartfelt, or just a political ploy.

Full Story: Modified Patriot Act Soon to Pass

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Fool Foley Leading Gutless Republicans

GOP Unease Spreads to Security Issues
Port Deal Among Challenges to What Has Been Bush's Strength

By Peter Baker
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, March 1, 2006; Page A01

The first heading on the issues page of Rep. Mark Foley's Web site brags that he is "one of President Bush's strongest supporters in Congress." The Florida Republican voted for the president's legislation 90 percent of the time, according to the Web site, "the 3rd highest ranking among the Florida delegation."

Now the Florida delegation's third-strongest Bush supporter is on the front lines of the Republican revolt against the president on the deal to turn over key operations at six U.S. ports to a United Arab Emirates company. Republicans who once marched in lock step behind their president on national security are increasingly willing to challenge him in an area considered his political strength.

The signs of GOP discontent have been building in the past few months. Dissident Republicans in Congress forced Bush to sign a measure banning torture of detainees despite his initial veto threat, blocked renewal of the USA Patriot Act until their civil liberties concerns were addressed and pressured the White House into accepting legislation on its secret eavesdropping program. By the time the port deal came to light, the uprising was no longer limited to dissidents.

"We simply want to participate and aren't going to be PR flacks when they need us," Foley said. "We all have roles. We have oversight. When you can't answer your constituents when they have legitimate questions . . . we can't simply do it on trust."

The breakdown of the Republican consensus on national security both reflects and exacerbates Bush's political weakness heading toward the midterm elections, according to party strategists. Even as Republicans abandoned him last year on domestic issues such as Social Security, Hurricane Katrina relief and Harriet Miers's Supreme Court nomination, they had largely stuck by him on terrorism and other security issues.

Karl Rove, the president's political guru and deputy chief of staff, has already signaled that he intends to use national security as the defining issue for the fall congressional campaigns, just as he did to great effect in 2002 and 2004. But with Bush's numbers still falling, the Republicans who will be on the ballot have decided to define the security issue in their own way rather than defer to the president's interpretation.

The release of a new CBS News poll showing Bush's approval rating dropping to 34 percent, a low for him in that survey, sent tremors through Republican circles in Washington. Scott Reed, who managed Robert J. Dole's presidential campaign in 1996, called the results "pretty shattering." Most distressing to GOP strategists was that Bush's support among Republicans fell from 83 percent to 72 percent.

There's nothing sadder than politicians who abandon principle for politics. Welcome to the current Republican Congressional revolt against President Bush. By all means, we know that the survival of their political careers is much more important than doing the right thing. I mean what else is a politician to do other than climbing the "greasy pole?"

There are very few statesmen remaining in politics today. Small wonder, being a statesmen requires occasionally taking a principled, or even worse, a courageous stand; surely the worst possible option. Its clear that the President qualifies, he has almost never worried about his public image, he has focused on doing what he believed to be the right thing, sometimes to the point of obtuseness, but at least he stands for something other than political ambition.

Full Story: Republican Legislators Need Backbone

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Democrat Schill Dana Milbank Gleeful at Democrat Lies

Every Inlet an Outlet for Anger Over Ports

By Dana Milbank
Wednesday, March 1, 2006; Page A02

Is there no safe harbor from the Dubai port imbroglio?

Wherever they went yesterday, and whatever they spoke about, Bush administration officials could find no shelter. The controversy intruded on President Bush when he tried talk about NATO and Afghanistan with the Italian prime minister. It stalked Director of National Intelligence John D. Negroponte at the Senate Armed Services Committee, followed Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff to the Senate Appropriations Committee, and harassed Chertoff deputy Michael P. Jackson at the Senate Commerce Committee.

Even the U.S.S. Ken Mehlman, an agile vessel, could not successfully navigate the port deal's shoals. Appearing before the Jewish Council for Public Affairs, the Republican National Committee chairman tucked a one-sentence, indirect reference to the fuss nearly 20 minutes into his speech -- "We have a military presence in the United Arab Emirates that is vital to stability" -- then left before he could be questioned about the deal.

Mehlman's Democratic counterpart, Howard Dean, wasn't about to let Mehlman off the hook with that. Next on the JCPA stage, Dean reordered his speech, which usually starts with a jeremiad about Republican corruption. "I want first to speak about defense," Dean said, pivoting to the ports.

"Today we see the specter, as reported in the Jerusalem Post, of a company who is about to take over American ports, which actively continues today to boycott Israel," the Democratic National Committee chairman declared. "Foreign governments of any kind ought not to be controlling American ports, especially when the Coast Guard already recommended that they could not guarantee the security of the ports."

The crowd loved it. "Isn't xenophobia wonderful?" a delegate at the New Jersey table wondered aloud.

No matter what the ostensible subject matter, virtually every political gathering yesterday eventually listed toward ports. Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.) started talking about it at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on the NSA's National Security Agency's eavesdropping program. Former president Bill Clinton, giving a news conference about health care at the National Governors Association meeting, fielded a battery of questions about the ports. "This has shocked us into facing the fact that we have repeatedly failed to secure our ports in a proper way," he scolded.

The incessant talk about ports drove the Associated Press to distraction. The wire agency, issuing the seventh version of its port security story at 2:30 p.m., suddenly and without warning turned Chertoff into a cigar and Sen. Barbara A. Mikulski (D-Md.) into an Eskimo moccasin. "Homeland Security Secretary Michael Cheroot called the Coast Guard documents 'an early report,' " the AP reported. "Pressed by Sen. Barbara Mukluks, D-Md., Cheroot said he saw the Coast Guard memo 'about a week ago.' "

Only Vice President Cheney found a way to avoid any discussion of the port deal. He gave a 24-minute speech to the American Legion without even a peep about Dubai Ports World -- and he left without taking questions.

Lots of lies are circulating over this DPW-British P&O deal, most of them being promulgated by Democrats and their schills at the Washington Pest, the New York Lies, and other Democrat propaganda organizations in the MSM.

The United States Coast Guard has unreservedly signed off on this deal. Any reservations they had in their initial investigation back in December have been addressed. That from Commander Carter, spokesman for the Coast Guard, who described the United Arab Emirates as "an active and good partner in the war on terror." He said that a lot of information is in the classified report supporting the fact that the UAE is a "strong ally." He described it as a purely business transaction, that all employees coming to America had to be thorougly vetted, and that yesterday, today, and in the future the responsibility for port security is the Coast Guard's.

For those who are upset over the UAE's earlier (pre-9/11) dealings with the Taliban, guess what, so did we. All through the 80's and 90's, yes including the "Golden Clinton Years" we had "dealings" with the Taliban. If you wanted to talk to Afghanistan, you had to have dealings with the Taliban. Who do you think was fighing the Soviets when they invaded?

The simple fact remains, Liberals-like Susan Collins-and Democrats lie, they have to because otherwise voters would run from them. Why do you think the MSM are all losing money.

Full Story: Washington Pest Schilling for Democrats

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below