Senators Suddenly Singing a Different Tune

Senate Leaders Profess Less Outrage on FBI Raid
Unlike House Officials, Frist and Durbin Say They See No Breach of Constitution in Jefferson Inquiry

By Lois Romano
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, May 29, 2006; Page A04

After a week of bipartisan outrage over an FBI raid on a congressman's office, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist weighed in yesterday, saying that he was "okay" with the search and saw no constitutional problems with it.

"No House member, no senator, nobody in government should be above the law of the land, period," Frist said of the search of the office of William J. Jefferson (D-La.), who has been accused of bribery.

Frist (R-Tenn.) said on "Fox News Sunday" that he had studied the provision in the Constitution regarding the separation of powers, and consulted with Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales. He concluded that the FBI acted appropriately when it used a warrant to search the office of a sitting lawmaker for the first time in history.

"I don't think it abused separation of powers," Frist said. "I think there's allegations of criminal activity, and the American people need to have the law enforced."

Eight days ago, FBI agents angered many members of Congress when they took from Jefferson's office records and a computer as they investigate whether Jefferson illegally took money for brokering business deals in Africa. The raid threw Washington into tumult last week, inflaming congressional leaders on both sides of the aisle, and reportedly prompting Gonzales and FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III to threaten to quit if the documents were returned.

Talk about going off "half-cocked." Frist's voice was one of the first to question the actions of the FBI after that Saturday night raid of Congressman William Jefferson's (D-LA) Congressional office. Is that the kind of behavior we should expect from the Majority Leader of the Senate? Frist's initial reaction was that he was "very concerned" over the incident and the Constitutionality of the raid.

I have been unimpressed by Frist for some time now and this just amplifies my doubts about his suitability for his ambition to be President.

Full Story: Frist's Flip-Flop

What do you think?

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

More Republican Corruption??

Reid Accepted Free Boxing Tickets While a Related Bill Was Pending

By John Solomon
Associated Press
Tuesday, May 30, 2006; Page A03

Senate Democratic Leader Harry M. Reid (Nev.) accepted free ringside tickets from the Nevada Athletic Commission to three professional boxing matches while that state agency was trying to influence him on federal regulation of boxing.

Reid took the free seats for Las Vegas fights between 2003 and 2005 as he was pressing legislation to increase government oversight of the sport, including the creation of a federal boxing commission that Nevada's agency feared might usurp its authority.

He defended the gifts, saying that they would never influence his position on the bill and he was simply trying to learn how his legislation might affect an important home state industry. "Anyone from Nevada would say I'm glad he is there taking care of the state's number one businesses," he said. "I love the fights anyways, so it wasn't like being punished," added the senator, a former boxer and boxing judge.

Senate ethics rules generally allow lawmakers to accept gifts from federal, state or local governments, but specifically warn against taking such gifts -- particularly on multiple occasions -- when they might be connected to efforts to influence official actions.

"Senators and Senate staff should be wary of accepting any gift where it appears that the gift is motivated by a desire to reward, influence, or elicit favorable official action," the Senate ethics manual states. It cites the 1990s example of an Oregon lawmaker who took gifts for personal use from a South Carolina state university and its president while that school was trying to influence his official actions.

"Repeatedly taking gifts which the Gifts Rule otherwise permits to be accepted may, nonetheless, reflect discredit upon the institution, and should be avoided," the manual states.

There they go again those darn corrupt Republicans accepting high-dollar gifts from people who are lobbying them for legal favors...What's that?...Reid is a Democrat? No! It can't be. A corrupt Democrat? "Joe, say it ain't so." Whoops! Once more we see something has slipped.

Of course it was a Democrat. Democrats have always been more willing to take bribes than Republicans. It's just that the mainstream media (MSM) always gives them a pass whenever they get caught. The current flap over the FBI's "invasion" of Congressman William Jefferson's congressional office is a perfect example.

All we have been hearing from the MSM has been about the controversy over the constitutionality of the search. Very little outrage has been expressed in the MSM over Jefferson's actions. Does anyone believe that the same would be true it the same action had occurred but it had been Tom DeLay's office? I seriously doubt it.

We would be hearing how DeLay was a controversial figure in Congress and that he had been warned by the ethics committee a number of times. We would be hearing an endless stream of Democrat politician suggesting that Tom DeLay has been irreparably damaged by his continual misbehavior. We would be hearing from Liberal pundits how for the good of the House and the Republican Party, DeLay should step down from his position of Majority Leader. The MSM would be repeatedly citing a litany of his slightest misteps.

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid is the king of political nepotism, and received major contributions from the very Indian Tribes that Abramoff was representing, yet unlike most congressmen, he has refused to return that money.

Truly Reid is the poster child for ignoring the log in his own eye while focussing on the mote in the Republican's eye.

Full Story: Reid, As Corrupt as He Can Be

What do you think?

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

WMD Sent to Syria? Dear Me! What Will the Liberals Say Now?

Iraq, WMDs and Troubling Revelations

By Jamie Glazov
FrontPageMagazine.com
May 26, 2006

Just recently, Saddam Hussein's former southern regional commander, Gen. Al-Tikriti, gave the first videotaped testimony confirming that Iraq had WMDs up to the American invasion in 2003 and that Russia helped removed them prior to the war. His testimony confirms numerous other sources that have pointed to Russia's secret alliance with Iraq and the co-ordinated moving of WMDs before the American liberation. Today we've invited three experts on this subject to discuss the details of Al-Tikriti's testimony and its larger significance.

--------------Exerpt---------------

General Al-Tikriti was known as the "Butcher of Basra" and was a southern regional commander for Saddam Hussein, a friend of his. He defected shortly before the Gulf War but has maintained contacts inside Iraq ever since, including weapons scientists.

He has confirmed in previous interviews that Iraq sent nuclear scientists and technology to Libya in the mid-1990s to continue his WMD programs, and that Syria is the holding place for Iraqi WMD today. He said that he had first-hand knowledge of discussions between Iraq and Syria to send their weapons programs to the other for safe harbor, should either Baghdad or Damascus be threatened with occupation.

In this videotape, he has his voice modified and face blacked out. However, I have sources who were at the taping, and who confirmed with the Iraqi embassy that he is legit. In this tape, he confirms that Russia had a secret alliance with Iraq, and that plans were developed to remove WMD from Iraq before an invasion. The Russians obviously wanted to cover their tracks.

This is dynamite. If this can be confirmed, than we learn 1. That President Bush was not "lying, manipulating intelligence, or exaggerating" in his speeches to the American people. 2. That there was more involved in Russia's opposition to the Iraq War than first met the eye.

What is a self-respecting, Bush hating, Liberal to do? The entire premise for the "Impeach Bush" movement has suddenly evaporated. Will pandemonium rule the Left now? I doubt it, when opinion is substituted for fact, and denial of reality rules your life, this information will hardly ruffle their self-assured arrogance. They are certain to cry "Foul!" and "Conspiracy!" as is typical when they are confronted with evidence of their own fallability.

It is possible that this will turn out to be false, but I doubt it. I have never given in to those who repeatedly claim that WMD's were not ever in Iraq, that they were trumped up by President Bush to justify "his" war.

Full Story: Red-Faced Liberals

What do you think?

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

Mr. President, Let Justice Prevail! Unleash Gonzales.

Bush Seals Files Seized In FBI Probe Of Jefferson

By Dan Eggen and Jim VandeHei
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, May 26, 2006; Page A01

President Bush ordered the Justice Department yesterday to seal records seized from the Capitol Hill office of a Democratic congressman, representing a remarkable intervention by the nation's chief executive into an ongoing criminal probe of alleged corruption.

The order was aimed at quelling an escalating constitutional confrontation between the Justice Department and the House, where Republican and Democratic leaders have demanded that the FBI return documents and copies of computer files seized from the office of Rep. William J. Jefferson (D-La.).

In a six-paragraph statement, Bush cast the dispute in historic terms and said he issued the order to give Justice Department officials and lawmakers more time to negotiate a compromise. "Our government has not faced such a dilemma in more than two centuries," Bush said. "Yet after days of discussions, it is clear these differences will require more time to be worked out."

The order capped five days of tumultuous negotiations involving the White House, the Justice Department and House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.), who denounced the Saturday-night raid as an infringement on the separation of powers between the legislative and executive branches and had joined Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) in demanding that the seized documents be returned.

Bush hoped to mollify Hastert, one of his most reliable legislative allies, at a time of increasingly sour relations with the GOP-controlled Congress, according to White House sources. Tempers rose so high this week that some House Republicans threatened to seek the resignation of Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, although GOP leaders said the idea was not seriously considered.

The agreement also marked a setback for the FBI and Justice Department, which had refused demands to return the materials -- and had resisted pressure from the White House to cordon them off, according to several officials familiar with the debate.

Bush signaled in his statement, however, that he expected the documents to eventually be made available to prosecutors. "Those who violate the law -- including a Member of Congress -- should and will be held to account," Bush said. "This investigation will go forward, and justice will be served."

I hope the President doesn't backdown in the face of Congressional criticism. Every American citizen is subject to having their houses and offices invaded and searched by warrant bearing FBI agents. Members of Congress, as trustees for the American people, should be held to a higher, not lower standard. If home invasion by warrant toting members of the DEA or Justice Department is good enough for the average American, it is good enough for members of Congress.

It is alarming in the extreme for members of Congress to believe that they are somehow better than or more important than the people for whom they work. The intensity of the reaction to this warranted search leads me wonder what other members of Congress are hiding. This 45 day cooling off period provides plenty of time for those members to collect and dispose of any papers likely to implicate them in any untoward activities in which they might be involved.

What Gonzales did was right. Allow him to do his job.

Full Story: Cry Havoc! and Let Loose the Dogs of Justice

What do you think?

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

Senate's Betrayal of The American Voter's Trust

Senate Approves Immigration Bill
Measure Faces Tough House Opposition

By Charles Babington
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, May 26, 2006; Page A01

The Senate yesterday approved legislation that would trigger the biggest changes to U.S. immigration policy in decades, by strengthening border security, establishing a guest-worker program, and providing the means for millions of illegal immigrants to stay in the country and possibly become citizens.

The product of a tenuous bipartisan coalition that faced tough conservative opposition, the measure calls for 370 miles of triple-layer fencing along the Mexican border, a complicated three-tiered system for determining who can stay and who must leave the country, and more jail cells for those awaiting deportation. It would declare English the country's national language, a gesture that many advocates found insulting but accepted in hopes of helping millions of undocumented workers achieve legal status.

But even as the Senate approved the bill 62 to 36, the measure's backers acknowledged that it faces formidable opposition in the House, whose political dynamics differ markedly from the Senate's. Numerous House members insist that Congress do nothing about legalizing immigrants until illegal border crossings are dramatically reduced.

Democrats and Republicans alike said a House-Senate accord will be nearly impossible without the vigorous involvement of President Bush, who favors an approach similar to the Senate's. The White House has already begun lobbying efforts, but it faces resistance from more than 200 House Republicans seeking reelection this fall, many in districts where the sentiment against illegal immigrants runs high.

"This is the most far-reaching immigration reform in our history," Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.), a leader of the Senate effort, said of the bill's passage. "It is a comprehensive and realistic attempt to solve the real-world problems that have festered for too long in our broken immigration system."

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), Kennedy's partner in the effort, said more than 11 million illegal immigrants "harvest our crops, tend our gardens, work in our restaurants and clean our houses" and added: "Some Americans believe we must find all these millions, round them up and send them back to the countries they came from. I don't know how you do that. And I don't know why you would want to."

But opponents called the bill fundamentally flawed and predicted that it will be completely rewritten by a House-Senate conference committee, which will try next month to craft a compromise version acceptable to both chambers.

Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.) called the measure "a bad bill" that "puts more emphasis on amnesty than on border security."

Only 36 Senators chose to stay true to their oaths of office, to protect and defend the Constitution. What was interesting about this vote, is that it was not a straight party line vote. It was also not divided by philosophy-Liberal/Conservative-or geography-North/South. It is true that most of those in the Republican Party who voted for it were the more Liberal, RINO's, in the party, Lugar, Specter, Snow, McCAin, DeWine, Voinivich, Chafee, you know the usual gutless "Look at me, I'm not a cold heartless bastard. I'm a caring, enlightened, progressive thinker." But they were joined by some of those who have been consistently, one might even say stalwart in their conservative voting record. Senators like Norm Coleman, Sam Brownback, and Mitch McConnell, inexplicably joined in. Perhaps they were driven by their belief in the needs of businesses, mistaken though that belief is. You can see the vote breakdown here

On the other side, Democrats who are usually reliably Liberal like Senators Byrd, Dorgan and Stabenow joined with usually moderate Republicans like Grassley, Alexander, and Sununu to cast their votes against the bill. Perhaps some, like Robert Byrd (D-WV) are such ardent believers in the Constitution and the necessity of protecting our nation that they couldn't bring themselves to vote with their fellow Democrats.

Even those in the states most effected by illegal immigration were unpredictable (with the exception of those from the Peoples Republic of California, Boxer and Feinstein who voted "Nay". Surprise!). Cornyn and Hutchison, Kyl, Lott and Cochran, all conservative and in states effected by massive illegal immigration, were joined by the Senator who lead the opposition, and was probably the best informed as to what the bill actually said Alabama's Jeff Sessions.

With these muddled alignments, perhaps the answer which most covers the bizarre nature of this vote is that they were more interested in getting a bill than they were in getting a bill that solved the problem.

Full Story: Sad Day for Americans

What do you think?

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

Members of Congress Must Be Held to the Same Standards as the Citizens

FBI Raid on Lawmaker's Office Is Questioned
Democrat Jefferson Denies Wrongdoing

By Dan Eggen and Shailagh Murray
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, May 23, 2006; Page A01

An unusual FBI raid of a Democratic congressman's office over the weekend prompted complaints yesterday from leaders in both parties, who said the tactic was unduly aggressive and may have breached the constitutional separation of powers between the executive and legislative branches of government.

Rep. William J. Jefferson (La.), who is at the center of a 14-month investigation for allegedly accepting bribes for promoting business ventures in Africa, also held a news conference in which he denied any wrongdoing and denounced the raid on his office as an "outrageous intrusion." Jefferson, who has not been charged, vowed to seek reelection in November.

There are two sides to every story; there are certainly two sides to this story," he said at a Capitol Hill news conference. "There will be an appropriate time and forum when that can be explained."

The Saturday raid of Jefferson's quarters in the Rayburn House Office Building posed a new political dilemma for the leaders of both parties, who felt compelled to protest his treatment while condemning any wrongdoing by the lawmaker. The dilemma was complicated by new details contained in an 83-page affidavit unsealed on Sunday, including allegations that the FBI had videotaped Jefferson taking $100,000 in bribe money and then found $90,000 of that cash stuffed inside his apartment freezer.

Republican leaders, who previously sought to focus attention on the Jefferson case as a counterpoint to their party's own ethical scandals, said they are disturbed by the raid. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) said that he is "very concerned" about the incident and that Senate and House counsels will review it.

House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) expressed alarm at the raid. "The actions of the Justice Department in seeking and executing this warrant raise important Constitutional issues that go well beyond the specifics of this case," he said in a lengthy statement released last night.

"Insofar as I am aware, since the founding of our Republic 219 years ago, the Justice Department has never found it necessary to do what it did Saturday night, crossing this Separation of Powers line, in order to successfully prosecute corruption by Members of Congress," he said. "Nothing I have learned in the last 48 hours leads me to believe that there was any necessity to change the precedent established over those 219 years."

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said in a statement that "members of Congress must obey the law and cooperate fully with any criminal investigation" but that "Justice Department investigations must be conducted in accordance with Constitutional protections and historical precedent."

-----------------SNIP-----------------

At issue is the "speech or debate" clause of the Constitution -- language intended to shield lawmakers from intimidation by the executive branch. Historically, courts have interpreted the clause broadly, legal experts said.

Former House speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.), in an e-mail to colleagues with the subject line "on the edge of a constitutional confrontation," called the Saturday night raid "the most blatant violation of the Constitutional Separation of Powers in my lifetime." He urged President Bush to discipline or fire "whoever exhibited this extraordinary violation."

Come now Mr. Gingrich, I believe you are hyperbolizing. It is true that members of Congress must be able to perform their duties free from the threat of harrassment or intimidation by an over-reaching Executive of Judicial branch, but any reasonable reading of the Constitution makes it clear that the "speech or debate clause explicitly exempts "treason, felony and breach of the peace." Article 1, Section 6, Paragraph 1 states, in part:

"...They shall in all cases, except treason, felony and breach of the peace, be privileged from arrest during their attendance at the session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any speech or debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other place."

Now I'm sorry, but I believe that suspicion of receiving a $100,000 bribe by any definition falls under the heading of "felony," as well as being a violation of the public trust.

While it is true that we are all supposed to be innocent until proven guilty, without an investigation, how will we know whether of not Mr. Jefferson is guilty or not? Ms. Nancy "the Wicked Witch of the West" Pelosi says "[these] investigations must be conducted in accordance with Constitutional protections and historical precedent." Would that she held other tradition and historical traditions in as high esteem (like not criticizing the President during a time of War or not giving aid and comfort to our enemies during a time of war). I suspect her outrage is more about her fear that Jeffersons crimes destroy the myth (as promoted by the Democrat Party) that corruption is the sole province of the Republican Party.

As for the general outrage on both sides of the aisle at this "intrusion" into their privileged chambers, perhaps this indicative of the general contempt members of Congress seem to hold for the people as a whole. We are repeated told by those in Congress and in the mainstream media (MSM) that "sunlight is the best disinfectant," why is this true for some but not for all?

Again, I understand the need for members of Congress to be free of the fear of harrassment and intimidation in the pursuit of their assigned tasks, Legislators must be free to debate and exercise their Constitutionally guaranteed rights, but when the commission of a crime is involved, this insulation must have limits.

Full Story: "...All Men Were Created Equal..."

What do you think?

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

Weisman and VandeHei: Incapable of Telling Truth.

Debate on How to Reshape Law Has Divided Republicans

By Jonathan Weisman and Jim VandeHei
Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, May 21, 2006; Page A06

While President Bush was on the U.S.-Mexican border Thursday promoting an overhaul of the nation's immigration laws, Senate conservatives were persuading a team of White House aides to deny 200,000 low-skilled immigrants citizenship.

In a series of private meetings, the conservatives thought they had convinced the Bush team that as many as 200,000 low-skilled workers who enter the United States under special work visas should not be allowed to stay forever. The plan thrilled conservatives -- but also threatened to rip apart a fragile coalition supporting Bush's call for a comprehensive, and compassionate, immigration solution.

Just as conservatives were declaring White House support for the controversial amendment, Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) stormed to the Senate floor to announce that new White House Chief of Staff Joshua B. Bolten had assured him that the president now opposed the measure in the name of preserving bipartisan backing. The plan was promptly defeated, and the delicate pro-reform coalition held. For now.

This late-night White House about-face -- as described by senators, House lawmakers and presidential aides -- illustrates the difficulties Bush will confront in the months ahead as he seeks what he calls "the rational middle ground" in the emotional immigration debate. Lately, the issue has seemed to operate by a political version of Newton's third law: For every action Bush takes to reassure skeptics in his own party, there is likely to be an equal reaction by supporters of a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants.

Congress, like the public, is deeply divided over the fairest and safest way to crack down on illegal immigration while dealing with the estimated 11 million illegal immigrants living in the United States with no plans to leave.

The sharpest divide is the one cleaving Bush's party. On one side are Republicans such as Hagel who support a solution that tightens the borders, toughens enforcement of current laws and provides millions of illegal immigrants a chance at citizenship. On the other is a large group of conservatives, such as powerful House Judiciary Committee Chairman F. James Sensenbrenner Jr. (R-Wis.), who want to lock down the borders and deny illegal immigrants a path to citizenship.

Bush is trying to thread the needle by pushing the Senate to back enough get-tough measures to placate deeply skeptical conservatives in the House, aides said. The strategy is predicated on first getting the Senate to pass with the widest possible margin a bipartisan bill that would tighten border security and would provide millions of illegal immigrants a chance at citizenship. Then the president and his aides plan to shift their attention to the House.

A senior Bush adviser noted that House conservatives are themselves divided, pointing to Thursday's trip to Arizona as an illustration. Aboard Air Force One, conservative Reps. Jeff Flake (Ariz.) and John Shadegg (Ariz.) suggested to Bush that they are prepared to back a plan that would offer many illegal immigrants a new route to citizenship, according to the official. But Bush's biggest obstacle is the House GOP leadership team, including Majority Leader John A. Boehner (Ohio) and Whip Roy Blunt (Mo.), who are cool to the Bush plan. "The ice ain't going to break overnight, we know," the Bush adviser said.

To win members over, Bush has inserted himself into the debate as never before. The White House took the unusual step last week of publicly and privately backing specific amendments, including one to erect a 370-mile border fence and another to make English the national language. This came after White House spokesman Tony Snow said earlier in the week that Bush is not in the business of endorsing amendments. The flip underscores White House concern about losing the debate.

The dilemma played out publicly Thursday night, when Sens. John Cornyn (R-Tex.) and Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) tried to amend the bill to stipulate that the 200,000 low-skilled immigrants allowed to enter the country under a new temporary-worker visa would have to leave when the visa expired. With Bush and his top political aides in Arizona, conservative Republican aides persuaded lower-level White House staff members to back the amendment, reasoning that Bush has always said he backs a "temporary worker program," not a permanent funnel of immigrants to the United States.

"It was a matter of truth in advertising," Cornyn said.

There is apparently some genetic disorder which causes Liberal members of the mainstream media, like Weisman and VandeHei, and those in the Democrat Party which prevents them from telling the truth. Specifically I am referring to the statement above, saying that Conservatives like James Sensenbrenner "want to lock down the borders and deny illegal immigrants a path to citizenship." That in no way represents what Congressman Sensenbrenner has put forward. What he has put forward is a common sense approach to our illegal immigration problem. Illegals will not be "denied" a path to citizenship, they simply face the same path to citizenship as every other petitioner for citizenship. In what way is this unfair? What gives these illegal immigrants a right to jump line.

The same mentality which leads them to believe that breaking our laws in coming into our Sovereign Nation is apparently the same mentality which leads them to believe that they are entitled to jump to the head of the line. Contempt for one law usually leads to contempt for all laws. We see this frequently in our nation. Their willingness to drive without a license, drive without insurance, forge documents, build a cottage industry in vehicle inspection stickers and other legal paperwork is the same mentality which leads so many of them into a life of criminal behavior. Illegal aliens constitute a disproportionate number of our most violent criminal in prison.

To me, Sensenbrenner is one of the few legislators, like Tom Tancredo, John Cornyn and Jon Kyl, who actually "get it." We are engaged in an ongoing War for the survival of our nation. The sooner our "moderate," supposedly "enlightened" Senators wake up to this fact, the better off this nation will be. We dare not rely on our AWOL President Bush to protect us, he has abandoned us for his "buddy" Vincenti Fox.

I guess you could say he is telling Americans "FOX YOU!"

Full Story: Time to Take a Stand

What do you think?

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

Nagin Wins Re-election: "Fool me once..."

Nagin Is Reelected In New Orleans
Landrieu Concedes After Tight Race

By Peter Whoriskey
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, May 21, 2006; Page A01

NEW ORLEANS, May 20 -- Mayor C. Ray Nagin was reelected Saturday, overcoming a ceaseless barrage of criticism stemming from the chaos of Hurricane Katrina and the stalled recovery to achieve what many considered an improbable victory.

In addition to the frustrations of post-hurricane New Orleans, Nagin had to fend off a strong challenge by Lt. Gov. Mitch Landrieu, the scion of a politically powerful clan, who outspent him by large a margin.

Surrounded by throngs of cheering supporters, Nagin acknowledged the antagonism he has aroused since Katrina and, to the surprise of many in the room, thanked President Bush.

"I want to thank you Mr. President. You and I have probably been the most vilified politicians in the country," he said. "But I want to thank you for moving that promise that you made in Jackson Square forward."

He cited the billions of dollars for housing and levee construction that Bush has supported, and then urged unity: "This election is over, and it is time for this community to start the healing process."

Many here, such as City Council President Oliver M. Thomas Jr., considered Nagin's victory the "biggest upset ever." Earlier in the day, Thomas and many others had predicted a Landrieu win.

Despite calls by both candidates for unity across the historic barriers of race, the vote split largely along racial lines. Nagin won by gaining the support of about 80 percent of black voters and about 20 percent of white voters, according to election analyst Greg Rigamer.

What can one possibly say? "There's a sucker born every minute" hardly covers it. This has got to rank up there with Washington DC re-electing Mayor Marion Barry following his arrest and conviction on cocaine charges. Apparently, for Black politicians there is no act so heinous or incompetent that won't be forgiven by their constituents.

Well okay, next time a hurricane hits and the this incompetent strands 100,000 people in the city, I don't want to hear a single whimper. It seems the folks of the "Big Easy" will continue to live on the dole, wallow in high crime and corruption, expecting you and I (the federal taxpayer) to support and take care of them.

Truly an astounding result, similar to the "O.J. Decision."

Full Story: Stupid Is As Stupid Does

What do you think?

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

A Further Demonstration of "Liberal Open-mindedness"

McCain Gets Cantankerous Reception at Commencement

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
NEW YORK (AP) -- Senator John McCain of Arizona received a cantankerous reception during his appearance at the New School commencement Friday, where dozens of faculty members and students turned their backs and raised signs in protest and a distinguished student speaker pointedly mocked him as he sat silently nearby.

The historically liberal university has been roiled in controversy in recent weeks over the selection of McCain, a conservative Republican and likely 2008 presidential candidate, to deliver the commencement address.

Some 1,200 students and faculty signed petitions asking the university president, former Nebraska Sen. Bob Kerrey, to rescind the invitation. Petitioners said McCain's support for the Iraq war and opposition to gay rights and legal abortion do not keep with the prevailing views on campus.

Kerrey, a Democrat who served in the Senate with McCain and, like McCain, is a decorated Vietnam War veteran, addressed the controversy almost immediately after the 2,700 graduates and thousands of other parents and friends filed into Madison Square Garden for the ceremony.

"Sen. McCain, you have much to teach us," Kerrey said to a smattering of boos and hisses. He urged students to exercise the open-mindedness he said was at the heart of the university's progressive history.

But Kerrey's remarks were immediately overshadowed by those of Jean Sara Rohe, one of two distinguished seniors invited by the university's deans to address the graduates.

Beginning by singing a wistful folk tune calling for world peace, Rohe announced she had thrown out her prepared remarks to address the McCain controversy directly.

"The senator does not reflect the ideals upon which this university was founded," Rohe proclaimed to loud cheers, with McCain sitting just a few feet away.

She added that she knew what McCain would be saying to the graduates since he had promised to deliver the same speech he gave at Rev. Jerry Falwell's Liberty University last weekend and Columbia University on Tuesday.

"He will tell us we are young and too naive to have valid opinions," Rohe said. "I am young and though I don't possess the wisdom that time affords us, I do know that pre-emptive war is dangerous. And I know that despite all the havoc that my country has wrought overseas in my name, Osama bin Laden still has not been found, nor have those weapons of mass destruction."

Once more we see here an example of the closed Liberal mindset. They are incapable of entertaining differing points of view. Their beliefs are built upon such tenuous supports that to allow any opposing view to be heard threatens to destroy their carefully constructed beliefs.

They claim to be Liberals in the tradition of the dictionary definition, but they are the complete antithesis of the openess and fair mindedness they try to claim. It is very rare to see this kind of behavior from Conservative audiences. In truth, the openmindedness they seek to claim lies clearly in the bailiwick of the Conservative rather than the Liberal. They are the antithesis of every thing they claim to be.

Even sadder then this hypocrisy is their absolute inability to see the folly of their own behavior. Their actions betray their intolerance, closed mindedness, and hatred.

Full Story: Intolerance from the Left

What do you think?

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

U.S. Sen. Jeff Sessions Speaks to the President

Jeff Sessions Reacts To Bush Immigration Address

Monday, May 15, 2006

WASHINGTON — U.S. Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) made the following statement in reaction to President Bush’s address on border security and immigration Monday evening:

I am happy to see President Bush go beyond talk and take some action. But a few steps, including calling out the National Guard, significant though they may be, will not change the pervasive illegality of our current immigration system to one that works. And the American people know it. Quite apart from the need to deal fairly and generously with the 11 million that have come and lived here for a significant period, we must confront the continued flow of more illegals into the country.

To do that, the President must assemble his top law enforcement officers, prosecutors, and budget experts and tell them with clarity that it is now his policy to stop further illegal immigration into our country. He must tell them to review their policies and to promptly report to him the funds, personnel, and equipment that each agency needs to make this happen. He must present proposals to Congress to close the loopholes that exist in current law...[continued at link below]

Today, we have an excellent response from Senator Sessions to the weak proposal made by the President last night.

Mr. President, such window dressing will not cut it. You seem to be more interested in pleasing Vincente Fox and your sister-in-law than you are those of us who got you elected. We do not appreciate being ignored by you.

Full Article: I'm with you Jeff

What do you think?

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

Sorry George, This New Proposal is "All Hat, No Cattle"

On Immigration, Bush Seeks 'Middle Ground'
President to Send 6,000 Guard Troops to Mexican Border

By Jim VandeHei and Jonathan Weisman
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, May 16, 2006; Page A01

President Bush said last night that he will dispatch 6,000 National Guard troops starting next month to help secure the porous U.S.-Mexican border, calling on a divided Congress and country to find "a rational middle ground" on immigration that includes providing millions of illegal workers a new route to citizenship.

In a rare prime-time speech from the Oval Office, Bush said the nation must move immediately to stanch the flow of illegal immigrants from its southern border by sending in the National Guard to free up U.S. Border Patrol agents in Arizona, California, New Mexico and Texas. The Guard troops will provide intelligence, surveillance and logistical assistance over the next two years -- not armed law enforcement.

"We do not yet have full control of the border, and I am determined to change that," Bush said. He also called on Congress to end the U.S. practice of releasing into the country tens of thousands of people caught illegally crossing the southern border because officials lack the jail space or legal authority to detain them or send them home. He said every foreign worker should be required to hold a high-tech, tamper-proof identification card so U.S. companies could determine whether their employees are legal.

For the first time in a public forum, Bush endorsed new procedures that would give illegal immigrants who have lived here for an extended time preferred status in obtaining citizenship. To qualify, workers would have to pay a fine and back taxes and would have to learn English and meet other requirements, he said.

The speech -- with its balance of security measures and pleas for tolerance -- comes as Bush is trying to revive his presidency and salvage an immigration deal in Congress before the midterm elections. The president's focus on border control last night was aimed at mollifying conservative Republican lawmakers and disgruntled voters, who have accused him of paying insufficient attention to tightening the border and enforcing immigration laws. Bush said his goal is to help lawmakers forge a bipartisan compromise this year to change how the United States deals with illegal immigration and the pressing need for foreign workers.

"All elements of this problem must be addressed together -- or none of them will be solved at all," he said.

With the Senate set to debate the largest overhaul of immigration laws in decades, Bush did not specifically address what many Republican lawmakers consider the most politically explosive and intractable issue confronting the country: what to do with most of the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants living in the United States today.

In conversations with lawmakers earlier in the day, White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove made it clear that Bush supports, in principle, a Senate-backed plan that would provide immigrants who have lived here for five or more years a clear path to citizenship if they pay a penalty, according to participants. Under that plan, which Rove called "intriguing," those who have been here two to five years would have to report to a border crossing, receive a temporary work visa and then apply for a green card. Those here less than two years would have to leave. But Rove made it clear the White House is open to compromise on how this tiered system would be structured, said Rep. Jack Kingston (R-Ga.), who participated in the private briefings.

Bush said: "There is a rational middle ground between granting an automatic path to citizenship for every illegal immigrant and a program of mass deportation. That middle ground recognizes that there are differences between an illegal immigrant who crossed the border recently and someone who has worked here for many years and has a home, a family and an otherwise clean record."

But the Republican-controlled House so far has been hostile to the emerging Bush plan. Conservatives in that chamber are pushing for legislation that would tighten the borders but would not allow any route to citizenship that does not require first leaving the country. House Republicans recently passed legislation to spend $2.2 billion on five double-layered border fences in California and Arizona, stretching nearly 700 miles. The House would also make felons of any undocumented worker in the country today and would make illegal any activity to support such workers, such as smuggling as well as church-based sheltering. After the speech, House Majority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) said in a statement that he remains committed to making "border security our first priority." He and many others pointedly did not praise the path-to-citizenship plan.

If Bush was shooting to ease the anxiety of those of us who oppose unrestricted immigration he missed the target. This is where Middle of the Road turns into Muddle the Road.

President Bush has once more betrayed the trust of his base. Those of us who helped him get elected are no longer of any use. The very idea that Vincente Fox can call him expressing his displeasure with the positioning of 10,000 National Guard troops and the President Bush lowers the number to 6,000 troops, is really disturbing.

Vincente Fox doesn't care about the US except what he can get from us. Are we forgetting the recent legalization of drugs in Mexico? I tell you. Bush and most of the idiots in Washington just do not get it.

I now predict the easy victory of the Democrats in 2006 as millions of Conservatives refuse to vote. If the Republicans tried to lose control of both Houses of Congress, they could not have done a better job. The one thing most Republicans cannot stand is a gutless Republican legislator, and this will prove out in November of 2006 if the RINO's and WEINERS don't do something and do it quick.

Full Story: How to Lose an Election Without Really Trying

What do you think?

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

Lawbreakers are "Angry" Over Deployment of Guard?

Mexicans Say Guard Won't Slow Migrants

By MARINA MONTEMAYOR, Associated Press Writer
Mon May 15, 11:55 PM ET

CIUDAD JUAREZ, Mexico - President Bush's decision to send the National Guard to the Mexican border drew an angry response from migrants who said troops would not deter them, while Mexico's government said Monday it would respect the U.S. action as "a sovereign decision."

After Bush announced the plan to send 6,000 soldiers to the U.S.-Mexico border late Monday, would-be migrants at a shelter in the Mexican city of Ciudad Juarez said the presence of troops would not stop them from sneaking across the Rio Grande.

"I have no work in my country so if the soldiers turn me back, I will try again," said Raul Garduno, a 28-year old Salvadoran.

On Sunday, President Vicente Fox telephoned Bush to express concern about what he called plans to "militarize" the border. But on Monday, Fox's spokesman, Ruben Aguilar, said Mexico had no choice but to respect the action.

"It is a sovereign decision," he said. "We can't interfere."

In a further sign that Mexico would not take a strong stance against the U.S. announcement, the Foreign Relations Department released a statement saying that Bush's message showed a "recognition of the importance of immigrants to the social, political and economic life (of the United States) and reinforced the vision that the migration phenomenon needs an integral reform."

But presidential hopeful Felipe Calderon from Fox's National Action Party said the military presence would endanger migrants, while failing to stop the human wave heading northwards.

Are they kidding? They are declaring that they have the right to break American laws with impunity. They are ANGRY at this? Hey Illegals, you have no rights. You are lawbreakers. You are criminals who deserve to be treated as criminals.

Illegal advocacy groups are always bemoaning the loss of a few hundred Illegals who die trying to break our laws. I have an idea, why don't those illegals turn around and risk their lives in taking over their own government and bring about the changes necessary for them to have a good life in their own country.

Full Story: No speaka Ingles

What do you think?

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

Illegals? They're No Threat to Americans

XXXXX DRUDGE REPORT XXXXX
GUNFIRE AT WAFFLE HOUSE AFTER WHITES, HISPANICS ARGUE
OVER CITIZENSHIP

TUE MAY 16, 2006 09:10:08 ET

A parting gunshot from a vehicle leaving Waffle House in West Asheville, NC shattered a window and caused a minor injury, police said.

The shooting happened around 3:00 a.m. Saturday after a group of whites argued with a group of Hispanics at the 24-hour restaurant on Smokey Park Highway, Asheville police Lt. Wallace Welch said “The two groups were jawing back and forth with each other over citizenship issues and whatnot,” Welch said.

As the Hispanic group drove off, someone in the vehicle fired at least once into a large window near the front door, he said. Whether from a ricocheted bullet or flying glass, Welch said, one man’s arm was bleeding when police arrived. Police were looking for a white Dodge Intrepid that left the restaurant going west. The CITIZEN-TIMES newspaper first reported the incident, and is currently streaming the 9-11 calls from the Waffle House on its website.

Yep, what were you expecting? If our government refuses to enforce the laws, then contempt for the law will continue to grow. You ask why we should care about Illegals, well, there you go.

As a Houstonian, I have a little experience with this issue. Houston's emergency rooms are overburdened with Illegals who come in for routine minor illnesses. Houston automobile rates are 50% higher than those of the surrounding communities because Illegals drive without licenses and without insurance. Houston has a severe and growing gang problem, including the activities of some of the big criminal Mexican gangs. HISD has devolved into a sad joke in which drop out rates are soaring and parents who want their children to receive proper education, have to send them to private school or home school them.

Close the Borders NOW!

What do you think?

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

Reconquista Anyone? Senator Session's Immigration Impact Analysis

Press Release of Senator Sessions
U.S. Sen. Jeff Sessions Unveils Massive Numerical Impact Of Senate Immigration Bill
Monday, May 15, 2006

WASHINGTON — U.S. Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) today unveiled an impact analysis that shows the Senate immigration bill – should it become law – would permit up to 217.1 million new legal immigrants into the United States over the next 20 years, a number equal to 66 percent of the total current population of the United States.

Even if the maximum levels are not reached, the increase to the U.S. population caused by S. 2611 will be at least 78.7 million in 20 years, just over 25 percent of the total current population. This lower estimate assumes that the bill's escalating caps on certain visas will not increase at all over the next 20 years; if the bill's caps are hit each year, the total number will be the higher estimate.

“Until now, most of us have focused on securing the border and deciding how to treat the illegal alien population already in the United States,” Sessions said. “Few, if any, of us have looked ahead to see what the long-term numerical impact of the bill would be. My staff and I have just completed such a study, and the results are shocking.”

Sessions discussed his findings at a news conference today, along with Robert Rector, a senior research fellow at the Heritage Foundation, who released his own analysis showing similar numbers.

“As we begin debate today on the floor, my goal is to get these numbers before my colleagues so that they can appreciate just how breath-takingly unsatisfactory this 614-page Senate bill is,” Sessions said. “We know that this country is going to treat the illegal alien population fairly. However, if the Senate wants to be successful in passing immigration reform, it should produce a bill that secures the borders and the workplace and establishes a commonsense, carefully thought out, legally enforceable policy for legal immigration in the future. For our immigration system to work, the Senate bill must guarantee that today’s facade of enforcement and illegal immigration flows won’t exist in the future.”

If the current legal immigration level (950,000 a year for 20 years or 18.9 million over 20 years) is excluded from the total, according to Sessions, the Senate bill could be described as increasing legal immigration by 59 million to 198.2 million over 20 years.

“These are actually very conservative estimates,” Sessions said. “For example, for the low end, we assumed the caps would never escalate, and we only added an average of 1.2 immediate family members coming in with each alien worker. Additionally, our numerical analysis did not add in estimates of future illegal immigration flows, or include any estimates for chain-migration – the parents, brothers and sisters that new citizens can bring in on a permanent basis.”

Chain-migration occurs when an immigrant becomes a citizen. Citizens have a legal
right to bring in family members other than spouses and children. They can bring in their parents, their adult siblings and the spouses and children of their adult siblings.

“You can see how the potential exponential growth impact of the Senate legislation will cause consternation on the part of Congress and the American people ,” Sessions said.

The Senate bill would increase permanent future immigration into the United States in several ways.

LOW SKILLED PERMANENT IMMIGRATION:

H-2C Workers: By creating a new (H-2C) visa category for “temporary guest workers” (low skilled workers) with an annual “cap” of 325,000 that increases up to 20 percent each year the cap is met, the bill allows at least 6.5 million, and up to 60.7 million new guest workers to come to the United States over the next 20 years. There is nothing “temporary” about these workers. Employers may file a green card application on their behalf as soon as they arrive in the United States, or the worker may self-petition for a green card after four years of work.

H-4 Family Members of H-2C Workers: By creating a new visa category (H-4) for the immediate family members of the future low-skilled workers (H-2C), and allowing them to also receive green cards, the bill would allow at least 7.8 million, and up to 72.8 million immediate family members of low-skilled workers to come to the United States over the next 20 years.

HIGH SKILLED PERMANENT IMMIGRATION:

H-1B: The bill would essentially open the borders to high-skilled workers, as well as low-skilled workers. By increasing the annual cap of 65,000 to 115,000, automatically increasing the new cap by 20 percent each year the cap is hit, and creating a new exemption to new cap for anyone who has an “advanced degree in science, technology, engineering, or math” from any foreign university, the number of H-1B workers coming into the United States would undoubtedly escalate. The 20-year impact of this escalation could be anywhere from 1 million to 20.1 million. H-1B workers are eligible for green cards and would be allowed to stay and work in the United States for as long as it takes to process the green card application.

STEEP INCREASES TO ANNUAL GREEN CARD LIMITS:

Family Based Green Cards: The bill would increase the annual cap on family based green cards available to non-immediate family members (adult sons and daughters, adults siblings, and the spouses and children of adult siblings) by more than 100 percent, upping the current cap of 226,000 to 480,000 a year. Immediate family members are already able to immigrate without regard to the family based green card caps. The 20-year impact of this change would be an increase of 5.1 million non-immediate family member green cards.

Employment Based Green Cards The bill would increase the annual cap on employment-based green cards by more than 500 percent, upping the current cap of 140,000 to 450,000 until 2016 and to 290,000 thereafter and exempting all immediate family members that currently count against the cap today (spouses, children and parents) from the newly escalated cap. The new exemption would result in an average of 540,000 family members receiving green cards each year of the first 10 years, and an average of 348,000 family members receiving green cards each year of the second 10 years. The 20-year impact of this change would be an increase of 13.5 million employment-based green cards, for a total of 16.3 million employment-based green cards issued over the course of the next 20 years.

Any questions?

This is the kind of insanity that our idiot Senators like Chuck Hagel and Mel Martinez regularly propose and actually believe in. These guys are absolutely clueless. I blame those irresponsible enough to vote these idiots in.

You know the type. Idiots who don't want anyone to think that they are "mean" or "intolerant." For them, it is more important to feel like they're nice people than it is for them to vote for what is right or reasonable. They are far more concerned with appearing to be "unreasonable." They live in fear of being judged as "not broad minded enough" by those around them. They lack the self-confidence and self-worth to speak their minds. We call them "RINO's" (Republicans in name only) and the mainstream media call them "moderates" (more like moderately intelligent).

These are the same people who will dismiss Senator Session's and the Heritage Foundation's studies as "exaggeration" or fear mongering. They are incapable of accepting the possibility that they are wrong. If you fall into this category, you are worthless, gutless, and go through life as a sheep.

What do you think?

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

Illegal Immigration and Congressman John Culberson

I received this in my e-mail. I hardily endorse the sentiments expressed by my Congressman. He is absolutely correct in his assessment of the problem and the response from the Bush White House.

John Culberson said:

Dear District Seven Neighbor:

Tonight at 7 p.m. CDT , President George W. Bush will speak to the nation and describe his latest proposals for immigration reform. No one wants the President to succeed more than I do, and I have done my very best to support him and advise him on the feelings of his core supporters in west Houston's Congressional District 7, which his father first represented and where his parents now live. In fact, Congressional Quarterly recently published an analysis ranking all House members by the percentage of times each member voted in support of the President, and I ranked second overall at 93.5%. However, for many years I have been a vocal critic of the Bush Administration's refusal to protect our borders and enforce our immigration laws. The problem has never been inadequate laws. Congress has already passed all the border security and immigration laws we need. Unfortunately, the problem is the White House. The Chief Executive Officer of the United States has consistently refused to enforce or execute our immigration and border security laws and prevent illegal aliens and dangerous criminals from walking across the border or entering the U.S. openly by using the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS).

Tonight, I sincerely hope we will witness a dramatic change. I continue to hear and see strong signals that the President and his close knit group of core advisors finally understand how fed up the nation is with the Administration's continued refusal to protect our borders or enforce our immigration laws. I have been a vigorous advocate of deploying National Guard troops on the border and the House has repeatedly passed an amendment authored by Congressman Virgil Goode of Virginia to deploy troops on the border. I believe the President will announce this deployment tonight. I hope he will also empower them to make arrests and build the tent cities or bed space we need to arrest and house the thousands of illegals pouring over our borders every day. I have also urged Governor Rick Perry to call for volunteers to serve as auxiliary National Guard or auxiliary Texas Rangers and deploy them on the border to arrest and deter illegal aliens from crossing the Rio Grande.

It is important to watch the President's speech tonight, because if he remains committed to granting amnesty to illegal aliens, then the U.S. House of Representatives is our only backstop to prevent his proposal from becoming law. The House majority understands that our nation and simple common sense demand that we first enforce our existing immigration laws and protect the borders fully and completely before we even begin to debate a "guest worker" program. It is obvious that when a dam or a levee bursts and the flood waters pour in, the first priority is to sandbag the levee. Only after the flooding has stopped, do you consider what to do with the flood water and how to prevent future floods.

Since the Houston Chronicle is so strongly biased in favor of legalizing illegals and is consistent in their refusal to report on the massive national security threat created by our open, undefended borders, I will do my best to forward newspaper articles to you from around the country that will give you a more complete and accurate account of the scale of the problem. Below is an article from today's Washington Times, as well as a few other important articles.

It is difficult and unpleasant for me to oppose our President, especially when he is a fellow Texan and I know first hand how decent, honorable and good the entire Bush family is, but I was sworn to represent District Seven, not the White House. For a long time I tried to ring the fire bell about our open borders in a way that would minimize open disagreement with the President. When his top two local immigration officials stood on stage in Houston in April, 2004, at a town hall meeting that was called for illegal aliens and one of them told the group that the Bush Administration was not going to enforce our immigration laws and would not round up illegals or disturb them in any way, I was outraged, but I kept my complaints quiet and in writing. Surely, I thought, the White House will be as upset as my constituents and I are about the open refusal of these law enforcement officials to enforce the law. Unfortunately, the White House ignored my complaints and has continued to ignore immigration law enforcement so blatantly that in the last few weeks we have witnessed what I would have thought impossible - thousands upon thousands of law breakers marching in the streets waving Mexican flags demanding that our laws not be enforced.

The fall of the Roman Empire occurred swiftly after Emperor Valens opened their borders in 376 A.D. and allowed the entire Goth nation to cross the Danube River en masse. A nation that will not protect its borders, its language or its culture and will not enforce its laws is doomed to repeat what happened to the Roman Empire. The massive scale of the migration of the Mexican nation into the United States far exceeds the scale of the Goth migration into Rome or any other migration in history. It is essential for the long term survival of the American Republic that we protect our borders and enforce our laws, and that we encourage legal immigration of people who want to become Americans by learning our common language, English, and assimilating into the American culture that honors individual liberty, hard work and self reliance.

Now that I have achieved my first goal as your Congressman - speeding up the reconstruction of the Katy Freeway - I am devoting every ounce of energy that my staff and I can muster to protect our borders and enforce our immigration laws. I will do my best to keep these email updates coming to you on a regular basis, and I intend to start making podcasts available on our website.

I am deeply grateful for the privilege of representing you in the United States Congress.

John Culberson

Member of Congress

You Go John!

What do you think?

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

More Post Deception

Cheney Penned Note About Plame, Filing Shows

By R. Jeffrey Smith
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, May 14, 2006; Page A06

After former U.S. ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV publicly criticized a key rationale for the war in Iraq, Vice President Cheney wrote a note on a newspaper clipping raising the possibility that the critique resulted from a CIA-sponsored "junket" arranged by Wilson's wife, covert CIA officer Valerie Plame, according to court documents filed late Friday.

The filing by special prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald is the second that names Cheney as a key White House official who questioned the legitimacy of Wilson's examination of Iraqi nuclear ambitions. It further suggests that Cheney helped originate the idea in his office that Wilson's credibility was undermined by his link to Plame.

Fitzgerald's filing states that Cheney passed the annotated article by Wilson to his chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, who Fitzgerald says subsequently discussed Wilson's marriage to Plame in conversations with two reporters, despite the fact that Plame was a covert CIA officer and her name was not supposed to be revealed. The filing was first reported by Newsweek on its Web site.

Fitzgerald does not allege in his filing that Cheney ordered Libby to disclose Plame's identity. But he states that Cheney's note to Libby helps "explain the context of, and provide a motive for" many of the later statements and actions by Libby. Libby was indicted last year for making false statements to FBI agents, obstruction of justice and perjury, mostly based on Libby's testimony that he did not confirm Plame's involvement in conversations with the two journalists.

Wilson's credibility became a key issue for the White House because the results of his probe into Iraq's nuclear program surfaced when the administration had already been hit by charges it had distorted intelligence before invading Iraq. Wilson had concluded after taking a CIA-sponsored trip to Niger two years earlier that evidence of Iraqi attempts to acquire nuclear weapons materials there was dubious.

A court filing last month by Fitzgerald -- who has been gradually spelling out what he plans to say during Libby's trial next year -- stated that Cheney had expressed concern about whether Wilson's trip was a junket set up by his wife. The new filing includes the precise annotations that Cheney wrote on a copy of Wilson's July 2003 article in the New York Times, titled "What I Didn't Find in Africa."

This character Smith continues the Washinton Pest's campaign of lies and half-truths. Once again the statment asserts that Valerie Plame was a "covert CIA officer and her name was not supposed to be revealed." Of course we now know and have known for some time now that Valerie Plame was no longer a "covert" operative, and had not been for over 5 years.

Those on the Left are incapable of telling the truth. They are dedicated to distorting and outright lying to further their Liberal agenda. They don't care what it may cost the public, they only care about achieving their political goals. The Post has proven itself to be an enemy of America repeatedly. They provide the script for our enemies. Their reports are routinely used for talking points of our most desperate enemies including Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Full Story: More Lies by the Washington Post

What do you think?

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

Will Someone Please Close the Borders Now?

Doctors puzzled over bizarre infection surfacing in South Texas

Web Posted: 05/12/2006 10:51 AM CDT
Deborah Knapp
KENS 5 Eyewitness News

If diseases like AIDS and bird flu scare you, wait until you hear what's next. Doctors are trying to find out what is causing a bizarre and mysterious infection that's surfaced in South Texas.

Morgellons disease is not yet known to kill, but if you were to get it, you might wish you were dead, as the symptoms are horrible.

"These people will have like beads of sweat but it's black, black and tarry," said Ginger Savely, a nurse practioner in Austin who treats a majority of these patients.

Patients get lesions that never heal.

"Sometimes little black specks that come out of the lesions and sometimes little fibers," said Stephanie Bailey, Morgellons patient.

Patients say that's the worst symptom — strange fibers that pop out of your skin in different colors.

"He'd have attacks and fibers would come out of his hands and fingers, white, black and sometimes red. Very, very painful," said Lisa Wilson, whose son Travis had Morgellon's disease.

While all of this is going on, it feels like bugs are crawling under your skin. So far more than 100 cases of Morgellons disease have been reported in South Texas.

"It really has the makings of a horror movie in every way," Savely said.

While Savely sees this as a legitimate disease, there are many doctors who simply refuse to acknowledge it exists, because of the bizarre symptoms patients are diagnosed as delusional.

"Believe me, if I just randomly saw one of these patients in my office, I would think they were crazy too," Savely said. "But after you've heard the story of over 100 (patients) and they're all — down to the most minute detail — saying the exact same thing, that becomes quite impressive."

Travis Wilson developed Morgellons just over a year ago. He called his mother in to see a fiber coming out of a lesion.

"It looked like a piece of spaghetti was sticking out about a quarter to an eighth of an inch long and it was sticking out of his chest," Lisa Wilson said. "I tried to pull it as hard as I could out and I could not pull it out."

The Wilson's spent $14,000 after insurance last year on doctors and medicine.

"Most of them are antibiotics. He was on Tamadone for pain. Viltricide, this was an anti-parasitic. This was to try and protect his skin because of all the lesions and stuff," Lisa said.

The fact that this is appearing in South Texas tells me that whatever the cause, it is coming across the border with the Illegal Aliens. It is time to close of the borders NOW! We need to return to the sane policies of the early 20th Century when any immigrants were required to pass a physical and those who failed were either returned or if treatable, quarantined until cured. Why are we Americans so afraid to protect ourselves? Are we so stupid that we are going to let the PC police intimidate us and keep us from doing what we know is right?

Full Story: Trans-border Disease?

What do you think?

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

Lions and Tigers and Bears, Oh My!

Data on Phone Calls Monitored
Extent of Administration's Domestic Surveillance Decried in Both Parties

By Barton Gellman and Arshad Mohammed
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, May 12, 2006; Page A01

The Bush administration has secretly been collecting the domestic telephone records of millions of U.S. households and businesses, assembling gargantuan databases and attempting to sift through them for clues about terrorist threats, according to sources with knowledge of the program.

The "call detail records" enable U.S. intelligence agencies to track who calls whom, and when, but do not include the contents of conversations, the sources said, speaking on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the program. The companies cooperating with the National Security Agency dominate the U.S. telecommunications market and connect hundreds of billions of telephone calls each year. Intelligence analysts are seeking to mine their records to expose hidden connections and details of social networks, hoping to find signs of terrorist plots in the vast sea of innocent contacts.

Fresh disclosures yesterday in USA Today about the scale of domestic surveillance -- the most extensive yet known involving ordinary citizens and residents -- touched off a bipartisan uproar against a politically weakened President Bush. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) vowed to haul telephone companies before his committee under oath to ferret out details the Bush administration refuses to supply, and more than 50 House Democrats signed a letter demanding a criminal investigation by a special counsel.

Bush made an unscheduled appearance before White House reporters and sought to shape perceptions about the surveillance while declining to acknowledge that it is taking place. He said that "the intelligence activities I authorized are lawful," but specified no source of statutory or constitutional authority. He denied forcefully that his administration is "mining or trolling through the personal lives of millions of innocent Americans," saying, "Our efforts are focused on links to al-Qaeda and their known affiliates."

Neither Bush nor his subordinates denied any factual statement in the USA Today report, which said AT&T Inc., Verizon Communications Inc. and BellSouth Corp. have provided customer calling records to the NSA since shortly after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. Together those companies serve about 224 million conventional and cellular telephone customers -- about four-fifths of the wired market and more than half of the wireless market. According to data provided by the research group TeleGeography, the three companies connected nearly 500 billion telephone calls in 2005 and nearly 2 trillion calls since late 2001.

Though he did not acknowledge particulars, the president complained that any leak about "sensitive intelligence" methods "hurts our ability to defeat this enemy." Senate Select Intelligence Committee Chairman Pat Roberts (R-Kan.), who said he has been briefed on "all aspects of the NSA's activities," likewise said he is "increasingly frustrated with the release of sensitive data regarding our nation's best defenses" against terrorist attack.

Yesterday's report in USA Today arrived as Air Force Gen. Michael V. Hayden, the president's nominee to be CIA director, faced tough scrutiny on Capitol Hill for his role in the interception of calls and e-mails between Americans and parties abroad. After the New York Times disclosed the eavesdropping in December, the White House dubbed it a "terrorist surveillance program" and said it involved only international communications by people with "known links" to al-Qaeda and its allies. The Washington Post reported in February that about 5,000 Americans had been subject to eavesdropping under the program and that nearly all of them had been cleared of suspicion.

The new report, by contrast, described a far broader form of surveillance, focused primarily on domestic phone-call records. Some of its elements have been disclosed before. The Los Angeles Times reported in December that AT&T provided the NSA with a "direct hookup" into a company database, code-named Daytona, that has been recording the telephone numbers and duration of every call placed on the AT&T network since 2001. The Electronic Frontier Foundation, which has sued AT&T over that and other alleged violations of privacy law, said the call database spans 312 terabytes, a quantity that would fill more than 400,000 computer compact discs.

Government access to call records is related to the previously disclosed eavesdropping program, sources said, because it helps the NSA choose its targets for listening. The mathematical techniques known as "link analysis" and "pattern analysis," they said, give grounds for suspicion that can result in further investigation.

"Let's say lots comes in and we don't see anything interesting," said a source who helped develop the technology. "Tomorrow we find out someone is communicating with a known terrorist. When you go back and look at the past data, there may be information that you missed. A pattern that was meaningless suddenly makes sense."

Critics reacted angrily yesterday, contrasting the new disclosures with the Bush administration's previous claims that domestic surveillance is narrowly targeted and restricted to international communications.

"Both the attorney general and the president have lied to the American people about the scope and nature of the NSA's program," said Anthony D. Romero, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union. "It's clearly not focused on international calls and clearly not just focused on terrorists. . . . It's like adding more hay on the haystack to find that one needle."

Poor Anthony D. Romero, the Bush Administration didn't consult with him before engaging in a program to protect the American people. Are his feelings hurt? Poor boy.

Clue: Hey Ant'ony, that's why it's called "covert." The idea is not to let the enemy know what we're doing. It's not your business.

Somehow the ACLU has decided that it is the sole arbitor of what is right and what is wrong. This self-appointed group of lawyers (Surely the most ethical profession, need I say more?) is upset that the President didn't consult with them before instituting this reletively routine procedure.

Clue No. 2: We elected George Bush, not the ACLU. It is in him that we placed our trust, not the ACLU.

Remember this is the same ACLU that is currently suing the government to prevent them from passing a law to stop hate mongers from staging protests at the funerals of our fallen soldiers. This is the same ACLU that routinely fights for the rights of NAZI's to march and purvey their hatred, especially in neighborhoods in which the targets of this hatred live.

To the ACLU, there is no right or wrong except that which they dictate. They don't seem capable of understanding that our rights under the Constitution are not and never have been absolute, unlimited rights.

Full Story: Liberalism and Paranoia Go Hand in Hand

What do you think?

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

An Easy Call: Eugene Robinson-Bush Hater

An Easy Call: Lying

By Eugene Robinson
Friday, May 12, 2006; Page A21

At least now we know that the Bush administration's name for spying on Americans without first seeking court approval -- the "terrorist surveillance program" -- isn't an exercise in Orwellian doublespeak after all. It's just a bald-faced lie.

Oh, and at least now the Senate will have a few questions to ask Gen. Michael V. Hayden, the man George W. Bush just named to head the CIA, at his confirmation hearings.

While Hayden was running the super-secret National Security Agency, according to a report yesterday in USA Today, the NSA began collecting comprehensive records of telephone calls made by "tens of millions of Americans." If your service is provided by AT&T, Verizon or BellSouth, according to the newspaper, this means your phone calls -- all the calls you've made since late 2001. Of the major phone companies, only Qwest reportedly declined to cooperate.

The allegation, which the president refused to confirm or deny, is not that the spooks are actually listening in as you call home to check on the kids or talk to the bank about refinancing your mortgage. Rather, the idea is to be able to look at a given phone number -- yours, let's say -- and see all the other numbers that you called or that called you over a given period.

No names are attached to the numbers. But a snoopy civilian with Internet access can match a name with a phone number, so imagine what the government can do.

You'll recall that when it was revealed last year that the NSA was eavesdropping on phone calls and reading e-mails without first going to court for a warrant, the president said his "terrorist surveillance program" targeted international communications in which at least one